[Lou_Duran]

Brad:

Really nice article.   Thanks for sharing.

While I never met Mr. McKee, it is always wonderful to remember the people that this game allows us to meet along the way.  In fact, the older that I get, the more I care about those people.... and the less I care about the golf course.         

The last sentence on Michael's reply to the Brad Klein thread noting the death of Wade Hampton founder William McKee got me to thinking about how our opinions of golf courses might have a lot to do with how we feel about those who design, build, maintain, and even play at those courses.  One architect told me years ago that one good way to gain favor is to give certain individuals "the time of day".  Another who is not all that well regarded here goes out of his way to provide access to raters even at his courses known to be extra-private/not rater friendly.  And how many of us have a higher regard for our home course than the various publications would suggest?  Is it more of a function that we are comfortable with our golf buddies and enjoy our golf games there as opposed to anything particularly special about the course?

I am particularly interested in how raters might be able to divorce themselves of preconceived notions based on their like or dislike of particular architects.  It seems that human nature which accounts for people when acting freely normally associating with other people like themselves also has the same pull on our evaluation of golf courses.  Are those who believe strongly that the "Augusta National Syndrome"/golf is too expensive is killing golf going to give Fazio or Nicklaus a fair shake?  Conversely, are big budget developers ever going to give a Jeff Brauer or maybe a Mike Nuzzo a chance?

[John Kavanaugh]

It's impossible to divorce yourself.  I hate this thread already because of the all caps title.

[Jason Topp]

IF YOU ARE RATING FOR A LIST, YOU SHOULD TRY AND DIVORCE YOURSELF FROM SUCH CONSIDERATIONS BUT I SUSPECT THEY PLAY MORE OF A ROLE THAN ANY OF US WOULD CARE TO ADMIT. 

AT LEAST RATINGS DO NOT HAVE THE LEVEL OF FINANCIAL PRESSURE THAT ACCOMPANIES MAGAZINE ARTICLES.  I BELIEVE THAT MAGAZINE ARTICLES HAVE IMPROVED DRAMATICALLY IN THE LAST 10-15 YEARS BUT STILL CONTAIN A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF PUFF PIECES ACCOMPANIED BY BIG ADVERTISEMENTS FOR THE COURSE THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE.  I UNDERSTAND THAT MAGAZINES NEED TO GENERATE REVENUE BUT IT IS AN INTERESTING CONUNDRUM TRYING TO STRADDLE BETWEEN THE NEED FOR CREDIBLE AND USEFUL INFORMATION ON ONE HAND AND THE NEED FOR ADVERTISING REVENUE ON THE OTHER.

FOR ME, PERSONAL CONSIDERATIONS HAVE A MUCH BIGGER IMPACT ON WHERE I CHOOSE TO SPEND MONEY THAN DOES THE ARCHITECTURE.  GIVE ME A GOOD GROUP OF PEOPLE, A WELL RUN OPERATION AND A REASONABLE PACE OF PLAY AND I WOULD CHOOSE A GOAT RANCH OVER ALL OTHER COURSES.

IT IS SUCH A PLEASURE TO KNOW THAT WRITING IN CAPS BOTHERS KAVANAUGH.

[Paul Gray]

HMM, I'D LIKE TO THINK I CAN SEPARATE THE COURSE FROM ITS BROADER SETTING BUT I'M NOT SO SURE THAT I CAN. I SAY THAT BECAUSE I CAN HONESTLY SAY THAT I HAVE ALWAYS FOUND THE BETTER COURSES TO BE THE SAME PLACES WHERE FACTORS SUCH AS PACE OF PLAY AND CONDITIONING ARE LESS OF AN ISSUE. AS GENERAL AS IT MAY SOUND, I'VE SIMPLY ALWAYS FOUND THAT THE MORE INTELLIGENT THE LAYOUT IS, THE MORE INTELLIGENT, LESS PACKAGED, THE CLUB AS A WHOLE IS.

DON'T MISUNDERSTAND ME, I'VE PLAYED PLENTY OF COURSES WHICH HAVE BEEN PALE SHADOWS OF WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUT I CAN'T GO SO FAR AS TO SAY THAT I'VE EVER HAD A TERRIBLE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE AT ANY COURSE WITH ANY REAL QUALITY. THE SITE OF A WATER FOUNTAIN, JUST AS ONE SIMPLE EXAMPLE, USUALLY SIGNIFIES A LOT MORE THAN JUST WHAT THE COURSE ITSELF WILL BE LIKE.

I WILL, SOMEWHAT CONTROVERSIALLY, SUGGEST THAT I'VE ALWAYS FELT PEOPLE ARE A LITTLE TOO POLITE ABOUT THE NEW ZEALAND GOLF CLUB AS A CONSEQUENCE OF ITS HERITAGE. NOT THAT I THINK ITS A BAD COURSE, FAR FROM IT. I JUST THINK THAT WITH NAMES SUCH AS BERNARD DARWIN ON LOCKERS PEOPLE DO TEND TO GET A BIT CARRIED AWAY.

[Ryan Coles]

I think the impact is significant.

We defend the indefensible of those we favour and turn a blind eye to the to the good work of those we don't.

We give a pass to shoddy conditioning in Scotland or Ireland.

The famous minimalist designers are a contradiction. A truly minimalist project wouldn't be able to sustain their fee.

Do we play the course or do we play the designer? I think in many ways, we play the latter. Depending on the architect, we can also look for things that just aren't there and the nondescript becomes some form of subtle genius that only the "connoisseur" can appreciate.  

[Paul Gray]

Ryan,

Minimalism, to me at least, is merely a return to timeless principles. Are you suggesting Mackenzie or Colt were a contradiction, just because they didn't have bulldozers?

[Ryan Coles]

HMM, I'D LIKE TO THINK I CAN SEPARATE THE COURSE FROM ITS BROADER SETTING BUT I'M NOT SO SURE THAT I CAN. I SAY THAT BECAUSE I CAN HONESTLY SAY THAT I HAVE ALWAYS FOUND THE BETTER COURSES TO BE THE SAME PLACES WHERE FACTORS SUCH AS PACE OF PLAY AND CONDITIONING ARE LESS OF AN ISSUE. AS GENERAL AS IT MAY SOUND, I'VE SIMPLY ALWAYS FOUND THAT THE MORE INTELLIGENT THE LAYOUT IS THE MORE INTELLIGENT, LESS PACKAGED, THE CLUB AS A WHOLE IS.

DON'T MISUNDERSTAND ME, I'VE PLAYED PLENTY OF COURSES WHICH HAVE BEEN PALE SHADOWS OF WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUT I CAN'T GO SO FAR AS TO SAY THAT I'VE EVER HAD A TERRIBLE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE AT ANY COURSE WITH ANY REAL QUALITY. THE SITE OF A WATER FOUNTAIN, JUST AS ONE SIMPLE EXAMPLE, USUALLY SIGNIFIES A LOT MORE THAN JUST WHAT THE COURSE ITSELF WILL BE LIKE.

I WILL, SOMEWHAT CONTROVERSIALLY, SUGGEST THAT I'VE ALWAYS FELT PEOPLE ARE A LITTLE TOO POLITE ABOUT THE NEW ZEALAND GOLF CLUB AS A CONSEQUENCE OF ITS HERITAGE. NOT THAT I THINK ITS A BAD COURSE, FAR FROM IT. I JUST THINK THAT WITH NAMES SUCH AS BERNARD DARWIN ON LOCKERS PEOPLE DO TEND TO GET A BIT CARRIED AWAY.

Paul

I think we are guilty of judging the book by it's cover. I like courses and Club's that are trying hard. And not resting on the aforementioned reputation etc. New Zealand is probably a case in point. People remember the quaint, eccentricity, what they forget is the lack of undulation / variety. I don't underestimate the power that a nice lunch and jacket and tie with some jolly good chaps actually has on people's opinion of the actual course. Your water fountain example is true in reverse.

[Ryan Coles]

Paul

It can mean different things to different people. I'm referring to modern "minimalists" and I think of the expression in financial terms rather than the amount of earth moved.

I think it was once a niche market position, in response to the overblown nature of much of the development going on. The poachers have now turned gamekeepers though.

I think the old guys worked with what they had. I think they'd have the bulldozers out if they were around now, unless of course there were on sand, by the ocean and with great views.

[Paul Gray]

Ryan,

I should have been clearer but, indeed, my comments about New Zealand were very much meant as the reverse of the water fountain example. Terribly badly phrased again but you know what I mean!

Well, minimalism indeed can mean different things to different people. I do however think you're a little harsh to suggest the poacher has now become the gamekeeper. These guys haven't 'sold out,' they've simply been listened to more. I'm not going to begrudge the likes of Tom Doak for sticking to his guns in the 80's when everyone else was no doubt telling him he was a dinosaur or such like. Having the integrity to stick to what you believe to be unalienable truths, taking the flack in the bad times and retaining some humility in the good times seems, to me at least, to be a commendable attribute. It's really not about the money. 

[Ryan Coles]

Paul

I don't think they've sold out nor I do begrudge them. But they are the guys getting the best jobs now. And the best jobs = $$$$.

The first confidential guide was a poke at the status quo at the time in some ways. Now Doak and co are the status quo. I'm not saying this is a bad thing by any means. They earned it. The market has come round to there way of thinking.

But by my definition, they can't be described as minimalist any more.

[Paul Gray]

Ryan,

I think we may have to agree to disagree on this.

Minimalism, for me at least, has nothing to do with the scale of the project or whether or not the architect in question happens to be flavour of the month or not. If, for example, minimalism happens to be de rigueur in the world of interior design, does it stop being minimalism?

[Ryan Coles]

Ryan,

I think we may have to agree to disagree on this.

Minimalism, for me at least, has nothing to do with the scale of the project or whether or not the architect in question happens to be flavour of the month or not. If, for example, minimalism happens to be de rigueur in the world of interior design, does it stop being minimalism?

Paul

To answer your question:

Yes, if the dwelling in question is a big Neo-Georgian mansion on St Georges Hill. Minimalism is the thatched roof WG Tarrant home it replaced.

Minimalism is in the eye of the beholder as we agreed earlier. Sebonack, the re-model at Doral etc do not seem minimal to me on any level. To me it means minimum budget, minimum labour, minimum upkeep. Not big budget with lots of it spent to deliberately look austere / old. It might be beautification that you and me personally like, but it is beautification none the less. One mans blown out bunker is another's flower bed/water fountain and they all fall in and out of favour over the years.

[Sean_A]

Sweet Lou

Some folks are better than others at divorcing people, history, location and events from design, but I think we all stumble at one time or another.  I have said it a millions times, I would prefer to know the favourite courses of people because at the end of the day, which courses are better doesn't matter much.   

I don't care who designed the course...if I like it...I like it. 

Ciao   

[Mike_Young]

Lou,
The person/s  involved is probably conveyed in the perception of the course.  And the sad thing is that the Trump courses may not get  fair shake due to a preconceived image of the owner.       This site is often instrumental in placing preconceived ideas of a course in the spotlight and therefore the people often impact the perception.  The bigger problem is often not the perception we have of the course due to the people involved but the perception of the people due to the course they are involved with.   

[Peter Pallotta]

More and more I find myself agreeing with Sean, i.e. I'm interested in knowing a poster's favourite courses, not which ones he considers best or that he ranks the highest. In some real sense, I think a rater's favourite courses ARE his 'rankings' -- his TRUE rankings, not the 'official' rankings that an outside structure/system/checklist has influenced/pre-shaped even before he steps onto a course for the first time.

Peter 

[Ken Moum]

I have said it a millions times, I would prefer to know the favourite courses of people because at the end of the day, which courses are better doesn't matter much.   

I don't care who designed the course...if I like it...I like it. 

Ciao   

This one of the things that drives me bananas about lists and ratings.  I think golf is supposed to be at least a little fun, and SO MANY "great" courses are stupidly hard.

I'm not so bad, 67 years old, still hanging around a 12 handicap, been as low as five in the last 20 years.  And an awful lot of courses that people rate really high make golf a lot more like work than fun. I was a walking scorer for the NCAA Div. I Nationals at Prairie Dunes this summer, and while I admit that the course is special,watching some of the best college golfers get their brains kicked in was interesting.

I've played it twice and can see why it gets highly rated.  But until I walked it several times, I couldn't figure out how I could EVER get around it without racking up a huge score.  Now, I think I would have a workable plan.

Royal Dornoch is a similar deal. I've played it twice, and after shooting a million the first time, I could NOT see how I'd ever get around.

Then last summer, I played it with a GCAer who is a member, and by listening some and paying attention I managed to break 90.

I can't wait for another chance at both of them, but playing the way I need to on them is a little like walking a tightrope... there's never a letup.

I sometimes joke that Golspie is where RDC members go when they want to have fun.

K

[Stan Dodd]

Well said Ken.  Couldn't agree more.

[mike_beene]

Golf Courses do not live in a vacuum.To disregard the people is unrealistic and undesirable.

[Tom_Doak]

Golf Courses do not live in a vacuum.To disregard the people is unrealistic and undesirable.

Why?  Forty years ago you probably would not have known OR CARED who designed a golf course. 

For that matter, on many of the best courses in the UK, it's impossible to pin down who "designed" them because they have evolved over so many iterations.  So, the focus goes back onto the course instead of the designer ... yet it is still possible for people to appreciate the course and to rank it if they want.

The odd thing about this discussion is that as architects' names and styles become more familiar, it is a battle to keep one's work from becoming repetitive, and each subsequent project is less special when compared against all of your best stuff.  It is much easier to create a special course if you don't have many others ... that is part of the reason places like Pine Valley and Pebble Beach are held in such high esteem.  [The other part of the reason is that there were highly skilled architects working behind the scenes, but we don't associate their names with those courses ... which proves it's mostly about perception.]

[Lou_Duran]

The bigger problem is often not the perception we have of the course due to the people involved but the perception of the people due to the course they are involved with.   

Though it may not be a BIG problem (I have little interest in the gossip circle and rating people), what you say is absolutely true.  Years ago I was in the small pro shop of a perennial Top 5 course, the very affable pro told me to look around the back in storage for anything that might be of interest while he took care of something in the clubhouse.  In walks a well dressed man with a youngster and sheepishly asks me if it is ok to look around the shop and the nearby area of the first tee.  My response was that while the pro was out momentarily, that I doubt he would have a problem with them doing so.  They did and in the process started a conversation about what a privilege it was visiting the club, how hard it had been for their pro at a well-known course on the east coast to secure an unaccompanied time for them, and how much they were looking forward to playing the course the next day.  The gentleman was treating me with a level of respect totally unfamiliar to me, talking in hush tones like he was in church, when it occurred to me that maybe he thought I was a member.  He quickly lost interest and his manner changed when I informed him that I had been a guest that day and that the experience was indeed all it was cracked up to be.

Golf Courses do not live in a vacuum.To disregard the people is unrealistic and undesirable.

And impossible.  A good reason to be careful in commenting on the beauty of their baby (I once noted to a parent how big his newborn boy was, a badly received reflexive attempt at positive spin upon seeing mostly a humongous head on a rather unattractive child).

It is also impossible to overcome our biases, though I think that maybe we should try a bit harder even at the risk of overcompensating, specially if we have some sway on the opinions of others.  Nothing wrong with knowing what you like and developing a preference for a style.  Personally I think it is too confining, but to each his own.  Some architects, authors, musicians, etc. are a bit repetitive, so perhaps not much is lost.  Others evolve over time as our own tastes and preferences might as well.

As Tom Doak notes, when I came to the game 40+ years ago, the identity of the architect was mostly unknown to all but a tiny few.  RTJ, Nicklaus, followed by others (Fazio, Dye, the brothers Jones, Young, etc.) saw that branding gave them a competitive advantage and most of us now know any new high budget course by its architect.  This has the effect at times of aggrandizing some courses beyond their "true merit", and, conversely, of relegating others which might deserve more to lower critical acclaim and, perhaps, financial performance.      

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()