Golf is a game we play.....

[RJ_Daley]

I second George's comment supporting Tom MacWood's post.  

The thing about Pat and Rich which must be taken in context is that they relish to get you caught in these intellectual "moot court" sort of arguments.  Between the two of them supporting each other are presented sets of 'catch 22' contradictory and incomplete problems that challenge folks to give them complete and absolutely pure answers.  It forces people to do as George has ably done above and get the little quote box out and try and break down the Goodale - Mucci axioms one by one.  

On one hand we have Pat asking for opinions on a proposed and if we are to believe him, highjacked, golf course remodelling that is implied to be defiling a great classic.  Yet, we aren't told which course, which remodelling architect, or specifics of the process.  He asks what certain DG mavens suggest he do in relation to his implied efforts to "save" the course from these evil forces.  It is implied that members have a limitted knowlege of what greatness they have and that all they want to do is go out there and play some form of remodelled course.  Then, when enthusiastic responses are offered that center around the notion that CONVINCING that limitted knowlege membership of the greatness of the 'mystery golf course' be accomplished through research and scholarly persuasion, we are told that our motives are 'wise-ass' and unappreciated.  Pat implies he has played the course for 55 years and that is all that is required to be knowlegeable on the matter, and that those members ought to listen to him because of it.  

Then Rich alludes to the 'mystery course' issue and assails us for suggesting that research and scholarly compilation of the course design history and architect is inferior to the act of playing it, and more importantly, playing it at a high level of skill.  Yet if one considers that perhaps being a contemporary of other great architects of the day, Tucker may have also ascribed to the caveats or tenets of the published ideas of those great masters of the 'Golden Era' in that a truly great course must be built to be enjoyable and playable to the high handicapper and weaker player as well.  (see C.B point 5 and MacK.'s points 8,11,12)  And, of course Tillie and Ross said the same in slightly differing words.  

Wouldn't some research and scholarly crafted arguments in Pat's case go a lot longer than him howling to this mystery membership that he has played it for years and that is that!  

And Rich, I don't know how many times you played NGLA or Cypress or Pine Valley or Marion, or if your game was so perfect on those days to really assess the test at the highest degrees of critical analysis, but I bet you didn't play them all that much and well to have developed any intimacy of knowlege.  So, what is the better approach to getting the most of that sort of experience when the rare occasion does present itself?  To your credit Rich, you acknowlege that research and play coupled is most desirable.  I know if I ever get a crack at any of them, I will go back through the books I have to see what is written about them by those most knowlegeable authors inorder to maximise a rare chance to experience the playing of them.  But, I won't ever be able to play them at the high skill level you seem to require.  But, then again, I feel confident those great old archies knew that would happen and designed them as such, almost as if they knew I'd be coming.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

You said in reply to Jim Kennedy;

"I agree that both experience (playing) and reading/research (architectural education) is better than just one or the other."

By that I'm certainly assuming you mean to say that both are very necessary!

This is a most interesting thread you started but that remark of yours to Jim Kennedy about sums it all up as well as could be expected!

In other words to truly understand a golf course and the quality and nuances of its architecture you really can't be JUST the most knowledgeable person in the world on all the interesting principles and factors of golf course architecture and not have played the course or been to the club! That is simply a virtual impossibility!

On the other hand, you could certainly be someone who has played a course for 55 years and without an understanding of some of the principles of architecture or even what the architect was trying to do (design intent), your knowledge of the course and its architecture will always be incomplete and probably very much so!

And furthermore, it's not just that your knowledge WILL BE incomplete but more ironically and amazingly your ability to ENJOY the golf course will probably always be incomplete TOO!

So, both certainly very much go hand in hand, Rich, just as you said to Jim Kennedy!

But I hope you really mean that! I hope you really do mean that research, reading and understanding of the principles of architecture or even the design intent of a golf course (most particularly if it's a very good one) is extremely important! I hope you don't just mean to say that experience is really all it takes (and thereby imply that true understanding and education is somehow minimized as a necessity) because that is simply not the case, in my opinion!

I belief, like you seem to from what you said, that both, experience (playing and becoming familiar with a course) is only one side of a single coin and that understanding well architectural principles and such contained in writing (as well as the design intent of your own course or others) is the other side of the coin and probably equally important to overall enjoyment--and certainly in the end probably doing the right thing by any golf course!

If it wasn't that way I can't imagine why so many of the members of my course have said that although they have played the course for decades, that now that they have had the opportunity to read what it's all about and what the likes of Ross and Maxwell were up to, has made the experience of playing the course SO MUCH BETTER and more ENJOYABLE than it ever had been before! (And most of them even admit they aren't actually hitting the ball or playing any better--just playing with a clearer understanding of what the golf course and its architecture is about and that it does have real meaning, principles, design intentions etc)!

So I hope you mean exactly what you said! I do sometimes wonder if you do, though, and the reason is that you have so many times attempted to minimize the talents of some of the best of the architects by saying that whatever it is they do or have done is in no way art, in your mind!

Your implication has seemed to me to be that it's never anything special or truly unique, in any case, and that anyone conceivably could have done it!

That to me is so untrue, and if you do in anyway believe that, to me it speaks a kind of intellectual arrogance without foundation at all or simply a kind of approach that is almost wholly inclined to only the playing of golf!

Playing certainly comes first, I'm sure, because afterall golf architecture only serves the end of the playing of a game or more accurately a "sport"! But playing it is certainly not all there is to the ultimate end of enjoyment which the game or sport is supposed to ultimately serve!

So I hope you really mean what you said--all of it, and then I sure do agree with you.

But none of us should ever forget (certainly the great architects didn't or don't) that the sport and its architecture really is completely subjective, and one man's joy or taste may truly be another man's distaste!

And also;

"Golf and its architecture is a great big game and there really is room in it for everyone!"

[THuckaby2]

Wow... that was really well said, Dick.  I continue to learn a lot on this thread.  

BTW, I love the word "animus" - thanks, Charles Roberts!  There seems to be a lot of that going around lately...

I'll hop out of this now - just wanted to give some attaboys.

TH

[Lou_Duran]

Amen!  Just as Shivas would have said.  I would bet that your father is enjoying the book as he is able to draw from his deep reservoir of experience as a player.  He may be even gaining a better understanding of why he enjoyed the game as much as he did when he was physically able.

[TEPaul]

Dave Schmidt:

That's a wonderful little story about your father and I would love to know someday what he really does think of the book and the study of architecture.

But the more all of us learn the more things always seem to be not easily categorized.

Again, I hope that Rich is not saying that the playing of golf is the only way to enjoy golf course architecture because there is an even crueler joke often afoot in all of this!

That is that some of the best architectural minds of the past and the present often get away from the playing of the game either in part or totally!

Why, may never really be understood but it is no less true for lack of understandability! It is without question a proven fact too!

It only says to me that anyone who tries to claim that any kind of "one size fits all" in golf or its architecture still as a long way to go on the learning curve of it all!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Rich,
No, I wouldn't recommend Shinnecock go back in time to Dunn, whether or not he became the flavor of the day.
The opinions of people I respect, those who know the history and the present day course, consider it a marvelous place.
Of course, the opinions of people I respect recommend that Yale would be a marvelous place if restored to its original configuration  
It is case by case.

Patrick,
Perhaps those people you refer to, the "individuals who have never layed eyes on the property, have no idea of the politics, and no historical perspective, are contradicting me on what to do", are offering you opinions they deem helpful to your endeavor, perhaps not.
Perhaps some of those people are ones you must deal with at the club of which you speak. That type of frustration can be extremely stressful.

Lou,
You are right about the saying "Those that can, do, and those that can't, teach", there is little, if any truth to it.    

[George Pazin]

Hod -

You're getting a little too esoteric for me. I promise that if I hire Tom Doak to build a course for just me & then decide to butcher it, I'll invite you over to play it too, so we can agree that I butchered it.  

[Ed_Baker]

Not much to add except that from what I have learned from this site about GCA has made the playing of the game much more fun and fulfilling.

I'm not playing nearly as well score wise, as I use to, but it is still much more fun.

Isn't that the point of the game,the site, the study of golf architecture as a hobby, to have fun?

It works for me and I'm grateful to all of you,  on the days I don't have time to play and in preperation for the day I CAN'T play, talking about golf and its architecture will keep the memories fresh.

[Tom Doak]

In general, I agree with Rich's original post.  If you want to find out a lot about a golf course, ask someone who has played there a lot.  (But that's not to say they know anything about architecture at all.)

One of the quandries about publishing The Confidential Guide was just that:  many of the courses I had only seen once, and that wasn't entirely fair.  Of course, if I'd only commented on courses I'd played ten times, it would have been a much shorter book.

Some of the discussion has brought to light another pet subject of mine:  while as Geoff wrote, it's not about the observer, IT'S NOT ABOUT THE ARCHITECT, EITHER.

There are many here who believe that if Alister MacKenzie or Tom Doak built it, it should be preserved or restored; and if Willie Tucker or Damian Pascuzzo built it, there's nothing worth saving.  This is unfair:  it has to be decided on a case-by-case basis.  MacKenzie did some shit work:  maybe because of disagreements with clients or a poor contractor or whatever, but it was still shit, and doesn't merit restoration.  

Likewise, there are architects most of you have never heard of who have done some work worth preserving.

I'd like to think that most of my work is worth preserving -- that is, that it's not so bad that it's worth someone's money to change.  I wish this were the standard for every course and every designer.  Unfortunately, some clubs have so much money that they can make changes blithely, and so many egos on the various committees that they have no qualms about doing so.  If only they knew what they did not know, I suspect the world of golf architecture would be a far more interesting place today.

[Tim Weiman]

Rich Goodale:

Like Tom Paul, I'm not sure what point you are really trying to make.

I meet very few people who play golf who also research golf architecture. During the years I lived in Southern California, I visited the Ralph Miller Library on several occasions; each time the place was basically empty.

Sleeping Bear has done quite a bit in recent years when it comes to publishing golf architecture related books. However, I doubt that even the most successful title has been read by one tenth of one percent of people who play golf.

Equally, I'll bet if you spoke to a hard core collector, someone like George Lewis of Golfiana, you would find is customer list quite small.

While people who play golf generally don't "research" golf architecture, I'll bet people who do take the time to study written word about this subject also go out play, probably a fair amount. And I can't imagine any person who does "research" ever thinking that visiting and playing great courses isn't critical to the learning process.

So, exactly what point are you trying to make?

That too much golf architecture research is going on?

That people who read golf architecture books don't play golf?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tim,
Rich's point is obvious, just read between the lines. As a matter of fact you don't even have to read that much, just  the header, first line and last line of his original post. Oh, heck I'll do it for us:

"Golf is a game we play....isn't it?
…..reading and pontificating is only a very weak substitute for experience, at least as I see it".

[Tim Weiman]

Jim Kennedy:

Thanks for educating me. I never thought golf was a game we play. I thought people just read about it in the library.

I feel so much better now that I understand it.

[George Pazin]

Tim -

I think you meant to say "I thought people just read about it in the library and followed mindlessly everything they read."

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Jeez!

I take the sprogs out swimming for a couple of hours and all hell breaks loose!  Where is our beloved moderator!

Enough exclamation points........

As many of your have understood, I do not at all disagree with Tom MacWood, and in fact said so (in effect) more than once in my previous posts on this thread.  Namely:

RESEARCH AND EXPERIENCE ARE BOTH IMPORTANT!!!

Sorry for the Mucci treatment (I would have used the Pazin bold type strategy too if he or I knew how to replicate it ), but I'd just like to get that one out of the way before more animus starts ceeping into the conversation we're having.

Where Tom and I disagree, and probably disagree pretty strongly is in the relative value of these two aproaches in determining the quality of a particular golf shot, or golf hole or golf course.  I tend to think that this is determined more by the collective experience of golfers, not just me (although I'm not far from perfect, as Geoff Shackleford has so cleverly determined) but all golfers who have played a hole rather than by the direct or indirect observations of "old masters" or writers who happen to have spent a lot of time reading the old masters.  I personally prefer Tom MacW's posts where he talks about his actual golfing experiences more than those which talk about his love for the history of the game, but that is in fact just me and my predilections.

Tom Paul

Have I convinced you yet that I haven't slipped off the rails yet?

Good.

Let me get to one of the bees whcih seems to have lain in your bonnet for some time before popping out today.

Art.

I probably did say many moons ago that I was sceptical that GCA is in fact what most people would call "art."  I always have found it difficult to compare a Vermeer or a Bach concerto or "Ulysses" to Cypress Point.  I even have trouble comparing CPC to the Sistine Chapel, as Sandy Tatum famously once did.  In thinking of your post I went to my trusty dictionary, adn I looked up both "art" and artifact."  The latter definition I found very intriguing:

"any object made by man, especially with a view to subsequent use."

This, at least to me, is where GCA fits most neatly.  As opposed to the art of Vermeer, or Bach, or Joyce, or even Phillip Johnson, golf courses are made "with a view to subsequent use."  Not only that, their very use changes them, from day one and their exposure to the elements changes them, and their sheer magnitude makes them susceptible to both serious imperfections in both design and construction as well as subtle changes over time by either owners or caretakers (i.e. greenskeepers).  I do not doubt that the better architects may have a more finely tuned esthetic sense, but I still find it difficult to describe their work as "art."  However, my mind is open and I can be convinced!

Thingy Daley

You are right that my experiences on more than a few of the great courses I have been able to play have been limited, and if you have followed my posts with the stalking intenisty of some others you would remember that I have always qualified anything I have said about those courses with a caveat about my near virginity.

Tim W

As Alice said, in effect, I mean what I say and I say what I mean, but like Alice, I find myself confused at times, and often in a strange world.....Nevertheless, I do think we get sidetracked too often on this site by letting our love for the past cloud our vision for the future.  Sure the old stuff that Paul Turner and others have revealed to us through their research is neat, but is it what we think golf ought to be in this century?  Perhaps it is, perhaps not.

I'm keeping an open mind, but shouldn't my mind be influenced as much or more by experience (mine and others I know and tlak to) as by words and old photographs?

Just wondering.......

[TEPaul]

Jim Kennedy:

I think you're very much onto what Rich Goodale is saying--you certainly are onto what he's implying at any rate the way I'm reading him.

Personally, I don't think Rich puts much stock in architectural research or education or even that there are some fascinating principles and applications in the art of golf architecture and plenty of evidence of same, that certainly needs to be considered and seriously!

I don't know why he feels that way but knowing him I would say it may be just that he really loves playing at the exclusion of studying!

I realize too that much of what Rich has said in the past on here might be some tongue in check stuff but I'm concerned at how often he made light of the thoughts, works, writings  and contributions of a man like Robert Hunter, for instance!

Rich is obviously a smart guy with lots of interesting thoughts but it seems like his general take on people of the ilk of Hunter or Behr and also those that study them and those like them is that all of them are virtually unimportant or unworthy of the kind of consideration that many of us give them. I think that feeling reflects on some on here too, in his opinion!

I hope that's not so, in his opinion, because he's said a few seemingly contradictory things on this thread like his reply to you that experience and research are both necessary but at another point he said research is inferior to playing, in his opinion!

I suppose he might mean that he thinks that research at the total exclusion of playing is inferior, and I might agree with that thought but if he means someone whose interested and competent to do both and that then research is still inferior I don't know that I would agree with that at all.

If he really does think the latter, my take is that he possesses some kind of intellectual snobbery about architectural research and study. Why that would be, if it's true, is concerning and it would tell me he's just not comfortable with it probably because he really hasn't done it! He's even said he has read some of it but in my experience one has to do more than that.

Reading it is one thing, but giving it the time and consideration to sink in is something else entirely and of course it certainly helps to go back out there and look and play and find if what you're reading has application!

I think it certainly does, more so all the time, and I hope too I'm completely wrong about what I'm saying about where Rich is coming from!

And also there is no question that plenty of the contributors on here think that others are trying to be intellectually superior about all kinds of things to do with architecture all the time!

I doubt that will ever go away--that's just sort of the way it seems to be about golf course architecture anyway and not just on here--that's real prevalent at golf clubs and courses too, all over the world, I think!

In that vein after studying all this stuff very intensely for over five years I think I'm finally getting to a point that I'm very glad for and that is to not take personally what others say or say about one's own opinions!

[Dan Kelly]

Rich --

Next time, why don't you just get the sprogs a book about swimming?    Or find them a good swimming Discussion Group?      

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but: Philip Johnson? His works aren't designed with a view to subsequent use?

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Charles,
Animus no, self-importance fatigue, absolutely. I'm continually perplexed by the notion of golfers putting their game ahead of all else because the mere playing of the game entitles them to knowledge of architecture and what works, what doesn't. It's a destructive trend. A little reading would reveal that this has long been the primary reason facinating courses to play get changed.  Every architect has written about this notion of golfers demanding change because their "exaggeration of ego" takes offense to features that threaten them.

I just don't see how seeking out information and understanding history has ever hurt one's approach to playing or their appreciation of golf.  I sense it's branded as insignificant because some consider it an inconvenience that they don't have time or interest in, and thus write it off as outdated or old-fashioned thinking to get around the issue at hand.

When design analysis is focused on individual, self-important views based strickly on the card and pencil or the mere privilege to express an opinion, well, it seems the results are pretty apparent: bland designs where the course is trying to stay out of the golfer's way and coddle his ego, not challenging his ego in a fun way. So we end up with courses built in recent years to please the individual's needs, and coincidentally, many are failing to generage repeat playing interest. They are heavy on personal gratification services, short on captivating architecture that people enjoy PLAYING over and over again.  

Geoff

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEPaul,
Thanks, implication it is.
As for the research/experience thing, I wonder why we even need a distinction between what is the more important.  

Rich,
We should also look at a definition of art, if only to give it equal time.
art n.
Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
The study of these activities.
The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.
A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.
Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: “Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice” (Joyce Carol Oates).
arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.
Artful contrivance; cunning.

My opinion is that the two are inextricably blended when used in the context of GCA. Without art would there be any artifacts?

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

All

I can't type anywhere nearly as fast as Tom Paul, so I'm probably responding to stuff written an hour or so ago.  Apologies.  After this one I think I'll relax adn get back to the later posts tomorrow.  Until then....

Dan K

I was thinking of the Seagram's Building, for example.  While it is used, it's use does not affect the form of the building, and it's internal use is varied, both in form and function.  Inside the building there are lawyers and aluminum siding companies, decorated in Mexican velvet and Louis XIV styles.  None of this matters to the "art" of the building.  Golf courses, on the other hand, are directly and indirectly affected by their use.  Not a great metaphor, I'll concede, but you get what you pay for....

Tom P

So it's YOU that is making Geoff S. think that I think that this thread is all about me.  I don't and it ain't, or shouldn't be.  Rather than rehash some of our long past discussions, I'd like to hear from others why they think (or do not think) that Hunter, Behr, McKenzie, McDonald, etc. have relevance in this century.

Cheers

Rich

[Phil_the_Author]

I have found this thread fascinating for what it reveals about motivation.

The Topic seems benign enough, the problem is that the topic is an opinion that is given as a statement of fact:

"Golf is a game we play......isn't it?"

That may be a truism for rich but not for Tom or someone else. While Eddie and others play for the simple joy of playing, Jerry & Ernie do so because of the 'thrill of competition'. There are almost as many reasons for playing the game as there are players. It is for that reason that the interest in architecture or history of the game or course(s) are of such interest to some and noe whatsoever to others.

Most know that I wrote a book about Bethpage Black; big deal! It (like most books) was written out of a combination of ego, joy and a desire to share that joy with others.

To do this book I spent numerous hours in research even though I had played the Black for 30+ years before writing it. The one thing that I got out of the research that I tried most of all to share in the book was that as much as I "knew" about Bethpage Black, I really didn't. As much as I loved the idea that this was my course as a member of the golfing public in New York, I hadn't earned the privilege of being an owner as I didn't know it. I discovered how little the general public knew about it and how, in the end, it didn't matter.

What really matters is what the game means to you as a person and how close you can stay to the purity of that meaning. Is it something you do for fun? Then never walk off the course mad. Is it as much study of what was built and why? Then recognize that you are their for that purpose as well and try to walk off the course with an better understanding of it than when you teed off on one.

If the history of the game is a passion of yours (as it now is of mine), read as much as you can with an open mind and an inquisitive one.

The greatest privilege that I've personally ever experienced in the game of golf occurred this past June at the Open. I was fortunate beyond my dreams to be given media access, the only person NOT affiliated with any media coincern (print, radio or TV). There were only 2 people present (to my knowledge) who had access and were working on books about the Open, John Feinstein & myself.

For me the privilege that was so great was walking the course for 12 days from the Thursday before when the USGA concession tent was open to the Monday afterwards. I had the pleasure to interview over 1,200 people from every corner of the world as to why they were there and what did this Open at Bethpage mean to them.

The answers were touching. I would like to share one with you that i feel explains why we all need to appreciate the "why" of why we play the game.

On Sunday, fathers day, about 10 in the morning, I came across a very old gentleman sitting on his own on a bench in front of the scoreboards by the 1st hole of the Blue course. After asking himwhy he had come, he explained to me that he was 97 years old and that when he had come home the day before (he maintaions his own apartment in an elderly community), there was a note stuck in his door. Inside was a fathers day card & a ticket for the Open. It said "Dad, what better way to enjoy tomorrow than at the Black at the Open you always wanted to see. Love (your son)"

He called his 72 year old son up to thank him & was surprised to hear that he had found a similar one on the windshield of his car with the same message only this one signed by his son.
This 45 year old son (when called by his father) related that they didn't have him to thank since he had found a similar card in his front door that aftrenoon as weel.

It turns out that his 18 year old son had gotten all of the tickets and surprised them all with them. He did this because he had listened to them talk for several years about the Black & the reverence they all felt for the course. What a day they had this Son, father, grandfather & great-grandfather enjoying this day together.

Now, why do you play this game, and why do you love it?

[TEPaul]

Rich:

What you said in your last post about "art" and golf architecture is so interesting although we have been over this before on here!

You certainly are consistent in saying again that you struggle with considering golf architecture to be art simply BECAUSE it is something that involves "subsequent use"!

I do know what you mean by that, for sure, but let me ask you to now really open your mind to this and explain to me exactly why something that involves "subsequent use" like golf architecture that is clearly there to be playing on actively although originally involving an "artistic creation" should be considered less than art or not art?

What difference does that (subsequent use) really make in the context of the creation of a golf course and the fact it could be considered art due to its uniqueness or significance?

Everything changes evolutionarily Rich, to some degree or another and why would a larger degree of natural or evolutionary change (through it's subsequent use) disqualify it as art? One might even say that the factor of "subsequent use" (and that interesting evolution) might even make golf architecture one of the most interesting "art forms" of all!

Much of what we say on these recent threads, though, involves so much more than the evolutionary changes all golf courses go through. Some evolutionary changes are good, some are bad, the bad changes being the primary reasons for restoration, not much different than a painting that might need to be cleaned or restored from some kind of unintended damage.

But other than that why do they need to undergo wholesale change other than the destructive evolutionary aspect of it?

We know they do change because people want to change them for other reasons, mostly not good reasons!

And the reasons people generally want to change them is part of the contributing factors to the rationale for change that an analyst like Geoff Shackelford is now identifying! The explosion of the function of equipment that is really not necessary and is certainly not particularly economical to golfers and clubs and courses!

Allthough Geoff Shackelford has sort of been my original mentor in golf architecture I've sometimes resisted some of what he's said about classic architecture and the need to preserve it! I think he's one of the most talented guys anywhere in truly understanding not just the architecture in golf but also very much the true importance of the fascinating EVOLUTION of it all!

That EVOLUTION in the ART of ARCHITECTURE and understanding it is the very thing that DOES need to be preserved. Certainly not all of it or even a large part of it! Doak says the same thing and I couldn't agree more--most architecture just isn't worthy of restoration or preservation because it frankly isn't very interesting and certainly not significant but some certainly is! Some most definitely IS worthy of preservation!

Certainly some like NGLA! The only reason it's not completely obvious to some to preserve it is the great onrush of advancement in technology in golfers' general thinking like par, GIR, handicapping, difficulty, whatever!

But GeoffShac's point is some of this architecture is so significant in the evolution of golf architecture it should be preserved even as a museum piece! If that's not done it will lose what it actually is in the evolution of architecture and made to be like and look somewhat like that which followed well after it's creation! Just like painting art, there must be a need to preserve the evolution of it, and some of the best of it, the most significant pieces of it should be preserved-have to be really or they will be gone forever and we will lose what the fascinating evolution was!

NGLA is far too significant in the evolution of architecture not to be preserved. What it represents in the evolution of American architecture is too significant to risk losing by changing it!

What the membership of NGLA has is something extremely interesting in art and architecture--it's very look and playability of a time--really the sole representation as the beginning of a significant era!

That, I think is why he asked if the membership really understood what they HAVE!

But you have a good point Rich about subsequent use! But more than just the subsequent use part, don't you think it's more of the subsequent perceptions involved in many of the ways golf is going (equipment and such) that contributes to the problems of "subsequent use" and the destructive influence of it on significant architecture?

I think to Geoff Shackelford, the architecture of NGLA because of what it represents and what it is is more important than the concern of par or GIR or whatever else is driving the desire to change the course And I now agree!

I even saw something yesterday in Marion, Mass that was truly fascinating! The very first architectural effort of George Thomas, possibly the most naturally creative architectural mind ever. It was a little, extremely quirky, extremely rudimentary nine hole course that looked as much like a steeplechase course as anything else! Two or more of the holes had stone wall no more than 10-12 yards in front of the greens with an opening like a gateless gate for the golfers to walk through!

Can you imagine ever changing that course at this point? I can't! It would totally ruin it and make it completely worthless and meaningless in today's world of hi-tech golf! If I had to play that course with a 7 iron and putter only I'd much rather do that than see it changed and ruined and made worthless because someone tried to make it something it could never be! Why can't golfers sometimes enjoy stripping away the decades and truly stepping back into another time and era! It's truly fascinating?

It is so fascinating for exactly what it is that has never changed, the first work of one of the most creative architects ever. It would probably be like finding Picasso's first artistic expressions at five years old!

It's too valuable to change now despite the "use" or "subsequent use" part of it that you correctly cite!

I know you probably agree with none of this but does it have even some slight meaning to you? That's about all I ask really although most would never agree, I'm sure!

I'm just thankful I've seen and played some of this evolutionary architectural representation as it once was before it's gone forever!

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Rich,

The architects whose relevance you are questioning designed courses, and those courses are still played to this day. Even revered by some who play them. Even criticized by some who go on to try to mimic their styles (Tom Fazio). Either way, their work has endured.

So shouldn't it be the other way around, shouldn't you explain why they are irrelevant? After all, these architects put themselves out front by writing and creating courses. They exposed themselves to critics and golfers by designing and writing. They left something behind that is still enjoyed. They took chances and backed up their ideas. Their designs and their views have lasted despite an onslaught of egotism, difficult economic times and changes in the game. Their legacies endure because people love playing golf on their courses. I'd say that makes them pretty relevant.

So are they irrelevant simply because you think so? Seems to keep coming back to the same thing, which I can understand.
Geoff

[Dan Kelly]

Geoff --

Where did Rich say they were "irrelevant"? Would you mind quoting that passage?

Seems to me that Rich said -- and, oh, what the hell, I'll quote him saying it: "I think that restoring GCA on a certain piece of land just because some icon once had a different idea as to what to do with that land than people who came later is not, in itself, a wise decision.  What is of paramount importance, to me at least, is how the architecture plays.  Not just how it looks.  Not how 'faithful' it is to the designer's intent, whatever that means.  Not what others may have thought of it many years ago.  Those things are interesting, but secondary. I think that is all I am trying to say."

I'm not a legal scholar, nor do I play one on TV, but it seems to me: What we have here is analogous to various debates about the U.S. Constitution. (Almost said "... a failure to commun'cate" -- which would certainly be apt.)

Some of you are strict constructionists, believing that the specific views of the Founding Fathers must be deferred to at every turn.

Others have a more flexible, evolutionary view of the document.

And never the twain shall meet.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Geoff

Please re-read what I said, and if you can understand it the second time, please tell me to what degree Hunter, Behr et. al. are relevant to you and/or GCA, if you wish to do so.  I didn't say they were "irrelevant," I just asked people like you to educate me as to why they were.

I'm just trying to learn something.  Are you?

Rich

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Rich,
You questioned their relevance, which sure seems like stating that they are irrelevant. My apologies if there is a difference there that I misunderstood, but I don't think based on this and many of your past posts (sadly, so many have been deleted into cyberspace by David ), that there is a misunderstanding:

"I'd like to hear from others why they think (or do not think) that Hunter, Behr, McKenzie, McDonald, etc. have relevance in this century."

Again, their work is out there to play, read and study, and it is played, read, and studied daily. If you don't see it's relevance based on that alone, then why is it our job to help you understand something you could look into on your own time by playing the courses, reading the words, respecting the thoughts these architects put out presumably for people to absorb (assuming they are willing to take the time away from thinking about themselves).  Many people do, many have little trouble grasping the relevance of the architects you liste and many people's lives have been enhanced by the work of these architects. Perhaps because they've taken the time to give the information that consideration. Why is it you feel you are entitled to have it explained to you here, in lieu of taking advantage of what's already out there to study?

Geoff