What do the architects dislike about PacDunes?

[Ran Morrissett]

In the recent issue of GOLF, PacDunes came in #19 in the world but the architects thought it should have been #76. The differential of 57 spots was the second biggest 'disagreement' between the architects and the rest of the panel (Hirono was first at 65+ as the architects didn't think it belonged in the world top 100).

I don't know what to make of this stat? Being the author of The Confidential Guide has disadvantages but there is surely more to it than that. I assume it means that in part the architects think they could have done a better job? I assume in part it might have to do with the fact that there are only two two shotters on the back?

Any thoughts? While PacDunes might well be an architect's once-in-a-lifetime glorious site, the course with its cliff boundary and large plateau between the lines of dunes presents a great puzzle to any architect. Hard to imagine an appreciably better end result and thus, I would have thought the differential would be small to non-existent.

Cheers,

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran,

It's illogical.

Perhaps it's a "pride of authorship" complex ??  Ergo...Ego

But, I've seen architects:

Think
Act
Recommend
And fail to endorse prudent suggestions

ILLOGICALLY,

Perhaps it's part of the "idiot-savant syndrome" they surely possess ??    

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Professional Jealousy and Envy......That is simply what it is.

How could you blame them?

[brad_miller]

Tommy, that was just what I was going to say. Is Doak the only true "work with the land" guy on the panel? Will have to go and look. Some of my favorite courses in the world showed up on that same list, but what do I know. Hopefully Golf Mag will and Bill and Ben.

[Don_Mahaffey]

IMO, the superintendent who is able to maintain good conditions with minimal inputs does a much better job then the guy who spends a million a year and over does everything. Yet, 90% of the golfers will think the big spend guy does a better job.

I would think that many architects would think that creating holes and routing the course to fit those holes is much more difficult then finding what nature left and scraping a little dirt away to reveal it. I have no doubt that the guys who have a history of manufactoring courses feel like they're more of an architect then the guys who try and fit a course to the land.
Thus, they'll give more credit to the big spenders then the minimalists.  

[Forrest Richardson]

At least Tommy considers any jealously he assumes to be "professional". I've followed the posts on this subject with interest. Ran's certainly gets to the point.

I know several well-regarded and well-liked building architects. Many might even pass as the "Doaks" of their world: Good at what they do, innovative, very smart and great promoters of their accomplishments. All are great qualities.

I've also been in some great and celebrated buildings with a few of these people — truly talented designers. One of these designers is a friend who actually worked with Frank Lloyd Wright as an apprentice. He is now an author and remarkable architect in his own right.

Frankly, I cannot imagine this designer doing anything other than taking the position that his ability to solve a modern design problem would be slightly better (or much better) than any building project he was asked to evaluate, regardless of the architect.

This is not necessarily envy or jealously. Certainly it is not envy or jealousy exclusively. It is probably confidence mixed with certainty along with whatever else you want to call it. Actually, it's quite natural among designers. By nature we have it in our blood to design and solve problems, even if it is a finished design we are looking at.

The GOLF rating by modern architects, quite naturally, has a tendency to downplay modern courses. In the analogy of my friend the building architect, he would likely not be as "hard" on an evaluation of an older classic design — and neither does it appear that the architects on the panel were inclined in that direction either.

[Tom_Doak]

Ben Crenshaw was on the GOLF Magazine panel for a lot of years, but took himself off about ten years ago, just before Sand Hills was up for consideration.

Bill Coore declined to participate a couple of times, for the same reason.  I think they believe their names on the panel would somehow cheapen the ranking of their courses, despite the fact that no architect can vote on their own.

There are 14 architects on the panel, according to the magazine.  (Apparently, by my tally, they counted Nicklaus and Weiskopf as architects, but not Palmer and Player.  :) )  The only one I know who has played Pacific Dunes is Dana Fry, although there may be one or two others -- not a large sampling.

Certainly there is a bit of professional jealousy involved.  Practically none of the modern courses were voted as high by our fellow architects as by the panel as a whole, and that's understandable ... we all favor our own style and viewpoint.  And there's always someone who might throw in a negative vote just to keep the playing field more level ...

I'm sure not losing any sleep over it.  The ranking on the big list is the one I'll show my next potential client.

[Matt Kardash]

Tom Doak

I was always curious if you ever get Pete Dye out to see any of your courses? I imagine you respect his opinion and would like to know what he thinks. Mind you, i don't even know if you keep in touch with Pete

[TEPaul]

I saw and talked to a well known architect the other day and I asked him if he'd seen Friar's Head and what he thought about it. He said he thought it looked too easy and that a good player would kill it--specifically because there wasn't enough greenside bunkering and what there was of it was too far removed from the green surfaces. I said I felt that increased interesting playability, optional recoverability etc but he said that wasn't penal enough and a good player would kill it.

"Golf and its architecture is a great big thing and there's room in it for everyone."

[Joel_Stewart]

I replied on another thread its because of the lack of votes, very few panelists-architects having played Pacific Dunes.

I think its a bigger question why the architects downgrade Merion as 25th best course from its 14th position?  You could assume that all of the panelists/architects have played it.

[DMoriarty]

Ran,

Isnt it obvious?  Who designed those greens?  Obviously someone who didnt realize they were supposed to be flat, regardless of the surrounds . . . or at least they should have well defined tiers.  And what about those bunkers in play?  In play!  Why on earth would any architect put bunkers in places where good players might actually want to hit their ball?  And how about those two par 3's in a row, and the unbalanced nines?  A sure sign of bad architecture.  And he completely forgot to route the cartpaths.  A few bulldozers and any competent architect could have made a thrilling and balanced course out of that piece of land.  

Seriously, isn't it possible that the rating has little to do with professional jealosy and envy or even quality of design?   Maybe many of the architects fundamentally disagree with Tom Doak's approach to architecture.  Doesnt this make some sense, since not many of them are trying to do anything like what he is doing?  If given a chance to "renovate" PD, wouldn't quite a few architects take a bulldozer to much of it and do it over in their own style?

If correct, this theory would be much more disturbing than just a case of professional jealosy.  It would mean that many of these architects couldnt come up with a great course even if they were given great land. . . . While this would be disturbing, it would not be surprising.  

[Tom_Doak]

Joel,

25th place means nearly everyone is voting for it in the top fifty but probably no one is voting for it in the top ten courses in the world.

My guess is that's the modern architects' view of Merion.  There are still quite a few panelists who put it in the top ten, but not many architects, because the distance factor is more important to us ... we think about it all the time, even if we can't hit the ball out of our shadows.  (Architects cast big shadows.  :) )  

But, it can't be all the distance factor, or there's no way to explain Cypress Point at number one.  Perhaps some might think the recent changes at Merion were not for the better.

[ian]

"Resistance to Scoring" is why. Look at the names on the list, and look at their work. They look at yardage before architecture. Look at the courses they listed higher, they are simply tougher than many they dropped.

The fact that Tom has upset a few architects has not helped his cause either.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom, the mass accumulated area of those shadows are usually projected from their heads.

Rees Jones--What a melon!:)

[Tommy_Naccarato]

BTW, if any take that seriously, then you have absolutely no sense of humor.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I can only go with the flow here and feel it is a combination of newness, lack of exposure, not giving credit for work with great land and maybe a small bit of professional jealousy. I wonder if there might be a little reaction to the realization that Bandon was maybe over hyped from an architectual view. And maybe the professional crowd is assuming some of the same for Pacific. I think Pacific Dunes a a world class course architectually. Whereas Bandon Dunes has some huge holes in it from an architects view.