[Bart Bradley]

Are there consensus IDEALS by which to evaluate GCA or is it all simply subjective and personal opinion?  If there ARE consensus ideals, when a course fails to meet one of those ideals is it okay to identify that failure as a constructive criticism?  If there are no consensus ideals, are we simply left praising what is Fun or what is Cool and does that really mean anything universal?

Discuss!

Bart

[Tom_Doak]

Bart:

There are many such ideals, promoted by various individuals.  But pretty much all of them have exceptions.  I'll let people propose a few, and then try to prove my point with exceptions to their rules tomorrow.

[Patrick_Mucci]

An enjoyable challenge would be one on my list .

[JMEvensky]

An enjoyable challenge would be one on my list .

I agree--and I can't thing of a single course attribute which is more personal and less "consensus".

Isn't any measuring stick for golf courses a fool's errand? Architects are the only people qualified to call one good or bad--and they have their own biases. The rest of us pretty much just see them through the prisms of our own games.

[Mark Saltzman]

Bart:

There are many such ideals, promoted by various individuals.  But pretty much all of them have exceptions.  I'll let people propose a few, and then try to prove my point with exceptions to their rules tomorrow.

Tom, exceptions to an ideal do not make an ideal any less of an ideal. Short green to tee walks is an ideal. Just because a course can be great without short green to tee walks does not make the ideal wrong.

[Bart Bradley]

Bart:

There are many such ideals, promoted by various individuals.  But pretty much all of them have exceptions.  I'll let people propose a few, and then try to prove my point with exceptions to their rules tomorrow.

Okay, Tom I look forward to your input.

How about this one:

The course and greens shall have substantial contour and undulation which produce interesting shots.  IDEAL:  Contour and Undulation.

Bart

[Bart Bradley]

Bart:

There are many such ideals, promoted by various individuals.  But pretty much all of them have exceptions.  I'll let people propose a few, and then try to prove my point with exceptions to their rules tomorrow.

Tom, exceptions to an ideal do not make an ideal any less of an ideal. Short green to tee walks is an ideal. Just because a course can be great without short green to tee walks does not make the ideal wrong.

Mark:

This is very true.  To point out an example where a course violates an ideal but is still great means that the course overcame its weakness...very rarely would a course be great BECAUSE it violated an ideal.

Bart

[Chris Johnston]

Bart:

There are many such ideals, promoted by various individuals.  But pretty much all of them have exceptions.  I'll let people propose a few, and then try to prove my point with exceptions to their rules tomorrow.

Tom, exceptions to an ideal do not make an ideal any less of an ideal. Short green to tee walks is an ideal. Just because a course can be great without short green to tee walks does not make the ideal wrong.

Mark:

This is very true.  To point out an example where a course violates an ideal but is still great means that the course overcame its weakness...very rarely would a course be great BECAUSE it violated an ideal.

Bart

Bart,

If the faiways are wet and not firm or hard as a rock, and/or the greens have to be maintained at speeds slower than average or are maintained too fast for the substantial contours, that ideal probably isn't ideal at all.  Both "firm and speed" are subjective to the ideal.

CJ

[Tom_Doak]

Bart:

There are many such ideals, promoted by various individuals.  But pretty much all of them have exceptions.  I'll let people propose a few, and then try to prove my point with exceptions to their rules tomorrow.

Tom, exceptions to an ideal do not make an ideal any less of an ideal. Short green to tee walks is an ideal. Just because a course can be great without short green to tee walks does not make the ideal wrong.

Mark:

This is very true.  To point out an example where a course violates an ideal but is still great means that the course overcame its weakness...very rarely would a course be great BECAUSE it violated an ideal.

Bart

And this is where I disagree, wholly and completely.

So-called "IDEALS" are the route to standardized design, where everyone is afraid to do anything different.

Just because a course does not fit your definition of "ideal" does not mean it has a "weakness".  Such labeling is arrogance in the extreme.

Best and simplest example:  ideally, a course would be playable for all levels of golfers.  So, does Pine Valley suck?

[Chris Johnston]

Tom, would you agree that any of variety of shots and holes, and uniqueness and use of site are ideal in architecture?  Or, is that simply too standardized as well?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom, would you agree that any of variety of shots and holes, and uniqueness and use of site are ideal in architecture?  Or, is that simply too standardized as well?

Chris:

I'm not sure I understand your question.

Variety, to me, is the one ideal.  Variety at the hole-to-hole level, and at the course-to-course level.

The only way that architecture grows is by trial and error -- not by theories and ideals.   However, one essential of trial and error is that someone is there to sort out the errors, because there will be lots of errors, and save the few new bits that are really compelling.

[RJ_Daley]

It may not be everyone's ideal, but I think it is a consensus attribute when we speak of "firm and fast" in context with maintenance meld.  It is a sliding scale of what we interpret as ideal-firmness, and speed, however.  I think consensus of the participants in this discussion would exceed >50% believe 'firm and fast' is an ideal.  But, if it is firm and fast on a course presented with narrow fairways, and too thick rough, not enough intermediate cut, then the ideal becomes a negative because the playability factor of enjoyment or strategy becomes restricted.  

Walkability may be a consensus ideal, however once again, it is not universal.  There are probably great courses that aren't walkable at all, although I can't think of a single one that is consensus 'great' if it isn't walkable.  Can you?

Ross and MacKenzie obviously struggled with this set of ideals in their points of what defines great architecture.  All we are doing is carrying on and oft repeating what has already been suggested as ideals by the greats.  I don't think it is arrogance, because I think most all of us know the difference between 'ideals', 'our ideals' and 'universal truths'.  It is all about consensus, and that rarely gets over 50% on any attribute, it seems to me.

Added:  Tom, I think most architects strive for variety from hole to hole through a course design's 18 holes as an ideal.  Obviously.  But, do great architects strive for variety from project to project?  Do some architects and builders strive for a consistent theme, construction style, method of attacking the land as a project of staging (what to work on in some chronological or strategy of construction phasing order)?  Does that lead to lack of variety?   

[Peter Pallotta]

Time and Talent - I think those who have enough time and talent understand and make manifest the fundamentals of an art-craft. It is these fundamentals that both underpin the principles the rest of us identify/name and form the basis for the rules that lesser talents stick to religiously. Ideals -- in the way many of us have been using the word -- are an expression of these fundamentals; but like all such expressions are filtered through the character of the artist-craftsmen and modified by the materials/site at his disposal, and so can take many different forms while still staying true to the fundamentals.

Peter

[John Kirk]

Bart:

There are many such ideals, promoted by various individuals.  But pretty much all of them have exceptions.  I'll let people propose a few, and then try to prove my point with exceptions to their rules tomorrow.

Okay, Tom I look forward to your input.

How about this one:

The course and greens shall have substantial contour and undulation which produce interesting shots.  IDEAL:  Contour and Undulation.

Bart

1A.  The course and greens shall have a wide variety of contour and undulation.  (Nothing wrong with a dead flat green or fairway in there somewhere).

1B.  The course shall provide golf holes with a variety of lengths and strategic challenges.

2.  The course shall be reasonably walkable for an able bodied man aged 65 and under.  Refute that.

3.  There shall be no artificial water hazards.

4.  The course shall provide a comprehensive test of the player's golfing ability.

5.  The course shall provide enjoyment for players of all abilities.  Hey, it's an ideal.  Realistically, it should be enjoyable for experts and advanced beginners alike.

Oh man, there are lots of ideals.

[Tom_Doak]

Time and Talent - I think those who have enough time and talent understand and express and the fundamentals of an art-craft. It is these fundamentals that both underpin the principles the rest of us identify/name and form the bases for the rules that lesser talents stick to religiously.

Peter

"The Extended Disorder Family (or Cluster):
(i) uncertainty
(ii) variability
(iii) imperfect, incomplete knowledge
(iv) chance
(v) chaos
(vi) volatility
(vii) disorder
(viii) entropy
(ix) time
(x) the unknown
(xi) randomness
(xii) turmoil
(xiii) stressor
(xiv) error
(xv) dispersion of outcomes
(xvi) unknowledge

Why item (ix), time?  Time is functionally similar to volatility:  the more time, the more events, the more disorder.  Consider that if you can suffer limited harm and are antifragile to small errors, time brings the kind of errors or reverse errors that end up benefiting you.  This is simply what your grandmother calls experience.  The fragile breaks with time."

[Andy Troeger]

Alright--I haven't posted in awhile but I like this question.

There are no ideals. All subjective. What makes a course fun for me might make someone else dislike it. Many times we (myself included) like to project our own tastes as being universally desirable, but in the end people play the game for different reasons and that makes consensus impossible.

As an example I will pick on Bart--I don't think substantial contour is an ideal at all. My take on contour is that done right it can be great fun, but not always. Just in general, greens and green complexes are less important to my enjoyment of the game than for many of you.

I like variety and enjoy that courses don't all fit the same mold.

[Andy Troeger]

1A.  The course and greens shall have a wide variety of contour and undulation.  (Nothing wrong with a dead flat green or fairway in there somewhere).

1B.  The course shall provide golf holes with a variety of lengths and strategic challenges.

2.  The course shall be reasonably walkable for an able bodied man aged 65 and under.  Refute that.

3.  There shall be no artificial water hazards.

4.  The course shall provide a comprehensive test of the player's golfing ability.

5.  The course shall provide enjoyment for players of all abilities.  Hey, it's an ideal.  Realistically, it should be enjoyable for experts and advanced beginners alike.

Oh man, there are lots of ideals.

This is a great example of what I mean. These are John's ideals. I only agree with a couple of them: 1B and 2. I don't care if courses are enjoyable for everyone--I'm selfish and want them to be enjoyable for me!  I certainly don't care if it tests every aspect of my game. I don't have anything against interesting manufactured hazards. And for people that don't care about walking, you can easily cross of #2. I'm sure someone out there could refute 1B. Everything is subjective!

[Patrick_Mucci]

1A.  The course and greens shall have a wide variety of contour and undulation.  (Nothing wrong with a dead flat green or fairway in there somewhere).

1B.  The course shall provide golf holes with a variety of lengths and strategic challenges.

2.  The course shall be reasonably walkable for an able bodied man aged 65 and under.  Refute that.

3.  There shall be no artificial water hazards.   

There go Pine Valley, ANGC, GCGC, NGLA, SHGC, Sebonack, Yale, Seminole, # 2 and others

4.  The course shall provide a comprehensive test of the player's golfing ability.

5.  The course shall provide enjoyment for players of all abilities.  Hey, it's an ideal.  Realistically, it should be enjoyable for experts and advanced beginners alike.

Oh man, there are lots of ideals.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - thanks; very interesting quote, especially how being anti fragile sets the table for possibly benefitting from so-called mistakes that come with time. Reminds me, of course, of what the modern poet wrote:

Time for you and time for me,
And time yet for a hundred indecisions,
And for a hundred visions and revisions,
Before the taking of a toast and tea.....

In a minute there is time
For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.

[RJ_Daley]

We get better with age; only time will tell; tincture of time; fine aged wine; all debatable ideals... 

[Bart Bradley]

Bart:

There are many such ideals, promoted by various individuals.  But pretty much all of them have exceptions.  I'll let people propose a few, and then try to prove my point with exceptions to their rules tomorrow.

Tom, exceptions to an ideal do not make an ideal any less of an ideal. Short green to tee walks is an ideal. Just because a course can be great without short green to tee walks does not make the ideal wrong.

Mark:

This is very true.  To point out an example where a course violates an ideal but is still great means that the course overcame its weakness...very rarely would a course be great BECAUSE it violated an ideal.

Bart

And this is where I disagree, wholly and completely.

So-called "IDEALS" are the route to standardized design, where everyone is afraid to do anything different.

Just because a course does not fit your definition of "ideal" does not mean it has a "weakness".  Such labeling is arrogance in the extreme.

Best and simplest example:  ideally, a course would be playable for all levels of golfers.  So, does Pine Valley suck?

Tom:

First of all, pointing out a weakness does not at all mean that a course "sucks".   

All courses have weaknesses.  If you find the word "weakness" arrogant, then I would be fine with substituting the word "drawback".  Tom, your own rating scale for a Doak 8 says "could have some drawbacks, but these will be spelled out and it will make up for them with something special...".

So my saying a course has a weakness or drawback does not equate to saying a course "sucks".  That is not what I meant at all...and not what you meant when you defined a Doak 8".  Of course, I don't think Pine Valley sucks.  I haven't played it.  But let's use your example and assume that Pine Valley is not playable for all levels.   Are you saying that what MAKES Pine Valley great is that it is not playable for all levels of golfers...or is it the routing, strategy, quality of holes, use of contours etc that let it overcome its supposed lack of playability. 

If stating that we are evaluating courses against ideals is arrogant and wrong, on what do you base your ratings?  What criteria are you using to judge?  What sort of "drawbacks" are your referring to in your definition of a Doak 8? 

Thanks for participating,

Bart

[Rob Collins]

There are very few black and white issues in life...this is also the case when it comes to golf course architecture.  In my opinion, the aspect of design that comes to mind as coming the closest to fitting in the "black and white" category is strategy.  Without sound strategic interest, a golf course will lose its appeal quickly.   

[Tom_Doak]

 Are you saying that what MAKES Pine Valley great is that it is not playable for all levels of golfers...or is it the routing, strategy, quality of holes, use of contours etc that let it overcome its supposed lack of playability. 

Yes, in large part, what makes Pine Valley great is that Crump chose NOT to make concessions to below-average golfers.  That's what gives it the scale and grandeur it has ... the interrupted fairways, the big carries, the severity of its hazards, etc.  Sure, strategy and use of contours are part of it, too, but the thing which sets PV apart is exactly what makes it "less than ideal".

Likewise, many would say that blind hazards are not ideal ... but St. Andrews has plenty of them, and the fact that the ground was not manipulated to make those hazards visible is in large part what makes St. Andrews great.

Some say St. Andrews is ideal because you can get around it with a putter ... Harold Hilton argued that it was NOT ideal for just that reason.

It all goes back to variety.

[Bart Bradley]

So variety is the only proper criterion for evaluating architecture?  Or are there other things?  Are the drawbacks of certain courses simply lack of variety or are there other drawbacks that you have used in evaluating courses?  

Bart

Oh.. And is the fact that Pine Valley does not have concessions for bad golfers actually what makes it great or is it that the fact that Crump wasn't worried about playability which Allowed PV to be great? There is a difference.

[BCrosby]

"Time for you and time for me,
And time yet for a hundred indecisions,
And for a hundred visions and revisions,
Before the taking of a toast and tea.....

In a minute there is time
For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse."

Peter - I thought there was a no Tom Eliot rule on GCA?   

Bob

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()