Frank Commentary: "I don't agree with Ran's Profile of....."

[Kyle Harris]

Jeff,

I went into Inniscrone expecting to be wowed based on Ran's analysis.

Maybe this was the problem.  You expected every shot to provide the greatest shot value possible, instead of just enjoying the walk and making your own opinions, not predetermined ideas of what you thought it was going to be.

Sean,

I'm fairly objective and don't let things predetermine my thoughts. I knew of the bad elements of the tenth hole and the oddness of the 5th and attempted to take them for what they were. Tom Paul is alluding to difficulty in designing the 5th, but I'm at a loss as to why it still needed to be a drop shot hole. I agree with Ran on much of his analysis but just not these acute points.

Note how Ran makes no mention of the 10th hole. I know Ran chooses to focus on the positive of the golf course and I tend to agree that is the way to go. However, I do not agree with some of the things he highlights as highlights.

You obvisouly are not as objective as you think
"I went into Inniscrone expecting to be wowed based on Ran's analysis."
making that statement shows your predetermined notion as to what you were going to see or think.
Having pretermined notions are fine, but you can't say your objective after making a statement like that.

Sean, I wasn't wowed, that can still be an objective analysis. I wasn't selectively looking for things that wowed me in order to agree with Ran, nor was I looking for specifics to disagree with Ran. It also doesn't mean I didn't like Inniscrone.

I'm hoping this thread can divulge some instances where objective analysis of a golf course leads one to disagree with Ran for some point.

[cary lichtenstein]

I would hope we would all disagree from time to time on anyone's analysis, and think Ran would too.  What kind of discussion board would it be if we all said "Me, too."  Frankly, it happens too much on this site anyway, with so many who have played so few courses almost immediately dismissing or praising some new effort. 

Doak or C and C could leave a turd in the fw and many here would praise it as an architectural feature......

PS- (golf clap please for my best Kavanaugh Impression.......)

I am clapping, very funny

Cary

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

I tried really hard to convince Julian Robertson to let the sheep continue to patrol the fairways at Cape Kidnappers.  But, when we gave it a trial run, the sheep acted just like overzealous design associates (or most Golf Club Atlas posters) and introduced WAY TOO MANY strategic features within the fairways  , and Julian scrapped the idea.  So I guess we'll never know if I could get away with turds in the fairway or not.

[cary lichtenstein]

Doak or C and C could leave a turd in the fw and many here would praise it as an architectural feature......

There ia a whole lot to consider here, fisrt of all I would need to know how far the actual turd was placed from each set of tees and how many tees were constructed on the hole to decide if it was a really good architectural feature or not. Secondly, what are the natural surroundings and will the said turd fit into these surroundings. If the hole borders a horse farm and there are actual horses visible and the said turd is shaped in the form of an actual horse turd then I would say yes, it is a praise worthy architectural feature. Which brings me to another point, Why is it that horse turds come out in ball like formations mixed with dry hay and a cow turd is mushy and in the form of a paddy but a rabbit makes small turds in the form of pellets and they all eat the same thing grass. Frankly I donīt know the answer and I doubt the average GSA poster knows either. Therefore my conclusions are this, WE KNOW LITTLE OR NOTHING ABOUT SHIT, How can we possibly disscuss something intelligently so complex as golf course architecture!!

Here's what I know about turds, it's the smoking ones that tend to splatter

[TEPaul]

My Dear Mr Jeffrey Brauer:

It seems as if your novel idea has caught the fancy of some. I believe if that is the case and will be in the future of golf course architecture we should designate here and now for posterity that you were the originator of this fresh and novel idea which may inherit the future.

Would it be OK with you if we designate you as the "Originator" of "TURD" or even "SHIT" architecture?

Personally, I think it would be a great selling item and would definitely get a pretty electric response in some well placed print advertizing for your company. Is it possible you could do a prototype of an ad for us?

Something like:

                                             Jeffrey Brauer and Co
                                             Golf Course Architecture
                                                        and
                                                 The Originators
                                                         of
                                          The Novel and Highly Effective
                                           Concept of Scientific or Random
                                               "SHIT ARCHITECTURE"
                                         

[TEPaul]

My Dear Jeffrey:

Never let it be said that I'm not a valuable resource for you and your future in golf course architecture.

I've just done some Rules research and it seems we may need to discuss the Rules of Golf implications to the future of your SHIT architecture.

It will render the concept strategically ineffective (to some extent) unless and until we can prevail upon the R&A/USGA to remove a single word from the definition of "Loose Impediment". That word is of course "dung".

Or perhaps we could argue at the bar of the Joint R&A/USGA Rules Committee that various types of SHIT or CaCa are not the same thing as "dung" and should therefore not be considered as a "Loose Impediment" but very much as an "Integral Part of the Course" and permanently under the Official R&A/USGA Rules of Golf.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff:

I tried really hard to convince Julian Robertson to let the sheep continue to patrol the fairways at Cape Kidnappers.  But, when we gave it a trial run, the sheep acted just like overzealous design associates (or most Golf Club Atlas posters) and introduced WAY TOO MANY strategic features within the fairways  , and Julian scrapped the idea.  So I guess we'll never know if I could get away with turds in the fairway or not.

TD (seems appropriate for the first day of the NFL season)

You are well known for your "random" fw bunkering, why should Turd Placement be any different?

TP (seems appropriate to the discussion at hand)

I prefer Turd to Shit Architecture......but I am waaaaaay ahead of the curve - several of you here have already told me my architecture is "pure crap".

I did do a Cybergolf Column regarding comments to me, along same lines, which I post below:




I have gotten some mail about this book (as it has appeared on the Internet), some of which focuses on my throwing out my R.O.B.O.T.'s of golf course design. I can understand this, as most architects will say something like, "My only rule is to have no rules," and most golfers buy this hogwash hook, line and sinker.

If architects have no rules, then why haven't we seen any 14-hole, par-98, 9,763-yard golf courses? Why are the greens, tees and bunkers of even the most controversial and/or creative architects today fairly similar in size and character?

It's because we have learned over the centuries of golf design what works and what doesn't and, more importantly, why it works or doesn't. That is the information I am sharing with you in a straightforward manner.

And, while nostalgia is strong for older features like blind holes, I for one don't long for the good old days of cresting a hill to find my golf ball lying beneath an unconscious, bleeding golfer. Golf should not be about saying, "never having to say you're sorry," * or "This is my Titleist. I think that's your ball by the dead guy." **

Apparently, some in the golf design business may not like me sharing these ideas with you, perhaps fearing that each of you will become a competitor by the time you finish reading them. On the other hand, I have gotten some very favorable responses from other readers.

If imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, then I am truly flattered. Most of the responses include acronyms similar to my R.O.B.O.T. as a way to mirror and compliment my writing. Reading these heartfelt comments really warms my heart. Here is one sample:
 
Jeff, you are full of CRAP. (Surely an acronym for Concepts Rarely Applied Previously.) What a compliment!

Here's another:

Jeff, you are a FATASS! (meaning, I'm sure, Futuristic Architect Today, Actually Saying Something)
And yet another compliment:

You're a real BASTARD! (Beguiling Architect Standing Tall Against Ridiculous Design)

And,

You must be a DRUNK. (Not sure, but I think this acronym means Designer Really Unveiling New Knowledge)

Lastly, this one: Jeff, you make me BARF." (Begin Assessing Real Facts)

I must confess, I did get one unflattering letter, suggesting that I didn't know what I was talking about, and that I didn't have a CLUE (Clear, Laudable Understanding of Everything) about what serious architecture buffs were saying about this series.

Now, where would he get that idea?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* This line comes from a sappy movie called "Love Story," which I felt should be legally liable for my uncontrollable vomiting episodes upon seeing it.

**It should also never be about saying, "I'll have my lawyer call you."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------