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.


Mark Bourgeois

Accessibility of Architecture
« on: July 28, 2008, 09:21:36 AM »
Questions from a weekend spent pondering Beechtree vs. Bulle Rock and the discussion of Pinehurst #2. Sorry for the daunting list; feel free to cherry-pick from this dog's breakfast of questions:

1. What design elements lower the accessibility of architecture?

2. How would you define "accessible architecture?"

3. Is inaccessible architecture harder to design than accessible?

4. Are inaccessible-architecture designs more at the mercy of / dependent upon being maintained a certain way than their accessible peers? If so, why? If so, what can architects do to combat this problem, short of giving up on designing inaccessible-architecture courses?

5. Which of these reasons best explain why golfers across the spectrum, from the professional to the dub, prefer accessible to inaccessible: hit and run mentality, Emersonian (thinking is the hardest thing in the world - in other words, golf is supposed to be fun, not some sort of IQ test), or atavistic human desire for immediate gratification?

6. Can a course be designed that satisfies the desires of golfers mentioned in Question 4 yet possess inaccessible architecture? Put another way, can a course be "fair," "all right there in front of you," yet still be a model of inaccessible architecture? What is this course(s)?

7. Is inaccessibility an intrinsic characteristic of great architecture, perhaps not perfectly correlated but at least highly correlated? If so, why? Of the "best" 10-20 courses in the world, which ones offer accessible architecture?

Mark

Rich Goodale

Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #1 on: July 28, 2008, 09:52:32 AM »
Dear Obi Wan Bourgeoisie

Since it is your thread and title, perhaps you would be so kind as to answer question #2?  Having never walked off a golf course thinking, "Hmmm.  That thar architecture was sure plum accessible today, wasn't it Clem?" I am perplexed.

Danke Schoen

Reichard

Mark Bourgeois

Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #2 on: July 28, 2008, 10:39:57 AM »
Konichiwa, Oji-san!

I thought this term was thrown around fairly often here, that's why I was asking! It's not meant as a leading question...

This may get us down the road but I don't think to our destination definition:
All there right in front of you = accessible
More than meets the eye (Doak) = inaccessible

I don't think these quite get us there; I infer from both blindness is the sine qua non of accessibility, but Sensei is it not more than that?

Some partial synonyms and modifiers for inaccessible that may get us close enough for GCA.com work:
subtle
not apparent or obvious
strategic(?)
"equifinality" (like Mackenzie's description of TOC 14) -- there may be no dominant strategy for playing the hole, it just depends
low signal to noise
does not pander

A few lesser lights -- these are not intrinsic or necessary for something to qualify as inaccessible:
unframed
counterintuitive
deceptive
enigmatic

I guess it's sorta like a hole you play once and don't think much of one way or another, or a hole you play a certain way, which turns out to be the wrong way, but that wrong way was not obvious or apparent after 1,2, even 5, 10 or more plays...

Or it could be a easy, simple, very straightforward hole -- oops, why does it give you fits or not yield as many birdies as it's "supposed" to?

Dōmo arigatō
Mark

Rich Goodale

Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #3 on: July 28, 2008, 12:36:39 PM »
Mark

By those possibly relvant phrases I don't think "accessibility" is a significant issue in GCA, in that 99.5% of the viewing public doesn't give a rat's arse about them, and the few people who do (i.e. the Minimalistas) would probably not agree on more than 10% of those characterisitcs that one might spot.

I don't think anybody has yet bettered the J Potter Stewart Memorial definition of great GCA, i.e. "I don't know what it is but I know it when I see it!"  It works for me, at least.

Rich

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #4 on: July 28, 2008, 12:51:33 PM »
See Jay Flemma's thread on his parents getting ready to play Tobacco Road - there are propbably common themes here.

Mark Bourgeois

Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #5 on: July 28, 2008, 12:53:10 PM »
But, Rich, if someone goes around Beechtree once and concludes it's a blah course, not nearly as fun or interesting as Bulle Rock, doesn't that make it a significant issue?

Not saying one is better than the other, just asking whether there are consequences to a golfer not getting complete information to make a judgment after 1,2...10 rounds.  That's asking a lot of a golfer, isn't it?

Mark

PS The widening of TOC, decried by you and yer pal Charlie Mac: isn't that an example of conditioning changing the design, specifically making the design less accessible via the greater number of "survivable" (if less than ideal) routes to the green?

Mark Bourgeois

Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #6 on: July 28, 2008, 01:05:43 PM »
Hey Dan

I haven't played Tobacco Road but is the issue really the accessibility of architecture, the way it just looks, or how hard it is? I guess the rhubarb could down to inaccessibility if it's "looks hard, plays easy," or if there is a sekret magikal way to play each hole that unlocks the EZ.  Holes that look unplayable but reveal their strategies to anyone willing to think it through.  The Chinese finger-puzzle monkey-fist trap of golf courses.

Is it?

Or is the polarization of opinion down to whether it's too hard plus and / or too bold? ("This doesn't look like a golf course to ME!")  Did Strantz use boldness expressly to hide the architecture?

As may be obvious, Dan, I started off this post looking to argue with you but maybe came around by the end -- a journey in three grafs, yo!

Mark

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #7 on: July 28, 2008, 02:19:19 PM »
Ohayo, gozaimasu.

Forgive me for indulging in analogy.

When you use a term like accessible when it comes to any kind of art, I think first of literature. The reason for that is because I feel like starting in the early 20th century the disconnect between what was readable by a middle-of-the-road reader and what was considered classic started to become wider and wider -  to the the point where you have an author like James Joyce writing books like Ulysses and to a greater degree Finnegan's Wake that very few people have the ability, much less the desire, to read. There's other parallels in painting, sculpture, even cooking.

But obviously gca is different than those artistic pursuits, if for no other reason than the cost of constructing a golf course. That cost can't help but reward a fairly conservative approach towards making the architecture "accessible." And really is the difference between Tobacco Road and the local muni as great as that between Finnegan's Wake and, say, something by Harlan Coben? I don't think so. I think that even the craziest golf courses I've ever seen can largely be appreciated by the average golfer.

I've taken a certain a certain meaning for the word "accessible," which may not be what you're after. I'm meaning it in the sense of "capable of being appreciated artistically/architecturally." I suppose another meaning as it relates to GCA would be "difficult to play," and if that's what you're after, please ignore.
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

Mark Bourgeois

Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #8 on: July 28, 2008, 02:43:13 PM »
No no, that's very good, Kirk. Accessible as in approachable.  And this is relevant to all fields of artistic endeavor.

Very interesting about cost of construction: your point is that high cost demands risk-aversion and inaccessibility of architecture carries higher commercial risks owing to the belief that golfers must be *hooked* the first go-round. Yes?

Interesting parallel to Hollywood, there -- same logic at work.

But don't the very greatest works of art and design allow for some sort of immediate -- perhaps "obvious" is the better description -- gratification or appreciation even as they yield their "verities" only to those patient and willing to put in the effort?

I guess what I'm asking is, must there be this forced compromise between immediate / obvious gratification and inaccessibility of architecture?

I could look at a painting and appreciate the colors and possibly the craftsmanship without really understanding the meaning.  By studying it though more not less would be revealed; the reward is commensurate to the effort. Husker Du and REM (when they were with I.R.S.) are two examples from rock 'n' roll; maybe Velvet Underground, too.

In the movies, The Man almost always wins, but there are plenty of examples where he doesn't: Hitchcock's 1950s movies (let's throw "Psycho" in there, too) proved it.

And in literature, yes, there's Joyce and Faulkner, but how about Hemingway (Old Man and the Sea: "It's about a man...and a fish."), and Fitzgerald, whose stuff could be serialized -- even turned into movies!

Just thinking about the inaccessibility point and nothing else, would that sink TOC if it were a new design?

Is Royal Melbourne West an example of a course that breaks this forced compromise, and if there are few others, is this the exception that proves the rule insofar as the aesthetics or "skin" of that course surely qualifies as golf pornography?

Mark

Peter Pallotta

Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #9 on: July 28, 2008, 03:00:38 PM »
Mark - always terrific thoughts and questions. I wish I could contribute something, but I'm running drier then usual today with the bright ideas. I will suggest, however, that you challenge Sir Richard a little on his usual "I know it when I see it" dodge. I just can't believe that this writer of books and student of architecture thinks the subject so vague and lacking in fundamental (and knowable) principles. But, to add an extra note of, well, not complexity, but perhaps nuance - and off of Kirk's post:

the trouble with inaccessible 20th century literature is that, IMHO, the very best writing Joyce ever did were the short stories of 'Dubliners' (even if Joyce himself may not have thought so). Sure, I enjoyed the showy gymnastics of Ulysses, but to me that was almost a devolution of his craft from the understated elegance and power and 'rightness' (and accessibility) of a story like "The Dead", and not some major evolution. It was "fun" though....

That's probably why whenever I read here about a dull/boring course by one of the good ones, I make a little mental note to try to play it first....

Peter 
« Last Edit: July 28, 2008, 03:04:14 PM by Peter Pallotta »

Mark Bourgeois

Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #10 on: July 28, 2008, 03:10:36 PM »
Man that was one heck of a book. Isn't "Araby" in there, too?

Anyway, I agree it's harder to make something both fun to read / look at / "consume" and inaccessible than it is to just choose one of the two.

Maybe the analogue is "anybody can design a hard course."  Or a personal favorite from Catch-22:
"She doesn't like anyone."
"She likes Captain Black," Orr reminded.
"That's because he treats her like dirt.  Anybody can get a girl that way."

Mark

Peter Pallotta

Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #11 on: July 28, 2008, 03:18:43 PM »
"Anyway, I agree it's harder to make something both fun to read / look at / consume and inaccessible than it is to just choose one of the two."

Mark - I think there's a lot there in that sentence. In the hands of a hack, trying to be consciously or obviously or significantly inaccessible usually spells utter disaster. But in the hands of an accomplished (in this case) writer like Joyce, you just might get a 'towering achievement' like Ulysses. Don't get me wrong, I believe it is a remarkable achievement, and a wonderful read -- but I'd rather participate in a story than I would in a towering achievement.

Peter   

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #12 on: July 28, 2008, 05:41:25 PM »
I'd rather participate in a story than I would in a towering achievement.

I agree with that, for the most part, when it comes to literature. But what's interesting there, from the point of view of the audience, is that as opposed to building a golf course, which is very expensive and time-consuming (compared to the writing of most books), PLAYING a golf course takes LESS of an investment from a typical audience than reading a book like, say Ulysses !

What I guess I'm saying is that I'd be more likely to want to take on the "towering achievement" of the greatest gca's than I would your typical towering literary achievement.

But what's great is that there's a lot of surprise out there for all of us, and this is perhaps why the whole notion of whether or not something's accessible or not is something we best not let someone else decide for us. There's a lot of excellent stuff out there that we might deny ourselves based on the opinions of others who found it difficult and off-putting, both golf courses and books.
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

Rich Goodale

Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #13 on: July 29, 2008, 06:55:54 AM »
Dear Mark, Peter et. al.

I plead guilty to reversion to the mean in my "know it when I see it" comment, but it is at least consistent with my scepticism that golf course architecture can be considered to be an "art."  I like the analogies to writing, but I think they prove my point.  Of course, what is my point?  Let me try to develop it a bit.

"Dubliners" is "accessible" because anybody with a high school education can read the stories and understand and enjoy them at least at the most obvious, human level.  A more "sophisticated" reader can understand and enjoy the stories in more, often more complex ways, including but unlikely to be limited to:

--how the stories relate to each other, i.e. how "Dubliners" is more than just a sum of its parts (stories).
--the cultural and historical and biographical context, i.e. what the stories say about Ireland, it's past and Joyce himself (and he was "Himself").
--the use of language and its role in relating experiences and concepts.
--how the stories interact with the individual reading them and his or her beliefs and experiences and self-image.

In these senses, "Dubliners" is as good an analogy to golf course architecture as any work of art that I have known in that:

--both involve individual works (individual holes, stories), as well as a corporate work (the routing of the course, the book)
--each has a context, the more about which you know the more you can "access" the "art."  In the case of golf, this would be the history of the course, the other works of its architect(s), the club's maintenance practices, etc.
--each has a relatively fixed form and structure--in one case the conventions of design (18 holes, "par"~72, hole length  from 100-600 yards, etc.), in the other the language used (English), its vocabulary and its rules of syntax and grammar
--each is robust enough  to offer very different experiences--within the context of the form and the capabilities of the "player"--to different people, and to the same individuals at different times in their lives.

A good analogy here would be NGLA, where the central focus was on the creation of a collection of individual golf holes, with less of a sense of a holistic relationship between the holes than other courses of similar quality.

What happens, however, when we move chronologically onto the rest of Joyce’s oeuvre?  In “Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man” the language begins to be stretched, from the opening paragraph:

Once upon a time and a very good time it was there was a moocow coming down along the road and this moocow that was coming down along the road  met a nicens little boy named baby tuckoo...

In addition, the structure inherent in “Dubliners” is replaced by a continuous and open-ended narrative, dealing essentially with the same subject.  The work is internalised by the author, creating doubt as to what is the art and what is the reality, and making the reader engage not only with what the story says, but also with what the author is experiencing as he writes the story.

This is probably more analogous to the works of the architects of today—testing the boundaries of the genre, but not radically.  Trying to create a unique “voice” or signature that will define their work.

“Ulysses” continues to stretch the envelope regarding language, to the extent that it becomes increasingly “inaccessible” to all but the cognoscenti.  It does, however, do this in a very rigid structure—building his story on the templates of the episodes of Homer’s Odyssey, and confining the story itself to just one specific day, in one city, focusing really on only the characters.  While it might seem attractive to try to relate Joyce’s templates to those of CB Macdonald--or even to the “Old Macdonald” course-in-progress--this analogy breaks down under scrutiny.  All golfing templates are rigidly tied to the conventions of design due to the rigidity of the medium in which they exist—the game of golf.  Literary templates, on the other hand have the entirety of human experience to use as analogies.  Golf architects have much less freedom because they must design to a very specific set of requirements, both real and expectational.  If it were possible to build and successfully market a 23 hole course with holes ranging in length from 20 to 1000 yards and ending miles from where it began, or MLB could be persuaded that the principles of a Redan (or even bunkering) could be applied to a baseball diamond, then maybe architects could really spread their wings.  However, since it is not so, those even trying (think Desmond Muirhead) are doomed to an Icarian death.

As for “Finnegan’s Wake,” as one of the relatively few people who have actually read more than the first page or two of that book, I can’t imagine any analogy with golf except that they both involve a 19th hole…..

…….and, now getting back to the point in question.

Based on the above, I do not think that golf course architecture is anywhere near as complex and rich as literature (just to take one of the arts).  And yet, I also believe that golf courses are incredibly, maybe even effectively infinitely, complex.  This is due to both their size and to how they are “accessed.”  Whereas a book can be accessed in a few strictly constricted spaces (reading it within close eyesight/or through the fingertips, listening to somebody else read it in hearing range, watching a dramatic interpretation within eyesight and ear shot) golf is played over a canvas of acres and acres of land.  This canvas is incredibly complex, changes over time and differs in character greatly due to the seasons and the weather of the day.  A golfer NEVER gets exactly the same conditions for any golf shot on any golf course, whereas the words on a page are always the same, save for wear and tear and any notes you may write on them.

Paradoxically, however, this complexity of the game of golf makes the architecting of a course more trivial.  This is for two reasons.  Firstly, a designer has neither the time nor the skill to create more than a very small fraction of this complexity .  Secondly, even if he or she were able to do so, no player could ever experience more than a very small fraction of this created complexity, even if he or she played the course every day in their life.  I experience new shots and find new features on any golf course I play more than once, even (maybe even particularly) on those courses which are of just an average quality. This is as if I discovered a new adjective or punctuation mark not written by Joyce in one of my copies of “Dubliners” every time I read it, or to expand the analogy, a new chord in a Bach fugue or a new putto in the Sistine Chapel ceiling.

Golf is a protean form and activity, which means it never can be captured, either by the creator of the form (the architect) or the accessor of the form (the player).  Because of this it is both completely inaccessible and infinitely accessible.

Rich

PS--This is both stream of consciousness and a work in progress……

Thomas MacWood

Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #14 on: July 29, 2008, 07:45:17 AM »
Rich
Ironically your post in unaccessible to more than 99% of the viewers of GCA - very few have read the works of you've cited (or visited Dublin for that matter). Architecture is much easier for most to relate to, although admittedly many may not be conscious of it. We've spent all our lives in architecture, homes we've lived in, workplaces, univerisities, libraries, restuarants, hotels, stadiums, museums, historic buildings, etc. Music and film would be more accessible as well. Music, architecture and film are probably the art forms the masses can most easily relate to.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2008, 08:47:22 AM by Tom MacWood »

Rich Goodale

Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #15 on: July 29, 2008, 08:42:26 AM »
Of course, Tom, and your thoughts confirm my hyopthesis--that the more complex that artificers (e.g. music makers, movie directors, golf course architects, etc.) try to make their products, the less accessible their craft is to the people who enjoy and buy their products.  Sometimes this complexity works in terms of making the products/experiences "better," but some times it does not, and as self-appointed critics, we can rarely tell others why this is so much beyond the classic explanations of "Just because!" or "Trust me!"

Peter Pallotta

Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #16 on: July 29, 2008, 09:15:58 AM »
Rich -- that was an absolutely terrific post; just a wonderful post. I've read it twice now, and will read it again. (I'm embarrassed to think back to our past exchanges; surely you have been humouring me.)  There's is so much to think about there; beautifully expressed. I think that I may disagree with some of it (keep humouring me), but it seems to me to form the bedrock and foundation for any meaningful discussion of how gca can and might be analyzed.
Excellent, excellent post, Rich.

Peter

« Last Edit: July 29, 2008, 09:44:24 AM by Peter Pallotta »

Thomas MacWood

Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #17 on: July 29, 2008, 09:25:00 AM »
The best golf architects make their golf courses interesting to the greatest number (an often repeated cliche). I seriously doubt they expect the average golfer to sit down and thoroughly analyze what they just encounterer or experienced after the round. I assume that is true with many architects, filmmakers, music writers and authors.

On the other hand I suspect some of the best architects are also trying to impress their design rivals, the critics, the best golfers, students of the art...a relatively small group who approach these things analytically. (I didn't even mention the client, another important group to be considered, but I'd put them in their own separate catagory).

Trying to make all these groups happy is probably pretty difficult and I wonder if the most successful are just trying to please one person, themselves. Which may explain why some of the most respected golf architects were average golfers, and why some of the better golfers have not made great golf architects.

« Last Edit: July 29, 2008, 10:41:28 AM by Tom MacWood »

Peter Pallotta

Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #18 on: July 29, 2008, 03:30:26 PM »
Rich - still thinking about that post of yours; still marvelling over it.

A thought - Can't one argue that the mastery of a Joyce or Bach or gca of your choice is manifested most subtly but most significantly in his ability to create a canvas that ALLOWS for you to discover a new (and self-generated) adjective every time you read “Dubliners” or a new (and self-generated) chord in a Bach fugue or a new (and unintended) consequence on your favourite golf course?  Isn't this what happens in the Dubliners -- Joyce's mastery allows the "space" for your always-new participation? Ulysses, on the other hand, takes you for a ride -- a very fun and astonishing ride, but one that leaves you no choice in how you'll particpate save the choice to get off the ride half way through...

Peter

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #19 on: July 29, 2008, 04:11:02 PM »
Peter, I have felt the same things that you're mentioning, but then there's the other side of that coin, feeling almost repelled away from art because it's TOO difficult, too personalized, too far off the beaten path for me to access it. The music of Varese, say, or some of Faulkner's writing. Or even more so, some of the stuff by T.S. Eliot where it feels like you've had to have read a bunch of obscure Italian poets (in Italian) to have any idea of what's going on.

Has there ever been a golf course architect who made golfers feel the same way? I mean, a guy like Behr is highly intellectual in his writing, but at the same time it seems like what he's going for regarding the best of gca is something that CAN be appreciated by "the masses," although I haven't read enough of him to really know. The limited amount I've seen of his design work (and that only in a very few pictures) doesn't seem so intellectualized that it puts me off. If a gca built courses like that, they probably wouldn't last that long. I guess that's one nice thing about being an author. No one's gonna go back and perform a restoration on "As I Lay Dying," although I guess they could decide to make it into a musical......
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

Peter Pallotta

Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #20 on: July 29, 2008, 04:15:48 PM »
Kirk - I live in fear of the day they make 'The Godfather' into a musical. And the worst part? If he's still around, I'm sure Jimmy Caan will sign up to play a singing-and-dancing Sonny...

Peter

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #21 on: July 29, 2008, 04:34:32 PM »
They'll get Phil Collins to write the music.

I'm sure the "I'll make you an Offer You Can't Refuse" production number will be a dandy !
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

Thomas MacWood

Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #22 on: July 29, 2008, 04:42:37 PM »
The limited amount I've seen of his design work (and that only in a very few pictures) doesn't seem so intellectualized that it puts me off. If a gca built courses like that, they probably wouldn't last that long.

That is an interesting observation. As I was typing my post this mourning about architects designing to appeal or impress those really into the art, be they other architects or critics or students of gca, I thought of Herbert Strong. Strong really pushed the envelope. I wouldn't call his architecture over intellectualized or even inaccesible, but it was very bold and daring, and very little of his work survives.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2008, 04:47:06 PM by Tom MacWood »

Peter Pallotta

Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #23 on: July 29, 2008, 04:48:20 PM »
Kirk, Tom -

but maybe we're saying similar things. That is, that one of the traits of a skilled architect is that the principles of the art-craft that could easily become intellectualized and overt in less capable hands are instead integrated, and subtly so, into a work that is both accessible and infinitely nuanced...

Peter   

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #24 on: July 29, 2008, 04:49:41 PM »
Questions from a weekend spent pondering Beechtree vs. Bulle Rock and the discussion of Pinehurst #2. Sorry for the daunting list; feel free to cherry-pick from this dog's breakfast of questions:

1. What design elements lower the accessibility of architecture?

2. How would you define "accessible architecture?"

3. Is inaccessible architecture harder to design than accessible?

4. Are inaccessible-architecture designs more at the mercy of / dependent upon being maintained a certain way than their accessible peers? If so, why? If so, what can architects do to combat this problem, short of giving up on designing inaccessible-architecture courses?

5. Which of these reasons best explain why golfers across the spectrum, from the professional to the dub, prefer accessible to inaccessible: hit and run mentality, Emersonian (thinking is the hardest thing in the world - in other words, golf is supposed to be fun, not some sort of IQ test), or atavistic human desire for immediate gratification?

6. Can a course be designed that satisfies the desires of golfers mentioned in Question 4 yet possess inaccessible architecture? Put another way, can a course be "fair," "all right there in front of you," yet still be a model of inaccessible architecture? What is this course(s)?

7. Is inaccessibility an intrinsic characteristic of great architecture, perhaps not perfectly correlated but at least highly correlated? If so, why? Of the "best" 10-20 courses in the world, which ones offer accessible architecture?

Mark

I don't have the energy to tackle the majority of posts on this thread - too much reading and thinking involved - but I thought I'd share a little that may touch on your initial post.

I've long argued that subtle architecture will not always be appreciated upon initial plays and that it only reveals its genius after repeat plays. The reason for this is that it is too easy to miss out on something because most analyse based upon the actual result, rather than the potential results. In other words, few will accurately access whether the result was probably or unlikely.

When one plays what you call an accessible course, the results are generally black and white - it is clear to even the most dense observer (not referring to anyone in particular here :)) what happened and whether it was likely or not.

The converse is that when one plays what you call an inaccessible course, one may or may not receive the probable result, so it takes many plays to really appreciate the various outcomes and hence the full range of beauty of the course. I like to call this grayscale architecture.

Can't comment on Joyce - wasn't forced to read him, couldn't get through Ulysses when attempted just for fun - so I can't relate to much of Rich's post, but I did like this paragraph:

Paradoxically, however, this complexity of the game of golf makes the architecting of a course more trivial.  This is for two reasons.  Firstly, a designer has neither the time nor the skill to create more than a very small fraction of this complexity .  Secondly, even if he or she were able to do so, no player could ever experience more than a very small fraction of this created complexity, even if he or she played the course every day in their life.  I experience new shots and find new features on any golf course I play more than once, even (maybe even particularly) on those courses which are of just an average quality. This is as if I discovered a new adjective or punctuation mark not written by Joyce in one of my copies of “Dubliners” every time I read it, or to expand the analogy, a new chord in a Bach fugue or a new putto in the Sistine Chapel ceiling.

Makes sense to me.
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

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back