[Mike Sweeney]

I have played a bunch of Jones courses over the years, and this is an awfully interesting interview by Darius Oliver:

http://planetgolf.com.au/index.php?id=1590

[Michael Goldstein]

Intriguing quote:

"All games have attack and defense. The golf course itself is the defender and those people who take care of it and set it up are all part of the defense team. So the architect he was, and we all are, like castle builders in the medieval times. So if the castle builder essentially had used a parapet and boiling water to stop the marauders coming across the parapets and suddenly gun powder showed up from Marco Polo’s visit to China and they could shoot stones into it, then you have to have a new defense. So a water hole, build a moat. It’s a new way of thinking."

[Chip Gaskins]

Intriguing quote:

"All games have attack and defense. The golf course itself is the defender and those people who take care of it and set it up are all part of the defense team. So the architect he was, and we all are, like castle builders in the medieval times. So if the castle builder essentially had used a parapet and boiling water to stop the marauders coming across the parapets and suddenly gun powder showed up from Marco Polo’s visit to China and they could shoot stones into it, then you have to have a new defense. So a water hole, build a moat. It’s a new way of thinking."

Sounds very similar to the quote from the C&C article...

"it became apparent we were compatible, had similar personalities and shared an opinion on what made a golf course enjoyable." "

[jeffwarne]

Intriguing quote:

"All games have attack and defense. The golf course itself is the defender and those people who take care of it and set it up are all part of the defense team. So the architect he was, and we all are, like castle builders in the medieval times. So if the castle builder essentially had used a parapet and boiling water to stop the marauders coming across the parapets and suddenly gun powder showed up from Marco Polo’s visit to China and they could shoot stones into it, then you have to have a new defense. So a water hole, build a moat. It’s a new way of thinking."

A castle analogy is very appropriate

[Jackson C]

Thanks Mike for sharing this article.
It is eye opening.
I thought GCAs were friends, or at least there was honor amongst them.

[Garland Bayley]

Intriguing quote:

"All games have attack and defense. The golf course itself is the defender and those people who take care of it and set it up are all part of the defense team. So the architect he was, and we all are, like castle builders in the medieval times. So if the castle builder essentially had used a parapet and boiling water to stop the marauders coming across the parapets and suddenly gun powder showed up from Marco Polo’s visit to China and they could shoot stones into it, then you have to have a new defense. So a water hole, build a moat. It’s a new way of thinking."

Pencil and scorecard mentality. But, golf was invented as parrying between two individuals. Seems he misses the point all together. Random obstacles interacting with the differing abilities of the two opponents suits the real game better does it not? It is your opponent that is defending against your attacks, not the golf course.

[David_Tepper]

"It is your opponent that is defending against your attacks, not the golf course."

Garland -

I have to disagree with you there. Golf is a sport/game (like bowling, archery, etc.) where a player cannot physically interact with or impact how his opponent plays. While a certain amount of mental pressure can be brought to bear by one player against another, Player A has no physical interaction with how Player B executes his golf swing. When two players are competing against each other in matchplay, their primary challenge is facing and dealing with the obstacles the course presents.

DT   

[Garland Bayley]

"It is your opponent that is defending against your attacks, not the golf course."

Garland -

I have to disagree with you there. Golf is a sport/game (like bowling, archery, etc.) where a player cannot physically interact with or impact how his opponent plays. While a certain amount of mental pressure can be brought to bear by one player against another, Player A has no physical interaction with how Player B executes his golf swing. When two players are competing against each other in matchplay, their primary challenge is facing and dealing with the obstacles the course presents.

DT   

If your opponent takes on a risk and succeeds, your defense is to do so likewise. If your opponent, hits it into the junk, your defense is to avoid the risk, play the odds that his mistake is going to cost him a stroke. Etc.
I always play match play in relation to what my opponent does. Seems to work against Kalen, for example.

[David_Tepper]

Garland -

I think you are overstating the case. There may be a handful of instances in a round where the shot of Player A may present Player B with a choice of what shot to play, but, even then, the choice of Player B is dictated primarily by the options and obstacles the course presents and Player B's abilities. 

Suppose Player A has taken an aggressive line off the tee and carried a bunker 250 yards down the fairway, leaving him with a wedge to the green. If Player B does not have the ability to carry that bunker, there is no way he can really respond to the shot his opponent has hit. Player B has to play the hole in the same manner he always does, as dictated by the course, regardless of what his opponent has done.

DT

[William_G]

I agree with with DT here in that regardles of match play or stroke play, golf's beauty is that it is a game where you are in essence playing against yourself...it's all about the execution of the shot to the best of your ability, being one with the one...

Nice interview of RTJ II, especial;ly the war analogies of moats and runways, lol

[Steve Lang]

"It is your opponent that is defending against your attacks, not the golf course."

Especially when you tell them what a beautiful swing they have...

[michael damico]

Intriguing quote:

"All games have attack and defense. The golf course itself is the defender and those people who take care of it and set it up are all part of the defense team. So the architect he was, and we all are, like castle builders in the medieval times. So if the castle builder essentially had used a parapet and boiling water to stop the marauders coming across the parapets and suddenly gun powder showed up from Marco Polo’s visit to China and they could shoot stones into it, then you have to have a new defense. So a water hole, build a moat. It’s a new way of thinking."

Pencil and scorecard mentality. But, golf was invented as parrying between two individuals. Seems he misses the point all together. Random obstacles interacting with the differing abilities of the two opponents suits the real game better does it not? It is your opponent that is defending against your attacks, not the golf course.

I guess it depends on if you're playing match play or stroke play and what one's preference is, much like a preference in 'schools' of design: strategic v. penal. I would assume RTJ2 prefers the latter of the two.

[Bill_McBride]

The greatest match play champion of all, Bobby Jones, always said his opponent was "Old Man Par."  When he played as well as he could against par, he won his matches.

I have always felt that you can get caught in a trap trying to react to your opponent's poor shots.  He hits a bad one, you play safe, he hits a miracle and you lose the hole.  This can trigger a series of bad shots as you become over-conservative and blow it.

This is the voice of bitter experience speaking.  

[Ian Andrew]

Thanks Mike for sharing this article.
It is eye opening.
I thought GCAs were friends, or at least there was honor amongst them.

Jackson,

I'm stealing this from someone else.

"You remain good friends right up until you lose a project to them ... "



BTW, its one of the better interviews I've read in a while.
I have a lot of time for Bobbie for being that frank.

[Jackson C]

Ian,

I am getting a better sense of the GCA industry, and it is probably best to simply understand it as VERY competitive.
Combine that with a limited supply of good sites/jobs, plus how one's work is permanently on display (up for criticism), I can understand it, but it still makes me winch to read personal slights.

BTW, I ran across your caddy shack blog and thought it was wonderful.
The series on the greatest architects was a real education!
Thank you.

[Mac Plumart]

Interesting comments concerning his focus on width and greenside bunkering while the USGA focuses on length.

[Joe_Tucholski]

I guess it depends on if you're playing match play or stroke play and what one's preference is, much like a preference in 'schools' of design: strategic v. penal. I would assume RTJ2 prefers the latter of the two.

Michael - did you read the interview?  RTJ2 says just the opposite in a question where he is asked about his brothers changes at Atlanta Athletic Club.  After discussing what he saw as his brothers design efforts at Atlanta Athletic club RTJ2 stated "I think you have to leave players of different shotmaking abilities, left handed, right handed, even at the highest level of the game, a way to work the ball and to think. That was my philosophy."

I understand you may say the body of work presented by RTJII is more penal than strategic...although the RTJII course I've played presented pretty good strategic options from my perspective.

[Tim Nugent]

Ian,

I am getting a better sense of the GCA industry, and it is probably best to simply understand it as VERY competitive.
Combine that with a limited supply of good sites/jobs, plus how one's work is permanently on display (up for criticism), I can understand it, but it still makes me winch to read personal slights.

BTW, I ran across your caddy shack blog and thought it was wonderful.
The series on the greatest architects was a real education!
Thank you.


JC, THIS IS MORE ABOUT A SIBLING RIVALRY.

[michael damico]

I guess it depends on if you're playing match play or stroke play and what one's preference is, much like a preference in 'schools' of design: strategic v. penal. I would assume RTJ2 prefers the latter of the two.

Michael - did you read the interview?  RTJ2 says just the opposite in a question where he is asked about his brothers changes at Atlanta Athletic Club.  After discussing what he saw as his brothers design efforts at Atlanta Athletic club RTJ2 stated "I think you have to leave players of different shotmaking abilities, left handed, right handed, even at the highest level of the game, a way to work the ball and to think. That was my philosophy."

I understand you may say the body of work presented by RTJII is more penal than strategic...although the RTJII course I've played presented pretty good strategic options from my perspective.

Joe,

don't get me wrong, I was saying more of 2's influences of his father. I love his work at Stanford's practice area (other than including himself as one of the 'greatest' designers in their models of 6 designers' green types) Of the 3 archies of the family Jones (were there more?), I would have to say from my experiences and studies, RTJ2 is the most strategic and least penal.

In reading the article and focusing more on the quote brought forth by Garland, I took that RTJ2 seems to design with stroke play in mind moreso than match play. Dye seems to do that as well with the philosophy that 16 - 18 should be the toughest holes, successively getting tougher; a stroke play (tournament) mentality, if you will.

Directly relating to the analogy RTJ2 made of GCAs to that of an architect of a castle could be taken several ways: one of which could mean that designers are defending against technology. Another, they're creating obstacles to help protect the castle (par) from attackers (golfers), which is, in my mind a more penal approach.


Oh...and Ian's Caddyshack blog is/has been awesome! When you were taking it down a couple years ago, I had to find out how to save all of it, which I successfully found someone to help me and have on my external HD. Thank you for preserving and handpicking your favorites and allowing for us all to still peruse them.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland -

I think you are overstating the case. There may be a handful of instances in a round where the shot of Player A may present Player B with a choice of what shot to play, but, even then, the choice of Player B is dictated primarily by the options and obstacles the course presents and Player B's abilities. 

Suppose Player A has taken an aggressive line off the tee and carried a bunker 250 yards down the fairway, leaving him with a wedge to the green. If Player B does not have the ability to carry that bunker, there is no way he can really respond to the shot his opponent has hit. Player B has to play the hole in the same manner he always does, as dictated by the course, regardless of what his opponent has done.

DT

David,

As I said, you can play both offense and defense. When both players have the ability to carry the bunker, then B is playing defense in his attempt to carry it. If A knows B can't carry it, then A is playing offense, by making the shot.

You probably are not going to try to block Shaq's dunk if you were defending against him, but you might try to steal his dribble.

[Garland Bayley]

The greatest match play champion of all, Bobby Jones, always said his opponent was "Old Man Par."  When he played as well as he could against par, he won his matches.

And for Bill's next trick, he will complain about courses being designed for tour pros.
To me Bobby Jones is irrelevant to this discussion. Offense and defense comes more into play the closer you get to the average golfer, and the farther you get away from the plus handicaps. Courses should be designed with the average golfer in mind, and I believe with match play in mind.

I have always felt that you can get caught in a trap trying to react to your opponent's poor shots.  He hits a bad one, you play safe, he hits a miracle and you lose the hole.  This can trigger a series of bad shots as you become over-conservative and blow it.

But on average how does it work out? In your favor, or against your favor? I would argue that playing the percentage shot after your opponents mistake will most often work out in your favor. For an average golfer to go after the marginal play in such a situation is suicide.

This is the voice of bitter experience speaking.  

[Joel_Stewart]

This guy gets a lot of credit for a huge body of work which includes two (2) top 100 courses, one which is vastly over rated (Princeville) and the other he contributed about 1% (Chambers Bay).

Many people on this site consider him the favorite for the Olympic golf course and having met him and seen him talk a few times I hope he makes the final presentation because it will be a snooze fest and should kill any chance he has at winning.

I think there is far too much talk on GCA regarding this architect, who basically hasn't contributed anything to golf or golf architecture. 

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I find Bobby to be a charming and very interesting man. He has spend much of his life traversing the world and has the ability to converse with most people and especially those who live an international life. It is a complicated discussion why a man with opportunity to build great courses has underachieved. I know a fair amount about his shop over the years, but not nearly enough to answer that question. There are a lot of men who in this site eyes who have underachieved. Yet, they have been professional successes and made very good livings. As Art Hills told me once. I build what my clients ask for. Sometimes I am able to make suggestions that would make the course better and sometimes their needs prevail.

[Sam Morrow]

This guy gets a lot of credit for a huge body of work which includes two (2) top 100 courses, one which is vastly over rated (Princeville) and the other he contributed about 1% (Chambers Bay).

Many people on this site consider him the favorite for the Olympic golf course and having met him and seen him talk a few times I hope he makes the final presentation because it will be a snooze fest and should kill any chance he has at winning.

I think there is far too much talk on GCA regarding this architect, who basically hasn't contributed anything to golf or golf architecture. 

Wow Joel, he made quite the impression on you?

[Garland Bayley]

It's hard to tell who is most responsible for Chambers Bay. All I can say is that people from Kemper said the RTJ II group used to have real wars behind closed doors.

I have heard or read of people attributing three different people as being the major influence. What I can say was that Jay Blasi was a very gracious host when hosting the GCA event there that Tiger made possible through his connection to John Strawn.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()