that Huckaby-Mucci argument...

[PThomas]

I recently played a course near Southern California that is right near the ocean (NOT Torrey Pines!)...it was a gray cloudy day so the views of the ocean were really not all that terrific

in retrospect, it was really the best type of weather to judge strictly the course's architecture...the ocean does not come into play , which really kept my mind focused on the course itself which, while not a bad one, certainly wasn't a great one either

which brings me to those two rascals, Messrs. Huckaby and Mucci...Pat says when judging a course like Pebble one should try and think of the spectacular vistas, while Huck says how can one NOT be influenced by such stunning scenary??

perhaps the key ingredient here is that the ocean DOES come into play at Pebble and it didnt at the course i played

not sure what all this means, but it would be interesting if one could automatically conjure up dullish skies when playing certain courses to see how much they affect our opinions of them

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Paul,

I think it comes down to whether you want to judge the architecture within the confines of the golf course or if you want to judge the views that are outside the confines of the golf course.

If one is discussing the merits of  the architecture, they you should confine the issues to those within the property lines.

[TEPaul]

"I think it comes down to whether you want to judge the architecture within the confines of the golf course or if you want to judge the views that are outside the confines of the golf course.
If one is discussing the merits of  the architecture, they you should confine the issues to those within the property lines."


Patrick:

For once I totally agree with you. I mean just looking at something really beautiful that cannot actually come into play for golf isn't much different than looking across a room at a really beautiful and sensual woman compared to touching her, playing with her and perhaps making love to her, don't you think?

It's a legitimate question to you----you would know pro!

Those who merely look at things are just observers, not players. Would you not totally agree with me there?

[Ian_L]

If one is discussing the merits of  the architecture, they you should confine the issues to those within the property lines.

So if you use a distant feature beautifully as a backdrop to a hole, that is not good architecture?

[Doug Siebert]

Let's say ANGC fell upon hard times and had to sell some of its surrounding land.  You'd stand on the 12th tee and on the hill behind the green instead of flowers you'd see a rusty beat up mobile home.  In front of the mobile home you'd see several fat shirtless guys with hairy backs drinking beers and belching loudly trying to distract the golfers because they think that's funny.  Oh, and the mobile home's septic system is malfunctioning, so it leaks and runs down the hill into Rae's creek.  I find it hard to believe that would change no one's opinion about the hole

[Kyle Harris]

Let's say ANGC fell upon hard times and had to sell some of its surrounding land.  You'd stand on the 12th tee and on the hill behind the green instead of flowers you'd see a rusty beat up mobile home.  In front of the mobile home you'd see several fat shirtless guys with hairy backs drinking beers and belching loudly trying to distract the golfers because they think that's funny.  Oh, and the mobile home's septic system is malfunctioning, so it leaks and runs down the hill into Rae's creek.  I find it hard to believe that would change no one's opinion about the hole

That would suck for Augusta Country Club. 

[Adam_F_Collins]

What about surrounding views and presences affecting play?

To Tom Paul's metaphor - try focusing on conversation with the woman you came to dinner with when another beauty is giving you the eye over her shoulder.

Is your ability to focus at the tested any more by that challenge?

[John Keenan]

I would agree with Pat Mucci.

Gleneagles a course discussed here before has a couple of holes that play along the side of  public housing commonly referred to as Projects. The residents do not appear to be golf fans but do stare/watch as you play. Does that take away from the course of those holes? I would say no.

In the end it is the golf course. The surroundings may well add to the overall experience but we go for the golf.

[Niall C]

Let's say ANGC fell upon hard times and had to sell some of its surrounding land.  You'd stand on the 12th tee and on the hill behind the green instead of flowers you'd see a rusty beat up mobile home.  In front of the mobile home you'd see several fat shirtless guys with hairy backs drinking beers and belching loudly trying to distract the golfers because they think that's funny.  Oh, and the mobile home's septic system is malfunctioning, so it leaks and runs down the hill into Rae's creek.  I find it hard to believe that would change no one's opinion about the hole

Doug,

Interesting point. Royal Troon has a caravan park at the end of their course, although given the Scottish weather you don't often see many people going shirtless. Undoubtedly the golfing experience would be that bit better if instead of this caravan park there was a nice natural dune system blocking out any unwanted views. I've noted that on this site RT tends to get dismissed in relation to the other Open venues and I wonder if it is because of this. What we're actually rating is the golfing experience rather than the quality of the course.

The first time I played Turnberry it was oner of those hazy days which mean't you couldn't see Ailsa Craig and the rest of the wonderful views. If I had had the views it probably would have been a better golfing experience but without them I was able to concentrate on the course and while Turnberry is a very good course, I wouldn't give it the rating it gets in Golf World/Golf Monthly.

If we all accept for a moment that the views do effect our rating of courses, if only on a sub-conscious level, what great courses out there would be even better if it wasn't for an unfortunately place caravan park/factory/housing scheme etc nearby ?

Niall

[Anthony Gray]

  It is a matter of judging the course or the experience.

  Anthony

[Andy Troeger]

There's a reason that Golf Digest and many others have an "Aesthetics" category--for many that is part of the architecture of a course. For others, its not all that critical. This can be debated like any other architectural criteria. Some think its important that a course have par threes going in different directions, other couldn't care less. Heck, some golfers don't want strategy either--they want to know to hit it down the middle all the time. The list could go on.

There's no question (to me) that the setting of a course affects us all to a degree, even if for some its minimal. You can build replica or tribute courses, but without the original setting they lose some luster.

I think Patrick makes an important distinction though--views within the property line versus those in the distance. To me the ocean counts more at Pebble Beach because its in play frequently and thus adds more to the course itself--whereas on Spanish Bay for example its really just there. Spanish Bay still benefits from its setting, just not as much as Pebble IMO.

[Doug Siebert]

John,

What about the par 5 4th and 5th playing along the chain link fence at Ballybunion?  I find that to be by far the weakest part of the course.  I'm not saying it is because of that but it doesn't help.

Perhaps because starting with the 6th you have best unbroken string of 13 holes of any golf course on the planet that those two holes suffer through comparison.

[D_Malley]

Does the caravn park behind the green take anything away from the quality of the shot? isn't this fairly common on many links courses?

[TEPaul]

"I would agree with Pat Mucci."


Mr. Jon Keenan:

Oh you WOULD, would you??

I hope you fully understand that agreeing with Mucci is one of the most dangerous things anyone could possibly do in life, and including on golf course architecture!!

[John Keenan]

Nr Paul

Let me be a bit more clear I agree with Mr Mucci on this specific topic. On many other topics such as ND football I am not in agreement with Mr Mucci

John Keenan

[Tyler Kearns]

I would argue that a good routing takes maximum advantage of off-site views, and that they are an element of golf course architecture. Capturing a specific or desired view through tee location is a great way to "force" golfers to see what you want them to, and that is an architectural decision.

TK

[Sean_A]

Go to the Castle Stuart website and watch the video.  The archies created set vistas on purpose - that is architecture and that matters.  A lot of stuff is done for visual effect, some of it is good and some is bad, but its all architecture.

Ciao

[Tom Huckaby]

This case was closed LONG AGO.  Mucci remains dead wrong.  John Keenan, you're just misguided.  Remember Mucci's contention is that views do not matter AT ALL.  Zero.  Nothing.  Each course might as well have walls around it.

Still agree with him?

My contention has always been this:  damn near all golfers do not play with their eyes closed.  Tom Doak himself has said that where nice views are available, it is wise to design to maximize such.

And that's it.  If a nice view exists, it's silly to say it doesn't matter.  It's far from the be all and end all of things, it's just does exist, and does matter.

So if you play a course on a foggy day, fine.... but every day will not be foggy, of course.

TH

[Steve Burrows]

In terms of the field of Landscape Architecture, this concept is referred to as "Borrowed Scenery," whereby views off-site are utlized in a manner that will hopefully increase the experience on-site.  It stands to reason, then, that this principle is widely used on golf courses (particularly since many golf course designers were/are trained as landscape architects), not necessarily to improve the tangible architecture (on-site), but to improve/alter the overall experience.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Let's say ANGC fell upon hard times and had to sell some of its surrounding land.  You'd stand on the 12th tee and on the hill behind the green instead of flowers you'd see a rusty beat up mobile home. 

You must not be familiar with "steep slope and offset regulations"
It would have no impact on the play of the hole.
No impact on the view of the green.
The crest on the hill behind the green is substantially above the level of the putting surface.

In front of the mobile home you'd see several fat shirtless guys with hairy backs drinking beers and belching loudly trying to distract the golfers because they think that's funny. 

The eight foot green stockade fence would block that view and the noise eminating from GCA.com participants

Oh, and the mobile home's septic system is malfunctioning, so it leaks and runs down the hill into Rae's creek. 

The evironmentalists would make sure that situation was corrected, choosing to condemn the trailor park, seizing the land, and selling it back to ANGC for $ 1.


I find it hard to believe that would change no one's opinion about the hole


It's a ridiculously dumb hypothetical.

Somehow, you choose to introduce structures that you find offensive, directly behind the hole.  Yet, the 18th at TOC has exactly that arrangement.

And, at almost every British Open and U.S. Open, grandstands are introduced adjacent to and behind the green, yet, they don't change the architectural merits of the hole.

Your argument is about trailors versus grandstands and buildings.

But, the fact is that neither item, outside the property line, affects the architecture of the holes.

Is # 18 at Oakmont a different hole when the back drop is bleachers rather than the clubhouse ?  Bethpage Black, Augusta National ?

[Doug Siebert]

I must have missed the raw sewage and shirtless guys last time I played TOC, maybe I'll get lucky next time

The view behind TOC's 18th adds to that hole, rather than detracts from it.  The stately R&A clubhouse, which is the freakin' home of golf, after all!  The gallery behind the green, who you secretly hope to impress with your mastery of the hole (since they didn't see you on the previous 17)  Even the people crossing Granny Clark's Wynd making you wait off the tee - just like the big names on tour do every week!

If you think that the view behind TOC's 18th detracts from the play, no wonder you are so completely and absolutely wrong on this whole thread

[John Keenan]

Tom H

Admittedly it does pain me to agree with Mr. Mucci bit on this one he he is correct.

If a restaurant has awful food but the design is fabulous, the decor stunning do I want to eat there? No I do not. Conversely if a restaurant is  bit on the run down side but has superb food I want to be seated there and eating away. Do I care that it is not in the best of neighborhood or the decor is lacking? No I went for the food.

Certainly the environment adds to the enjoyment and the experience but in the end the objective of the activity is what I think it needs to be defined by. Golf by the course itself. a restaurant by the food as an example. 

[Andy Troeger]

Patrick,
Grandstands and such seem like a different situation as they are on property and depending on placement do change some holes significantly because they are placed so close to the green. Obviously it depends on the course set up, but balls hit the grandstands behind greens and lead to free drops and all kinds of situations that would never exist during normal play.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom H

Admittedly it does pain me to agree with Mr. Mucci bit on this one he he is correct.

If a restaurant has awful food but the design is fabulous, the decor stunning do I want to eat there? No I do not. Conversely if a restaurant is  bit on the run down side but has superb food I want to be seated there and eating away. Do I care that it is not in the best of neighborhood or the decor is lacking? No I went for the food.

Certainly the environment adds to the enjoyment and the experience but in the end the objective of the activity is what I think it needs to be defined by. Golf by the course itself. a restaurant by the food as an example. 

So John, you play with your eyes closed and think Tom Doak is full of beans?

Hey, I get what you are saying.  In the end it's the golf course (or the food) that matters MOST.  I have never said othersise.

All I have ever said is that external views CAN matter.  Mucci claims they never matter ever, no matter what.

The whole point is that IF they exist, it adds to the experience, thus one includes such in an assessment of the greatness of the golf course.  Doak (and I have to believe all other architects worth their salt) realize this, thus design to maximize views when such are available. 

If you can still argue against this - and maintain that views NEVER MATTER NO MATTER WHAT - then I shall give up.  I'll also assume that each time you go out to eat, it's at a tin shack that serves fantastic chili verde.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

The view behind TOC's 18th adds to that hole, rather than detracts from it.  The stately R&A clubhouse, which is the freakin' home of golf, after all! 

How would the architecture and the play of the hole be different if your ANGC trailor sat where the R&A Clubhouse sits ?

The gallery behind the green, who you secretly hope to impress with your mastery of the hole.

Does the architecture and play of the hole differ when the gallery of Scots is replaced by a gallery of Rednecks ?

If you think that the view behind TOC's 18th detracts from the play, no wonder you are so completely and absolutely wrong on this whole thread

You're confusing the clothes and makeup the woman is wearing with her true form, substance and performance.

With your thinking I can see how  you might find transvestites attractive, whereas, It's the substance and performance of a woman that I find attractive.