Most golfers could care less about architecture

[A.G._Crockett]

Cary,

I don't often agree with John K, but regarding his last post, I'd have to say I agree with at least part of it: citing a fondness for Tobacco Road seems like a strange test for whether one appreciates fine golf architecture.

Surely it isn't the standard to judge by, is it?

Tim,
Go back and read the original post.  Brock didn't say that TR was the test by which to judge an appreciation of "fine" golf architecture.  I think he was just lamenting his buddies' lack of interest in the subject in general--their openness to possibilities.

Brock,
One of my best friends and long-time golf buddies is much the same.  I love him and love playing golf with him, but he has as much interest in architecture as he does in algebra, and that is none.  It's just the way it is for some people.

[Jim_Coleman]

   I'm not sure whether you guys are fooling yourselves or patting yourselves on the back.  Of course architecture matters today.  If it didn't. why is there so much work for  Dye, Doak, Crenshaw, etc.? And why have so many great courses been built in the last 30 years (as opposed to the prior 30 years)?  And why does every new developer market his project by bragging about the architect (as opposed to the pro, the chef, the clubhouse architect, etc.)?  And why are course rankings so fascinating to everyone that they sell magazines?  The "geeks" on this cite aren't the only ones who "get it," although they may be the only ones who think they're the only ones who get it. (I'm pretty sure that if you diagram the last sentence it passes muster.)
     Like pretty much everything else in our economy, badly designed golf courses fail (see Inniscrone in Pa.), while well designed courses succeed (see Bandon/Pacific, Sand Hills, Whistling Straights, etc. - which have thrived economically and historically in way out of the way places).  
    Yes, most people do appreciate good archtecture.  They're just not so self rightious as to believe no one else does.

[Sean_A]

I think John has a point.  I have seen nearly all the great links of GB&I because those clubs feel a responsibilty to the game and golfers.  They don't have to let visitors on, they choose to do so.  Most of the great courses in the States are off limits to many who are interested in architecture and the game itself.  Unfortunately, the attitude of these clubs is "stay away, you are not welcome".  Then these same country clubbers admonish those for not understanding the rich history, traditions and architecture of these venerable old clubs.  What is one to think?

Ciao

Sean

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'm not sure whether you guys are fooling yourselves or patting yourselves on the back.  

Of course architecture matters today.  If it didn't. why is there so much work for  Dye, Doak, Crenshaw, etc.? And why have so many great courses been built in the last 30 years (as opposed to the prior 30 years)?

Probably because of the rising popularity of the game, prosperity and the advent of residential golf communities.[/color]

And why does every new developer market his project by bragging about the architect (as opposed to the pro, the chef, the clubhouse architect, etc.)?

That's a fair point, but, probably because of name recognition and golf's rising popularity coupled with the relatively new concept of residential golf communities for winter enjoyment. Nicklaus, Fazio, Jones, Dye and others received great exposure from a variety of sources, and those recognizable and marketable names turned into quicker loan approvals at the developers bank.[/color]  

And why are course rankings so fascinating to everyone that they sell magazines?

I don't think those rankings are architecturally driven.
I believe that the vast majority of golfers view them as,
"my club's better then yours", and, if you look at the rating criteria, it's not about architecture.  I think this group tends to view the rankings in more of an architectural context.[/color]

The "geeks" on this cite aren't the only ones who "get it," although they may be the only ones who think they're the only ones who get it. (I'm pretty sure that if you diagram the last sentence it passes muster.)
     
Like pretty much everything else in our economy, badly designed golf courses fail (see Inniscrone in Pa.), while well designed courses succeed (see Bandon/Pacific, Sand Hills, Whistling Straights, etc.

I don't know that I would call "Inniscrone" badly designed.
It has flaws, including the site and environmental restrictions, but it also has architectural strengths.
The three sites you cited are owned by individuals with deep pockets, and, you can't compare those world class sites to Inniscrone's.[/color]

- which have thrived economically and historically in way out of the way places).

While that's true, you have to look at the site, and the fact that two are "destination" golf resorts, not unlike Scotland or Ireland, and the other is a private club, however, all three enjoy world class sites.  Inniscrone doesn't and is awkwardly located.

Just because the architecture is terrific at Bandon doesn't mean that those making the journey are doing so for the intrinsic "architectural" values, as opposed to just playing golf on a good golf course, on a wonderful site, in a good atmosphere, in a safe haven.[/color]  

Yes, MOST people do appreciate good archtecture.  They're just not so self rightious as to believe no one else does.
I don't think that the majority appreciate good architecture.
I don't think the majority scutinize or analyze the inherent architecture in each golf course.

Most relate the golf course to the play of their game.
If the course fits their game, they like it.
If the course doesn't fit their game, they dismiss it.
In both cases, it's a process that's done, absent any analysis of individual or collective architectural features.
It's more about comfort zone, the experience and score.

I enjoy watching the reaction of people who play NGLA and GCGC for the first time, or for one of their few times.  More often then not, their analysis of a hole, or a collection of holes is based upon their play, their score.  Birdies and pars indicate a great/good golf course, bogies and worse a gimmicky, tricked up or bad golf course.

Their score on each individual hole usually determines their architectural take on each individual hole, in a very general sense, and I think that ties into their subconscious or concious comfort zone.

I've also found that very few golfers see architectural features that they don't directly encounter in the play of a hole.  And, I think that one aspect alone indicates that they don't have an "architectural eye", rather an eye for strictly playing their ball.

While I would agree with you in that more people outside of this site are interested in architecture, I wouldn't count on the size of their vote to tip any election.

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong [/color]

[cary lichtenstein]

It is not the Tobacco road comment that disturbs me about John's post, it is the language used on this website that offends me:

crap
ignorance(twice)
stupid
jagoff


I think I make a serious attempt to  add something intelligent to gca. It just galls me that John, who is a nice guy in person, has this in your face personna on gca and gets away with it.

He needs to learn to pick his adjectives and nouns and quit trying to be so offensive.

I shall not read anymore of his posts in the future. It is a free world and free of speech is cherished, but John crosses the line.

[JakaB]

Using Tabacco Road as a test for ignorance is ignorant...I know some pretty good judges of architecture who think it is crap...Golfweek raters excluded.  If the rest of the golfing world had the access that the people on this board have to the great private courses in the nation the golfers of the world would not be so stupid....they would just be another pretentious bunch of jagoffs that mistake access for intellectual curiousity.

Cary,

Made you look....please note I excluded Golfweek raters.  God I'm tired of having to walk on eggshells around you guys...do a little math and you might realize that plenty of people besides the 1000 or so raters for the various mags out there play a little golf here and there.  And last time I checked there are far more than 1000 ignorant pretentious jagoffs who thing the opinions or regular people who may play two or three top 100 courses in their lives are crap....The only thing repeated play at highly ranked courses gets you is a swelled head...it doesn't teach you a damn thing..

[JakaB]

It just galls me that John, who is a nice guy in person, has this in your face personna on gca and gets away with it.

Cary,

I'm really not any different in person...it's just in a one on one setting the odds of something setting me off are less than here with 1500 potential contributors.  If for instance when we were playing the little course our Cabin sits on you would have said..."Damn, anybody that plays this goat ranch must really not appreciate architecture.."  I would have lost it...the difference is you were gracious, I was gracious...graciousness breeds graciousness....and then I left a bat in your closet...what can I say..

[ForkaB]

John

Was that bat out of hell? Let us know.......

[JakaB]

Rich,

I never saw the bat...I still stand behind the theory it was a mouse with a birth defect..

[Brock Peyer]

Wow, I hadn't looked at the thread since I started it.  I am by no means saying that Tobacco Road is the gold standard of architecture nor am I saying that you are ignorant if you don't like it.  I happen to like and appreciate things that are different and Tobacco Road is definitely different.  Many people like things that are "popular" and look more normal or more common looking.  As has been mentioned, many golfers like to play and enjoy a course that you can score on easily and that you are rewarded for good shots and not punished for poor shots.  I got punished after some good shots at Tobacco Road and accept it that that is the way the balls bounces.  I can't wait to get back.

This thread has lead me to pose this question or set of thoughts:

I have always wanted to build my one course, actually 2 courses, a 36 hole complex.  I would build one for the "every golfer", it would be relatively short with fairways contoured to keep the ball in play and greens that would funnel the ball towards the hole and relatively few bunkers.  Challenging, but rewarding and fun.  The second course would be my dream course, challenging tee shots, risk/reward par fives and a driveable par four, challenging greens and chipping areas and natural unmaintained areas, something like  a cross between Pinehurst No. 2 and Cuscowilla.  I would try to make the two courses appear to look similar since they would be part of the same complex.   But my question(s) is this, which would get more play?  Which would the masses prefer?  Which would be more fun?

[Andy Acker]

I would disagree with this argument. I think most golfers (good, bad or indifferent) evaluate a golf course based on their experience. I played Pinehurst #2 with a friend of mine who had one of the worst golfing days ever. After the round he had no memory of the course. I shot 73 and can remember most of the details (I thought the 4th hole was the most unique) If most golfers have a good round of golf or hit a couple of quality shots I think their impression of the architecture of the course is generally high. I believe the inverse is also true.

Good architecture in a residence, commercial property and golf course should be like a caddy. Seen, appreciated and valued but it should never be the focal point of the experience. It should provide a setting for a potentially great player experience.

[frank_D]

Which would be more fun?

brother Brock Peyer

the one with the cutest CART GIRLS !

[A.G._Crockett]

Brock,
Great dream and great question.  Let me know when you get the two courses built; I'll come a'runnin and play both!

As to which would get more play, if you put aside factors like the local market and the $ to play, I think the tougher course would receive far more play.  There is something inherent in the game that makes golfers seek out the challenge, whether they are up to it or not.  It may be the ability to tell others later, or some sort of masochistic need for a butt kickin', or something else entirely, but most seem to seek out the challenge.

That's why the very best and most lasting architecture seems to the single course that serves as both in your 36-hole complex; it seems more than sufficiently demanding to the good player, yet reasonably enjoyable to the bad player.  ANGC, Cuscowilla, so many of the Ross courses (though perhaps not so much Pinehurst #2), and so forth, are somehow timeless in this respect.  So, if you run out of money before you get both courses built, just build one of those!  

[Evan Fleisher]

I would disagree with this argument. I think most golfers (good, bad or indifferent) evaluate a golf course based on their experience. I played Pinehurst #2 with a friend of mine who had one of the worst golfing days ever. After the round he had no memory of the course. I shot 73 and can remember most of the details (I thought the 4th hole was the most unique) If most golfers have a good round of golf or hit a couple of quality shots I think their impression of the architecture of the course is generally high. I believe the inverse is also true.

Good architecture in a residence, commercial property and golf course should be like a caddy. Seen, appreciated and valued but it should never be the focal point of the experience. It should provide a setting for a potentially great player experience.

...and that is one of the "tricks" to trying to rate fairly and truly evaluate a golf course...separating one's actual play from the "experience" of the course and its surrounds.

That becomes very difficult to do if you are playing poorly and might not be able to actually see the features and/or strategies that are intended on the course...but still must be done to evaulaute the course objectively...a tough balance to get right all the time.

[JakaB]

Evan,

Most golfers are not magazine raters and have the freedom to either like or dislike a course for any reason they choose..

[Sean_A]

Do most folks have trouble separating a good course from just good play?  I don't think I have this problem.  If I relied on my play as a judge of course quality, there would be very few good courses about.

Ciao

Sean

[A.G._Crockett]

Evan,

Most golfers are not magazine raters and have the freedom to either like or dislike a course for any reason they choose..

John,
Were you perhaps imprisoned and abused by a rater at their ranch at a formative point in your life?

Whither the hostility?

(Note: I am not, and never have been, a rater)

[Evan Fleisher]

Evan,

Most golfers are not magazine raters and have the freedom to either like or dislike a course for any reason they choose..

I absolutely agree...just distinguishing between the thought process a rater might have to go through when evaluating a golf course versus the impressions the "average" or "non-rater" type golfer may go through when thinking about the merits of a course after one has played.

If someone is calling a course shit because they just had their career worst round on it, does that make it a fair evaluation of the course...I think not...and whether or not they are a rater matters only to a certain extent...but it is unfair to the course in question in either case.