[Peter Pallotta]

It's interesting to me how often articles from the 1910s, 20s and 30s mention the concept of the "ideal" golf course, often in conjunction with a then-planned-or-newly-finished design. And what's even more interesting is that the golf courses described that way -- e.g. NGLA, Merion, Augusta etc etc -- have more often than not stood the test of time; history has come to judge them as excellent examples of golf course architecture, and confirmed the initial intentions for (and sentiments about) them.  I don't want to get too hung about on the term "ideal", as I think that it probably has some very specific and historial connotations besides its more generic meaning; and I know that a lot of current-day marketing uses different language ("as great a site for golf as I've ever seen"; "a championship course suitable for all levels of golfers") to mean the same thing....OR DOES IT?

Is the "Ideal" golf course still the ideal...and still the goal?

Thanks
Peter   

 

[Rick_Noyes]

Peter,

Could we say that the "ideal course" is always the goal, but never attained?  How many courses that have "stood the test of time" gone under very little or no restoration, revision or remodel.  It's almost like asking, "When is a golf course complete?".

Rick

[Mark Bourgeois]

Peter

Define "ideal."

I like Wethered & Simpson's definition of an "ideal" golf course and by that standard I would say only small handful (a fingerful?) seek this "ideal" in their designs, most notably by putting routing above the quality of individual holes. 

The ideal course should not consist of 18 "all world" holes.  The "signature" hole phenomenon might have been the first major leap backward from W&S's ideal, for who wouldn't build 18 consecutive signature holes if they could?  Why would any client want an "okay" or "blah" hole?

Come to think of it, a similar story could be told using MacKenzie's conception of the ideal: a few designers out there seek to provide the greatest enjoyment for the greatest number, but many (most?) design only for segments of the market (the resort golfer, the low-handicapper, etc). Judging by the real world it must be really difficult to design a course that the great and the dub alike enjoy.

Maybe designers just feed clients and the public what they think they want.  So I guess we've met the enemy and it's all of us seeking the golf equivalent of Victoria Falls every round, every hole.  Screw subtlety and routing, we've sunk $100 and an entire day into this so we don't want a round we want an "experience"...

Mark

[TEPaul]

I think it's just hard to pin down enough what was meant by "ideal" from the various people who used that term back then but in my mind perhaps the most ideal design ever done (with the specific intention of really accommodating all levels of golfers via maximum interest) was probably ANGC. I think those at that time who were theorizing on different and new ways to do that (such as maximum width and virtually no rough used) kind of finally hit the jackpot with that one.

And then, not long after that and for various reasons the course went in other design directions.

Very ironic, in my opinion.

[BCrosby]

During the 20's there were a lot of people that talked about ideal courses or holes. From Piper to Crane to Ambrose to MacD to MacKenzie to others. They all had different conceptions of "ideal," but they all talked as if there were a single agreed upon standard. So it's a bit odd.

Or maybe not. In the back of their minds they all thought there were such things as ideal holes - holes that everyone would agree could not be improved. They thought it was just a matter of identifying their component parts and, presto, you get universal assent. That's pretty naive, but I suspect something like that was going on.

It's worth remembering that people in the 20's were still trying to figure out a vocabulary for gca. That's one of the reasons why so much of the best writing about gca appeared then. And why the arguments at that time got so nasty. They were in the process of creating a new language that would be the basis of a new profession.

These days people talk about "best" in lieu of "ideal." Which might sound better to modern ears but ultimately raises the same questions.

Bob

[Mike Nuzzo]

I named my weblog "an ideal golf course" because I think Wolf Point is ideal for my client.

It might not be ideal for everyone - which is why I didn't name the blog "the greatest course"

When they play audio of Bobby Jones during the masters - he mentions Augusta as his ideal course.
Wolf Point also happens to have no rough and is very wide.


From websters:
Idealism
3: literary or artistic theory or practice that affirms the preeminent value of imagination as compared with faithful copying of nature — compare to realism

[Adam Clayman]

Tepaul, As the author, under The Big World theory one would expect the term "Ideal" to be an expanding universe. No? Irony sure can be sad, especially as it relates to ANGC. Merion, on the other hand, seems to have made the right choices in regards to changes during the same time period.
 
Peter, my take is that "Ideal" was code for sophisticated.

The divergence in making architectural changes based on the Pro's game, versus us mere mortals, has changed the definition of sophistication.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, gents - interesting and smart perspectives, all around.

It's hard to get away from definitions, but I think there's something here that goes beyond definitions -- I can't quite put my finger on it and maybe it's obvious to others, I don't know.

Bob C writes: "They were in the process of creating a new language that would be the basis of a new profession." 

I think he's right about that, but if so it makes the question even more interesting, i.e. for a time when even the definition of the word 'ideal' was being hashed out, they sure seemed to have applied it correctly most of the time.

What quality lay underneath the conscious criteria and assumptions these article writers had about "the ideal" that still shines through even 80 and 100 years later in the Merions or NGLAs of the world?

Is it simply an accident of language that no one uses the word "ideal" anymore to describe or market a golf course, let alone as a concept to aspire to? 

Anyway, I'm starting to ramble nonsensically so I'd better stop.

Peter

[Tim Gerrish]

Peter,

The use of' ideal' sounds pretentious today.  I think it is just the slow change our our culture over time.  Certain phrases and adjectives that were popular in earlier times fall out of favor.  Mr. Cornish often uses words (renowned, eminent, etc.) that I don't see in print. 

Being an 80's guy..  how many of us still use 'fresh'?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,

I think "fresh" went out for the ladies when they all realized that calling a guy who had just used the most stale pick up lines "fresh" was kind of an oxymoron.

Peter,

Interesting topic.  Especially here, since it would be by definition of the home of the "there are no rules" theory of design.  At the same time, so many revere the golden agers who seemed to put down good ideas that make for an ideal course on paper. If I did it (and I have!) I would be accused of "standardization", "Robotic Design", and formula.

While troubling, I don't think I am in any hurry to gain acceptance of my written ideas by becoming an old dead guy any time soon.

I think TePaul has it right though - 100 years ago, design had been so bad after transferring to the states that they were all thinking in terms of what it would take to improve it and wrote down a bunch of ideas that they generally implemented.  However, they often saw - like the consecutive 3 and 5 par holes at CP that there were very good reasons to break the rules they set, and in so doing, often made the courses "more than ideal."

I follow the same theory today, if in lesser form.  Some seem to advocate going into a design without any clue as to what general principles might make it work, using a totally open mind.  I don't see why a designer shouldn't learn from the past, and his own past to sort of narrow down the field a little, providing the mind is open enough to see the places where its good to vary from any rules they have set for themselves

[TEPaul]

"From websters:
Idealism
3: literary or artistic theory or practice that affirms the preeminent value of imagination as compared with faithful copying of nature — compare to realism"


Mike Nuzzo:

I think that is a really wonderful and very thoughtful definition to drop in here at this point. It would seem there can and may be a ton of applicablity to golf course architecture and many of the things it is or can be in that wording.

[Craig Sweet]

"affirms the preeminent value of imagination"

Well now, that seems a bit open ended. At what point do you "affirm" imagination?  Is a bunker and mound complex an affirmation of an imagination of a real sand dune?

[TEPaul]

"It's hard to get away from definitions, but I think there's something here that goes beyond definitions -- I can't quite put my finger on it and maybe it's obvious to others, I don't know."


Peter:

With what you just said there consider this, although I preface it and admit it may be off the mark to what we're trying to talk about here.

Recently, I've been listening to some really good lectures (on tape) about such things as philosophy (political, religous, cultural etc) and in one of them the professor (lecturer) while talking about various aspects of political theory and classic theorists mentioned that the idea was and is not that they were necessarily offering formats and such to be followed specifically but more about simply how to THINK about the subject, which definitely includes the different and various ways a subject (politics for instance) can be looked from human juxtapositions.

The other thing that struck me was a program on Leonardo Da Vinci and particularly his Mona Lisa and why this particular work had become so famous and respected. The contributors to the program basically agreed that the work was no different than others in that the canvas, paint, pigment and physical things of that nature were of no real difference from other paintings of the time but that the real difference in the painting was Leonardo himself.

Frankly, I don't really know what that means and certainly I don't know how to explain it or exactly identify it (other than what the contributors were saying) but they went on to say that one must consider where Leonardo was and where he was coming from in his time. The fact is he was light years ahead of his time in things such as the realities of the Universe, the physical realities of birth and anatomy and things like that, among others. I've always heard Leonardo was a genius, is just didn't know the extent or magnitude of it and where he was so advanced.

Maybe what I'm trying to say by these kinds of examples is nothing in our context of GCA or maybe it's everything!  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not sure about the definition of idealism nor the connection to the ideal golf course.

Its been a while since I read that stuff, like CB Macs ideas on the ideal course in Scotlands Gift.  As I recall, he spoke of such things as the ideal length of the starting hole, a generalized hole sequence, etc.  Some pretty practical stuff thinking along the lines of "Don't start with a par 3 - yes they did it a few places in the old world, but a par 4 really works better."  His words were more flowery, of course. As I recall he went on to say a mid length 4 ought to be followed by a short one, then a par 3, etc., suggesting not only hole order but ideal clubs to be played.

A lot of those ideas survive today and are now critiqued as being formulaic.  But, they had some validity then, and do now as courses become more crowded.

I don't think it was quite as deep a thought process as some do, but maybe thats just me.

[TEPaul]

""affirms the preeminent value of imagination"

Well now, that seems a bit open ended. At what point do you "affirm" imagination?"


Craig Sweet:

I think the first thing you should do is try to answer that question for yourself and then try to consider how the conclusions you may come to make you feel.

[TEPaul]

It just may be that when the contributors to this website attempt to consider and discuss subjects like this their inclination is far too much from an attempt at or goal of "consensus of opinion building".

Perhaps that just isn't very important or anywhere near as important as we think it is!! 

[Craig Sweet]

TEPaul...the answer can not be "standardized"...thus there is no consensus of opinion.....at what point you affirm imagination takes place solely in your mind....I might "get it" when you describe it to me, and I might validate your imagination as being plausible, but no more plausible than mine...so by no means will there be a consensus...

I tend to see the "ideal golf course" along the same lines as Jeff Brauer....there are some basic ideas about layout etc. that have become standardized...and are considered the ideal...

[Kalen Braley]

I think their very much is a context to it all as TomP has alluded to.

When Jurrasic Park came out in the mid-90s I recall how amazingly well the graphics and special effects were done that everything looked so realisitic.  It really was a mind-blowing special effects job that blew the doors off anything I'd ever seen.  Now more than a decade later, the special effects are still decent, but I've seen a lot better and many improvements have come about in the industry.

I can't help but feel sometimes we loose the context of a course and put it up against the competition of its day.  Sure there may be grander techinques and better examples today, but it sure helps to appreciate it more when we remember that it was innovative and brand spanking new at the time.

So I think ideal is still applicable...but it all depends on what ones ideal is.  Ideal to most new developers could be to have a course routed thru housing.  We may not agree with that, but it doesn't change it from being an ideal to them.

[BCrosby]

I think those that used to talk about ideal courses had something in mind that us moderns doen't usually have. Specifically, they were trying to identify the elements necessary to any good course. They were trying to nail down the objective, necessay elements that, once teased out, would find universal assent.

Some took it farther than others. There were lots of articles in the '20's that said any ideal course must have holes of different lengths. Some talked about how the order of holes ought to be varied in different ways. All of which is pretty uncontroversial.

Others went beyond those baseline ideals. Crane, for example, viewed ideal holes as only those that satisfied his specific design criteria, criteria he thought to be obviously and self-evidently true to anyone with a brain. (Which is also why he thought those who disagreed with him were "deluded" or "morons.")

All of which is a sign to me that the 1920's were still early days in gca. It was plausible to think then that there was a finite set of foundational ideas that would explain what gca was about. It was merely a matter of digging through the chaff to get to them.

Nobody thinks that now. We don't talk today about "ideal" courses (which suggests an objective standard). We prefer to talk about "best" courses (which suggests a more subjective standard).

Bob

P.S. The above does not mean to imply that the move to using "best" rather than "ideal" is a sign of clearer thinking about gca issues. I think it has its own set of problems and should not be seen as a sign of very much progress. Maybe the opposite.

P.P.S. The clearest, easiest "ideal" is resistance to scoring. You get the least debate if it is your rating criteria. The problem is that you end up with a set of lousy golf courses at the top of your ranking.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul...the answer can not be "standardized"...thus there is no consensus of opinion.....at what point you affirm imagination takes place solely in your mind....I might "get it" when you describe it to me, and I might validate your imagination as being plausible, but no more plausible than mine...so by no means will there be a consensus..."


Craig:

I couldn't agree more.

[TEPaul]

Actually, Craig, since I couldn't agree more with what you just said I should ask that if that's true, and you believe it is and I believe it is, why then do so many people look for consensus of opinion about things like golf courses?

How can it be denied that they must not trust their own opinions very well?

[Jim_Kennedy]

I have a feeling that the progression of architecture sort of mirrors life. What those old boys viewed in Scotland, Ireland, & England was like a newborn when they brought it to this country. As it started to grow they each had certain ideals which they tried to enumerate and follow. As it continued to grow it spread out into so many areas and it had to make so many compromises to work in these new places that the idea of 'the ideal course' was no longer valid.

Unless, of course, someone was willing to give them 1,000 acres, a free hand, and relief from regulation.
  

[Craig Sweet]

TPaul...I agree, they must not trust their own opinions...I have posted here on more than one occasion that I think rating golf courses is ridiculous...what I like, what I see, how I feel, when I play a course, is very personal, and I do not need to check a list to see if I should have enjoyed the experience or not...I do not belong to any club, nor have I designed any golf courses so I do not need my ego stroked with a rating....

I resist posting on threads such as "If you could only play one course over and over what would it be" because it does not matter to me what course it is....I see guys play everyday on the same muni...they are very happy to still be on the right side of the divot and playing....and so am I..

I hate to say this because I know how sacred the Ideal Maintainece Meld is to you, but I see that "ideal" the same way....every course, every course's clientel, every situation, is different ,and must find its own "IMM"...it can not be standardized....

[TEPaul]

"It's worth remembering that people in the 20's were still trying to figure out a vocabulary for gca."

Bob:

An interesting choice of a word there----ie "vocabulary."

Certainly the '20s when so much writing went on about golf and architecture a particular vocabulary was necessary but I think those guys were pretty creative in inventing and forming the words and terms they used back then to describe what they were wrestling with and trying to figure out.

But, you know what, if we take a look at that entire time from another angle we may find something pretty interesting about the reasons for the directions GCA was evolving in back then.

It may not have been just an ongoing search for and discussion of what might be ideal for architecture and golf and golfers but simply a matter or winnowing out over time the things that either golf architectural philosophies or even golfers themselves were finding through experimentations and through use and through play TO BE very much what were some of the OPPOSITES of some kind of ideal.

Many of those men were not just imagining and articulating ideals but very much takening to task in the process many of the things that had been and that apparently they felt no longer should be in the future of golf and architecture.

Is there really any question that those kinds of things will eventually create what we call a "renaissance?"

In my vocabulary that simply means a time of dedicatedly looking back to a former time or place to see what may've been missed or not noticed or considered along the way.

I think beginning with The Heathlands and into the Golden Age was a searching for ideals but it was also a renaissance in certain ways.

I think golf course architecture has probably only had two real periods of renaissance. That time back then was one and we are perhaps half-way, at this point, into the second one in golf architecture's history.

To even get to these kinds of renaissance there probably needs to be a period of time and product that for a variety of reasons did not really make the grade.

But that's probably only half the story because even with a period of time and product that is pushing into new and different directions with something like golf and architecture not just a whole amalgamation of things will be created that depart from products of a former time but the products from the former time that will end up being the focus of a future renaissance will, in many ways, get corrupted and harmed in the process and along the way.

With things like art (furniture, paintings, even books and things) it was possible for those things to simply "go into the attic", as it were, and for some very long periods of time, and for that reason remain the same, but that is something that basically isn't possible with golf architecture.

[Peter Pallotta]

TE -

I'm one of those who doesn't trust his own opinions about golf course architecture very much. (I trust and accept my own FEELINGS about a golf course or a style/approach, but that's something different).  Here's why:

I think there are some basic and fundamental principles involved in designing golf courses. I think the architects we admire and rate highly understood/understand these principles, and how to actualize them on the ground and on a site-specific basis.  Several architects past and present have taken it upon themselves to judged golf courses, either in short articles or long books; and while it is safer to say that in these cases they were judging the golf course itself, I believe they were actually judging other architects, and this in terms of their grasp of fundamental principles and their ability to actualize them on the ground.  All of which suggests to me that there is something OBJECTIVE about great architecture; and no amount of trying to elevate my SUBJECTIVE opinions can change that fact. So, until I feel that I'm beginning to approach the level of insight or understanding about golf course design that a MacKenzie or a Macdonald had, I don't think I'll be trusting much my subjective opinions about an objective reality. And, to borrow some phrasing from Bob C, I think that our modern day "best of" subjective analysis of golf course architecture is less meaningful and less insightful than the earlier attempts to have an objective analysis of "the ideal", however fraught with error that attempt might've been.  It certainly less nervy and bold, as it allows us to retreat to IMHO whenever anything gets challenged. But who and what does that retreat serve, except keeping our own egos intact?

Peter 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()