[Peter Pallotta]

What factors/events/influences/circumstances do you think led most of us to be a) golfers, b) who have an interest in the architecture of the courses we play and c) are drawn to finding and playing examples of quality architecture, far and wide and d) who then want to dig deeper into how/why we have experienced the architecture the way we did and e) who search back into the history and the philosophies past and present of golf architecture in order to contextualize this experience?

Please feel free to share your stories/histories. This is a completely subjective exercise.

Peter

[Ronald Montesano]

What factors/events/influences/circumstances do you think led most of us to be a) golfers

Golf course up the street from my childhood home, coupled with a rotator cuff tear at 14 years.

b) who have an interest in the architecture of the courses we play

Discovery of GCA and chance befriending of Kevin Lynch, whose growing interest (mid 2000s) in architecture paralleled mine.

c) are drawn to finding and playing examples of quality architecture, far and wide

Fact that I dabble in writing and photography, which allows me to parlay access (playing or simply photographing) to fine courses via giving something in return.

d) who then want to dig deeper into how/why we have experienced the architecture the way we did

ultimately I'd like to be admitted to a ratings panel, so that I can put what I've learned here to the ultimate test.

e) who search back into the history and the philosophies past and present of golf architecture in order to contextualize this experience?

This one is more difficult, as I don't have as much time to read the books I own, or should I say study in depth the books I own, to gain a global/historical perspective on golf course architecture...at least not yet. I think I'll have to give up coaching.

[Jordan Standefer]

My (real) interest in architecture came about the first time I played Pasatiempo in Santa Cruz, CA.  I was going up to the Bay Area and researching the best places to play and landed on Pasatiempo.  Prior to going I knew Alister Mackenzie designed Augusta and Cypress Point, among other great courses, but not much else.  After walking off the 18th green, I knew immediately it was the best course I had played up to that point.  But I couldn't really describe WHY it was the best.  The ability to articulate (to myself and others) why it was so great eluded me in certain aspects.  My interest simply came from wanting to be able to understand why great courses were great, which ultimately led me to this forum.

Three books that had a great impact on me regarding architecture were DREAM GOLF (by Stephen Goodwin), THE MATCH (by Mark Frost), and A GOLFER'S EDUCATION (by Darren Kilfara).  I know the latter two books aren't necessarily architecture books, but their descriptions of Cypress Point and the Scottish greats really expanded my horizons when it came to describing why great is great.  Also, I was able to experience the resort at Bandon Dunes immediately after reading DREAM GOLF, which gave me the opportunity to experience what I had just read.

[RJ_Daley]

Maybe for "us" so afflicted with GCA obsession, the pursuit of that illusive understanding of golf course architecture and our relationship with the various design forms found on the golf courses we seek out is like playing with our mashed potatoes.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqhE7ieH2R8

[Dan Kelly]

Peter,

There are times when I think I should go all the way from (a) to (e) with some of the rest of you, and someday I might, but the truth is that I really make it only from (a) to (c).

Dan

[Rich Goodale]

Dan

Resist those thoughts about going from a. to e., as there really is no d. and e., except in the hallucinations of a few Old Dead Guys, and a few of their latter day disciples.

Dick

Am I the only one to think that Jim Urbina was channeling Richard Dreyfuss when he made that mashed potato video of designing a green at Old MacDonald?

Rich

[RJ_Daley]

Nope, you are not the only one.  I almost posted the link to the movie trailer on that playing in the sand thread, but it took Peter's ponder to draw it out of me.  

[Peter Pallotta]

Rich - is that you, the Rich Goodale who wrote so lovingly and knowingly about experiencing courses like St Andrews and Dornoch, or is it the other Rich Goodale, the one who occasionally pokes his head up to mock the idea of taking anything -- let alone golf courses -- so seriously?

Me - well, I took golf up later in life because it seemed like a potentially fun thing to do, and because as a city boy born and bred the golf course was as close to nature as I could/would get. Slowly but surely I fell in love with the game. And then as years went by I found I liked some courses better than others, and it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the 'architecture' was what made the difference. (Then I mostly skip "c" as I find I neither have enough time nor enough money nor make it a high enough priority to travel far and wide.) But then I stumbled onto this site, and started seeing photos of wonderful courses classic and modern, and was impressed (when I was impressed) by how beautiful and natural a course could look/feel (and how peaceful it could make me feel), and so I started reading back and asking questions and found that there were those people past and present who thought and wrote about and sometimes managed to create those very kind of courses, i.e. beautiful, natural, peace-inspiring places of play, and that they did so intentionally, and with a purpose, and based on a philosophy of what served the golfer and the game and the human spirit best. (And if these poor deluded artist-craftsmen were only 'hallucinating' then bring on a ton more such hallucinations, I say.) It's very satisfying and inspiring to me, to this day, to read about people who approach their given vocation/work with respect and talent and dedication and a sense that -- done well, and to the highest standards -- it can and does have value in the world, and does serve other people.

Peter  

[John Cowden]

One thread asking why we enjoy and appreciate what we do has morphed into another thread about Jim Urbina doing a Richard Dreyfus cameo and projecting his inner thought, not sure from whence it came, onto sand and clay.   I think that's actually pretty appropriate.   I don't know Jim Urbina but I've had the pleasure of crossings paths with him serendipitously on several occasions that were always special to me for a variety of reasons.

I first saw Jim sitting on a backhoe at Pasatiempo, literally sculpting a bunker, using the bucket like a finer implement, restoring the bunker at the left front of no. 4.   It was a treat to watch how fine and precise his cuts were, and then to chat a bit about the restoration then underway.  This was
happening in my backyard, where I'd grown up and now treasured just how special a place it was.

 A couple years later, as I was walking from the no. 6 green at Pacific to the next tee, I emerged from a delightful tunnel of gorse (regrettably now lost with other similar delights thanks to the resort's gorse eradication efforts) to see Jim to my right, standing as far back on the tee as possible, practically in the gorse, looking ahead of me, down the empty fairway.  There was no buggy or any sort of transport around.  I actually had to turn and look back over my shoulder to see Jim there.  I stopped and we smiled at each other.  I can't remember what sort of greeting we exchanged, but we recognized each other from our earlier meeting.  I recalled hearing earlier about certain "power spots" on Pacifc.  Maybe Grant Rogers had shared something like that with me.  Maybe I had just tumbled to the sense of them with like-minded companions experiencing this ground in all sorts of conditions and frames of mind.  However the thought came to my mind, I recalled suggesting that perhaps this was one such spot.  His huge smile told me all I needed to know about why we all share this very special interest.

[RJ_Daley]

To treat Peter’s question more seriously than my first attempt at humor, I would say to answer what my observations have been in participating on this site for several years and learning the background of some of the long time posters, I’d answer in a general sense:

What factors/events/influences/circumstances do you think led most of us to be a) golfers.
   I think many golfers take up the game as part of a relationship with their Fathers, or as a social experience to recreate with friends.
b) who have an interest in the architecture of the courses we play.
   I think for many of us, there has been a widely reported “ah-ha” moment where we start to see that the field of play presents distinctly identifiable features that are not random, and whoever created or routed the field of play had a very specific purpose in mind, to challenge or stimulate our imagination to enhance our golfing experience.  Thus, an interest develops where the casual golfer takes up a deeper level of awareness of the field of play.
and c) are drawn to finding and playing examples of quality architecture, far and wide.
   As one recognizes the intention of the design process and that there are architects far and wide from differing era and traditions who have had many ideas on how to present the challenge of the game, naturally one seeks more examples to experience if one enjoys the subject.  
and d) who then want to dig deeper into how/why we have experienced the architecture the way we did.
   The interest creates the desire to discuss with others who similarly enjoy and learn of their varied experiences and opinions of other venues. So, the curious people seek more.  That leads to seeking out books and magazines that explain it further.

and e) who search back into the history and the philosophies past and present of golf architecture in order to contextualize this experience?
   This last step isn’t taken by all, as Dan speaks of going from (a) to (c) and some on to (d) and that is enough.  The last step is for the real students and teachers who are deeply motivated and will take time to research.  These are the ones that yearn to master the subject in a much more intellectual manner, and to pass on the traditions and value of the subject to future golfers.  Without the last type, we have mostly a group of generally-knowledgeable belt notchers who know what they like and know there is a wide world of GCA to pursue, but don’t necessarily do anything to preserve and pass on.  

[Colin Macqueen]

Peter, Are you going to use this material provided by all and sundry to concoct some screen-play or other and make a zillion bucks!

Any way to work, speaking for myself.

What factors/events/influences/circumstances do you think led most of us to be
a) golfers?
My first exposure to golf was, a forgotten episode as I was only 3 years old, where I sat on my Mum's lap in the bay window of our house overlooking the eighteenth green as ben Hogan putted out to win The Open. The seed planted then germinated 8 years later. I was a wee toe-rag living just outside Dundee, towards Broughty Ferry near Carnoustie, and the next door neighbour, over summer, used to go off and play, in the gloaming, the aforementioned links a couple of times a week.  I was mesmerised by the clubs, the balls, the colour of the tees, the ball markers, all the paraphernalia. By hanging around like a spare fish-supper with a hang-dog expression on its face (howzat for mixed metaphor!) I eventually got asked if I'd like to caddy. Then of course I was smitten by the game itself. The The triumphs and the disappointments tumbling on top of one another as a game progressed. I just had to have a piece of this. Much to my delight I found in the attic, old, long-abandoned, clubs belonging to my Mum and Dad from their student days. The old irons, a brassie and a spoon set me off on this path to perdition. It was out into the extensive garden where I hit pebbles, pine-cones and chestnuts until Mum came to my rescue and bought me a six-pack of plastic "wiffle" balls. My fate was sealed!

What factors/events/influences/circumstances do you think led most of us to
b) have an interest in the architecture of the courses we play?
 I can't really put my finger on this one. I wandered over Carnoustie, Burnside and Panmure golf courses for years as a callow youth. I knew that Carnoustie and St. Andrews were considered golf courses nonpareil but never understood why. I never recognised until twenty years later what a high  baseline this was. By my mid-twenties I guess I could hit a golf ball in the approximate direction hoped for about half the time so started to recognise more clearly that golf courses were set out to snare the unwary and reward the intelligent! I saw that strategy was embedded in a golf course. I was initially much more interested in the agronomy associated with golf courses and from there my reading led to Cornish and Whitten's "The Golf Course" and an early copy of Golf Club Atlas.


What factors/events/influences/circumstances do you think led most of us to
c) be drawn to finding and playing examples of quality architecture, far and wide?
This was ignited by reading once again of so many wonderful course from links to heath to parkland to desert. I hadn't internalised that fact that inland courses had such a different sub-stratum from the courses of my youth. I hadn't understood how different and probably more difficult it was, and presumably still is, to carve a course out of pine forest or heathland. Comparing this to the early days of Scottish links creation where the hackers (golfers!) and sheep dictated the routing, fairways and greens meant I was intrigued to see latter day offerings.


I am not sure I understand this (d) or (e) part of the questionnaire? Maybe I haven't understood the others either but here goes!
What factors/events/influences/circumstances do you think led most of us to
d) then want to dig deeper into how/why we have experienced the architecture the way we did?
and
e) search back into the history and the philosophies past and present of golf architecture in order to contextualize this experience?

I like reading full stop so it was natural for me to try and find out more about the Behr-Crane debate for instance or to try and understand The Line of Instinct versus The Line of Charm (not sure that I do yet!). Reading Haultain's "The Mystery of Golf" made me realise that I was not the first to be enamoured and at the same time frustrated by the vagaries of golf and its architecture. The chapter in The Badminton series by H.G. Hutchinson "Some Celebrated Links" brought home to me the importance of connecting the modern golf architecture to the days of old. I think it is important to make these links. Shivas Irons was a hero of mine as soon as I read Golf in The Kingdom! As a perfervid golfer I needed this daft book to make me realise that I could use the gowf to temper my worst inclinations on the course. And it has worked!
As far as the "architectooral" side of things is concerned I just wanted to have a better understanding of what it all encompassed so that possibly in talking to younger golfers I could gabber on albeit in a somewhat ill-informed vein about architecture, its men of stature and strategies rather than blether about who scored what and how over the last round!

The above was all probably a bit long-winded and I wrote it before looking at other peoples responses. So I wonder if you are garnering any good material!!!  I'll toss this in and have a look.

Cheers Colin

[John Kavanaugh]

ultimately I'd like to be admitted to a ratings panel, so that I can put what I've learned here to the ultimate test.

How is turning in a ballot to Golfweek a test?  Why not just create phantom ballots and compare your opinions to their published results? To me the ultimate test is to do what you have done in the past, publish your own opinions and see if anyone cares.
 
Perhaps what you really want is a rater card that verifies your expert status. I hope you get what you want.

[Rich Goodale]

Rich - is that you, the Rich Goodale who wrote so lovingly and knowingly about experiencing courses like St Andrews and Dornoch, or is it the other Rich Goodale, the one who occasionally pokes his head up to mock the idea of taking anything -- let alone golf courses -- so seriously?

Peter  

Same old Rich Goodale, who believes that the greatest courses have evolved rather than been made and located rather than designed.  I take golf far too seriously as it is (I'm on this site, after all.....), but I do know enough to understand that every golf course has its own merits and that there is not a course in the world that I would not enjoy playing, particularly with copasetic souls, even those who over-analyse what is, in the end, only a bloody game.

Slainte

Rich

[Sven Nilsen]

Rich:

You used a great word, which was "found."  I'd agree that there are a lot of great courses that were found, especially in the part of the world where you play most of your golf these days.

However, there's a vein of courses that could not have been found, as the land that was available for golf in that particular area did not naturally lend itself to the game of golf.  And many of those courses were "great" once construction was complete, and would be considered great now if we could play it under its opening day conditions.  Of course, there are also a number of courses that have grown into their pedigree, which is another story in itself.

I'd hope there's room on the list of greats for found, built and/or evolved courses, but I guess it comes down to an individuals definition of the criteria.

All the best,

Sven

[Bill Brightly]

I had been a member of my club, a Banks course, for 25 years and never knew about Banks' ties to Raynor or Macdonald. I knew nothing about NGLA. I was just elected to the board when the club president invited me to take a tour of the course with some guy named George Bahto... They started talking about restoring the course, getting us back to our Macdonald-Raynor roots. I was somewhat interested, until we got to the third hole and they described how we should restore the Biarritz, complete with new short side bunkers and a front putting surface. I told them they were NUTS! That would look stupid, unlike any long par 3 I had ever seen.

I went home and started googling Raynor and Macdonald. The search results kept coming up with Golf Club Atlas threads, complete with full discussions about template holes, including the Biarritz. I went to work the next day and discovered Courses by Country, and then I was hooked. I think I created files for about 25 MacRaynors, including printing color images from Google Earth. I quickly became obsessed with restoring our course.

As it happened, our club president got transferred to Minneapolis, but he shad tumbled upon a compulsive moron with time on his hands (me)who joined with the incoming president and others to create a master renovation plan.  I immediately became embroiled in numerous online battles with Wayne Morrison as I had to defend Raynor's "manufactured" look, but that simply made me do my homework more thoroughly.

So that's how I came to GCA.COM.

[Tim Lewis]

My interest was sparked when I had the opportunity to play both Spyglass Hill and Milwaukee CC in the same summer. After playing Spyglass Hill, I knew it was better than all golf courses that I had ever played, and determined that the reason for this was because of the spectacular location. I then proceeded to start investigating the lists, and rankings, to see what the best courses in the world were. As I looked at pictures of these courses I determined that the only thing that made a great golf course was an incredible setting. I had determined that a golf courses merits rest only on the aesthetic qualities of that course. Then I played MCC and my entire notion of what a great golf course was shattered. Here was a course, that had a very pleasing aesthetic quality, but did not compare to Spyglass Hill's setting, and yet I still enjoyed my round at MCC more than I had my round at Spyglass Hill. In a quest to figure out why, I started to investigate, and I was led to this site, along with being led to the multitude of literature that exists concerning golf course architecture. Golf course architecture then, over a course of a year and a half, went from something that I enjoyed learning about in my free time, to something that I want to do for the rest of my life. Over the past couple years that I have been trying to figure out why MCC made me feel the way it did, I have learned alot, but I have determined that a great golf course should make you feel exactly how MCC made me feel that day. It should make you feel like you know that it is a great course, but that you can't exactly put your finger on why it is a great course.

[Ronald Montesano]

How is turning in a ballot to Golfweek a test?  \

Who said anything about Golfweek?

Why not just create phantom ballots and compare your opinions to their published results? To me the ultimate test is to do what you have done in the past, publish your own opinions and see if anyone cares.
\

I'm not interested in whether anyone cares, John.
 

Perhaps what you really want is a rater card that verifies your expert status. I hope you get what you want.

Nope, that's not it. Too superficial. Thanks for the good wishes, though. I hope that you get what you want, too.

[Joe Bausch]

So that's how I came to GCA.COM.

:-)

[Bradley Anderson]

I entered the field of greenkeeping after high school because it was a lot like farming. I had grown up working on my grandfather's dairy farm every summer and I always wanted to be a farmer. Greenkeeping was the closest thing to farming that I could find. I also played a lot of Junior Golf. In my hometown, Rockford, the junior golf pass got you on any of the 4 golf courses all summer for $2.00 a year!

My first job as an assistant greenkeeper was at Old Elm Club. I was blown away by the beauty of the bunkers at Old Elm. My boss encouraged me to play golf on the great golf courses in Chicago. Shoreacres was the golf course that really amazed me. I started learning about architecture and taking an interest in the history of maintenance. There was a barn at Old Elm where the original mowing equipment and sprinklers were stored. They even had the lanterns that the irrigation men would use when watering at night.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks gents. I enjoyed reading some small bits of your 'histories' - and JCowden, I very much liked your Jim Urbina 'moment', and Colin's early early memory of Mr. Hogan.  

Rich - I too know it's just a game, but when you offer the interesting insights/opinions you do in your last post, it confirms for me that many of us really have spent time thinking deeply about about the game and the architecture -- and so I was asking how/why we came to that level of interest.  

Peter

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

For me it was when I woke up one morning and realised how fortunate I had been to play so many great courses and that I had taken much of that for granted.
I stumbled upon this site and was hooked to join like fellows who were passionate about the game and appreciated good golf courses.
I started to read about the Golden Age, realised I had played many of the courses mentioned and started to dig through pictures, yardgae books and notes I had made during tournaments, and realised I had a fairly good grasp on what constitues a good golf course to me.

The I was hhoked and had the desire to play more courses even at the expense of playing less tournament golf.
Then I realised how much fun just playing is and I rediscovered my true love for the game which I had certainly misplaced during the trials and tribulations og tournament golf.

[Dan Kelly]

I too know it's just a game....

Peter --

I politely but firmly disagree.

All of us, including Rich, know that, at least for us, golf is not just a game (or a sport, for that matter, if you prefer -- a discussion that interests me not in the least bit [see below]).

And all of us, including Rich, know that a golf course is not just a collection of holes. A golf course is, or at least can be, a work of both art and craft.

But, speaking for myself only: I'm not sure that my own experience of golf is enhanced much, if at all, by digging deeper into the whys of that art-making, or by contextualizing it (whatever that means; no offense intended).

Words are as inadequate as photographs to capture the essence of the best golf courses.

I remember, back in high school, when a teacher said he considered me an "intellectual." I politely but firmly disagreed -- and told him so. And I was right.

It seems to me that there's a clear dividing line here: Those of you who go on past (c) to (d) and (e) are the intellectuals of the group, at least when it comes to golf.

To paraphrase the much-missed Tom Paul: It takes lots of kinds to make a world.

Dan

P.S. I became a golfer because my Dad (a once-in-a-blue-moon, mostly business golfer) gave me a Rawlings 6-iron for Christmas when I was about 10, and some plastic golf balls that I loved to swat around the yard, with the "holes" being various tree trunks.

I loved every ball sport. Still do. Golf is the best of them, because, unlike the others, (a) your wrecked old body will still allow you to play it decently, and (b) it takes you to beautiful places, with very good company.

[John Kavanaugh]

You who believe that you are intellectuals in golf remind me of the blind man who believes he can describe the beauty of a woman by her smell alone.  There is often little to be gained by breaking the blind mans heart with the heavy handed truth of his mistakes.  You and your courses, much like fatty and cloudy, deserve each other.

[Sean_A]

Like many, A-C comes naturally.  That is, friends, parents etc introduce one to the game.  A small percentage carry on and an even smaller percentage actually care about design.  Many probably got ideas (usually wrong ones) from tv golf; its a huge influence.  Curiously, I only watch a few events per year now.  My thoughts on the game have closed in to such a narrow subsection of design and maintenance that I don't care about the wider game, the majority of courses etc - they just don't interest me.  

The D & E aspects I often find a bit too esoteric for my tastes.  I tend to back away from mumbo jumbo, especially when concerning a game.  That doesn't mean I don't want others to engage in the philosophical side of the game, but I honestly think this stuff is over-thought.  Golf isn't that complicated.    

Ciao    

[Lyne Morrison]

Peter, with regards D&E

Some modern courses are soulless; they serve a purpose but lack a sense of enchantment. Looking back at history helps us to find the roots of design – to rediscover where we lost the humanity of the discipline and to reconnect with the true nature or naturalness of the game. This is expressed in the way sites are worked, in the details, in the sensory experience and character of the environment.

Seeking out the best gives us insight, context, a glimpse and sense of times past. In traveling we undertake a journey that opens our eyes, expands our sense of curiosity. We can 'feel' the ground and touch the air once walked upon by those who have made a meaningful contribution and we can learn more of the masters who pioneered those early paths; those who left a story to influence later generations; teasing, surprising and inspiring us.

Lyne

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()