[Rich_Goodale]

Tom

I did pick up Hunter's book--in your house, as a matter of fact!--and enjoyed it.  I did, however, not learn anything important from it that was not already intuitively obvious to me, or probably to most of the people on this site.

The issue is not and never has been about "touching" or not "touching" the land, but where and how the architect does so.  Every architect considers both the form and flow of the routing over the possible landscapes and land forms which the property offers as well as how the course will play when it is encountered by human beings with clubs in their hand, balls in their pocket and an opponent in their mind (even if that opponent is only the course or the golfer's own self).

I would prefer that the latter consideration have a greater share of the architect's mind than the former one, and believe that it does so for those courses that we do now or will in the future consider to be great.  That's all.

[John_D._Bernhardt]

Jeff that is an interesting point on moving play along and the lack of knowlege of the course. I still feel both are essential and that puts a burden on the design team to find both and let time be their friend as more and more people play and learn the strategic values of the course.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
As the site's resident Dornoch expert and the courses greatest advocate I'm surprised you are not more familar with the man responsible for its current design. George Duncan was a frequent visitor to the US, which included tours up and down the eastern seaboard. On his 1910 visit he got together with his good friend George Thomas in NJ who was designing Spring Lake. You are correct about Duncan's involvement in the Ryder Cup ('27, '29 and '31) in which he competed over two Ross courses (Worchester and Scioto) and a MacKenzie(Moortown). He was also a member of the US vs GB matches in 1920 and 1926. The Ryder Cup was scheduled to allow competitors to play in the US Open (Oakmont and Inverness). I'm not sure about the PGA, but I'd be curious if he competed in the '31 PGA at Wannamoisett, its 3rd is very similar to the 6th at Dornoch. So if I were to guess, and I know you don't mind guessing, I'd say the 6th at Dornoch is either a copy of Ross's #3-Wannamoisett, MacKenzie's #7-Palmetto or Bank's, #11-Essex County(NJ), or most likely Ross's #4-Scioto right here in Columbus!

I'm still not clear why an architect can not balance utilizing/blending natural features and strategy. Who said anything about a 50/50 ballance, I think they can both be considered 100% of the time, again they are not mutually exclusive. You claim they are often contradictory alternatives -- how are they often contradictory alternatives? Only if you believe that harmonizing golf course with nature means you can not move an ounce of dirt, which is not what anyone past or present advocated.

As far as the 6th at Dorncoh being unnatural, I beg to differ. If the 6th is unnatural because Duncan created a man-made shelf for the green in order to take advantage of that extraordinarily beautiful site, then the 12th at Cypress Point and 12th at Shoreacres are both unnatural. And we're talking about three of the greatest examples of architect harmonizing golf design with astounding natural features -- if they are unnatural then nothing is natural and everything is unnatural, from Bob Cupp's geometric nighmare to Cypress Point. We might as well close up this shop.

The reason is 6th is beautiful is due to Duncan's ability to harmonize his work with nature and to do it with limited interference -- I see no evidence of the hand of man between tee and green, and they both meld beautifully with the site. A modern designer might have leveled the ridge -- now that is unnatural.

I'll leave you with a quote from someone who is obviously not confused about golf and nature sharing the same stage, from 'My Own Course' on 6th at Dornoch:

From the tee you can watch the following group hitting into the 5th green. On the green you can watch other groups trying to deal with the problems of the approach to the 11th. You are a part of golf and a part of nature, and if you have been so lucky as to have hit the green, you are particularly blessed.

--Rich Goodale  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I never said an architect shouldn't consider strategy.

Please go back and read the second and third paragraph of my original post.  

I'm asking you to make a choice.

If you can't, or are reluctant to make it, I understand.

I just asked a simple question that requires a one word answer

TEPaul,

Relax, I'm not attacking C&C.

I put forth a simple question regarding form and substance, indicating that while having both was preferable,
if you couldln't have both which would you opt for.

There's no need to go off on wild tangents, or attempt to interpolate motive beyond the words, just make a choice based on your personal preference.

Me, I'd opt for substance/playability.

Spanish Bay would seem to me to be a course where form superceded substance on some of the holes.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I never said an architect shouldn't consider strategy.

Please go back and read the second and third paragraph of my original post.  

I'm asking you to make a choice.

If you can't, or are reluctant to make it, I understand.

I just asked a simple question that requires a one word answer

TEPaul,

Relax, I'm not attacking C&C.

I put forth a simple question regarding form and substance, indicating that while having both was preferable,
if you couldln't have both which would you opt for.

There's no need to go off on wild tangents, or attempt to interpolate motive beyond the words, just make a choice based on your personal preference.

Me, I'd opt for substance/playability.

Spanish Bay would seem to me to be a course where form superceded substance on some of the holes.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Isn't Spanish Bay a completely man-made job? I wonder why then they chose to ignored substance - certainly they weren't concerned with blending with nature? I'm still unclear as to why you can't have both.

[Rich_Goodale]

TomMacW

I don't think you can't have both, nor do I think Patrick does (although I could be wrong)--just that you can opt for more or less of either at various decision points in the design stage.

Vis a vis Dornoch, you know as well as anybody that I am just an idiot savant where it is concerned and what I know comes more from knowing the land rather than what anybody might or might not have done to it.  I pass on anecdotes and my own impressions as they occur to me.

Thanks for the info on Duncan.  AS far as I know, nobody has ever really thought through what he (and everybody else back to Old Tom and his maker) did at Dornoch.  There might be a a very interesting book there.......

On this whole "debate" on this thread, I agree with Pat that it has gone a bit OTT as they say in Blighty, and I throw in my mea culpa for my part in it.  Much as I continue to agree with Pat's almost tautological premise, I found it hard to think of good examples of the "bad" practice he was referring to.  IN fsact, the one I was going to come up with was ....Spanish Bay....

BTW, what exactly is that smiley face doing to me and my quote about the 6th on your penultimate post?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I thought that smiley with a single tear would reflect a certain poignancy, I didn't realize the damn thing was alive and would begin sobbing like a little girl.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

One could say that almost every course is completely man made, but Spanish Bay was not completely man made in the sense you imply.

I posted  previously that I thought this was one of the greatest potential sites in golf, yet, I think the results are disappointing, even understanding the heightened environmental problems California courses face.

Not knowing all the facts, it would seem that locating the Hotel further East, or elsewhere coiuld have resulted in a far superior product.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()