How Open Is Your Mind ?

[George Pazin]

Pete -

I'm quite certain Matt would put me on the list - in fact, I'd be downright hurt and disappointed if he didn't.

 

If anyone's keeping track, I like Thai food and Indian food, but I really love Mexican food and Italian food. Chinese is always a safe, solid option, as is steak and potatoes. And no, I've never had haggis, doubt I ever will.

[Kalen Braley]

Pete -

I'm quite certain Matt would put me on the list - in fact, I'd be downright hurt and disappointed if he didn't.

 

If anyone's keeping track, I like Thai food and Indian food, but I really love Mexican food and Italian food. Chinese is always a safe, solid option, as is steak and potatoes. And no, I've never had haggis, doubt I ever will.

Gonna have to disagree here...once you go Thai and Indian, you never go back to Chinese   

[Garland Bayley]

Pete -

I'm quite certain Matt would put me on the list - in fact, I'd be downright hurt and disappointed if he didn't.

 

If anyone's keeping track, I like Thai food and Indian food, but I really love Mexican food and Italian food. Chinese is always a safe, solid option, as is steak and potatoes. And no, I've never had haggis, doubt I ever will.

Gonna have to disagree here...once you go Thai and Indian, you never go back to Chinese   

Kalen,

How narrow minded of you. You have to understand that there is Chinese which has become so generic as to be of a level of your typical chain steak house, and then there is CHINESE which has many regional differences and when well done, each region can stand up to any cuisine in the world.

By the way, you close minded people all seem to be ignoring the continent of Africa!
 

[Kirk Gill]

Sorry, but each cook, each dish, each designer, each course, has to be taken on its/their own merits.

To say I like chinese food is to say that I like cashew chicken. I actually totally dislike cashew chicken, but there's a lot of Chinese dishes I like.

With golf and golf course architects my attitude is more like it is with movies and directors. I have liked some of Billy Wilder's or David Fincher's or Darren Aronofsky's movies so much that I'll go check out whatever they've made. Not so amazingly, I've been disappointed on occasion. And similarly, if I play a course and really enjoy it, I'll seek out other designs by that person. But I leave my mind open enough to like or dislike any particular movie/course, regardless of who designed it, or who says I should like it or says I shouldn't.

Big World Practice. Or, ignorance in motion.

[Doug Ralston]

Can you have a great golf course where it is great to play golf, though not necessarily the greatest golf? Know what i mean?

Then take this tour, and perhaps you will understand. This is a course i wish i had access to ........ it is just too visually dramatic not to love.

http://www.waterfallcountryclub.com/338.0.html

Doug

[Pat Brockwell]

I dogmatically reject dogma.     Have fun, keep up.  Is that dogma?

[Doug Ralston]

I dogmatically reject dogma.     Have fun, keep up.  Is that dogma?

"Have fun" ...... no. "Keep up" ..... yes.

Or was that a rhetorical question? 

Doug

[TEPaul]

I’ve been trying to figure out what particular points Matt Ward is trying to make on this thread when he explains what he thinks is important in golf architecture and when he criticizes others for not being open-minded in their approach to architecture.

It seems to me these two quotes below are pretty much the sum and substance of the way Matt Ward looks at golf architecture and evaluates it. This isn’t my opinion of his thinking, these are his own words and they seem quite clear.

“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.”

“The reward / penalty dynamic, IMHO, is central and cuts to the core of what ANY golf design of merit will have. Got it. I'll repeat in the event you missed what I just said ... any golf design of merit.”

Matt:

What you refer to as the “reward/penalty dynamic” is a phrase or term that is both quite broad and is also quite complex and as it inherently states is therefore a “dynamic”. Furthermore, to state that there ever should be or will be complete agreement amongst golfers as precisely what that dynamic should be or should mean is frankly pretty foolish and may even strike at the very heart of golf and architecture---eg the seeming need for and value in vast differences and variety of playing fields!

To say something like a good shot is rewarded proportionate to the level of skill in which it is executed and conversely that a poor shot is penalized in direct proportion to the lack of execution that’s been achieved are nothing more than words. Those kinds of words and phrases have no real currency in golf and architecture---only strokes do. And even in the currency of strokes in the context of the reward/penalty dynamic golfers and architects have never been even remotely of a common mind. When one starts talking about ¼, ½, ¾ or full stroke penalty in almost all the various situations that occur with golf shots on a golf course one is clearly entering into the theory and world of fairness, standardizations and formulaics in golf and architecture.

When Garland mentions that this isn’t much more than the theory and proposal of a Joshua Crane he is precisely right. The fact that you dismiss his suggestion as out-of-hand basically only tells me you have no real idea what Crane was proposing.

And that’s just the “reward/penalty dynamic” you refer to as being central and at the core of what ANY golf design of merit is about.

I’d also say that even given an approximately equal or similar “reward/penalty dynamic” between golf architecture of vastly different styles, some people put a lot of stock in the “aesthetic” of various styles as being inherently attractive or natural or conversely unattractive or unnatural looking. In other words, there is clearly merit in what a golf course looks like too!

You may not even consider the importance of the latter, essentially putting all your critical analysis and opinion only in the “reward/penalty dynamic”. From your own words on this thread that would seem to be the case.

And if that is so, I’d say it is probably you who doesn’t have much of an open mind and not those you are criticizing on here for being close-minded. At the very least, it would seem from your own words you have something of a one-dimensional outlook about golf and architecture.

[Garland Bayley]

What Tom said! 

[Garland Bayley]

Can you have a great golf course where it is great to play golf, though not necessarily the greatest golf? Know what i mean?

Then take this tour, and perhaps you will understand. This is a course i wish i had access to ........ it is just too visually dramatic not to love.

http://www.waterfallcountryclub.com/338.0.html

Doug

I would say I love a walk in the woods as much as the next guy. Perhaps in the wide open west we have much more chance to do that than you easterners, and it is free and open to all. However, I don't see why I should play for a round of golf on a less well concieved golf course than others just to get the nice walk in the woods.

[Doug Ralston]

I don't know Garland. While I cannot see it all, close up, I do note a nice 73.5 CR and 146 slope. Looks like it would challenge me plenty, too.

My point was, many people love to combine their joy of golf with a beuatiful place to take in while doing it. I would definitely like to play Sand Hills, once. But being on that ugly, sandy scrub day after day would have little appeal to me.

If golf was my ONLY goal for my trip, I am certain Pinehurst #2 would be perfect daily fare. But I actually am doing more than playing when I go, and would far rather have a nice challenging course that is beautiful than a 'super course' that is just ok visually. But that is just me. Others certainly see it otherwise, and should.

Doug

[Adam Clayman]

TePaul,
That post #83 is a thought provoking analysis. Why? Well, It made me think of what's been missing from Matt Wards evaluations and how that relates to the big world. It boils down to fun. Having disproportionate penalties hole after hole, might be the way to identify the straightest hitters, but, it certainly is no way for the majority of us to enjoy a day on a golf course and have fun. Or, even consider a repeat play at what is commonly an over-priced green fee.
 There's real merit to the theory that the modern focus on narrow unforgiving playing fields has removed the fun out of the sport. This would then explain why there's so much pathos about the industry as a whole, and, it's decreasing numbers with non-existent margins. 

[Matt_Ward]

Adam:

Please nuff of the usual and predictable pablum on what is "missing" from my evaluations. I have highlighted a broad range of courses and those include contributions from people who are generally favored on this site and those who put forward a completely different take on what quality golf design is about. That's why I mentioned Doak / Engh as a good way to ID such situations.

The idea that I favor penal golf is completely off base and has been answered so many times beforehand that I would think someone as smart as you are would know better - by now. I guess that's my mistake in assuming so much on your behalf.

I've never questioned the "fun" dynamic you mentioned. Unfortunately, there are people on this site who see "fun" being attained only through one formulaic design response time after time after time. I don't ascribe to that self-limiting viewpoint and have saluted the contributions of a great many different architects that I have been most fortunate to have played.

Let me point out -- again -- that the reward / penalty element is central to all types of design. You, erroneously, have taken to mean the penalty aspect must therefore be penal in its application. Not so. Penalties can range from the most severe to those which are more subtle in their overall involvement (e.g. a much more demanding playing angle to a green, a much more contoured putt if one's approach lands to one side of a green versus another).

Quality design can indeed span many different interpretations, however, shot differentiation is central to any final product. What's ironic is that I am the guy who celebrates the many unique and fun courses that come from a broad range of designers -- often times much more so than a number of people who regularly post here.

[Kirk Gill]

Matt, in regards to your discussion of the proportional reward/penalty element of course design, what are your feelings regarding the use of graduated rough, as is used for US Open setups, where the rough gets increasingly deep the further you get from the fairway?

[Matt_Ward]

Kirk:

Let me say this -- I'm not a fan of having fairways and then after six-feet of intermediate rough you then get to the HAY STUFF. All that has meant in years past was a modified SW power chop back to the fairway. Such situations also meant a deadly dull predictable outcome that favored the "always straight" type drivers who had little else in their overall game portfolio.

I believe the set-up Mike Davis / USGA did for Oakmont was entirely appropriate and it provided for an entertainment dimension that's been lacking in many past US Opens. I see no reason why more cannot be done in this regard for future set-ups.

Hope that answers your question.

[Doug Ralston]

Crap, I forgot how much fun this site could be when we had real discussions and divergent opinions in play. I found this while searching for something unrelated, enjoyed reliving it.

Anyone wanna relive this with me? 

Doug

[ed_getka]

Doug,
   Thanks for digging it up. I missed it the first time around. Interesting reading.

[Mike_Cirba]

Personally, I'm a big fan of Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese, along with Indian, (real)Mexican, Szechuan, and southern Mediterranean foods.

If it's spicy, I generally likesee.

Lord keep me from a diet based on northern climes as the cuisines of Denmark, Iceland, Holland, Russia, and even Scotland seem mostly about really fishy fish, heavy fatty sauces, and pickling stuff that never should be pickled in anyone's worst tortured imagination.

Is my mind closed? 

[Philippe Binette]

I have a very open mind...

I appreciate great intelligent designs and I'm a very severe critic against everybody... including myself. 

[Doug Ralston]

Personally, I'm a big fan of Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese, along with Indian, (real)Mexican, Szechuan, and southern Mediterranean foods.

If it's spicy, I generally likesee.

Lord keep me from a diet based on northern climes as the cuisines of Denmark, Iceland, Holland, Russia, and even Scotland seem mostly about really fishy fish, heavy fatty sauces, and pickling stuff that never should be pickled in anyone's worst tortured imagination.

Is my mind closed? 

Yes.

When Hobbes shows some interest in Calvin's ice cream, Calvin points out that tigers do not like ice cream. Hobbes counters; "Tigers do not know if they like ice cream till they have tried every flavor!"

Have you tried everything pickled, eh? Pickled okra is mouthwatering. And pickled bluegill tastes vastly different from pickled herring. Open your mind!! 

Actually, I was surprised anyone actually posted on this. I just saw it during an unrelated search and enjoyed reliving it. Figured some others might enjoy it too. Sometime it seems to me threads here get too straited and need a more free-wheeling. Certain people who used to help that seem to have stopped posting or left.

Of course, since I do not work in a related field, I also feel less able to comment, or at least comment thoughtfully, or many specific threads here. Gotta get in a few more general types.

Doug

[TEPaul]

"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."


KirkG:

Sorry it’s taken me about a month to answer your post #29 (Feb 19).

By “accommodated” in my remark you quoted I do not mean I should not go on a website and diss something I don’t like; and it doesn’t even mean I feel I should seek out and see or play something I feel I may not like.

When I say I feel golf course architecture should “accommodate” all tastes and styles I merely mean that I see no reason why various types and styles of architecture should not exist if a fairly good group of golfers think it should and like it. If they like it then I think it’s beneficial in the over-all (Big World Theory) that it exists. If I don’t like it then I probably won’t seek it out but that has nothing to do with others and what they like.

The only problem with my “Big World Theory” is obviously not everyone’s tastes can be accommodated on any single golf course for fairly obvious reasons. But what does that matter since there are so many thousands of different golf courses out there all over the lot with a wide spectrum of types and styles of architecture to choose from? 

[TEPaul]

KirkG:

On the other hand, it would seem that Matt Ward's basic point on this thread (which he has been suggesting on here for a number of years) is that most golfers and golf architecture analysts on here should perhaps not diss various types and styles of architecture they THINK they don't like without first experiencing them first hand (seeing them and playing them).

I believe Matt Ward has a very valid point there that could probably be considered fairly undeniable.

From my own experiences over the years on here and since I became interested in golf architecture I have found that I actually like some of the things now I used to think I didn't like. Very often these days I find with courses I once may not have had any interest in (thought I would never like) that they offer some really good stuff in one way (perhaps shot values or particular demands or strategies) while on the other hand I may not like the aesthetics of them at all-----or even vice versa, if you know what I mean. 

But that's just me and I recognize and appreciate that others may feel very differently from me on all kinds of aspects to do with architecture.

Consequently----"Big World Theory."

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

Your last sentence [two posts back] is an important point in the commercial world of golf architecture ... there's room for any style as long as the course attracts enough business to succeed.

Does that mean all commercially successful courses should be critically acclaimed?  Absolutely not.  Every worthwhile critic has his own point of view.  He should be open-minded to new ideas and new styles, instead of just a homer for certain people's work, but at the same time he must also be generally consistent in his point of view, or his criticisms become meaningless.

In Matt Ward's case, he does have both ... he can claim to be open-minded because he likes different architects' work, and he has a consistent point of view regarding what kind of play should be rewarded.  On that latter point he has a different take than I do, and evidently different than many others on this site as well.  Sometimes he seems to be the only person on the whole site that doesn't understand that difference.  But that's okay, it's a big world out there.

The most important point is that there will never be a unanimity of positive opinion about any course, because people's golf games are so different and because THEIR REASONS FOR ENJOYING GOLF are so different.  Matt seems perplexed that not everybody can see the greatness of Black Mesa, but I've heard people who had their reasons not to like Pinehurst No. 2 and Cypress Point and St. Andrews, so it's no big deal to me.

The only problem with this web site as I see it is that people seem less and less willing to express their true opinions, because it's become so easy to predict the response, and they just don't want to deal with the response.  In my own case, it's a professional issue, too ... sometimes I think there are ten other architects on here whose sole purpose is to remind me not to state my true critiques of any modern courses. 

[TEPaul]

"Tom:

Your last sentence [two posts back] is an important point in the commercial world of golf architecture ... there's room for any style as long as the course attracts enough business to succeed."

TomD:

I know that and completely understand it, but that kind of thing is really no different in any business whether it be selling clothes or cars or golf courses, is it? 



"Does that mean all commercially successful courses should be critically acclaimed?  Absolutely not.  Every worthwhile critic has his own point of view.  He should be open-minded to new ideas and new styles, instead of just a homer for certain people's work, but at the same time he must also be generally consistent in his point of view, or his criticisms become meaningless."




On the other hand, golf architecture and golf architects (as opposed to Ralph Lauren or Ford) does have the "clients" sort of wedged in between the golfing public. And not to mention you guys (the architects) sort of fall into the realm of the "artist" with all the incumbent feelings and motivations that inherits!

If any golf architecture critic is just going to praise everything or never say anything negative, I guess over time his criticisms and opinions will become fairly meaningless. I think his criticisms if they are going to be negative should simply be couched in the context that his criticisms are his own personal feelings (and he should explain his negative opinions in some detail) and they should not be construed to apply to everyone's opinions or tastes. Some on this website seem to come across that latter way (eg---if they don't like it then it ought not to exist).

To me that is not just a fundamental lack of understanding of golf course architecture taken in its "over-all" it is also essentially a lack of understanding of other people.

[Garland Bayley]

... sometimes I think there are ten other architects on here whose sole purpose is to remind me not to state my true critiques of any modern courses. 

That's OK Tom. Feel free to IM me your true critiques anytime.