[Tom_Doak]

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?

Jeff:

That's an odd point.  A lot of the early discussion about Pacific Dunes centered on whether or not it was TOO EASY to appeal to better players, not whether it was too tough.

You know as well as I do that a certain degree of difficulty is required in order to have a course taken seriously as "great", and that's where a lot of my clients are aiming to be.  Except for Sebonack, my courses are generally considered to be on the easy side compared to those of Nicklaus, Jones, or Coore & Crenshaw ... though maybe not Tom Fazio.

[DMoriarty]

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....

I really don't think it makes much sense to characterize the entire website because one poster drew a rather hyperbolic contrast between Rees Jones vs. Mike Davis.    
______________________________________________________________________


Frankly, a lot of what I am reading in this thread comes off as sour grapes.    If some of us prefer a certain approach to golf design over other approaches, then we must not know what we are talking about?  I disagree.    

I also disagree with this idea that we are not good enough golfers to understand what Rees or any golf designer is up to, as if it was impossible to contemplate a 230 high fade without being able to hit one, and as if understanding what they were up to would automatically make us love their work.  It may be that some do understand it but still don't like or agree with certain approaches.

[Peter Pallotta]

You know as well as I do that a certain degree of difficulty is required in order to have a course taken seriously as "great", and that's where a lot of my clients are aiming to be.  Except for Sebonack, my courses are generally considered to be on the easy side compared to those of Nicklaus, Jones, or Coore & Crenshaw ... though maybe not Tom Fazio.

An interesting element/aspect of the renaissance: that the perennial philosophy of golf course architecture as embodied in modern courses like PD or OM is at odds with many of the classic courses that first manifested this philosophy in America -- many of which were proudly tough as nails when they first opened. 

Peter

 

[Mike_Young]

Jeff:
. though maybe not Tom Fazio.

TD,
oooooh......

[Mike_Young]

David,
The RJ /MD thread did make me ask the question but I had thought such for a long time.  AND I am not saying it is a bad thing or a good thing...It's sort of like talk radio....Rush is going to talk one side and one side only....and that's ok....

But if any one is going to understand a subject they need to know all the various styles etc...doesn't matter whether they like them or not...

For me strategy can be in place and there may be zero aesthetics or vice versa...and as JB says...strategies change....for me strategy has always been about the options for traversing from one point to another....whether it be cars to roads; airplanes to runways....  BUT I sense that many on this site...if they were into old houses....they would prefer the old wood stove kitchen and "slop jar" bath room remain in place....  and that is fine but they would at least have to admit that most would prefer some of the modern conveniences....JMO

[George Pazin]

For me strategy can be in place and there may be zero aesthetics or vice versa...

Perhaps if you provide an example of this, where the site does not get it, your point will be more clear.

[Mike_Young]

For me strategy can be in place and there may be zero aesthetics or vice versa...

Perhaps if you provide an example of this, where the site does not get it, your point will be more clear.

George,
I can....but do not take it as a slam at the architect because while I don't consider it very aesthetic , I do consider it very functional and easy to maintain....and a good golf hole....shaping is very simple...bunkers are simple and practical....extremely tough misses on the short sides...fairway position is more important than driver length....and recovery long is very difficult.....I like the hole.... East Lake Hole #3

Also many Seth Raynor courses.....or holes....

[RSLivingston_III]

Until the equipment changes so that we are once again playing long clubs into greens, and truely using the ground game, there is only one type of golf out there. This PGA, the golf magazines, and equipment manufacturer promoted style of golf eliminates anything other than airborne assaults.
IMO I only really see asthetic differences in the courses which are largely designed for one style of golf, what I have come to refer to as 'PGA' golf.
I know, a broad statement, but flame away.
Yes, I do know there are some courses built since the golden age that can be played in that earlier form.

[Kirk Gill]

I remember reading a piece by Archibald MacLeish where he discussed an experience he had watching a group of Harvard students discuss his play "J.B." What amazed him was the things they found there that he'd never put in there (intentionally). He felt that the students proved their points - what they said was in there was in there, even though he hadn't known he'd put it in there.

Can the same be said of golf courses? Do those who play a course, especially when they play it numerous times, find "architecture" that the designer himself did not consciously intend, or comprehend?

[Steve Goodwin]

Jeff -- you'd have a hard time convincing me that there's "more" strategy today than in the Golden Age.  Hole for hole, it would be pretty hard to find a contemporary course that has "more" strategic interest than a Merion or National GL.    I think the same hold true for an "average" 1920's course vs. an "average" contemporary course.   Plenty of contemporary architects talk about risk/reward and hold it up as proof of the "strategy" in their design, but the showy risk/reward features are just one element of strategy, not the whole megillah.

It may be the case that mid-handicappers respond favorably to Golden Age because they are able to play them.  The strategy applies to them.  Ditto links courses.  I had played plenty of golf on  American courses before I went to Ireland or Scotland -- but then I did finally get there, and when I got to play some of the good Golden Age courses, I had to ask myself, why do I like these courses so much?  Why are they more fun than the courses I usually play?   The answer was that they required more thinking -- more strategy -- and a lot more shots.  

For me the taste for older courses has never been about theory.  It's about pleasure.  Theory is just a way of trying to explain it.

[Terry Lavin]

There's plenty of minimalism group-think going on hereabouts.  The whole difficulty vs. strategy paradigm is one of my favorites.  If a hole is easy, with wide fairways and few hazards, it gives the player OPTIONS.  If a hole is difficult and demands a certain tee shot over a hazard to have a good but difficult shot into a well protected green, it has NO STRATEGY.  In other words, there are plenty of people who like a course that gives them options to make par after they make a half-ass drive and an okay second shot on a par-4.  As long as there's some ragged bunkers and native grasses, of course.  Mind you, I'm a Doak, Coore loving minimalist fan myself, but some of the arguments get a little silly after a while.

[Steve Lang]

   The thread has finally reached the architectural question of whether form follows function or function follows form???

[Brett_Morrissy]

Mike,
Re: Does this site really understand or comprehend golf course architecture?

How do you/we figure out the answer to this question?

How can you or anyone here really define what is required to genuinely understand or comprehend GCA?

I suppose the issue with the title is "this site"'  - you lumped everyone in together(including a bunch of architects, builders, designers)

Perhaps it could say, "do all those on here that have a preference for minimalist/naturalist/Doak/C&C/Golden Age style course design - really understand or comprehend GCA? " 

[SL_Solow]

Regarding the question propounded by Mike Young, if it relates to the technical aspects pertaining to those components needed to create a course such as drainage, site planning, permitting etc., the answer is probably no for a large majority of the participants.  But if it comes down to the question of what makes a good golf course, the real answer is NOBODY KNOWS and EVERYBODY KNOWS.  There are no right answers, only personal preferences.  Over time various principles develop which impact on beauty, challenge, speed of play etc. which become accepted as benchmarks for judgment.  Critics who can explain the reasons for their preferences gain respect and influence thought.  Architects who present the challenge of the game in a manner that captures the imagination of golfers help shape opinions and the "understanding" of what makes good architecture changes.  But there are few eternal verities.  Why did the architects of the golden age change the accepted views that preceded them?  Because golfers exposed to their courses found them more interesting and challenging.  Their writing merely explained the principles.  Did those principles change when RTJ, Dick Wilson and others built courses emphasizing somewhat different values?  Perhaps not, but for a long time it was generally accepted that those courses were on the "right" architectural track.  Then Pete Dye pioneered a different view and for a period he was the leader.  Now minimalists, who for the most part champion architecture more in line with golden age values, appear to be ascendant.  Understanding golf course architecture really involves understanding that there are various ways to solve the problems presented in designing a golf course and to try and appreciate the impact  the choices made by the architect have on the play of the game and the aesthetic experience of the golfer.  Each of us can develop our own preference as to style or we can choose to have no preference, evaluating each course as a unique experience.  But there is no central truth to be understood by any of us much less by the site as a whole.

Turning to the issue regarding width and strategy, it appears to me that the central issue is whether "strategy" is the correct term.  Clearly, what the "width is good" crowd is suggesting is that width creates more "options" and thus makes the thought process involved in the game more complex.  Those who place less emphasis on width argue that too much width can lessen the reward for precision in shotmaking, a value they deem important.   There is a dynamic balance to be reached here as some wide courses require excellent shotmaking and others do not while some narrow courses allow for interesting options and others leave little choice.  But again, the trick is to find a balance and ultimately the individual decides what he or she prefers. I  suggest that strategy which combines choices regarding distance with choices regarding angles of approach (each having an element of risk vs reward) are superior to those having one or the other.  Finally, I  suggest that individual holes can work well emphasizing one form of strategy seeking to test a particular skill and will work even better when combined with holes possessing different strategic elements.

[Sean_A]

I don't buy the herd mentality argument.  Nor do I buy that most on this site don't realize they can't design a course.  Most know its a difficult job to balance all the elements, but that doesn't mean one can't opine on the value/worth/effectiveness of a course to him.  From my perspective its not a strategy issue which has me questioning modern design more than Golden Age design.  Sure, I dislike the imbalance in use of "hazards" to favour sand because I think its lazy architecture.  No, beyond this is the idea of trying to eliminate the one or perhaps two indifferent holes at the expense of a good walk, or worse, a good walk may not even be a consideration for many modern archies.  They seem to come up all sorts of excuses of why something wouldn't do.  In fact, some of that make do thinking is a big part of why some of the older courses have that charming appeal.  Think of North Berwick and its plethora of oddities.  Think of Brancaster and its cross-over holes.  Think of TOC and its double greens.  There are many examples of make do attitude that sometimes can come to define the greatness of a course, but modern archies try to avoid any of that sort of thing and instead fall back on the same ole things they have always done.  So no, its not a question of understanding golf architecture.  Its a question of a lack of experience and understanding that few if any folks out there are willing to allow an archie to do his thing unbridled.  And I have to say that lack of trust in archies is directly related to golfers wanting the same ole thing.  One feeds the other until its hard to tell who is holding the spoon.  In others, archies are not in control of their profession.  Some think this a good thing, but I disagree.  To me the importance of an archie is his imagination and the experience he brings to the table which allows that imagination to flourish.  

Ciao  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Or is it so biased that it thinks there is only one type of golf design?  

Mike, historically, I think there have been biases, regarding styles, architects and courses.
Biases not confined to "only one type of golf course".

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....

Again, historically, I'd tend to agree with you regarding the "herd" mentality.

There was a time when Fazio and Jones courses were panned without the critic ever having played them.


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....


Agree, I think it detracts from the quality/credibility of the site.

[Mike_Young]

After reading these post....it makes me realize that one of the biggest issues that has confronted golf architecture and will definitely continue to affect it over the next 50 years is the lack of continuity.  Where will this site be in 10 years....it might be the only "continuous flow" that golf architecture has...  Think about it....after the golden age there really wasn't any work where young architects could be trained and carry forward the concepts and strategies of the ODG's....  AND now we have the same thing....what has been learned and developed in the last 25 years is going to go away as less work is done..shapers have to get into another line of work...young architects have to get into another line of work and the continuity stops...( a few will continue but not many)...so when the next "boom" hits, whomever is there will be starting over..just like this time...
AND again....I'm not disrespecting or belittling anyone's opinion here....But IMHO all would be well served to study the works of those like Desmond Muirhead, Rees Jones, Fazio , Von Hagge or any of a number of modern architects ..not to say they would ever agree or even like the work..but just to try and figure why they do what they do.....because the one thing we know to be fact....a lot of golfers like the modern work....

[Adam Clayman]

Mike, From the responses, I think we can conclude and agree there is a diversity of opinion on this site.

I can only speak for myself. I learned from the ground up. Not second hand by reading in books what I should like, but by actually going out and figuring out what I prefer.

It's important for everyone to understand why you like something, but, I also think it's important to judge quality by not basing it on what you score best on, but what actually stirs your soul. Regardless of result.

WHat some are calling minimalist designs, I would call it differently. Or, at least differentiating between a thoroughly well thought out design and one that's less so. The style is immaterial, if it's thoughtful, it has merit because us golfers should learn at least one thing before we can even think about calling ourselves golfers, and that's an ability to adapt. To styles and conditions.

If a modern course plays the exact same way everyday, either because the design is limiting in it's scope of shots, in any given circumstance, or because of standard maintenance practices, that render the course the same firmness daily, how can this be a more exhilarating course, or experience, than one that has a wider spectrum of elasticity?

Without people expressing their justification, the words typed onto this DG are just "less so" than one who trys to articulate why they feel the way they do about any particular subject. Take post #17 on this thread as an example that leaves the reader without a clue as to who, why or what the author justifies the remark.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Young,

I think, an equally interesting exercise would be to study the modern architects in the context of how their body of work has replicated or differed from that of their mentors.

It would be interesting to follow the continuum from the very begining.

[Jim Nugent]

I know very little about golf course architecture.  Because of this site, I've learned some of the principles.  I also got inspired to route (in my mind) a course amid some spectacular sand dunes.  But in terms of knowing much about GCA, I'm a total amateur. 

Quite cool that the professionals take part in this discussion group with neophytes like me!

[Adrian_Stiff]

95% of these posts have shown me its a BIG NO.

[Jud_T]

Sean makes some good points.  I can say from my family's experience on the building architecture side, most clients don't want you to take chances with their money.  That's why guys with a definable style are so successful.  A client likes what they see in a previous project and wants to essentially buy that product.  True artists who want to always have a fresh response to the conditions presented and the current environment rarely get the big jobs.  Occasionally someone gifted gets a breakthrough job that makes such a name for them that they are given a bit more leeway on future projects as their name sells the product as much as the style.  As far as comprehension, one doesn't have to have a thorough understanding of the PH balance of oil paints and canvas in the 16th century to appreciate the Mona Lisa's beauty in a profound way...

[David Harshbarger]

SL (how low can he go?) Solow, you hit the nail on the head that there are many ways to solve the problem, and that there is no central truth. Instead, as Sean and Mike speak to, the really exciting thing about GCA is the variety of approaches to the problem demonstrated by a host of thoughtful, imaginative professionals.

I agree with Sean that the work generated in some cases may not reflect the most pure expression of an architect's philosophy.  Work is always done in some context, and that context means there may be compromises.  In those cases where the context is to make the best golfing experience, we get the chance to see the art and expression of the architect.

Do the contributors of this site get it?  Hell yea!  There is so much thoughtful discourse here.  I don't think I've once seen Godwin's Law invoked, but then I haven't waded into that thread on NGLA.  

[Melvyn Morrow]

Design or architecture embrace of golf courses are not governed as say a Soccer, Football, Rugby or Baseball field, as courses are or were designed to complement the land be it Links, Heathland, Parkland or perhaps even desert, sand and snow courses(remember that crevasses are just deep bunkers with a high penal factor on not just the ball).

I sincerely believe that the majority of golfers do not even wonder let alone think about Golf Course Architecture. Perhaps through the names of some of the designers, this trend may be reversing. However,  I believe that for the most part GCA  does not come into the equation let alone the conversation, yet names like Braid, Colt, Mackenzie and even  Simpson are known and mentioned from time to time.

As for this site, I feel we have many who do know GCA, many who want to know about GCA and some keen to learn as much about GCA as possible. As for herd mentality while I do not favour that expression I feel the modern game has tended to become more uniform, be that down to the designers or architects or perhaps even the result of large design houses with past Champions as figure heads (of courses on hands figureheads with an input on every design – yea right). While stale does not correctly define the humdrum courses we have seen over the last 20 years (i.e. with the close by housing developments, made to measure courses not conforming to the surrounding landscape), nevertheless the outcome is play them once and move on. The search for a strategic course are I believe dampened down by the necessity to provide cart tracks, thus limiting the sporting nature of the course to perhaps (if lucky) provide just a modicum of penal or at least a challenge or two.

I believe that many understand GCA but do not comprehend that weak or easy is not going to sustain the design for long, before either Golfer walks (away from the course) or the course is modified to give it some balls.  A Golf course is from start to finish a challenge , its very existence is to the confront the player, to force him to take the risk, to show skill or guile in navigating the course, take that away and golf is no long the game, it just an elongated version of pitch and putt.

Yes, I think many understand and comprehend GCA on GCA.com, but what game are they directing their talents too?

Melvyn

[Ken Fry]

95% of these posts have shown me its a BIG NO.

So what are a few examples of what the 95% are not getting and what the 5% does??

Ken

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()