When, how and should an architect listen to the GCA machine?

[Mike_Sweeney]

At the recent Lederach outing, I had the oportunity to play with Kelly Moran, and proceded to give Kelly my unfavorable opinion of the 11th hole on the walk to the 12th tee! Please be clear, I liked very much the 17 other holes at Lederach.

After the recent Stone Eagle outing, I was afraid that Tom Doak's kids were going to have to get paper routes with the tar and feathering that he took.

Lederach just opened, it was played on a hot and hazy day, it is still growing in, and I probably will not get back for over a year. Stone Eagle was played as the second round on an "off-season" day in 110 degree heat.

So the the question is how and when should an architect process the sometimes unflatering feedback of the GCA machine?

Is a private course different from a public course as most GCAers will not become members?

How long did the Dead Guys wait to make changes?

For the architects, how can we be more appropriate?

[TEPaul]

Mike:

I think any hole on any course should probably be given a certain amount of time to show what it is or isn't, probably a few years at least, and obviously that type of opinion needs some sort of feedback of many players over time. Some call it the "test of time". Some sort of consensus probably needs to be formed one way or the other. What other more valid barometer can there be, as holes are ideally supposed to be interesting and enjoyable even if that means some should be rather severe "tests".

Is there any question that good holes or the better holes on courses that endure the way they were designed pass that "test of time"? The reasons why should be analyzed as should the reasons why some holes seem to provoke constant dissatisfaction?

Should a golf hole provoke constant dissatisfaction over time---eg basically no respect? Personally, I cannot see why that should be.

On the other hand, golf holes that promote little to no opinion at all over time should be analyzed carefully too to determine what it is about them that provokes little to no comment.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Sweeney,

Without constructive criticism, progress is impossible.

The architect must be able to step back, put his ego on hold, and sift through the criticism to assess its validity.

If it's valid, then he must go through a second process of determining IF it can be changed, and IF SO, how it can be improved.

If it's invalid, then he'll just categorize you as an uninformed dolt.

[Scott Witter]

Mike:

Did Kelly respond to your comments?  What was his response? Or as Tom & Patrick elude, is he contemplating his response?

[Mike_Sweeney]

Mike:

Did Kelly respond to your comments?  What was his response? Or as Tom & Patrick elude, is he contemplating his response?

He actually said exactly what Tom Paul said above - I am sticking with it until further notice and more feedback, which I took to mean many months/years and not weeks of feedback.

Next time I would play it safe to the left fairway ala the safe Tiger and longer iron play into #11.

[paul cowley]

Mike Sweeney,

Without constructive criticism, progress is impossible.

The architect must be able to step back, put his ego on hold, and sift through the criticism to assess its validity.

If it's valid, then he must go through a second process of determining IF it can be changed, and IF SO, how it can be improved.

If it's invalid, then he'll just categorize you as an uninformed dolt.

Good analysis Patrick.......but rarely does one get a chance to change things......you just get to endure them as they just stand out for all to see.

The important part is that you continue to learn from them.

[Tom_Doak]

I'm a good listener, but it doesn't mean that the speaker is always correct.  

When someone plays a course for the first time and comments to me about it, I listen to whether they are saying something I didn't already consider.  There's no way on their first play that they are going to understand the full complexity of the situation as well as I do -- I spent a couple of years working on the design of the hole -- so if they are saying something I've already thought about in depth, and are just coming to a different conclusion, that's not going to sway my choice in the matter.

Nothing offended me in the comments posted about Stone Eagle.  [What DID offend me was that a few people implied there were more serious criticisms but then no one had the balls to actually post them].  Anyway, I might agree that the ninth and eleventh holes are somewhat too similar as par fours ... but that doesn't mean that there was a better solution for the routing, and in hindsight I'm still comfortable that we had to bunker them both the way we did for practical reasons.  So, that's a criticism that doesn't lead to any improvement.

There is a tendency among golfers (and not just those on GCA.com) to want to make an immediate pronouncement on new work, to tweak things before they have even become familiar and the subtleties are more of a known quantity.  For example, at SFGC where I played the new holes for the first time on Tuesday, there are a lot of members who think the restored 14th hole is "too open" and that we ought to add a bunker or grow rough there or something, even though it is clearly restored to the aerial photograph we had.  My advice was for them to give it six months.  I think the approach is very difficult from the right side, but the delayed penalty is not as obvious to them as an immediate penalty would be.

[Mike_Cirba]

I think I like being part of a "machine".  

Man...I can feel the power surging through me as I type!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I think CBM's advice, on page 295 of "Scotland's Gift" is appropriate.

Substantial play, under all conditions, should be a prerequisite to commenting on a hole or golf course.

Time is a great filter.

[TEPaul]

Patrick Mucci said;

"Mike Sweeney,
Without constructive criticism, progress is impossible."

Patrick;

You or anyone else can say something like that but what is "constructive criiticism", and more importantly WHO is constructive criticism going to come from?

This is the question, and it always will be the question. It can never be avoided.

To even begin to answer it intelligently, one should probably just go all the way back to one of the fundamental tenets of all of golf course architecture and its fundamental purpose----eg what is it there to do? Who is it there to serve? What is its basic purpose?

Obviously one can see by applying that fundamental question that its purpose is to create as much interest and enjoyment for those who use it as it possibly can. Virtually every great architect said this or wrote this.

This is not to say that various things cannot and should not be explained and in a logical and non-confrontational way to members of clubs or even to entire memberships, it very much should be, in my opinion, but after that how can one really say that what they want, particularly over time or over a "test of time" is not what they should have?

This notion on the part of some that sometimes club members or almost entire memberships are idiots and always will be idiots about what they like or can like is just for the birds. It's just another form of over-arching arrogance and even elitism on the part of just a few and that's not the way golf and architecture should be or is supposed to be.

Those who don't seem to know that or refuse to accept it, I  don't think are productive to golf course architecure, in the long run.

[Adam Clayman]

It bothers me, that subjectivity is so often the only justification for opening ones mouth. I like this and I like that, or it's counter part, is so telling. I know I would likely shut down listening, if I was the designer.

Mike, To answer one of your qustions, Primarily, the only way an archie(or anyone) can put constructive criticism into affect is on future work.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick Mucci said;

"Mike Sweeney,
Without constructive criticism, progress is impossible."

Patrick;

You or anyone else can say something like that but what is "constructive criiticism", and more importantly WHO is constructive criticism going to come from?

What difference does the source make ?
Valid constructive criticism has inherent worth irrespective of authorship

This is the question, and it always will be the question. It can never be avoided.

To even begin to answer it intelligently, one should probably just go all the way back to one of the fundamental tenets of all of golf course architecture and its fundamental purpose----eg what is it there to do? Who is it there to serve? What is its basic purpose?

Obviously one can see by applying that fundamental question that its purpose is to create as much interest and enjoyment for those who use it as it possibly can. Virtually every great architect said this or wrote this.

This is not to say that various things cannot and should not be explained and in a logical and non-confrontational way to members of clubs or even to entire memberships, it very much should be, in my opinion, but after that how can one really say that what they want, particularly over time or over a "test of time" is not what they should have?

TE, I think Tom Doak acknowledged some short comings others mentioned with respect to the 8th hole at Sebonack.

You, and many others have been critical of the 12th at GCGC.

I don't find anything conflicting about those circumstances

This notion on the part of some that sometimes club members or almost entire memberships are idiots and always will be idiots about what they like or can like is just for the birds.

Then you're a believer in "design by committee", something I'm ardently opposed to.

The creative nature in man isn't nutured through consensus management.

It's just another form of over-arching arrogance and even elitism on the part of just a few and that's not the way golf and architecture should be or is supposed to be.

You're out of touch with reality my friend.

Those who don't seem to know that or refuse to accept it, I  don't think are productive to golf course architecure, in the long run.

They've done far less damage to golf courses than green committees, memberships and boards.

[Tom Huckaby]

Mike - your memory is faulty re Stone Eagle.  Speaking just re what was said publicly, which of course is all I know about, Doak received FAR FAR FAR more praise than criticism.  Hell I was basically the only one who offered any, and mine truly was tepid at best.... The banter back and forth between me and the course's defenders was lively.. but the criticism itself was very, very mild.

Interesting question though, on which I have zero to offer.  But bad example.

TH

[Mike_Sweeney]

Mike - your memory is faulty re Stone Eagle.  Speaking just re what was said publicly, which of course is all I know about, Doak received FAR FAR FAR more praise than criticism.  Hell I was basically the only one who offered any, and mine truly was tepid at best.... The banter back and forth between me and the course's defenders was lively.. but the criticism itself was very, very mild.

Interesting question though, on which I have zero to offer.  But bad example.

TH

Thomas,

That response would have served you well right before Brother Mulroe at St Joe's Prep used to give people JUG (Justice Under God aka detention).

"Brother Mulroe, I have no idea who started the food fight in the cafeteria."

Can you answer me one question, when is Ran's review of Stone Eagle forthcoming?

This post started because I probably need to play the course at least a second time to be constructive before I tell Kelly to "blow up that hole" as I walk to the next tee. I played Baltimore CC the day before and it rose significantly from my first visit.

I actually was intriged by Matt Ward's idea of switching the 9 and 18 tees of Lederach. I don't agree or disagree as I really would need to see it again.

Some guys like Ran and Matt can see it once, and a second visit is probably not going to change much. Me I probably need twice to actually be constructive.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

I walked the front 9 of Lederach with KBM in late March before the official opening of the course. I mentioned to him that the greens on 1 & 9 seemed too severe for a public course. His response was that this is a course that needs several plays to get used to. Some higher handicapper guests that I've taken to play there have said to me that the greens are too severe and would prefer not to return. Now, if I'm the owner of the course and hear those comments, I'd think seriously of taming the greens somewhat. An owner banks on return play. Lederach would make a great private course.

[TEPaul]

"What difference does the source make ?
Valid constructive criticism has inherent worth irrespective of authorship."

Patrick:

I think the time has come---let me amend that---I think the time is well past when you need to stop talking in circles without any inclination to face facts or confront what the real issue is.

What difference does the source make??

It makes a difference because whatever the source, whomever the source, if he or she happens to belong to a golf club, basically that source has as much right to his opinion, as to what gets done as you do or I do or Tom Doak does or anyone else does.

That is simply the dynamic which needs to be faced in golf and architecture whether you or I or Tom Doak likes it or not.

Why anyone, anyone at all, can't get by that simple reality or refuses to, is simply beyond my comprehension.

What do you think you possess, a comprehension of architecture or of what constructive criticism is and isn't that's good for all to such an extent that you have the right to tell members of clubs, yours or anyone else's, that their opinions don't matter at all, that their opinions are automatically unconstructive?? That they shouldn't be listened to at all? That they shouldn't even be spoken with??

How can something like that be labelled anything other than arrogance---anything other than an ultra elitist mentality. I welcome talking to anyone about their course or any other, no matter what their opinions are. I realize you can't seem to imagine how but in my opinion, and in my experience, it all seems to have worked out pretty well that way.

My philosophy is that even if you have no respect at all for someone's opinion why bother to let them know that? I've never seen that work out to the benefit of anyone or any course.

Showing disrespect for members and memberships and their opinions just may be one of the most counterproductive methods in all that we do and talk about on here.

[Tom Huckaby]

Michael:

I am cracking up re the JUG.  Good lord, we had that also.  You and I had way too much Catholic education.

 

But very good question re Ran's profile of Stone Eagle.  It is rather conspicuous in its absence.

BTW, I'd agree I need to see a course several times to offer anything truly constructive, and even then it's going to be a crapshoot.  But, at times one look is all we get, and we do the best we can.

TH

[Tom_Doak]

Tom Paul:

I agree wholeheartedly with the first half of your premise -- that any club member might say something useful about golf architecture.

The problem then is who are we trying to please?  Does an architect want to please 100% of the membership?  (I believe that's impossible.)  51%?

There is always going to be disagreement about what makes a good golf hole.  If I had to spend the time to listen to every single person's view of every single hole I would never have the time to actually build anything.  Therefore, I insist on waiting until the comments are distilled to respond to much criticism of a particular hole.

As for a profile of Stone Eagle, Ran never says anything negative in any of his profiles, so you don't need to look for that.  But perhaps he hasn't profiled it because he preferred Ballyneal and didn't want to profile more of my courses than MacKenzie or Raynor's.

[Jeff_Brauer]

It's really more instructive to listen to criticisms from anyone.

We tend to look at the course from a lot of different perspectives so who is to say whose is valid.  GCA's tend to think in terms of features, and classic strategy, good players in terms of their shots, and other players, well, in terms of their struggles.

One GCA told me he dismissed any criticisms until he found out how a player played relative to his game, because you don't get good reviews from a poor game in most cases.  (If you do, then you know its a good course)  I always filter reviews by adding the statement "It doesn't fit my game" to the end of any critique, to see if it changes my perspective (remember as kids, adding the words "in between the sheets" to any song title, and the song title still worked?"  As in, "She loves you, in between the sheets", "All shook up in between the sheets" and so on?)  Same principal -I don't like that tree that prevents a low running hook - it doesn't fit my game......

The other side is, while most critiques are useless for reasons Tom D notes, you never know where a gem will come from - especially when coming from seniors or women who, despite our best efforts, we really can't envision their games, and it is our job to make it acceptable for every one who chooses to play the game, no? One senior told me that I should have more short bunkers because he deserved to get in them too!  A few women have enlightened me that my forward tee placements were always made easier, and it was too condescending.

So any comment can be a learning tool, not just those from the gca intelligentsia!  In most cases, its something you file away for the next job, as few courses go through annual change like Augusta to correct minor percieved flaws in pursuit of perfection.  Most courses wish they could have opened four months earlier for revenue, and hate the thought of closing in whole or in part to make corrections the gca should have gotten right the first time!

[Mike_Young]

When.....a lot of interesting subjects come up on this site and a lot can be learned...so always listen
How......seems to me one should listen to the site with a filter....for example if there are 200,000,000 rounds played in the US each year and less than 2,000,000 of these are played on top 100 courses and if one thinks that this site mainly discusses this type of product then it would be fair to say that most of the discussion related to design on this site pertains to  about 1 percent of the rounds played in the States.  And it would be fair to say that most golfers never get to appreciate what is discussed here.  
Should.....of course one should listen...the key point is to make sure one has an open mind when absorbing thought from here.
JMO

[Ryan Farrow]

A few women have enlightened me that my forward tee placements were always made easier, and it was too condescending.

I’ve actually been thinking about this a lot lately and the consensus is to make the course as easy as possible from the women's/forward tees.

Knowing what little I know about woman golfers it seems that they would be accepting of a more challenging golf course. I have never seen a woman throw a club, cuss, or get frustrated when playing golf. They just get up to their ball, grab a 3 or 5 wood, and bash the thing down the fairway until they are on the green doing this the whole time .

And the answer is not simple, you can’t suggest for them to move back a tee or two because length is still a key issue for most women. It would be interesting to see more feedback about this issue. Are their any studies or reports that have been conducted on the matter?
 

[HamiltonBHearst]

I remember a lot of discussion after Stone Eagle.  Not sure who was involved but I got the impression the course was considered too penal for the high handicapper.

[paul cowley]

....back to the original question,

All of the time unless the Arch has his head up his butt, the result of which he can't hear anyway.....

[Tags:]

Tags: