[Garland Bayley]

...After all, isn't golf course architecture more science than art? ...

...  After all isn't golf course architecture more science than art?

...

What on earth would make you think golf course architecture is more science than art?

[John Kavanaugh]

I don't know what I would do this morning without the critics who explain to me what is wrong with Anne Hathaway.  We do need em.

[Mike Hendren]

I don't know what I would do this morning without the critics who explain to me what is wrong with Anne Hathaway.  We do need em.

John, she's a "wooo girl." 

[Mike Hendren]

...After all, isn't golf course architecture more science than art? ...

...  After all isn't golf course architecture more science than art?

...

What on earth would make you think golf course architecture is more science than art?

Angles, vectors, friction, velocity and gravity are the key elements in the game.  How can they not be in its architecture?

[Garland Bayley]

...After all, isn't golf course architecture more science than art? ...

...  After all isn't golf course architecture more science than art?

...

What on earth would make you think golf course architecture is more science than art?

Angles, vectors, friction, velocity and gravity are the key elements in the game.  How can they not be in its architecture?

So all architects know about angles, vectors, friction, velocity, and gravity. Therefore, those with the most facility calculating and engineering with those clearly must produce the best courses. Therefore, we must pay great homage to Mike Nuzzo, since as an aeronautical engineer, he clearly produces the greatest courses, it's just that his output is so small that he has not been recognized as the greatest architect of the age!

Methinks the proper spelling of Bogey in your case is "Joshua Crane".

[JESII]

Garland,

Are you arguing that building a golf course is more art than science? Or just arguing?

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

Are you arguing that building a golf course is more art than science? Or just arguing?

Golf course design is more art than science. The evaluation of golf courses is based more on art than science. For example, an example of a wonderful golf course that recently came into play is Askernish. They simply went out and found the holes, and began mowing.

If you claim it is more science, then presumably the best scientist would produce the best golf courses. We don't celebrate the work of Tom Doak for his ability to apply science. We celebrate it for his vision in seeing how the game should be played across a landscape.

[JESII]

I wonder if you're correct.

I think you'll agree that there is some of both art and science involved so you wouldn't necessarily celebrate the best scientist if they have no art.

In my opinion, a course can be stunningly beautiful and never playable due to engineering errors...but it seems less likely to be perfectly playable at all times and considered unattractive.

I would back the engineer and then try to provide help with the aesthetics if I were funding a golf course.

[Garland Bayley]

...
In my opinion, a course can be stunningly beautiful and never playable due to engineering errors...but it seems less likely to be perfectly playable at all times and considered unattractive.
...

But yet those engineering errors could be rectified by a man with a shovel (and enough time ), without any science coming into play.

[JESII]

Engineering errors fixed with no science coming into play?

Are we on a Merion thread? You're swinging at air...

Not saying I have the answer, but poor engineering has ruined more courses than poor art has.

[Norbert P]

  From Wikipedia . . .

critic (plural critics)

A person who appraises the works of others
A specialist in judging works of art
One who criticizes; a person who finds fault
An opponent

 I have never considered the fourth definition and looked the word up in my 1954 Funk and Wagnall and it didn't offer that choice.
 I am not a Wiki member but the definitions could use some embellishment, methinks.


  We are all shaped a priori, experiencially, environmentally, and socially to perceive objects, subjects and concepts uniquely.  I would assume Don Mahaffey has a critical eye for functionality and his critique would eminate from that moreso than from the aesthetics of a golf course, giving a more complete report.  I tend to glom onto his words more than most because he has good "Balance of Reason" skills - both in the field and in his writing. Some may focus more on yardages, strategies, walkabilities, naturalism, and craic!

  We are all critics but the spectrum of our appreciations is too vast - and not excluding the metaconcepts from infra to ultra - to define a critic.  Perhaps we need an adjective in front of the word critic.    "Hi, my name is Slag and I am a $%^&ing critic."

[George Pazin]

You have to score 28 or higher to join Golf Club Atlas.

Good thing I got in on the ground floor.

Wow - I scored 28 - a huge surprise.  I know I have issues, but nothing that I would consider serious or in anyway a hinderance to carrying on with life.  I wonder about the validity of this quickie.

Ciao

That's why I don't place a lot of stock in tests like this. Half the questions, I was thinking, none of the above. I hate "best fit" responses, reminds me of political polling.

-----

It's interesting to note that John titled the essay "Inside the mind of A critic" and not "Inside the mind of THE critic".

[Andy Troeger]

Garland,
There are points in favor regarding art and aesthetics, especially in that I think the vast majority of us consider the look of a course far more than we might realize or be willing to admit. People like to be inspired, and its much easier to be inspired at a artistic masterpiece than at a course lined by condos.

However, the vast majority of issues that have anything to do with playing a golf course have more to do with science than art. Simply determining contour on a green and potential pin placements is relatively scientific. Ditto playing angles that determine strategy and drainage patterns. Now, golfers and architects might often use a pretty simple version of scientific concepts to make these things work, but its still there. That's not to mention that the course is a living organism that brings biology into play especially regarding maintenance. If you think of mathematics as an applied science, then you start including length of holes, length of walk from green to tee ;-), placement of hazards at distances likely to come into play, carry distances and I'm sure other aspects of course design in the scientific field.

So from my consideration of golf courses, its 75/25 in favor of science when all is said and done. However, if I get 75% on my accounting test tomorrow night I'll get a C, and no one on this website discusses C golf courses. So you still have to get the art right to achieve greatness.  And FWIW, I originally wrote 80/20, but wanted to give art a bit more credit based on my comment that most of us underestimate art's importance.

[Garland Bayley]

Engineering errors fixed with no science coming into play?

Are we on a Merion thread? You're swinging at air...

Not saying I have the answer, but poor engineering has ruined more courses than poor art has.

Perhaps I don't understand your meaning of "never playable". Do you have some for instances?

[JESII]

I mean when a course can't shed water, grow grass or maintain its foundation due to some "engineering errors" in the planning stage. 

The "for instances" are probably in the thousands.

[Carl Nichols]

I suppose it doesn't answer the question of relative importance, but getting the science right seems to be both a necessary and a sufficient component of golf course design, while getting the art right [if there can be such a thing] seems neither necessary nor sufficient without the science.

[Garland Bayley]

I mean when a course can't shed water, grow grass or maintain its foundation due to some "engineering errors" in the planning stage. 

The "for instances" are probably in the thousands.

So you are just talking about gross negligence. Remember this part of this thread started with Bogey (Joshua Crane) comparing GCA critiquing to art critiquing. If a course can't grow grass, no one is going to bother critiquing it.

Courses that can shed water, that can grow grass, and that can "maintain their foundation" (whatever that means) have been created or built from the beginning of the sport with little or no science involved.

[JESII]

No they haven't.

Take Pat's thread on the first page now...if you had a dead flat piece of land would you hire an engineer or an artist?

[JESII]

Do you think green locations were selected for aesthetic or functional purposes in the 1800's?

[Garland Bayley]

No they haven't.

Take Pat's thread on the first page now...if you had a dead flat piece of land would you hire an engineer or an artist?

A common sense artist.

[Garland Bayley]

Do you think green locations were selected for aesthetic or functional purposes in the 1800's?

What has that got to do with science?

[JESII]

Do you think green locations were selected for aesthetic or functional purposes in the 1800's?

What has that got to do with science?

Your answer first, please.

[Andy Troeger]

Courses that can shed water, that can grow grass, and that can "maintain their foundation" (whatever that means) have been created or built from the beginning of the sport with little or no science involved.

As Jim said, no they haven't. They might have done it with less engineering required, but you need physics to understand drainage and biology to grow grass.

[Tom_Doak]

We don't celebrate the work of Tom Doak for his ability to apply science. We celebrate it for his vision in seeing how the game should be played across a landscape.

Garland:

Yes, exactly.  But that vision of how the game should be played across a landscape is a form of engineering, not raw art.  I'm good at math, but I can't draw (or sculpt) a lick.

Engineering is not pure science, of course; the guys who treat it as pure science produce things that are often ugly to look at.  It is a blend of science and art.  But even the artistic part [a good sense of proportion and harmony] can be explained in mathematical terms if you want to.

[Garland Bayley]

We don't celebrate the work of Tom Doak for his ability to apply science. We celebrate it for his vision in seeing how the game should be played across a landscape.

Garland:

Yes, exactly.  But that vision of how the game should be played across a landscape is a form of engineering, not raw art.  I'm good at math, but I can't draw (or sculpt) a lick.

Engineering is not pure science, of course; the guys who treat it as pure science produce things that are often ugly to look at.  It is a blend of science and art.  But even the artistic part [a good sense of proportion and harmony] can be explained in mathematical terms if you want to.

Yes, a good sense of proportion and harmony can be explained in mathematical terms. However, you don't need a mathematician to develop the formulas to enable a good sense of proportion and harmony. Would not the good artist have the good sense of proportion and harmony inherent in his make up?

I would take exception to your claim of not being able to sculpt a lick. Not only do you sculpt very well, but you do it with such a good sense of proportion and harmony that you can ask the members of this website to try to identify what you sculpted, and they fail miserably, because you have done it with such a good sense of proportion and harmony.

It's just that your chisel is very much larger than Michaelangelo's.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()