Love affair with architect or course???

[Mike_Young]

Often on this site it is difficult for me to determine if the poster has a love affair with the architect or the architect's course.  This brings up a couple of questions for me.
 1.Do most posters need to know who the architect is before determining if it is good?  And how much influence does knowing who the architect is have on their opinion of a course?
2.  IMHO it is a given that all architects have some bad courses somewhere.  Can anyone talk of the bad course of the Ross, Tillinghast, Mac, Flynn or other "BDN's ( Big Dead Names)  Or do some think they have none.
I ask these questions not to be negative but it has been my experience that when it comes to art the majority of Americans are told what they like.  I think it is the same with much of what I read here.

[A_Clay_Man]

Mike- Certainly peer pressure is more prevalent than peer review. But I believe that your first question is more directly related to the character make-up of the individual doing the evaluating. Or, how easily influenced that person is.

Since golf has become such a business, many of those who are told what to like, are told so through clever marketing, magazine etc..

On our recent trip to Fl. I had the op to golf with a Canadien who has travelled extensively to golf. He seemed like a regualr bloke who, because of his exposure to many great courses, knew what constituted great.

Maybe it's something that hits a golfer all of a sudden? but, I think it's more of a result of constant, consistent study, and continued exposure to new courses (new to them). Otherwise there would be no way, for an individual to be open to new ideas and practices, and we'd be stuck in a rut, architecturally speaking.

Afterall, most people with limited experience are entitled to thier opinion, but who are you going to listen to, when push comes to shove?

On your other question, I think that most 'bad" courses probably don't survive. And if that's true, It kind of renews ones faith in the average joe, who actually pays the bills, at most of the daily fees found. Even back in the day.

[TEPaul]

Mike:

I think I could name a few courses of Ross, Flynn, Tillinghast that although I wouldn't describe them as "bad" (as you asked) I think I sure could describe them (or parts of them) as pretty bland! As for Mackenzie, I just don't know his inventory as well as I do the other three. On my own course, Ross (1916-1919), there were at least three holes that didn't work very well. One was just really bland, maybe two, and the other two were just way too difficult on one part of them for the club's membership.

[Bill_McBride]

I will frankly admit I'm in love with the courses designed by Alister MacKenzie.  I've never played one that wasn't among my best golf experiences ever.  Of course he was never offered a site that wasn't outstanding.  I guess that's the difference between golf architecture today and GCA in the classic age.  Many sites today are pedestrian at best (but not Cateechee, some great land there!), most use some of the best land for home sites, many are built on recycled industrial or waste disposal sites.  By contrast look at the sites where MacKenzie worked: Cypress Point says it all, Pasatiempo is on exciting land, so are the Valley Club and Meadow Club.  Crystal Downs looks great in photos.  Some of those courses have real estate, particularly Pasa, but it wasn't designed for cart golf to accomodate housing.

My recent round at Capilano was another by a famous dead architect working on a tough but scenic site routed to be walked, and a great job of that.  If a modern architect armed with the electric cart had laid out Capilano, it would be a completely different routing.  You would keep circling around to play downhill and no one would object because you don't get tired riding a cart.

I'm not sure if that answers your question, Mike.  In the case of MacKenzie, I love his courses and if I get a chance to play another (I will be playing Alwoodley in July and would LOVE to get to Melbourne some day!), I will be disappointed if I'm not excited by the course.

By the way, I loved Cateechee.  But I wouldn't want to have been out there walking it.  There wasn't anything you could have done about it, given the environmental restrictions and guidelines, but there you go.  MacKenzie didn't have to deal with those problems.

[TEPaul]

I agree with Bill McBride about Mackenzie. I've certainly not seen all his courses or probably even a quarter of them but all those I have seen are all good, in my opinion--not a bad one among those I've seen. And that's probably the primary reason I think Mackenzie was the best architect ever---in terms of what he produced.

[Mike_Young]

Bill,
Thanks for complimenting Cateechee but that is a good example, to me, of what I was speaking.  When you mention it can't be walked, I AGREE, and for that reason I would never consider it one of my best.  I am pleased with the green complexes, and conditioning etc and most of the routing but because of the restrictions and what it did to the routing, it hurts the course.  IMHO , routing is like a foundation on a house, without exception there are no good courses without good routings.  
Hope you have been doing well.
Mike

[Tommy Williamsen]

I have to say I'm in love with courses.  Courses evolve, consequently, many people have a hand in developing the course.  For instance, I brlong to two Palmer courses,  The CC at Woodmore and Musgrove Mill GC.  I love them both.  Musgrove Mill is one of my all time favorite courses.  It is unique.  Pulley had a hand in Woodmore and Ken Tomlinson rershaped Musgrove.  I'm usually not all that excited about Palmer dessign.  The fairway bunkering is normally boring, and doglegs abound.  

I invited a friend of mine to come down to MM.  When I told him it was a Palmer course, I almost had to drag him down.  He loved the place a joined.  It is definitely the course.

[Ed_Baker]

Mike,

I think that this thread is the essence of what this forum can overcome. When I first started posting on this site I was absolutely guilty of every thing you outlined in your preface.
I had an extreme bias to the dead guys and their work and mostly the style of that era.

I have learned through this site to evaluate courses on an " it is,what it is," basis regardless of it's age or design pedigree.

Mike Cirba is probably the best on this site for posting evaluations of new courses he plays that give the reader a "real world" sense of playing the course with him and what one can expect when you actually get to play the course. I have learned a tremendous amount from Mike's posts over the years and marvel at his objective and informed methodology.

Now, having said all that, I would say that most golfers are swayed by a name or a course pedigree. I have played several Ross courses that have stretches of homogenous bland holes that kind of run together. I can't say that I have played a "bad" Ross course but I have played many "bad" Ross holes. Does that make sense?

I could list some bad holes on Ross courses around greater Boston, but everybody loves their home courses and I don't want this thread to devolve in to a defense of particular courses or holes by irate members.

To your point, did the dead guys do some "bad work?" Yes, absolutely. Are there a large number of dead guy older courses that are over rated simply because of pedigree?" Yes.

We have discussed many times on here how difficult the modern architect's job is, permitting, environmental restrictions, profit motives, ect. all severely impair or compromise the architects creative process. To produce a truly great course in this era is far more difficult than it was in days of yore. The unfortunate result for the modern practioner is still the inevitable " apples and oranges" comparisons to the vast body of work that was produced by the dead guys in an era when they were free to create without handcuffs on and the fact that much of their work has been revered for decades.

[Bill_McBride]

Mike, I've been great except for this little Hurricane Ivan thing.  Pensacola was devastated.  At Pensacola CC we lost maybe 2000 oaks and pines, mostly pines, on the golf course and our clubhouse as well.  But the course is very playable (after what amounted to an emergency deforestation!) and plans are in the works to rebuild the clubhouse.

The Cateechee story is one that tells it all.  A very solid golf course with a number of fine interesting holes but a routing controlled by the site and only made playable by golf carts.  To me that sums it all up with regard to the difference between the courses of the classic age and today's courses.  I think you and the other modern architects do a great job of dealling with the difference.

Looking forward to my next trip to Athens!  When does Madison Lakes open?

[Joel_Stewart]

2.  IMHO it is a given that all architects have some bad courses somewhere.  Can anyone talk of the bad course of the Ross, Tillinghast, Mac, Flynn or other "BDN's ( Big Dead Names)  Or do some think they have none.
I ask these questions not to be negative but it has been my experience that when it comes to art the majority of Americans are told what they like.  I think it is the same with much of what I read here.

Green Hills In Millbrae, CA (by the San Francisco airport) is a Mackenzie course that has some real problems.  There are some unique holes but probably ranks among his his worst courses.  I'm sure somebody will say Mac didn't spend alot of time there and John Fleming did most of the work but I've never heard the definitive story.

[Pete Buczkowski]

Mike,

I like the thread...I think the term you are searching for is (Architect)-Butt Boy.  

BTW I think I am on the opposite end of the scale, I enjoy a lot of courses that others on this board would probably ignore or dismiss as bad/mediocre courses.

I don't think much of Rackham in the Detroit area, a Ross layout but I don't think there's much Ross left there.

Pete

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I love Rees Jones and Tom Fazio.

[RJ_Daley]

MIke in an idealistic scenario, wouldn't it be great if every new course coming on line would not be allowed to reveal the name of the design team, architect, nor constructor for say two years!  Raters would be dispatched by the various magazines to ply their trade and do a blind critique in so far as who designed the course.  Just tell us what you like or disliked, no names please!

But, of course that will never happen.  So, we get a sort of brand loyalty or Mucciesquely defined 'bias' going about who the designer was; thus it must be good.  

We have developed our darlings, I think it is somewhat fair to say.  They seem to get pre-determined points right off the bat.  But, that isn't universally true, only partially.  Every now and then, a lesser known, lesser discussed archie comes up with something that gets a big WOW.  

One example might be this years Sutton Bay.  Graham Marsh isn't exactly brand name pre-determined genius designer.  His constructors - LU, are of course brand name.  Yet, I don't think that Marsh's playing fame actually influenced any bias for those that have rated or spoken highly of Sutton Bay.  So, at least that is one example of something done recently that disproves any universal truth about love affairs with archies.

As for the golden age archies, they seem to have their societies- AWT society, DRS, and Seth Raynor club, etc., to prove love affairs with them.  But, there are so few pure examples left of their original works that only their general style and a predetermined affinity to their unique design characteristics endure, with a few exceptions of those that have remained intact.  The sampling to develop a love affair isn't all that large is it?  So, if you have seen 3 MacKenzies, you love what has endured.  But, would you have loved all of his stuff with prejudice.  Well, maybe all his stuff, .... but?

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

I evaluate product and leave the "who did the layout" question to a secondary position.

Too many people make the assumption that if course "X" is done by architect "Y" that it must then be a solid layout. That's not always the case but there are people who jump aboard the "star architect" syndrome whereby the name of the person doing the designing always permits a few more points to accrue to that person's work -- even if the course in question isn't that good.

A number of times these same people will give bonus points to a particular architect because of "previous" work.

Given the realities it is the unknown architect who takes it on the chin. Baxter Spann's work at Black Mesa is a good example -- Kelly Blake Moran's at Morgan Hill is another. Put another "star" architect as the designer of these two stellar courses and the "overall" assessment might be two to three times higher.

Mike -- there are people here on GCA who are keen followers of certain architects. These folks march to a particular beat of the drum and heaven forbid someone say anything that is even remotely negative about any course that is done by those folks.

Yes, the top tier architects didn't hit home runs with all of their designs. Many of those courses are today's strip malls and the like. There is a tendency to equate greatness with certain designers and no doubt it's deserved in a good number of instances.

I just think there is a wealth of talent in the profession and frankly if some of these folks could get a stellar piece of property I don't doubt for a moment they could demonstrate their ability no less than a number of others.

[RJ_Daley]

Just to add a little more to your original thought Mike.  

I can think of another example of a "little known name" rather than BDN that somewhat could disprove the theory of pre-determined love affairs influencing one's evaluation.

I had the pleasure of touring all day and studying the restoration of North Shore CC in Menasha WI.   It was done by an obscure archie (Macumber).  Yet, I swear that anyone on this site would go ga-ga over it.  If you were told it was a MacKenzie, you would buy it as the truth.  I can't tell you how much I saw of similarity to the Valley Club of Montecito.  Now some of that might be because of the bunker restoration by Bruce Hepner at both courses.  But, I'd argue that is not the factor that causes the same WOW reaction to both.  It is indeed the design.  The routing, the use of natrual ground features with incorporation of exquisite bunkering and green shaping and contours.  It is absolutely golden age stuff, and one wouldn't need any prompting as to who the archie was for anyone I know to not say it is a masterpiece.  So, there would be my example of not necessarily having to know the BDN archie to realise that the course is a gem and work of art.

[RJ_Daley]

Matt, I agree with what you are saying above.  Perhaps a Black Mesa would even soar higher in acclaim if it were a Fazio or Jones.  That is too bad because it ought to stand on its own without brownie points for name of designer.  But, you do obviously recognize the ongoing unfairness of that whole system.

Just to add to the information of my North Shore example a bit more, one can consider that Leonard Macomber only did about 20 golf courses according to Cornish and Whitten's bio on him.  MOst of the courses attributed to him are NLE, like your strip mall comment about the ones that don't endure because they weren't all that good.  I have no idea about the quality of his others except Bullseye original 9 in Wisconsin Rapids which is very good.  Incredibly, North ShoreCC of Menasha isn't even listed in C&W for Macomber or anyone else.  But, I've seen original drawings by Macomber, and it is his!  Where is the love?  You want to have a love affair, here is a nearly one-trick pony you could start a cult around.

[jim_lewis]

Mike:

Of course it's important to know who desiigned a course before deciding if you like it. Otherwise, many on this board would run the risk of deciding they like a course only to discover later that it was designed by Fazio, R. Jones, or Nicklaus. That would not do! An even greater bummer would be to dislike a course and then learn that it was designed by C&C or Doak.

[Paul_Turner]

There are quite a few low budget Mackenzie courses in England that are not of the top notch quality that GCAers are familiar with here in the US.  But in my experience, these courses do still have some character to recommend them.

I'll post some pics of a little known one soon.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

You know Jim, I always find a problem with this argument of knowing the designer and then showing a bias. I take exception to it actually.

Are you telling me that Rees Jones or T. Fizzio has designed a Sand Hills? If so, please tell me where it is on the ranking panel so I can investigate my short-comings. God forbid if they did, who knows what it would cost and how it would be shoved down our collective throats in advertisements and hubris!

If its worthy, I don't doubt for a second I wouldn't praise it, because I have a love affair with GREAT golf archtiecture as I know it and study it.

You see, I think there are two different categories of golf architecture--commercial and creative, and if a Fazio is going to design a creative course where he actually got out there on a bulldozer and built it himself--even shaped the greens or had HIS guys that helped him do it, then lets celebrate that!

Same for Russ Jones.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

There are quite a few low budget Mackenzie courses in England that are not of the top notch quality that GCAers are familiar with here in the US.  But in my experience, these courses do still have some character to recommend them.

I'll post some pics of a little known one soon.

Paul,
Let us not forget many of those courses have either been changed dramatically or have evolved in a direction less then desirable. I'm sure we could find some Colt courses just like it, no?

[JakaB]

If its worthy, I don't doubt for a second I wouldn't praise it, because I have a love affair with GREAT golf archtiecture as I know it and study it.

Tommy,

I have offered to buy you a plane ticket to come see Fazio's Victoria National....you have declined when you would have gladly accepted such an offer for many other architects work...living or dead.   Name one Coore and Crenshaw or Doak course in the Golf Digest top 50 you would so easily pooh pooh sight unseen..

[Mike_Cirba]

Thank you Ed Baker, although I have to say that after Tom Paul's complimentary comments earlier this week, I'm starting to feel like one of those aging rock stars whose work is somehow becoming more valuable based on their absence from the current scene.    I'm frankly not very sure that the course reviews I've done to date have been that precise to merit such generous plaudits, but I'd be less than honest if I said that I wasn't heartened that some folks have found them to be of value.

To the point of this thread, I think that it's important to note that there are many architects out there doing a lot of course work, both original and restorative/revisionist, or whatever term is bandied about these days.  Generally, we tend to fixate on a certain few who are getting the great gigs, and often for good reason.  

However, it's also important to recognize that the vast majority of golf is played on the other 95% of courses, and there is both good, bad, and indifferent on those as well.  

My biggest complaint about this website, and the thing I think that makes it a niche instead of a real factor in the golf world, is that we seem to be generally reticent to actually practice criticism of those courses by our favorites, to the point where there has been actual discussion of "blackballing" participants who dare not bow down and worship certain courses, or even dare raise a hair's breath of criticism of said courses.  

That isn't intellectually honest, and at best, it's boring and lazy.  

We also seem to write off certain courses because of the designer.  I've played very good Arthur Hills courses, and Brian Ault courses, and even Rees Jones, for instance, but woe be to the person who dares pay tribute to such travesties.  I would hope that as willing as I am to castigate the works of people like Rees and Fazio at times, that others are equally willing to open mindedly consider each course on its own merit, and as Mike Young points out, not whitewash or blackball based on the architect's reputation or favor within this small circle.

[Mike_Young]

Tommy N says in a post at 9:18  "If its worthy, I don't doubt for a second I wouldn't praise it, because I have a love affair with GREAT golf archtiecture as I know it and study it."  
The key is "as I know it and study it".  And I believe HE does but most people don't have the time or desire.  And after reading most of these post , I think it is fair to say that the golf world has a love affair with particular architects more than their courses.  It is much easier.  And one thing that comes with this in many cases is excellent maintenance which when combined with a name will surpass all else.  

[Bill_McBride]

Maybe it's because it's hard to separate the architects from the courses they designed.  It's all in the past, so you know who designed it whether you've played it or not.  I'm a bad example because I've only played MacKenzie's courses, found them all to be wonderful, plus a handful of Ross courses which I found to be solid but not as exciting as MacKenzie's.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

If its worthy, I don't doubt for a second I wouldn't praise it, because I have a love affair with GREAT golf archtiecture as I know it and study it.

Tommy,

I have offered to buy you a plane ticket to come see Fazio's Victoria National....you have declined when you would have gladly accepted such an offer for many other architects work...living or dead.   Name one Coore and Crenshaw or Doak course in the Golf Digest top 50 you would so easily pooh pooh sight unseen..

John,
When considering my recovery, (physical and mental) I'm going to have to use that as my get out of jail free card. Why take a trip where I would only be physically able to play one or two, maybe three holes, let alone be able to walk from the plane to the car?

I'm happy to say that I'm doing pretty good for myself just for today, one day at a time. My addiction to fast food, flour and sugar is a daily battle, but I've been free of it for the past 164 days (19 days short of six months, and I have to tell you, I feel great! My goal is to be able to walk Vic Nat, not ride it in a cart wishing I was physically capable of playing it.

I can now play 18 in a cart, and let me tell you just how happy that makes me. Still, I don't consider it playing until I can walk the full 18.

Also, I totally appreciate your kindness at the offer during one of the more low moments of my life. I hope all of you  never have to experience what its like to be almost close to a prisoner to their compulsion. Its a private Hell, and I'm never want to go back there.

But on to C&C and Doak.

I have played and seen the following:

C&C
1. Friar's Head
2. Talking Stick North
3. Kapalua Plantation
4. Talking Stick South
5. East Hampton (Saw from the side of the road)

(Riviera restoration work)

Doak
1. Pacific Dunes
2. Apache Stronghold
3. Stonewall

(Sheep Ranch-During construction)
(Valley Club, Pasatiempo, GCGC restoration work)

Fazio
1. Shady Canyon
2. Quarry @ La Quinta
3. Pelican Hill-North
4. Shadow Creek
5. Vintage Club-Desert
6. Vintage Club-Mountain
7. Meadows @ Del Mar
8. Oak Creek
9. Pelican Hill-South

(Remodel work at Riviera, Winged Foot, Pine Valley, and Bel Air)

I think the totals would show that I have seen far more Fazio work then Doak and C&C combined, and I have yet to see a bad course by C&C and Doak, or at least one where they didn't take and make the most of a difficult situation and still manage to keep it more then interesting.

I've also mentioned many times here how many times I have fallen asleep while playing Oak Creek, which ironically is the best routing I have seen of Fazio's to date. In fact, its a GREAT routing. The holes themselves are boring due to lack of interesting strategies. Some excellent bunker work. All of it isn't good enough to overcome just a boring golf design that is laced with repetition on and around the greens.

The Fazio courses I look forward with great earnest to someday seeing in person to play or just to look, even if it meant going out of my way to do it:

1. Vic Nat
2. Galloway Nat
3. World Woods
4. Black Diamond (Because I have been invited there by at least two people)
5. Le Reve
6. The Preserve (Maybe in a week)
7. The Glen Club (Because Josh told me I would like it!)

Does this sound like someone that doesn't want to see Fazio courses?