Great Courses vs. Great Architecture...

[Phil_the_Author]

I came across this quote by Ben Wright while perusing an older magazine:

"To me, the greatest courses are the ones without any cart paths at all. Those are found mostly in the British Isles, and not coincidentally, they're among the best examples of great architecture..."

Aren't ALL great courses, and many very good ones, the product of great architecture? Aren't the two irrevocably joined as one?

Can one think of a great course that isn't great architecture and might even be less than good?

[Tom Huckaby]

Phillip:

I really think it depends on how you look at this, and how you define "architecture."  I've always separated assessments of architecture from assessments of golf courses, for simple, logical reasons (which very few here seem to buy, btw).  I won't repeat them as I've stated this ad nauseam.

But an example is this:  there's a course near me that has among the best damn "architecture" I have ever seen.  It's an absolute wonder the architect was able to find and design a course on the site on which it sits.  Each time I see the place I marvel at his genius.

The course also SUCKS and those caps are intended.  The site is simply not suited for golf, and the result is an incredibly over-severe golf course.  It's called The Ranch at Silver Creek.  San Jose, CA.

Now I doubt this is what Ben Wright meant.  But to me this is illustrative of how "architecture" does not mean the same thing as "golf course."

TH

[Mark Bourgeois]

Hey is that the course with the 16th CPC replica hole? If so, it can't be that bad...

[Kalen Braley]

Hey is that the course with the 16th CPC replica hole? If so, it can't be that bad...

I think you are thinking of a different course, Delta View in Pittsburg has the long par3 that was debated at great length a few months back...

[Tom Huckaby]

Hey is that the course with the 16th CPC replica hole? If so, it can't be that bad...

No sir.  Not sure how they'd replicate the ocean on the side of a mountain.  But to their "credit", they did try to replicate the standard cape/lake on the side finisher one sees so often on Pete Dye courses...

[Matthew Hunt]

CPC looks to me to be MacK's best course but ANGC or Alwoody looks to be better Architecture wise as at their sites are good but no great. What do think?

[Tom_Doak]

Matthew:

I think the distinction is arbitrary and irrelevant.

It's like trying to determine "the best pound-for-pound fighter" in boxing, or "the fastest man in the world for his body type".  You can only compare courses head to head.  No one but the architect really understands all of the nuances and limitations of the site enough to judge the architecture beyond that.

Architecture responds to a site, so you really can't take the site out of the equation in determining the best architecture.

[Peter Pallotta]

"Architecture responds to a site, so you really can't take the site out of the equation in determining the best architecture."

You know Tom, sometimes you (and some of the other architects) write things like this that make me want to simply fall silent and say no more....

Maybe that's part of your secret master plan

Peter  

[Matthew Hunt]

Matthew:

I think the distinction is arbitrary and irrelevant.

It's like trying to determine "the best pound-for-pound fighter" in boxing, or "the fastest man in the world for his body type".  You can only compare courses head to head.  No one but the architect really understands all of the nuances and limitations of the site enough to judge the architecture beyond that.

Architecture responds to a site, so you really can't take the site out of the equation in determining the best architecture.

I take you point but would choose to work with a featureless, rocky field or a sight like Cypress?

I think a great GCA with a bad site and an average budget would struggle to beat a good GCA with a great site.

[Tom_Doak]

Matthew:

Of course I agree with you, that's why everybody wants the good sites.

I just don't think you can compare the "work" we've done with two different sites.  You can compare the golf courses, and sometimes it's not a fair comparison because one had a great head start.  

For example, Stone Eagle was rocky and steep and dramatic ... but lots of people have complained about it here because the short 4's are too similar or it's tough to walk or it's very difficult.  But really, it's a miracle there is a golf course on that site at all, and I think my associate on that job (Eric Iverson) did as good a job of fitting in the holes and hiding the cart paths and building beautiful features as anyone could do.

Or take The Rawls Course.  Lots of people here have praised it because we started out with nothing and made it interesting ... and a couple have even said it's better "work" than Pacific Dunes because we had to do so much.  But we didn't have to fight to make it playable because it wasn't as steep as Stone Eagle; and we didn't have to work to preserve a bunch of natural contours like we did at Pacific Dunes.  So why is that better?

You can compare the three courses, but I don't know how you can compare the architecture independently of the sites.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom Doak:

Can I get an amen?  You just put in a nutshell a point I've been trying to get people to understand for years on this site.  Architecture and golf courses are indeed two different things, and it's patently silly to try and assess the architecture without getting into what the site allowed (or didn't allow)... and so few ever consider that.  It really is two totally different assessments.

For example, regarding Stone Eagle, well...  my comments way back when were debated seemingly ad nauseam, and although I meant them as a minor complaint, I tried to make it very clear that such comments notwithstanding, the architectural work to derive a golf course at all from that mountainside was indeed genius.  I guess that's faint praise given I said the same thing about a course I patently hate right in this thread - THE RANCH - but Stone Eagle far far far from sucks - it's a damn fine golf course, even with the one minor complaint I had.  But one thing that's crystal clear is that the architecture is fantastic.  I can't believe you all managed to create what you did there.

And that's the key to this whole thing.  Assessments of architecture and assessments of golf courses are two very very different things.  It's still weird to me how few in this forum seem to get that... or to put it better, how many want to focus on what they think is "architecture" when they're really not talking about that at all.

TH

[Kalen Braley]

Huck,

Nice try, but you're still not invited to his end of the year christmas party..  

Referring to the last two posts on this thread, I guess I had never thought of those two things in exactly that matter.  It is silly to do a real comparison between something like Pac Dunes or the Rawls course, two entirely different animals with massively different inputs and outputs.

This kind of made me think of the Lord of the Rings quote where Frodo says: "I wish it need not have happened in my time".  And Gandalf responds with:

"So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

I liken that to every GCA who has to decide what has been given them to work with, and how they will use thier opportunties.

[Tom Huckaby]

Kalen:

Damn.  I'm trying so hard too.  

But yes, these guys in this business do simply deal with what they are given, and some are given better sites than others.  I would concur that an assessment of what they do needs to take this into consideration.

But here's the other part... and this may or may not garner me any invites... I also find it pretty silly for us amateurs to even try to assess.  We have no clue what obstacles are really faced... what work really has to be done, regulatory other otherwise... what choices are made, or forced upon them...  what the site did or didn't allow....and thus to make an assessment of the "architecture" of a golf course without this knowledge just seems to me to be very, very silly.

It may be a matter of semantics, but it's misused so often in here, I think it goes beyond that.

Us normal joes who play the game CAN and SHOULD assess "golf courses.  We can say what we liked and didn't like about them - that would be all in the playing of the game on them, and what we feel and see as we do so.

But to take it further and criticize the "architecture", well... that's going too far.  Those in the business, those with knowledge of all that was involved in a course's creation - THEY have the proper tools and knowledge to make such an assessment.

And I say ONLY they do.

So you won't find me assessing architecture.  Golf courses, yes.  Architecture, hell no.

But, to each his own.  

TH

[Kalen Braley]

Huck.

SHHHHHHH already...you've put your honorary member status into the GCA hall of fame in serious jeporady now!!!  

Just to add one little tidbit to your last post, which I agree with by the way, while reading "The Making of Bandon" it was interesting to hear how Mr. Keiser had always wanted to try his hand at actually doing it.  And then when he did, he essentially came to the realization that it was a lot tougher than it looked.

I've also thought for years about one day building my own course, and for proof you can ask my wife.  Anytime we go on a trip now she has to give the pre-departure speech about how I'm not to mention which chunk of land would be a good spot for a golf course. Of course my Mom being the realist and understanding my limits perfectly always says, "why don't you just build a putt-putt course"  

[Tom Huckaby]

Hey, it's OK to dream - I'd guess damn near all of us amateurs in here do so.

Where it gets odd is when one starts to believe his dreams have basis in reality.

TH

ps - my HOF candidacy has been down the tubes for years.  Or maybe not... read the verbiage on the home page for this site... Ran seems to get this.