that Huckaby-Mucci argument...

[Tom Huckaby]

Same tired stuff, Pat.

Yes, for you, CPC #16 is just the same worth hitting over a toxic waste dump than it is how it is in reality.

But we've clearly determined you have zero soul as pertains to these matters.

So sure, for you, each course has massive walls around it.

You just remain quite.... unique in this way of assessing the worth of golf courses.

In any case if you don't think views matter in terms of design, well take that up with Tom Doak, who of course you know has stated clearly that he designs to maximize views when such are available.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Yes, for you, CPC #16 is just the same worth hitting over a toxic waste dump than it is how it is in reality.

But we've clearly determined you have zero soul as pertains to these matters.

So sure, for you, each course has massive walls around it.

You just remain quite.... unique in this way of assessing the worth of golf courses.

In any case if you don't think views matter in terms of design, well take that up with Tom Doak, who of course you know has stated clearly that he designs to maximize views when such are available.

I don't care how much Tom Doak utilizes views outside the boundaries of the golf course, if he builds a mediocre to poor golf hole, the greatest views in the world won't improve the hole, its architecture or play upon it.

It's the golf course, the holes, the features, the architecture that you interact with, not external views.

You and others seem to adhere to the belief that putting whipped cream on s--t improves the quality of the underlying product.  It DOESN'T, no matter how attrqctice the topping appears.

[Tom Huckaby]

Pat:
That is absolutely, unequivocably, completely NOT what I have ever maintained.

My contention all along has never waivered; and it rather concurs with that of Tom Doak.

And it is this:  if views are there to be had, it is best to maximize them.  They add to the pleasure in pkaying the golf hole.

But yes, if the hole sucks it sucks.  I have never ever said otherwise.  All I have ever said is that views CAN improve the playing experience, and thus they CAN matter.



You can't possibly miss it so badly AGAIN.....

[Cristian]

I love this thread.

Especially because it denies human psychology:

Research shows that food served in a restaurant with a beautiful waitress and classy ambiance is rated better than the same food in a less inspiring ambiance served by let's say Tim Herron.

Probably it is the same with golf courses; although one should probably try to factor out the vista's when judging the design and the course, it is probably impossible. And if that is human nature, why not factor in the vista's anyway? The primary goal of ratings has to be to create an idea of what people who have not played a course might expect. And their prospective assesment of the course will also be blurred by bad or good vistas!

What this means for the quality of the DESIGN alone, now that is a different matter. Although a good design can underline great views, the site of CPC cannot be designed into a course without great views, and a course in the middle of a heavy  industrial area will have very few, whoever is the designer.

I would be very curious to know from people in the Mucci or Huckaby camp which courses in the top 100 (let's say GW, not GD) would suffer if they would be played exclusively in heavy fog. And which would relatively benefit?

Please name the courses and state your affiliance. (TH or PM will do  )

Just to mention a few myself:

Teeth of the dog, Pebble, CPC, Torrey Pines will suffer; Royal Lytham, NGLA, Ballyneal, Royal Melbourne would benefit. (I'm probably more TH than PM affiliate, but I'm not sure, maybe halfway?)

Since I do not want to hijack this great thread, I will start a new one.... Top 100 Golf courses when all play is in heavy fog...

[Steve Burrows]

Mr. Mucci,

Your position seems to be that architecture exists in some sort of vacumn, and that outside influences have little or nothing to do with the actual features of a give golf course, that a golf course can, or should, only be understood within the boundaries of the property.  Is this a fair assessment?  Your words were as follows, so I will assume that this is what you meant:

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.

But truly, golf course architecture does not exist in a vacumn.  So, with respect to the "merits of the architecture," how might the the influence of the surrounding scenery be any different that the influence of the wind.  On many different occasions, you have mentioned the differences that the wind has on one plays a golf hole (particularly in your discussions of Seminole and NGLA).  But wind is an invisible, intangible thing, isn't it, yet it still influences the playing of a golf hole.  How then can the merits of these golf courses be discussed in context of something so transparent?  But yet we all do.   You would not suggest that wind only happens within the boundaries of the golf course property, would you?  You must concede that it happens off-site as well and not solely within the boundaries of the golf course, and yet, while the wind does physically influnce the flight of a golf ball, it also affects how players approach playing the game.  Surely you have backed off and reconsidered a shot because the wind shifted, yes? 

Similarly, outside scenery, or borrowed scenery, effectively permeates the boundaries of ones consciousness, therefore influencing play.  Consider the emptiness that exists off-property at such places as Sand Hills or Ballyneal: are you suggesting that these expansive spaces and long views off-site have no impact on ones experience, or that they had absolutely no impact on the design of the courses?  Scenery has the power to bring people to their knees.  Their is a concept in landscape studies that differentiates the "beautiful" from the "sublime."  The former tends to be pleasing to people whereas the latter has a powerful emotional effect on people that cause some people even to cry (views from certain vantage points in Yosemite National Park are often used as examples).  Or that the individual holes were not designed with the wind in mind?  Ultimately, both the scenery and the wind (again, both are effectively intangible) affect both the design of the courses, as well how one might approach a given golf hole.     

[Peter Pallotta]

I think Anthony's "it is a matter of judging the course or the experience" gets very close. I'd suggest that Tom H probably judges a golf course as he finds it, independently of what an architect has or has not done or has or has not put there - that is, he judges the whole and not the constituent parts; he judges what actually exists and not what might've been. Which to me seems a sensible and realistic and valid approach, perhaps not the only approach but certainly one of the top two -- especially if, like Tom, one questions his/her own ability to accurately assess (and judge) what an architect has managed to achieve on any given site.   

Peter

(Tom - sorry if I got that all wrong and you have to come back here to correct it).

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:
That is absolutely, unequivocably, completely NOT what I have ever maintained.

My contention all along has never waivered; and it rather concurs with that of Tom Doak.

And it is this:  if views are there to be had, it is best to maximize them.  They add to the pleasure in pkaying the golf hole.

The external "views" are INHERENT in the property/site.

It would be impossible to remove the views if YOU were designing Pebble Beach, Spyglass, CPC or Spanish Bay.  Although, with Spanish Bay I guess you could have located the massive hotel on the beach instead of in the donut.

Certainly Old Head has some remarkable if not extraordinary views, but, why isn't it ranked ahead of Pebble Beach, Seminole, Pacific and Bandon Dunes ?

Might it have something to do with the architecture.  The playing surface that the architect crafted in order to present a challenge to the golfer ?

External views are window dressing, the merits of the golf course are determined by the architecture, not the distant scenery.

But yes, if the hole sucks it sucks.  I have never ever said otherwise.  All I have ever said is that views CAN improve the playing experience, and thus they CAN matter.

Ahhh, the "playing experience".

Isn't that what everyone complains about and condemns ?

The "Cart Girl", the flower beds around the tees, etc., etc..  All tied into the "playing experience"

While playing Shadow Creek it's almost impossible to see outside the golf course at eye level.  Does that make the course better or worse ?

Is the architecture diminished by containment mounding ?

Is the "playing experience" diminished ?

I eagerly await your response  

You can't possibly miss it so badly AGAIN.....

As the Zen Master said, "we'll see"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mr. Mucci,

Your position seems to be that architecture exists in some sort of vacumn, and that outside influences have little or nothing to do with the actual features of a give golf course, that a golf course can, or should, only be understood within the boundaries of the property.  Is this a fair assessment?  Your words were as follows, so I will assume that this is what you meant:

I meant what I stated, not what you've interpreted.

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.

But truly, golf course architecture does not exist in a vacumn.  So, with respect to the "merits of the architecture," how might the the influence of the surrounding scenery be any different that the influence of the wind. 

Because the wind is an INTEGRAL element in the "PLAY" of the game.
It resides within the confines of the golf course

On many different occasions, you have mentioned the differences that the wind has on one plays a golf hole (particularly in your discussions of Seminole and NGLA).  But wind is an invisible, intangible thing, isn't it,

No, it's not, it's tangible.  You can feel it, you can see its effects. 
It influences decisions, striking the ball and the flight and roll of the ball.
It is an INTEGRAL element of the game, a catalyst to the challenge.

yet it still influences the playing of a golf hole. 

The above conclusion is correct, your underlying assumptions are incorrect.
It's NOT an intangible.

How then can the merits of these golf courses be discussed in context of something so transparent? 

Because it's NOT transparent.
It's blatantly obvious.

But yet we all do.   

Because it's an INTEGRAL element in the game and is often incorporated in the routing and design of the individual holes.

You would not suggest that wind only happens within the boundaries of the golf course property, would you? 

ONLY the wind WITHIN the boundaries of the golf course property influences play of the golf course.  The wind beyond the boundaries is of NO consequence when playing the golf course.

You must concede that it happens off-site as well and not solely within the boundaries of the golf course, and yet, while the wind does physically influnce the flight of a golf ball, it also affects how players approach playing the game.  Surely you have backed off and reconsidered a shot because the wind shifted, yes? 

What happens "off site" has NO bearing upon the play of the hole/s.

My ONLY concern with the wind is its velocity and direction ON THE GOLF COURSE.

Similarly, outside scenery, or borrowed scenery, effectively permeates the boundaries of ones consciousness, therefore influencing play. 


Horse sh... manure.

Scenery outside the golf course does NOT influence my play.

The architectural features OF the golf course and the wind ON the golf course influence my play.

Consider the emptiness that exists off-property at such places as Sand Hills or Ballyneal: are you suggesting that these expansive spaces and long views off-site have no impact on ones experience,

"one's experience" and playing the challenge presented by the architect are two different things.

If it's sight seeing I seek, the views at the pool at the Delano Hotel are sufficient for my tastes, but, if I want to play golf and face a sporty challenge, ONLY those elements and features found within the confines of the golf course determine the merits of the features/routing/design of the golf course.

or that they had absolutely no impact on the design of the courses? 


External views from a golf course are an inherent by-product of the property/site/golf course, not something crafted by the architect.

Scenery has the power to bring people to their knees.  Their is a concept in landscape studies that differentiates the "beautiful" from the "sublime."  The former tends to be pleasing to people whereas the latter has a powerful emotional effect on people that cause some people even to cry (views from certain vantage points in Yosemite National Park are often used as examples). 



When I play golf, It's a game where my intent is to meet or overcome the challenge that's been presented by the architect, not to go on a nature walk.


Or that the individual holes were not designed with the wind in mind?


The WIND is an INTEGRAL element in the game of golf.
It's not an intangible as you stated.
It can be felt and its influence is clearly understood by prudent golfers.

Ultimately, both the scenery and the wind (again, both are effectively intangible) affect both the design of the courses, as well how one might approach a given golf hole. 

The external scenery has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with how I approach a hole.

As to the WIND, see my comments above, you're misguided when it comes to understanding it's tactile presence and influence.    

[Doug Siebert]

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.         

No, you misunderstand.  It sounds like you are OK being set up with that infamous friend "who has a great personality".  I see nothing wrong with wanting the whole package.

What's wrong with finding beauty on a golf course BOTH architecturally as well as aesthetically?

One does not completely negate the other, but a transplant a Doak 10 to a setting that's a Doak 1 and it can no longer be a Doak 10, IMHO.  Maybe 8 or 9, but not 10.  The most wonderful setting in the world won't make a Doak 0 a 10.  Maybe a 2, if only because it will happily distract one from the lack of architectural interest

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

Your questions continue to miss the point and amount to just so much more obfuscation.  The only thing I maintain is that views can matter.  Period.  You keep wanting to attribute more to it, but I never said that.  They are not paramount, they are not mandatory, they cannot make a bad golf hole great, they do nothing of the sort.  It's only this: if they are there to had, they matter. Again perhaps not TO YOU, but you quite strange in your approach.

Doug Siebert gets it.  So does the rest of the world.  Tom Doak has stated quite clearly why it matters.  And I believe if you would give up the stubborn-ness, you would get it also. Because this truly is not rocket science.

TH

[Kirk Gill]

"Scenery outside the golf course does not influence my play."

Understood. Would you say, then, that for you a golf course is like a chessboard, and in the same way that the table that a chessboard sits on, and the room the table is in has no effect on the play of the game?

Of course, that's a worthless analogy, because the material that a chessboard or the chess pieces are made from has no effect on play, and on a golf course the surface itself is central to play.

So is a golf course like a bowling lane, where the preparation of each surface is different, even though once again the surroundings of the lane don't matter?

Well again, the analogy doesn't suit, because each bowling lane is shaped so similarly that it can't possibly be like golf holes, each one unique in its own right.

So since my analogy machine seems to be broken, I'll just say this. Patrick, I admire your focus and your diligence towards playing the game of golf. I believe that your ability to focus on the elements at hand, the architecture of the course itself and any wind or other game-affecting concerns that cross the boundaries of the course, is admirable.

But I would suggest to you this notion - doesn't the fact that a bunch of other people feel differently in regards to this issue suggest that your view may not necessarily be "right," but just a view that is your own? Golf course architects have been shown to design specifically to take into account the surrounding landscape. I believe I remember Tom Doak on this board talking about the shaping of a mound to reflect the shapes found in the land beyond the hole. Doesn't the fact that golf course architects take this into account somehow imply that it is of some architectural importance? Is the time that teams like Doak's spend integrating the boundaries of their holes into the surrounding environs totally wasted, insofar as the actual playing of golf is concerned? And since a golf hole is a more dynamic thing than a chessboard or a bowling lane, isn't it just possible that, for those of us golfers who do not possess your singularity of focus, the visual surroundings of a course actually do impact both the experience of playing a course as well as our actual game play?

Or are we, in your opinion, talking about an immutable truth, and not just your humble opinion?

[Peter Pallotta]

The sky is part of the scenery, but can you imagine a skyline green without it?

A roadway is an unpleasant part of the scenery, except at the Road Hole, where it's not.

It's the faux-scenery that's the problem.

Peter

[Steve Burrows]

Or are we, in your opinion, talking about an immutable truth, and not just your humble opinion?

Good point, Kirk.  The linguist in me can't help but notice that many of Mr, Mucci's comments say things to the effect that the scenery off site does not affect how "I" approach a hole, or how it affects "MY" play.  His views (no pun intended) are not part of some unified field theory of golf course design to which we must all submit, but simply how he may honestly see the game.  And you're right about another thing: we should celebrate the focus he has on actually playing of the game of golf while the great majority of us will go on allowing the outside scenery to complement our total experience...and we get to play the game as well.

[Tom Huckaby]

Steve:

I trust you as a linguist, but are you sure about this?

My friend Pat has NEVER meant this as simply how HE approaches the game; it seems crystal clear to me as he has berated me for years for playing with my eyes open that he means this as an immutable truth.

I have commented twice in this very thread (about the 15th iteration of this argument) that this is his unique way, and if so, fine.. and he keeps firing back.

Methinks the benefit of the doubt you are giving him is far too huge.

I look forward to the answer to Kirk's question, in any case.  If it is just him that is certainly fine.  But I said that in iteration one and he didn't accept it then, hasn't accepted it ever since.

TH

ps to Steve - see Pat's first post in this thread....
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.

Seems pretty clear that it's not meant to be his take, but rather what he believes is an immutable truth... "if one is.. then you should"....

[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.         

No, you misunderstand.  It sounds like you are OK being set up with that infamous friend "who has a great personality".  I see nothing wrong with wanting the whole package.

What's wrong with finding beauty on a golf course BOTH architecturally as well as aesthetically?

I've NEVER had a problem with aesthetics ON the golf course.
Where did you get that notion from ?
I've repeatedly indicated that views OUTSIDE the property line have no bearing on the architecture or the play of the holes.

One does not completely negate the other, but a transplant a Doak 10 to a setting that's a Doak 1 and it can no longer be a Doak 10, IMHO. 


That's where we disagree.
The external views don't detract from the architecture Tom Doak has created and the way the holes play.  Those values endure irrespective of what's happening beyond the property line.

Maybe 8 or 9, but not 10.  The most wonderful setting in the world won't make a Doak 0 a 10.  Maybe a 2, if only because it will happily distract one from the lack of architectural interest

The architecture found within the property lines and the play of the holes is what determines the merits of the golf course, not factors beyond the boundaries.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

Your questions continue to miss the point and amount to just so much more obfuscation.  The only thing I maintain is that views can matter. 


Do they have any influence over the features found on any given hole ?
Do they change the way you play the hole ?

How can elements beyond the property line influence your play or the interaction between the features/architecture and your ball ?

The can't.

Period.  You keep wanting to attribute more to it, but I never said that.  They are not paramount, they are not mandatory, they cannot make a bad golf hole great, they do nothing of the sort.  It's only this: if they are there to had, they matter. Again perhaps not TO YOU, but you quite strange in your approach.

I like being strange.

But, external views have no impact on the architectural features or the play of a hole.

The USGA rules are quite specific about the "field of play".

And, I've yet to come across a ruling involving views beyond the property line.

External views can be pleasing, but, they have zero impact on the architectural features that interface with the golfer.

Doug Siebert gets it.  So does the rest of the world.  Tom Doak has stated quite clearly why it matters.  And I believe if you would give up the stubborn-ness, you would get it also. Because this truly is not rocket science.

Agreed, this is simple.
You want to incorporate elements outside the boundaries of a golf course as having an impact or influence on the architecture inside the boundaries and in the play of a hole, whereas, I feel just the opposite.  If it's outside of the property line it has zero influence over the features on the golf course and no impact/influence over the play of a hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

Now, hold on a second, Pat.  I tend to agree with you that pretty vistas should not factor into one's analysis of the architectural merit or play of a hole.

However, your example of the R&A clubhouse and grandstands is a lousy example to support your premise that no outside factors can have such an effect.  The R&A clubhouse definitely impacts play, as do the grandstands.  They affect the wind.  They either block the wind or make it swirl differently.  And you've said it yourself - wind is a tangible element that is integral to the play of the game and to architecture.

So does the Gulfstream, but, the only wind that matters is the wind within the confines of the golf course.

So if the R&A clubhouse, which is off the course, can and does impact play and architecture, then that - at least in part - refutes your argument that nothing off the property matters when it comes to the architecture of a golf course.

No, it doesn't, anymore than the Gulfstream, the hills in the distance, roads buildings and cars.  They are all superfluous.
ONLY the wind on the golf course influences play.
The direction the wind blows, its velocity and consistency are irrelevant, as is everything that might influence them that's external to the property line.

And that being the case, it seems to me that the onus now falls upon you to explain the difference between off-course wind affecting agents and off-course agents that affect other senses, such as depth perception.   

It's not the case, and it's irrelevant.
It doesn't matter if the Gulfstream comes closer or farther away from the mainland, thus influencing the wind.  It doesn't matter that the hills form a barrier to winds from a certain direction.
Only the wind within the confines of the golf course influence play and it doesn't matter what factors off the golf course conspire to produce winds, those factors are irrelevant.

If, for example, the back bunker on #17 at CPC were not there and that green were an unframed "skyline" green (or in this case, "oceanline green"), what is the argument that the presence of the ocean (as opposed to a small pond) is not relevant to the architecture of the course and to its play? 

It would depend solely on the hazard line.
Does it matter if it's an ocean, lake, pond or ESA if the stakes or line define it as a hazard ?  Once defined as a water hazard or lateral hazard, it's
all the same regardless of its essence.

Doesn't the expansiveness of the ocean (as opposed to the small pond) affect depth perception vis-a-vis the pond or a bunker-framed green? 


Dave, your kidding right ?
Depth perception ?
What golfer today, plays by eye and not a yardage book, sprinkler head indicator, 200, 150 and 150 plates or range finders.
Everyone dials in the distance, so forget about depth perception.

When you're on a severely elevated tee with a big drop to the fairway on a mountain course with great vistas, doesn't the massive scale of the views make the fairway ribbon below appear smaller than it really is? 

I would imagine it might if you didn't have binocular vision.
Like certain lizards you could focus one eye on the mountain and the other on the fairway below.

But, to address your question, the only thing that affects my perception of fairway width is how the FAIRWAY looks to me as I stand on the tee.

And doesn't that impact play?

Not for me.
My focus is on the target at hand, not collateral or incidental objects outside the property line

How about the much-ballyhooed impact of Indigo in Palm Springs? 

Indigo in Palm Springs hasn't been much ballyhooed in my neighborhood .... yet.

All the players know where it is and alter their putting lines accordingly, don't they? 

Or how about something as simple as playing a course with wetland areas out of bounds that you can see...even if you can't tell from what you see on the course, doesn't that tell you that you're at the low point in the course and perhaps shouldn't expect much roll on your tee shot? 

Not necessarily.
And, that would be the last thing I would think of.
With OB or ESA my only concern is hitting the tee shot in play.
I wouldn't be concerned with roll.

These are all examples of off-course factors that impact play and therefore architecture. 

Not for me.

Perhaps there's a case to be made that these types of factors do not impact architecture or play of the game - and I hope you'll try to make it - but I don't see it.

It may take you some time, but, eventually you'll come to see it.  

[Sean_A]

I am a big believer in calling what the archie uses, either man made or not, architecture.  If its architecture it has an effect on the game or at least or perception of the game - it doesn't matter which. 

I was thinking of bunkers the other day and how we have the form or function argument quite often here.  It reminded me for some reason of "virtutem forma decorat" which translates roughly as the form adorns virtue.  This is a Platonic belief that outward beauty embodies inner spiritual virtue.  It doesn't necessarily work when discussing people, but does it work for bunkers and if so, larger vistas zeroing back to directly in front of the player - to a point he can touch?  I am not exactly sure how I feel about this sort of thing, but I instinctively know that scenery matters and probably on a different level than merely visual pleasure.

Ciao