[TEPaul]

"He seems to have out the man-made vs. natural distinction?"

Mark:

If that's supposed to be a sentence that can be understood by anyone, then I'm most definitely missing something.    

[Mark_Fine]

Opps!  Fixed it!  

[TEPaul]

"The science of golf architecture is the presenting of problems and the placing of objectives to be reached by the players."      William S. Flynn


Mark:

It's a good remark by William Flynn, nice and pat and general and all, but frankly I can't see that it does much for this subject or thread.

But general statements by some of the famous ODGs are always interesting, I guess.  

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
You said:

"It's a good remark by William Flynn, nice and pat and general and all, but frankly I can't see that it does much for this subject or thread.  But general statements by some of the famous ODGs are always interesting, I guess. "

I just thought I would post the most concise summary I could find of how Flynn defined "golf architecture" especially since you have been studying him for some time.  That is what this thread is all about - what is golf architecture and what is not, etc.  We can't determine was is good or superior architecture without it.  Your not going to suggest that you disagree with Flynn are you or he didn't really mean what he said?  You quote ODGs such as Max Behr all the time.  What is wrong with this one from Flynn?  

[TEPaul]

Mark:

You're right, there's nothing wrong with Flynn's remark about what golf architecture is. It should be in this thread. Thanks for including it.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
It just surprises me that you don't agree with it.  This whole site is about "golf course architecture", not just the "man made" features on a course.  I think Flynn defines it very succinctly:

"The science of golf architecture is the presenting of problems and the placing of objectives to be reached by the players."      William S. Flynn

Got to run.  
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

"and I can tell you, unequivically, that the walks from green to tee are more difficult at SH."

Patrick:

That's not the point. You said SH is disjointed from green to next tee. It is nothing of the kind---it is actually remarkably close coupled that way.

The other point is, other than the walk from #11 green to the 12 tee---something Crump apparently planned to do something about) PV is probably the most close coupled course in the world green to next tee. That aspect was something of a fixation with George Crump.

Then why are you arguing with me about the issue ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

I'd like to defend and contest Wayne's position .... at the same time.  

He's been drinking far too much of that "Philadelphia" water lately.

In the ultimate, it's the product that determines merit, not the methodology that produced it.

However, having said that I believe the genius and redeeming quality of an architect is his ability to maximize what's in the land.

I think that's where inherent talent lies.

Those that have the inate ability to see the land and visualize a hole would seem to be more talented than those who see the land and need to amend the land in order to produce a hole.

I find PV and SH to be two completely different golf courses, in almost every aspect, save for the number of holes.

PV seems to possess far more continuity amongst its holes, whereas, SH seems more of a collection of individual holes.
[/color]

PATRICK, YOU ARE IN ERROR.

We disagree on this issue.
[/color]

It's my belief that the "constellation routing" serves to support my theory on the individual-collective nature of the golf course.[/color]

ONE DOESN'T 'PLAY' GOLF ON A CONSTELLATION MAP. ONE WALKS THE GROUND THE COURSE IS BUILT ON AND THEN MAKES A DETERMINATION. AS I RECALL, AND UNDERSTANDABLY FOR MEDICAL REASONS, YOU WEREN'T ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THIS.

I believe that the "Constellation Map" supports my theory of choosing from amongst the "collective".  While my feet didn't work, my eyes functioned well.

PV is more "compact" then SH[/color]


PV and SH are wildly different in most aspects of their creation.

PV had a novice design the golf course.
SH had two highly skilled architects.

PV's land was a forest, albeit on sandy soil
SH is devoid of trees.

PV had a novice as a developer
SH had a skilled veteran

PV had limited land
SH had unlimited land, which wasn't enough.[/color]

YOU'LL NEED TO CLARIFY THIS STATEMENT.

Additional land had to be purchased to accomodate the inclusion of some holes on the back nine[/color]


PV has a continuity from green to tee
SH is disjointed from green to tee.
[/color]
 
YOU DIDN'T WALK THE COURSE.
IN MOST CASES IT IS NO MORE THAN TEN YARDS FROM ANY GREEN TO THE NEXT TEE. THE WALK FROM SEVEN GREEN TO EIGHT TEE IS A LITTLE LESS THAN THE WALK FROM CAPE GREEN TO NARROWS TEE AT NATIONAL GOLF LINKS OF AMERICA. NATIONAL GOLF LINKS OF AMERICA IS BILL COORE'S #1 RATED GOLF COURSE IN THE WORLD AND HE STROVE TO EMULATE THE GREEN TO TEE WALKS PRESENT AT NGLA WHEN HE BUILT SAND HILLS.
IF I HAD TO GUESS IT WOULD BE NGLA YOU WOULD CHOOSE TO PLAY EVERYDAY.

I didn't walk all 18 holes, but, I did walk the golf course, I certainly didn't ride from most greens to the next tee.

The walk from 10 green to # 11 tee isn't short and neither is the walk from # 12 green to # 13 tee, or from # 15 to # 16, # 16 to my favorite tee on the golf course, the abandoned # 17.  SH's isn't nearly as compact as PV.

You're right about NGLA.[/color]


PV had to be created within limited confines
SH had no such constraints

PV is a year round golf course
SH is seasonal

PV was designed for "Championship" golfers
SH was designed for everyone[/color]

HOWEVER, AT SAND HILLS, 'EVERYONE' PLAYS A COURSE SET WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF 'THE' COURSE. 'THE' COURSE IS 7100 yards AND IS 'THE' WALKING COURSE.

Gene, you're getting defensive.

You can't believe that SH is an easier walking course than Shinnecock Hills, NGLA, Southampton and Maidstone.

Just take the walk from # 9 tee to # 9 fairway at SH, and then from # 9 green to # 10 tee.  Surely, you can't claim that those are easy walks.[/color]


PV is devoid of wind
SH thrives on wind
[/color]

INDEED.
UNFORTUNATELY, YOURS WAS THE ONLY GROUP IN ELEVEN YEARS WHICH WASN'T THE RECIPIENT OF ANY WIND. THUS, YOU WEREN'T ABLE TO FULLY EXPERIENCE THE ACUTE CHAMELEON NATURE OF THE COURSE AND GENIUS WHICH WAS POURED INTO DESIGNING A COURSE TO ACCOMODATE THE MYRIAD OF WIND DIRECTIONS AND SPEEDS.
IT IS THE ESSENCE OF LINKS GOLF AND IS THE PREEMINENT REASON WHY A COURSE LIKE SAND HILLS AND THOSE FOUND ALONG THE COASTS IN THE BRITISH ISLES ARE EXPONENTIALLY MORE INTERESTING TO PLAY THAN VIRTUALLY ANY COURSE SET INLAND.
'NAE WIND, NAE GOLF.'

Agreed.

Boomer Esiason told me to make sure I bought plenty of wind gear before going to Sand Hills.  Every time I see him I remind him of my "purchase for naught" in the GCGC pro shop.

I never doubted the greatness of SH, I'm merely pointing out what I see are differences between PV and SH, and, in my opinion PV is a much easier walk, as is Shinnecock, NGLA, Maidstone and others.

Sand Hills tends to be a high tee, low fairway, high green golf course.  And as such, the walks are more demanding.
[/color]


Both creations influenced architecture that would follow them.

Both retain lofty positions in the world of golf and GCA.

Forgetting about the relative remoteness of both sites at the time of their inception, if you could belong to one, as your nearby home course, which one would you pick ?  And WHY ?

Certainly, you can't go wrong with either pick, but, having your choice, which one would you choose to play every day, and why ?

These are proclaimed to be the TWO BEST GOLF COURSES IN AMERICA, CLASSIC AND MODERN.

Yet, If I had the luxury to pick ANY golf course to be my home course, my course to play every day, I wouldn't pick either one.  I find them to be too rigorous for daily play.
I'd pick any one of dozens of courses ahead of them.
[/color]

I MIGHT TEND TO AGREE HERE AS A 2 HNDCP MEMBER OF SHINNECOCK PLAYED SAND HILLS ON HIS FIRST DAY THERE IN A WESTERLY WIND AND DECLARED THE COURSE THE HARDEST HE'D EVER PLAYED. I ALSO BELIEVE SAND HILLS TO BE THE HARDEST COURSE IN AMERICA IN A GREATER THAN MODERATE WESTERLY WIND.


And, my decision isn't based on the method of design and construction, it's based on the enjoyment of the challenge.

This doesn't diminish either courses' value, it only identifies my preference for daily play.

I have to add the caveat that I was at a physical disadvantage when I spent a few days playing SH, so my assessment might be improperly weighted, but, in thinking about it, even in tip-top condition, I believe that my assessment is on the mark.[/color]

NOT BEING PHYSICALLY HEALTHY ENOUGH TO WALK THE COURSE AND EXPERIENCE THE GREEN TO TEE WALKS FIRSTHAND HAS TAINTED YOUR ASSESSMENT. YOU KNOW YOU ARE ALWAYS WELCOME TO RETURN BACK BUT YOU HAVE ALREADY STATED TO ME IN PERSON IN MY OFFICE THAT THIS WOULD BE UNLIKELY DUE TO FAMILY, TIME CONSTRAINTS, ETC.
YOU JUST MAY HAVE TO TAKE MY WORD FOR IT.


Gene, it wasn't an issue of being healthy enough to walk, it was an issue of how painful it was to walk, especially the walks from tee to fairway.  In the days at SH I walked every green to tee walk, even to the double diamonds.

You have to understand that I had recently walked 18 holes at Pine Valley with Roger Hansen, so, I had a reasonable frame of reference.

Now you know that I loved the 17th hole from the old tee, having played a few shots from it.  In mild conditions it was a very difficult hole, but, one of my favorites.  You can't tell me that the walk from # 16 green to that tee and from that tee to the 17th green, are easy walks.

I believe that the difficult walks at PV have been recently created vis a vis the lengthening of the golf course.

Both courses are great golf courses, I just think that PV is an easier walk green to tee and tee to fairway.

P.S.  When life returns to normal, hopefully sooner rather than later, I'll take you up on your generous invitation.

Thanks

[/color]

[Gene Greco]

Patrick:


    The walk between ten green and eleven tee is the  
                             
                                SHORTEST

walk from green to tee on the course save for six  to seven.

Most here at GCA are happy your feet are better and your eyes are terrific but your memory is shot.

Just like that mythical maintenance road in back of the old 17 tee you "remembered".

Indeed, you are always welcomed back to see the error in your ways.  


 

[RJ_Daley]

Perhaps some of the forgoing conversation is a great example of why one should take a camera to these once in a lifetime places to play... despite running the risk of being thought of as a 'wang'.  

Maybe Pat saw some maintenance vehicle tracks or ATV sort of tracks leading to that windmill in the waste area... and thought it was a road.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()