[Michael George]

I have been thinking of something for a while and thought I would run it by everyone.  I am sure that many of you far more advanced on golf design issues have considered this topic more frequently than me, but please indulge me.

I know what I like re: golf clubs and courses.  I like normal members that don't think membership in a club makes them better than any other golfer, just more fortunate, and who treat the employees at the club like friends, more than servants.  I like simplicity over elaborateness on clubhouses.  While some may like the east coast stately clubhouses, I find that clubhouses at The Dunes Club and The Golf Club are more to my liking.  I like strategic designed courses that are more fun than hard to play.  I don't mind hard, but not when it is accompanied by boring.  In fact, my favorite shot in golf is the hard shot that is unique and fun to hit - put me on the bottom of the swale on the right of #16 green at Pacific Dunes with a bucket of balls and I will hit that shot all day.  I like firm, fast conditions over over-watered and slow.  I like when putting off a green is a possibility.  I don't mind blind shots and actually think every course should have a couple.  I like deep, penal hazards with flare over flat bunkers with little character.  I like creeks more than lakes and ponds. I like walking with a caddie over riding in a cart.

However, that is only my opinion.  If someone believed the exact opposite of every one of my preferences, would that make him or her wrong?  The more I think about it, I don't think so.  I may not like many RTJ courses, but if someone thinks they are the best that golf has to offer, what makes them wrong? 

Many times on the site over the past year, there were contentious discussions re: golf courses and architectural issues where some completely wrote off another's opinion as uninformed.  I am sure that I have done it also.  However, when you dig down, isn't golf just like art where beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  Listen, if you ask 90% of golfers what their favorite hole on a course is, they will say the one with the body of water on it (whether it be a lake, pond or ocean), regardless if inland holes are far better designed, more fun to play and ranked by every expert as better.  Who knows - maybe all of us don't get something re; golf courses that the average golfer out for a walk does. 

Listen, I love discussions on opinion and will certainly keep my opinions where they are.  I will even argue with people if their opinion is not the same as mine.  But the more that I learn about this great game, the more that I think almost any feature on a golf course is acceptable, so long as a group of people like it.  Am I wrong? 

[Ronald Montesano]

Yin to Yang, I say.

Opinions are a tough species to isolate...theories are even tougher...facts are nearly extinct.

[Andy Troeger]

I tend to agree with you, Michael. I think some characteristics of golf courses are perceived more favorably by golfers as others and are thus seen as good aspects of design, but in the end there's somebody out there who will like things that I might find bizarre or just generally unappealing.  

At some level I think there are some basic aspects to courses that are necessary for the actual game of golf to be played. There are aspects of design that can make it prohibitive to get the ball into the hole, which is of course the point of the exercise. There do have to be basics, but I think you'd find a lot of argument if you tried to define them beyond needing a tee and a hole.

But at some level I think a lot of this is subjective. Some people like fake waterfalls, cart-golf, soft and lush conditions, and elaborate clubhouses. Just because you or I may not does not negate their right to like those things. There are folks that participate here whose opinions mean little to me because I know we aren't looking at courses from the same angle, and others with whom I match pretty well. I'm sure others can say the same about my views.

[Eric Smith]

Am I wrong?  

Not at all, Mike. Opinions generate discussion and are what make the site work. Preaching 'I'm right, you're wrong' ? Not so much, imo.

[John Kavanaugh]

When opinions are used to teach they become inherently wrong.

[David Kelly]

Opinions are like blah, blah, blah, everyone has them. However Ran did start this website with a reason in mind and that was to advocate for a certain type of golf course architecture and he spells it out on the main www.golfclubatlas.com page and that is why so many like minded people have gravitated to the discussion group over the years. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Michael - I may one day discover that I've expressed hundreds of wrong opinions.  I've posted thoughts on courses I've only seen from photos. If I get to play those courses and experience them in ways than I had never imagined, I might well form new (and totally different) opinions, which would mean that my previous opinions were, well, wrong.   

Peter

[Mac Plumart]

Yes, I think some opinions are wrong.  And I mean that sincerely and not in a sarcastic, joke-like way.

We had a real good thread on here not too long ago and Ben Sims brought up some great points about opinions that were wrong...I think a lot of them had to do with maintenance issues/practices that certain design aspects magnified and/or created.

I would also add that these issues (and some additional ones) should be considered wrong if they spike the costs to build, maintain, and/or play golf to un-sustainable levels. 

For the life of me, I can't remember the name of that thread where Ben made those comments...sorry.



David...tell me what you see on the home page that trumpets a specific kind of golf course we are all supposed to like.  I see comments on "frank and honest commentary about golf architecture" and mentions of courses that are inspiring and fun.  Do you see more?  Am I missing something?

[Garland Bayley]

Opinions by definition are correct, unless you lie about them.
They are opinions folks. Hopefully subject to change, or this website is often a total waste of time.

[Tom_Doak]

Everything in golf is a matter of opinion.  There is not just one way to properly swing a club; not just one way to maintain a good playing surface; and not just one way to design good golf holes.

Some ways tend to work better than others, but it will never be unanimous that those are the right ways to do it.

[David Kelly]

David...tell me what you see on the home page that trumpets a specific kind of golf course we are all supposed to like.  I see comments on "frank and honest commentary about golf architecture" and mentions of courses that are inspiring and fun.  

I never said anything about trumpeting a specific course we are all supposed to like.  That is your characterization.

What I said was  "to advocate for a certain type of golf architecture," and if you don't think he has been doing that  then you haven't been reading his course profiles very closely.

This is what I was referring to, from the home page:

Pre-1899: The architectural skill employed in these courses is minimal and yet the lesson learned is invaluable: nature provides the most enduring challenge. The architects of this day spent only one or two days on site to stake out the tees and greens. They had few decisions to make: they didn’t have the ability to move much land. These courses have been largely modified over the past century to adjust to equipment changes.

1900-1937: For the first time, architects started to move and shape land to create hazards and add strategic interest. Such work started with the heathland courses outside of London and men like Charles Blair Macdonald brought it to America, where he coined the term ‘golf architect’ around 1910. Tom Simpson called the Roaring Twenties the ‘Golden Age’ of course design, and he was right.

1949-1985: The dark ages of course design and few courses are profiled from this period. The vast majority of the courses built during the Trent Jones era were based on length, contain little variety and offer few options. Pete Dye led the charge out of this bleak period of bland courses after his trip to Scotland in the 1960s.

Present: With every imaginable tool available to shape land, modern architects have numerous options that their fore-fathers never did. In the mid 1980s, architects manufactured courses with immense visual impact but often times lacking in strategy or charm. In addition, such penal courses proved to be expensive to maintain over time. As the new century began, architects appreciated once again how to maximize the subtleties in the existing land while tempering how much dirt they moved. In addition, the most successful courses tended to be among the less expensive to build as they were being built on natural sandy, albeit remote,sites. In this manner, golf architecture has come full circle from a century ago.

...While golf course architecture is a subjective art form, several key tenets have stood the test of time. These are explored in an effort to understand why some courses are more fascinating than others, and to understand why such courses continually beckon for a return game.

[Mac Plumart]

Thanks David.

[Sean_A]

I do think there are wrong opinions.  When folks talk about Doak 0s and 1s for example - its a load of hogwash.  A 0 or a 1, if it exists at all, does so in  the same numbers as a 10. 

I also think opinions are wrong when guys talk about "never" etc.  I don't like certain aspects of courses,  but I accept they must exist if only to provide as much variety as possible - which to me is should be the over-riding principle of golf design. 

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

FACTUALLY  you cant ague with an opinion......There are simply two school of thoughts one concurrs with this site the other likes fountains, lakes, receptive greens, length, carts, trees, cute naked cart girls, bacon sandwiches, GPS, white headed drivers.

[John Kavanaugh]

Grow up people.  Opinions are weapons used to hurt and manipulate people or situations.  They are most often wrong which is why everyone is not entitled to express them without reservation.  I yearn for the good ole days when economic filters, or a good punch in the nose, stifled the idiocy brought on by forums such as these.

[Ben Sims]

Grow up people.  Opinions are weapons used to hurt and manipulate people or situations.  They are most often wrong which is why everyone is not entitled to express them without reservation.  I yearn for the good ole days when economic filters, or a good punch in the nose, stifled the idiocy brought on by forums such as these.

I disagree.  My favorite thing about internet forums is how guys that are online douches are actually six figure philanthropists and the best foursome partners since Bobby Jones.  Really makes me feel like the online stuff matters when salts of the earth are 180 degrees opposite from their actual personalities when online.   

[Ronald Montesano]

Ben...you're a six-figure philanthropist?

Tale Of The Tape: Grumpy Curmudgeon Division...Melvyn v. John

[Mike_Young]

I think all opinions can be considered and one could probably say none are wrong.  But the GCA needs to be able to garner enough favorable opinions of what he puts on the ground to be successful.  If he guesses wrong he won't be for long.   

[Niall C]

Grow up people.  Opinions are weapons used to hurt and manipulate people or situations.  They are most often wrong which is why everyone is not entitled to express them without reservation.  I yearn for the good ole days when economic filters, or a good punch in the nose, stifled the idiocy brought on by forums such as these.

...so John, exactly how many times have you had your nose broken ?

Only kidding, Merry Christmas

Niall

[Michael George]

John - you may be correct when it comes to opinions on topics of great importance to society.  However, I don't think the strength of your words would apply to opinions on golf course architecture, which all of us love, but I think it is safe to say it does not rank in the top 1000 issues in the world today.

The reason I asked the question is that I was looking through my several editions of World Atlas of Golf and found significant attention to courses like Olympic, Firestone, Champions, Doral, Jupiter Hills, Palmetto Dunes, Dunes G & BC, CC of North Carolina and others that are routinely panned on this site.   Again, I like what I like and my opinions won't change - just wonder if I will be swimming against the tide in 20 years.

[Mac Plumart]

John - you may be correct when it comes to opinions on topics of great importance to society.  However, I don't think the strength of your words would apply to opinions on golf course architecture, which all of us love, but I think it is safe to say it does not rank in the top 1000 issues in the world today.

The reason I asked the question is that I was looking through my several editions of World Atlas of Golf and found significant attention to courses like Olympic, Firestone, Champions, Doral, Jupiter Hills, Palmetto Dunes, Dunes G & BC, CC of North Carolina and others that are routinely panned on this site.   Again, I like what I like and my opinions won't change - just wonder if I will be swimming against the tide in 20 years.

I've done similiar readings and I find it beyond fascinating to see how and why people think they like a golf course.  However, you last sentence nailed it with this, "I like what I like."

EDIT...Michael, one more thing worthy of note on opinions.  Have you checked out Mike Nuzzo's website?  He has a an article on there called, something like, "There is not a greatest golf course, just greatest golf courses."  If you haven't, read it.  It does a great job of identifying types of golfers and what types of courses they prefer.  How they view the game and what it is supposed to be has in influence on what courses they like and prefer.

[Tim Nugent]

MG, did you "like what you like" 20-30 yrs ago?  Or has it evolved to ehat it is today?  While I think you are sincere in believing that statement, I would love to be aroound in 20 yrs to see if it holds up.
Speaking from personal experience, I know I like different stuff now than I did 20 yrs ago.  Things that I thought, at the time, were novel and cutting edge have been adopted by the Pack and I constantly search for ways to break away from it.  Call it evolution.  I think architects get faced with this more because they tend to have run running associations with courses and it can sometimes take 10 or more years to impliment a Masterplan.  Of course, over that time, it is easy to see how ones opinions have changed because they are constantly measured against the Datum of the Masterplan.

[Mac Plumart]

MG, did you "like what you like" 20-30 yrs ago?  Or has it evolved to ehat it is today?  While I think you are sincere in believing that statement, I would love to be aroound in 20 yrs to see if it holds up.
Speaking from personal experience, I know I like different stuff now than I did 20 yrs ago.  Things that I thought, at the time, were novel and cutting edge have been adopted by the Pack and I constantly search for ways to break away from it.  Call it evolution.  I think architects get faced with this more because they tend to have run running associations with courses and it can sometimes take 10 or more years to impliment a Masterplan.  Of course, over that time, it is easy to see how ones opinions have changed because they are constantly measured against the Datum of the Masterplan.

Tim...great stuff there.  Great stuff.

[Philippe Binette]

Golf architecture is like any form of art...

a greater education would lead to a greater appreciation of the art... but it remains subjective.

The only thing is that some principles, like any form of art, have lasted through the years... and some innovations might become standards..

But if you've only seen one side of the art and are not open to at least understand the other sides, than all you have is an opinion, not an argumentation.

If all you've listened in life is Lady Gaga and Justin Beiber, can you say you know music and say it's the best music ever. No, you can only say you like it... then I can say I don't like it and it's the end of the debate,

Great art survives through time.. wheter it's Beethoven or Stairway to Heaven... which actually is closer musically than we might think

[Tim Nugent]

"Don't confuse me wth the facts, my minds already made up!"
"I have an opinion on the subject, I just don't know if it's the right one"

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()