How "Big" is the golf course?

[Bill Gayne]

I think Wayne has hit on the head. If I'm understanding correctly Ballybunion would be a perfect example. At Ballybunion you have two external elements beyond the boundaries of the property. One is the ocean and the other is a trailer park. The ocean is an integral part of the golf course because it is the source of the wind and weather that impacts play. The impact of the ocean would be considered in the design process. The trailer park is an eye-sore and it does not need to be considered in the play or enjoyment of  the golf course. When evaluating the course the use of the prevailing and changing winds is critical. I don't care about the trailer park because it's not part of the golf course.

[Mark_Fine]

So Pat is that part of the design or not?  

[Mark_Fine]

Bill,
Do you care about the ocean if it is a calm sunny day when you are playing?  Or do you care about it because asthetically offers a nicer view than the trailer park?
Mark

[Bill Gayne]

Mark,

I do care because I've played the course in both extreme winds and calm sunny days. The golf course plays totally different.

Bill

[Mark_Fine]

Bill,
Do the asthetics of the ocean views have any impact or just the weather the ocean creates?

I'm sure you know where I am coming from on this.
Mark

[Bill Gayne]

Mark,

The asthetics of the ocean views don't have any impact. It's the weather that the ocean creates. Whether the wind is created by barren priarie lands or the ocean is not important. It's the impact that these external environments have on internal boundary of the golf course.

The conditions of the wind being created by the ocean is in the forefront of my mind as I play the course. Whereas with the trailer park, it doesn't matter that someone is getting a sofa delivered or any other activity.

Bill

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

It's part of the window dressing, not the design.

It's the golf course that counts.

Ambiance and views are all icing on the cake, but, if the product, the golf course, is inferior, all the fluff in the world isn't going to improve it.

One hears that Old Head is a spectacular site, yet the golf course is lacking.

Will NGLA somehow become an inferior golf course because the Sebonack Club House now traverses the skyline and interupts the formerly pristine views ?

The proof is in the tasting, not the china it's served in.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba,

Let me see if I understand what you and others are saying.

Would it be accurate to state that if each of you fellows were in bed with Jessica Simpson, or the women of your fantasies, that you'd be concerned or influenced by the wall paper in the room ?  That it would detract or enhance the experience ?

If it does, then you suffer from severe ADD.

Mike, I guess, as a lefty, it's really distasteful for you to tee off on # 1 at Merion.  It must ruin the play of the hole for you.
And, when you're putting, those cars on Ardmore must really ruin the pleasure of spending the day at Merion.

Don't you fellows know that you're going to go blind if you keep that up ?

Patrick;

Admittedly, I may be going blind but I also have to challenge your assessment and example.

Are you saying that a tryst with Ms. Simpson wouldn't be affected by surroundings?  

Would you rather play nice with Ms. Simpson on a beautiful beach in the French Riviera or in a dingy public men's room of a bus station in Newark?  

Would you rather the peaceful sounds of seagulls and waves crashing around you while in physical union, or the sound of busses belching and horns blaring?

Also, for your analogy to hold true, Ms. Simpson would need to be surrounded by her surroundings not just at that moment, but always.  For instance, for each time you played with Ms. Simpson you'd be in the same room, with the same wallpaper, and the same bed, etc.

Let's say just down the stairs of your seedy No-tell Motel where you've spent the afternoon with Ms. Simpson, a short walk out to the dunes lies one Teri Hatcher, breathlessly awaiting your arrival for a nightcap under the summer moon.  

Are you telling me that there aren't subtle, distinctive differences between the two?

[Mark_Fine]

Pat, maybe I just don't like eating off dirty dishes and that doesn't bother you  

And by the way, I'm not a big fan of Old Head regardless of the views.  That said, you can't separate the two because Old Head isn't Old Head without the location/setting.  It would be a different course and even worse if moved elsewhere.  

We'll all agree to disagree on this one.
Mark

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Please explain what is the “actual architecture” as you call it?  I'm confused?"

Mark:

Obviously generally defined by anything on the course or club property over which an architect may have control. How's an architect going to have any architectural control over some mountain in the background where something awful looking may happen at some time in the future or even the lot over the fence off the club's property? The latter cannot be considered the "actual architecture" of the golf course, would you not agree?  

[THuckaby2]

Patrick:

Either side in this can make hypotheticals that serve their purposes; that is, take it to extremes that prove their point.

And yes, in the end, the playing of the game is what matters. So the golf course itself is what it's all about.

But I am here to tell you that while NGLA certainly won't be transformed into an "inferior golf course" - it is so great that nothing short of the importation of toxic waste dumps, pig farms or the like such that one's health was in jeopardy could do that - the experience of playing there might be lessened just a wee bit if the Sebonack clubhouse turns out to be that imposing or that much of an eyesore.  

And re Old Head, it's on the other extreme and I notice you say "one hears" about that.  Very nice careful catch.  For a moment there I thought Pat Mucci was going to comment on a course he hadn't played... Now that will be a fun day when it happens.  Use of it as an example in an argument is ok, I gather?  

In any case yes Pat, the golf course itself is what it's all about.  But it also can be made, or ruined, by the surroundings.  Thankfully neither of those things happen all that often.  But this is not to say surroundings don't matter - they do.

So this is all just a matter of degrees - you call it icing on the cake, I'd call it something more than that.  No biggie.  The bottom line is that to say that surroundings don't matter at all would be completely incorrect, no?

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Are you saying that a tryst with Ms. Simpson wouldn't be affected by surroundings?  

The fact that she's with you is proof positive that she isn't affected by her surroundings [/color]

Would you rather play nice with Ms. Simpson on a beautiful beach in the French Riviera or in a dingy public men's room of a bus station in Newark?  

Once again, you fail to grasp the situation.
One must act when the opportunity presents itself.
While it wouldn't be my preference, I'm not going to turn her down because we happen to be in Newark, as I may never get the opportunity again.

We don't often have the luxury of ideal or otpimum choices.
And, so it is with golf courses.
You may have 195 acres of land suitable for a good golf course, but, there is little you can do to impact the surroundings which are owned by other people.[/color]

Would you rather the peaceful sounds of seagulls and waves crashing around you while in physical union, or the sound of busses belching and horns blaring?

Again Mike, you're fantasizing.
Many good golf courses once enjoyed pastural settings but as urban sprawl caught up to them, the surroundings deteriorated.  The golf course didn't change.
The shot values, strategy and options all remained the same.
Is Merion a bad golf course today, versus 50 years ago, 80 years ago ?[/color]

Also, for your analogy to hold true, Ms. Simpson would need to be surrounded by her surroundings not just at that moment, but always.  For instance, for each time you played with Ms. Simpson you'd be in the same room, with the same wallpaper, and the same bed, etc.

Mike, Jessica would be very happy to tyrst with me repeatedly, irrespective of the time and place.  You however should be thankful for the one opportunity you enjoyed.

Please, when your buddies ask you "how was it ?"
Don't start by describing the wall paper.[/color]

Let's say just stairs of your seedy motel, and a short walk out to the dunes lies one Teri Hatcher, breathlessly awaiting your arrival for a nightcap under the summer moon.  

Are you telling me that there aren't subtle, distinctive differences between the two?

Mike, I'd like the opportunity to make the comparison.

But, despite the relative settings, chemistry and performance are how I'll remember the night/s, not the setting.

In an ideal world we can always fantasize or have our drothers, but, site selection is a combination of luck and luxury.[/color]

Mark Fine,

You have to dance with who ya brung.

The site is the site and there's rarely anything you can do to influence anything off site.

And, it's likely that the surroundings will deteriorate over time.

If it's land good enough for a golf course, soon homes won't be far behind.

Is Merion an inferior golf course today versus 50-80 years ago, due to its surroundings.

[JESII]

"There is one aspect where the architectural study should take into account the land outside the course, that is the architect's use of lines and features in the distance and the surrounds in juxtaposition with the features on the course itself.  For instance the angle created by a land form in the distance can be set against or with angles on the golf course including tree lines, fairways and greens.  Here the artistry is enhanced when such issues are part of the design equation.  Golfers may not conciously figure it out, but it should sink in to most in some way and be a matter for consideration by those that spend as much time as we do thinking about it."

The above is from my previous post.  Flynn definitely was a practitioner of using distant angles and features with features on the golf course.  He did it with great effect at the Cascades although it is best seen in old photographs as trees today hide a lot of this work.  The 8th green is an excellent example where he used the back edge of the green to mimic the line of a mountain in the distance.

The best architects were/are adept at doing so.

Patrick

How do you respond to this statement?

In your dismissal of the Shadow Creek example it appears your complaint is that the mountains are not even very visible, if the mounding had been completed in a way which made them more visible and appealing, would that add to the experience? If so, does the fact that that was an architectural decision and implementation make the course better?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

How do you respond to this statement?

In your dismissal of the Shadow Creek example it appears your complaint is that the mountains are not even very visible, if the mounding had been completed in a way which made them more visible and appealing, would that add to the experience?

I respond by saying that your statement is inaccurate.

It doesn't reflect my views.

I never dismissed Shadow Creek, I dismissed the premise that Mark Fine put forth.

Secondly, I have no complaint with respect to what the golfer sees as he plays the golf course.

You seem to feel that the mounds screen the mountains when in fact, it's the vast number of mature trees that accomplish
that.[/color]

If so, does the fact that that was an architectural decision and implementation make the course better ?

Why do you think it was strictly an architectural decision and not an engineering or privacy decision.  Steve Wynn was/is a visionary.  Certainly he understood that growth and sprawl would follow.  Warehouses are now adjacent to the 17th tee.
But, that hasn't changed the merits of the hole or any of the others.

Would one prefer to look at a mountain range or ocean as a backdrop as opposed to industrial or residential properties, sure, but, that doesn't affect the routing, quality of the holes, shot values, strategic merit, options, etc., etc..

In the ultimate, it's what's inside the property line that counts.[/color]

[Lou_Duran]

I don't see how one can disassociate the surroundings from the golf course.  Would PBGL be what it is without the Pacific?  I think not.  Why did Doak build a grassed and treed perimeter around the Rawls course?  Does Fazio frame his holes just for the sake of it?  I think that it is the entire area that is captured by the eye which constitutes the course.  This is likely one reason why large scale projects make a greater impression, and why residential courses, even with ample corridors, do not.  

I would also add that sound has some effect.  Courses near airports and in noisy industrial or commercial areas lose some appeal.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lou Duran,

The inherent architectural values of Pebble Beach are within the confines of the golf course, everything else is window dressing.   Very attractive window dressing I might add.

However, if tomorrow, there were 1,000 oil platforms starting 1,000 yards off the coast, would that change the inherent architectural values at Pebble Beach, or just the views ?

[THuckaby2]

Ah, but here's where you miss the point, Pat.

In the hypothetical you mentioned, could PB continue to charge $400 per round?  Would the USGA and PGA have ever sited events there?  Would it be nearly the golf experience that it is?

The answers are all firmly no.

And the "inherent architectural values" wouldn't have changed a lick.

Man does not live by inherent architectural values alone.  That is unless his name is Goodale... or perhaps Mucci.

 

[Mark_Fine]

No one is going to win this arguement as it is very much subjective.  

Tom,
To answer your question we are not talking about what the architect has control over, we are talking about what constitues the "actual architecture".  There are some things that many here have pointed out that the architect has little control over but are still very much part of the design.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom,

Ah, but here's where you miss the point, Pat.

In the hypothetical you mentioned, could PB continue to charge $400 per round?  Would the USGA and PGA have ever sited events there?  Would it be nearly the golf experience that it is?

The answers are all firmly no.

Only in your mind.

The answer remains, YES, they would charge the same, and YES the USGA and PGA would gladly go there even if it meant crossing the Pennsylvania Turnpike and Route 27 on bridges.[/color]

And the "inherent architectural values" wouldn't have changed a lick.

Man does not live by inherent architectural values alone.  That is unless his name is Goodale... or perhaps Mucci.

 

Mark Fine,

We agree.

[THuckaby2]

Mark:

Perhaps that's what YOU are trying to talk about.

I'd counter that I really don't care what an architect has control over or not, nor do I care what one calls architecture, what one calls any of this.  I know that's important to YOU - you are in the business.

Me?  I'm the consumer.  No offense, but it doesn't matter a lick to me how things got how they are or why or who did what to whom.  I just play the course.

And to me, it's just folly to say that views and surroundings don't matter.  They do - in a matter of degrees, depending on one's perspectives and tastes - but unless one has the laser-like focus of a Goodale or dare I say a Mucci, well... I won't repeat my worn-out quote.

TH

[THuckaby2]

Patrick:

You have got to be kidding me.

I'll just say I beg to differ.  Mark's right, we are never going to come to agreement on this.

But you are very wrong.  Oh so sadly wrong.

And I've never been happier to disagree with you.  Must be a soulless, boring game you play.

But we shall put this to the test come June, shan't we?  I'm gonna make you wear blinders when we meet.

 

[JESII]

Patrick

I was asking how you respond to the statement Wayne quoted from William Flynn with regards to outside features and their inclusion in ones design intentions.

By the way, my statement was only inaccurate in that you did not "complain" about the visibility of the mountains, you offered a slightly different reason for why the course was set below grade. You did so for no apparent purpose, because your statement that it was done "to create the illusion that you were some place else, in an oasis" is so minutely different in terms of this argument than Mark's statement of "so you feel like you are in NC".

So please, how do you feel about the William Flynn quote posted by Wayne Morrison on this thread, post #20.

Tom Huckaby implies that because 'you are in the business' your definition of architecture might be different than others. Is this true? Could your definition of architecture really not give credit for the drive on #9 at Royal County Down being 'better' than most any other blind tee shot?

What would ever cause a person to want the strategy, shot values and options separated out from the experience as a whole?

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

I was asking how you respond to the statement Wayne quoted from William Flynn with regards to outside features and their inclusion in ones design intentions.

It's a global pronouncement that doesn't account for specific sites and site specifics.

When was Flynn was doing his design work ?
Would you equate it with today's environs ?[/color]

By the way, my statement was only inaccurate in that you did not "complain" about the visibility of the mountains, you offered a slightly different reason for why the course was set below grade. You did so for no apparent purpose, because your statement that it was done "to create the illusion that you were some place else, in an oasis" is so minutely different in terms of this argument than Mark's statement of "so you feel like you are in NC".

You're focused on the wrong issue.
I didn't complain, and the course wasn't set below grade.[/color]

So please, how do you feel about the William Flynn quote posted by Wayne Morrison on this thread, post #20.
The statement is too general.
Flynn may have had the luxury of working on sites such as Lehigh and others with pronounced elevation changes within the golf course, or as a backdrop.
One only has to look at Riviera, GCGC, Hidden Creek,  Boca Rio, Pine Tree, Everglades or Friar's Head to see that it doesn't apply in all cases.  If one has the luxury of an interesting backdrop, that's the icing on the cake.
But, all the icing in the world isn't going to overcome poor design, architecture and an inferior golf course.[/color]

Tom Huckaby implies that because 'you are in the business' your definition of architecture might be different than others. Is this true?

Your mistake is listening to anything Tom Huckaby says.
A more grevous mistake would be to listen to anything TEPaul says.[/color]

Could your definition of architecture really not give credit for the drive on #9 at Royal County Down being 'better' than most any other blind tee shot?

Since I've never played the hole I'll have to defer judgement.
[/color]

What would ever cause a person to want the strategy, shot values and options separated out from the experience as a whole?

It's quite simple, you may not have the choice.

Is Merion any worse today with the homes and increased traffic on the nearby roads ?

Will NGLA be worse because another golf course including structures will now be visible where before, only woods and skyline existed ?[/color]

P.S.  Has the hotel, railroad shed and other buildings detracted from the architectural values at TOC ?

[THuckaby2]

Patrick - just a quick note to say I noticed the above, and loved it.  Well jousted.

 

[JESII]

JES II,

So please, how do you feel about the William Flynn quote posted by Wayne Morrison on this thread, post #20.
The statement is too general.
Flynn may have had the luxury of working on sites such as Lehigh and others with pronounced elevation changes within the golf course, or as a backdrop.
One only has to look at Riviera, GCGC, Hidden Creek,  Boca Rio, Pine Tree, Everglades or Friar's Head to see that it doesn't apply in all cases.  If one has the luxury of an interesting backdrop, that's the icing on the cake.
But, all the icing in the world isn't going to overcome poor design, architecture and an inferior golf course.[/color]

If the use of exterior formations is applied (in the cases where available) and adds to the architectural merits of the course, why should credit not be given?[/color]

What would ever cause a person to want the strategy, shot values and options separated out from the experience as a whole?

It's quite simple, you may not have the choice.


Why?



Is Merion any worse today with the homes and increased traffic on the nearby roads ?

You'd have to tell me [/color]

Will NGLA be worse because another golf course including structures will now be visible where before, only woods and skyline existed ?[/color]

P.S.  Has the hotel, railroad shed and other buildings detracted from the architectural values at TOC ?

I've not been there, so I'll defer as well. Would the 18th hole there evoke the same feelings I hear about without the surrounding?[/color]

I hope I got all those colors right.