[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I hate to sound too supportive of your views because more often than not I like to find myself disagreeing with you.

I feel your pain.  [/color]

On this point however [size=4x]you are right,[/size]
a fine architect can make a miserable site wonderful.

Taking up on Rans thread a bit, I would like to throw Greywalls out there as a perfect example of this. The site originally was a rocky waste of a hilltop. We used to hike, climb, and bike up there when I was young. There is no way in hell anyone would have thought "golf course" when they looked at that property in the seventies.

I've never seen or played it, so I'm not qualified to comment.[/color]

Today it is lauded as an excellent golf course "well sited" and "taking advantage of the stunning lake views". Only a good architect could have even envisioned the course let alone turned out such a gem.

As I said earlier, a great architect can make a great course from next to nothing, a mediocre architect could ruin a great site.

As an example of the latter, I would not dare say that MCC was a course that ruined the sites potential, but if you look at the rework that Mike Stranz did there, he clearly improved the way the course takes advantage of the property.

My vote would be architect first, property second. That being said however, I am sure every architect out there would rather be working with a fine dunes property along the ocean, than a waste dump on a hilltop in the middle of nowhere.

That's a predisposition based on extremes.

Wild Horse sits up on a hill in the middle of nowhere.

How would you compare it to Sandpiper which sits on a majestic bluff overlooking the Pacific to the west and the mountains to the east, or Bodega, which likewise sits on the Pacific with the mountains to the east ?

I'm telling you, "I'm begining to think it really doesn't matter where you build a golf course (previous caveats included)

It's the architect that determines the quality and merits of the product.[/color]

[Paul Payne]

Now you're just trying to pick a fight.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Now you're just trying to pick a fight.

Not at all.

If you were familiar with Sandpiper and Bodega Harbor you would understand that sitting on the ocean doesn't guarantee a good golf course, only a good view.

And that just because a site seems mundane doesn't mean that a creative architect can't create a brilliant golf course.

It's not the land, it's the architect.[/color]

[Paul Payne]

Pat,

Honestly I had probably not had an opinion on this in the past, until so many threads popped up on this subject. Here is the conclusion I have come to after reading most of these.

It is obvious by the number of courses cited that a great architect can build a good course from fairly poor land. It may cost money but it can be done.

I think the reason this subject seems skewed towards the property argument is that anybody who has a great site is likely going to seek out the best architect he can find to capitalize on it. It is also likely they have the budget to do so (although Sand hills would refute that assumption). (By the way, why is there a "P" in the word assumption?).

On the other hand, a person with a sad bit of land is probably more often working as a family operation, or on a shoestring budget, or is simply looking for something to do with their land. The possibility of them having the vision, and the capital, and then finding a quality architect who is willing to put the time into the project is probably significantly smaller.

I believe this explains why when citing examples of either view, the majority of opinions would favor the land being the primary reason for a great course. I think it is more a cause and effect relationship between land and architect.

By the way, philisophically speaking are we discussing the classic vs. existentialist views of GCA?

[Paul Payne]

Pat,

BTW,

Didn't you just say you are beginning to think the site does matter, only to say in your next post that it doesn't necessarily? Please explain what you mean. Thanks.

[Andy Troeger]

If you were familiar with Sandpiper and Bodega Harbor you would understand that sitting on the ocean doesn't guarantee a good golf course, only a good view.

And that just because a site seems mundane doesn't mean that a creative architect can't create a brilliant golf course.

It's not the land, it's the architect.[/b][/color]

Pat,
  You might have hit here on why there are a lot of different viewpoints to this argument. I can live with playing a mediocre golf course if it has a great view and I'd be excited about a return trip to a site that inspired me. I wouldn't put a lot of effort into repeat plays at good golf course that I think is aesthetically challenged. Bay Harbor is probably a good example of this. As much as it gets a bad rap on here, I'm still very excited about trying to play it hopefully this summer. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just my preference

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

BTW,

Didn't you just say you are beginning to think the site does matter, only to say in your next post that it doesn't necessarily? Please explain what you mean. Thanks.

No,  Where did you get that idea from ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think the reason this subject seems skewed towards the property argument is that anybody who has a great site is likely going to seek out the best architect he can find to capitalize on it.

Is that what happened at Sandpiper, Bodega and Sandpines ?[/color]

It is also likely they have the budget to do so (although Sand hills would refute that assumption).

Then strike that factor[/color]

(By the way, why is there a "P" in the word assumption?).
For the same reason that the word "gumption" has one.[/color]

On the other hand, a person with a sad bit of land is probably more often working as a family operation, or on a shoestring budget, or is simply looking for something to do with their land. The possibility of them having the vision, and the capital, and then finding a quality architect who is willing to put the time into the project is probably significantly smaller.

Is that representative of the property that Mike Keiser bought ?[/color]
 
I believe this explains why when citing examples of either view, the majority of opinions would favor the land being the primary reason for a great course.

Sandpiper would refute that argument.[/color]

I think it is more a cause and effect relationship between land and architect.

Paul, you and the others continually compare extremes, great sites to sad sites, as if those are the only two types that exist.   What happens to the arguments when the extremes are removed ?

What is a great site ? Sandpiper, Bodega, Sandpines ?
What is a sad site ?  Wild Horse, Pine Tree ?[/color]

By the way, philisophically speaking are we discussing the classic vs. existentialist views of GCA?

NO[/color]

[Ben Voelker]

b]

It depends upon what the architect creates, the final product, and not the relative quality of the land.[/b]

Of course the architect's creative designs and ideas are important, that's not the point I'm making.  As a matter of fact, I would agree wholeheartedly that the architect's vision is THE most important determinant of the quality of the golf course that is created at a given site, but that doesn't mean that all courses by a given architect are created equal.  There are other factors that determine the quality of a course including budget, construction company, owner, land quality, etc.  Land quality might be least important to the overall quality of design, but it does matter, just like all the other factors.


But all else isn't equal[/color]

All the more reason that other factors are important.

 

Not necessarily.

How would you evaluate Dick Wilson's products at Pine Tree and Deepdale ?

It would depend upon the quality of his creative juices while he was involved with each golf course.

Are there other golf courses in the Sand Hills ?
How do they compare to Sand Hills ?
Are there other golf courses not that far from Wild Horse ?
How do they compare to Wild Horse ?

But, again, this isn't the issue.

You and others continue to fail to grasp the concept, which is, the land doesn't matter, it's the architect's creative genius that determines the quality of the golf course.

Dead Flat land can yield a great golf course, but, only if the architect has the creative talent to design it.

Pine Tree and Boca Rio are perfect examples of dead flat land yielding great golf courses

Please stop viewing the thread in the context of relativity.[/color]

Of course all courses in the sandhills won't be created equal, again, I'm not arguing that architects don't matter, just that other things do matter.

I have never been to either Pine Tree or Deepdale.

Please tell me how GCA is not relative by nature.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ben,

The object isn't to compare one course to another.

The object is to look at a parcel of land, or many parcels of land and understand that the land's particular features, other then as caveated previously, aren't going to make a difference in the quality of the golf course produced.

It's the architect who will create the distinction.

And, like at York and Sebonack, different architects may conceive of differing designs, in the general routing, the individual holes and the specific features.  And, irrespective of the particulars both, or many of those designs will be good golf courses.

It's the artist, not the canvas.

How would all of those on this site have done at Sebonack ?
A site some have said surpasses NGLA in architectural potential ?

And, let's ask the same question with respect to Bandon and Pacific Dunes and Friar's Head.

Could you and others have produced good golf courses on these sites ?  Sites that have been classified as world class ?

[Andy Troeger]

Ben,

The object isn't to compare one course to another.

The object is to look at a parcel of land, or many parcels of land and understand that the land's particular features, other then as caveated previously, aren't going to make a difference in the quality of the golf course produced.

It's the architect who will create the distinction.

And, like at York and Sebonack, different architects may conceive of differing designs, in the general routing, the individual holes and the specific features.  And, irrespective of the particulars both, or many of those designs will be good golf courses.

It's the artist, not the canvas.

How would all of those on this site have done at Sebonack ?
A site some have said surpasses NGLA in architectural potential ?

And, let's ask the same question with respect to Bandon and Pacific Dunes and Friar's Head.

Could you and others have produced good golf courses on these sites ?  Sites that have been classified as world class ?

Pat,
I still have to question your premise that the land has absolutely no determination as to the quality of the golf course. Do you think we'd be watching an event at Pebble Beach or know the names Neville and Grant if not for the Pacific Ocen? Or was it just that they were such wonderful designers that the course has is so well considered? I think your premise that the architect does make a huge difference in the eventual quality of the course is a good one, but to say the land makes NO difference just doesn't make any sense.  You're taking the extreme position here, not those of us trying to argue more middle ground.

[Ben Voelker]

Ben,

The object isn't to compare one course to another.

The object is to look at a parcel of land, or many parcels of land and understand that the land's particular features, other then as caveated previously, aren't going to make a difference in the quality of the golf course produced.

It's the architect who will create the distinction.

And, like at York and Sebonack, different architects may conceive of differing designs, in the general routing, the individual holes and the specific features.  And, irrespective of the particulars both, or many of those designs will be good golf courses.

It's the artist, not the canvas.

How would all of those on this site have done at Sebonack ?
A site some have said surpasses NGLA in architectural potential ?

And, let's ask the same question with respect to Bandon and Pacific Dunes and Friar's Head.

Could you and others have produced good golf courses on these sites ?  Sites that have been classified as world class ?

Of course I couldn't create anything like what's been created at Pacific Dunes or Friar's Head, if I could, I would be a successful architect myself.

I agree that it's the artist that has the biggest influence on quality, but wouldn't the artist prefer the canvas to notebook paper?  Is it not true that canvas would have an overall, higher quality, BETTER result than work by the same artist on notebook paper?  More often than not, this would be the case.

Better yet, could I produce something better on canvas than Monet could on notebook paper?  Not a chance (unless I have some undiscovered artistic talent ), but it's unquestionably true that there's a better chance of a world class artist creating a better piece of art on canvas than notebook paper.

Again, while I agree that a great architect can create something great on good and bad sites, the site still DOES matter.

[Paul Payne]

Pat,

I misread one of your earlier comments. Rest assured you did not contradict yourself.

As to your comments on Mike Keiser, I don't think that would represent a man with a sad parcel. If I'm not mistaken he bought the land and developed Bandon. This would fit what I would describe as a guy with a vision, who bought some oceanside dunes and got some very good architects to lay out his courses.

A sad piece of property would be Greywalls. There at least the club had some capital and the vision to be able to hire a capable architect. I would consider that they are the exception in those cases.

Unfortunately I have never played the courses you mention so I cannot comment.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I still have to question your premise that the land has absolutely no determination as to the quality of the golf course.

Do you think we'd be watching an event at Pebble Beach or know the names Neville and Grant if not for the Pacific Ocen?


The Pacific Ocean has nothing to do with why you're watching the telecast, nor does recognition of the names Neville and Grant.

Bing Crosby is why you're watching an event at Pebble Beach, everything else is merely a trickle down effect, a result of his vision.[/color]

Or was it just that they were such wonderful designers that the course has is so well considered? I think your premise that the architect does make a huge difference in the eventual quality of the course is a good one, but to say the land makes NO difference just doesn't make any sense.

You're confused..

Are you talking about views, or the quality of the golf course ?

I discussed that facet of the issue earlier.  [/color]

You're taking the extreme position here, not those of us trying to argue more middle ground.

Not at all.

You've been distracted by the views, and aren't focused on the architecture.

Why aren't they playing at Sandpiper, it's got the same basic views ?[/color]

[Andy Troeger]

Pat,
Do you think Bing Crosby might have chosen that spot for a reason? Might that have been a trickle-down from the golf course originally? I think its a wonderful golf course, and it also has wonderful views. You evidently disagree?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy,

The original tournament was held at Rancho Santa Fe, then, as Gene Greco states it was moved to CPC.

As it became more popular one course was no longer adequate, thus it was expanded to include Pebble Beach and Spyglass Hills.

When CPC withdrew, Poppy Hills took its place.

Based on your logic are we to assume that the tournament is held on Poppy Hills due to its great architecture and views ?

Would you cite where I said that Pebble Beach wasn't a good golf course.   How did you reach that conclusion ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I misread one of your earlier comments. Rest assured you did not contradict yourself.

Thanks, that's TEPaul's specialty  [/color]

As to your comments on Mike Keiser, I don't think that would represent a man with a sad parcel. If I'm not mistaken he bought the land and developed Bandon. This would fit what I would describe as a guy with a vision, who bought some oceanside dunes and got some very good architects to lay out his courses.

I was referencing the previous owners.
Before Keiser came along it could have fit in to your sad parcel category.[/color]

A sad piece of property would be Greywalls. There at least the club had some capital and the vision to be able to hire a capable architect. I would consider that they are the exception in those cases.

I've never seen or played it, so I can't comment.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Of course I couldn't create anything like what's been created at Pacific Dunes or Friar's Head, if I could, I would be a successful architect myself.

I wasn't talking about a replica, rather a good golf course on that site[/color]

I agree that it's the artist that has the biggest influence on quality, but wouldn't the artist prefer the canvas to notebook paper?  Is it not true that canvas would have an overall, higher quality, BETTER result than work by the same artist on notebook paper?  More often than not, this would be the case.


I'm not so sure.

I think some would prefer to conform the land to their concepts, their ideas.   I think others would prefer to find the holes on the land as it is.  And I think others would prefer a combination of the two.[/color]

Better yet, could I produce something better on canvas than Monet could on notebook paper?  Not a chance (unless I have some undiscovered artistic talent ), but it's unquestionably true that there's a better chance of a world class artist creating a better piece of art on canvas than notebook paper.

I don't know that I understand your analogy.[/color]

Again, while I agree that a great architect can create something great on good and bad sites, the site still DOES matter.

Why, if the architect is able to produce a good to great golf course on it ?[/color]

[Tom Huckaby]

Pat: you're a little off on the Crosby progression - when it first came to Carmel area, the three courses were Pebble, CPC, MPCC.  Spyglass replaced MPCC when it was built in 1966, and in fact subbed in at least once in later years due to temporary course issues at Spyglass.  Poppy replaced CPC due to "Shoal Creek" issues.

As for your question here, I find it counterproductive to revisit an issue I've spent 7 pages battling over already.  I applaud your tenacity, however.

 

[Andy Troeger]

Andy,

The original tournament was held at Rancho Santa Fe, then, as Gene Greco states it was moved to CPC.

As it became more popular one course was no longer adequate, thus it was expanded to include Pebble Beach and Spyglass Hills.

When CPC withdrew, Poppy Hills took its place.

Based on your logic are we to assume that the tournament is held on Poppy Hills due to its great architecture and views ?

Would you cite where I said that Pebble Beach wasn't a good golf course.   How did you reach that conclusion ?

Pat,
It was similar logic to what you used in saying that "You've been distracted by the views, and aren't focused on the architecture" in your previous post, when I said nothing about the views in that post (although I did in a previous post that had nothing to do with Pebble Beach). I mentioned the Pacific Ocean, yes, but that's because it is very much in play (at least for most of us)!
Anyway, neither one of us is going to convince the other, so I think its time to give it a rest  Go Irish!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()