News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


John Kavanaugh

Historical evidence of architectural critical idiocy.
« on: July 18, 2008, 10:57:39 AM »
Can anyone provide examples of when critics got it wrong.  Let's try to stay away from rating softball fopaws.  I'd like to see that this is not just a modern trend as evidenced by the success of Torrey Pines, Whitten & Berbeck and possibly as we wait and see, the 17th at Birkdale.  Examples of where critics have promoted poor work may also be interesting.

rjsimper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Historical evidence of architectural critical idiocy.
« Reply #1 on: July 18, 2008, 11:00:46 AM »
Whitten's GD lambasting of Hoylake?

Mike Sweeney

Re: Historical evidence of architectural critical idiocy.
« Reply #2 on: July 18, 2008, 11:18:10 AM »
Jaka,

You will like this one. A local critic (Joe Logan) being critical of a national critic (Ron Whitten) and the Golf Magazine panel.

____________________________


"In 1994, Ron Whitten of Golf World and Golf Digest, perhaps the dean of golf-course architecture writers, raved about Stonewall's purity -- citing the way Doak and Hanse used the natural lay of the land, without much bulldozing, to create natural, minimalist masterpieces. But is it the 60th-best golf course in the United States? In being named so, Stonewall joins an elite few and accomplishes an incredible feat."

______________________________

"And it is what it set out to be -- a wonderful golf course that is utterly pleasurable to play. Is it the 60th best course in the United States? I say Golf magazine has been generous. I can't say exactly how generous. All I know is I've played some courses that are Stonewall's equal, or not far behind, and I don't see them anywhere on Golf's list of the top 100."

_____________________________

Now to be fair to Tom, Stonewall could arguably be offered as the start of or beginning of "the minimalist movement" so people were excited. Now I would be surprised if it made a Doak Top 10 list.




Mike_Cirba

Re: Historical evidence of architectural critical idiocy.
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2008, 11:21:36 AM »
Golf Digest's initial rating of Shadow Creek.

John Kavanaugh

Re: Historical evidence of architectural critical idiocy.
« Reply #4 on: July 18, 2008, 12:55:49 PM »
Golf Digest's initial rating of Shadow Creek.

Can you read?  To answer, history has shown that for the short time Shadow Creek occupied its high position it was an accurate description of its value.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Historical evidence of architectural critical idiocy.
« Reply #5 on: July 18, 2008, 12:58:41 PM »
Didn't Travis hate NGLA when it opened? I seem to remember stories of someone prominent who thought it was way too hard (ironic, in light of its current rep).
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Historical evidence of architectural critical idiocy.
« Reply #6 on: July 18, 2008, 06:47:49 PM »
Mike S.:

I think Stonewall might still make my personal top ten list.  But more to the point, when the course was new, it had a more original style because it didn't have to compete with any of my more recent courses.  (High Pointe had the same advantage in its early days.)

At some point, architects start competing against themselves -- there is only so much room for any designer on a list of the 100 greatest courses in the USA, and once you've hit your quota, it's hard to improve upon it without knocking another of your own courses off the bottom.

Michael Dugger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Historical evidence of architectural critical idiocy.
« Reply #7 on: July 18, 2008, 07:15:47 PM »
They never "get it wrong," Kavanaugh, it's just their opinion.

How else could hundreds of magazines written on the same subject survive?

I prefer the perspective of Golf Magazine and think the Golf Digest rankings are fodder.

But that's just my preference and I'm very aware it isn't everyone's.
What does it matter if the poor player can putt all the way from tee to green, provided that he has to zigzag so frequently that he takes six or seven putts to reach it?     --Alistair Mackenzie--

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back