[Mike Sweeney]

Mike--You only prove my point. Crump was unknown, he was not even a professional architect. He simply had land where he wanted to build a golf course. He made it the way he wanted. While other architects visited, he was the primary designer. Does it matter that he was not a world renowned designer? No, what matters is the course he designed (with help on holes, yes I know) is awesome.  My point was, the name of the designer does not mean anything. The quality of the work means more. Great designers can sometimes build poor courses, and sometimes small names designers and even amateurs can strike gold, just like Crump at Pine Valley.

Patrick--I agree with you, Pine Valley and Oakmont are real dumps...

I still disagree. The fact that Crump was able to bring these people together was amazing in itself.

Even when you drop down on the food chain to say my old home course at Long Island National, Bobby Jones was hired in part to add to the Jones legacy on Long Island. When you know about his battles with his brother, you start to look at some of the things he might have done to try and kick his brothers ass at Atlantic on Long Island.

Mike "You got a problem that I am not a Dead Guy" Young had a whole bunch of "Dead Guy" features at Long Shadow. Great design is driven by lots of things, and passion is one of them. I want to know who's passion it is.

I don't have much creativity in my body, but I do enjoy seeing it and sometimes bringing it together.

Just to be clear, I an not talking about a marketing pitch for a Fred Couples course, I want to know who is responsible for the actual work.

Did you read the article? Trust me it is much more interesting than the drivel thatI write!

[John Moore II]

I did scan through the article. It was classy. What I am meaning in general is, have you ever played a course that you thought was a good/above average course and not know the designer before you played? And then found out who the designer was and had never heard of him. Or have you played a course by a world class architect and been less than impressed..either compared to his previous works you had played or just unimpressed in general? I can say yes to both.

[John Moore II]

The name of the architect is not the key feature. I will think a good course is good and a bad course bad no matter who designed it and what legacy they have.

[David Stamm]

The name of the architect is not the key feature. I will think a good course is good and a bad course bad no matter who designed it and what legacy they have.

Michael, sorry, I don't want to hijack your thread. But....



Johnny,

   The end result, the course, is the measuring stick to be sure. However, to ignore the designer is a mistake.  Ever notice why certain architects get the reputation they do, both good and bad? I find a great deal to be learned about these designers and why they tended to do certain things in their courses. Finding out who the designer is beforehand will often make up the minds of certain golfers on whether they will play it because they know what they are going to get, both good and bad. Yes, the course is the most important aspect. But knowing why the course was great, good or bad can largely be attributed to the architect.

[jeffwarne]

I here the talk about " frank" discussion.
Go to Ran's page on UK golf courses-pure class- and rarely a bad word about any course. Yet you can read between the lines and determine what courses should be played.
Fruitful discussion can be had without rude remarks made in the name of frankness.


This website is better than ever.
need proof?

Click on some of the earliest threads.

[Ryan Farrow]

With this argument about, the architect doesn't matter... its all about the course..... come on.

Where else can we talk about the architect? Its not happening on the course, they don't give a damn. You don't talk about a famous painting or song and just ignore who the artists were, how is golf course architecture any different?

[David Stamm]

With this argument about, the architect doesn't matter... its all about the course..... come on.

Where else can we talk about the architect? Its not happening on the course, they don't give a damn. You don't talk about a famous painting or song and just ignore who the artists were, how is golf course architecture any different?

Well said Ryan.

[Michael Dugger]

"I think" thread hi-jacking is just fine.

Only an arrogant ass is offended that nobody is interested in talking about what they posited, and instead go off in a different direction.

[Andrew Summerell]

I'll tell you what I'd argue... the following notions:

1. That this place has any one universally-held position on anything;

Tom,

If people have that opinion, then that’s their opinion. I don’t believe there is one particular line of thought, but golf courses architecture & people who love golf courses is a reasonably small field in the great scheme of things, so there are always going to be some similarities. I wouldn’t worry about arguing it too much. If people get into the site enough, they’ll understand what is going on. The rest aren’t worth the fight.

And there is universal thought on many subjects, but generally for good reason. If a lot of us praise Doak courses, then maybe it’s because they are that good. In saying that, I still read a lot of differing opinions on this site & I think it’s great, because many of them make me think, especially when I don’t agree with them.

The great thing about this site is that it has taught me HOW to think, as opposed to WHAT to think. I really appreciate that.

The one difficulty that I find is how fast threads grow. While many of you guys in America are posting, I’m here in Australia sleeping. By the time I look at some threads there is 50 to 100 posts already. Sometimes good posts are lost in the mêlée (sometimes this has happened to my posts, but rarely, as my posts just ain’t that good), as people continue to respond to the latest posts. Let me say, this doesn’t worry me that much, as it is excellent to see so much activity & I find I learn a great deal as I read through the various posts.

In regards to starting new threads on previously discussed topics, I really don’t think it’s a problem, but if it is mention that it has been discussed before, people need not take offence. A thread was posted earlier in the year on the 7 wonders of golf. I had started a similar topic a year earlier, so I posted a link to that thread. Well, people had a go at me on the thread & privately for posting the link, when all I was trying to do was help so people could get ideas from what was previously discussed. Sometimes it is difficult to know a persons real intent on the internet, but it’s no big deal in the end.

Of course, the one way to get noticed is to write long posts.
 

[Tom Huckaby]

Interesting thread, another in the recent line of GCA self-examination.

First, to Phillip Young, you say:

 I find it highly arrogant and impudent when someone will pose a question or a new topic and a 'senior' member will follow it up with the statement that "We've discussed that before..."

I've done this from time to time.  And it's not meant to be arrogant, please believe me.  It's meant as a help to the poster, so he can understand why he's perhaps not getting the response an otherwise great question might warrant.  What I find rude is just not answering at all and leaving him hanging... and I find this happening from time to time, especially when a repeat question is asked by a newcomer here.  You know it's fatiguing to answer the same question over and over and over, so some just give up (including me)... And I know, it's lazy, but my thought is it's better to explain why then leave a guy hanging.  That is, it's better than nothing.

To Andrew:  good stuff.  Oh, there definitely are some majority opinions here; hell Doak is worshipped by the majority and that can't be denied.  But it is not UNIVERSAL... so again, if someone says "GCA worships Doak" that would not be correct, not as I see things.  Most like his work, some don't, some don't care one way or the other.  That's what I was getting at anyway.

To Michael D. - I haven't noticed, as you seem to, a preponderance of posts here saying "GCA says this" or "GCA says that".  If that has happened, then yes it is annoying.  I just haven't seen it.

As for being into courses and not architects, well... that's just me.  And I suppose I did exaggerate.  Let me re-phrase that to say I care a LOT more about what a course holds than who designed it.  I understand those who are into the study, who do care about the personalities and their work, and more power to them.  That just ain't me.

TH

[Mike_Young]

David and others,
I am not saying you should not discuss or study the courses and not the architects.....just saying don't let the tail wag the dog withe archie being the tail.....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

What I am noticing is that you are changing your statement at the bottom of each of your posts lately!

Doesn't matter. No one will ever claim you have the best bottom here (or anywhere)

[Phil Benedict]

Chip Gaskins,

I think your threads are great.  I loved the Merion 4 and 11 discussion and found it an interesting case study in human nature that it basically ended when Tom Doak and subsequently Mark Fine agreed with you.

Keep 'em coming.

PS:  You are welcome to play at my course anytime but it isn't one of the greats so you are unlikely to say anything here that will offend me.

[George Pazin]

But I guess you want some purging of the soul, Michael?

OK, I'm game.

I really don't give a rat's ass who designed any given course.  Sorry guys.  I'm into courses, not the people who designed them.

TH

I agree with Ryan.

Much like you feel it's impossible to separate aesthetics/surrounds/etc. from architecture, I think when discussing gca it's almost impossible to separate a course from it's designer. Moreover, I think it's actually useful to relate the two.

Would you have a discussion of the Sistine Chapel without mentioning Michaelangelo?

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

What I am noticing is that you are changing your statement at the bottom of each of your posts lately!

Doesn't matter. No one will ever claim you have the best bottom here (or anywhere)

Are u talking to me?
WHAT I REALLY THINK..... Hillary wins...dumps Bill for Janet Reno...Reno becomes first lady and all this golf stuff was just a passing fad......(thats better than the confidential guide)

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

See my later post.  My first one was an exaggerated response to what I thought Michael was asking for.

A better way of stating how I look at things is in the post I made this morning, #36.

I also think Mike Young puts it well with this:

I am not saying you should not discuss or study the courses and not the architects.....just saying don't let the tail wag the dog withe archie being the tail.....

TH

[George Pazin]

To Michael D. - I haven't noticed, as you seem to, a preponderance of posts here saying "GCA says this" or "GCA says that".  If that has happened, then yes it is annoying.  I just haven't seen it.

Actually, I think people embrace the concept as a weak means of bolstering an argument, as in:

- Everyone hates Fazio, you guys are just biased

- Everyone hates trees, but they're just too stoopid to realize trees are important

- Everyone here is a butt kisser seeking access

blah blah blah

I'm not a big fan of anecdotal evidence - and yet I think I just used it to make my point!

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

I guess some people do use that line or argumentation from time to time... I just haven't seen any great preponderance of it lately, as Michael seems to have.

I do skip a LOT of threads, though.

TH

[Peter Pallotta]

Michael -
 
I think that functionally golf courses today are better than ever, but I wonder about their form/aesthetics.  

I'd rather an experienced architect bring a unique style/aesthetic to fruition based on his own vision than to have him cherry-picking the most pleasing (or most popular) aesthetic features from a grab bag of other architects' work, past and present.  

That latter approach leads to a mish-mash of a look that's ever more divorced from the natural features of a given/particular site, and makes not for a Big World of golf course architecture but for an homogenous one.

I think there are economic implications to this, as I assume a site-natural approach is a less expenisve way to build courses, while creating a look imported from another site to one not naturally suited to that look is more expensive.  

There are also more subtle implications, as one of the things that makes golf unique is that its fields of play are (or can be) unique, and can ideally offer the golfer a sense of particpation in nature that's closely tied to where that golf is played, e.g. one feeling/experience of nature in the Rockies and a different one in the Plains and yet another one in the Northeast etc.      

Tom D made an interesting point on another thread about the possibility of a mature architect learning/being inspired more from natural landforms than from other people's work.

Peter    

[Scott Szabo]

In that case...

To name a few, I think Merion, Crystal Downs, Prairie Dunes, Yeamans Hall, National, and Cypress are just horrible.

Chip,

Given all the places you have already played if you are worried how what you say will affect your future access you should find somewhere else to spend time.  I have actually noticed the exact opposite.  Say something stupid about a course and suddenly members are begging you to come see the place to show you why you are wrong.  As a matter of fact, in my case, all of Great Britain wants me over there.

Patrick,

You beat me to this.  I don't think too highly of Cypress Point, Augusta National, Shinnecock....  

[John Kavanaugh]

You have to be ceative enough in your stupidity that it creates the illusion of intellectualism.  My attempt to prove the Mackenzie hated The Old Course was a perfect example.  Sometimes you might even end up dicovering an unknown fact.

I do wish Chip would start those threads he is thinking of...with tons of pics to boot!!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()