Superior Architecture or Not?

[Garland Bayley]

"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.  
...

For the last time, you can say you prefer the one with more architecture.

The above statement you made is so self contradictory, I will simply let it stand as support for my argument.

[Garland Bayley]

Sean,

Your post reminds me that if I had Shacks book of quotes with me I could post several from the greats that counter Wayne's assertion.

[JC Jones]

"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.  
...

For the last time, you can say you prefer the one with more architecture.

The above statement you made is so self contradictory, I will simply let it stand as support for my argument.

Garland

I concur.

Wayne

If your rationale for why PV has superior architecture to SH is that PV has more architecture, what you are essentially saying is:  more architecture = better architecture.

If you say that cheeseburgers are superior to hamburgers because they have cheese, then what you are saying is cheese makes a better burger.

[wsmorrison]

Garland,

You fail to take into account that my example is limited to considering two similarly great courses.  This alone takes care of factors that you like to keep bringing up.  

I never said that more architecture means a better course.  If I did, Fazio would be the world's greatest architect and he isn't in my mind...not close.

I still don't understand everyone's confusion.  And I certainly don't want to waste any more time trying to clarify for you.  You have your mind made up, you don't see what I'm trying to say.  Fair enough.  Let's both put our energies into something else.

"If your rationale for why PV has superior architecture to SH is that PV has more architecture, what you are essentially saying is:  more architecture = better architecture."

JC,

Jeezus Christmas.  That's not what I'm saying.  What the heck is wrong with you guys?  There is more architecture at Pine Valley.  They are both great courses.  So if someone asks which has superior architecture, how can it not be the one with more architecture in this specific case?  When you try to expand this specific discussion to generalities, then it falls apart as it should.

As to cheeseburgers vs. hamburgers, it depends on the cheese.  There's Cheez Whiz and there's Cashel Blue.  But you can also add carmelized onions and mushrooms.  Come on, there's lots of architecture involved in making the best cheeseburgers.

[George Pazin]

I think the key to understanding Wayne's position is the underlying (I think) belief that both PV and SH are 10+++ courses.

He's not saying more architecture is better if you're comparing course of different caliber, but as a method of splitting hairs FOR HIM IN THIS PARTICULAR COMPARISON, it is more architecture = better.

Apologies to Wayne if I misunderstand (Rich would say that's a given ).

[Rick Shefchik]

No, no, no. no, no.

Wayne is NOT saying that cheeseburgers are better than hamburgers. He's saying it takes better cooking to make a cheeseburger than a hamburger. (Yes, Garland, there is a quantity element in that statement. But adding cheese to a burger can be done well or poorly, and requires quality of placement if you don't want the cheese dripping onto your fingers.)

[wsmorrison]

By George, you've got it, George!  Thank you very much!

Rick, you grasped the narrow concept right away and I appreciate your support.  Let's move on and let these guys have their fun  

[JC Jones]

As to cheeseburgers vs. hamburgers, it depends on the cheese.

The answer should almost always be bleu.

Ok, I get it, you were speaking specifically about PV and Sand Hills.  Because the courses are so close, and so great, the only thing you can do to differentiate them is to go with the one that required more architecture.

Query, if actions and omissions are equal, does a significant amount of construction equal a signficant amount of restraint?

[Dan Kelly]

Query, if actions and omissions are equal, does a significant amount of construction equal a signficant amount of restraint?

On the head of a pin, you mean?

[JC Jones]

Query, if actions and omissions are equal, does a significant amount of construction equal a signficant amount of restraint?

On the head of a pin, you mean?

The question was on a macro level.  I believe the PV/SH discussion has come to an end, thanks to cheeseburgers.

A new thread is born.

[Garland Bayley]

Because the courses are so close, and so great, the only thing you can do to differentiate them is to go with the one that required more architecture.

and for others:
Because the courses are so close, and so great, the only thing you can do to differentiate them is to go with the one that required less architecture.

And I will avoid using the Q words.  

[Ken Moum]

Because the courses are so close, and so great, the only thing you can do to differentiate them is to go with the one that required more architecture.

and for others:
Because the courses are so close, and so great, the only thing you can do to differentiate them is to go with the one that required less architecture.

And I will avoid using the Q words.  

Make that more restraint and you've got me.

[Jerry Kluger]

Wayne: Doesn't it make more sense if we say it takes more work to design a course on difficult terrain as compared to one on land that is more naturally suited for a golf course - isn't that what you're saying? this doesn't minimize the ability of the designer - all it says it that it takes the designer less time.

Everyone, please stop with the analogies - they aren't necessary to make the point and they don't necessarily apply to the issue at hand.

And besides, the point was not which course is better - the point was which one takes more work to design and execute. And to this point I don't believe there is any disagreement.

Please tell me that I know what's going on.

[Ken Moum]

the point was which one takes more work to design and execute. And to this point I don't believe there is any disagreement.

As a writer, I don't agree with that premise.

The task of creating simple beauty is rarely appreciated for its difficulty by nonpractitioners.

The "work" involved in the process of creating art whether it's on the ground or on paper is not always related to how much is done, or appears to be done.

As a friend of mine once said, "If it's easy to write, it will hurt to read. And if it hurts to write, it will be easy to read."

Or as Blaise Pascal famously said about a letter, "I have made this longer, because I have not had the time to make it shorter."

I believe that in GCA as well, it sometimes takes more work, more time, and more effort to leave things alone.

Ken

[Mark_Fine]

Ken,
I was just going to recommend that it might be best that this entire thread be erased so no one laughs (or cries) about it a year or two from now but then someone finally posts something worth keeping.  Well said  

[Rick Shefchik]

Everyone, please stop with the analogies - they aren't necessary to make the point and they don't necessarily apply to the issue at hand.

You see, Jerry, it's like a wild mustang running through the high desert, as opposed to a Kawasaki KX 450F Motocross Dirt Bike. Both can leap that crevasse, but...no, wait, it's more like a broom vs. a Hoover Tempo Widepath U5140-900 vacuum cleaner. Which do you think is better design?

No, that's not really it, either, is it? Let's try this -- a guy sitting in the park playing an ocarina vs. the Boston Pops symphony orchestra...Dang -- not quite. I just KNOW there's a proper analogy out there somewhere. Personally, I think we should keep trying to find it.

[George Pazin]

Or as Blaise Pascal famously said about a letter, "I have made this longer, because I have not had the time to make it shorter."

This is one damn cool quote, I will be (ab)using it in the future.

It reminds me of an Einstein quote (paraphrasing here, I don't remember it word for word):

Theories should be as simple as possible - but no simpler.

[Bill_McBride]

I have to say I'm amazed reading some of these posts.  Do we really want architects blowing up natural features and rebuilding them so they can get more architecture credit  Sometimes less is more.  

By the way, if Ross or Tillinghast or Flynn or XYZ classic architect were to ever have seen what Fazio did with Shadow Creek on that site, they'd pack it in and change careers    Whether you like Fazio's work or not, it is an engineering marvel.  

I hope panelists don't read this thread  

I gave up trying to read all the posts in this thread, but Mark has it right.

The whole idea of golf architecture, to my way of thinking, is to design so you can't tell what was found and what was manufactured.

Or maybe I slept through an important lecture!  

[Ken Moum]

Or as Blaise Pascal famously said about a letter, "I have made this longer, because I have not had the time to make it shorter."

This is one damn cool quote, I will be (ab)using it in the future.

It reminds me of an Einstein quote (paraphrasing here, I don't remember it word for word):

Theories should be as simple as possible - but no simpler.

You like that? How about this?

"In anything at all, perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Ken

[Jerry Kluger]

Ken: Writing is not comparable to golf course design - With writing you always start with a blank page - in designing a golf course you always start with a piece of property but no two pieces of property are the same.

[Ken Moum]

Ken: Writing is not comparable to golf course design - With writing you always start with a blank page - in designing a golf course you always start with a piece of property but no two pieces of property are the same.

I disagree.

With both of them you start with an idea or concept.

The object writing is to create a story, article, etc. The paper is how it's presented to the reader.

The object of GCA is to create a place to play golf. The golf course is how it's presented to the player.

In both cases you have raw material, both intellectual and physical. What you do, or don't do with that raw material is the essence of the art.

The decisions about whether to add or subtract, include or exclude--and how to weave the parts together--are the difference between genius and hack.

Ken

[Kalen Braley]

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.

Seeing how the topic of this thread has been put to bed, going in the direction of the other thread about what is and isn't considered to be a golf course architect.....

Was Crump really the designer of Pine Valley?  As Wayne said he surrounded himself with loads of talent.  And as I've picked up on other threads there were "guest architect" visits to the site over the years giving thier inputs along with the input of his hired "talent".  Wouldn't this mean that he really wasn't the architect of Pine Valley, but just essentially the guy who came up with the routing??

Did he really get the thing into the ground, or did his minions carry on with those kind of details and he just concerned himself with the layout and finances?

With the wealth of knowledge of those in the know on this site, I'd be interested to see your take in light of the comments that have been mentioned in the other thread that Mr. Mucci started.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=31204

[wsmorrison]

Kalen,

Tom Paul is the expert on the architectural history of Pine Valley.  He'll likely say that Crump should be considered the designer of record with significant input from Colt with finishing and later work by Alison, Maxwell, Tillinghast, Wilson and Flynn.  

Crump was on the grounds everyday from the time he purchased the property prior to 1912 till his death in 1918.  He wasn't just sitting around staring at the ducks and had the majority of design input and complete oversight on all matters till the day he died.  After all, it was Crump's money that funded the project.

[TEPaul]

"Wouldn't this mean that he really wasn't the architect of Pine Valley, but just essentially the guy who came up with the routing??"

Kalen:

Absolutely not. If you took the routing of Pine Valley in its entirety Crump came up with the majority of it over the entire course of the creation of Pine Valley. Harry Colt was responsible for coming up with the routing of some holes and parts of holes. Others had some routing input too.

It's my contention that a single routing could probably be made to look like up to twenty different golf courses simply because of vast differences in what I sometimes call the "designing up" process.

First of all, as far as everything I'm aware of Harry Colt did not design the greens of Pine Valley with the exception of perhaps the 5th and the 10th. If he was in any way responsible for more greens than that there is no record of that whatsoever.

Also a good deal of the bunkering schemes and fairway schemes on the golf course that were proposed by Colt were not really used by Crump. On those things Crump very much had his own ideas and it took him years to develop it throughout the course. Crump and his foreman, Jim Govan, were apparently totally inveterate "shot testers" on the ground and that alone was probably as much responsible for the "designing up" phase of the course as anything else.

Crump in the "designing up" phase of Pine Valley which took him five years (and still he wasn't finished) came up with ideas obviously on his own and as well as with the help of a number of people including his foreman, Jim Govan, and a number of others, certainly including Colt, Tillinghast, perhaps Macdonald, Travis and perhaps some of Crump's friends but the point is Crump was ALWAYS the final editor of Pine Valley's architecture and course and he most certainly did do a ton of editing.

That was of course until he died. At that point others were responsible for finishing off the course which, at that point, was routed but still in some areas (holes) in the "designing up" phase.

At that point (after Crump's death) the likes of the Wilsons, Flynn, perhaps Thomas, Fownes and most certainly Maxwell and Alison had some significant input as the course came to completion.

Wayno:

Personally, and firstly, I agree with you that what is man-made is that which I consider to be architecture---as apparently you do. I do not consider what is naturally occuring to be architecture. However, I am aware that many others do not share this definition or distinction.

On the other hand, I do have huge respect for architects who have the talent and imagination to simply use things well that are natural instead of either overlooking them or feeling the necessity to change things and make things.

And, secondly, I do not see why so many on here are confused by what you've been trying to say---including what you've been trying to say about Pine Valley and Sand Hills.

Perhaps those on here who are confused would be less confused if they simply stuck to golf courses and the things with which they have to do instead of trying to get into apples and apple pie, hamburgers and cheeseburgers and sandy beaches and rocky beaches.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

I think you have to view any comparison in the context of the time at which each course was created.

One would think that a lot's been learned in the last 90 years.