Does this site really understand or comprehend golf course architecture?

[Mike_Young]

Or is it so biased that it thinks there is only one type of golf design?  The post re MD and RJ got me to thinking (dangerous)....I am not sure this site is open minded on the subject and I am sure that the site contains a "herd" mentality....which is almost viral at times....
None of this is meant to be deragatory but I do think these traits often devalue or discredit.....not speaking of individuals here but as a whole....

[Adrian_Stiff]

Mike - I would say very few truly understand what goes into designing a golf course and the factors that get inputted to get to the final result. Its great to look at dream landscapes but in the real world, most new golf sites have less than desired 'bits'. Very few on here and its very common even amongst the golf pro's turned designer understand that the architecture has to factor whats good for golf and good for the turf and that some aspects have to be compromised in the golf bit to make grass function. Additionally some architects just can't grasp working under a budget and realising what they are designing is costly to maintain or construct or the change and mess involved in the change might just cost the membership.

It is easy to look at individual bits or look at templates but they can be expensive to make and much is merely 'dreamy'. Yes we can learn from the classic courses and we can celebrate the ODG and hail them highly, the real truth is that these 100 year old courses have evolved by the inputs of the club memberships and staff over a long time. The minor changes or the tree planting, bunkening, tee additions may not properly reflect the real designer.

[Adam Clayman]

Mike, This site doesn't think. Individuals do. I don't believe there is a herd mentality, but, I do believe there are plenty of people who have given the subject more consideration, than they ever would have, because of the words written on this site. Also, there are some who share their observations, hoping to help guys like you understand better what we as golfer's experience. You never know what catalyst will yield the next bit of deeper understanding.

Not everyone is going to agree and not everyone is right 100% of the time.

Certainly the 'golfers' who contribute here, don't understand a lot of what goes into doing what you do. But, many like me, have learned a lot, or, now, understand the process better, from the inputs of the archies and turf gurus who share their stories and philosophies, on here.

I would cite both Mike Nuzzo's and John Kirk's attempts to categorize the different types of golfers as proof that there is not a herd mentality on this site, there are at least 3 separate herds.   

[Bart Bradley]

Mike, This site doesn't think. Individuals do. I don't believe there is a herd mentality, but, I do believe there are plenty of people who have given the subject more consideration, than they ever would have, because of the words written on this site. Also, there are some who share their observations, hoping to help guys like you understand better what we as golfer's experience. You never know what catalyst will yield the next bit of deeper understanding.

Not everyone is going to agree and not everyone is right 100% of the time.

Certainly the 'golfers' who contribute here, don't understand a lot of what goes into doing what you do. But, many like me, have learned a lot, or, now, understand the process better, from the inputs of the archies and turf gurus who share their stories and philosophies, on here.

I would cite both Mike Nuzzo's and John Kirk's attempts to categorize the different types of golfers as proof that there is not a herd mentality on this site, there are at least 3 separate herds.   

Adam:

This is very well said.  I think, through time and study, many of us do understand quite a bit about what goes into and what constitutes good architecture.  I will admit readily that I am not prepared to design or build a golf course; however, that doesn't mean that I cannot come to appreciate the difference between good and bad work.  I can't cook a great meal, but I know one when I eat it (and if I studied the culinary arts, I might understand why).

Bart

[Mike_Young]

Adam,
I don't disagree with any of your above thoughts.  I do want to be clear though....I did not intend for my comments to sound like "architects" understand things any better than any particular person on this site....I'm think I'm trying to say that this site is biased toward one particular type of golf architecture and personally I don't feel that the other genres get an equal voice here....now that is fine..BUT I don't think there can be a good understanding unless all are discussed on equal footing....

[JR Potts]

Mike:  I think your point is very well taken.  The problem on this site is that there may be several herds, but the anti-everything that isn't Doak, CaC or Alister Mackenzie herd is the loudest and most prolific in the quantity of posts.  So, for newbies looking for "friends" on this site, it's a lot easier to just join that herd publicly - even if it means privately disagreeing with the loudest herd and faux-journalists.  It is just easier that way - because who really has the time and energy to respond to the personal attacks, mob action and over the top hyperbole that usually results from such disagreement?

[Mark Pritchett]

Mike:  I think your point is very well taken.  The problem on this site is that there may be several herds, but the anti-everything that isn't Doak, CaC or Alister Mackenzie herd is the loudest and most prolific in the quantity of posts. 

"Herds" or "Nerds"?

[Andy Troeger]

I'm not sure if this what Mike's getting at, but I think right now that the architecture world is split pretty evenly between those that love C&C/Doak/Minimalism/Insert Name Here style and the Fazio/Nicklaus style.  I think the economy has affected Fazio and Nicklaus more in America because they spend more money to build courses and that money just isn't there, but if you ask people about their favorite architect or favorite course I think you'd get a fairly even split in most camps.  That's just not the case here, its very clearly a group for those that favor natural design etc. The logic behind this and views expressed are often very sound, although it comes down to opinion and personal preference IMO at some level. There just are a lot more Fazio fans in the golfing world at large than there are on this site, and I admittedly think it would be more interesting here if we had that variety.

[Mark Pritchett]

Well said Andy.  There are a lot of people that have done some really good and interesting work, many participate on this site.  I think most people here hope for and provide thoughtful discourse, the Dormie thread is a good example.  The Rees Jones-Mike Davis thread less so.

[John Kavanaugh]

People who think there is no strategy at Bellerive, Torrey Pines or Hazeltine don't understand architecture.

[Steve Lang]

  Let's not forget that this site is more than its front page or so of teaser titles.  

More often than not, when I log on, I go mining information rather than enter discussions or perhaps more appropriately "opinion food fights."  

Unfortunately there is no index to easily research subjects and topics, though there have been stellar individual efforts to compile things like the old aerial of the day by Scott Burroughs or George Pazin's People index (per the "who are you guys" threads), or running course discussions hole by hole as Tim Bert has done for Kingsley and now ongoing for Old MacDonald..

.. are 60 page threads really necessary?  It appears so if folks are willing to participate and push them to that extreme to seek a final understanding or compreshension of gca

So let's not generalize or stereotype too much..  

The professionals will know their art and unfortunately may disappear due to market forces beyond their control or be lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time.  I think it has always been like that.  Isn't success relative?

The raters, well...

The bloggers, well...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I once used the term "Groupthink" to describe what you surmise, and got a big slapdown.  More relevant, I got enough examples of non conforming opinions to make me think I was wrong about the overall perception of the members of this site.

GCA and everything else is a star system.  So, many here talk about star courses, star architects, starring trends, etc.  It is to be expected, even if Ran nobly says its to discuss all architecture. 

I will say this- courses get discussed more than architectural ideas.  Whether people just can't grasp "deep thoughts" on the whys and wherefores, or just that a mental picture is worth a thousand words, I just don't know.  But, my "theory" threads die, as do most, although Patrick gets some traction on his.

[Randy Thompson]

I agree Mike

[Lou_Duran]

Mike,

I once used the term "Groupthink" to describe what you surmise, and got a big slapdown.  More relevant, I got enough examples of non conforming opinions to make me think I was wrong about the overall perception of the members of this site.

GCA and everything else is a star system.  So, many here talk about star courses, star architects, starring trends, etc.  It is to be expected, even if Ran nobly says its to discuss all architecture.  

I will say this- courses get discussed more than architectural ideas.  Whether people just can't grasp "deep thoughts" on the whys and wherefores, or just that a mental picture is worth a thousand words, I just don't know.  But, my "theory" threads die, as do most, although Patrick gets some traction on his.

Jeff,

Take your star system a bit further to include DG participants.  If they wanted to analyze the data, I would bet that the administrators could find high grouping correlations amongst a relatively small number of posters.  One can see rather inane commentary from one of our "stars" get several pages of participation while some "thoughtful" insights from obscure members get relegated to the Nerd couch.  Such is life; it is what it is.    

Mike Young,

Did you have a difficult waxing last night?  Maybe we're trying to complicate what is essentially a fairly uncomplicated thing.  Yes, there are bunches of variables and details, but it comes down, essentially, to JD's "grip it and rip it".   From my years on this site including attending numerous affiliated outings, it is fairly clear that there is an inverse relationship between preocupation with strategy and command of the ball.  NOTE: I HAVE NEVER MET PAT MUCCI.  I do agree with JK, though I do like "width", not so much because it provides for greater "strategic options", but because it allows me to chase down my foul balls.

Andy T,

You say "I think the economy has affected Fazio and Nicklaus more in America because they spend more money to build courses and that money just isn't there".  Are Fazio and Nicklaus courses shutting down more than those of the "Minimalists"?  I am under the impression that the opposite might be true- the top of the market being less affected than the second and third tiers- but I could be wrong.
    

[Sam Morrow]

People who think there is no strategy at Bellerive, Torrey Pines or Hazeltine don't understand architecture.

Exactly, if it's not what they like then it their minds it's crap.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Just for grins, I will say that most people here don't understand - or want to understand - that strategy is just so different than the days of the Golden Age.  Even for the mid handicappers.

They can't understand that maybe, just maybe, Rees Jones does understand how Tour Players play today and what their strategy is.

Playing for the frontal opening of the green still makes some sense, but its not necessarily the be all, end all of strategy and parroting the quotes from old books should never be mistaken for deep thought on architectural issues, and yet, somehow, and for some people, it is.  Maybe they should start nostalgicarchitecture.com or something.

We could actually argue that there is more strategy now, or at least equal amounts, but different.  

[Andy Troeger]

Lou,
I was actually think of new work--granted there's not much of that outside of Streamsong anywhere in the US. Of the courses already in existence, you may be right. There are so many variables outside of architecture in dealing with which courses succeed and which courses do not financially that I'm not knowledgeable enough to delve into that.

[PCCraig]

People who think there is no strategy at Bellerive, Torrey Pines or Hazeltine don't understand architecture.

I agree with this.

Many on GCA greatly overestimate the strategy on certain types of courses, while at the same time greatly underestimate the strategy on the others that don't fit their personal ideal.

[Mike Nuzzo]

They can't understand that maybe, just maybe, Rees Jones does understand how Tour Players play today and what their strategy is.

I disagree.  I think many can understand.
The question often raised is why put in strategy for the very best and ignore the average player - especially when it is a resort or public facility.

[Garland Bayley]

People who think there is no strategy at Bellerive, Torrey Pines or Hazeltine don't understand architecture.

How about you help us with that John. Choose one and do a thread running down all the strategic choices.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,

Don't know any straight off hand, but with any Jones green (RT, Junior, Rees) there is certainly enough room to pick middle of the green vs going for the flag, which side to miss, using contours to shape shots, etc. to make up for what I am guessing is your contention (could be wrong) that the narrow fw take away all strategy.

Mike,

Going back to Mike Young's original idea, your question (presumably about Rees designs) don't get asked around here about some very tough Doak designed members clubs and resorts.  (Pac Dunes)  You seem to confirm Mike's point! Not to mention, the Open Doctor gets hired to make a course ready for the US Open, no?

[John Kavanaugh]

People who think there is no strategy at Bellerive, Torrey Pines or Hazeltine don't understand architecture.

How about you help us with that John. Choose one and do a thread running down all the strategic choices.

I don't know any of the above well enough to do a thread in great detail but I do know that I recenty purchased a 13 deg three wood for use at Victoria.  It took me ten years to figure out that besides right or left, strategy can also be dictated by length.  Most strategy is too subtle for anyone but the elite player, so much so that it is more often created by the player without cause to the architecture.

[archie_struthers]

 


We built a golf course that you would think is anathema to many of the minimalists on board here. We probably moved or sold off almost 4 million yards of material in the construction process at Twsited Dune. . In spite of that , we got a  lot of favorable support on site, and a few detractors , which is par for the course.

It's easy to put on the blinkers when looking at a golf course, but until you have walked it or played it , it's pretty hard to throw stones. Certainly there are lots of course you can immediately dislike for aesthetic reasons, but at least in my case the discussion group wasn't throwing me under the bus just because we moved some dirt!

[Ken Fry]

A bit off the original question, but the biggest lesson I've learned from my time here is very simple:  routing.  There may be restrictions placed on a gca due to development, environmental, etc., but the truly wonderful courses I've experienced had the foundation of an outstanding routing.

What gets put in place after the routing is personal taste as far as I'm concerned.  Take your pick between rough edged minimalist or sharp edged manicured.  I've experienced both that work in the right settings but without a great routing to provide flow and interest over a property, everything else is disjointed in my opinion.

Is there a "herd" mentality toward minimalist philosophies on this site?  Absolutely.  The herd tends to be loud as was mentioned before but there are differing opinions on here also.

Unless participants are in the industry, I liken many of the discussion here to art critics:  they know what they like when they see it but have no chance in understanding what it takes to paint the canvas....

Ken

[George Pazin]

Saying you find one type of architecture superior to another is not at all the same thing as saying there is no strategy in the style you do not prefer.

This isn't remotely a subtle distinction, yet most seem to have missed it.

Frank commentary doesn't mean you have to agree with it, and it certainly doesn't mean everyone has to agree with it.