[Adam Clayman]

At least now we know where Doug got his dogma.

Is it me, or do we need Doc Katz to define a classic case of projection?

[Mike Sweeney]

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

Doug,

It would be great to get him on here. From his page,"Perhaps this winter I'll write down my criteria and thought processes as I rate a hole, and you can point out my obvious bias toward trees and water. I’m ready to defend water and trees on golf courses. Numbers 13 and 14 on that list above had none of either."

13 and 14 were Wildhorse and Links of ND.
__________________________________________

Matt,

I used to want to play everything at least once. Now not so much. I drove by Pound Ridge GC (NY) yesterday, and it re-opens this summer with the Pete and Perry Dye re-do of the former 9 hole plane jane course. Based on the mounding and earthmoving that I see from the road, the pics that have been shown here and my general view that Pete Dye is not my first choice, I doubt that I am going to like the course a hole bunch. Since it is about 15 minutes from Grandma's house, I would love it to be great, but.......

[TEPaul]

"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."

Matt:

For me, not at all. After-all, I'm the one who created the "Big World" theory and I very much believe in it. The reason is I recognize there are all kinds of tastes and opinions out there and to some fairly extensive degree I believe they should all be accommodated in golf and golf architecture. That doesn't necessarily mean I have to personally like them all but I do believe they should all be accommodated.

But the thing that most people probably don't understand is even though I think all those tastes and opinions should be accommodated in golf and architecture that does not necessarily preclude my right and ability to criticize some of those tastes and opinions. Criticizing them is not the same thing as suggesting they shouldn't exist.

I guess I even look at the entire world with something of a "Big World" theory. In other words, I think the world is a better and more interesting place simply because it does have people in it with good taste and also with bad taste and with opinions that are vastly different about all kinds of things.

I guess I just like that dynamic. If everyone thought the same way it would probably be exceedingly boring! 

[Kirk Gill]

The reason is I recognize there are all kinds of tastes and opinions out there and to some fairly extensive degree I believe they should all be accommodated in golf and golf architecture. That doesn't necessarily mean I have to personally like them all but I do believe they should all be accommodated.

An open-minded and considerate opinion for any person to have. Of course the question is what do you mean by "accomodated?" Does it mean that on a golf architecture online forum you don't make a point of dissing everything you don't like? Does it mean you make a point of seeking out new and different designs that on their face you  don't think you'll like, but you will go and check 'em out anyway?

All I'm saying is that it's one thing to look from afar at something and say "I choose not to hate that" and quite another to take the time and effort to experience something first-hand that you figure going in is not going to mesh with your pre-conceived notions of what you figure you'll like, and really giving it a chance.

OhmyGod, am I on the verge of saying "you have to do the heavy lifting, pardner?"

I like The Big World Theory, and aspire to living The Big World Practice, if that makes any sense.

[BCrosby]

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.

What John said.

Having preferences does not mean you are dogmatic.

It means that you have not heard convincing reasons why you should change your preferences.

Being dogmatic means that you can't imagine anything that would ever change your preferences.

The gap between those two statements is as wide as the ocean.

I don't know of anyone that posts on GCA that holds the latter view.

Bob

[Ash Towe]

I like to do a little research if I am playing a new course.  Look at the land the architect had to work with.  Then what was the intent of the design-member course, championship, etc  What characteristics does the architect have.

The era in which it was built and where it is in the world can have an effect.  When I have this information and I am sure others would include other factors I feel a considered view can be made.

Certainley I have my preferances but like other posters I like to think I am open minded and can appreciate what is on offer.

[Dan Herrmann]

I'm wide open - definitely.  But I find myself being a snob of sorts.

I'll see an ad for a Rees Jones design and chuckle.  I know it's immature, but it's true. 

Give me Doak or Hanse anyday, and I'll be happy.  Strantz is a guilty pleasure - the antithesis of minimalism, but what fun.

I've also liked every Hurdzan/Fry I've played.  I'd also like to see more discussion of Tom Weiskopf - we don't have much of his work back East.

But I'm open to anything.  Heck, I still like the muni I grew up playing north of Buffalo!

[Matt_Ward]

Eric T:

If you ever bothered to take the time to really probe the posts here on GCA you would see an almost zombie-like devotion to A PARTICULAR style of course. The question is do those who favor one style have the capacity to really see the merits in other presentations. The Doak / Engh link is a good one for the purpose of this discussion.

I'll use the food analogy again - some people worship steak and potato meals -- throw them into Thai or Indian food and a good number of them will never know what they are missing. Keeping things narrow for such folks may be fine for them -- but they should be just as forthcoming that their sense of embracing something beyond the traditional is quite limited.

I don't doubt people have preferences - we all do -- but I believe it's fair game (not the water in Jersey as you sarcastically pointed out) to see if people can see beyond their narrow sense of what constitutes superior golf. 

Garland B:

Let me point out - in case you didn't understand - a superior course makes it a point to consistently reward fine play versus that of poor play. That's fundamental to the very game itself. If you see that formulaic then your understanding of golf is indeed confused.

Michael Duggr:

It's not simply about what "people like." That's fine -- they should hace preferences. But do they have the wherewithal to see the point that different styles / presentations can also be defined as great courses? I would dare say -- many do not.

Pete Lavalee:

I never opined that the 12 or so Engh courses I have personally played are all home run efforts. No doubt the mounding that allows mediocre and even poor shots to "bounce" into a better shape because of the bowl technique can get a little old when encountered time after time. I've said that on previous specific course assessments which I have written.

[TEPaul]

Matt:

I think most of the people on this site are pretty capable of recognizing what it takes to make a golf course play superior. However, I think the basic deal on here is also what golf courses look like as well. To some the latter may be of little importance but to others it definitely isn't unimportant.

[Tommy Williamsen]

  I think we are making the discussion more difficult than it was intended to be.  I have been on this board for about four years and there is kind of an unwritten architectural orthodoxy.  Most of us are like minded in what kind of course we prefer.  Some of us are more eclectic and some of us have narrower tastes. The same is probably true in the rest of our lives as well.  I don't tow the Lutheran theological line by any stretch of the imagination.  The older I am the more I find truth in different places. The same is true for my golfing tastes.

 I have played about a half dozen courses by both TD and JE.  Boy are they different from each other in style, look, and philosophy.  There are, however, some commonalties:  they both know how to make courses that require the player to think their way around the course.  They both have fascinating holes.  JE has some of the most interesting greens I have ever seen.  TD has some of the best bunkering out there.  They both require the player to have certain skill sets.  Yet they do not design cookie cutter style.  If you played Sanctuary, Black Rock, and Tullymore you would be hard pressed to say that the same guy designed them all.  The same can be true of TD and High Point, Stonewall, and Sebonack.  Some of the JE's greens and bunker style are reminiscent of his others and some of TD's greensites and bunker style is similar, but the courses themselves are imaginative and varied.  I found it interesting that TD commented that he looked into applying for the second course at Black Rock but turned it down because of the elevation changes.  (I think I got that correct Tom).   

.  The discussions I find distasteful are the ones that tend to discount the bulk of   some architect’s work: Fazio, Rees Jones, Nicklaus to name a few.  They are similar to discussions I have with religious folks who can’t think outside their own little box.  I have been consigned to hell more than once.  Fortunately they do not attend my church (at least anymore).

Often we have discussions about trees and how they limit width.  That’s probably true. There is one thread running about it right now.  I belong to one course that has relatively few trees and one that has a bunch.  My son belongs to a club in MN that is tree lined.  I like all of the courses because they require different things from me.  Do I want to play any of them all the time?  Absolutely not.  There are very few courses I would want to play every day.

I remember posting a picture of the 11th green at Black Rock.  I did not name the course or the architect.  I knew that it would be lambasted.  It did.  I also said that it was one of the more fun shots you can hit.  Does it belong at Pennard?  No it would be a joke.  But at Black Rock it works and makes the round enjoyable. 



I also e-mailed a friend of mine a picture of the 6th hole at Westward Ho!  It is one of the great fairways in the world.  He has played ONE links course and thought it was the most disgusting hole he had ever seen.



I like both.  Well I started by saying that we made this discussion more difficult than it should be.  After re-reading this tome, I’d have to agree.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Garland B:

Let me point out - in case you didn't understand - a superior course makes it a point to consistently reward fine play versus that of poor play. That's fundamental to the very game itself. If you see that formulaic then your understanding of golf is indeed confused.
...

Well pardner, any course rewards fine play. Last I checked, you knock it in the hole, you are rewarded. It is the punish bad shots nonsense that is the problem. As I recall, some of the great architects felt that hitting a bad shot was punishment enough. You make it sound like penal architecture is the way to go, and Tilly should never have gone around the country removing duffer's headaches.

[Garland Bayley]

..."Perhaps this winter I'll write down my criteria and thought processes as I rate a hole, and you can point out my obvious bias toward trees and water. I’m ready to defend water and trees on golf courses. Numbers 13 and 14 on that list above had none of either."
...[/quote]

Thanks for quoting that Mike. I guess Doug's friend will never have to worry about going to the expense of playing in the home of golf, because he already knows he won't like it.

[David Neveux]

I have played a handful of courses by both architects and have enjoyed their courses immensely.  I think diversity between architects and styles is important; to me that's what makes traveling to different courses / playing fields such a special experience. 

[John Kirk]

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 reverse for poor shots.

Last year I saw Eric Terhorst perfectly execute a short chip shot on Crystal Downs #8 which trickled by the hole and just kept going, finally stopping 50 yards from the green.  It looked good for a long time.  Perhaps the selected line of play was a bit off.

I agree that good shots should generally be rewarded, but I now prefer courses where the standard deviation of results is greater than I used to.   The closer you get to a perfect execution versus reward model, the closer you get to a course without features.

KBM,

I liked your post.  I'm not sure I would recognize an innovation, but I'm not convinced there are any major innovations left.

Matt:

I think most of the people on this site are pretty capable of recognizing what it takes to make a golf course play superior. However, I think the basic deal on here is also what golf courses look like as well. To some the latter may be of little importance but to others it definitely isn't unimportant.

This is a fine summary of my feelings on the matter.

Eric T:

If you ever bothered to take the time to really probe the posts here on GCA you would see an almost zombie-like devotion to A PARTICULAR style of course.

"Uhhhhh, Ditka....Doak....Bearsssss....Ditka....Crenshaw....Doak....Bearssss...what?"

[Carl Rogers]

I can admire, respect and appreciate Bach one day and do the same for Holst the next day

Isn't this a question of how able are you willing and able to learn from new experiences or draw new insights from the past?  Can you re-think something from the blank page?  Can you arrive at an interface between flexibility and conviction?  exact plan or improversation?  the vision with deliberately fuzzy edges?

[George Pazin]

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.

What John said.

Having preferences does not mean you are dogmatic.

It means that you have not heard convincing reasons why you should change your preferences.

Being dogmatic means that you can't imagine anything that would ever change your preferences.

The gap between those two statements is as wide as the ocean.

I don't know of anyone that posts on GCA that holds the latter view.

Bob

Excellent post, Bob, as always.

[George Pazin]

If you ever bothered to take the time to really probe the posts here on GCA you would see an almost zombie-like devotion to A PARTICULAR style of course.

As opposed to posters who have a zombie-like devotion to bashing others' preferences....

Sincerely,

GP
who admits to a zombie-like devotion to pointing out Matt's desire to elevate his opinion over everyone else's


So we have Tom P's Big World Theory, which accomodates all preferences while retaining the right to criticise others, and Matt's Open Mind Theory, which criticises anyone who doesn't have the same open mind as him. I know which I prefer.

Would anyone else care to offer his own theory of enclosure?

[tlavin]

If you ever bothered to take the time to really probe the posts here on GCA you would see an almost zombie-like devotion to A PARTICULAR style of course.

As opposed to posters who have a zombie-like devotion to bashing others' preferences....

Sincerely,

GP
who admits to a zombie-like devotion to pointing out Matt's desire to elevate his opinion over everyone else's


So we have Tom P's Big World Theory, which accomodates all preferences while retaining the right to criticise others, and Matt's Open Mind Theory, which criticises anyone who doesn't have the same open mind as him. I know which I prefer.

Would anyone else care to offer his own theory of enclosure?

My mind isn't open enough to accept any more exhortations about the undeniable architectural merits of Black Mesa, that's for sure.

[Adam Clayman]

Since the early days on GCA, desires to both learn and share what constitutes a better GC, has been the major subtext. I assume it stems from Ran's stories of how his family started debating the question. That is not dogma.
 The website has brought together several knowledgeable people, who've gained their knowledge through many different methods and sources. Theoretical v. practical, if you will? This combination of opinions based on the written word, and the playing experiences of many, should continue to be at the heart of trying to answer that same question. What's better, and why.

The Big World Theory is not relevant when that question is asked.


 

[Eric_Terhorst]

I have played about a half dozen courses by both TD and JE.  Boy are they different from each other in style, look, and philosophy.  There are, however, some commonalties:  they both know how to make courses that require the player to think their way around the course.  They both have fascinating holes.  JE has some of the most interesting greens I have ever seen.  TD has some of the best bunkering out there.  They both require the player to have certain skill sets.  Yet they do not design cookie cutter style.  If you played Sanctuary, Black Rock, and Tullymore you would be hard pressed to say that the same guy designed them all.  The same can be true of TD and High Point, Stonewall, Sebonack, and Colorado GC.  Some of the JE's greens and bunker style are reminiscent of his others and some of TD's greensites and bunker style is similar, but the courses themselves are imaginative and varied. 

Matt,

it seems to me this is the kind of discussion you're looking for. 

Rev. Willamsen's entire informative post is to me indicative of much of the discussion around here--and yet--you must be shocked--nobody has attacked him for his way-out-of-the-wide-fairway support of Mr. Engh's work...

Last year I saw Eric Terhorst perfectly execute a short chip shot on Crystal Downs #8 which trickled by the hole and just kept going, finally stopping 50 yards from the green.  It looked good for a long time. 

Eric T:

If you ever bothered to take the time to really probe the posts here on GCA you would see an almost zombie-like devotion to A PARTICULAR style of course.

"Uhhhhh, Ditka....Doak....Bearsssss....Ditka....Crenshaw....Doak....Bearssss...what?"

John, re: that shot at Crystal Downs, I think it actually looked good only for a short time, then it looked "a bit off" for a short time, then it looked really horrible for a long time as it was trickling down the hill.  Sort of a Twilight Zone illustration of Kirk's Unified Theory!

And you vastly over-estimate the time I spend thinking about the Bears, Doak, and Crenshaw and underestimate the time I spend thinking about the last firm female derriere that passed through my view...

[TEPaul]

"The website has brought together several knowledgeable people, who've gained their knowledge through many different methods and sources. Theoretical v. practical, if you will? This combination of opinions based on the written word, and the playing experiences of many, should continue to be at the heart of trying to answer that same question. What's better, and why.
The Big World Theory is not relevant when that question is asked."

Adam:

Of course it's relevant, unless the one answering the question of what's better and why is under the impression that what he might think is something that everyone else who plays golf should agree with. 

But, don't worry, from my long time experiences on here I'm quite sure there're a fair number of people on here who feel that all of golf architecture should only be what they think is best.

[Doug Ralston]

First of all, let me state that Moe's opinion is his own. I agree with him ....... sometimes. I disagree with him .......... sometimes. But most importantly, I do not think his opinion is less valid than mine ......... or yours.

That is not to say that all courses are great courses. I only state that I, personally, like a large variety of concepts. How do I know which are 'done well'? To paraphrase a famous Judicial opinion, "I cannot tell you what is great GCA, but I know it when I see it.

Strantz at Tobacco Road IS great GCA [again, for me]. The Trophy Club [liddy] was a wonderful course to play. The completely manufactured Eagle Eye in Lansing was awesome. My beloved mountain minimal Eagle Ridge in KY is just too much fun. Thank you so many times, JK, for a chance to play 'The Vic'.

What do all these courses have in common? Almost nothing! Very differing ideas, could hardly be more divergent. But they were all done with a skill that stands out when I play them. They give beyond 'good measure'.

I am glad Doak follows his 'classical lines' to Pacific Dunes. I hope that spirit continues for good and all. But I am also thrilled Fazio trashes the desert landscape wonderfully with Shadow Creek, Engh uses the lovely west Colorado countryside for Lakota, Pete Dye hid a wooded gem called 'The Honors' in them east Tennesse hills. Too many good ideas!

I just can't wait to see what is next.

Doug

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
I've never been one that's got preconceived notions on golf courses, and especially so in terms of how things should "look." To use a bunker as an example, I really don't care what it looks like, I care where its placed and how it affects the play of the hole. Depth, size, and other characteristics of the bunker are important in that sense and aesthetics are important, but there's many ways to create a worthwhile bunker in my world.

The one thing I can pretty well guarantee I won't like is a course that's overly narrow with penal trouble on both sides. I can deal with narrow fairways if they are surrounded by reasonable rough, bunkers, or other types of areas that allow some kind of recovery play. I also don't mind a narrow fairway with severe trouble on one side and a bail-out of sorts on the other as long (with some penalty for "bailing" of course. I also don't mind the occasional "hit-it-or-else" shot on a course (such as TPC Sawgrass #17) if the rest of the course provides recovery options and interesting play which Sawgrass does very nicely. The issue to me solely comes when a course's dominant strategy is where the penalty for missing either side of a narrow fairway is reaching into the bag for another ball more often than not.

A good variety of holes is important as well.

[Dan Herrmann]

Doug,
Different IS good, isn't it?

If golf didn't have different, we'd be playing tennis, where every court is essentially identical.

I think that's what bothered me emotionally about Pacific Trails.   I swear that some of the holes there are clones of Hidden Creek, 3000 miles to the east.  Don't get me wrong, they're both very, very good golf courses, but PT seemed a little cookie cutter.

It's good to experience diversity.  You'll get some bad, but you'll get some good. 

Shoot - all you need to do is play a dark ages course (River Oaks (1970) in Grand Island, NY comes to mind) to realize just how far GCA has come in the last 40 years.

[Doug Ralston]

..."Perhaps this winter I'll write down my criteria and thought processes as I rate a hole, and you can point out my obvious bias toward trees and water. I’m ready to defend water and trees on golf courses. Numbers 13 and 14 on that list above had none of either."
...

Thanks for quoting that Mike. I guess Doug's friend will never have to worry about going to the expense of playing in the home of golf, because he already knows he won't like it.

[/quote]

Garland;

Your comment is spot on, though not because of what he said in this article. In a report he did on GKL about a trip to Michigan, he played 'The Gailes'. I will paste his comment.

"The next day we drove on up the shore to Oscoda and played The Gailes course at Lakewood Shores Resort (www.lakewoodshores.com). They have 3 courses at the resort and most people were not playing The Gailes. It didn't take me too many holes to figure out why. The Gailes is a Scottish Links style course. That means it is nothing at all like Nevel Meade in Louisville, Kentucky. The links in Scotland are built on the rolling sandy scrubland near the sea. The Gailes is built on rolling sandy scrub near the lake. It averaged 6 pot bunkers per hole (none of which could be seen from the tee box which was rarely elevated). It had a creek meandering through the course that I found at least twice and they even had several sod faced bunkers. We actually watched two young Scots working on one during our round. I believe The Gailes is a pretty authentic Scottish Links style course. At least my 94 helped me decide not to go to Scotland, and also to understand why the pros are seldom under par at the British Open. The Gailes is definitely a 4 star course in good condition; it's just not my cup of tea. "

You see? He did NOT say it was in anyway less than a good course. He simply said HE didn't feel comfortable with that kind of golf. We all have our likes/dislikes. Some are within a wider range than others. Moe is in his late 60's [I think], and has played golf all around the country. He knows what he likes. I often agree with him. I also often disagree. But I always noticed he is intellegent and thoughtful. He has reasons for his own choices, just as we do. It would indeed be good if he were here to debate them.

Doug

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()