Superior Architecture or Not?

[JC Jones]

I think I have discovered the problem which has made the discussion seem tedious - the use of the word "architecture."  When we think of architecture we think of buildings and there would not be much disagreement with a statement that building architecture which is very simple yet functional, can be very boring and uninteresting - please trust me on this as I work for the federal government and their buildings of the last 50 years are notoriously boring and uninteresting.

Now if instead we use the term "golf course design," I think Wayne's point is direct and obvious.  It takes far more work to design a golf course on a tough piece of property than one where the land lends itself easily to a golf course.

Yes, but more work does not necessarily mean better or superior.  Or, at least, it shouldnt, as that would create a bunch of people who would want to build more Shadow Creeks and fewer Sand Hills.

[Jerry Kluger]

The point is not that it is better but the quantity of design work needed on the tougher piece of property to arrive at a comparable result to the property which is receptive to a golf course.

[JC Jones]

The point is not that it is better but the quantity of design work needed on the tougher piece of property to arrive at a comparable result to the property which is receptive to a golf course.

Yes, but if one isnt saying that "the more design work the better," the fact that one course took more design work than the other becomes a non sequitur.

So, either it does or it doesnt.  If it doesnt, then what is the point of the "minimalist" movement in GCA?

[Ally Mcintosh]

The point is not that it is better but the quantity of design work needed on the tougher piece of property to arrive at a comparable result to the property which is receptive to a golf course.

Yes, but if one isnt saying that "the more design work the better," the fact that one course took more design work than the other becomes a non sequitur.

So, either it does or it doesnt.  If it doesnt, then what is the point of the "minimalist" movement in GCA?

seeing as no one wanted to take me up on my previous point, i'll try again... minimalism surely has nothing to do with the amount of design work that goes in to a project?... or for that matter the amount of earth that is moved during construction?... it has all to do with the feeling of the place on completion...

as for designing a course, i'm with wayne... if i could bring about comparable results from a flat arable field that i could from an undulating sandy dunescape, i'd call the former the greater achievement in architecture...

[JC Jones]

The point is not that it is better but the quantity of design work needed on the tougher piece of property to arrive at a comparable result to the property which is receptive to a golf course.

Yes, but if one isnt saying that "the more design work the better," the fact that one course took more design work than the other becomes a non sequitur.

So, either it does or it doesnt.  If it doesnt, then what is the point of the "minimalist" movement in GCA?

seeing as no one wanted to take me up on my previous point, i'll try again... minimalism surely has nothing to do with the amount of design work that goes in to a project?... or for that matter the amount of earth that is moved during construction?... it has all to do with the feeling of the place on completion...

Is this a consensus definition?  If so, I withdraw my previous query.

[Jerry Kluger]

No one said the more design work the better - they did say that more design work may be needed to create the best course for the property.  

My view of minimalism is minimizing the amount of change and earth moving where nothing more is needed to create an excellent golf course.  To me, and this may not be the view of others, it is not applicable where the property requires a substantial amount of earth moving, etc., in order to create the best possible course for the property.  Bayonne appears to be a wonderful course from everything I've seen but I would not define it as a minmalist design because it may look like a course with minimalist features had it been built in the sand hills of Nebraska.

[RJ_Daley]

Yes, most of you are zeroing in on it now, I think.

The designer, architect, and construction team that must do more work, but that work is done to the minimal amount, and the result is imperceptable to similar land and style where very little earthwork was done, is demonstrating superior architecture in that particular comparison.  Not superior playing strategy over all.  Not necessarily a higher "rated" course (and I hate to go to that rated concept).  But, a superior effort to utilize all the skills in the architects bag to make it look lightly tread upon, natural and very playable.

BTW, if you really want to make this more complex, then talk about the superior architect, and include the constructors.  Many architects use separate construction companies, i.e. Wadsworth, Landscapes, etc.  They are not part of the architects in-house team.  Design-build as a total package becomes a factor in superior efforts, IMHO.  And, I think that it almost always shows.  The outside construction contractor is a translator, and has their own chain of command for getting the work done.  The design/build team has one less step in the process, and becomes a more direct product of the lead designer/architect.  You are far more likely to get the actual conceiver of the idea on a machine getting it done as he wants it, than guide a plan from near (waving arms) or far, call-in from back at the office... or via change order after site visit.  none of these things are absolutes.  

But, in my mind at least, judging the superior architectural/design effort starts at the notion of the process, and ends with the imperceptable distinction of how heavy a hand was used to accomplish the desired results.  Minimalism as a do not disturb is a fleeting notion and a moving scale.

[Garland Bayley]

...
as for designing a course, i'm with wayne... if i could bring about comparable results from a flat arable field that i could from an undulating sandy dunescape, i'd call the former the greater achievement in architecture...

So here we are back to making the claim that Shadow Creek is the greatest achievement in architecture.  

 

You guys write all the words that equate to that claim and then disavow that is what you mean. Will you ever realize you can't get people to agree/understand, because you keep equating quantity with quality and they are not the same, nor is one derived from the other.

If you say you appreciate it more, because more work went into it, that is something people can understand. However, you can not legitimately claim it is better.

[RJ_Daley]

Garland, I'm trying to understand your point, but as I read it, you are not putting enough specific into your incorrect notion that many of us are saying more is better.   Please put your continuing Shadow Creek example in context.  You can not, by any measure of comparability speak of Shadow Creek in BallyNeal or Sand Hills terms.  

Would you give your assessment of whether more architectural skills were used between Shadow Creek and Chambers Bay, (architectural designs done by outside constructors where the design result was nothing like the begining property) or you pick your own comparable of like kind.  Then tell us what was superior architecture and why.

[JC Jones]

...
as for designing a course, i'm with wayne... if i could bring about comparable results from a flat arable field that i could from an undulating sandy dunescape, i'd call the former the greater achievement in architecture...

So here we are back to making the claim that Shadow Creek is the greatest achievement in architecture.  

 

You guys write all the words that equate to that claim and then disavow that is what you mean. Will you ever realize you can't get people to agree/understand, because you keep equating quantity with quality and they are not the same, nor is one derived from the other.

If you say you appreciate it more, because more work went into it, that is something people can understand. However, you can not legitimately claim it is better.

Precisely the reason for my confusion.  

I just cant wrap my arms around the idea that Shadow Creek, Whistling Straits and Bayonne are greater examples of "architecture" than say..... The Old Course.  Simply because they required more "work."

[Garland Bayley]

Although I have not played either Pine Valley or Sand Hills, my knowledge of them leads me to believe they are both fabulous golf courses on a nearly equal footing as far as quality is concerned. However, I love the work that Bill Coore did to walk the property for days and days to find the optimal set of holes. Compare this to how Crump was unable to do such a thing and had to get suggestions from outside sources on how to locate holes so the whole thing would work together. I love how Bill Coore was able to work to the point where he did not have to disturb the hand of God and consider it superior architecture.

There, hopefully that lets you get my point. I believe all of the above that I wrote, except I don't believe I can claim it is superior architecture just because I prefer it more. To paraphrase what I said in the last post, I can say I appreciate it more for that reason, but I cannot legitimately say it is superior architecture.

[RJ_Daley]

I'd say Bill Coore is just luckier to get a perfect piece of land and the job to site a golf course there...

[Garland Bayley]

I'd say Bill Coore is just luckier to get a perfect piece of land and the job to site a golf course there...

In what way wasn't Pine Valley a perfect piece of land? We know it was forested. If it had been clear cut would it not have revealed a piece of land that was just good as Sand Hills?

[JC Jones]

Although I have not played either Pine Valley or Sand Hills, my knowledge of them leads me to believe they are both fabulous golf courses on a nearly equal footing as far as quality is concerned. However, I love the work that Bill Coore did to walk the property for days and days to find the optimal set of holes. Compare this to how Crump was unable to do such a thing and had to get suggestions from outside sources on how to locate holes so the whole thing would work together. I love how Bill Coore was able to work to the point where he did not have to disturb the hand of God and consider it superior architecture.

There, hopefully that lets you get my point. I believe all of the above that I wrote, except I don't believe I can claim it is superior architecture just because I prefer it more. To paraphrase what I said in the last post, I can say I appreciate it more for that reason, but I cannot legitimately say it is superior architecture.

I believe you have uncovered/simplified the original question.

Is there more talent/skill/architecture in finding the optimal course on the land given or using dirt,construction, etc. to create the desired course when the land does not offer it?

Is this a Sand Hills/Ballyneal, Pine Valley/Shinnecock, Whistling Straits/Pac Dunes argument?  Moreover, are we required to choose one or the other in these debates?

Are we able to make the determination of whether a course has good architecture or was well designed, independent of the amount of construction/dirt moved to create it?

Honestly, I dont know.   But that's why I'm at this site every day, to hopefully, someday, learn.

[JC Jones]

Following up on that, I find it interesting that Mr. Doak has found his way on to both sides of the debate:

Ballyneal v Sand Hills
Whistling Straits v Pac Dunes

With, presumably, the hand of man being more involved with the two on the left side of the "V."

[wsmorrison]

"Precisely the reason for my confusion.

I just cant wrap my arms around the idea that Shadow Creek, Whistling Straits and Bayonne are greater examples of "architecture" than say..... The Old Course.  Simply because they required more "work.""

I'm confused too.  I don't know anyone that is saying more architecture equates to a better golf course.  Rich Goodale made a bizarre simplification and others piled on.  Nobody said that more architecture means a better golf course.  That would be a stupid comment as a stand alone.  Given two great courses, Sand Hills and Pine Valley, there was a lot more architectural work done at Pine Valley.  To me that is more interesting a process and if someone asked which course had the superior architecture, by definition it would have to be Pine Valley.  They are two great courses and PV has significantly more architecture.  A simple statement has been twisted and changed for no apparent reason.

[RJ_Daley]

gotta go, but my last input...

I'd put BallyNeal v SH v Pac Dunes on same line.

But,  WS v maybe Arcadia Bluffs v Chambers Bay on same line.  I wouldn't mix Pac Dunes with WS at all...

If it had been clear cut would it not have revealed a piece of land that was just good as Sand Hills?

not even close...

[wsmorrison]

"...However, I love the work that Bill Coore did to walk the property for days and days to find the optimal set of holes. Compare this to how Crump was unable to do such a thing and had to get suggestions from outside sources on how to locate holes so the whole thing would work together. I love how Bill Coore was able to work to the point where he did not have to disturb the hand of God and consider it superior architecture."

Garland's point is not well taken.  Bill Coore is a superb golf architect.  George Crump was an excellent golfer with a vision.  He made rookie mistakes but he surrounded himself with talent and like a good project manager, managed to come up with a superior product.  Golf design is not a blank canvas.  Sites are different and demand different processes.  The site demands of Sand Hills were quite a bit different from Pine Valley.  One required finding the best course and some architecture, the other involved routing a course through thick woods and coming up with a formulaic test of golf but with wonderful variety and a tremendous amount of architecture.  What is so difficult to grasp?  One has more architecture than the other (given that the use of natural features is a talent but not by definition, architecture).  That's it.  I don't see why others are trying to look for more than that nor are trying to wedge misconceptions into a simple point of view.

[JC Jones]

Nobody said that more architecture means a better golf course.  That would be a stupid comment as a stand alone.  

Given two great courses, Sand Hills and Pine Valley, there was a lot more architectural work done at Pine Valley.  To me that is more interesting a process and if someone asked which course had the superior architecture, by definition it would have to be Pine Valley.  They are two great courses and PV has significantly more architecture.

These two statements are not congruent.  In one sentence you state that the stand alone statement of "more architecture = better course" is stupid.

The very next statement you make is this "PV has more architecture than SH and therefore, BY DEFINITION, has Superior architecture."

This to me is confusing.  If more architecture does not mean better, then, how can your justification for PV being better than SH be that it has more architecture?

[Garland Bayley]

"Precisely the reason for my confusion.

I just cant wrap my arms around the idea that Shadow Creek, Whistling Straits and Bayonne are greater examples of "architecture" than say..... The Old Course.  Simply because they required more "work.""

I'm confused too.  I don't know anyone that is saying more architecture equates to a better golf course.  Rich Goodale made a bizarre simplification and others piled on.  Nobody said that more architecture means a better golf course.  That would be a stupid comment as a stand alone.  Given two great courses, Sand Hills and Pine Valley, there was a lot more architectural work done at Pine Valley.  To me that is more interesting a process and if someone asked which course had the superior architecture, by definition it would have to be Pine Valley.  They are two great courses and PV has significantly more architecture.  A simple statement has been twisted and changed for no apparent reason.

So then it is your feeling that I am correct in claiming Sand Hills has superior architecture.

[JC Jones]

"...However, I love the work that Bill Coore did to walk the property for days and days to find the optimal set of holes. Compare this to how Crump was unable to do such a thing and had to get suggestions from outside sources on how to locate holes so the whole thing would work together. I love how Bill Coore was able to work to the point where he did not have to disturb the hand of God and consider it superior architecture."

Garland's point is not well taken.  Bill Coore is a superb golf architect.  George Crump was an excellent golfer with a vision.  He made rookie mistakes but he surrounded himself with talent and like a good project manager, managed to come up with a superior product.  Golf design is not a blank canvas.  Sites are different and demand different processes.  The site demands of Sand Hills were quite a bit different from Pine Valley.  One required finding the best course and some architecture, the other involved routing a course through thick woods and coming up with a formulaic test of golf but with wonderful variety and a tremendous amount of architecture.  What is so difficult to grasp?  One has more architecture than the other (given that the use of natural features is a talent but not by definition, architecture).  That's it.  I don't see why others are trying to look for more than that nor are trying to wedge misconceptions into a simple point of view.

Are you saying that more architecture = superior architecture

BUT

superior architecture does not necessarily = better golf course?

This would make sense to me.

[Ally Mcintosh]

i guess good architecture is about the final form of the product... it is about how it makes you feel and how it shapes to the eye... to create something wonderful (in golfing terms) from a flat piece of land is far more difficult and needs far more inspiration than creating something equally wonderful from the perfect site... this is why we tend to prefer natural golf courses that have obviously used the land as it was layed out...

kingsbarns is an amazing piece of golf course architecture... st andrews is a great golf course but there is far less architecture involved...

you form your own opinions from learning... these are mine...

[Ken Moum]

So, which of these is Superior Painting?

The Sistine?



Or Picasso



I know which one took more effort.

[wsmorrison]

"Are you saying that more architecture = superior architecture"

For the last time, no.  But when asked which has superior architecture between two nearly equally great courses (Sand Hills and Pine Valley), I'll go with the one that has more architecture.  

Maybe some have a problem with my definition of architecture.  Well, its my definition and I stand by my position.

[Garland Bayley]

"...However, I love the work that Bill Coore did to walk the property for days and days to find the optimal set of holes. Compare this to how Crump was unable to do such a thing and had to get suggestions from outside sources on how to locate holes so the whole thing would work together. I love how Bill Coore was able to work to the point where he did not have to disturb the hand of God and consider it superior architecture."

Garland's point is not well taken.  Bill Coore is a superb golf architect.  George Crump was an excellent golfer with a vision.  He made rookie mistakes but he surrounded himself with talent and like a good project manager, managed to come up with a superior product.  Golf design is not a blank canvas.  Sites are different and demand different processes.  The site demands of Sand Hills were quite a bit different from Pine Valley.  One required finding the best course and some architecture, the other involved routing a course through thick woods and coming up with a formulaic test of golf but with wonderful variety and a tremendous amount of architecture.  What is so difficult to grasp?  One has more architecture than the other (given that the use of natural features is a talent but not by definition, architecture).  That's it.  I don't see why others are trying to look for more than that nor are trying to wedge misconceptions into a simple point of view.

What is difficult to grasp is that your words "some", "tremendous amount", "more" are all quantity words from which you draw a quality conclusion. Sorry, but in my book (and apparently others here) that is a "no can do".