News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Steve Burrows

  • Karma: +0/-0
Golf Design Criticism
« on: May 23, 2007, 04:21:06 PM »
In his "Preface to Shakespeare," 18th century English writer and literary critic Samuel Johnson wrote:

"The great contention of criticism is to find the faults of the moderns, and the beauties of the ancients.  While an author is yet living we estimate his powers by his worst performance, and when he id dead we rate them by his best."

Obviously, there are some moderns who are getting their due in their own lifetime, but how guilty of this notion are golf critics?  I would think quite so (Fazio being the first to come to mind, since we have no idea how his work might be seen in a century).  How guilty is this very forum?  

 

 
...to admit my mistakes most frankly, or to say simply what I believe to be necessary for the defense of what I have written, without introducing the explanation of any new matter so as to avoid engaging myself in endless discussion from one topic to another.     
               -Rene Descartes

Steve Burrows

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golf Design Criticism
« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2007, 04:21:40 PM »
Johnson also wrote:

"Nothing can please many, and please long, but just representations of general nature."

and,

"Shakespeare is above all writers, at least above all modern writers, the poet of nature; the poet that holds up to his readers a faithful mirror of manners and of life."

Is there one out there, past or present, who serves as the Shakespeare of golf design?  Who provides the best mix of comedy and tragedy?  Most designers say they try to, or at least pretend to, imitate nature.  Who has done it the best?
...to admit my mistakes most frankly, or to say simply what I believe to be necessary for the defense of what I have written, without introducing the explanation of any new matter so as to avoid engaging myself in endless discussion from one topic to another.     
               -Rene Descartes

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Golf Design Criticism
« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2007, 05:11:10 PM »
Steve:

I think Tom Simpson and Dr. MacKenzie were the best at imitating nature in their work.

Rich Goodale

Re:Golf Design Criticism
« Reply #3 on: May 24, 2007, 02:20:05 AM »
I can say with impunity that the rankings of courses built over the past 20 years (1987-2007) will be very different in 2057 than they are now, partly because I will probably be dead in 2057....

Tom

I find it jarring to see Simpson and Mackenzie compared to Shakespeare, particulalry in relation to Steve's quote.  The "nature" of which Johnson speaks is much more than 3-4 miles of open land studded with tees, greens and bunkers, and designed as a venue for simply a game.

Rich
« Last Edit: May 24, 2007, 07:17:34 AM by Richard Farnsworth Goodale »

Tony_Muldoon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golf Design Criticism
« Reply #4 on: May 24, 2007, 02:42:10 AM »
In his "Preface to Shakespeare," 18th century English writer and literary critic Samuel Johnson wrote:

"The great contention of criticism is to find the faults of the moderns, and the beauties of the ancients.  While an author is yet living we estimate his powers by his worst performance, and when he id dead we rate them by his best."

This is a great quote Steve and highly relevant here.

Sinatra and Louis Armstrong are just two of my favourite recording artists, I love to listen to them - but if you look closely they also issued a fair share of pedestrian work and one or two absolute howlers. I just chose not to own those records.
When you consider that many of the old courses have had some favourable ‘tweaks’ since they were built it’s easy to conclude we perhaps laud the too much.
Let's make GCA grate again!

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Golf Design Criticism
« Reply #5 on: May 24, 2007, 08:40:06 AM »
Rich:

I will yield to your expertise; I was reasonably good at a lot of things in school, but Shakespeare was never a strong point for me.

I take it, then, that your view would be that no golf course architect's work has the depth of Shakespeare.  Which I'm happy to agree with.  Perhaps Michelangelo fits this category as well?  Or was the Bard above marketing people but not those Italians?  :)

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back