Love affair with architect or course???

[Tommy_Naccarato]

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 architecture 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.  

Mike, I couldn't agree more about the maintenance and the name. My very best friends think that two of Ted Robinson's local courses, Sierra Lakes and Trilogy are better work then Rustic Canyon. Its at that very second when I ask them why and they can't answer. It there that they get defensive!

But this is my complaint about Jim Lewis' sarcastic characterization. (I know that you know this)

Jim states, "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.

Well, I think he should describe the difference in the work that C&C and Doak perform compared to Tom Fazio and Rees Jones. While Fazio's quality of construction should never be doubted (the way it works) Make no mistake about it, Fazio could never hold a candle to the attention to detail that C&C, Hanse or Doak perform on their designs. These guys know how to create interesting features, or better yet, refine them from existing natural features in the ground. They also know how to make them blend in as if they were the existing environment that they found the area in before they started building the golf course. Fazio doesn't do that. He creates what he has found works in the past. He creates the environment to his specs. This is how a Oak Creek looks like a course in the Australian Outback. Stuff that never existed there before. What's even funnier is that at Oak Creek, there never was a creek or oak trees anywhere near or around the property. It was 100% orange grove. Its all safe architecture that looks appealing to the eye of those who don't understnad the beauty of nature--only when its created for them in a clean, organized environment. And frankly, this is where it gets repetitcious.

As far as Jones is concerned, Lets put aside the Rees Pieces mounds. Lets not even mention them. Lets talk about the cuts into the hillsides of some of his courses, mailed-in designs for green complexes, bunkers that look as if they were the crushed white marble intestines of a dragon on angel dust, albeit golf holes with some really good strategies like the 2nd at Santa Luz, that it becomes almost insane to put him in the same class of architect as a Tom Fazio. All of this matters when it comes to the shot values and their worth. People want to be stimulated and refining what is there and isn't there is what makes the best golf--not what isn't there throughout the entire 18 holes and make sure each and every grass bunker has a drain in it.

While I haven't seen his supposed jewels, Olde Kinderhook and Ocean Forest, and that's unfortunate, but most of the time, time is of the essence. And if I'm back East, Upstate New York is going to be tough. There is just too many other courses I want to see like Old Sandwich, Boston Golf Club & Black Rock and Myopia Hunt Club, The Country Club and Eastward Ho! Maybe even hunting for an old course called Hob Knob Hill!

Heck Mike, I want to see your courses! In fact, I'll go see anyone's course, anytime! IF I can make the time! Do you know how long I have wanted to get down to Georgia and South Carolina? Another thing is I want to see Cuscowilla, Chechessee, Sucession, Yeaman's, The Ocean Course, St. Simons Island and so many others in and around SC and Georgia, I don't even know where to start!

So, my point is that is beyond Jim's sarcasim, is he actually saying that for most in this discussion group, that Doak's work isn't indentifiable from Fazio or Jones or Coore & Crenshaw's? Personally I don't think I would have a problem identifying the work. I know of at least twenty to thirty great guys that participate in this discussion group that wouldn't either.

So what are they to assume? Is Jim insulting them and their abilities to judge the work? Or is it just personal?

[jim_lewis]

Tommy, you sure are sensitive. You must have thought I was referring to you. You are right about one thing. I was being sarcastic.

My point is that far too many people pre-judge a course, either positively or negatively, based on who designed it. that's just human nature. I'll admit I probably do too sometime. But, I try very hard to judge the course, not the architect. Likewise, I try to resist posting judgements about architects, positive or negative, on this discussio group.

I really don.t care how most golfers judge courses. I do care that those of us who rate courses for major publications stick to rating COURSES.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jim, If it wasn't me, then who was it?

And what I'm saying in these previous posts isn't supposed to be attacking in anyway. I'm just trying to prove a point that the point of discussion by many--if you didn't know who the architect was while seeing a specificate and spectacular course, is a very weak one.

Prove to me an example of this where it would work.  If I had to guess, I would probably say World Woods would fit the bill, or other Strantz courses. He seems like a pretty diverse architect. Same with Schmidt & Curley who don't get nearly the respect they deserve on this board. They build some really enjoyable and fun to play golf courses. (and then there's Bali Hate)

I would suggest to anyone who happens to be visiting the Coachella Valley this winter to venture over to any of the following:

Landmark-North (2 very different nines)
Landmark-South (another 2 very different nines)
The Palms (Maybe one of the best courses in the Coachella Valley. At least until Stoned Eagle opens.)
The Plantation (A club so good that most here would be scratching to be a part of it)
Oak Valley (Schmidt & Curley doing Pete Dye. Even a double-plateau green at the 15th)

And you wouldn't be disappointed--everyone of them solid golf design. Just on a different scale then most that is usually noted as much in here because artistically, its a bit more commercial. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy these courses either. You would be a fool not to.

Steve Smyers is another who just doesn't seem to get much respect. He's a enjoyable and knowledgable fellow too, and from the looks of it, he has done some great work back east.

[Joe Hancock]

here's my perspective, for what it's worth:

Some folks, like Tommy N., have done their due diligence in studying architecture. It wouldn't be fair for me to say that his well defined preferences are right or wrong.

To get to a place of having such constraints on one's preferences, one has to see the full gamut of what is out there, both classic and modern. To not go and see some of the courses that are examples of an architects body of work because one read negative reviews would hinder a persons education about things architectural. If we only go to see what one persons opinion of "good" is, how will we know good from bad with our own knowledge? For example, if every time I were to do a road trip to "look" at architecture, would I be developing my own sense of architectural value if I sought Tommy's advice and only saw his "good" list? Then, I would just be parroting Tommy's preferences, even if he has done the good legwork necessary.

I would look at as much as possible, including as many different architects as possible, to help develop one's own sense of good and bad architecture. Without this broad exposure to differences, a person really hasn't learned the difference between good, mediocre and bad.

I also feel that sometimes we, as posters, type words that we feel will be most widely accepted by the principals(and principles) of the rest of the GCA.com community. TEPaul has espoused the "Big World" theory before, and I believe his position is correct. If a person likes a particular Tom Fazio course, he is neither right nor wrong....but they are honest about the level of pleasure they derive from playing that golf course.


Joe

[BCrosby]

At what point is one justified in saying X is better than Y?

Was Mozart a better composer than his contemporaries Salieri or Hummel? Of course he was. By the time of Mozart's death (at the age of 36) people who knew anything about music believed he was easily the greatest of his generation.

But these people had heard relatively little of Mozart's work. Probably even less of Salieri and Hummel, both of whom were far more popular during Mozart's lifetime.

So were the people who saw Mozart's genius simply prejudiced in his favor? Just making lucky guesses? Or was there something more going on?

Might it be the case that C&C are simply more talented architects than Rees/Fazio? Is it just possible that is the reason why many here on GCA prefer C&C? Now, some 15 years or so into their respective careers, hasn't enough time passed to come to some conclusions?

If you disagree, don't tell me I'm prejudiced (I can't figure out what ulterior motive I would have), don't tell me I'm just going along with the crowd (I am by nature a contrarian) and don't tell me there are some new Rees/Fazio courses I haven't played and that I'm not entitled to an opinion.

Those sorts of arguments are silly and won't cut it. You had better start by telling me what Rees Jones or Tom Fazio course is better than anything C&C has ever done and why. The debate should begin there. I'm all ears.

Until then, let's can this talk about love affairs and prejudices.

Whether X is better than Y is a debate worth having. But let's debate the merits, not my mental attitude.  

Bob

 

[JakaB]

Some folks, like Tommy N., have done their due diligence in studying architecture. It wouldn't be fair for me to say that his well defined preferences are right or wrong.

Joe,

It is not due diligence when the only work outside of your home state you have seen by an architect you love to hate was on a glory trip to Las Vegas.  The only thing Tommy has bothered to learn about Fazio is that his work in California is so so...hell, I knew that without even playing the damn places.  That's not due diligence..The notion that due diligence consists of driving your pick up truck around to courses near your home for a free ride is poor thinking and a miserable example of architectural study.   Tommy needs to do something that at least smells of sacrifice before he earns the tag of due diligence...sacrifice of his time, sacrifice of his dislike of long distance travel or most importantly...sacrifice of playing a Fazio over a great classical course that he and everyone else in the world knows is a better course....lets see him skip National for Wade Hampton or even better..Ree's Atlantic...that is due diligence....Getting comped at a high end club in the beautiful California sun is not..

[jim_lewis]

Bob:

The best modern course I have seen is Sand Hills, designed by C&C. It would also be the best course I have seen if it had been design by joe schmidlapp.

I evaluate courses. I'll leave the evaluation of architects to others.

Tommy:
My assertion that some pre-judge courses based on the designer was aimed at no one in particular. Only you can decide if it applies to you. It's only my guess, but it probably applies in varing degrees to most of us. In my case it sometimes influences my choice of what course to see.  If I am traveling through an area and only have time to see one course, my choice just might be influenced by the architect. My first choice may be to see work of an architect I have seen little or none of before. I also try to see courses that are new or that have been seen by few GW raters. When none of those considerations apply, I'll try to play one of the classics. On a recent trip through Alabama I had time for one course in Birmingham and one in Mobile. In both cases I chose a Ross course. Hard to go wrong with Ross. So shoot me.

[Brent Hutto]

1) It is possible for a totally unknown architect to design a great golf course. It is even remotely possible for that great course to be the only course that person ever designs. There are historical precedents for this kind of thing but it happens very rarely, especially nowadays.

2) If a certain architect built a course you consider a great one, you'd be foolish not to pay attention to other courses he designed. The odds that one of his other courses will be to your liking are greater than the odds of you liking an arbitrarily chosen course built by someone who's never built a great course, in your opinion.

3) If a certain architect has built multiple courses that you consider great or if you've loved virtually every one of multiple courses by the architect then that architect must be really good at doing the things that you value in golf course design.

Given these three facts, it is an almost unavoidable human tendency to shortcut the reasoning process and just decide that a Tom Doak == Great or MacKenzie == Great or conversely Rees Jones == Boring. This shortcut to critical thinking is something we all have to guard against in forming what we hope are rational judgements about courses, architects and design principles. It's founded in reality but if we're not careful the shortcut becomes its own reality and we end up walling ourselves off from the sorts of discovery experiences that probably made up GCA geeks in the first place.

[RJ_Daley]

Nice put{t} Brent!

[JakaB]

I think the love affairs and biases that create them are most obvious when a rater or GCA-o-phile takes a trip and has time for "X" number of courses.  It's awfully, awfully, awfully hard to avoid thinking "I'd love to play Friar's Head", rather Tall Grass, when out that way or "I'd love to play CPC", rather than The Preserve, when out that way or "I'd love to play Crystal Downs", rather than Treetops, when up that way or "I'd love to play Shoreacres", rather than The Glen when out this way.  

I fell prey to this when I was in San Jose over the summer.  There's a balance there somewhere.  It's just tough to find it sometimes.  

That is where the heads of the rating panels are failing...they need to require their minions to play the less regarded venues before they can cash in on the jewels.

[A_Clay_Man]

J.B.- I recently went to a course in Florida even after I was told it was sheit. I used your line of reasoning, that I needed to see all of it, so I can know what's shiet.

Here's one for the group Pete Dye.

He's been the one, out on that limb, for the longest time. I can honestly say that I have seen some good, some great and even some poor architecture, so I guess the answer to the posit is ; The Course.