[Jud_T]

Pat,

You bring up some excellent points.  Certainly many on this site, myself included, have a bias toward a certain type of GCA, new and old.  It becomes a sort of insular, self-fulfilling bias in the sense that I know my biases, but I only have so many rounds of golf to play so I choose to play virtually all of those rounds on courses I have an incling will fit my GCA preferences.  However, given that we've only made a small dent in the general public's perception of what makes good golf, I'm not too concerned about my GCA prejudices.  What is challenging is trying to have a really impartial opinion on those occasions when I do play a course by a GCA who's courses I've had a bad prior experience with or who's style I feel has become dated by our elitist standards...

[Mac Plumart]

My only comment on this would be an individual golfer in missing the boat if he/she doesn't take the time to discover whay they like in a golf course.

Tom Paul told me once to pay attention to how I felt when playing any given course.  If I liked that course/feeling, then try to pin point why.  I've been doing that ever since and I am getting a really good sense of what I like in a course...which is all I really want to do...play golf, a game I love, on courses I like/love.

[George Pazin]

Golf is fun. Doesn't take much more than a field and a hole to show one that.

Still, it can be a lot more fun if the course is special.

[Sev K-H Keil]

It might be an interesting exercise to come up with a universal satisfaction / fun questionnaire for GCA and have them filled out by golfers who actually play the respective courses. I've done some quick research and can't find any comparative, golfer-driven ratings based on large sample sizes, similar to how we rate Universities or even restaurants... ratings and reviews tend to be by a 'few' instead of 'many'...

[Adrian_Stiff]

This topic has already split into about 3 parts.

Missing the boat? Well I think what is key to golf enjoyment is very different in everyones mind. You will not please everyone if you have deep bunkers and you wont please everyone if they are shallow, some like big greens, some like undulating, some do not. Round tees,squared tees, water, fountains, buggy paths...... need I go on. What some get enjoyment from some dont.

What makes a great golf architect, how do you measure him, by height?
Is Tom Fazio great for spending $50,000,000 to build a course in the desert, Is Old Tom great for going out a putting 18 pegs in position in an afternoon and charging a £1. Am I great for building courses for nothing?

It is all subjective how we define our great. If you have an objective great it can perhaps only be measured by success and the desire for golfers to play that course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

All of the men you brought up have created good to great courses.

It's just that their batting averages and slugging percentages would make the Kansas City Royals feel good.

Mike,

Perhaps, according to you, but, the members who joined those courses seem to enjoy them, so who are you to pronounce that those members are not really happy and that they made the wrong choice ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Here's my take:

The Golden age architects had it easy - They had great sites, few planning restrictions and no need to conform to big business and the modern day idea of what a golf course should look like... They had a blank canvas... But they had to generate the ideas... and the artistry of the best of them shows through - They were the pioneers.

Ally,

Macdonald called NGLA a horrendous site.
Lido and Yale were poor sites for different reasons, one water the other rock.
All three could hardly be called great sites.

Friar's Head, Hidden Creek, Sand Hills, Bandon Dunes, Pacific Dunes, Sebonack, Ballyneal, Wild Horse and Old Macdonald could hardly be called inferior sites.

I'd agree that the permitting process is far more difficult today, especially where any water is involved, but, I'm not so sure that the raw sites aren't  inferior unless a developer is trying to force a project

The best modern day architects have a fully formed idea of what makes a course playable and fun (not all do) whilst taking their creativity to the furthest level of detail to make sure everything is as they want it.

I think this site takes it too far when it criticises architects (as opposed to the final course which is fair game) when they often have one hand tied behind their back because of site restrictions, topography, soil and Client brief.... In other words, when we have none of the facts... I also think we criticise aesthetics too readily.

Or Praise too easily

[Patrick_Mucci]

I am reminded of our trip to the UK in 1996, riding the train from Edinburgh to York, a family with two small children playing a game with the rejoinder, "Tickets Please" and later when the Train Master/Conductor came by, repeatedly uttering those words as he approached, they were delighted to spring up and present their tickets to be punched..

This type of "eye candy" is held up as a model, for indoctrination? or frank commentary? or something has to be a standard?




Steve, why do you call this eye candy ?

Have you ever been "on site"

The entire course and the areas outside the playing corridors look that way.

What about the photo is "eye candy" ?

[Jud_T]

The deer....

[Patrick_Mucci]

The deer....

Jud,

Not really, the place is full of deer and other wild life.

Recently, I teed off at 5:30 and when I got to the 6th tee there were five wild turkeys meandering around the tee.
Strangely, TEPaul was not amongst them.

During the play of the hole, a doe and two fawns ran from the right rough to the left rough and watched as I played my approach shot.

I've been fading/pushing my drives lately, so maybe they had been forewarned.

[Steve Lang]

 

Patrick,

this am, when i saw the new pic for HiddenCreek replacing the Alps pic at Old MacDonald .. I immediately thought "eye candy" for the gca.com fescue model crowd.. the bushy bunker edges, the whispy grass, contrasting the green playing field, and noted same on an early morning entry on gca.com.. deer notwithstanding..

i hadn't noticed the other thread entiled "Eye Candy"..  below is a paste in from  Bill Brightly

 Re: Eye Candy
« Reply #5 on: August 23, 2010, 11:25:30 PM » Quote  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Banging my head on my desk...

Eye candy??? Are you guys nuts? Those bunkers at Hidden Creek are beautiful and the fescue grass that frames them reminds me of SO many links courses in Ireland and the UK. Geeze Greg, can you envision what a natural washout looks like on a links site? Do you think it is far different looking than C & C's work?

Let's be clear, the term "eye candy" is absolutely a pejorative on this website.

I guess Royal County Down, my vote for the most beautiful course in the world, is full of eye candy...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no idea at present where HC is, let alone played it, that pic, from its real context, placed alone into the website is eye-candy.  I could take a pic of Forest Dunes, from Roscommon, MI paste it in and it'd look very similar, and I'd still call it eye-candy.

pejorative term? it doesn't need to be.

p.s. IF one is engaged in playing the game, on what ever level, I don't think one is missing the boat,.. but maybe the dear mrs, and the connection to nature

[Jud_T]

Jud,

Not really, the place is full of deer and other wild life.

Recently, I teed off at 5:30 and when I got to the 6th tee there were five wild turkeys meandering around the tee.
Strangely, TEPaul was not amongst them.

An instant classic!

[John Moore II]

A couple of thoughts, I think all modern architects are capable of designing top notch golf courses if given the best sites. Not to take anything away from Mr. Doak, but had Mr. Fazio been given the same site at Pacific Dunes (lets not get into the processes of Bandon Resort and who they choose to design courses, just talk about the site itself) I feel like he would have designed a superb course. Perhaps not the #1 Modern course in the World, but a very, very high quality, great course. Has Mr. Fazio ever had the chance to work on a site like Pacific or Ballyneal or Rock Creek? The second two I have no idea about (World Woods maybe?) but I can't think of any Fazio course situated on ocean front property.

Mr Fazio had a little ocean front, and a lot of ocean view at Pelican Hill.   36 holes, a few good holes, but mostly a repetitive exercise.

I hardly think there can even be a comparison there. Pelican Hill, if I am looking at the proper spot on the map, has one hole on the ocean and one additional hole that plays down near the water with the green. Those holes are flanked by houses, as is much of the rest of the course. Hardly comparable to the site given to Mr. Doak at Pacific Dunes or Mr. Kidd at Bandon Dunes 100 yards away.

My first statement stands. I really think that is Mr. Fazio was given a comparable site, he could design a comparable golf course; perhaps not as good as Pacific Dunes or Ballyneal, but at least comparable. I mean, a quick look at the GolfWeek Modern Top 100 shows me that Ballyneal is #5 and Fazio's World Woods is #30 (and Mr. Doak gave WW a 8 in the CG). Even is Ballyneal is a 10, to me, 8 and 10 are fairly comparable. At the very least, it shows that Mr. Fazio is capable of some high quality work at times. Perhaps not AS high, but pretty high nonetheless. (WW is not Mr. Fazio's highest ranked, but it was the easiest comparison. Mind you Shadow Creek was said by Mr. Doak to be a 9 and it was totally manufactured. Rawls Course was manufactured as well, how does it compare?)

Tom D-Just so it is clear to you, I mean no disrespect by these comments. Your body of work speaks for itself, far more than my small opinion can.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Here's my take:

The Golden age architects had it easy - They had great sites, few planning restrictions and no need to conform to big business and the modern day idea of what a golf course should look like... They had a blank canvas... But they had to generate the ideas... and the artistry of the best of them shows through - They were the pioneers.

Ally,

Macdonald called NGLA a horrendous site.
Lido and Yale were poor sites for different reasons, one water the other rock.
All three could hardly be called great sites.

Friar's Head, Hidden Creek, Sand Hills, Bandon Dunes, Pacific Dunes, Sebonack, Ballyneal, Wild Horse and Old Macdonald could hardly be called inferior sites.

I'd agree that the permitting process is far more difficult today, especially where any water is involved, but, I'm not so sure that the raw sites aren't  inferior unless a developer is trying to force a project

The best modern day architects have a fully formed idea of what makes a course playable and fun (not all do) whilst taking their creativity to the furthest level of detail to make sure everything is as they want it.

I think this site takes it too far when it criticises architects (as opposed to the final course which is fair game) when they often have one hand tied behind their back because of site restrictions, topography, soil and Client brief.... In other words, when we have none of the facts... I also think we criticise aesthetics too readily.

Or Praise too easily

OK Patrick - I'll bite.

The only thing I've read about the site at NGLA is from MacDonald himself in "Scotland's Gift" where he talks about looking around for years until he found the perfect site. If you think NGLA was a bad site, then you are truly spoiled. You could be right about Lido - It certainly needed a lot of engineering. But then you've never seen the course either.

The fact that your modern examples (exceptions?) are all wonderful courses and were all built on wonderful sites actually emphasises my point, not your contradiction of it. It would be luicrous to suggest that sites these days are as good as the ones 90 years ago, if generalising.

I'm not belittling golden age architects - far from it. It was their ideas and artistry (and to appease Melvyn, some of their forefathers also) that created such gems and informed most of the architects working today. In addition, they didn't have the earth moving equipment and turf expertise that is available today. So they were indeed pioneers.

I just believe there to be far bigger obstacles on many of today's developments and I believe it unfair to attack architects without having at least some insight as to what those are. I do not mean to give some modern day design a free ride. There is a lot of insipid stuff out where there shouldn't be. A lot of work which is "just the next job" where the care and detail aren't given full attention or where the ability isn't there.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Ally

Seek not to appease (and certainly not me), but please do put forward you opinions and thoughts, because that is the reason for this site. Agree or not just be honest with yourself and your fellow members.  We do have the right to disagree and to voice our feeling. However for the last few years too many have wanted to silence others by rude, crude or unacceptable language just because they cannot be bother to debate the issue presented.

No appeasement, just your honest opinions are all I seek - the second Golden Age guys were indeed good, but not a spot on the original 19th century guys who not just worked on a blank canvas but created the whole design process. These are the stars not the 20th century boys who just took it to the next level.

You respect us by honouring us with your opinions, pity others fail to understand what a DG is all about, but that's when you realise the wise among us are not really all that wise in the first place. Clearly by the responses by others, they are interested in your comment which is what it’s all about - right.

Melvyn

[Ally Mcintosh]

No appeasement, just your honest opinions are all I seek - the second Golden Age guys were indeed good, but not a spot on the original 19th century guys who not just worked on a blank canvas but created the whole design process. These are the stars not the 20th century boys who just took it to the next level.

Hi Melvyn,

Because I wasn't there, it's difficult to know exactly. And you have delved deeper in to the history of the 19th century's processes than almost all so I will obviously respect what you say.

My general perception is this:

The "Architecture" of the 20th century guys was pioneering, in the way they were supreme at routing courses, in clearing vegetation, by starting to move earth to realise a vision, by creating true artistry in their features and by thinking deeply about strategy and the mental challenge of the course.

I agree the fundamentals of the design process were laid down by the 19th century guys. I believe they found wonderful natural golf holes and created wonderful courses. I believe they too were pioneering. But I think it was the 20th century guys who created the profession of golf course architecture as we know it today.

And Patrick - Reading back on what I posted to you, I do not wish to sound even as remotely knowledgeable as you on the original state of the site at NGLA. I just find it hard to belive it as "horrendous", certainly in modern terms.

[Scott Warren]

Ally,

Reading the opening gambit of Tom Macwood's Arts & Crafts series I wonder where the truth lies as far as the birth of design as a creative process and not just as a mathematic or scientific creation, the same way painting the lines of a tennis course or setting up the stumps in a cricket putch is not "design", even if it's a new tennis court or a new cricket field. The paramaters are there to follow.

Melvyn Morrow says:

the second Golden Age guys were indeed good, but not a spot on the original 19th century guys who not just worked on a blank canvas but created the whole design process. These are the stars not the 20th century boys who just took it to the next level.

I guess my question is Did Old Tom and his contemporaries "create the whole design process"?. I imagine as with most matters of the sport's history it depends greatly on your definition.

By travelling town-to-town establishing golf courses, I suppose they were the first to build golf courses, but the testimonies of Tom Simpson:

‘They failed to reproduce any of the features of the courses on which they were bread and born, or to realize the principles on which they had been made. Their imagination took them no further than the inception of flat gun-platform greens, invariably oblong, round or square, supported by railway embankment sides or batters . . . The bunkers that were constructed on the fairways may be described as rectangular ramparts of a peculiarly obnxious type, stretching at regular intervals across the course and having no architectural merit whatever.’

Harry Colt:

‘A leading man on the subject was introduced for the first time to 150 acres of good golfing ground, and we all gathered around to see the golf course created instantly. It was something like following a water-deviner with his twig of hazel. Without a moments hesitation he fixed the first tee, and then, going away at full speed, he brought us up abruptly in a deep hollow, and a stake was set up to show the exact position of the first hole. Ground was selected for the second tee, and then we all started off again, and arrived in a panting state at a hollow deeper than the first, where another stake was set up for the second hole. Then away again at full speed for the third hole, and so on. Towards the end we had to tack backwards and fowards half a dozen times to get in the required number of holes. The thing was done in a few hours, lunch was eaten, and the train caught, but the course, thank heavens, was never constructed!’

Alister Mackenzie:

‘In the Victorian Era . . . almost all new golf courses were planned by professionals, and were, incidentally, amazingly bad. They were built with mathematical precision, a cop bunker extending from the rough on the one side, to the rough on the other, and similar cop bunker placed on the second shot. There was entire absence of strategy, interest and excitement except where some natural irremovable object intervened to prevent the designer from carrying out his nefarious plans.’

and Bernard Darwin:

‘The laying out of courses used once to be a rather a rule-of-thumb business done by rather simple-minded and unimaginative people who did not go far beyond hills to drive over, hollows for putting greens and, generally speaking, holes formed on the model of a steeplechase course.’

all appear to contest how much "designing" was done by the 19th Century designers, and certainly state that the concepts understood during the Golden Age as being critical to good golf design that have lived on through to the current day were absent from the creations of the time.

Melvyn, as he is wont to do, is understandably keen to attribute the genesis of all this to Old Tom and his contemporaries, but I can't say the testimonies of the day that I have read support that view of the matter.

It would be nice to see some examples from Melvyn, or those who agree with his claim, from mid-19th Century courses that support his claim that the 19th Century guys were "the stars" who provided the building blocks that allowed the Golden Age designers to create courses still considered great today.

[Sean_A]

Ally,

Reading the opening gambit of Tom Macwood's Arts & Crafts series I wonder where the truth lies as far as the birth of design as a creative process and not just as a mathematic or scientific creation, the same way painting the lines of a tennis course or setting up the stumps in a cricket putch is not "design", even if it's a new tennis court or a new cricket field. The paramaters are there to follow.

Melvyn Morrow says:

the second Golden Age guys were indeed good, but not a spot on the original 19th century guys who not just worked on a blank canvas but created the whole design process. These are the stars not the 20th century boys who just took it to the next level.

I guess my question is Did Old Tom and his contemporaries "create the whole design process"?. I imagine as with most matters of the sport's history it depends greatly on your definition.

By travelling town-to-town establishing golf courses, I suppose they were the first to build golf courses, but the testimonies of Tom Simpson:

‘They failed to reproduce any of the features of the courses on which they were bread and born, or to realize the principles on which they had been made. Their imagination took them no further than the inception of flat gun-platform greens, invariably oblong, round or square, supported by railway embankment sides or batters . . . The bunkers that were constructed on the fairways may be described as rectangular ramparts of a peculiarly obnxious type, stretching at regular intervals across the course and having no architectural merit whatever.’

Harry Colt:

‘A leading man on the subject was introduced for the first time to 150 acres of good golfing ground, and we all gathered around to see the golf course created instantly. It was something like following a water-deviner with his twig of hazel. Without a moments hesitation he fixed the first tee, and then, going away at full speed, he brought us up abruptly in a deep hollow, and a stake was set up to show the exact position of the first hole. Ground was selected for the second tee, and then we all started off again, and arrived in a panting state at a hollow deeper than the first, where another stake was set up for the second hole. Then away again at full speed for the third hole, and so on. Towards the end we had to tack backwards and fowards half a dozen times to get in the required number of holes. The thing was done in a few hours, lunch was eaten, and the train caught, but the course, thank heavens, was never constructed!’

Alister Mackenzie:

‘In the Victorian Era . . . almost all new golf courses were planned by professionals, and were, incidentally, amazingly bad. They were built with mathematical precision, a cop bunker extending from the rough on the one side, to the rough on the other, and similar cop bunker placed on the second shot. There was entire absence of strategy, interest and excitement except where some natural irremovable object intervened to prevent the designer from carrying out his nefarious plans.’

and Bernard Darwin:

‘The laying out of courses used once to be a rather a rule-of-thumb business done by rather simple-minded and unimaginative people who did not go far beyond hills to drive over, hollows for putting greens and, generally speaking, holes formed on the model of a steeplechase course.’

all appear to contest how much "designing" was done by the 19th Century designers, and certainly state that the concepts understood during the Golden Age as being critical to good golf design that have lived on through to the current day were absent from the creations of the time.

Melvyn, as he is wont to do, is understandably keen to attribute the genesis of all this to Old Tom and his contemporaries, but I can't say the testimonies of the day that I have read support that view of the matter.

Scott

One critical element you neglect to mention is that nearly all of the "golfing strategies" that became more formalized in the 20th century existed in the 19th century.  Somebody had to route the land to create these strategies and aesthetics which were then essentially copied by the best of the archies some 20, 30, 40 and 50 years later. 

To me the big difference between 19th and 20th century architecture was the ability of architects to recreate on inland courses the strategic principles which already existed, but in a manner which was both aesthetically pleasing and somewhat similar to the playing characteristics of links.  It was an incredible concept (and one of the most important in architecture) that the turf and terrain were just as important as the design. 

BTW I must say that the architecture Simpson rags on sounds quite good to me! 

Ciao

     

[Melvyn Morrow]

Scott

I lead with Allan as the first of the designers, the professional designers and from 1848 assisted by Tom Morris.  Do not take my words for it go and play the courses that still retain the old designs, there are enough out there to judge for yourself.  As for Simpson and the others, my concern is that they seem to remember very little about how the 19th century guys laid out a course, yet as I have said take a Hickory clubs and haskell or even a gutta ball and play the old holes that remain, from Prestwick, Dornoch, Bridge of Allan and many more to see if Simpsons comment is accurate. Judge for yourself after all you play many course in the UK

Melvyn

[Scott Warren]

Melvyn Morrow
As for Simpson and the others, my concern is that they seem to remember very little about how the 19th century guys laid out a course

They were there at the coalface at the very time these courses were intact in their original state. I'm struggling to see why I should accept your blanket disregard for their comments.

As Sean states, this probably applies more to inland design, but I would still be interested to see some facts or evidence to back up your argument.

[Sean_A]

Melvyn Morrow
As for Simpson and the others, my concern is that they seem to remember very little about how the 19th century guys laid out a course

They were there at the coalface at the very time these courses were intact in their original state. I'm struggling to see why I should accept your blanket disregard for their comments.

As Sean states, this probably applies more to inland design, but I would still be interested to see some facts or evidence to back up your argument.

Scott

TOC was completed as we know it today circa 1880ish.  You think archies ignored TOC and many other classic holes from near the seaside and then went on to reinvent the wheel 30 years later?  There can be no doubt that Park Jr, Fowler, Colt, CBM etc learned from what was in the ground.  If this isn't a given in this conversation then it will go nowhere.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Melvyn Morrow
As for Simpson and the others, my concern is that they seem to remember very little about how the 19th century guys laid out a course

They were there at the coalface at the very time these courses were intact in their original state. I'm struggling to see why I should accept your blanket disregard for their comments.

As Sean states, this probably applies more to inland design, but I would still be interested to see some facts or evidence to back up your argument.

With respect to Simpson's quote, he is referring to the early inland courses built between 1885 and 1900, a period he referred to as the dark ages. He may well have a good point. Even many of the classic links courses of the time (and there were a few) were built with penal geometric designs.

It might be quite a good exercise to see which great courses came in to being between those years and how they originally looked.

However, OTM could very well be unfairly lumped in with that crowd by some. I bet there were a lot of scheisters operating between those years that didn't have his vision and were just inadequate copycats.... Speculation though...

[Melvyn Morrow]

Scott

At the coal face or not they did not seem to understand. As for TOC there are more courses than just TOC.
As for inland courses, these were to be copies of links courses with turf dykes being used to mimic the undulations of a links course, but you need to put your mind set back to the timeline in question. Oh yes I forgot to mention that we unlike Simpson and Co should try and put ourselves in the time periods of the 19th century and not judge those from our modern standards be they the 1920’s or 2010.

Its also worth noting that Simpson and Co seem to have no idea how the early courses were routed or the criteria or format that Old Tom and others worked to. Yet just reading the articles from newspapers it become clear that most of the courses were not juts pegged out AM and played PM, but took many months to prepare prior to opening. This error is made by many in the 20th and now the 21st century due to not understand what went on in the 1800’s, yet seem still happy to criticise more out of ignorance.

As for like or agree with my comments, that’s down to you and others to make up your mind, but rather than just say no can you put up your opinion based upon the articles and records as to what actually happened. I have tired to base my comments upon what I have uncovered.

Melvyn

[Ally Mcintosh]

Melvyn Morrow
As for Simpson and the others, my concern is that they seem to remember very little about how the 19th century guys laid out a course

They were there at the coalface at the very time these courses were intact in their original state. I'm struggling to see why I should accept your blanket disregard for their comments.

As Sean states, this probably applies more to inland design, but I would still be interested to see some facts or evidence to back up your argument.

Scott

TOC was completed as we know it today circa 1880ish.  You think archies ignored TOC and many other classic holes from near the seaside and then went on to reinvent the wheel 30 years later?  There can be no doubt that Park Jr, Fowler, Colt, CBM etc learned from what was in the ground.  If this isn't a given in this conversation then it will go nowhere.

Ciao

Sean - I think that's almost the key. The architects you mention were the first to learn from what went before, whether it be good or bad, and that is what made them the pioneers in architecture... That's not to say OTM didn't plough some of the first furrows: The concept of what a golf course represents...

[Scott Warren]

Sean, of course it's a given that they learned from what was built before them. As Ally's wisely notes - the good and tha bad.

But that stops a long way short of melvyn's claim that:

the second Golden Age guys were indeed good, but not a spot on the original 19th century guys who not just worked on a blank canvas but created the whole design process. These are the stars

Not a spot on the original 19th century guys?

All I am asking Melvyn to do is produce some supporting evidence of the claim.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()