[Joe Hancock]

Great feat of architecture??  Sure looks like it

Ugly as all get out??  Hell yeah

UNCLE!

You guys have made your point!

Joe

[Jonathan Cummings]

I have always thought that there are only two aspects you think about when you evaluate a golf course:

Tactical and Esthetic.  

The tactical aspects speak to your mind while the esthetics speak to your heart.  Any sub categories you want to talk about - shot value, routing, beauty, setting or a million other all fall under these two.

Great golf courses hit home runs in both.

JC

[Kalen Braley]

Great feat of architecture??  Sure looks like it

Ugly as all get out??  Hell yeah

UNCLE!

You guys have made your point!

Joe

You need more Joe??  Feast your eyes on this beauty..    

[Joe Hancock]

I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition......

(Python reference)

Joe

[Tom Huckaby]

I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition......

(Python reference)

Joe

NOBODY expects that.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

I have always thought that there are only two aspects you think about when you evaluate a golf course:

Tactical and Esthetic.  

The tactical aspects speak to your mind while the esthetics speak to your heart.  Any sub categories you want to talk about - shot value, routing, beauty, setting or a million other all fall under these two.

Great golf courses hit home runs in both.

JC

That is exceedingly well said.  Brilliantly, I must add.

One and all please do note that my friend Jonathan never used the "a" word once.  Not at all.

This is all about golf courses.

 

TH

ps - smartassedness aside, I do think that is a great way to look at golf courses and really is very well said.

[Andy Troeger]

I like the "FUN" category myself. For my own personal listing of courses I add that category actually.

The other two would probably be memorability and design variety.

[mike_malone]

 Kalen,

  What criteria do you use to call those two buildings great architecture? That might help our discussion here.

    I still think that the point of my initial question is to understand the different approaches that others have that form the basis for  the frank discussion of golf architecture that this site is all about. And since the great majority of us make those judgments as we play the course I wanted to see what others see as important since no one sees the same thing the same way. We usually aren't privy to the preconstruction ideas.

   A friend of mine  said that as he walked with his daughter each night when she was little  he asked her "what do you see?" . It gave him a totally different perspective.

[Ken Moum]

I guess one has to know THE RANCH to get the full meaning of this, but I am absolutely not kidding when I say that is one hell of an architectural achievement.

I have carefully read everything you've written in this thread up to this point, and I can only make this comment:

It might be an architectural achievement, but it sure as heck wasn't a golf course architectural achievement.

Golf course rchitecture is a design process. It is realized in the form of a course that people play. The quality of that course is a combination of a lot of factors, only one of which is golf course architecture.

Ken

[Patrick_Mucci]

For judging golf course architecture?

1.  What the land was like prior to construction - the challenges to be overcome, or not.

2. How is the client - easy to deal with, meddling, cheap?

3.  Regulatory issues - easy to overcome, or difficult?

How the architect does with those three issues truly shows his skill as an architect.

Mike, the things you list show how great a GOLF COURSE is. And they also show the skill of the architect, for sure.  But without skill in these matters I list, he doesn't even get to start on the things you list.

Tom,

In YOUR evaluative process, how would you know about any of the three (3) items you listed ?

Absent that information, and armed with only the information gained from playing/studying the golf course, how would you judge the GCA ?[/color]

[SL_Solow]

Tom;  You said you agree that "it" is a silly system.  Its your system.  I didn't propose it, I suggest that the end result must be "great" in order for the architecture to be great.  If you think its silly, why propose and support it?  Surely the end result must have some role in evaluating the work.  Someone who works hard and fails may be commended for their hard work and skill but they have still failed.  Unless the objective is to evaluate degree of difficulty your standard measures process without considering results.

[Brock Peyer]

Adrian,

   ( As a native Philadelphian I can't help but hear Rocky saying your name!- sorry !)  
   

I never thought that I would be thinking about Rocky on GCA,...I love that movie!!!

Anyway, back to the topic, I judge the course how it fits the site and the area land around it, memorabilitity and how it flows or blends together.

[Tom Huckaby]

For judging golf course architecture?

1.  What the land was like prior to construction - the challenges to be overcome, or not.

2. How is the client - easy to deal with, meddling, cheap?

3.  Regulatory issues - easy to overcome, or difficult?

How the architect does with those three issues truly shows his skill as an architect.

Mike, the things you list show how great a GOLF COURSE is. And they also show the skill of the architect, for sure.  But without skill in these matters I list, he doesn't even get to start on the things you list.

Tom,

In YOUR evaluative process, how would you know about any of the three (3) items you listed ?

Absent that information, and armed with only the information gained from playing/studying the golf course, how would you judge the GCA ?[/color]

Patrick:

That's the point - we golfers DON'T know the answers to those questions.  But I do firmly believe that if one is to evaluate "architecture", those issues are rather paramount.  Do you disagree with that?

And therefore the answer to me is it's silly for us golfers to even try to evaluate "architecture", and thus we should stick to evaluating "golf courses" - for which we have all the information we need, when we play them.

It's really very simple.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

I guess one has to know THE RANCH to get the full meaning of this, but I am absolutely not kidding when I say that is one hell of an architectural achievement.

I have carefully read everything you've written in this thread up to this point, and I can only make this comment:

It might be an architectural achievement, but it sure as heck wasn't a golf course architectural achievement.

Golf course rchitecture is a design process. It is realized in the form of a course that people play. The quality of that course is a combination of a lot of factors, only one of which is golf course architecture.

Ken

Ken - 100% agreed.  That's why again, I say we stick to evaluating golf courses, and leave "architecture" to the professionals.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom;  You said you agree that "it" is a silly system.  Its your system.  I didn't propose it, I suggest that the end result must be "great" in order for the architecture to be great.  If you think its silly, why propose and support it?  Surely the end result must have some role in evaluating the work.  Someone who works hard and fails may be commended for their hard work and skill but they have still failed.  Unless the objective is to evaluate degree of difficulty your standard measures process without considering results.

Shel - this need not be complex.

My goal is absolutely NOT to support such system, but rather to show the fallacies of it.  Read my post to Pat Mucci.

We need to stick to golf courses; we really can't evaluate "architecture."

That is the point.  I am honestly surprised you keep missing it.

TH

[Doug Wright]

"[G]olf course architecture is a subjective art form"
 --Ran Morrissett, "Welcome to GolfClubAtlas.com"

If we accept this premise, can I not therefore say "I know it when I see it"?

[SL_Solow]

Tom;  So it boils down to a semantic argument.  I think we can evaluate architecture without knowing what was there before the course was built.  We evaluate the course but eliminate variables like maintenance, atmosphere, tradition etc.  Those additional variables get added back when evaluating the entire experience of playing the course.  Clearly the architect has little to zero control over those variables.  Other factors such as unwise treeplanting programs lie in gray areas as they may be contrary to the architect's plan but are difficult to discern and/or separate.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom;  So it boils down to a semantic argument.  I think we can evaluate architecture without knowing what was there before the course was built.  We evaluate the course but eliminate variables like maintenance, atmosphere, tradition etc.  Those additional variables get added back when evaluating the entire experience of playing the course.  Clearly the architect has little to zero control over those variables.  Other factors such as unwise treeplanting programs lie in gray areas as they may be contrary to the architect's plan but are difficult to discern and/or separate.

Shel:  see, I think that's at least cheating, if not downright wrong.

How can you truly evaluate architecture and leave out the issues I stated?  They are fundamental to the whole process!

My answer to this is you can't, so an evaulation of architecture leaving these things out is pretty meaningless.  Just what are you then evaluating?

I don't get it, I really don't.  Oh I get what you are TRYING to say - you want to evaluate what you see as the "architecture" and leave those things out that to you have nothing to do with the "architecture" - I just think you're cheating, and wrong.

But if that has meaning to you, then more power to you.

BTW I hope you know I say all of this with a large smile, a lot of respect, and in the spirit of good fun.

But I do think you're wrong.

Of course the next question is how to properly evaluate a golf course.  You call it "golf course experience", I leave out that last word.

TH

[mike_malone]

 Doug,

    I agree that it is subjective, but one still has a point of view. I want to know what the components of one's point of view are.

   Huck,

     I can judge the architecture of those buildings Kalen showed, but my judgments are very amateurish since I know nothing at all about architecture except for whether it pleases the eye or not. But it is still a judgment.


       This is important in our discussions because some would would say that target bunkers may be landscape architecture but not really golf course architecture because they rarely come into play or involve strategic thinking. That judgment comes from a bias that says good golf course architecture should get one to think about and play the features designed into the course.

 

[George Pazin]

I think routing encompasses the vast majority of what I look for: Is it a great walk? Does it yield a variety of interesting, fun holes? Is the whole greater than the sum of the parts?

Green complexes specifically would probably be my next big thing.

The other really big thing for me is interesting ground movement - is it there, or did the architect smooth it all away? I haven't seen any really flat places that were still that way. I don't have a problem with an architect putting in land movement if the land is lacking, I do have a problem with removing it, presumably in the interest of fairness.

I don't think I can reasonably evaluate a lot of the other things being suggested - I have no idea how difficult it is to get something built, I have no idea how difficult it is to get something permitted, etc. These seem more like business issues than architectural.

As for judging in a rankings sense, I don't have nearly enough experience to say, I just know what I like.

[Tom Huckaby]

   Huck,

     I can judge the architecure of those buildings Kalen showed, but my judgments are very amateuish since I know nothing at all about architecture except for whether it pleases the eye or not. But it is still a judgment.

Bingo!
So why even try for amateurish assessments?

Why not stick to things one can speak with some authority on - like how fun it is to play a golf course?

TH

[Brent Hutto]

So why even try for amateurish assessments?

Why not stick to things one can speak with some authority on - like how fun it is to play a golf course?

I agree. And that is the only type of assessment I ever try to offer. Trying to do more would just make my head spin to no good purpose.

[Kalen Braley]

   Huck,

     I can judge the architecure of those buildings Kalen showed, but my judgments are very amateuish since I know nothing at all about architecture except for whether it pleases the eye or not. But it is still a judgment.

Mike,

I think you really hit on the point I was trying to make.  One can't really judge architecture of a course any better than a building because you don't know exactly what went into building it.  With the exception of an actual gca, then perhaps you would have insight.

What we can do though is form an opinion on the finished product whether it be a finished building or a golf course.  But its not an analysis of the actual architecture.

[Tom Huckaby]

So why even try for amateurish assessments?

Why not stick to things one can speak with some authority on - like how fun it is to play a golf course?

I agree. And that is the only type of assessment I ever try to offer. Trying to do more would just make my head spin to no good purpose.

Me too.  Seems simple to me....

 

[mike_malone]

 Sounds like we should shut down this site !

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()