Double standards, an old BIAS returns

[Patrick_Mucci]

When ATLANTIC was being discussed in depth and in heated fashion about a year or so ago, many brought up the routing, specifically the two crossovers as a sign of inferiority and a failing of the architect Rees Jones.

But, yesterday, a funny thing happened as I walked from the
2nd green to the 3rd tee, the 5th green to the 6th tee and the 13th green to the 14th tee at MERION....... CROSSOVERS
With the walk from 13 green to 14 tee being considerable.
When I pointed this out to one of the fellows I was with, we began discussing LEHIGH and the crossover from # 1 green to
# 2 tee.

Now MERION and LEHIGH are terrific golf courses, yet they have substantive and numerous crossovers, and NEVER have I heard one complaint about either course in the context of crossovers, their routings or the architect.

So, ATLANTIC gets bashed for crossovers and routing while MERION and LEHIGH get praised without so much as a mention of the same features.

BIAS    

[Robert "Cliff" Stanfield]

Only reply to that.... Atlantic's crossover distances versus Merion....have not seen Lehigh.   Merion is an easier walk.  

IMHO-With the idea of the amount of space given for Atlantic and the future piece of land purchased before construction....I think the routing could have solved the crossover issue.

Also since the actual golf Atlantic Golf course is super manufactured it doesnt have the arguement that Merion has....Merion has crossovers due to the fact the land dictated it for the best design.  

[Tim Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

Regarding Merion, I just don't see the first two examples you cite as much of a "crossover". Yes, technically they are.  But, the distances are so short that I can't imagine anyone minding. True, it would be nice if the distance between #13 to #14 were shorter, but it is hrd to imagine a perfect routing on that rather cramped property, at least not one that uses the natural features of the property better.

As for Atlantic, it has been eight years since I've played it and whatever "crossovers" exist they don't stand out as much as the mounding issue.  The latter strikes me as a more memorable feature of the course.

[redanman]

n.b.

Lehigh also has a crossover at #10-11 and #14 to #16.  Long walk from six to seven in addition to the above mentioned

Crossovers at Merion as discussed

Crossovers at Atlantic with the final routing as it now exists (A definite improvement)

All of the above are quite reasonable.

Patrick, I absolotely agree with you that this criticism of The Atlantic is now fallacious (And you'll probably agree that earlier experiments at routing were less successful).  I think we'll see a renewed inerest in the Atlantic come March, 2003 or so.

[Patrick_Mucci]

RC Stanfield,

What environmental restrictions dictated design and routing at MERION ??

Are you aware of the substantive environmental restrictions at ATLANTIC  ??

Do you count unuseable land as part of the parcel at Atlantic?

[Robert "Cliff" Stanfield]

Pat- Never stated environmental restrictions...so settle down tiger.

The point I did mean is that Merion, being an older club, was designed by using the land without heavy earth cuts and fill.

Atlantic on the other hand is as fake as you can get next to Kingsbarns.  The land used to be farm land and I was made aware of the enviromental constraints during my visit with the club and my tour.  Additonal land was purchased during construction to help during the routing near the pump house and irrigation pond.  From what I was told.  The land you speak of after construction is near the clubhouse and dogleg par 4 and par 3. next to practice faciltiy.  They want to buy that land for housing protection.

IMHO to compare the crossovers of Merion with that of a modern man made routing is poor.  For instance with todays budgets, education of building a golf course and quality of machinery there is no room to justify Atlantic by using Merion as an example.

Atlantic is a lush green piece of pushed up dirt....IMHO Merion is a golf course that works with the land, in my eyes, in which the designer took the time to design a golf course out of passion, not for reputation or to outdo family or to say look at what I can do with alot of money.

As stated by an earlier poster does it really matter if Atlantic has crossovers because there are other things that limit that golf course from even being a "good" in the shadow of Merion.

[Patrick_Mucci]

RC,

It doesn't matter what the reason is for the crossovers, you can't bash one course and praise the other for identical features, it's either a flaw in the design for both, or neither.

With today's environmental constraints, it's possible that some holes at Merion couldn't be built.  As I understand it, there is an ongoing problem with water flow and drainage on the 11th hole.  If they had to build it today, I doubt it could be done.  Perhaps other holes would be altered or erased as well.

You can't equate the land at Merion with the land at Atlantic.
Did Merion have deep, environmentally protected scuttle holes right in the middle of the golf course ?  Was Merion allowed to bring greens right up to water ways ?  Was Atlantic prohibited from doing the same thing ?  

Merion had unrestricted use of the entire property.
Atlantic had severe restrictions on a piece of property nowhere near as ideal for a golf course.

The issue is CROSSOVERS, and one has to be consistent in their evaluation of them, otherwise, it smacks of BIAS.

Not unlike the groups 180 degree turn on waterfalls.
For FAZIO they're terrible, for DOAK they're acceptable.
That sounds like a double standard or BIAS.

But, that's just my opinion.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

On the issue of waterfalls, my position has remained constant.  They stink for Fazio, for Ted Robinson, and for Tom Doak.  They are clutter, and should be as much a part of golf course architecture as flower beds.  No bias here.

Having not played Atlantic, I won't comment on the crossover features there.  At Merion, however, somehow they are part of the charm.  

[George Pazin]

Bias is in the eye of the beholder.

Some people read any criticism of certain architects on this site and immediately charge bias and/or bashing. Others read threads about certain architects and draw the conclusion that the courses in question are indeed very good golf courses, well above average, but perhaps not as good as the site might merit or perhaps not as good as another architect might have done.

Some people read threads and draw the conclusion that the defenders of the darlings and critics of the dreads usually cite specific examples about what they love and/or hate, while others simply read positive comments on the darlings and/or criticism of the dreads as bias and offer little or no specific discussion.

Having only played Lehigh, of the above courses mentioned, I would simply say that if the crossovers at Atlantic are similar in nature to the crossovers at Lehigh, then they really aren't an issue in and of themselves. Lehigh is a wonderful routing.

Forgot to address the waterfalls -

Anyone that read that thread and concluded that the group approves of Tom D building a waterfall may be biased himself. At best, I think the only true inference from that thread is that the owner is paying the bills & has the ultimate say. Some felt Tom D should walk away, others felt he should grin & bear it. I don't recall a single person stating that waterfalls were okay for Tom D & bad for Fazio - that's simply an erroneous inference.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Pazin,

I guess it's a matter of revisionist history.

FAZIO was clearly bashed for waterfalls,
DOAK and HANSE were given a pass.

That's BIAS

With respect to the crossover from # 13 to # 14 at MERION, it's far greater than any of those at ATLANTIC, cutting right across the 1st hole.

I'm told that the original 13th green was even further down, across from the grass island by the front entrance, whereby the crossover could take place through or around the club house.

One can't take one course and architect to TASK, and give the other a PASS for the same feature, that's BIAS.

[George Pazin]

Interesting.

When I say I don't recall anyone bashing Fazio over waterfalls while giving Doak & Hanse a free pass, it's revisionist history. When you say Fazio was bashed for waterfalls & Doak & Hanse were given passes, it's fact.

Who's biased here?

It's all in the eye of the beholder.

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Pazin,

It's not in the eye of the beholder, it's in the posts of the participants.

Anything else is revisionist history.

[Robert "Cliff" Stanfield]

The basis of my argument is really not about the architects name or his history of design.  I am just looking at it from a historical point and if ythe course works.

They both work...my argument is that its easier to understand the past and the reasons why an architect would use crossovers etc.

As for an Atlantic or any new course I find it difficult in my eyes to justify a crossover.  Is that biased....hmmm...I guess that is, since I just feel that with the tools given to the architect to layout a golf course...there should not be unsensible crossovers and or extremely long distances between green and tee.  Architects have the luxuries that too often were not available to the early architects, topos, time, cadd(revise routings with).

And yes I guess its in the eyes of the beholder.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

RC,

You seem to dismiss environmental restrictions as if they are non existant, can be swept away, or don't effect the design and/or routing of a golf course.

Today, they are a material factor, if not THE FACTOR.

To disavow their influence is...... BIAS

IN 1912, THEY DIDN'T EXIST.

[George Pazin]

It is indeed in the posts of the participants, I certainly agree with you there.

All of the interesting discussion on this site - and there is tons of it - is opinion. The only factual content we have is in the nature of "The first 4 holes at Inniscrone are par 4s" or boring statements such as that. Pretty much by definition, opinions are going to have some sort of bias to them. Perhaps everyone should focus on addressing the content of posts, such as how the crossovers at Merion, Lehigh & Atlantic are similar or different, rather than focusing on the comparative treatment of various architects on this site.

Maybe we could set up a mirror site that includes everyone's posts, as well as your opinion & mine as to the content of their posts. Then Tom Paul & Rich Goodale could start a mirror mirror site where Tom explains why you're wrong & Rich explains why I'm wrong. Or maybe we could just set aside all the bias & bashing discussion & try to fulfill the goal of the site, which, as I understand it, is to discuss golf course architecture.

Thus endeth my semi annual rant on bias & bashing. See you in 6 months.

[Tim Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I would not assume "bias" when it comes to Fazio vs Doak or Hanse when it comes to waterfalls.

Many people don't like waterfalls regardless of who serves as architect. They are viewed as an unnecessary expenditure that contributes little to the course architecture. The game is already too expensive here in America. Such things aren't needed.

But, if a client absolutely insists I would not fault any architect for making the best of the situation.

Certain architects, however, have developed a reputation for pushing such features, e.g., Ted Robinson. I don't know for a fact who's idea the famous example at Tustin Ranch was, but while living out there Ted was always credited with the idea. Perhaps Tommy N can address that point.

Personally, I wouldn't associate Fazio with waterfalls, but he has positioned himself as the man with lots of high dollar projects. We know that a Steve Wynn was really the man - and the money - behind Shadow Creek. Okay. But, why hasn't Fazio done something like Pacific Dunes. Why hasn't he built something truly special with a very limited budget?

What's wrong with admiring the men behind great courses built at relatively small expense? Does placing a high value on that kind of achievement really mean bias?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

Let's not forget that these fellows, these talented architects have families, and are trying to make a living, trying to make a good deal of money today, and into the future.

Perhaps, architects today are like physicians, with sub-specialties.  Certain projects seem to attract certain architects.  I doubt Steve Wynn wanted minimalism.

When I played Merion, I was struck by the walk from # 13 green to # 14 tee, and remembered all of the criticism Rees took for doing a lot less.

It was a recollection, observation and desire to stir the pot.

[Tim Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I never forget architects have families. I also never forget the people playing their courses do so as well.

[RC_Stanfield (Guest)]

Pat-
I am fine with understanding that there were env. constraints.  If you reread my last post...my point is that in todays design with all the resources to design with etc...a good design can be found without the catchings of crossovers etc.

So get off the bias thing against Merion or even Atlantic.  I am stating that a golf course architect with any experience should be able to deal with the problems of today and develop without shortcomings.

If you want then call it Bias to Rees, or whomever else thats done recent large scale design with huge budgets and options.  Atlantic could have worked that issue out easily, all that needed to be done was to lose some yardage.  They spent a huge sum on that golf course to move alot of the enviroment...so I have no doubt that something as simple as a crossover could not be resolved.

Once again read the point I am making...its not about precise env. details of Atlantic or Merion not having any(?)...its about the fact that with the education of design(better than ever...ie:engineering etc)and constrution methods(better than ever) and with the high amounts of money spent on expert designers....the finished product with crossovers etc to me is not ideal.

Pat- I commend your point, I have enjoyed the debate, that they both have crossovers...its just that they are 2 different extremes/conditions.  I guess that can be seen as a Bias point, sobeit.

RC,

You seem to dismiss environmental restrictions as if they are non existant, can be swept away, or don't effect the design and/or routing of a golf course.

Today, they are a material factor, if not THE FACTOR.

To disavow their influence is...... BIAS

IN 1912, THEY DIDN'T EXIST.

[A_Clay_Man]

Should a doctor Not have his license revoked for leaving a scaple inside your body cavity, just because he needs to feed his family or pay his staff?

Incompetence should'nt be justified for gross domestic product concerns.

Besides, As I recall the AAC bashing. It had more to do with the mundane cookie cutter shallow white sand bunkering than crossovers.

[Andy Hodson]

Pat

I couldn't agree with you more. There is a definite bias toward all things from the golden era of architecture. Old is good, new is bad, in general; even when it comes to the same features. Now I haven't played Merion, or Lehigh, or Atlantic, but that is not the point. If crossovers are "bad" today they must be "bad" yesterday, no matter the architect or reputation of the course.

I touched on this in a thread from a couple of months ago and the horseshoe feature of a particular greensite from yonderyear. It was considered quaint and quirky and the thought was it should be tried again on a modern course. My thought was, no matter when the course was built or who did it, the horseshoe (with pic) looked like the dumbest thing I could ever imagine finding in a green and that there was a damn good reason it isn't found in today's courses.

Because I guarantee if Fazio or Rees put one in today, he would be ridiculed.

[Tim Weiman]

Hod:

I'm surprised anyone would suggest there is a bias toward golden age architecture. There are a couple writers and architects out there focused on this work, but overall the industry seems to be going in the opposite direction.

Do you see industry leaders such as Tom Fazio, Jack Nicklaus, Rees Jones, Pete Dye, etc., as biased toward golden age architecture? Isn't someone like Fazio clearly on record suggesting modern architecture is better than the so called golden age?

[Andy Hodson]

Tim

the bias referred to is in here (GCA), not out there in the field.

[Tim Weiman]

Hod:

The origins of this site go back to like minded people forming a discussion group, specifically people who enjoy classic era architecture. Participants included hard core golf architecture junkies, the kind of people who were apt to go out of their way to visit and appreciate the classic courses.

But, that was several years ago. Today, GCA probably has as many, if not more, people who prefer the modern stuff as those who prefer the classics. And, we probably have a smaller percentage who could answer a question like:

"What do you think of Simpson's comments on "Attack and Defense?"

I'm skeptical about the charge of "bias". I acquired my taste for classic architecture by going out and sampling both the classics and the modern stuff. At some point, you develop a preference. But, having a preference doesn't automatically make a person biased, does it?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Here! Here!