Has your philosophy on architecture changed?

[TEPaul]

My philosophy on architecture has changed in the last ten years and made me believe this:

That there are all kinds of types and styles of architecture out there and that's actually a very good thing and should never be considered a bad thing, and it has been that way for a very very long time. The only drawback to that, in my opinion, is in the past far too many either misunderstood or failed to appreciate that all those types and styles needed to be maintained in ways that highlighted their particular types and styles. Unfortunately, for those reasons most all courses came to be maintained and treated in too much of a homogenized way.

I think we are learning slowly to overcome that now.

[Forrest Richardson]

This is a very thoughtful thread. Thanks.

Just the other day I made an off-hand remark about how, sometimes, GCA is a terrific time waster. However, I recall feeling guilty, and remain so after that remark. Sure, it can be a time waster, but in between it all are some terrific pieces of information, history, ideas and new thinking. (I also enjoy the old thinking.)

For me, having another forum to discuss and share ideas — argue — and get opinions, is a terrific opportunity. I suppose the greatest "change" I can credit to GCA is the attention we now pay to understanding the background of a course, even when it may seem trivial given no apparent pedigree being at play. I truly feel that you could begin a conversation here about virtually any golf course or designer and there would be something learned from listening in on the discussion. It may not change our mind, but it opens your eyes a bit wider.

Also, I feel we (the people I work with) have taken good things away from GCA. Whether it has changed their way of thinking, I cannot say for sure.

[Mark_Fine]

Years ago, I felt the same as Mike about Mt. Airy - $10 to play with The Golf Card and that was as good as golf could get.  Then in the early 80's I started traveling to the British Isles and realized I had a lot to learn.  Playing over there is where I really gained a new perspective and appreciation for golf and golf course architecture. 

[Mike_Cirba]

Years ago, I felt the same as Mike about Mt. Airy - $10 to play with The Golf Card and that was as good as golf could get.  Then in the early 80's I started traveling to the British Isles and realized I had a lot to learn.  Playing over there is where I really gained a new perspective and appreciation for golf and golf course architecture. 

You know Mark, now that I think about it, "The Golf Card" may have been as responsible as any other factor in guys like you and me playing a bunch of courses back then.

I know my dad got his full use out of it.   I'm not sure how he could have enjoyed 40 years worth of playing different courses without the affordability it offered.   

[Adam Clayman]

Tim Nugent-
As I said earlier, something was odd about that post of yours.
 I've received this email and was asked to post it.
Here it is...

Tim,
 
I have been made aware of some comments you made on my behalf.  It is hard to read through the lines, but I think the intention was to compliment my work?  Just to let you know, if you care to brag about me in the future, I do have an A.A.S.Degree in Horticulture/Turf Management from the College of Lake County.  I guess you never knew or you would have bought me a cake.
 
Yours in golf,
 
"Lowly 2nd assistant"

[Jason Topp]

Mine has because I really did not have a philosophy.

I definitely notice things that I never noticed before. 

There are some little mounds behind some greens on my course whereas the original shaping from the 20s was more geometric in look.  Those little mounds now look like zits to me.

Mike Cirba has pointed out pictures where mounding has hidden the bottom part of trees and looks very artificial.  I'm not sure I consider such mounding an abomination but I notice it and think it should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.

The firmness of a course is one of the first things I notice now.

Tree management decisions are really interesting to me.  Interlachen has a lot of trees.  Would it be a better course if many of them were cut down?  It is about a 50/50 decision in my view.  My course needs a chain saw in a big way even though we have spent $50K per year removing trees for the last 5 years.

[Kirk Gill]

My philosophy has most certainly changed. Just from reading Ran's writeups and thereby at least being introduced to the greatest courses in the world, even if just from photographs and from his incisive descriptions, my philosophy (such that it was) has benefitted from a broadened perspective. I've also benefitted from learning about the differences AND inter-relationships between architecture and maintenance meld. I've assimilated The Big World Theory.

And I've also learned just how MUCH more there is in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in my philosophy.

[George Pazin]

I often wonder if the personal philosophy of architecture can change over time.

For the longtime contributors here, I wonder if their opinion of architecture has changed since the inception of this site. It would be interesting to see what was the seminal moment or course that shaped the foundation of their architectural beliefs.

For the newer contributors, I wonder if this board has influenced the way you see architecture. Is there a specific course you once considered great, only to revisit it and experience a let down? Has the development of your GCA education somehow diminished or enhanced the actual playing experience for you? It gets me to wondering if the eureka moment for me was on the course, or in front of a keyboard.

Is there a specific post or theory that you have read which had a profound affect on the way you look at GCA?

WH

Mine has changed pretty signficantly, and I can tell you the exact post that made me reflect, as well as the event that has had the greatest impact.

I stumbled into the area of golf course architecture after a progression of reading about different areas of the game - instruction, history, biographies, etc. I read Geoff Shackelford's The Captain and The Golden Age... and then stumbled across this site.

After reading The Captain, I was fascinated with multiple fairways, avenues to the green, etc., and all of their apparent advantages. When I played around with designing holes at that time for various contests, I leaned heavily upon this.

One day, back in maybe 2001 or so, Tom Doak posted something about cross bunkers and alternate fairways that forever altered my outlook. He said (paraphrasing) that cross bunkers don't usually add as much interest as you'd think and alternate fairways rarely work as well as hoped because the choices are too clear cut.

Thinking long and hard about that helped to develop my own ideas on what I call subtle or grayscale architecture.

As for the event, it was actually multiple events, a combination of attending the US Am at Oakmont in 2003 and watching the 2003 Open and 2004 US Open on the tube.

So I guess mine's changed a good bit. JakaB will call me a suckup and a lemming for allowing the thoughts of others to help formulate my thoughts, but who really cares what he thinks?

 

[Steve Kline]

I have no particular philosophy on architecture, but I have had too many eureka moments to count.  Interestingly one occurred just last week, when in the discussion of Pacific Dunes it came out through several people that looking at a golf hole in a vaccum is not the best way to assess its worthiness... that fitting it into the context of the course, how it fits in the course as a whole, matters quite a lot also.. and as such a golf hole that doesn't seem all that great on its own might attain a greatness due to how it fits into the course.  That might be fundamental to some but it only really struck me last week.

Interesting such a thing could happen in a forum whose past is so much better than its present and is so ravaged by off topic threads.
 

Tom - I realized this when playing Pinehurst #2 for the umpteenth time before the '99 U.S. Open there. We had heard about some changes that were to be made and some tees to be moved and I said, "Why would they do that? This is supposed to be a birdie hole. We just played three holes in a row that kicked our butt." In the past it seemed that the USGA set out to make every hole a ball buster but it looks like Mike Davis is changing the tide on that. There need to be relaxing holes on courses and difficult holes. It moves the golfer through the range of motions that is golf and life. A course that does well is a great one.

One of my moments came on my first trip to Scotland when I saw how hard and fast the courses played. Much like Brent said that is more important to me than almost anything else now. In reality, while we all love architecture and this site, I find that the superintendent is probably more important than the architect. Yes, I want to play a great design like Pine Valley, but that design needs to have the proper conditioning or it's just not worth playing to me. (The 11th at PV was the first inland hole I can remember standing on the tee and thinking how beautifully it was laid on the land and I just wanted to stand there and take it all in.) Through this site I've gained a greater appreciation for green sites/contours and playing angles creating the real interest in the game and not judging a course by the scorecard. Length has become less of an issue to me as long the course is well mixed in short, medium, and long holes. I use to think that a relatively short course that had a long par 4 or par 3 or two was poorly designed because those long holes didn't fit the shorter nature of course. I know see the brilliance in those holes and their often half par nature.

[cary lichtenstein]

Interesting question.

In the beginning, there were just courses I liked and didn't like. Not sure if I had an architecture philosophy.

As I played more and more courses, the only thing that changed was my knowledge of architect's names and styles, but really nothing has changed.

[Tommy Williamsen]

This is a good question.  I'm not sure my philosophy has changed but what I like has been broadened.  Years ago I enjoyed parkland courses the most.  I still like trees, even on golf courses.  Playing in GB&I completely changed my thoughts about what a golf course should be.  What is interesting is that it made me appreciate architects that I didn't particularly like.  I now find that some Fazio courses are more palatable.  There are fewer courses that I hate and can find different approaches fun.

[RSLivingston_III]

For me it was when I became proficient playing with hickory clubs.

[Ben Sims]

For the newer contributors, I wonder if this board has influenced the way you see architecture. Is there a specific course you once considered great, only to revisit it and experience a let down? Has the development of your GCA education somehow diminished or enhanced the actual playing experience for you? It gets me to wondering if the eureka moment for me was on the course, or in front of a keyboard.

Thanks for showing me this thread Wyatt.

I lurked for a few years before requesting membership, so its hard to put myself squarely in the mindset of the question above.  It goes without saying that I'm a newbie and act accordingly quite a bit.  But to say that this board has influenced the way I see architecture is an understatement of epic proportions.  I have read two of Mr. Doak's books, two of Mr. Shackelford's, and a few others.  Those books were all purchased after seeing them mentioned here.  So with those few books and the mountains of content I've seen here, I owe all of my knowledge--which is laughably small compared to so many here--to this website. 

As far a specific course that I considered great and then the site led to me seeing differently, I have to mention The Frog back home in Georgia.  It was the first upscale daily fee course I played after picking up the game eight years ago and I thought it the best course I had ever played until I returned to it a few years back.  I realized that it held almost zero strategic interest and what's more, was quite penal for a beginner like me. 

The playing experience has been greatly affected by GCA.  I find myself focusing on process instead of results.  I look at contours to see a ground shot.  I read breaks by looking at the surrounding and distant features.  I look for angles into green fronts.  These are all things I started "pulling into my golf crosscheck" after reading about them on GCA.

My eureka moment--even after reading books on the subject and looking at the site for years--was on the 10 hole loop at Old Mac this spring.  The bottle hole and road hole right next to each other in the routing--which I am happy to see stay the same--made me want to go further in this exploration of courses.  It caused me to consider a career change.  There's only one thing that excites me as much as airplanes, and that has become golf courses.  I owe all of that to stumbling across this site one afternoon when looking for a course review in October 2005. 

[Doug Siebert]

I don't know that this site has really changed my philosophy on architecture too much since the C&C/Doak school philosophy that dominates here matched me quite well.  However, where previously I knew what I liked and didn't like I wasn't able to articulate very well to others the reasons why.

The terminology, pictorials, comparisons of places I've been with places I haven't by very knowledgeable posters have afforded me the ability to clearly describe the reasons behind my beliefs.  I can now tell you clearly why I believe a certain type of hole works well or doesn't work, and occasionally even suggest improvements to holes that are found lacking (whether they are really improvements is in the eye of the beholder, of course!)

Most golfers still give the blank stare because all they know about the game is swinging the club, driving the cart and drinking the beer, but occasionally one can be pleasantly surprised by someone who appreciates the strategy and artistic touches of a course and a good discussion can ensue.

[ed_getka]

Wyatt, After I stopped chuckling after reading the Pete Dye interview I perused the website. At that time the introduction read something like this "If you enjoy golf in a natural setting we think you'll enjoy this website". At that nano-second my brain ran through many of the natural settings I had experienced to that point, and the feelings I had had while experiencing them.  At that time I was privileged to be Caddying on the Monterey peninsula. One bunker in particular caught my eye. It was on the front left of the 16th hole at Spanish Bay. Carved from the natural dune behind it, the transition to native plant material literally spoke to me. It was even louder when the bunker was soon altered to look like the remainder with manicured surrounds.
Since then I have been able to recognize the differences of feelings in not only macro but micro architecture. 
 
Back in those days the treehouse was a bit more frank, much more on point, and, very educational.

The best education as far as I was concerned related to fundamentals. Now it seems there's those who pontificate there are favored architects and courses attributed to some cult status on this website and that that's a bad thing. Being rooted in fundamentals shouldn't be denigrated, it should be saluted.

Adam,

This is exactly the type of response I was hoping to elicit. I get the most out of the treehouse when it is educational first. If anything, maybe some additional shared experiences from others can help shift the focus.

I can still remember first stumbling upon the Lines of Charm discussions, and more recently perusing a new thread referencing the wonderful Theory of Time by Mr. Kirk. Oddly enough I had somehow missed this incredibly insightful piece for my 3+ years of following the site. It now seems that my time on GCA is spent buried in the search feature, looking through history. There are still profound insights to be had, I'm just afraid I miss the majority of them.

WH

Wyatt,
    One thing I do once in a while for the benefit of people new to the site is to go back to the oldest threads and read through them to find some interesting ones and I bump them back up to being on the front page.

[John Moore II]

I think my philosophy has changed a bit, but not much. I still like most of Fazios work and I still like much of Nicklaus's work. I just see things differently now. I can sort of see what is 'built' and what is 'crafted.' But I see more differences in holes, more subtle things, and the like. I also 'like' slightly different things.