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

[DMoriarty]

Matt:

First, I don't think it is appropriate for course critics to opine about a specific course until after they have gained a solid basis for so doing (Jeff F does not either.)   Firsthand experience is certainly valuable (although probably overvalued when the "experience" amounts to nothing more than a single play of a course.)   However, if these critics' opinions are questionable because of their lack of a solid basis, it should be very simple for one to use superior understanding and knowledge to successfully rebut the substance of their opinion, rather than merely challenging their level of experience.

Experience as an opportunity to gain knowledge and understanding.  The more more you learn, the better off you are.  Therefore in the context of a rational discussion, the more experienced you are the better.  

The corrollary is that if you do not learn from experience, then its worth is greatly diminished.  In fact, in a logical discussion of ideas experience in and of itself is of no value whatsoever.   Only the knowledge and understanding you take from it has value.   For instance, a student who studies hard will not do well if during the test he writes only about how much he studied as opposed to expressing what he learned.  

You have more experience than most of the people I have met,  and I dont doubt that you have learned much from your experience.  Yet in the context of discussion/debate (as opposed to descriptive narrative) you rarely rely on your  knowledge and undertanding.  Rather, you simply tout your superior experience and the ridicule your adversary's inferior experience.  In my opinion this is empty rhetoric.  Meaningless.  Worthless.  Beside the Point.

The problem:  By only challenging someone's level of experience, you avoid taking on the actual observations, ideas and opinions.  

A few examples of rebuttals based on the fact of experience alone compared to rebuttals based on the knowledge and understanding based on experience.  

Ex. 1:  
Opinion:  All the par 3s at Rustic Canyon are very similar.
Rebuttal using fact of experience alone: You havent played RC enough to know if this is the case or not.  
Rebuttal using knowledge and understanding learned from experience:  Based on my experience at Rustic Canyon, I can assure you that each is influenced by different winds, each play at different distances, each have different elevation changes, and each allows for different types of shots.  For example, . . . .

Ex. 2.    
Opinion:  Tillie's greens lack sufficient contouring for his courses to be considered world class.  
Rebuttal using fact of experience alone:   Unless you have played a substantial percentage of Tillie's courses, you have no basis for that opinion.  
Rebuttal using knowledge and understanding learned from experience:  I disagree.  In my experience, most of Tillie's greens are quite contoured and very well done.  For example at Winged Foot . . . ; and at SFGC . . . .; and at Fenway . . . . .  Perhaps you are basing your opinion on Bethpage Black?  If so, you might want to keep in mind that BB was intended to be public . . . .  

In my opinion, the latter answers are more the type which add to a productive and worthwhile dialogue for everyone.  

Now I know that you claim that you also consider the observations and ideas in addition to the experience, but I have found that often this is not the case.  

(By the way, I am guilty of this as well, although hopefully not as often as you.  I have often taken the position that one may not fully understand a course if they have only played it once.   I hope that in the future when I make this point that I will point out the specific shortcomings in the persons opinion. )

[DMoriarty]

In case the examples above are not clear, I cut and pasted an exchange we had a while back, from a single thread.   Looking at it alone, I find it astounding.  All you do throughout is tout your experience and attack mine, even though my question had nothing to do with my experience!  Go figure.  
_____________________________
Question:  
Matt, have you read Fazio's book?  . . . If you have read it, what do you think of it?  Does he accurately represent his own design principles and style?(Bolds added)
________________________
Non-Answer:
David:

I have read TF's book. Let me also mention that having a combination of both his words and his product (courses designed) I believe gives me a much fuller understanding of what he is capable of instead of just relying on his book as you seem to be doing.

It's soooooo E-Z for people to slap a label on someone or some product and say, "That's so and so's style for all time sakes."

David -- you base a significant bit of your opinion of TF based on one source -- a book he wrote. I prefer to go a bit further down the road and take the book and combine that with the actual product designed. It is from my actual visits I can compare and contrast what he has written to what he has actually designed. Your sources are much too limited because IMHO they simply dovetail with your ingrained sense that TF fails to design courses according to your own definition. So be it.

IMHO without the legwork to have personally seen and played the various courses spread out over a period of time you lose any semblance of credibility and more importantly, fairness. Design styles can evolve and incorporate elements that weren't either used or fully developed before.

I base the largest percentage of my opinions on personal visits -- I want to see / play the layouts in question because that's where the "rubber meets the road." TF has designed a number of courses that are turkeys from an architectural perspective -- I'm not saying by any stretch he hits home runs with each and every course. Few, if any, do.

On the flip side -- let's be a bit more aware of some of the recent layouts he has designed and those from a few years back that are indeed marvelous designs and worthy of future discussion when the top layouts in America are discussed.

_________________________
Question:
Matt,

Reading between the lines, I am starting to think that you dont think I have seen enough Fazio courses to speak knowledgeably on the subject.  Just I guess, but I am starting to get the feeling that this is what you are getting at.   If you say it a few hundred more times, it might sink in, but unfortunately it will still be irrelevant to my point.

Now, how about you answer the second half of my question?

_________________________
Non-Answer:
David:

I answered it to my satisfaction -- although for you visiting and playing TF courses is a bit of a drag -- it's best to follow your self-fulfilling formula and simply stick permanent tags on people and let it go at that. So be it.

____________________________________
Question:
Matt, if you answered the question to your satisfaction, then you have very low standards. (This would explain much.)  

Let me try it again:  

Are his courses consistent with his design philosophy, as set forth in his book?
_______________________________
Non-Answer:
 David:

Talk about standards -- hey Dave -- how bout doing the novel approach of actually sampling someone's work instead of barking from the comforts of your couch at home!

You have not played a fair sampling of TF courses so you simply rely upon the only thing you can hang your hat on which is the book. And, instead of admitting your shortcomings in personal field work you turn the whole discussion to fit your agenda which is clearly anti-TF no matter what. Bill Clinton would be proud of the "spin" you have spun!

Nonetheless, how convenient and utterly transparent.

David, I read the book and I've gone one step forward -- I've gone beyond what his words are and reviewed personally his work. Look, I don't doubt his words have some standing to him -- he wrote them, but I'm not interested in hanging my hat solely on the lazy approach you place 100% stock in by simply relying upon his words -- I want to make up my own mind with what is actually produced in the field. Fazio may make claims of superiority / puff chesting and I don't doubt in those instances his own ego gets in the way of objective analysis.

You're entire argument rests on his words because you don't have the personal experiences to see if they reflect accurately the array of designs he's produced.

Why don't you stop tap dancing around the fact that you can frankly care less about what TF has produced because you're intellectually lazy and simply wish to rely upon the book? Nothing wrong with admitting preference / bias to some other style. But, Dave -- puhleeeeze enough of the run around and word games.
. . .

_____________________
Question:
Matt, I am still not clear on at what you are driving.   Perhaps an example would help.  

Why dont you show me how superior your two pronged approach is by comparing and contrasting Mr. Fazio's design approach as set out in the book vs. his real designs?  That way, I'll learn the importance of both reading and seeing his courses.
____________________
Non-Answer:
David:

Here's the botton line -- you place total stock in what TF says (e.g. his book) -- I look at that certainly -- but I place a heavier emphasis on the product he produces as well as any other architect.

There are a number of architects -- TF included -- who write their thoughts on paper. I don't minimize his paper thoughts --but I place a heavier burden on the finished product -- like I said before that's where the "rubber meets the road." In my personal sampling of no less than 40-50 TF courses over the years I have said that there are course examples where TF has simply designed formulaic layouts that his critics quite accurately refer to. However, these same critics fail to acknowledge other layouts of distinction he has also designed. These same critics also fail to appreciate that course designers may evolve in their design styles / outcomes over the course of time.

Unfortunately, these same well-intentioned but lacking in personal research critics only hone in on those courses that bolster their opinion. While that's convenient for them it's intellectually lazy in regards to the broader issues at hand.

Since you won't / don't / can't play a reasonable sampling of TF courses nationwide that exist I don't see how you challenge me on my interpretation when the real test falls back on you to get out "in the field" and see what he has designed -- particularly among some of the more current layouts he has done. Like I said before I'm not a "supporter" of TF or any other architect -- I look at each of their new designs and go from there.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

The logic Pat is using is basically saying that if you have played 50 RTJ courses then you haven't experienced enough of his designs to form a valid opinion on his work because it is only "10%", which I think is total bull.

That's not what I said, and you know it.

I said that playing 1 %, 2 % or 10 % of an architect's courses is an insufficient amount for a golfer to make broad generalizations about the architect's entire body of work..

In addition, you've ignored the chronological evolution of the debate.  And, SPDB hasn't played 50 of RTJ's courses.[/color]

I think the over-the-top argument of, "If you have only played ND, then are you qualified to comment on Coore/Crenshaw?" is ridiculous.  OF COURSE ONLY PLAYING ONE COURSE INSN'T ENOUGH.

I'm glad that you feel that playing 10 % of an architect's golf courses is an insufficient number to allow you to make generalizations about an architect's work.[/color]

But playing close to 50 is, even if that is only 10%.
Not when an architect's career spans 50 to 60 years and he's designed 450 to 600 golf courses.[/color]

It just blows me away that people on this thread are derailing the message of it.  Don't try to diminish a person's opinion when they've played what is obviously enough of an architect's work, such as 50 RTJ courses, even if it is only 10% of his work.  I think a vast majority would agree that playing 50 courses of an architects work is sufficient in forming a valid opinion on that architects work.
So you feel that SPDB's categorization of all 450 of RTJ's golf courses as mindless, is a valid opinion, based upon his play of less then 10 % of them ?[/color]

Let's stop spinning the reality of what the intent of this thread is.  Thank you.

Let's reread the title of this thread.

"Is playing the VAST MAJORITY of an architect's designs necessary to judge his work ?

Would you say that 1 % , 2 % or 10 % represents the
VAST MAJORITY of his work, or do you just have a problem with math and definitions ?[/color]

SPDB,

Could you list each of the RTJ courses you've PLAYED ?

Thanks.[/color]

[DMoriarty]

As if the above weren't enough, it continues . . . still on the same thread . . .
____________________
Question:
. . .
I will summarize my areas of inquiry is as follows:

(1)  Are Mr. Fazio's design[ principles] consistent with his architecture? [word in bold added later to correct typo]
(2)  Why do those who enjoy (many of) Mr. Fazio's designs  defend Mr. Fazio against accusations which Mr. Fazio agrees with in his book.  
(3)  Why wont those who enjoy Mr. Fazio's courses discuss his book?

In  short, I dont get why you guys wont answer my questions.  I know you know more than me about his work; that is why I am asking!  Is there really anything unfair, improper, or misleading about trying to reconcile Mr. Fazio's understanding of his work with the understandings of those who enjoy (some of) his work?  

_________________________
Non-Answer:
David:

You pin your whole argument on Fazio simply through the words within his book. Wonderful -- but let's get real -- it's a LIMITED source becase the ultimate proof of the pudding is the taste -- the actual courses he's produced.

A number of architects pen their comments and sometimes they have a tendency to puff their chests about their own contributions. Fair enough. However, I don't go by simply what they say -- as you do -- I go the extra step and actually review what they have produced and see how it stacks up. Only from personal observation do I then have the wherewithal to assess what the architect has done. Words on paper are something to review, but they are simply a sidestep around the fact that the actual product trumps anything else.

You need to do the field research before you make some sort of generalized comments about whether TF has an understanding of golf architecture. You simply are hanging your hat on his book.

If you were doing a major paper and you simply listed his book as your only primary source you would likely get no more than a "C" for the work done. You obviously are not interested in doing the field work so IMHO you are no posiiton to tell me how my understanding of Fazio courses is flawed or inconsistent.

I have stated that yes, there is an inconsistency with TF designs. That yes -- TF has designed his share of dog layouts that are fairly repetitive and formulaic with an emphasis on their share of eye-candy and sometimes even a lack of strategic virtue. A happy meal approach that lacks any real impulse for a desire to return to those courses.

However, on the flip side -- there are a number of outstanding layouts -- from my count no less than a dozen -- by TF that have rightly garnered high praise for their ability to combine the better qualities of "eye candy" and merge that with a keen flow of strategic shot values. These are the gems that constitute the qualities that do indeed make a TF course one to play over and over again.

Unfortunately, people who bark about TF generally have played such a small sampling that if for some reason they have only played the dog layouts than it's likely that is the version etched indeliby into their brain.

David -- I've outlined my position enough times in response to your comments / questions. I've answered it completely and honestly. If we are not an agreement so be it. Move on.

________________________
Question:
Matt,  If you want to move on, dont let me stop you.  But know that you have not even tried to answer my questions.  

You see Matt, have have no "argument" but simply a request for you opinion.  Matt Ward refusing to give his opinion . . . the world is full of wonders.
_____________________________
Non-Answer:
David:

Please help me stop laughing -- you're the guy who makes definitive assertions about the worth of TF courses simply from what he says in a book. A book mind you.

Oh -- I forgot -- David doesn't do any heavy lifting and see what actually TF and his team created IN THE FIELD. Of course not -- David simply asserts his opinion from one source and then proclaims he's not interested in seeing anymore TF designs because of what's stated in the book.

Dave -- no doubt about it partner -- nothing like exploring and seeing the product in question.  I told you several times that words in a book have some standing, however, for me the ultimate barometer is what the architect actually created. A number of architects will puff their chest and frankly that's fine because I know ego gets the better of them and frankly I believe only in the product they produce in the field. I've stated that yes, there are layouts TF has desgned that are dogs, but to be fair he has also hit some major lague home runs with other designs that are far removed from simply being dumbed down blondes that look great but offer little depth. I also weighed in that it would be nice to see Fazio take on a public project without mega millions involved to see what he could produce on a limited scale.

David -- I answered your questions -- the thing is I didn't answer them the way YOU WANTED. Enjoy the book ...

_________________


Matt, Reviewing the above, I can come to only one conclusion:  You are more interested in lording your experience over us than engaging in meaningful discussion.  

[SPDB]

Pat -

No sweat, will get to it just as soon as you answer the numerous questions I posed to you in this thread. There still there if you go back, including identifying where I said 450 RTJ courses were mindless.

Thanks

[DMoriarty]

Patrick:

Regarding your 10% of CC courses bit.  Your statistical analysis is faulty.  As I understand it, the larger the actual number, the smaller the percentage sample size necessary for the results to be meaningful (so long as the sample is across the relevant spectrum.)  And visa versa.   So 10% might be large enough when there are over 400, but not large enough when the number is less than 10.  

A few of my problems with your position here and elsewhere (the 'dont use photos' threads):

First, personal experience is only one way to learn.  One can also learn by personal observation, second hand observation (photos)study, listening to experts, polls, dialogue, critical analysis, etc.    Or any combination of these and more.   All these methods have their advantages and disadvantages (including personal observation.)

Second, if one's knowledge is lacking, why not defeat the substance of the point, rather than generally attack the experience?  (see my posts to matt.)

[SPDB]

David - I posed those same questions to Pat earlier in this thread, and in the RTJ thread, so I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a response.

I agree with your bit about statistical theory (a point I also made to Pat). The only thing I'd add is that as the size of the general population grows the absolute size of a sample diminishes as a percent of the larger population. This principle is played out in audit theory (and no jokes on how well its works there), where there is no difference in sample size btw total pop. of 50,000 and 500,000, and in neither case is it anywhere approaching 10%, its not even close to 1%

[Chris_Clouser]

I doubt anyone would know that Kentucky Dam Village, Bayou DeSiard and Palmetto were ever Maxwell designs if they were to play them today.  All three have been heavily renovated over the years.  Bayou, actually has been rerouted since the original design.  Palmetto has been redone at least twice.  KDV has has several renovations over the years.  Bayou and Palmetto were designed by Maxwell very late in his career and the work was overseen by Press.  Both courses were part of a series of contracts the Maxwell's took on that were from people that Press had met while in the military during WW2.  This was at the same time that Maxwell took on several military contracts in Texas to do simple routing plans for several courses along what is now the I-35 corridor from Ardmore to San Antonio.  This group of contracts also included the original routing of what is now the University of Oklahoma golf course that originally was designed for the Naval base in Norman.  

As for the main question, yes you need to see some of an architects work to judge it.  But you better make sure what you are judging is actually their work.  If you were to use KDV, Palmetto and Bayou to evaluate Maxwell's work, then you would be making a judgement on bad information.

[BCrosby]

Matt -

I reserve the right to have opinions about designers. Even if I've played only a limited number of their courses.

It is of course true that someone - like you -  who has played more of his designs will know more about that designer's work.

It does not follow, however, that only you are entitled to an opinion about the designer.

I am always open to learning from your superior knowledge. There are courses you have played that I will never visit. I am happy to change my views. Promise.

But until I get additional data to the contrary, I will hold my opinions. I would suggest that every other participant at GCA follow the same policy.

Or else this will be a very empty place.

Bob


 

[Matt_Ward]

Bob C:

I NEVER SAID you or anyone else can't hold an opinion -- no matter how few courses you may have played. If people truly believe that someone can generalize about the work of any architect -- from say 5-6 courses as opposed to someone who has played 50+ then go right ahead. Bob -- you did say you have an open mind and then immediately right after used the Michael Moore example. I hope you can see where the confusion lies.

I don't like "tags" being applied by people who throw up all sorts of reasons -- real and imagined -- concerning the architect's portfolio. I never said someone must play 50% or more of an architect's work but it should reflect to some degree an honest attempt to see what the person has designed over the breath of their career and clearly go beyond one isolated time period or section of the country. I also said that playing courses alone is not the only crucial aspect -- a person must provide some sort of meaningful analysis to go with it.

You say you're sticking to your opinions -- so be it. But unlike others who fail to see the benefits of personal research from actually playing a wide assortment of course I salute you in being open-minded regarding the possibility that your mind can be changed. Others should take note.

David M:

I "lord" my experience because its folks like you who can't or won't refute it from your OWN personal research in playing what has been designed. You fall back on the only aspect you can hang your hat -- TF's book. I go by something that's beyond the rhetoric -- the final product.  

[DMoriarty]

David M:

I "lord" my experience because its folks like you who can't or won't refute it from your OWN personal research in playing what has been designed. You fall back on the only aspect you can hang your hat -- TF's book. I go by something that's beyond the rhetoric -- the final product.  

Matt you are an empty set, a trojan horse with no soldiers, a shell, a void, a big zero, insignificant, a hollow man, sound and fury signifying nothing.  And what a pity.  All your experience wasted.  All you've seen, all you could teach us, for naught.  Unable to answer the simplest question, unable to address the most mundane point, unable to defeat the most specious argument, unable to learn, unable to understand, unable to carry on a simple conversation.  What a shame.    

Experience is not a matter of having actually swum the Hellespont, or danced with the dervishes, or slept in a doss-house. It is a matter of sensibility and intuition, of seeing and hearing the significant things, of paying attention at the right moments, of understanding and co-ordinating. Experience is not what happens to a man; it is what a man does with what happens to him.

--  Aldous Huxley, 1932.  

 

[BCrosby]

Matt -

Not to prolong an already prolonged thread, but the law of diminishing returns applies to course designs as much as it applies to anything else.

You learn much less new about Rees from seeing the 25th course than from the 5th course. It's the reason remarkably small samples give remarkably accurate results in nationwide surveys and polls.

Which is not to say the 26th course of his might not reveal a design totally unlike the previous 25 you reviewed. That's not impossbile; but it's not likely. Nonetheless, I will keep an open, if skeptical, mind.

On the slightly different topic of M. Moore - in the interest of political balance let me note that I've also seen enough of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity to believe they are dopes too.

Bob  
 

[A.G._Crockett]

Matt Ward,
I remember the discussion about the book well; I found it amazing then that you defend Fazio by claiming that he really doesn't do what he says he does, and I find it no less amazing now.

In effect, you are claiming to know more about what Fazio does than Fazio himself knows, from his own words, and I find this to be an extraordinary claim.  The key point, though, is that you then want others to believe that you are not dismissive of their opinions, when in fact YOU are dismissive of Fazio's own opinions!  

Can you see why that is hard to understand?

[DMoriarty]

A.G. Crockett:

I dont even mind that Matt thinks he knows more about Fazio Designs than Mr. Fazio.  Who knows, maybe he does?   What I object to is that Matt refuses to tell us just what it is that he knows.  He says he has seen it, but refuses to tell us what he saw.  He tells us we are wrong and ignorant, but refuses to tell us the correct answer.  If he does know more than Mr. Fazio, then he has quite a bit to teach us, yet he refuses to divulge anything.  

[T_MacWood]

Matt
We've all heard the same old things about Fazio over and over...I'd really like to get a more thoughtful and insightful analysis. After playing a great number of Fazio courses could you give us an overview? Some of his guiding principles as observed on the ground; design prefrences; strengths and weaknesses; unfair criticisms; his redesign/restoration work; etc.

[George Pazin]

One thing to keep in mind is that an opinion is simply that - an opinion. It is not a death sentence to be imposed summarily.

I really like Bob Crosby's point that he reserves the right to change his opinion of an architect. The shame of it is that so few actually do.

Too often people treat discussion on this site as though we were trying to "prove" conclusively someone's point, as though it were an attempt to discern a physical law, or to simply discredit a person, as though discrediting his character will somehow cause others to not value his opinion.

The site's goal is frank commentary and discussion - not handing down indictments to pursue in some bizarre court of opinion. That being said, it is entirely up to other posters to read each person's opinion and develop his own sense of its value, and further to draw his own conclusions about the general posts of any particular individual and weigh his posts accordingly. It is no one's (2 words ) job to bash others and attempt to discredit their character without actually addressing the opinion that they post.

Having said all that, I pretty much agree entirely with DaveM and Sean.

[Matt_Ward]

Bob C:

The law of diminishing return -- hello! What does that have to do with seeing other works that may prove you wrong -- that there are courses that are far different than the ones you have only played?

Bob -- it's so easy to stay ignorant and say -- well, I've played 5-6 and they seem to be the same -- the rest are likely to be like the ones I have already played and therefore not important to play them. You can take the approach -- that's your prerogative.

Bob -- you say you keep an "open mind" but it's "not likely" the 26th will be any different than the 25th. Bob -- with an attitude like that I'd just love to have you on a jury where an "open mind" is a key item.

What strikes me as funny is how "open" people really are when confronted with information from people who have actually taken the time and effort to play other courses in the portfolios of Rees Jones, Tom Fazio and Jack Nicklaus. Of course, since these people have such an "open" mind they feel no compunction to listen to those who might inform them about courses that are far and away different from those they have played. What the hell -- who cares about changing one's mind -- the sample size of 5-6 courses is all one needs.

Tom MacWood:

I have covered that previously in my discussion on a number of his superior designs I have played -- e.g. Galloway National, Black Diamond (Quarry), Karsten Creek, Glen Wild and Dallas National, to name just five as there are others of serious note. I have also illustrated a number of his designs -- more often the case from the ones I have played -- which were a far cry from the details and qualities of his best work, e.g. Pine Hill, Mirabel, etc, etc.

It's there for people to re-read at their pleasure. To illustrate just one point is the idea that all TF courses are merely "eye-candy" productions that have little meaningful strategic implications. I have seen instances where strategic qualities are front and center. TF is fully capable in creating green sites that are well-balanced and include routing plans that work in totally harmony with the existing topography.

I'm not defending TF's restoration work -- I'm glad you slipped that one -- how convenient of you to throw it in -- my focus is on the actual designs created.  

A.G.

Let me help you with something -- a book may contain info on what TF "thinks" his designs do, but from my point of view the words on paper need to match up with what is actually designed. In some cases that didn't happen and I flushed out the details I saw through my personal visit. I never said I know "more" about what Fazio claims -- I do say that after personally playing the courses in question I try to decipher if his intent actually took place with those courses. Big difference.

I take issue (let's bag the word "dismiss" that you and others attribute to me so readily) with certain TF's claims based on my personal observation and from the comparisons / contrasts to the vast array of other courses I have played in his portfolio. There are plenty of architects who have a certain "vision" on what they believe they are achieving -- as a rater I take what is said and see if that "vision of words" is carried through with the final product when playing their respective courses.

Let me also state that I am not some PR flack for TF or any other designer. I rate the courses I play on an individual basis -- I also gather information from these visits (over 50 I might add) that allow me to assess what patterns or differences he has brought to the table with each course. I have said more than once that the bulk of what TF designs is far from a "must play" element. I have also said there are a number of designs (see my answer to MacWood and a few others) that are worthy of serious acclaim and even national honors.

A.G. -- I can be no less "dismissive" of your thoughts as you and others are of mine. Get over it. I can't help the fact that armchair types prefer to "weigh in" with their assessment of 6-7 TF courses and see that as being on the same level with others who have played a far greater array of courses, over a greater span of time and covering nearly all sections of the USA. Talk about turning the subject around.

[Mike_Cirba]

Let me venture an opinion that the big reason Fazio's courses might not always be in tune with his design philosophy is because he might not have seen them until Opening Day.

His design associates seem to have a pretty free hand, and if you have a guy like Mike Strantz designing World Woods Pine Barrens,things might come out pretty well.  Other associates likely have different philosophies and abilities.

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

This is a post I made last week:

THE PROBLEM I'VE ALWAYS HAD WITH RTJ COURSES IS THAT THEY ARE SO MINDLESS.  There is little I've found in his architecture that is really thought provoking.

Since your powers of recollection seemed to have conveniently lapsed, I thought I'd post your own words, words that you yourself cited from another thread.

We can therefore gleen, that based on your powers of observation and your evaluation in the context of your personal experiences at playing about 10 % of RTJ golf courses, that you feel all of them are "so mindless", the ones you've played, and the ones you haven't played.

[/color]

Dave Moriarty,

When an architect's body of work spans 50-60 years and includes 450-600 golf courses, I don't think playing ten percent or less of that body of work is sufficient to form broad generalizations defining the architect's entire body of work.  Do  you ? [/color]

[SPDB]

Pat -
You may glean whatever you wish from my statements, but don't attribute your gleanings to me. My powers of recollection, thankfully, remain intact. I made no categorical statement about all of RTJ courses, that's the inference you drew, not me. You draw these types of inferences repeatedly, because it conveniently suits your argument.

The amusing thing is that you are drawing an inference on an inference, which by itself illustrates the shaky ground on which you are standing. It is abundantly clear that if anybody is relying on convenient arguments in this instance, it is you.

So I'll ask you once again, can you cite any instance where I expressly said ALL RTJ courses are mindless?


   

[George Pazin]

I agree that 10% is not sufficient to "judge" an architect's total portfolio, however -

if Sean had simply said:

THE PROBLEM I'VE ALWAYS HAD WITH RTJ COURSES that I've played (words and emphasis added) IS THAT THEY ARE SO MINDLESS.  There is little I've found in his architecture that is really thought provoking.

would you be as upset? Is it really necessary among friends/fellow posters to be so exacting with our language? Can we not be somewhat colloquial? I mean this as a real question - I'm not trying to be sarcastic. Would you not assume that I'm speaking about courses I've played?

This is an excellent example of what I mean by discussion versus some sort of indictment. Doesn't grilling Sean sort of sidetrack the intent of the discussion?

[SPDB]

George -

You can look at this as efficiency argument. Pat wants me to list out all of the courses I've played (not a small number, in an absolute sense). Why not rely or assume that the person is only talking about their personal experiences, and let the market sort the rest out? It's also inefficient, b/c the threads get bogged down with Pat's quests for credentials (which invariably involve accusations ranging from "intellectually dishonest" to "wild and reckless" (the latter of which was used to characterize my RTJ comments)), when often its irrelevant to the discussion.

It elevates form over function to a ridiculous degree, especially on a bulletin board where people are making ad hoc comments.

[BCrosby]

Matt -

The law of dimishing returns most certainly applies to seeing courses by a designer, or books by a novelist, or films by director, whatever. At some point you "know" his style. At some point the new information you glean from addtional visits begins to diminish.

(BTW, since you brought it up, the law of dimishing returns also applies to jury trials. There is a thing called prior similar acts (or crimes, as the case may be). Juries aren't required to view each crime as if it was a first occurrence. They are permitted to assume that people tend to repeat certain patterns. It is a notion so deeply rooted that for 600 years our legal system has said that it can serve as a basis for executing someone.)

I would humbly suggest that architects, like crooks, novelists, lawyers and everyone one else, tend to repeat patterns. In fact it is because they do so that their designs are recognizable as theirs. And not someone else's. It's called having a style.

More importantly, it is quite proper for someone to assume the existence of those patterns. I certainly do. You do too.

Of course, it's possible to be wrong about those patterns. Sometimes crooks go straight. Lawyers become hippies. Whores become nuns (don't they?).

But assuming the existence of patterns and styles is usually a pretty safe bet. And quite reasonable.

Now if you tell me the patterns I discern are wrong, that's terrific. I'm happy to hear you out. You've got more evidence at hand than I do. Or if you tell me that there is a new course that breaks all these patterns, I will try to play it.

But you are not very convincing when you tell me that my views are unworthy solely because I haven't played some arbitrary number of an architect's courses. That's poppycock.

Bob

[Matt_Ward]

Bob C:

I didn't say your views were "poppycock" -- you are certainly entitled to hold your views -- and I am just as certain to challenge you -- as you and others do to me -- to those views because I know differently from my own personal research in having played a greater range of what the architect in question has designed. I've even mentioned the names of the courses where the so-called "patterns" you keep talking about are either not as prevalent or completely abandoned.

What's really funny is that when "patterns" are carried out by the most preferred architects -- past or present -- here on GCA such "patterns" are beyond reproach or critique. Interesting.

Bob -- let's stop the embracing the phrase "open minded" when your defintion of that two-word phrase comes from a different section of Webster's than mine. I never said TF, RJ and JN hit home runs with each of their designs. I also said the bulk of the courses I have played from each of their respective portfolios would not be "must plays" when using the highest standards, However, there are courses they have each done that would merit national acclaim and given your desire to be "open minded" I'm guessing you might find them worthy of a play!

If you decide to throw the towel in regarding all their work by all means knock yourself out and avoid them at all costs. Your entitled to that opinion no less than Yankee fans are entitled to believe they think they are still a better ball club than the Red Sox. Denial, no doubt, is a powerful force to overcome.

[DMoriarty]

Dave Moriarty,

When an architect's body of work spans 50-60 years and includes 450-600 golf courses, I don't think playing ten percent or less of that body of work is sufficient to form broad generalizations defining the architect's entire body of work.  Do  you ? [/color]

I dont know.  It depends on a number of factors.  

For example, have I read books on the guy?  Have I listened to and learned from people who are experts on this guys work, and/or to those whose opinions I have learned to trust?  Have I played the courses about which there is a consensus that they are his best and/or most representative?  Have I played those 45-60 courses once each, or do I have extensive experience with a few/ some/ most/ all of them?   Has the designer ever explained his work in writing, lectures, or conversations, and if so have I learned from these?  Have I studied photographs of his work?  Blueprints?

For another example, it depends on my reasons for generalizing.   Am I authoring a survey of his entire career?  Have I played a sampling of courses from different times/areas/styles? Am I merely trying to decide whether to drive a few miles out of my way to play yet another of his courses?  

A real world example:  I have played around a half dozen MacKenzie courses here in the U.S.  I've read some books about him and by him, seen another of his courses on t.v. every spring for many years, seen another of his courses on t.v. quite a few times, listened to a few people who knew an awful lot about him' and read more than a few posts about others' opinions and experiences about him.    Obviously I dont know his work well enough to write a book about the man, but I do feel I know his work enough to make some generalizations about his work here in the United States.   This is especially so in a discussion group like this one, where my ultimate goal is to learn something-- if my generalization is mistaken, hopefully someone who knows more will be kind enough to set me straight.