[Matt_Ward]

One of the more facinating aspects of this site is to gauge the thoughts / opinions of people over a period of time. I've wondered when people opine on the different courses they play whether or not they have a certain patrticular checklist on what is clearly acceptable and what is not.

For example, the concept of wide fairways seems to be in vogue with plenty of people. Ditto the concept that bunkers must "look" a particular way in order to have relevance as "true" bunkers. I'm sure I can add a few more items of this type.

I ask this sincerely -- do people who post here generally believe in a one style aspect for all golf course designs? Is the feeling here that there is one particular style that fits all situations? I often wonder how elastic / pragmatic many people are because there seems to be a genuine narrowness in what is acceptable and what is not. Or are people more dogmatic and very narrow in what range of courses can really be deemed acceptable.

The only real stipulation that I hold for any course I play is whether or not consistently the good shot is rewarded proportionate to the level of skill in which it has been executed. On the converse side -- a course must punish poor shots - again in direct proportion to the lack of execution that's been  achieved. Other than that -- I'm really wide open in what goes.

I am well aware no course than can provide 100% time after time exact outcomes with each swing because there is always an element of chance / outcomes with any swing. As it should be in my mind.

To give one example -- I would find it interesting to see what type of people can be both fans of the works of Tom Doak and Jim Engh. Both are contemporaries of each other and there's no doubt from the courses I have played both men are very talented, yet they offer a unique and distinctly different style. Are there people who are fans of both (realizing no architect, including these two gents hits home runs with each design) and would they play both styles on a consistent basis if the opportunity presented itself?

Thanks ...




 

[George Pazin]

Kind of ironic, I almost started a similar thread yesterday.

In all candor, I'd have to say mine's not too open. By that, I mean I have very distinct ideas of what makes a golf course great to me. It's open in the sense that I try to always reflect on these ideas or principles and adjust them accordingly, but if something doesn't fit, even upon further reflection, it will likely never be great to me.

That's partly why I have no desire to every rate for anyone else.

[Eric_Terhorst]

I don't mind OT threads, and some I actually like.  But to be honest, the one type of OT thread I never like are ones like this one: the meta threads... the gca discussions about how gca discusses the topics it tends to discuss.  (Funny, I would've thought that'd be right in my wheelhouse) 

But the meta threads always seem have the most blanket statements and generalizations, the most complaints -- about this site and the people on it and everything else -- and the most a priori arguments

Fun if you're the one doing the writing/ranting/a priori reasoning (I know), but....

Anyway

Peter   

Matt,

Peter made this wise comment the other day on another thread.

If you sincerely want to know if there are fans of both Doak and Engh, why don't you delete this meta-thread, which is about people's "minds" and not about architecture, and simply ask the question--which I think is an interesting one--

"If you have played both Doak and Engh courses, please tell us if you have enjoyed all of them, none of them, some of each, or a particular brand.  Of course we'd like to know why, but this is just a survey to test my hypothesis, so a simple "+" or "-" will do...thanks."

Unfortunately, I haven't played any Enghs, a problem I hope to remedy this summer, so I can't comment myself. 

I think you'll find a broad mix of preferences if you're willing to accept them as such...

[Tom_Doak]

Well, the question is too personal for me to answer, but I am a fan of both Raynor's work and MacKenzie's, whose styles were quite different in their own day.

[Matt_Ward]

Eric:

Thanks -- but my post is about architecture. The question is one of adaptability to different experiences.

I see the issue as being open-minded to experience different styles knowing full well that they will likely run the gamut. Doak and Engh are completely different in terms of styles and outcomes. However, based upon the ones I have played from both camps I have thoroughly enjoyed their best works.

I think the issue becomes one of those who go the route with a dogmatic approach. Courses then need to fit that narrow definition. No doubt people can prefer whatever they want. It just makes me wonder if people are as open to different possibilities. Sort of reminds me of the friends of mine who enjoy eating food -- so long as it's steak and potato type meals. You'd never see some of these folks eating Thai or Indian, to name just two.

That's food for thought -- no pun intended !

[Matt_Ward]

Kelly:

My time right now is tight to fully respond -- got to shop with the wife -- but here's what I meant. Great design can differentiate between great, so-so and poor shot execution. I am not advocate that tree infestation, bamboo like rough and other elements need to be included in an overkill manner.

But, shot differntiation is fundamental to golf (rewards / penalities) and needs to be broken down through what any course provides.

I will comment when time allows on your point concerning how open minded critics are to the overall process and whether or not there are people sleeping in the same bed they are supposed to really examine.

[Eric_Terhorst]

I think the issue becomes one of those who go the route with a dogmatic approach. Courses then need to fit that narrow definition. No doubt people can prefer whatever they want. It just makes me wonder if people are as open to different possibilities.

Matt, you're talking about people again, not architecture!!  Why do you care so much about other people's approach?  If others have a need to characterize quality through a narrow lens (rare, in my experience) why should you or anyone else take them seriously?

[George Pazin]

Is having principles or ideas really that limiting?

[Doug Ralston]

Matt;

My architecture philosophy is as eclectic as my taste in food. I like just about any edible thing, if it is well prepared. I like about any golf course concept, well executed.

I really make a good 'foil' for 'fundamentalists' of golf architecture; regardless of which denomination. I note that, like all forms of conservatism, architectural fundys think different mean lesser.

This site is just chock full of dogma. Great place to be.

Doug

[George Pazin]

So is dogma in architecture really that limiting?

[Matt_Ward]

Doug:

Thanks for getting "it." And in also keeping your mind open to other styles. Doug, you hit the nail squarely in the hit -- there are strict fundamentalists on this site who see things very much in their own formulaic pattern. God forbid if the mind were to be open to other possibilities.

Eric:

Allow me to point out an architectural distinction between two very talented but very different designers and the approach they take -- a Tom Doak layout is vastly different than a Jim Engh layout. There are those who believe the Doak motif, which he gemerally follows, is the way to go -- no doubt the minds of the more doctrinaire supporters here on GCA and elsewhere. You then have more than a few people who would define a Jim Engh layout as being vastly over-shaped and full of other design flaws.

Eric, with all due respect, the situation is not as rare as you claim. This site is infested with people who see golf design through a narrow prism. The one-best way to design time after time is what is being advocated. I don't see how design (of which art is such a fundamental part) can be defined in such a narrow way / self-limiting way.

I see things, at least in my mind, as being more pragmatic and open to a range of different course options. The one aspect I did mention that's a constant is that good shots are rewarded proportionally to the level of execution demonstrated. Ditto the reverese for poor shots.

Like I said before, you have folks who only see food through the prism of steak and potato -- never Thai, Indian or Lebanese, etc, etc.

Kelly:

I can understand your comments / re: critics who only follow the big ticket people and often fail to unearth anything beyond the surface level elements. Clearly, when people print comments from never having been to a given site it speaks volumes in terms of their own credibility (lack therof).

[Joel_Stewart]

My architecture philosophy is as eclectic as my taste in food. I like just about any edible thing, if it is well prepared. I like about any golf course concept, well executed.

"Well executed" is the operative words.   Good modern architecture, well executed can be great.  The problem is there are very few that don't include the waterfalls and lakes that blemish the work.  As examples of fantastic public courses built over the last few years, Wildhorse, Rustic Canyon and Chambers Bay.

[Pete Lavallee]

Matt,

How do you reconcile the fact that on many of Engh's dished out green sites, poor shots are rewarded?

[Peter Nomm]

Matt - thanks for the interesting thread.  I imagine there will be responses that cover the entire spectrum.

As someone who enjoys the game first and foremost, there is no doubt my opinion as to the greatness of a course encompasses more than just the architecture.  So with that said, my personal preferences in courses is far from single-minded.  And that is probably to me the number one reason I love the game - the opportunity to experience such a variety of designs, environments, company, and purposes for the game.

To this day I have not had a greater experience than the two trips I have taken to Sand Hills.  The course, the peace, and the hospitality are such a great combination.  However, I hope to add to this as my friend who is a member there is also now a member at Ballyneal, so the next trip will now consist of two days at both places.  How could life get any better?

But at the same time, I take an annual trip with my father and brother-in-law, and usually play decent courses that don't have nearly the pedigree as a SH.  With trips in recent years to both Mesquite, NV and Myrtle Beach, several of those courses still stand out as memorable.  I can't imagine that there has been a lot of discussion on this site about the Palmer Course at Oasis in Mesquite, but I can remember every hole out there and would love to go play it again.

I would imagine that if I held to any specific set of likes or expectations for a golf course, I would probably find myself regularly disappointed.  

And like I said above, the variety we get to experience (including in our own games from day to day) is what makes this pursuit so compelling.  To truly appreciate the game, I believe one has to appreciate the differences.

[Michael Dugger]

People like what they like

Even you, Matt.

It's really that simple

[Ryan Farrow]

"On the converse side -- a course must punish poor shots - again in direct proportion to the lack of execution that's been  achieved. Other than that -- I'm really wide open in what goes."

-MW


I hear you loud and clear. So we cannot accommodate a beginner and a scratch player on the same golf course. Now I see why you have a problem with all of the good modern courses and designers.

[MargaretC]

Doug:

Thanks for getting "it." And in also keeping your mind open to other styles. Doug, you hit the nail squarely in the hit -- there are strict fundamentalists on this site who see things very much in their own formulaic pattern. God forbid if the mind were to be open to other possibilities...

...Like I said before, you have folks who only see fo...od through the prism of steak and potato -- never Thai, Indian or Lebanese, etc, etc...

Matt:

Opinions and preferences...everyone has them.  IMHO, someone's opinion is no less valid because he/she may have a preference for a style.  You apparently feel differently and that's your right.  I either agree or disagree.

Even the most egalitarian among us has preferences.

I want risk/reward; I want to be challenged; I want a golf course to make me think strategically and I don't want a course to be contrived or overly penal (I also love Oakmont).   

[Jeff_Brauer]

I follow the school of thought that says its okay to have an open mind, just as long as its not so open your brains fall out.

[Kirk Gill]

How do you reconcile the fact that on many of Engh's dished out green sites, poor shots are rewarded?

 I've played some of these greens, and to make a blanket statement that they reward poor shots is not always correct. One one par three with the pin placement in the back left of the green and the slope of the green running down to the left, a shot right at the pin would have ended up off the green to the left, while the curvature of the slope behind the green meant that if you hit it off of that slope right behind the pin you had a chance to bounce back on the green near the pin, but just a couple of feet to the right and your ball would bounce hard right, cross a ridge, roll, and leave you a LONG up-over-and-downhill put back to the pin. And that's if the slope behind the pin is mown tight. If it's left as rough, your ball will hang up there leaving you a nasty downhill chip to a green running away from you..........

Of course, some shots to get "gathered" back to the pin. I certainly wouldn't argue that. And perhaps REALLY bad shots that would have gone way over the green get a break in that situation. Of course, I once brutally sliced a drive on the 17th at TOC, hit the metal shed, and bounded back into the middle of the fairway. I was rewarded, when I should have been punished. The golf gods quaked with fury.

As to your question, Matt, I truly look forward to having the opportunity to play a Doak course so that I can have an informed opinion (Mira Vista will open soon, and give me the closest opportunity). But if I was to guess, I'd say there's every chance I'd love to play Mr. Doak's courses. Some I might like better than some of Jim Engh's. It is in the realm of possibility that I might like some less.

But what do I know. I've liked courses by Phelps, Brauer, Kavanaugh and even Art Hills ! I do know it when I like a course, and when I don't. The only real disadvantage of having an open mind is the possibility that you end up liking everything, and don't have any opinion at all.

[Doug Ralston]

Have never played a single Engh yet. Tullymore, in Michigan, is my likeliest. I see it rates 74.8 and slopes 148. Now perhaps that doesn't mean the greens are pretty tough; I haven't seen the course's defenses. But something there must be a bit of a challenge.

In my old computer golf game, I created a green which I called 'The Volcano'. Reminded me of Shinnecock #11 during the US Open. Hole on tiny flat spot atop a steep-sided hillock, falling off in every direction. Figured if all the best players [except Goosen] couldn't putt it, it would work in the game. Maybe THIS is the concept you are looking for. It will severly punish anyone who cannot put it inside a 3ft circle! Not my cup of tea, but I agree to each his/her own.

Meanwhile, I think I'll take Jim Engh as I find him. Lakota still looks awesome to me!

Doug

[John_McMillan]

I have played courses designed by both architects.
I have a preference between the two.

I'm not sure whether the first statement means I have an open mind, or whether the second statement means that I do not.

[Doug Ralston]

Here is an example of a 'different look' at courses. People just find their own likes and dislikes out there. My friend Moe Miller had a nice trip about the Country last year. Here he tries to rate his preferences in some order. Look at his first ones. And look what is dead last. To each his/her own, yes?

http://www.golfkentuckylinks.com/Pages/Golf%20Trips/MoeLewisSacaTrip.html

Doug

[Eric_Terhorst]

Matt,

Maybe it's just me, but when you use words like "dogmatic" "doctrinaire" "narrow" and "infested" to refer to or define those whose preferences, mindset, or approach differ from yours, you are communicating disdain, not an "open mind." 

I have played courses designed by both architects.
I have a preference between the two.

I'm not sure whether the first statement means I have an open mind, or whether the second statement means that I do not.

John, just ask Matt to give you some of what he's drinking, and then you'll be sure   

[Garland Bayley]

...
The only real stipulation that I hold for any course I play is whether or not consistently the good shot is rewarded proportionate to the level of skill in which it has been executed. On the converse side -- a course must punish poor shots - again in direct proportion to the lack of execution that's been  achieved. Other than that -- I'm really wide open in what goes.

Sounds formulaic and close minded to me. You and Joshua Crane would have been pals.

[Garland Bayley]

Here is an example of a 'different look' at courses. People just find their own likes and dislikes out there. My friend Moe Miller had a nice trip about the Country last year. Here he tries to rate his preferences in some order. Look at his first ones. And look what is dead last. To each his/her own, yes?

http://www.golfkentuckylinks.com/Pages/Golf%20Trips/MoeLewisSacaTrip.html

Doug

Guess I would like to know their definition of "excellent golf hole" etc. IMHO, they didn't have their eyes open when playing some of the courses. Unless, excellent golf hole translates to immaculate conditioned golf hole.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()