A Hierarchy of Values – Not Much of a Thread

[Peter Pallotta]

I say not much of a thread because this isn’t really a question but more of an observation/approach that probably can’t lead to much discussion; it either has some validity and value, or it doesn’t.  

A couple of recent threads – and the discussions there between RJ and Jeff B – about differing views/perspectives on the ODGs (and how the Moderns compare) brought this to mind.

I think one potentially useful way to think about that question is in terms of a “hierarchy of values”.  What I mean is, I think we can all agree that there are (or can be) many values we hold dear. If we’re artists or craftsmen or businessmen, for example, we can value:

becoming masters of our craft; and/or
striking a healthy work-life balance; and/or
becoming famous and wealthy; and/or
creating works of striking originality that broaden horizons; and/or
building a business or legacy that lives on after us; and/or
glorifying G*d; and/or
re-discovering and honouring the great works of the past; and/or
making an honest living at something enjoyable and useful.

The list goes on and on, of course. And I think that most people have a “hierarchy of values”, i.e. consciously or not, most people ‘rank’ values like those above in terms of their relative importance to them, from highest to lowest.

For example, for some people achieving mastery is very high on the list while acquiring fame and wealth is quite low; for others it’s the exact opposite; and for others still, the more religious among us, glorifying G*d through their work is far and away the greatest value, with all the other values – while good in and of themselves – coming a distant second.  And I think the people who are the most comfortable with themselves in this life, and perhaps the happiest, and perhaps the most productive, are the ones who have developed a clear and consistent “hierarchy of values” for themselves, and who are able to honour and stay loyal to those values through thick and thin.

So, my point being: I think one way to explore and discuss the ODGs and their works (collectively, individually, and historically) is in terms of their differing “hierarchy of values”.  For example, generally speaking, what did the ODGs tend to rank high on their “hierarchy of values” and what did they tend to rank low?; or, how did a Tillinghast differ from a Macdonald in terms of their respective “hierarchy of values”, or a Ross from a Mackenzie?; or, what were the historical, political and economic realities of the time that shaped the ODGs’ “hierarchy of values”, and how have changes in those realities affected the “hierarchy of values” of the Moderns?

Anyway, that’s my observation. If anyone’s managed to get to the end of it, my thanks. It was fun to think about and write, but I’m not sure it has any useful application.

Peter

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,

Interesting ideas, but as with all here - fraught with even more danger!  For example, Fazio is charitible to a fault, but those values get him bupkus on this board.  And, the perception that because he does a dozen courses a year, that he is a greedy, production gca will still persist among this group (or much of it)

Similarly, I have read here (and tend to agree) that when people evaluate courses, they really don't care about design criteria, difficulties, budgets, etc.  That said, I have always felt too, that an examination of the clients values would be a good starting point in evaluation of gca.  While not universal, most of the portfolio of the famous ODG was for male only country clubs.  Because of changing demographics, the number of private to public courses being built has reversed from 2 to 1 private to 2:1 public, and the design criteria to make it more playable expands, affecting architecture.

If we want to compare eras, then we should limit comparisons to the top end clubs of both eras, or the top publics.  I think any comparisons would come out fairly similar, but that is best left for other threads.

Going back to your values, its a tough comparison when Thomas, MacDonald and Tillie (who had outside income from family wealth, too) could afford to do it as a passionate hobby.  Perhaps the most telling examination of values and passion would be Tillie and MacKenzie, both of whom were near broke at the end.  Did their products and passion change as it relates to gca in difficult times?

And while perhaps not as dramatic as the depression, most of us in the biz today have lost a few front end digits (or in some years, even decimal point) in our earnings and keep plugging away at it for the joy of getting something nice done.

[Michael Dugger]

Peter,

You aren't a psychologist by chance?  That heirarchy of yours is downright Maslow!

I like what Jeff had to say.  Good stuff sir.

I think the whole crux of the biscuit, here, so to speak, is captured in Fountainhead.

Art for art's sake (starving artist)

        vs

Art for a living (sell out)

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff, Michael
thanks.
I didn't really want to add anything else to the observation/thread, but your posts reminded me of something I think I should've mentioned in the first place:

I'm not 'judging' the various "hierarchy of values", and would try hard not to say that one set of values was 'better' or 'worse' than another. I know all about that kind of judgment, and I've come to think of it as a dead-end.

I think all the values I mentioned are 'good' (i.e. certainly better than a poke in the eye with a stick). The observation was just that it might be useful to explore the work of the ODGs by 'comparing' (not 'judging') their various hierarchies, and by asking what factors shaped them. But of course you both might be right.

And Michael - no, I'm not a psychologist; I NEED a psychologist sometimes, but that's much different. And strangely, for an old english and philosphy grad, I never got around to reading "The Fountainhead". I didn't even watch the movie, and I happen to think Gary Cooper was great in "High Noon".

Peter

[Michael Dugger]

Peter,

I too a philosophy grad.....

You should give Fountainhead a whirl.  Some find it disagreeable but I feel there is some thought provoking material wrapped up in it....

[RJ_Daley]

So, my point being: I think one way to explore and discuss the ODGs and their works (collectively, individually, and historically) is in terms of their differing “hierarchy of values”.  For example, generally speaking, what did the ODGs tend to rank high on their “hierarchy of values” and what did they tend to rank low?; or, how did a Tillinghast differ from a Macdonald in terms of their respective “hierarchy of values”, or a Ross from a Mackenzie?; or, what were the historical, political and economic realities of the time that shaped the ODGs’ “hierarchy of values”, and how have changes in those realities affected the “hierarchy of values” of the Moderns?

Peter, my sense of these 'Hierarchy of Values' questions starts with the discussion of whether the ODG in question was more predisposed to one particular style of course in the sense of 'penal', 'heroic' or strategic.  Then maybe consider their comparative ecomomy of land usage in effective routing style, minimal use of existing land for feature shaping and providing playing strategy, or big earthworks - nothing spared to pound the ground into submission.  Then, were they successful in their chosen approach and style by comparison to others of that era.  

Perhaps, when we have the luxury of writings left behind by some of the greats, they might comment how much respect did they pay to their predessesors, which ones/why, and what they learned from those, or how have they expanded the profession.  Who were the impact players in terms of longevity of their works?  All that seems to me to be in the Hierarchy of Values.  

I think Jeff is quite correct in his reticance to speak in generalities.  So, all we can do is pose specific comparisons, on specific issues.  We will have to ask which heirarchy of values compared between specific architects, perhaps even on specific courses and specific features, i.e. greens, tees, FWs, hazards.

[RJ_Daley]

But, once we identify a heirachy of values, and evaluate their effectiveness or merit, isn't the next logical step to compare them as to who is better?

[Kalen Braley]

Peter,

I too a philosophy grad.....

You should give Fountainhead a whirl.  Some find it disagreeable but I feel there is some thought provoking material wrapped up in it....

Peter,

I just got done reading it a few months back, I can 2nd that one..

[Tommy Williamsen]

Peter,

You aren't a psychologist by chance?  That heirarchy of yours is downright Maslow!

I like what Jeff had to say.  Good stuff sir.

I think the whole crux of the biscuit, here, so to speak, is captured in Fountainhead.

Art for art's sake (starving artist)

        vs

Art for a living (sell out)

Michael, Ayn Rand's form of individualism is too close to selfish interests at the cost of the community for me.

Michaelangelo, Da Vinci, Mozart, Bach, and Raphael all worked for money and the world is richer for it.  Not everyone has to be a Van Gogh.  After all pay gives the artist the time and opportunity to do what they may not have done on their own.

[Mark Pearce]

While not universal, most of the portfolio of the famous ODG was for male only country clubs.

Of course in the UK their work was for private golf clubs rather than country clubs.  I wonder who else there was to work for at the time?  The ODG who as a point of principal worked only on public projects may have struggled to feed himself.  I'm not sure this tells us much about the values of the ODGs rather than the market for GCA in the Golden Age.

[paul cowley]

Peter et all....good posts.

I'm just sitting here with nothing to say because of your sentiments, and I thought I would at least pass that on.

[Jeff Doerr]

I'm not a great historian or philosopher, but didn't MacKenzie design courses in part because of their healthful value to society?

I think the desire to create a beautiful stage for recreation and competition is the root...

This thread also reminds me of the Dream Golf idea that Bandon was created as something that would last. That at it's core was a 500 year vision.

As far as novels, "The Pillars of the Earth" by Follett has some great thoughts about the hierarchy of values in building the great cathedrals.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Peter,
I remember the days a thread like this on this website, would have had 200-300 posts by now. It was the type of thread which had the interest of every one of us, as well as the lurkers in high places who I have by chance had the opportunity to meet later down the road and would tell me so.

This website used to have that kind of pull and power. We had some fun while doing it too. Go witness Mike Cirba's post on the John Ott thread if you don't believe me. (Great post Mike)

This is why guys like you, David Stamm, Jon Spaulding and some others are it's brightest new stars. Never stop this website from glowing.

[Mike_Cirba]

Peter,

I would simply add that I can't recall a single post of yours that was superfluous.

Despite some lack of popular response, I would ask that you please continue to challenge us because your enthusiasm for the subject is palpable, and your insight is singularly unique.

[Joe Hancock]

Peter,

I would simply add that I can't recall a single post of yours that was superfluous.

Despite some lack of popular response, I would ask that you please continue to challenge us because your enthusiasm for the subject is palpable, and your insight is singularly unique.

...and you won't find this many big words in a whole months worth of posts at any other forum.......let alone the ability of fellow posters to recognize the redundancy of the term "singularly unique"......

Love ya, Mike......

[Dan Kelly]

I remember the days a thread like this on this website, would have had 200-300 posts by now.

Maybe "our" values have changed.

Maybe the subtitle ("Not Much of a Thread") put people off.

Maybe the ODGs of GCA.com are O and D.

(Good post, Peter. If I knew anything about anyone else's hierarchy of values, I might have something to add.)

[Dan Kelly]

Despite some lack of popular response, I would ask that you please continue to challenge us because your enthusiasm for the subject is palpable, and your insight is singularly unique.

...and you won't find this many big words in a whole months worth of posts at any other forum.......let alone the ability of fellow posters to recognize the redundancy of the term "singularly unique"......

I wasn't going to say anything about that.

I think it was Jimmy Roberts who said today, in introducing a feature on Woody Austin, that every player's story is unique -- but if it's possible, Austin's is "more unique."

I shouted at the TV: IT'S NOT POSSIBLE!

[Mike_Cirba]

Eh, Joe...it's been a long, if really excellent weekend and my normally verbose prose seems to have excessively morphed into redundant mush.

Thanks for calling me on it before I become much too vainly self satisfied with such trash.   I seem to have shot whatever wad I had tonight on my sincere post about Mayor Ott and should probably just close the wine jug and hit the sack..  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

They have Dan. Our values have changed.

[Dan Kelly]

They have Dan. Our values have changed.

Tommy --

I'd be most interested in having you spell out what you mean there. Because honestly, I don't know what you mean.

Dan

[Joe Hancock]

Eh, Joe...it's been a long, if really excellent weekend and my normally verbose prose seems to have excessively morphed into redundant mush.

Thanks for calling me on it before I become much too vainly self satisfied with such trash.   I seem to have shot whatever wad I had tonight on my sincere post about Mayor Ott and should probably just close the wine jug and hit the sack..  

In all honesty, I loved your post on Mayor Ott. I think you summed up how many of us feel when we're around such a man...inadequate. Yet, you went beyond and faced the man, and came away blessed by his graciousness. And, I'm guessing here, he felt the same about you.

Joe

[Mike_Cirba]

Joe,

I walked away just hoping that I had neither wasted his time or diminished his seemingly favorable impression of this website by my meager statements.

[paul cowley]

Joe,

I walked away just hoping that I had neither wasted his time or diminished his seemingly favorable impression of this website by my meager statements.

....guys...see ...I still don't know what to say. You have to be able to open and close your mouth to speak, and mine just seems to be stuck kind of open.
If you all don't mind I think I will go to bed too.

Keep up the good work.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks for the kind comments, gents; and fine posts.

Dan Kelly makes a good point. I subtitled the thread the way I did because something told me that what I was asking/suggesting was going to be hard to answer/debate. I tried to explain why I thought so, even though I wasn't sure, but only now has it become clear to me. I was asking if those who really, really know the old architects and their work and writings could share their thoughts about the ODGs in terms of a hierarchy of values, and/or if they would consider 'evaluating' those architects/that work in those terms. That's a very big ask; and, like Dan, I couldn't contribute to the thread myself because I don't know enough about the ODGs' various heirarchy of values to do so. (But just to say, it strikes me that Crump's were different than Ross'.)

And Dan, you're a good and smart fellow, so please save yourself -- Don't listen to any more Jimmy Roberts!  That "if it's possible" actually seemed designed by Roberts to drive a guy like you nuts
 
Peter

[Tom_Doak]

I wouldn't ever post my own "hierarchy of values" but I do think it's different than that of many other golf course architects, and being different has always served me well.

Tommy N:  If this thread had attracted 200-300 posts in the "good old days" of GCA, I would've been surprised.  It is a very personal subject and not the sort of thing it makes sense to argue about, really.