Great Architects vs Good Architects - Theory #1

[Peter Pallotta]

Great architects want/intend for us to OWN their golf courses; good architects want/intend for us to PLAY their golf courses.

Please discuss, if you are so inclined....


Peter

[Greg Tallman]

Change OWN to EXPLORE

[Mac Plumart]

Peter, it would be great  for you to flesh these thoughts out a bit more.  From what I see and where I think you are headed, I am leaning towards analyzing great developers/owners/management teams rather than the golf course architect. 

Thoughts?

[Peter Pallotta]

Mac - I've been thinking about your question. I'm inclined to leave the theory unexplained. I find that, if I try to add more details, and use phrases/concepts that we've discussed here very often already, it just narrows down the 'field of play' in precisely that way I don't want.  The idea of an architect intending us to 'own' the course is not about or only or precisely or necessarily about wide corridors or options or strategy or freedom or the ground games or the hand of man etc.  What it IS about -- i.e. what makes that magical difference in subjective experience of true 'participation' in/with a course -- is what I was wondering.

Greg - very nice, thanks.  But alas, I will have to let the theory live or die in its currently constituted form

Peter

[Mike_Young]

Peter,
I understand the gist of what you are saying and don't know exactly where to take it.  I think often something is not considered great until after the architect is long gone and the maturation of the course along with the help of a good budget/membership has allowed for it to be "found".  BUT if I were to go further I would have to say that "architect" as it relates to golf is a very misunderstood word.  I think we have tried so hard for over 60 years to justify the word or profession yet it just can't be done.  The great stuff has always been built not "architected" ( new word) ...and it has been on exceptional land.  No different than a cabinetmaker or a sculptor, is the creator of a golf course.  Now i'm not talking about just any general contractor that takes a phone call from a "golf architect" and says put green #7 from course A on hole #2 at Course B.  I am talking a person who has studied the art and knows how to route and knows what he wants and  is with his crew getting it done the way he sees it on the ground.   Everything else is just hype.  IMHO.

[Mac Plumart]

Hmmm...

Okay, I'll go with great architects only.  Great architects want you to own their courses.  Good ones want you to play them.

To me, if you own something you become intimately familiar with it.  You discover hidden nuances.  In fact, the more you play it...the more you discover.  There is more than meets the eye and only time and numerous plays will illuminate the hidden facets of the course to its owners.

Playing a course once, or a limited number of times, will reveal the obvious.  Perhaps architects that are only good can not build an endlessly fascinating course and can only satisfy players...not owners.

[Tom_Doak]

I would never have thought to use the concept of "ownership" to describe how I want people to interact with my golf courses.  But it's a good word.

The difference between playing a course and owning one is that the former is simply restricted to how you play and what you shot, while the latter encompasses all elements of the experience and how the course fits in with its surroundings.  And, yes, I think great golf architects care much more about those aspects than other architects do.

[Ben Sims]

I don't know if I like the word "own" for great architects.  Reading CB Macdonald and MacKenzie, you get the feeling that their ego would preclude someone "owning" their golf courses.  Ownership would imply knowing the in's and out's in a way that I don't know if great architects would be comfortable with.

Conversely, I've been privy to seeing wry grins on the face of guys like Tom and Mike when someone "uses" their golf course smartly.  That's not ownership to me, that's using a golf course feature in a way that it was intended. 

I think good architects want golfers to be befuddled even when they play within themselves and smartly.  I've seen in person where Tom and Mike are more than happy to concede something to a player when they figure out one of the tricks.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, gents. 

I should say that the concept of a golfer "owning" the course I took from Mark Bourgeois; I think he captured something perfectly in the use of the term. 

I decided to extend the idea a bit in suggesting that the great (vs good) do things and don't do things in the service of helping golfers feel this ownership.

Peter

[Mike_Young]

Whole vs. hole has much to do with it also.

[Don_Mahaffey]

I don't know if I like the word "own" to describe what the great ones want me to feel.
I have a very hard time trying to describe the difference between good and great...and to be clear, I like good golf courses. They don't have to be great to be enjoyable.
But, the great ones are different and to me it seems like its because they are more then about golf shots. They are back drops, peek a boo looks at something cool you'll experience later, vistas, pacing, and yes, history...the great ones keep you in the moment...I remember when I first played Pac Dunes, I lost track of what hole I was on and really didn't know what I was relative to par, I was just enjoying the course.
Athletes will tell you they play their best when they are in a "zone"...I describe that zone as being completely in the moment, not thinking about the past or future, just experiencing and reacting to what it happening now. When a course is so good and so enjoyable that I get lost within it, that's when I think its truly great. That's a high bar, but then I think the work great is overused.

[Colin Macqueen]

Gentlemen,

I may be way offbeam here but I understand PP's question not to be about the course as such but about the architect's ability to create a course that becomes part of oneself. The course ingratiates itself with you. The style of the course, its nuances and setting fits unerringly with your psyche and personality and you own it in that sense.

So my take is that the course can be any course, a classic parkland, a links, ones home course or a dog-track that has captured you and your imagination. In short you "own" that golf course in the sense that you "own" your philosophies, political leanings, religiosity and ideas.

Under these circumstances the architect has become great rather than good by succeeding in this regard.

Or was the above a lot of twaddle?!

P.S. I also saw Mark Bourgoise's use of the word "own" and presumed this is what he meant...maybe he didn't...but then who am I to understand Mark?

Cheers Colin

[Greg Tallman]

Good architects ask WHY. Great architects ask WHY NOT?

[Lyne Morrison]

Peter, my feeling is the sensorial experience that contributes to ‘ownership’ is connected to the specific 'energy' the overall environment holds.
 
When gifted architects are provided a special and unique site and also the freedom to work with that land as they see fit, they will inevitably produce a superior course.

All of these elements – a distinctive, compelling and absorbing site; a gifted architect with freedom in his brief; appropriate and respectful maintenance regimes - need to come together as a whole for a golfer to have the sporting, physical and spiritual experience that was described by Jeff Fortson in my recent NGLA thread.

And hence a special piece of ground, the work of a great architect and all the associated elements come together and ‘own’ a part of you. The exceptional ability of the Architect is but one part.

It is all interconnected.

Some architects are gifted and are fortunate to be provided the support to realize these gifts. Others are simply good rather than great; or indifferent and not so in tune. Some good architects could be great if they were provided the professional package noted above – few are.

Cheers, Lyne

[Mac Plumart]

Love the idea in the last post that a great courses "owns" a part of you.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks again, all, for turning this into a fine thread -- with not a hint of twaddle at all. Really good points, thanks.

Peter

[Michael Goldstein]

PP: Maybe you have it the wrong way around...

A child PLAYS with a toy. They are forever intrigued by it coming up with creative uses to keep them occupied.  They accept it for what it is - fun.

An adult OWNS their car.  They can be possessive, egoic and competitive.  Yes, it is a more valuable object but is it more valuable at a deeper level?