Who Said This and What Do YOU Think?

[Ken Moum]

To borrow my own analogy: there were many fine male singers in the golden age with tone, talent and technique - but if it was about putting all those qualities in the 'service of emotion', Sinatra was your man. And what else is a torch song meant for but to create emotion?

Peter, I'm think this applies to the discussion here, as it involves the "maturing" of the artist.


Anyway, I am the son of a very good jazz saxophonist, but didn't inherit his ear, so I don't really listen to much music outside of the car.


But we do have XM radio and one channel my wife and I will both listen to is the Sinatra channel, and the most striking thing I have noticed is how his singing changed over the years.


To my ear, his instrument was much better in the early years, but he wasn't "The Chairman of the Board." He had the tone and and talent.


In his second "career," after being a movie star, his command of technique was AMAZING, even if his tone and talent had eroded.


Maybe that's where Doak and Brauer are headed.  They'll slowly mature into accomplished artists, whose technique is so finely evolved that it won't matter how old they are.


K

[Sven Nilsen]

Sinatra only wrote seven songs.


No matter how much he loved to sing, he didn't craft the playing field.


You see the difference?

[Peter Pallotta]

Thomas loved to play golf and Sinatra loved to sing. In Thomas' case, that led him to design courses with the focus on strategy, the key to good golf & effective gca. In Sinatra's case, that led him to *interpret* songs with the focus on emotion, the key to good ballads & effective ballad singing.
That's the theory/suggestion/analogy - it's not hard to understand.
 

[Sven Nilsen]

I'll extend your theory/analogy/suggestion a little further.  There is no Seth Raynor course I've played that made me feel like I was enjoying it any less than than Sinatra enjoying singing My Way.

[Peter Pallotta]

Good point - there are many ways to build a fine golf course, and many different aspects/qualities to focus on in doing so -- and of course different ways in which we can enjoy playing those golf courses.
(Best musical analogy is maybe Ella F and Billie H, who both 'put over' a song brilliantly, but in completely different ways and by different means.)
But since the subject was Thomas, and since I think of his skill set/approach as prioritizing the creation of strategy - as opposed to, say, Stanley Thompson, who could sometimes focus on the scenic/spectacular; or Ross, who could route with the land from 1000 miles away - and since I think of strategy as what most separates a golf course from a driving range, I did find myself equating his love of the game with this particiular approach to gca (and Frank's focusing on the emotion, in a way the brilliant Mel Torme didn't, with his love of song).

[Sven Nilsen]

You really don't know Ross.

[Peter Pallotta]

Sigh.
That was a compliment on his routing ability (and some of his design 'plans'), not a slag on his strategic interest or abilities. And neither my specific post nor the discussion in general was focused on that.

[Sven Nilsen]

Your statement reads that he didn't prioritize strategy. 


I disagree.  And the idea he did most of his work off of maps is wrong.

[Peter Pallotta]

Sven - you read the first part wrong, and on the second part I never came close to suggesting he did 'most' of his work from afar. But this is tiresome, hence my sigh - you chose not to focus on/develop the broader discussion, but to assume the most critical reading of a single line in a long post and then play "gotcha!" with it. It would be like me ignoring the central point and substantive meaning of your post about Raynor, and instead responding with:
'You know nothing about Sinatra if you think My Way a good song or indicative of his work".
What's the point?
Compare that exchange with either your (main) idea that Raynor produced high quality and enjoyable golf courses without personally loving the game, or with learning about something interesting about about Ken M and his intriguing/resonate image of an aging Tom D and Jeff B and the work that might come.
Both of those seem much better ways to spend some time thinking and typing.  I'm still just trying to figure out whether or not I think Mr. Thomas was right/speaking the truth in that quote of his.
   

[Sven Nilsen]

Ironically, you misconstrued my point on Raynor.

[Peter Pallotta]

I was probably extrapolating from your earlier post in the thread about Banks, i.e. that a thoughtful "engineer" and intelligent non-golfer could pick up the art of gca and an understanding of what golfers love about the game.
But that's a good place to stop for me: the two sides of/views on Mike H's original question.

[George Pazin]

Geoff's book The Captain was one of the very first books I read on golf course architecture. I remember being absolutely fascinated by his hole diagrams, beautifully drawn with all tho options. It seemed like the ultimate to me in design.


As I read and played and thought more about the subject, I changed my opinion a bit, likely prompted by an observation by Tom D that multiple options rarely worked as well as one would hope, as the options tend to become obvious and one simply chooses the same route that works for his game again and again (apologies if I paraphrased that poorly, Tom, feel free to correct it if I'm misapplying it).


But as I note how terrificly his courses are regarded, I start to think about the seeming disconnect. And as I think about it, I wonder if perhaps his ideas of options weren't much better suited the game of that era, where the equipment was not nearly as standardized and reliable as now, where everyone knows how far he hits each club and the penalties for mishits are not nearly what they once were.


Probably just beard pulling, but that's what I wonder...

[Tom_Doak]

Hi George:


Funnily enough, I have been working this winter on making those diagrams of the old 2nd, 9th, 11th, and 12th at Bel Air come to life.  Each of them is a true original.

[George Pazin]

Hi George:


Funnily enough, I have been working this winter on making those diagrams of the old 2nd, 9th, 11th, and 12th at Bel Air come to life.  Each of them is a true original.

Am I crazy for thinking those holes would function better if equipment were not quite as forgiving? I guess that's probably true of most holes, except maybe Sawgrass #17...

[Garland Bayley]

Hi George:


Funnily enough, I have been working this winter on making those diagrams of the old 2nd, 9th, 11th, and 12th at Bel Air come to life.  Each of them is a true original.

Am I crazy for thinking those holes would function better if equipment were not quite as forgiving? I guess that's probably true of most holes, except maybe Sawgrass #17...

Yep, George, you're crazy.

Since when did you begin to think equipment has become forgiving?

[Ronald Montesano]

Once asked if I had to choose one, I have always said I would choose to design golf courses over playing them. Not sure what that says about me under this theory.

Jeff, over the recent half-decade, I've asked myself time and again, do I choose playing over photography, or the other way around? I'm not certain. Fortunately, I haven't had to elect. I understand you and know what it says about you.


HNY--RM

[Bob Montle]

I've considered in recent years is what might happen if I get to the point where ..... my game deteriorates to the point that I don't enjoy playing anymore? So, I am working very hard at lowering my expectations for my golf, and remembering that the real appeal of the game is just to be out there on the golf course, no matter who you're with or what you shoot.[/font][/size]

That is a great last sentence!
But there is something additional I can add.

My golf game peaked at age 44 but by my 50's it was so bad that I quit playing entirely.  Then, at 62, I started playing at an inexpensive local course.  ($7.50 to walk 9 holes.)   Between the senior tees and new equipment I have fallen back in love with the game again.  Perhaps age has also brought some maturity, finally.
No matter how old and feeble one becomes, you can still putt and chip. The walking is great exercise.  The shorter distance from your shots gives you more opportunities for tactically attacking the course.  Instead of blindly going for every green on the par 4's one is thinking of where to land for the best chip to the pin.

It is very satisfying to tie the flat bellies Drive - 7 iron - 2 putt, with Drive, hybrid, chip and 1 putt!