[Jay Flemma]

Cybergolf ran my review here:

http://www.cybergolf.com/golf_news/simple_twist_of_fate_brings_ballyhack_golf_club_to_life

Remember - this is not just for architecture junkies!  It's for everyone, from architecture experts to "looky-loos," from sharp minds to people who still think it's "George Lester," so please keep that in mind.

Also, I'll have discussion on my website with a lot more pix and discussion:

http://jayflemma.thegolfspace.com/?p=3118

Enjoy.

[Wade Whitehead]

Jay:

I really enjoyed your cybergolf article.  I've got two questions after reading it:

1. You call the sixth the first hole at Ballyhack the first hole "you've seen before."  I understand its similarity with other cape holes (like Sawgrass #18), but where else have you played one that's imminently driveable, except from the very back tee?  I only ask because I think of the sixth as a very unique hole, what with its downhole features and all.
2. Do you think 15 would be a better hole without the Short Porch?  Locally, guys grumble about that feature, as if they're forced to use it; to them, I usually say "Pretend it isn't there."

Thanks for your great perspective.

WW

[Sean Leary]

"Right now, Doak is the reigning undefeated, all-belts-unified, heavyweight champion golf course architect of our generation. Doak took the crown and scepter with Pacific Dunes and hasn't looked back. But since the mid-90s, as the pendulum of golf design swung back from the penal school of design to the strategic, three other men emerged to battle right behind Doak - George, Jim Engh and Mike Strantz. All three blend bold visuals with ancient U.K. architectural strategies: George and Strantz focusing a little more on elements found at National than their Colorado counterpart. "

No Coore and Crenshaw in this conversation? Really?

[Steve_Roths]

Jay - why do you update GCA.com everytime you have a new article?  Brad Klein & Co. don't bother this forum with these types of posts.  Are you trying to build a fan base?

Couldn't you just post it on that cybergolf site and let people read it? 

It always baffles me how much self promotion you do especially when all your posts are "hey folks click this link".

Just asking is all.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Kelly - I think Steve asks a good question.

I would have asked why does Jay think Lester, Stranz & Engh are the #2, #3 & #4 architects of our time?

That seems to be a very biased statement.
Jay please tell us why they are all better than the following architects:

Williams, Jones, Dye, Kidd, Coore, Fry, Moran, Whitman, Kavanaugh, Prichard, Andrew, Phelps, Hanse, DeVries, Liddy, Weed, Fazio, Foster, Phillips...

Cheers

[Rob Rigg]

"three other men emerged to battle right behind Doak - George, Jim Engh and Mike Strantz."

Seriously?

Then this site really is touting the wrong archies on a consistent basis - I never would have guessed.

I don't think the rankings would agree either but they are certainly not the "law" on this one.

Really interested to hear why you think so.

[Jay Flemma]

Jay:

I really enjoyed your cybergolf article.  I've got two questions after reading it:

1. You call the sixth the first hole at Ballyhack the first hole "you've seen before."  I understand its similarity with other cape holes (like Sawgrass #18), but where else have you played one that's imminently driveable, except from the very back tee?  I only ask because I think of the sixth as a very unique hole, what with its downhole features and all.
2. Do you think 15 would be a better hole without the Short Porch?  Locally, guys grumble about that feature, as if they're forced to use it; to them, I usually say "Pretend it isn't there."

Thanks for your great perspective.

WW

Will, I've seen short par-4s like 6 at Ballyhack at a lot of courses.  Of course, every piece of property is unique, but  6 is a variation on a theme we've seen before...short, slightly downhill drivable par-4 to a green guarded by a hazard diagonally....yada, yada, yada.

15 is a better hole with the short porch...it's the short porch that ultimately gives the hole its pizazz.  It may be too quirky to use every time, but it adds that critical element of strategy in match play.

Hey Kelly, good to see you and your burnt orange and longhorns!  Ready for football season?

The rest of you, I told you this article is for everyone, not just architecture experts.  I never said they were 2, 3,and 4, and I never said no one else isn't any good.  I said they emerged to vie for the brass ring and they grabbed it big time when they had the opportunity.  You don't have time to write a flippin' architectural time-line every time you write a course review.  You put the course and the designer where you see them fit with other similar courses and designers, and then you describe the golf course.

One could argue that Coore and crenshaw are relevant to the conversation because they are minimalists, and Lester likes to employ minimalism wherever possible.  However, his resaults look markedly different from C&C's.  Therefore an interesting article might be one that compares and contrasts the minimalistic results you get from C&C with those of George...but that was not my assignment this time.  My assignment was "Tell us about Ballyhack."  Moreover, my readers are a broad bunch.  Some of them love discussing architecture, and others want to hear about travel.  Sadly, I had to leave a discussion of minimalism and C&C on the cutting room floor this time.  But I will agree, that is also something that would make a great thread and article.

[Wade Whitehead]

Jay: I hear what you're saying about seeing other downhill par fours with diagonal hazards.  I've seen a few myself.

However, the sixth has a few characteristics that I believe make it unique.  It's not just slightly downhill; the tee shot is one of the most elevated on the course.  This causes confusion about exactly how far the tee shot will fly, which is exactly the sort of doubt Lester intends to create for anyone considering going for the green.

In addition, Lester left a large tree growing from the hazard that blocks a clear view of the far right side of the layup area.  Even with a three iron in hand, it's tough to pick exactly where to aim, since a good bit of the "smart" fairway is obscured from the tee.

I think six is underrated and strays well above other, ostensibly similar, holes.

WW

[Jay Flemma]

Will, what are some of your other favorite holes? 

Tell us some interesting stories of the false front on one:)

[Tim Pitner]

I never said they were 2, 3,and 4, and I never said no one else isn't any good.  I said they emerged to vie for the brass ring and they grabbed it big time when they had the opportunity.  

No, Jay, you said:  "three other men emerged to battle right behind Doak - George, Jim Engh and Mike Strantz."  If you left out C&C because they're minimalists, then why did you bring up Doak? 

If you want to tout George, Engh and Strantz because they're personal favorites, fair enough, but don't try to back away from your statement by saying that C&C, Hanse, DeVries, etc. etc. aren't relevant. 

[Jay Flemma]

I didn't bring up Doak because he's a minimalist, I brought up Doak because he's the best.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Hey Jay,
Is the "rest of you" me and Robb? 
You posted your article on a website NOT for the masses - we analyze and dissect stuff here.

Isn't it more important when writing an article to the masses that your bias doesn't shine through?
I think an article to the masses should help them understand why Lester's work is special.
How does mentioning anyone else get that message across?
Have you seen the works of the guys on my list above?

I don't think you can employ minimalism, one could employ restraint.

[Tim Pitner]

I didn't bring up Doak because he's a minimalist, I brought up Doak because he's the best.

You won't get an argument from me on that point. 

But, it seems to me you stated or clearly implied that the three architects you also mentioned were second-best and then every other architect was somewhere beneath that level.  And your stated reason for leaving off C&C--that they were minimalist or their work looks different so therefore they're in a different category--was disingenuous. 

[Jay Flemma]

No, Tin it is not disingenuous at all.  Go and play Ballyhack.  It doesn't look anything like C&C at all.  But it does look like things Strantz and Engh do.  

Also, as I said in the article, Lester and Strantz highlight their themes from National more than C&C do.  That's another difference with C&C, and another reason why not to bring them up.  Perhaps some people are simply too miffed about their favorite architect not getting mentioned.

I said it above, but I'll say it again.  The nice thing about Ballyhack, and the reason it has staying power is that is has so much interesting architecture.  If you want to focus on minimalism you can.  If you want to focus on elements from National, you can.  Heck, if you wanna focus on drainage and soils, you can.  So lets discuss Ballyhack and Lester.  

[Tim Pitner]

Jay,

You're a slippery one.  First you said that you mentioned only architects whose works resembled those of George.  I called you out on Doak and then you replied that you mentioned Doak because he was the best, even though you maintain that you didn't claim Engh and Strantz were second-best.  My point is the same as Mr. Nuzzo's--why throw out this half-baked hierarchy of GCAs at all (especially as you now back away from it)?

I don't mean to take anything away from George or Ballyhack.  If you're going to post your articles here, though, you have to allow that everything in them (and there are often a few eye-poppers) is fair game for comment--not just what you specifically say about a given course.  There have been other threads discussing Ballyhack in detail. 

[Jay Flemma]

And it doesn't say much about what you are adding to the discussion when you focus on marginalia that has nothing to do with either the subject course or architect.  That was a 12 page review w/out the photos.  You're taking two sentences and twisting them to mean what I did not say or mean.  Like I said...you just sound miffed I didn't get your guys in there.

Some other time, if no one else does it, I'll do a minimalism article on C&C vs. Lester and others.  Or, of course, you could do an "In My Opinion" piece, Tim.

[Mike Benham]

Jay - why do you update GCA.com everytime you have a new article?  Brad Klein & Co. don't bother this forum with these types of posts.  Are you trying to build a fan base?

Couldn't you just post it on that cybergolf site and let people read it?  

It always baffles me how much self promotion you do especially when all your posts are "hey folks click this link".

Just asking is all.

I'm not defending Jay but he once commented that he cleared it with Ran, and Ran said it was OK that he links / promote his articles on GCA ...


LINK THIS

[Jay Flemma]

Thanks Mike...and it's not like I only come on here when I have an article.  I kick my feet back and hang with y'all on lots of other people's articles and lots of other people's threads.

Look Tim, let's not be intemperate and let's not put words in each others mouths.  C&C are just a different branch of the architectural tree on a complete other side of what was under discussion.  I'm trying to meet you halfway here, and I like I also said, i agree that you can discuss C&C and minimalism and Lester...but GCA is not the sole intended target reader.  They need to get the basics of the course before you can start discussing the more esoteric issues.

How's the pooch, Mike?

[Tim Pitner]

And it doesn't say much about what you are adding to the discussion when you focus on marginalia that has nothing to do with either the subject course or architect.  That was a 12 page review w/out the photos.  You're taking two sentences and twisting them to mean what I did not say or mean.  Like I said...you just sound miffed I didn't get your guys in there.

Some other time, if no one else does it, I'll do a minimalism article on C&C vs. Lester and others.  Or, of course, you could do an "In My Opinion" piece, Tim.

"Marginalia"?  You seemingly list your top 4 working GCAs in this article (I'm not the only one who interpreted it this way)--how is that marginalia?  

C&C aren't my guys, although I do like what I've played and seen from them.  

[Jay Flemma]

That is NOT at all what it does.  I know because I wrote it.  You're just reading something  into it that's just not there.

Let's get back to the real discussion:  have you played Ballyhack or anything by Lester?

[Sean Leary]

Jay,

While you have permission from Ran, obviously your self promotion rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Maybe you should consider not doing it. I personally don't care either way.

[Jay Flemma]

Sean, that's not the issue...they don't say a word when any of the dozen or more other writers or bloggers around here does exactly the same thing.  And I participate a considerable amount around here.  You don't just see me when I have an  article.

[Tim Pitner]

That is NOT at all what it does.  I know because I wrote it.  You're just reading something  into it that's just not there.

Let's get back to the real discussion:  have you played Ballyhack or anything by Lester?

Jay,

I don't know what you meant--I only know what you wrote.  Apparently those two things are often not the same. 

I haven't played any courses designed by Mr. George--I look forward to doing so. 

[Michael Dugger]

Sean, that's not the issue...they don't say a word when any of the dozen or more other writers or bloggers around here does exactly the same thing.  And I participate a considerable amount around here.  You don't just see me when I have an  article.

So a 1/2 wrong makes a right because other people do it too???

[Will Smith]

Jay,

Can you talk about what you perceive as minimalist at Ballyhack? I thought there was a lot of cool stuff there but would not view it as minimalist in the least.

- Will

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()