In light of many recent threads....

[Ryan Farrow]

Can non-architects refrain from commenting on the "routing".

If you do wish to comment on a routing please point out things, such as:

1. "The driving range hits directly into the rising sun."
2. "The last 3 holes face west and I can't see where my tee shot went!"
2. "All the Par 3's face the same direction."
3. "All the Par 3's are the same length."
4. "Whats up with the back to back par 3's? Was that necessary?"
5. "The 9th hole is the first par 3 of the round. WTF"
6. "The routing does not flow."
7."Why does this Course have 18 Par 3's?"
8."Why am I asking so many routing questions about par 3's?"

ETC.......


Lets just keep it simple and stick to whats already in the ground and what you like/dislike about it..... I think that's good enough. 



I'm not trying to demean or attack anyone I just think we all need to realize when were in a little over our head. Very few people, even architects, have the ability to critique a routing. There are many unknown restraints and outside influences that its best to just accept the final product and cut the speculation on what could or couldn't have been.

[Ryan Farrow]

Thanks, I typically like to start my threads at the bottom and have them work their way upwards, but some idiot posted another thread under my name and said I always take a cart even though I am young and look like I am in good shape.... So I decided to start this one at the top of the page and hopefully........Totally Redeem Myself!

[Garland Bayley]

Ryan,

In light of that post, I would like for you to take a solemn vow to never change a routing or green countouring when working on an existing course. You are to be limited to building new back tees, and moving non-green side bunkering to suitable locations that can best be determined to be the original architect's intent before technology changed things.

[Garland Bayley]

Thanks, I typically like to start my threads at the bottom and have them work their way upwards, but some idiot posted another thread under my name and said I always take a cart even though I am young and look like I am in good shape.... So I decided to start this one at the top of the page and hopefully........Totally Redeem Myself!

He must not be much of an idiot, because he has figured out how to walk his post count in lock step with yours.

[Peter Pallotta]

It starts off well, with an oblique and charming opening - very understated and simple, somewhat reminiscent of much of Bob Huntley's recent work.  But then for some reason -- maybe to make room for only like-minded posts -- it abruptly changes gears with a harshly declarative sentence that many average posters will struggle to respond to. Now, I don't mind challenging posts -- see my appreciation of those by Mark Bourgeouis, for example. And, if it would simply stay harsh and declarative all the way through I could accept that, accept it as one of many legitimate styles (though not one of my favourite); but the problem is, it doesn't.  Instead, trying to be all things to all posters, I guess, it then proceeds to, on the one hand, dictate exactly how it should be responded to, leaving very few options for differing opinions; and on the other, tries to mitigate this penal approach with an excessive use of emoticons (smiley faces to be precise).  It's like a post that has been re-written by several different hands over several minutes, a mish-mash of approaches. (Perhaps "edited" is the better word, I'm not sure).  I wish architects would realize -- and I don't mean to be insulting here -- that there is a lot more involved in writing a good post than stringing sentences/ideas together. Sure, that's the fun part -- but the skill and hard work comes in handling all the subtext that is not put on the page for all to see.

Peter

[Adam Clayman]

Ryan, I'll take a different tact. Non architects should make comments on routings. It's illuminating to their perspective and if done properly, can be a source for education.

Either that, or be more specific on where the non architect is butchering the concept?

[BCrosby]

Peter -

Funny stuff.

Commenting on routing is hard because you usually end up commenting on a course that wasn't built. That hypthetical course might be better or worse, but such discussions get very messy.

It's a bit like saying Moby Dick could be a better novel if Melville had written this or that differently. But Melville didn't write it that way. And if he had, Moby Dick would be a different book.

So routing presents a paradox. It goes to the heart of the matter in gca. So much so that it borders on the incoherent to say "I hate the routing but love the course".

Bob    

[George Pazin]

I'm not trying to demean or attack anyone I just think we all need to realize when were in a little over our head. Very few people, even architects, have the ability to critique a routing. There are many unknown restraints and outside influences that its best to just accept the final product and cut the speculation on what could or couldn't have been.

I'd prefer to leave it up to each reader to determine a post's value, on routing or anything else.

Excellent post, Peter.

[John Kavanaugh]

Am I allowed a question as simple as to why I spent two days at The Prairie Club and did not get one view of the Snake River Canyon.  I can understand why Graham didn't want the course to fall in, but jeez.

[Eric Smith]

Am I allowed a question as...

N  O  SPELLS NO

[Adam Clayman]

John, You got to see the canyon, just not the river. To see the river, the course needed to be on much more expensive ground.

[Phil McDade]

Ah yes, the age-old lament...

...of the movie director, who says the newspaper scribe who gave his latest work one star in his review can't possibly understand what it takes to put together a movie...

...of the chef, who says the restaurant critic surely can't criticize his meals, having never worked in a commercial kitchen...

...of the building architect, who says those who lament his latest office tower surely don't understand what it means to design in the modern age, having never designed a building themselves...

What a bunch of hooey.

[Carl Johnson]

Why route a course through a bunch of rocks that look sort of like a moonscape?  See: www.schmidt-curley.com

[Kalen Braley]

Why route a course through a bunch of rocks that look sort of like a moonscape?  See: www.schmidt-curley.com

Cause its purdy!!!  

[George Pazin]

Why route a course through a bunch of rocks that look sort of like a moonscape?  See: www.schmidt-curley.com

Cause its purdy!!!  

Proving once again that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[Mike_Young]

Peter -

Funny stuff.

Commenting on routing is hard because you usually end up commenting on a course that wasn't built. That hypthetical course might be better or worse, but such discussions get very messy.

It's a bit like saying Moby Dick could be a better novel if Melville had written this or that differently. But Melville didn't write it that way. And if he had, Moby Dick would be a different book.

So routing presents a paradox. It goes to the heart of the matter in gca. So much so that it borders on the incoherent to say "I hate the routing but love the course".

Bob    

Bob,
Hmmmm.... That bring to question:  If you don't do the routing are you the architect?

[BCrosby]

Hmmmm.... good question.

I don't think there are any clear rules. Other than the notion that design attribution ought to be reassigned when the changes made are such that the playing characterisitics of the course are materially different.

You can get to 'materially different' most easily by simply rerouting the course. But you can also get there by reshuffling enough hazards, bunkers, tees, greens complexes, etc.

Bob

[Mike_Young]

Hmmmm.... good question.

I don't think there are any clear rules. Other than the notion that design attribution ought to be reassigned when the changes made are such that the playing characterisitics of the course are materially different.

You can get to 'materially different' most easily by simply rerouting the course. But you can also get there by reshuffling enough hazards, bunkers, tees, greens complexes, etc.

Bob

Hmmmm.... good question.

I don't think there are any clear rules. Other than the notion that design attribution ought to be reassigned when the changes made are such that the playing characterisitics of the course are materially different.

You can get to 'materially different' most easily by simply rerouting the course. But you can also get there by reshuffling enough hazards, bunkers, tees, greens complexes, etc.

Bob

This is my biggest issue with all of the restoration hype of the recent years.  I don't care how well accepted the work is.  If a guy hasn't routed courses then he doesn't have the experience of someone that has.  It's no different than comparing  a building architect and the interior designer who may change his building every few decades.  The routing relates to the structure itself in vertical architecture, the drainage and irrigation relate to the mechanical engineering of the structure and the shaping and finishing relate to the millwork and interior design.  JMO

[JESII]

I'm not trying to demean or attack anyone I just think we all need to realize when were in a little over our head. Very few people, even architects, have the ability to critique a routing. There are many unknown restraints and outside influences that its best to just accept the final product and cut the speculation on what could or couldn't have been.

Did you know that to be a professional golfer all one has to do is send in a tournament entry and mark the status box Professional[/]?

[Lester George]

Ryan,

Good thread and very well spoken.  I do not agree with your statement

"Very few people, even architects, have the ability to critique a routing". 

Speaking for myself, I have the ability to critique a routing, but in the incontext of GCA, why?  Critiquing routings, design characteristics or anything else on here is not productive (for me anyway).  If, however, the subject does turn to the things that can be reasonably debated, I'm all in.  But it seems to me that once one of these threads starts dealing with "intent" or "constraints" or "what if" it loses my interest quickly.  Again, JMO. 

Oh, and BTW, did I say "Good thread and very well spoken".

Cheers,

Lester 

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Am I allowed a question as simple as to why I spent two days at The Prairie Club and did not get one view of the Snake River Canyon.  I can understand why Graham didn't want the course to fall in, but jeez.

John you should have seen the original Hanse routing for The Prairie Club, many shots over the canyon, alongside the canyon, river views,  etc.  I would say more but I guess we aren't supposed to talk about the routing.

[Jim Colton]

I am a non-architect, and I will not refrain from commenting on routing. Sorry, Ryan.

[Kyle Harris]

Anybody can critique a routing.

Much like the context argument you're making with regard to routing, so goes the value of such a critique.

[BCrosby]

Routings are fair game for criticism. No one should feel like they should hold their tongue. But the kind of fine-grained fixes that might make sense in the context of a single hole don't scale up for a routing. That's because - unlike moving a bunker or a tee from here to there - if you move an entire hole or a set of holes there is no way to grasp the waterfall of consequences set in motion for the rest of the course. Unless you are really, truly, deeply familiar with the property.

Which is not to say complaining about a routing is not permissible. There are plenty of bad, unimaginative or simply dumb routings. But if you think you have some cool ideas about how to fix them, you are probably wrong. Again, because changing a routing involves so many unintended consequences.

Bob

Mike - I have always thought that the Ross routing for the ACC has a glitch. It's at the intersection of the 5th and the 14th. There is a relatively obvious fix for it. We've talked about it. But it will never happen because it is an original Ross course and we all know you don't "fix" an original Ross course.  

 

[David_Elvins]

Ryan,

Your comments sometime back on sandbelt style bunkers was one of the most laughable things I have read on this site.  You were unqualified to comment on the topic and clearly wrong.  It inspired a relatively interesting discussion and the thread was better for your comments.  

EDIT: I don't remember anyone telling you that you were unqualified to comment and should not have done so, though.  


Often the people who know things aren't inspired to write what they know unless they see someone write something that is wrong.  Stupid opinions lead to good threads.

I respectfully disagree with your opening post.  EDIT: Before criticising other for posting on topics they are not experts on, perhaps think about when you have done similarly.