News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Ed Oden

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Discussion of Tom MacWood's "Magazine Architecture"
« Reply #75 on: March 03, 2011, 11:54:40 AM »
Would there be a Ballyneal without magazines and the internet?  How about Sand Hills?  Would there be a Bandon?  Barnbougle?  Cape Kidnappers?  Cabot Links?  It seems to me there is a strong tie between the proliferation of national/destination clubs and remote resorts over the last 20 years and the use of magazines and the internet to get the word out since these places are generally not supportable by the local populations.  Don't these clubs/courses represent a good chunk of the best and most influential designs of recent times?  I don't doubt that "magazine architecture" can in some cases have a negative effect.  But I think a good case can be made that some of the most important modern designs would not exist without magazines and the internet.  If so, then it is hard for me to believe that they haven't advanced the cause.

Ian Andrew

Re: A Discussion of Tom MacWood's "Magazine Architecture"
« Reply #76 on: March 03, 2011, 04:07:40 PM »
What are some of the specific notes for Delamere?

Sean,

These were my thoughts.

-Scale and space = comfort + opens up the view of entire course
-Found the tee shot very inviting ... nice way to start

-Danger not seen from tee! ... Harder shot than I thought
-Grass lines on left very dangerous - must use that idea
-play definitely to bunker on right - clear aim point

-love playing from high point to high point on great land = great feel for property
... is above better than within given the choice ... need both ....

-Green on highest point emphasizes accuaracy – the long fairway approach hides difficulty
... deceptive - like that

-The green has no back horizon – not even in the distance – way cool – nice effect
-Could have had no bunkers and still be great approach shot

-Loved walking up the 1st green and looking at entire 2nd hole - 7th at San Francisco!!! - liked that too

-Lack of trees is very compelling
-I feel like the course is set on 2000 acres
« Last Edit: March 03, 2011, 04:35:51 PM by Ian Andrew »

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Discussion of Tom MacWood's "Magazine Architecture"
« Reply #77 on: March 03, 2011, 06:19:57 PM »
Andrew

I am not sure which notes go with which holes.  I would agree that the "introductory" visuals are wonderful.  How the nines flow to and from the house and the open aspect of 1-4; seeing 2-4 from the 1st green is a joy.  BTW, that is a much more difficult than it appears - the slopes away from the putting surface took me by surprise.

I really liked the 16th being set back off the water.  Its almost as if Fowler just spied a better greensite slightly further up the bank and said the hell with it - I'll pretend there is no water.

The 15th adds a bit of funk which is always welcome, but accuracy is still paramount. 

The king hole is #8.  I dig the diagonal tee shot in a wide open landscape.  The sunken green too is a nice touch as often times these diagonals are a bit uphill. 

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Ian Andrew

Re: A Discussion of Tom MacWood's "Magazine Architecture"
« Reply #78 on: March 03, 2011, 06:25:55 PM »
I am not sure which notes go with which holes.

Sorry - all notes are for the 1st hole. The edit removed that note by mistake.

I enjoyed your note on the 16th - I think he saw the better land and made the right choice.

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Discussion of Tom MacWood's "Magazine Architecture"
« Reply #79 on: March 03, 2011, 06:28:53 PM »
Ed and Niall...

Certainly the magazines have advanced the cause.  I said they add fuel to the fires.  All media can generate buzz and interest.  No doubt.  But they need something/someone to generate buzz for.  Without the likes of Dick Youngscap or Mike Keiser, there certainly wouldn't be any of those courses Ed mentions.  Visionaries, risk takers, whatever you want to call them.  

In fact, didn't people say their ideas would never work...but they did it anyway.  Regarding Bandon Dunes, Mike Keiser did something considered completely nuts when he bought the land and built the course.  Then the magazine crew (raters, writers, etc) came to take a look and began to add fuel to a fire, that without Mike Keiser never would have been built in the first place, when the course debuted so high in the rankings.  The magazines took it to the next level, but they certainly didn't create it.



Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Discussion of Tom MacWood's "Magazine Architecture"
« Reply #80 on: March 03, 2011, 06:39:35 PM »
I am not sure which notes go with which holes.

Sorry - all notes are for the 1st hole. The edit removed that note by mistake.

I enjoyed your note on the 16th - I think he saw the better land and made the right choice.

Ian

Its decisions such as DF's 16th which really attract me to Fowler's work.  I know I have written this before, but I don't know of another archie from Fowler's time forward who was so devoted to the use of the land with minimal shaping.  Fowler was truly unique in a way that Colt, Simpson, Dr Mac etc could never be because they were more of the school of perfection being gained thru the impact of man.  Fowler was much more about perfection being obtained thru accepting the land as much as was reasonable.  This speaks as to why his courses seem to be so uneven.  No two Fowler courses look alike with the exception of The Berkshire and there Fowler took pains to create separate identities with par configuration.  I wish I knew more about the man.   

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Discussion of Tom MacWood's "Magazine Architecture"
« Reply #81 on: March 04, 2011, 05:46:19 AM »
Ed and Niall...

Certainly the magazines have advanced the cause.  I said they add fuel to the fires.  All media can generate buzz and interest.  No doubt.  But they need something/someone to generate buzz for.  Without the likes of Dick Youngscap or Mike Keiser, there certainly wouldn't be any of those courses Ed mentions.  Visionaries, risk takers, whatever you want to call them.  

In fact, didn't people say their ideas would never work...but they did it anyway.  Regarding Bandon Dunes, Mike Keiser did something considered completely nuts when he bought the land and built the course.  Then the magazine crew (raters, writers, etc) came to take a look and began to add fuel to a fire, that without Mike Keiser never would have been built in the first place, when the course debuted so high in the rankings.  The magazines took it to the next level, but they certainly didn't create it.





Mac

I think you're talking about the business of creating a golf course destination but what about the design ideas that went into those courses. Certainly you have to sell a course and photos in mags help to do that for you but photos give you an idea about how the course looks but not how it plays. It follows, or at least I think it does, that its the look that sells the course rather than other design ideas. Put it this way, would a golf course architect learn anything from reading a mainstream mag that would be worth learning from ?

Niall

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Discussion of Tom MacWood's "Magazine Architecture"
« Reply #82 on: March 04, 2011, 07:35:06 AM »
would a golf course architect learn anything from reading a mainstream mag that would be worth learning from ?

Niall...

Boy, great question.  I really don't think so, maybe, but I don't think so.  For instance, right now I've got the new issues of Links Magazine, Golf Course Architecture, and Golfweek. 

This issue of Links Magazine is full of lists...nothing of architectural value really, expect pictures of certain courses.  Maybe the pictures could inspire someone to build something great.  Maybe.

Golf Course Architeture magazine always has great things in it.  Would an architect learn from it?  Perhaps.  But, frankly, I hope not.

Golfweek...the only good architectural stuff in it is Brad Klein Rater's Notebook in the end.  Maybe someone could learn from that, but again if you are a professional architect...I hope not.

Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Discussion of Tom MacWood's "Magazine Architecture"
« Reply #83 on: March 04, 2011, 01:23:33 PM »

While successful people will advise that maturity is what anchors you and prepares you to take on the real world I am disappointed in most successful people as they age and seemingly accept the ways of the world, accommodate themselves to the way things are, and strive to do what they must to get along. Even young people today seem to be absorbed in the commercial world, their gadgets, their culture. I am disappointed no one sees the need to literally go and burn down Wall Street, burn the banks, march on the White House, the State Houses. There is so much corruption within the government and big business that should stir the souls of the idealistic youth yet they seem to be sitting on their hands. It emboldens me to see the Arab world erupt and cast off the chains that those horrible leaders wrapped them in for so long and sad that American President after American President coddled those despicable leaders and gave them arms and money. Why have we lost the lessons of freedom, why have we forgotten the blessings of it, and why have we forgotten the lesson that to whom much is given, much is expected. I am especially thinking of our governmental leaders who seem to justify coddling these disgusting world leaders which I find disheartening, but I have strayed off topic!


Kelly,

I came back to review this thread, and I'm glad I did.  Hard to believe, but illuminating, that we vote for different parties.  There is so much jive bullshit in the world these days.  Revolution is not out of the question, and neither is bankruptcy.

I had a preconceived agenda when I saw this thread.  The greatest deterrent to good golf architecture is a housing development.  Perhaps I compare golf courses to music too often, but what happens in music is that record executives want to make money off the artist's work, and modify whatever they feel is necessary to sell the most records, or most tickets.

I went to a professional basketball game the other night.  The noise is deafening, plus the giveaways of useless junk, with people climbing all over themselves to catch a t-shirt, are just examples of the jive bullshit used to sell a product, a game with some very gifted and talented athletes, that does not need gussying up.  It's why I hardly ever go anymore, instead choosing high school ball.

Golf is the same.  Some marketing genius figured out he could make money by spreading out the holes and selling a newfangled American dream to people.  "See, this is the way YOU want to live.  Right on the golf course.  Just look at that view!"

You know those pharmaceutical ads on television?  My dad called it "selling sickness."

Marketeers and salesmen have completely overrun the country, and in the process, have bastardized the work of some fine artists in order to maximize profit.  Sorry if I have offended, but it's bullshit.

Last thing.  Functionality in golf architecture is beauty.  All other adornments are jive bullshit.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2011, 08:00:56 PM by John Kirk »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: A Discussion of Tom MacWood's "Magazine Architecture"
« Reply #84 on: March 05, 2011, 03:07:18 AM »
John K:

Good rant.  However I think we both blame the marketers a bit more than we should.  It's the guy behind the marketer, paying him to sell that bullshit, and raking in the money for that false dream, who is really to blame.

To your last statement, though:  functionality in golf course architecture is beauty, I agree with that.  But as for the jive bullshit, isn't beauty itself something of a goal, too?  It is not just the client and salesmen who like pretty golf courses that take a nice picture; the golfers like them, too.  I know Dr. MacKenzie had much to say about that in his first book, but I'm traveling today and don't have a quote handy.

Tim Liddy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Discussion of Tom MacWood's "Magazine Architecture"
« Reply #85 on: March 05, 2011, 12:11:10 PM »
More ranting:

Beauty is about quality and is an especially intense emotion. It is the only emotion that can compete with other emotions of power, money, victory. It is winning a fight without the terrible consequences to others. It is not a romantic emotion.

You cannot separate beauty from ethics, aesthetics and from the pragmatics of a well built golf course. Golfers want spectacular aesthetics but great architecture is in its subtlety. Quality construction is the fundamental element.

Further, great architecture is a struggle, with insecurity important to the process. It is the engine that makes it go. It is a dialog with the past. Specialist makes an architect lose control. Golf architects can only get beauty when the architect is in charge of the most information when building the golf course.

Peter Pallotta

Re: A Discussion of Tom MacWood's "Magazine Architecture"
« Reply #86 on: March 05, 2011, 09:43:23 PM »
Tim - I think that was a terrific post, thanks. Lots of food for thought there. Reminds me of the ancient Greek philosophy that equated 'the beautiful' with 'the good'.  Anyway, really good thoughts

Peter

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A Discussion of Tom MacWood's "Magazine Architecture"
« Reply #87 on: March 06, 2011, 01:41:25 AM »
Thank you very much for responding after my rant.  I was afraid I had scared everyone away.

Perhaps it is an overstatement to suggest that a course's function is its beauty.  Are there clear examples where superfluous golf architecture adds to the course's beauty?  Are there clear examples where extra bunkers, or extra turf, rarely if ever used in play, add significantly to a golf hole's appeal?