[Peter Pallotta]

JES
on that question, I think my answer would be "you can't".  

I think that's part of my point, i.e. that the principles of gca --like those of playwriting etc etc -- have existed and have been tried and tested and proved sound for so long that they can be said now to exist independently of any particular course, as 'facts' in and of themselves.  

Now, it wasn't ME who recognized/determined those principles, it was people who'd dedicated their lives to gca and its study and who came to understand them over decades and centuries; I'm just trying to learn them and, once learned, to accept them as such.  (I didn't discover nor can I fully comprehend the law of gravity, so I can't explain it to you; but when an apple falls off a tree and smacks me on the head, I can tell you that gravity was at work).  

This all might sound elitist or something, but I don't think it is. We live our lives everyday based in part of the 'authority' of others. We don't ask whether the principles of structural engineering are 'true' and reliable, we just assume that they are, and that the buildings we work in won't fall in around us. Basically, we're 'taking the word' of someone else; but that's all I've got to go on.  And so when architectural experts for 7 decades have agreed that PV manifests the principles of great architecture (principles those experts didn't 'invent' either), well, that's enough for me.

Peter

[JESII]

Peter,

There is someone out there that will happily explain to you why that building will not fall down around you...there is not however someone that can explain to you why Pine Valley will be a great golf course for you...that's up to you...and whatever you decide about it, you're right.

[Peter Pallotta]

But JES - I couldn't care less if PV was "great for me". My opinion on the matter wouldn't mean much even to ME, let alone to anyone else. A golf course either manifests the prinicples of great architecture (and thus it's great) or it doesn't. Many others in the past, and now people like Tom Doak, and you, and Tom Paul tell me it PV does manifest greatness. And that's it. What would be the alternative - that I play PV as a lousy golfer and decide that it's lousy, and then play it 5 years from now as a better golfer and decide that it's gotten better?

Peter

[Jason Topp]

It just seems to me that whether I like/enjoy Pine Valley or not, or whether a hundred or a thousand of my friends like it or not, is irrelevant to the question of its 'greatness'. I've spent months now reading and asking and trying to understand the underlying 'truths' and principles of great golf course architecture. Pine Valley manifests those principles in spades. If the world changed tomorrow and we ALL became lousy golfers and couldn't stand having our heads bashed in at Pine Valley, would it still be great?

I can't understand how we could answer anything but 'yes' to that question.

Peter

Peter -

Do you not believe Mackenzie's quote is one of the well established criteria of greatness - that it is pleasurable for all classes of golfers?

To my mind, Mackenzie's standard is the most well established and most widely accepted principle of great golf course architecture.

[JESII]

I guess that's the thing...a position I take in golf course renovation / restoration conversations is that these things can be viewed as pieces of art that should be preserved or returned to their creators form...but what good does that in itself do the people that play it today?

I do not think courses are great because someone tells me they are. I need to get into it and find out for myself. I do not think a course manifests the principles of great architecture. A player reveals these principles through his play. All level of player can reveal these principles, but it is not a requirement that "most" players are able to.

Yes, a course will be different for you 5 years from now than it is today...at least I hope so.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jason - That gets to an important point, I think. When I think of principles I think in terms of those tried and true and established concepts involving strategies and options and green complexes etc, the kind of things that Macdonald could reference in the great golf holes he chose to emulate at NGLA.  I'm guessing that a) Mackenzie was taking those same principle as a given, and b) chose his words carefully in that quote. "Pleasure" is a rather intangible thing, e.g. would each golfer in all classes of golfers get the same amount of pleasure on a course whether it was match or stroke play, whether it was a calm day or howling wind and rain, playing from any set of tees (when those came about) etc etc. I guess that's a quote I;ve been avoiding all through my posts here - I don't know what to do with it, and I'm not sure it's a definition of 'greatness' in the foundational sense I'm thinking about.

JES - that was a very interesting post to me, again because of the different perspectives we have on golf matters (I'm guessing based in part on your amount and quality of play compared to mine). There are some subjects for me as well where I don't go by the authority of others, but those are ones I think I've really studied and know; with other subjects, I try to find the very best and reliable sources I can, and learn from that. But also, I DO think there are such principles (as in my answer to Jason).  Nonetheless, I think this...

"A player reveals these principles through his play. All level of player can reveal these principles, but it is not a requirement that "most" players are able to."

...one of the most interesting things I've read here, even if I don't think I agree.

Peter

[Jason Topp]

Jason - That gets to an important point, I think. When I think of principles I think in terms of those tried and true and established concepts involving strategies and options and green complexes etc, the kind of things that Macdonald could reference in the great golf holes he chose to emulate at NGLA.  I'm guessing that a) Mackenzie was taking those same principle as a given, and b) chose his words carefully in that quote. "Pleasure" is a rather intangible thing, e.g. would each golfer in all classes of golfers get the same amount of pleasure on a course whether it was match or stroke play, whether it was a calm day or howling wind and rain, playing from any set of tees (when those came about) etc etc. I guess that's a quote I;ve been avoiding all through my posts here - I don't know what to do with it, and I'm not sure it's a definition of 'greatness' in the foundational sense I'm thinking about.


Peter

Peter:

Thanks for the response.  As I understand it, you are talking about greatness in terms of course features, things like a redan green, a cape hole, etc.

To my mind, those are tools that are used to create great course architecture but the ultimate purpose of GCA is to create a compelling, interesting and therefore pleasurable test of golf.  Thus, for me Mackenzie's quote is spot on.

I would not want to limit the definition of greatness to features that would have already been used.  To me the very essence of greatness connotes creativity and the possibility of creating something that has never been done before.  

You are also correct in that pleasure would vary from day to day but that does not trouble me much.  The ability of a course to provide a pleasurable test for the widest variety of golfers, in the widest variety of weather conditions is a useful yardstick in my mind.

Where I struggle is when a course can be an extremely intesting test for a very good golfer but a torture chamber for a poor golfer.  Should such a course be excluded from the definition?  

I reach two tentative conclusions on that point:

1.  I don't think it should be entirely excluded but the course must have some serious redeeming qualities to make up for that defect; or

2.  Mackenzie's quote should be treated as a guidepost, like his 13 points and dicarded when it does not fit with a particular situation.

 

[Peter Pallotta]

A really good post, Jason. I'm a little stumped.
The only think I'd clarify is that I didn't mean the features themselves (e.g. the redan hole) are the "principles", I meant that what was BEHIND those features (the variety of shots, strategies, challenges, variability depending on conditions etc) are the "principles". That's why a redan hole could, by a good architect, be slightly modifed depending on the site, and still be a great hole.
Peter

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()