News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Can "great" architecture be unassuming?
« on: December 02, 2007, 02:21:41 PM »
 Or, does "great" require tremendous amounts of study and reflection during play? Does great architecture have to be so complex that it has to be analyzed?

Are there any courses that just "are"?

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Philippe Binette

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Can "great" architecture be unassuming?
« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2007, 02:34:45 PM »
no, two names

MUIRFIELD,
GARDEN CITY,

Peter Pallotta

Re:Can "great" architecture be unassuming?
« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2007, 03:06:01 PM »
Joe
I'm of two minds on this very good question.

On the one hand, I'm convinced that like most everything else in our lives, what we can discover and appreciate and eventually love about a golf course has a great deal to do with the attention and respect and loyalty we give it (and are willing to give it) in the first place. The golf course "is", with or without us; but whether in our relationship with it we come to consider it great has a lot to do with us.

But, on the other hand, it's hard not to say from experience that certain courses and music and art seem to reward the attention and respect and loyalty we give them more fully or for longer of in more interesting ways than other courses/music/art; and so I have to think that the golf course brings something to the relationship.

But I think a golf course can certainly can be 'unassuming' in most people's eyes and still prove in the long run to be great...at least for those with eyes to see.

Peter      

Lloyd_Cole

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Can "great" architecture be unassuming?
« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2007, 04:22:38 PM »
Certainly the assumption that this is not the case has led to some of the worst golf courses. See the ads in your latest golf mag for examples.

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Can "great" architecture be unassuming?
« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2007, 04:26:26 PM »
Joe,
If you can define what "great" architecture is, you will probably answer the question for yourself  ;)
Mark
« Last Edit: December 02, 2007, 04:26:39 PM by Mark_Fine »

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Can "great" architecture be unassuming?
« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2007, 05:12:19 PM »
Mark,

The definition of the word great has been watered down over the years. Just watch some football today and notice how many great plays happen. If you listen to the announcers, it's a lot. If you watch and understand why they get paid a lot to play football, the number of great plays drops dramatically.

In that context, if an architect gets hired to do the job, and does it very well, does the end result have to scream out for the title of greatness, or can it be a great (yes, whatever that means) golf course without having to announce itself as great?

Can a very good golf course exist without the need of exalted superlatives, thus elevating it to greatness? Does the internet and corporate success even allow for such a course to exist?

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Bill Gayne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Can "great" architecture be unassuming?
« Reply #6 on: December 02, 2007, 05:23:26 PM »
Pinehurst #2 may fit the description you're looking for.

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Can "great" architecture be unassuming?
« Reply #7 on: December 02, 2007, 06:32:09 PM »
"Great" in my mind is getting up there with the elite that is just too small of a sampling to discuss in the "unassuming" category.  The consensus greats (regardless of how they come in on your order of top 10 or to 50, whatever) are all pretty much known, and accepted to varying degrees.  They may be controversial in terms of if X id greater than Y, but they are all highly recognised for their playing greatness.  

At least in my thought of what is unassuming, I have to first think of understated, or unheralded, or even hidden gem sort of concept.  To that end, I think there are quite a few (even if this smallish 1500 group seems to know them well)  The Rustic Canyons, Wild Horses, Apache Strongholds, (and I hope soon Port Lavacca's) seem to be more in that unassuming, very good category.  There are dozens if not 100s of those very good unassuming ones, in my view.
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Can "great" architecture be unassuming?
« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2007, 06:35:45 PM »
Joe :),great ;D question 8)...and the best :D way for me ::) to answer is that it has to be :) :) :) :) :)....fun! ;)
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Can "great" architecture be unassuming?
« Reply #9 on: December 02, 2007, 06:46:24 PM »
Seriously....some of the "greats" [and most of the near misses].....fail the "Walk in the Park", "How many Balls have I Lost so Far?", "Am I really having fun yet Spending this much Money?" tests.

Fun.
Challenging fun......am I coming thru yet? ;D
« Last Edit: December 03, 2007, 06:12:00 AM by paul cowley »
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Can "great" architecture be unassuming?
« Reply #10 on: December 02, 2007, 08:12:27 PM »
Paul,

You just pegged my latest free download, the Online FunMeter v1.4

It went to 11...... 8)
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Can "great" architecture be unassuming?
« Reply #11 on: December 03, 2007, 04:30:45 AM »
Or, does "great" require tremendous amounts of study and reflection during play? Does great architecture have to be so complex that it has to be analyzed?

Are there any courses that just "are"?

Joe
I'm not sure I've played a golf course yet that "requires" tremendous amounts of study and reflection during play, or that is so complex that it HAS to be analysed.  I've played the Old Course and Muirfield without any knowledge or real understanding of architecture (indeed my lowest round at Muirfield predates my interest in GCA) and enjoyed both enormously.

Whether great courses reward study, reflection and analysis is,of course, a different question.  The answer is that great courses reward but do not demand these things.

How architecture, an intangible noun, can be unassuming, which requires conscious thought, is a philosophical question I am unable to answer.  Greater minds on here may be able to help.
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

Rich Goodale

Re:Can "great" architecture be unassuming?
« Reply #12 on: December 03, 2007, 05:48:37 AM »
Some Africans (e.g. the current residents of Timbuktu) consider "Architecture" to be a verb rather than a noun.  Think about it......