Agree or disagree with Jeff Brauer's bold statement

[Bill Warnick]

Just for the sake of argument, would it be easier to observe the difference between GCA's on a good site or on a difficult site? It seems that I have played golf on some courses with excellent land that left me wishing for more at the end of the round.

On a similar line, is it harder for an architect (more pressure) to  to design on an excellent piece of land?

[Tom_Doak]

Bill:

An excellent piece of property is not pressure -- it's an opportunity.  Any architect that doesn't see it as such should find a new line of work!

[paul cowley]

Bill.....its much more difficult for an architect to be successful on a poor piece of land than on an excellent one.

[Doug Siebert]

Jeff:

I just thought of another take on this topic.

With 20 years' experience, I think I am significantly better at building golf courses than I was when I started.  Not so much more creative, as more practiced.

By extension your 10% theory means it is only possible for anyone to get 10% better over time.  Do you really think that's all we can improve?

Tom,

It sounds like you are saying that you haven't become any more creative since you started, just more practiced.  So would you say that you don't have any ideas now that wouldn't have occurred to you when you started, but you just better/quicker at eliminating the bad ideas than you used to be?

I think it is silly to try to assign percentages to stuff where percentages obviously don't apply.  It is an abuse of mathematics.  You might as well try to use math to determine whether the Enterprise could beat the Millenium Falcon in a space battle or whether Superman is faster than The Flash.

[TEPaul]

I think Doak is right that alot depends on how you define differnce but generally I would never agree with Jeff's statement.

A good example would be give a piece of land to two separate architects and ask them to route it without being aware of what the other is doing.

You cannot believe how different what they will each come up with can be. I actually saw this excercise happen.

Frankly, you could give two separate architects the same stick routing and ask them to design a course on it and you can't believe how different they might turn out.

But if the criteria was something like tees, fairways, greens, bunkers and such obviously the difference would be virtually nil.  

[Mike_Young]

Bill.....its much more difficult for an architect to be successful on a poor piece of land than on an excellent one.

Paul,
It is according to what the advertising/marketing budget is.....we all see it happen everyday.....

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:  Huh

Doug S:  Perhaps my career is a bit different, because I had already seen 90% of all those great courses I've seen (which are the source of much inspiration) before I had designed a course on my own.  In fact, they were much fresher in my mind 15 years ago than they are today, so I may be less "creative" today, if creativity is defined as finding the perfect idea to fit into a new situation.

If creativity is defined as original thought, then I'm probably in about the same place I always was.  But it's certainly possible for architects to move backwards over time on that front ... many start repeating themselves as they get busier.

The main source of improvement for my firm over 20 years is that I have acquired more talented associates in that period, and I now benefit from their ideas and their shaping talents as well as my own.  That will continue as long as I don't take my own input out of the equation.

[Mike_Young]

Mike:  Huh

TD,
I'm just being grumpy this morning...but you have seen some of this "signature" stuff built on bad land and mediocre at best but ends up being "Best New Private" all because of AD/marketing budget.....
Do you not agree?

[TEPaul]

"TD,
I'm just being grumpy this morning..."

Then for Christ's Sake get off your ass and go to a Waffle House have breakfast and you'll be fine!

[Mike_Young]

"TD,
I'm just being grumpy this morning..."

Then for Christ's Sake get off your ass and go to a Waffle House have breakfast and you'll be fine!

Tom,

It's Memorial Day..we stay home, polish the wheels on our houses,  play golf and bar b que pulled pork....i just had watermelon for breakfast....plus JK is in town and I am trying to get him to leave Stone Mountain b4 they shoot him.....they can't understand a word he says....
Check you IM

[John Kirk]

I agree with Doug Siebert that mathematical percentages fail here.

I tend to relate performance with those subjects I've followed carefully over the years.

In baseball, Bill James, the famous statistics guru, found that players tend to peak around age 27, the perfect combination of youthful vigor and mental experience.  The same holds for basketball, golf, or other athletics.  There's a peak period at a fairly young age.  I miss that sweet spot when I was about 30-35, when I could still run, and "see" what was happening on the basketball court so well.

I know a fair amount about popular music, and often I feel an artist's first major album release is their best.  By the time they enter a major studio the first time, they are fully formed, with their most creative songs.  Chicago and Santana are two examples.  It's rare for a group to push forward and be more creative and interesting from that point, like the Beatles.  Also, in that type of music, there is often a sexual attraction element, where Elvis or the Beatles are just so darn cute when they're young.

Golf architecture doesn't seem to follow by the same rules.  I conclude that experience trumps creativity, as very few great courses are the first effort by that architect, although a few exist, like Pine Valley and Oakmont.

Most importantly, it seems great courses happen when great time and effort are expended.  I can't speak about how great course routing skills are acquired, but it must be experience, plus some innate visual skill to "see" the best solution.  I imagine that skill diminishes with time, but only as the architect tires of the exercise.

So, after this long ramble, I think it's mostly hard work and attention to detail that results in great golf courses.  In course routing, an innate skill at spatial orientation probably gives one architect an advantage over another.

One more example.  Jazz, of course, is different than pop music.  One of the most amazing things I've ever seen/heard was listening to Stephane Grappelli, the jazz violinist, when he in his 70s.  All those songs and all that experience.  He practiced and continued to tour, and when I saw him, he was so nimble and so full of musical ideas.  Phenomenal.

Off to the golf course again.  Back in a few hours.

[Jeff_Brauer]

John,


Well thought out response.

From others, I gather the consensus is that the land and then the routing give a course the biggest potential to stand out as truly unique, in that order.  My analysis was both in fun, and directed at the details of design, like sizes, shapes, etc. where we are, in my still humble opinion, more alike than different.

That said, I do understand that a small percentage (learned to leave out mathmatical estimates) can translate into a big difference in individual human perception, which actually, was kind of my original point.