Great Tests of Golf w/out Great Architecture?

[Mark_Fine]

Courses with high shot values and that require the golfer to think and to play a wide variety of golf shots are what many of us would classify as a Great Tests of Golf.  But can you have a great test of golf without great architecture?  If so, why?  

[Ran Morrissett]

If you are willing to equate hard with great, then I would say Medinah and Birkdale qualify as great tests without being blessed with great architectural elements.

I'll be curious to see but I would think that the vast majority of answers will involve either windy or heavily treed courses.

[JakaB]

If Medinah was on the ocean it would have great architectural features.

[Richard_Goodale]

Barny, Barny, Barny!

Medinah #3 wasn't designed by a golden age great architect (GAGA).  How could it be "great," regardless of where it was located?  Same for Birkdale, Carnoustie, etc.

[Bill Wright]

Easy.  In a picture encyclopedia, next to this subject would be various pictures of Olympic's Lake Course.  

As Tom Doak wrote in The Confidential Guide: "There's very little strategy involved in the design: just the relentless pressure to drive the ball fairly long and archer-straight".

[Mark_Fine]

Bill,
I don't agree with Tom's assessment but if that were truly all that is involved at Olympic, I surely wouldn't call it a great test of golf!  One dimensional difficultly does not constitute greatness in my book and I'm sure in Tom's as well!  Wonder why Tom even gives it an 8??
Mark

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mark
What is your definition of great architecture?

Rich
That's funny. You don't consider James Braid, John Stutt, Willie Park-Jr., FW Hawtree and JH Taylor part of the so-called GA?

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
That's what I'm trying to get help with!  You know us GD guys - tough but fair  

Why does Tom Doak give Olympic an 8 when he says it's one dimensional?  Why isn't Medinah in the same league as Prairie Dunes and Crystal Downs and Sand Hills (I'm listing courses without an ocean for Barney's sake), etc.  It sure is a great test!  What is it missing?  
Mark

[Richard_Goodale]

TomMacW

As far as I can remember, none of those geezers was at all related to the Arts and Crafts movement, and Braid gets nothing but crap on this website and elsewhere.  Or did I miss chapter LXVII?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
I'm glad to see you are a convert and now associate the A&C movement with the G-Age. Actually Park, Braid (Stutt) and Taylor (Hawtree) were are all mentioned, but considering it was such a long and wearisome piece I can understand where you might've of missed it. Next time I'll try to keep my essays a little shorter.

What kind of crap does Braid get from this website?

Mark
I don't think Doak's scale is strictly about great architecture, the number has to do with would the average guy enjoy the course and should he go out of his way to see it. Obviously the average guy is going to be geeked to play a historic US Open test. Now if the numeric scale was related to how often a person would want to play a particular course the results may be different. Because that evaluation would have more to do with a combination of architecture and the quality of the site or location.

[Richard_Goodale]

Tom

I think that you and I have actually tried to stand shoulder to shoulder for old Jimmy B in face of the slings and arrows of outrageously beloved figures on this site.  As for the other guys, I'll accept your assurance that they were fully paid up members of the A&C Society.  Sort of "B" list, though, weren't they?  If (for example) Colt's name was on Carnoustie (which would have enhanced his resume tremendously) we'd probably put it up in the pantheon.  The more I think of it, the more I think it is (architecturally) impeccable.  But, "we" slag it.  Why?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I don't remember ever mentioning Carnoustie. And since when I have I become 'this website', as in 'Braid gets nothing but crap from this website.' As far as Braid is concerned I have only tried to correct some misconceptions about what he did and didn't do. I'll let others decide if he is a top shelf or not. I'm pleased to see you've taken an interest in the A&C inspired architecture.

And speeking of JH Taylor, what was his connection with Dornoch - I have read accounts that he assisted Sutherland?

[Richard_Goodale]

Tom

I'm already having nightmares about "standing shoulder to shoulder" with you.  It must have been some sort of aberrant senior moment when I wrote that.  You are not "this website."  Thank God.

Taylor hung around Dornoch a bit.  What he did or did not do there, I dinnae ken.

Cheers

Rich

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
From what I understand for us to be shoulder to shoulder I'd have to be sitting. I prefer 'another contrarian moment'.

[Paul Turner]

Rich

"If (for example) Colt's name was on Carnoustie (which would have enhanced his resume tremendously) we'd probably put it up in the pantheon."

Where on earth did you get that one from?  

Isn't Colt's Muirfield one of your faves?  Surely it's not in the pantheon just 'cos of his name?  

Wouldn't Carnoustie tremendously enhance any architect's resume?  Not just them posh English archie's!

When you go back to Blighty, play a round or two inside the M25; it might convert ya! (my bet is, you'd like Walton Heath best).

PS

I also think Carnoustie is far more than just a tough test; lots of other appealing qualities.  It's about mid-way in The Open rota for me.  

Is it 2** or 3*** for you?

[Gib_Papazian]

Yeah Tom, that is right - I guess the average shmoe would just be "geeked out" to play Olympic.

However, if he had your discerning eye and ability to conjure up obtuse connections between primitive cave etchings and a Willie Watson bunker in 40,000 words or so, he too would realize that Olympic is only worth playing once.

As a matter of fact, if Tom Doak had any taste he would have rated the Lake Course a 2* instead of an 8* and suggest the Masters be moved from Augusta to the "Historic" Scarlett Course, notworthy because Tom Weiskopf lost his viginity on the 2nd green (is that a Ross original?) and Woody Hayes once tackled a University of Michigan golfer on his way to breaking the course record.

Weiskopf . . . . Woody Hayes . . . . . MacWood . . . . . I am beginning to see a connection.

[guset]

Easy.  In a picture encyclopedia, next to this subject would be various pictures of Olympic's Lake Course.  

As Tom Doak wrote in The Confidential Guide: "There's very little strategy involved in the design: just the relentless pressure to drive the ball fairly long and archer-straight".

This post by Mr Wright sums it up.There's strategy and then there's strategic flexibility.  

How much  can the strategy vary?  Unidimensional golf courses are less appealing to this group.  Do you want a course that requires the same damn thing day after day?  I contend that M#3 has more of it than the O.  THe O has more elevation change, M#3 has more better holes (Gib will catch on fire here).  Methinks there are two poster boys for this topic and they both magically appeared here, God, what a surprise.

Medinah (3,4,5,6,9,10,12,13,15, 16)is quite a bit more interesting than Olympic(2,3,4,5,9?, 11?14?16-18 oh yah sure).   The O already has cypress trees and fog and it's about the same level of interest as Medinah #3. What does that say?  Move O-Lake 400 yards, move M#3 200 miles? Now THAT's a measure of greatness!

Barney got this one right!    Now as for Carnoustie?  It has conditioning going for it.   The usual suspects.  It's all a matter of definition.  You could make a case to add Harbour Town to the list of strategic inflexibility.   "Uh, let's see.....hit this drive under the canopy 87 feet high or lower, curving exactl;y 17 yards right to left..... hit the 179 club to this part of this cute little greenette....."  Uhhhhh, errrrr, that's a little of a stretch, but that is the picture.  Those inflexible requirements are what we're dealing with here.

Choose your poison.

BV

[TEPaul]

"Courses with high shot values that require a golfer to think and play a wide variety of shots is what many of us would classify as a great test of golf. But can you have a great test without great architecture?"

Mark is assuming that to have great architecture a course must conform to what he writes in his first sentence; ie, that a course to be considered to have great architecture must have BOTH high shot values and also to REQUIRE a golfer to play a "wide variety of shots".

It would probably be best to analyze what he means exactly by that statement, particularly "require a golfer to play a wide variety of shots."

It seems there are certainly some great golf holes that don't necessarily "require" but certainly "allow" a golfer to play a wide variety of shots. As always, Riviera's #10 would fall into this category. Not only does this hole "allow" a golfer to choose between a stunning array of optional directions and club selections off the tee but all of these options (wide variety) with the expectation of par or better but some courting risk more than others.

On the other hand, there are some great holes like Merion's #18, Huntingdon Valley's #18 (B nine), Aronomink's #1, Pine Valley's #1 where you must generally hit two damn good shots with the expectation of securing par. Would those two damn good shots be considered of high shot value? Definitely! Would those two good shots be considered a "wide variety of shots"? I would say definitely not!

So would those holes listed be considered "one dimensional"? I don't know, they might by Mark Fine, he'd have to answer that. I would consider them to probably be "one dimensional" but only in the expectation of securing the green in two with the expectation of par.

But here's where Mark may be looking at things differently than some of the designers that created these holes. While that expectation of securing par may "require" a couple of extremely high shot values and even one dimensional shots, the alternatives to that "requirement" and those high shot value shots would be what the architects considered the "wide variety" of other options!

And what would those other options be? They would be with the expectation of likely securing something other than par, like bogie, or the loss of a shot. Of course the possibility of making a par (the old fashioned way) would still very much exist and how it exists has much to do with the "wide variety of other shots" (the options) and also the quality of the hole's architecture!

This is the way some of the great designers who built some of the great holes that are considered great architecture looked at things or at least that's the way they explained it in much of their writing.

And one can certainly think of holes that require extremely high shot values and one dimensional shots (to secure par) but are weak on the other end of the spectrum--ie, allowing the golfer who selects other options to expect to make par or bogie as stated above.

So I would say Mark, that just because a hole looks to be "one dimensional" in one sense does not necessarily mean that it's not good architecture. One needs to look at the hole in what else it "allows" and how and at what expectation.

Many modern golfers think to be a good hole or good architecture that a hole must offer both high shot values AND a wide variety with the SAME expectation (of securing the green or par, for instance). I think they're inaccurate in that expectation because I don't think that's the way they were designed, presented or expected to be by those that created them. In some cases they could be (like Riviera's #10) but they didn't necessarily have to be that way.

Just like your reaction to Huntingdon Valley's "C" nine which you thought was ridiculously hard and therefore not good architecture. But does it have high shot values? Definitely! Does it have a wide variety of other shots but just not with the likely expectation of par? Definitely! But that may not be the way you're looking at it.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom Paul,
I think we're actually in agreement here and don't even know it.  First of all, remember my question is - "Is it possible to have a great test of golf without great golf architecture?"  

Also go back and read my thread "Every Club in the Bag".  I am not at all advocating that every hole should have a multitude of playing options.  Jeff Bauer and I seem to agree that if an architect tried to design every hole in the 18 that way it's probably a recipe for disaster.  I have no problem with one-dimensional golf holes at all.  What I was referring to above and have more of a problem with is one-dimensional "golf courses".  These are courses where essentially every hole requires the same type of golf shots - kind of what Tom Doak seemed to be referring to about Olympic (which I happen to disagree with).

Your analogy to Huntingdon Valley's C nine might be a perfect one to analyze.  Let's both agree like you say that it is clearly very hard, that it does have high shot values, and that it does offer a wide variety of shots.  It therefore, should be considered by most of us as a "great test of golf" correct?  But is it "great golf architecture"??

That is why I was bringing up courses like Medinah #3 which I happen to think is a great test of golf but for some reason most of us (myself included) don't put it up there in that elite class?  Why?  Is it because even though it is a great test, it's not that great of architecture?

Tom M,
I think Tom Doak would beg to differ with you on his scale.  If Tom gives a course an 8 or 9 or whatever, it is because HE believes that is what it is from his perspective.  

Guest,
You seem to love Medinah.  Do you put it in that elite category with those other courses I mentioned?  If not, why?
 
 
 
  
 

[TEPaul]

Mark:

I've got to run out in a minute but we certainly may be on basically the same page here.

As an example of what I think your saying two courses to compare may be the "C" nine at Huntingdon Valley and a course probably something like Aronomink a fairly "one dimensional" layout throughout but clearly a good test of golf for any level. Both the "C" nine and Aronomink could be considered a good test for a good player. But then when you look into each for the other levels of golfer or even a good golfer with a different type of game, for instance, than a long hitting good player you can start to see the distinct differences between the two courses!

This, and this kind of comparison, might be what you're getting at!

I got to go but a barometer which might be looked at could be both a rating and slope comparison. Both courses are extremely high in course rating but "C" nine is extremely high slope rated and Aronomink is remarkably low sloped for such a high course rating. There might be much to talk about architecturally on your subject in that vein.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mark
Obviously it his perspective, but I seem to remember Doak saying that the scale was geared toward what he thought his reader would appreciate - so he took into account substandard conditions and many other variables. But you probably no more about than I do.

Gib
Lighten up. I didn't mention your beloved Olympic. But I do admire your passion and emotion. Your the only man I know that can make me weep as you impassionately and colorfully describe looking for loose change in your golf bag.

You forgot Bobby Knight.

[redanman]

Guest,

You seem to love Medinah.  Do you put it in that elite category with those other courses I mentioned?  If not, why?
 

Being the early am aforementioned lazy bum that didn't sign in (as if you didn't know), Mark if you carefully read, I just put Medinah higher than Olympic, yet grouped them with each other as less than stellar compared to the really good worthy ones.  It is a matter of gradation.  The O wins on ambience in most lists, although the architecture is more varied and interesting at Medinah.

[Mike Cirba]

Hate to pick on neighbors, but I'd have to think that Atlanta Athletic Club and East Lake apply here.

[Mark_Fine]

How about Firestone South as well?  What is lacking in these courses yet still allows them to be considered universally as great tests of golf?  What keeps them from being inspiring?

[Mark_Fine]

Well if we accomplished anything in this thread, maybe we showed once again how subjective golf architecture is.  What I was hoping to get at and I believe we were starting to do so was to show that a great golf course and a great test of golf are not always one in the same.  They can be and but some times they are not.  A functionally proficient design can provide a great test of golf but not necessarily always inspire us.  However, a great golf course "always" has inspiring architecture, it provides adquate challenge, and has that visual appeal that when in harmony with the overall site,  makes for the best of the best.