[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeremy Glenn,

So if those surroundings change, it alters the architectural values of the golf course ?

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

Absolutely.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Absolutely.



How do they alter the inherent architectural values of the golf course ?[/color]

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

Because they are part of that inherent architectural value, much like the view from you patio as an inherent value to your home.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Because they are part of that inherent architectural value, much like the view from you patio as an inherent value to your home.

Jeremy,

But, my home is not a field of play.

It's not specifically designed, constructed and maintained for that sole purpose.[/color]

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

A golf course is a field of play.

However, it is not designed, constructed and maintained for that sole purpose.  In fact, many people play golf for reasons other than it's "sporting endeavours".

[Joe Hancock]

http://isteve.com/Golf_From_Bauhaus_to_Golf_Course.htm

A different point of view....not neccesarily mine.

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

A golf course is a field of play.

However, it is not designed, constructed and maintained for that sole purpose.  

In fact, many people play golf for reasons other than it's "sporting endeavours".

B.S.

I"ve played a lot of golf over the years with a lot of people and I never encountered one person who plays the game for reasons other than the challenge and the fun of getting the ball from Point A to Point B in the fewest strokes possible.
All of the other things that people enjoy are secondary to the challenge and fun of that pursuit.

Feel free to name the other reasons that are the PRIMARY reasons that "many" people play golf.[/color]

[Tom Huckaby]

This is still here?
 

Patrick:  one thing I thought of as I was playing Santa Teresa this weekend - a neat little course which has its own kinda cool surrounding beauty:

Who decides what's in the frame and what's not?

My frame would encompass the ocean at Pebble, the mountains at Shadow Creek.

Yours doesn't.

Fair enough.

But when I get a chance, I'm going to try post a picture which I believe will show the fallacy of your positions.  Not that I expect you to agree with it, but at least it might be food for thought.  Stay tuned.

TH

ps - 5% makes me "enamored"?  You have an interesting way with words.  

[Tom Huckaby]

The moment anyone focuses on collateral issues instead of the architecture and play of the golf course it's an admission that they can't support their position.

I would agree with Patrick on this one (a rare, rare thing indeed! )

However, I think that what Pat sees as collateral to golf architecture (the beauty of the surrounding landscape, for example...), I rather see as an intergral part of golf architecture.

You and me both, Jeremy - this is what I've tried to explain to him for 6 pages now.  Good luck.  

[Tom Huckaby]

I SUBMIT TO THE JURY:

How Huckaby views and considers #6 PB:



How Mucci views and considers the same golf hole:



Which was is more valid?

 

[Kyle Harris]

Tom, your mouse crayon work made me laugh out loud.

However, I think you are viewing the game as a player-arhitect and not solely an architect.

The architect didn't put the ocean there, just happened to be there. A skyscraper isn't designed with views in mind, it just happens to have them... see?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Huck,
Is Pat's point that no matter what the surrounding area encompasses, the inherent architecture of a given hole remains the same?
And is your's that the surrounding area does impact other aspects, like the total experience, and has inherent value to the architecture itself as it's taken into consideration to some degree when building courses?

If so can either of you tell me where you each put holes with skyline greens?  

[Tom Huckaby]

Kyle - I figured that would give the group a chuckle. And I was going to attempt to make it perfect... but I think this makes my point better.

Jim:  My point is this, and only this:  golfers do not play the game with their eyes closed.  The area remaining in my picture does matter in an assessment of the greatness of PB#6 as a golf hole.  Whatever the hell the rest of you want to call "architecture" just plain doesn't matter to me - and if your assessments of a golf hole must eliminate the part I put in black scribble, then I dare say you are evaluating the golf hole incorrectly, as much as you still could get the "architecture" correct.

I do find a great difference between evaluation of "architecture" and an evaluation of a "golf hole."

TH

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Jeremy Glenn,

So if those surroundings change, it alters the architectural values of the golf course ?

Pat-

  Could your point also be illustrated best a little closer to home-say, Forsgate-Banks Course?  

  Housing (Free-standing and condos) which borders the Narrows (#2), Eden (#3), Hog's Back (#4) and Punchbowl (#5) holes is VERY close to the left side of the holes, but, to my knowledge, has not changed the architectural value of the holes?  

  I prefer not to deal in hypotheticals, but if the golf course was altered in order to accomodate housing, then this would change the architectural value-shot values-bunkers in play-clubs into greens, etc.  One example, if the Narrows fairway was shifted to the right, then it would change the architectural value of that particular hole.

  So the addition of housing along the several holes mentioned has not, to my knowledge, changed the architecture, but has altered the aesthetics of the golf course.

[Tom Huckaby]

Doug:

Haven't been to Forsgate, but I have been to several housing-development-type courses here in CA where the course opens before the houses all go in... and invariably, the course is a LOT more fun to play before it gets surrounded by houses.

Now why is that?  The "architecture" hasn't changed a lick.

I just find those with tunnel-vision should not be the evaluation standard.  Surroundings matter.

They effect the "aesthetics of the golf course."

And aesthetics effect one's enjoyment level.  Pat would have us believe #16 Cypress would be just the same if the ocean were replaced by a toxic waste dump.

The funny thing is, I've labored also to get him to understand that these "aesthetics" matter even under HIS definitions... as they can effect one's play, due to mood effect, stress, joy, etc.

TH

[A_Clay_Man]

HUck, Now who's going to far fetched lengths?

All of that crayon, the big blue pacific, is not visible while playing 90% of that 6th hole. So, your point is not made.

Also, Your litte snipping at Pat on the 17th at SH because he cited the vista, was also a stretch.

I have one question for you Tom...

When you are over the ball, just prior to taking the club back, as you look at your target for that one last time before pulling the trigger, does your periphreal vision see anything going on outside the reduced frame of your focus?

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Tom-

  I agree with you.  I had not played Forsgate before the houses went in, but it's obvious they weren't there in/around 1930-1931 when the course was built.  They are very close to the rear of the driving range, and hug the left side of 2,3,4 and are close to 5 tee and part of the left side of 5.  

  No, it doesn't change the architecture of those holes, but my opinion is that it would be a more enjoyable golf experience if those houses weren't so close.  I don't like looking at houses from the fairway.  Even if it was at Bethpage or somewhere else on LI  .  If I recall correctly, and I may be mistaken, they are less than 200 feet from the centerline of some of the holes.

Pine Needles had a few too.  One even had the audacity to fly a Michigan flag!  If Kyle Harris was with me, I would have sent him up the flagpole with a pocketknife!  

To answer your question posed to me, I can't.  There's just something about those houses being "rightthere" that I simply don't like.  Morgan Hill is the same way--there are houses there, and more are coming.  But, it's privately owned property, and they can do what they damn well please.  

[Tom Huckaby]

HUck, Now who's going to far fetched lengths?

All of that crayon, the big blue pacific, is not visible while playing 90% of that 6th hole. So, your point is not made.

Also, Your litte snipping at Pat on the 17th at SH because he cited the vista, was also a stretch.

I have one question for you Tom...

When you are over the ball, just prior to taking the club back, as you look at your target for that one last time before pulling the trigger, does your periphreal vision see anything going on outside the reduced frame of your focus?

Adam:

I admit I am fighting fire with fire.  

And good point about what occurs right before taking the club back.

But since when is that all of golf?  Aren't you one of those who espouse the joys of the walk?  The sprituality in the game?

Consistency, my friend, consistency.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom-

  I agree with you.  I had not played Forsgate before the houses went in, but it's obvious they weren't there in/around 1930-1931 when the course was built.  They are very close to the rear of the driving range, and hug the left side of 2,3,4 and are close to 5 tee and part of the left side of 5.  

  No, it doesn't change the architecture of those holes, but my opinion is that it would be a more enjoyable golf experience if those houses weren't so close.  I don't like looking at houses from the fairway.  Even if it was at Bethpage or somewhere else on LI  .  If I recall correctly, and I may be mistaken, they are less than 200 feet from the centerline of some of the holes.

Pine Needles had a few too.  One even had the audacity to fly a Michigan flag!  If Kyle Harris was with me, I would have sent him up the flagpole with a pocketknife!  

To answer your question posed to me, I can't.  There's just something about those houses being "rightthere" that I simply don't like.  Morgan Hill is the same way--there are houses there, and more are coming.  But, it's privately owned property, and they can do what they damn well please.  

Douglas, it is difficult to define - obviously given how long this thread has gone on.  

 

I just find complete denial of these "aesthetics" to be very difficult to understand.  But still I try.

TH

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom, I am the model of consistency. Always a raging A-hole!

I do feel that seperating the golf from the walk, is when the evaluation of the ARCHITECURE happens.

Complete Experience aside.

[Tom Huckaby]

I think the Huckster has made an important distinction between a hole and the architecture of a hole.  With this distinction made I think he has made a valid point.  In essence he is saying that the ocean is an important factor in the enjoyment of the hole and a major reason why folks come back to Pebble.  Hard to argue with.  
Sean

Sean - thanks.  This needn't be the rocket science it's been made into.  You sum it up in a nutshell quite well.  

If one wants to define architecture very narrowly and eliminate those views, and then evaluate the architecture without them, that remains just fine.  Just don't use that evaluation to assess the totality of the greatness of the golf course, that's all.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom, I am the model of consistency. Always a raging A-hole!

I do feel that seperating the golf from the walk, is when the evaluation of the ARCHITECURE happens.

Complete Experience aside.

Adam:

So we come full circle, back to my question originating this topic.  On that, what I just typed in the post to Sean can be said to you as well.  But here it is again:

If one wants to define architecture very narrowly and eliminate those views, and then evaluate the architecture without them, that remains just fine.  Just don't use that evaluation to assess the totality of the greatness of the golf course, that's all.

TH

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

Pat,

Sure, the fun and challenge of putting the ball in the hole probably is one of the reasons why people play golf.

But it isn't necessarily the main reason.

How about enjoying the outdoors?  Exercise?  Fresh air?  Social interaction?  As a pass-time?

These are all perfectly good reasons to enjoy the game  Who are you to say they are secondary?

[Kyle Harris]

I think the Huckster has made an important distinction between a hole and the architecture of a hole.  With this distinction made I think he has made a valid point.  In essence he is saying that the ocean is an important factor in the enjoyment of the hole and a major reason why folks come back to Pebble.  Hard to argue with.  

Kyle

I don't think views are by luck when skyscrappers are built.  I also don't think Pebble was built where it was by chance.

Ciao

Sean

Sean,

Sorry if I oversimplified. I meant to imply that because skyscrapers are as high as they are... they're naturally going to have some view potential. It is, of course, the whim of the architect as to how that view is presented, if at all, but the overall circumstance is that the view would be there one way or the other.

I don't know of any architect that built high buildings just for the view, is my point.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()