Is playing a vast majority of an architects designs necessary to judge his work?

[Jeff Fortson]

Over the last couple days I have seen a few members of this site put a lot of stock into the thought that if you haven't played a vast majority of an architect's work than your opinion of that architect means squat.  I vehemently disagree with this criteria.  This criteria is being used by members here to invalidate others opinions due to their lack of access or funds.  I would qualify that

Just because someone has played many works of an architect doesn't make his/her opinion of that architect any more important or valid than someone else's.  Especially, when the "experienced" person's own biases, ability and agenda in forming  their opinion about the architecture can be put into question.

To me, this line of rationale is being used to pump up the importance of certain posters own opinions and to brag about the exploits of their golfing conquests.  In many cases, I think it's an attempt to pull the wool over others' eyes.  It is nothing more than a way of trying to make one's opinion more important than someone elses based on something that can potentially be very important but in many cases means little.


Jeff F.

[A.G._Crockett]

Jeff,
Not only do I agree with you that this happens disturbingly often, I think that in many cases it is a tactic used by individuals to defend their position when all else points to error.  In other words, "your criticisms of __________ is invalid, not because you aren't correct in your assessments, but because you haven't seen as many of his courses as I have!"  

It is an exceedingly weak argument, but very difficult to argue with because it constitutes an end to one discussion, based on the terms of another discussion entirely!

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

You've perfected the "spin" on what people have said.

No one -- I know I have not -- said someone must play "a vast majority" of an architect's portfolio prior to making comments.

What I take offense to is when people simply play 5-6 couses of an architect's portfolio when it numbers beyond 75 courses like you see with Mr. Nicklaus, Mr. Rees Jones and Mr.Tom Fazio.

I have a problem with people who opine from a scant and narrow base of courses (usually just regionally) and then pontificate that architect "A" is really unable to design courses of great quality. Such opinions IMHO are worthless because they show no effort on doing one's homework from more than just a narrow base of courses and from a limited geographical distribution.

Let me also mention that it's no less important for people to state if they have played such courses from a wider period of time since the architect in question (e.g. Nicklaus, Jones or Fazio) may have evolved or designed some unique ocurses over their lifetime. If someone says I have played 10-15 of architect "A's" courses from 20 years ago and few from current times then their opinions are no less limited for obvious reasons. Architectural styles can evolve -- both up and down.

I don't doubt people may opine with a lesser number of courses PROVIDED the architect has a limited number of courses in their total portfolio.

Jeff -- I believe having a greater sampling of courses gives the person a greater base of comparisons than those with limited ones. That's the same philosophy survey companies like Gallup and others do when presenting their findings. A finding with 50 people quizzed is less statistically significant or meaningful than when someone has 500 or 1,000 responses.

Let me also mention that just because a person has a greater base of courses to call upon it's no less important to have cogent and clear analysis. Both elements are essential IMHO.

If people choose to play far less for whatever the reason it is quite annoying and frankly insulting to say that the person doing such heay lifting is "brag(ging) about the exploits of their golfing conquests." That's not the case and I think you would know that.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

There is no question that the more of an architects work you see the better. One never knows how much outside input occurs on any givin course plus when the course was built over a career also is important.

[Mike_Cirba]

Sure...more is better...that's just logical sense.

But, if I played just these two courses by the same architect on different continents, I think I'd pretty much get the gist of it.  

[jim_lewis]

It seems to me that extrapolating and pronouncing broad generaliztions from small samples is risky in any situation. Take exit interviews on election day, for example. The same applies to golf course architects. The larger the sample, the safer and more credible the generalization. This does not mean that an opinion can't be valid if based on playing a few courses, as long as the opinion is specific to those courses and not an attempt to pass judgement (negative or positive) on the architect's entire body of work. To me the solution is to stick to commenting on specific courses.  O.K., I am one of those who has played a lot of courses. That comes with being 62 and having had the good fortune to travel and have access. All that has taught me is to never generalize. I have seen far more variety in Fazio's work than most here would believe. I am pretty sure that if I had played twice as many  of his courses, I would be even less inclined to generalize. I will be happy to discuss any course I have seen personally, but I don't know enough to make broad judgements.  My late friend, Pete Jones, knew as much about Donald Ross as just about anyone. He used to like to say that no matter what statement you could make about Ross, he could cite an exception.  The same probably applies to just about any architect who has done more than a dozen courses.

Raters, in particular, should focus on evaluating courses, not architects. I suspect that given the right situation most architects could produce an outstanding course. There is ample evidence that the opposite is always true.

[ian]

Jeff,

"A vast majority" is near impossible in most situations. So we offer our opinions on what we know. But you can't offer an opinion based upon playing one or two courses, especially if one of them has been extensively reworked. It helps to see enough of an architect, not to learn patterns, but to broaden your understanding of their work.

My take on this is:

-Anyone posting on this site is free to say what they want, theoretically this is all only for discussion and fun anyway(learning is the bonus).

-Once somebody claims to be an expert or who particularly dismisses another opinion[/] (mostly rare - except the usual suspects); they better be well versed, well visited and most importantly well researched.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

Only if you want to be well informed and make prudent judgements.

[rgkeller]

A great golf course is a great golf course.

A good golf course is a good golf course.

A bad golf course is a bad golf course.

Too much talk about architects and not enough talk about golf courses.

[Joe Hancock]

I think there's a big difference between wanting to be known as the expert, and contibuting thoughts and opinions based on interest and comraderie. I'll take the comraderie......

Joe

[Jeff_Brauer]

Here's a novel idea - judge each course for its ownself.  Forget the architect's label.....

Did you have fun?  Were you challenged?  Was it attractive?
Did it have soul?

If you are really an afficinado, you might try imagining the challenges the GCA had, including budget, client preferences, site quality, and environmental or housing restraints.  But, you don't have to, since in all likelihood the first questions are more relavent to you as golfers.

[SPDB]

Jeff - Since I believe I started the thread which gave rise to this one, I'd like to weigh in.

Most people speak from experience and express their opinions based on that experience. There should be a presumption here that opinions operate within that circumscribed universe without making someone list their CV of every course played.

People are free to have their own opinions on anything, just as people are free to reject those opinions for whatever reasons they choose. But often times people are just looking for a discussion and are not casting judgment on a particular architect's entire catalog. Somebody will then take offense, and then throws out the disqualifying argument. I'm certain that there have been comments about somebody gushing over an architect based on his play of a solitary course of the architect. When you consider the absence of any "disqualification" posts attacking that position you begin to see what really is at work behind this strategy.
 
Just to give an example:
 
This is a post I made last week:

The problem I've always had with RTJ course is that they are so mindless. There is little I've found in his architecture that is really thought provoking.

I was then called out as indicting ALL of RTJ's 450 courses. Maybe I did, I certainly don't think my post indicated anything more than what I had experienced, which was some 40+ RTJ courses played. In any event, my transgression(?) was extrapolated in a self-serving way, irrespective of:

1) a reasonable presumption that I was speaking only from what I had experience
2) the fact that I had played a decent number and cross section of RTJ's courses.

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

The problem I've always had with RTJ course is that they are so mindless. There is little I've found in his architecture that is really thought provoking.

I was then called out as indicting ALL of RTJ's 450 courses. Maybe I did....  

We all make mistakes.
And, I'm sure this won't be your last one.
Just chalk it up to poor judgement and move on.[/color]

[JakaB]

Why do I have to have played any or all Flynns to know he is my favorite architect...Do I really have to play Shinnecock to know it is better than any course I have ever seen...and what makes anyone think me seeing Shinnecock would prove how good it is...to me or anyone else..

[Mike_Golden]

Judge, schmudge.  All I can do by playing a golf course designed by an Architect, famous or not, is decide whether I want to play more courses he/she has designed or if, given the choice, would prefer one course over another in a certain area.

Here are some examples:
-If given the choice between the Dye course and the Palmer course at Mission Hills Country Club in Palm Springs, I choose the Dye course (and I wound up playing both of them and it was the correct choice).
-PGA West/Norman and La Quinta Mountain (Dye), La Quinta Mountain (again the right choice for me).
-Talking Stick North and almost anything else in the Scottsdale area, Talking Stick North.

All this is personal preference based on my tastes.  We all have our hierarchy of golf architects based on our experiences and we are all entitled to them.  It's up to everyone else to determine whether or not our tastes mean something or not.  Take 1,000 of us, though, and summarize our tastes and you have a statistic that has significance, at least for an overall rating.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jaka B,

Would you prefer to have your parents pick your spouse, sight unseen, or would you prefer to make the choice based on personal experience ?

[Joe Hancock]

Wow, talk about quantum leaps. Personal taste in golf course design is equivalent to chosing a spouse......

If I pay to play golf, is it like having a hooker?

Joe

EDIT: More likely analogy.....One must date all specimens of the opposite sex before chosing a spouse. Fun, but not realistic....

[SPDB]

Pat -

I accept your apology. Its tough to admit when you're wrong, but your subtle concession was very profound. This is a big step forward for you.

[Jeff Fortson]

Jaka B,

Would you prefer to have your parents pick your spouse, sight unseen, or would you prefer to make the choice based on personal experience ?

Patrick,

Considering that parents are more "experienced" in married life than their children, don't you think that maybe they should pick their children's spouse?  Don't you think  parents are more "well informed" and able to make more "prudent judgements" considering their vast knowledge of relationships, and in particular, married life than their children?  This is basically what you are saying when you say that people that have played many courses have more important opinions to be heard than than those with less experience.


The point I am trying to drive home with this thread is simple... no matter how many courses one has played of a particular architect I don't think their opinion of that architect's work should be any less important than someone that has had the fortune to play many of them.  

Sure, experience helps in forming an opinion but it isn't and shouldn't be the main criteria in wieghing someone's opinion.  With an architect like RTJ that designed 450+ courses over 50 years, that averages 9 courses a year.  Do you really think that each course was a real hands on experience for RTJ?  There is no way they were all real hands on works of his.  It is apparent to me that there had to be some formulaic system he used in designing and building a course to produce that number of courses.  With this said, I think playing close to 70 of his courses is sufficient knowledge of his architecture and style.  And to be honest, I only needed to play about 10 of his courses to form the opinion I have after 70.  Much of his work is borderline cookie-cutter or out of a roladex, just in a different location.

I feel that I am a good enough player, student and observant of the game to make judgements on an architect's work worthy of the same level of merit as someone that has played more courses of a particular architect than myself.  Playing courses alone doesn't mean squat.  How do I know that someone that has played more RTJ courses than me was really paying attention, or has a bias on the man one way or another, or simply knows little about the history of golf?  The bottom line is there are many criteria in weighing one's credibility when opining about the work of an architect.

In the end, I posted this thread to shed light on a growing problem I see with some of the YaBB Gods.  I see xenophobia sneaking into some people's posts and a desire to make others get in line with their line of thinking.  

Just because someone has traveled more than I have across the country doesn't necessarily mean they can read a map of the U.S. any better than me.  


Jeff F.

[Lou_Duran]

There are a number of things which make one opinion more valuable than another.  Holding all other things equal (c.p.), breadth and depth of experience is very, very important.  A person's intelligence, acuity, and interest are as well.  Even playing ability is part of the equation.

So, c.p., if A has seen two Fazio courses and B has played 20 of them, I would give the nod without a question to B.  If I had information regarding the other factors, including whether or not the bloke is a wacko, then I may discount the opinion accordingly.  E.g. if Matt Ward tells me that a course is well worth playing, I will make a reasonable effort to see it.  If one of the many Fazio and Rees Jones bashers on this site go on and on about another abomination, I'll probably go try to play that one as well.  Both opinions are valuable to me, and even though they may lead me toward the same action, they do so for entirely different reasons.

We all want to believe that our experiences and opinions are the most meaningful and valuable.  Ultimately, at least with regard to opinions, others get to decide for themselves.  Experience is the most important, though many of us won't acknowledge that some of life's best lessons are learned not from books, insight, or inductive reasoning, but from the school of hard knocks.

BTW, Jeff, do you really think that Riviera #10 is a great hole?  Very ordinary par 5s, don't you think?  

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
For what it is worth, a few years ago I had a discussion with Goeff Shackelford about architects (particularly the dead guys) and "understanding their work".  If I recall correctly, we both agreed that probably less than 10% of their work still exists.  In other words, just going to see or play a "Ross" course" or a "Tillinghast" course doesn't necessarily mean you are going to see their work or learn about their style.  There is a 90%+ chance that most of what you are seeing or playing is someone else's work, not theirs.

Clearly playing a lot of courses from one architect definitely will help, but you need to do a lot more then that to truly understand an architect's style and design preferences.

Mark

[SPDB]

Mark - That your often playing only part of the original architect's design is a good observation as far as it goes.

Your numbers seem a bit screwy though. I would agree that there is a good chance you are seeing some of another's architect work. I would not agree, however, that there is a 90%+ chance you are playing mostly someone else's work. That observation itself would imply much less than 10% of the work is extant.

[cary lichtenstein]

I think it helps to see a good sampling of an architect's work. Each job has a different site, different budget, different era so to speak.

If you sample Dye, Fazio, and Nicklaus so will find quite a variation in their work, same with others.

[Jeff Fortson]

ONE LAST TIME.......

AT NO TIME HAVE I NAMED NAMES, NOR DO I SEEK TO GET IN ANY ARGUMENT.....

I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT PLAYING LESS OF AN ARCHITECT'S WORKS MAKES YOU BETTER AT JUDGING HIS WORK.....

I DO FEEL THAT THE MORE COURSES YOU PLAY, THE MORE EXPERIENCE YOU HAVE SEEING THE ARCHITECTS WORK, WHICH CAN ONLY HELP YOU FORM AN OPINION.....

HOWEVER, JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS ONLY PLAYED 10% OF AN ARCHITECT'S COURSES, IS NOT AND SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A TOOL TO TRY TO DISMANTLE SOMEONE'S POSITION WHEN THEIR COMMENTS DON'T AGREE WITH YOUR VIEWS.  ESPECIALLY, WHEN 10% EQUALS CLOSE TO 50 COURSES OF THAT ARCHITECT'S WORK.  I THINK 50 COURSES OF A SPECIFIC ARCHITECT'S WORK IS SUFFICIENT IN MAKING ONE'S OPINION VALID.

GOODNIGHT.


FORTSONATOR

[jim_lewis]

An incorrect generalization about an architect's work is INCORRECT no matter how many courses it is based on. If I make an invalid comment, playing more courses won't make it valid. However, it may show me that my earlier opinion was wrong, at least sometimes. I've learned that lesson the hard way, more than once. After playing Tobacco Road, Tot Hill Farm, and True Blue (nearly half of Strantz's total courses at the time), I was convinced that I had that guy figured out. Then I played Caledonia, which is so different from the others, that it ws hard to believe the same architect designed them all. From here on out, I stick to commenting on individual courses. That way I can only be wrong,  one course at a time.