[BCrosby]

JC -


I appreciate where you are coming from, but is there a point at which we are allowed to say comments like your friend's on Lawsonia are just dumb?


Aren't there views of things - golf courses or anything else - that miss so badly we can safely ignore them as being ill-informed, mis-informed, unreflective, dull-witted or some combination of thereof?


Bob


   


 


 

[JC Jones]

Yeah, that's the trouble with ideas, isn't it JC - they're always so, I don't know, 'contrived'. They don't grow 'organically', like a tree or a mushroom does. With an idea, it's almost as if someone just 'thought it up', right on the spot: it doesn't exist, and then suddenly it does exist! I'm with you, I don't like ideas either -- especially when they're not organic. I mean, it's like that line: "we hold these truths to be self-evident - that all men are created equal". Look at that: they're actually shoving it right in our face, coming right out and telling us, 'this idea is not organic'. Ha, 'self-evident': just a fancy, pretentious way to say 'contrived' for people who were full of themselves.... 
 

It's almost as if you wrote this post without reading what I wrote.

[JC Jones]

JC -


I appreciate where you are coming from, but is there a point at which we are allowed to say comments like your friend's on Lawsonia are just dumb?


Aren't there views of things - golf courses or anything else - that miss so badly we can safely ignore them as being ill-informed, mis-informed, unreflective, dull-witted or some combination of thereof?


Bob


 

Don't get me wrong, Bob, I think his comments are dumb.

[Peter Pallotta]

No, I understand what you wrote, JC  - it wasn't that complicated, and I was just having some fun, typing.

Put it this way: if you as a professor (or the 'site' or the 'client') assigned this week not a 10,000 word essay (or a 'routing proposal') but a 1500 word essay instead, would the resulting essay & the ideas contained within (or 'the golf course') necessarily be 'contrived'? Would the assignment itself be 'contrived', simply because you asked, this week, that the students formulate their ideas in a more focused and less expansive way? 

Which is to say: nothing at all about starting with/proposing the (to me very good and legitimate) idea of a more compact golf course can determine, in and of itself, the quality & qualities of the resulting golf course.

The routing still has to developed, the holes still have to be found, the hazards and contours still have to be shaped, the strategies and options still have to be made manifest  -- and 'that's' the organic part, as always, just like at PD. 

In the meantime, I'm just pleased (even as merely an outside, casual observer) that more people are talking about using less land to build more compact golf courses that require less inputs. That 'idea' I like very much.

Peter

[Mike_Young]

It's fine that some golfers like the other course better, as long as mine can stay busy and profitable.  That's what seems to escape those who preach the conventional wisdom.  There is plenty of room for different kinds of golf courses.  They don't all have to appeal to everybody ... they just have to find their own audience, and if that audience is big enough, all is well.

I'm not sure this site understands that statement or even wants to understand it.  As for the superwide tracks...it's lke the pendulum swing...trees will be back...

[Joe Hancock]

Maybe I missed it in a previous post but perhaps the field of play that Tom is working with suggested the shorter overall length to an 18 hole layout? I’ll hang up and listen.

The idea of a shorter, Swiney Forest/ Colt tribute type design was pitched and explored by the Keisers at least a couple years ago, with a different designer who they have worked with numerous times. So, they are proceeding with that idea, just with a different designer.

[JC Jones]

No, I understand what you wrote, JC  - it wasn't that complicated, and I was just having some fun, typing.

Put it this way: if you as a professor (or the 'site' or the 'client') assigned this week not a 10,000 word essay (or a 'routing proposal') but a 1500 word essay instead, would the resulting essay & the ideas contained within (or 'the golf course') necessarily be 'contrived'? Would the assignment itself be 'contrived', simply because you asked, this week, that the students formulate their ideas in a more focused and less expansive way? 

Which is to say: nothing at all about starting with/proposing the (to me very good and legitimate) idea of a more compact golf course can determine, in and of itself, the quality & qualities of the resulting golf course.

The routing still has to developed, the holes still have to be found, the hazards and contours still have to be shaped, the strategies and options still have to be made manifest  -- and 'that's' the organic part, as always, just like at PD. 

In the meantime, I'm just pleased (even as merely an outside, casual observer) that more people are talking about using less land to build more compact golf courses that require less inputs. That 'idea' I like very much.

Peter

I, too, like the idea of allocating a small piece of land for a more sustainable, more compact golf course.  I think, if nothing else, there is an intimacy that compact golf courses can provide; which I very much enjoy.


The problem is, no where have we been told that Tom was allocated only a small parcel of land (or, at least, a parcel that could only yield a 6100 yard course).  So, the constraints within which he has chosen to work are deliberate.  The very definition of contrived.


To my knowledge, the purported inspirations for this project (i.e. Swinley Forest and Rye) were not projects that set out to be different, or market shifting, or tastemakers, but rather, they were projects that were about creating the best course on the land allocated. 

[JC Jones]

Maybe I missed it in a previous post but perhaps the field of play that Tom is working with suggested the shorter overall length to an 18 hole layout? I’ll hang up and listen.

The idea of a shorter, Swiney Forest/ Colt tribute type design was pitched and explored by the Keisers at least a couple years ago, with a different designer who they have worked with numerous times. So, they are proceeding with that idea, just with a different designer.

Wow.  I was under the impression, based on what has been said publicly by the Keisers and here on GolfClubAtlas that the idea was entirely Doak's. 

[Ben Sims]

JC,


I think you’re willfully twisting this conversation into an elite vs non-elites nanny-state rant. I’m not at all advocating that golf architecture goes to one norm of smaller courses because the smart people say so.


What I am advocating is that this idea that will hopefully get put in the ground by Renaissance and that people will realize how good it can be. Just building it in and of itself may get others to go down that same road. And maybe consumers will realize they don’t need what they thought they needed to make a golf course good.


Providing choice is important. And as it stands now, I can’t really think of a top tier resort course in the US like Rye or Swinley Forest. Like I said earlier, horses for courses.

[JC Jones]

JC,


I think you’re willfully twisting this conversation into an elite vs non-elites nanny-state rant. I’m not at all advocating that golf architecture goes to one norm of smaller courses because the smart people say so.


What I am advocating is that this idea that will hopefully get put in the ground by Renaissance and that people will realize how good it can be. Just building it in and of itself may get others to go down that same road. And maybe consumers will realize they don’t need what they thought they needed to make a golf course good.


Providing choice is important. And as it stands now, I can’t really think of a top tier resort course in the US like Rye or Swinley Forest. Like I said earlier, horses for courses.

The point is, maybe consumers know what they want.  They aren't the ones loving Old Macdonald for its width and then saying Mammoth Dunes is too wide.


And as it turns out, sometimes there are multiple horses for courses....

[Ira Fishman]

JC,


I think you’re willfully twisting this conversation into an elite vs non-elites nanny-state rant. I’m not at all advocating that golf architecture goes to one norm of smaller courses because the smart people say so.


What I am advocating is that this idea that will hopefully get put in the ground by Renaissance and that people will realize how good it can be. Just building it in and of itself may get others to go down that same road. And maybe consumers will realize they don’t need what they thought they needed to make a golf course good.


Providing choice is important. And as it stands now, I can’t really think of a top tier resort course in the US like Rye or Swinley Forest. Like I said earlier, horses for courses.

The point is, maybe consumers know what they want.  They are the ones loving Old Macdonald for its width and then saying Mammoth Dunes is too wide.


And as it turns out, sometimes there are multiple horses for courses....

JC,


I am far from a Doak Acolyte.  I have played only Pac Dunes and Old Mac, and I believe he once got a bit ticked off when I posted that I thought that Pasatiempo is better than Pac Dunes.  I do not own the Confidential Guide (mostly because I am cheap) although I will buy it at some point.  However, I think some of your assertions are not completely accurate. 


First, I am not a historian of Swinley Forest, but my understanding from our visit their this year is that it precisely was intended to be a wholly different concept/idea--no scorecard, no competitions, no handicaps  and that Colt was given a mandate to build a course that matched that ethos.


Second, although I agree that the consumer generally knows what he wants, sometimes there are new ideas that he or she never even considered.  The IPhone being the most recent prominent example.  It is a stretch to say that a short course matches that innovation, but in the US market it is not a complete stretch regardless of whether it was Tom Doak, Mike Keiser, or someone else who came up with the idea. 


As I noted in an earlier post, I do not think "conventional" when well done is to be sneered at by any means.  I loved the River Course right up the road from Sand Valley and the pre-restoration Cog Hill not too far down the road.  But Mike Keiser taking another risk seems to me something that we should applaud.


Ira

[Eric Smith]

The point is, maybe consumers know what they want.  They aren't the ones loving Old Macdonald for its width and then saying Mammoth Dunes is too wide.


And as it turns out, sometimes there are multiple horses for courses....

JC when you’re at Sand Valley in a couple weeks playing mammoth dunes on or about the fourth hole I want you to imagine playing in a foursome with nerds telling you “ohh this is too wide..” 

[JC Jones]

JC,


I am far from a Doak Acolyte.  I have played only Pac Dunes and Old Mac, and I believe he once got a bit ticked off when I posted that I thought that Pasatiempo is better than Pac Dunes.  I do not own the Confidential Guide (mostly because I am cheap) although I will buy it at some point.  However, I think some of your assertions are not completely accurate. 


First, I am not a historian of Swinley Forest, but my understanding from our visit their this year is that it precisely was intended to be a wholly different concept/idea--no scorecard, no competitions, no handicaps  and that Colt was given a mandate to build a course that matched that ethos.


Second, although I agree that the consumer generally knows what he wants, sometimes there are new ideas that he or she never even considered.  The IPhone being the most recent prominent example.  It is a stretch to say that a short course matches that innovation, but in the US market it is not a complete stretch regardless of whether it was Tom Doak, Mike Keiser, or someone else who came up with the idea. 


As I noted in an earlier post, I do not think "conventional" when well done is to be sneered at by any means.  I loved the River Course right up the road from Sand Valley and the pre-restoration Cog Hill not too far down the road.  But Mike Keiser taking another risk seems to me something that we should applaud.


Ira

Fair points, Ira.  Thanks for the info.

[Eric Smith]

Maybe I missed it in a previous post but perhaps the field of play that Tom is working with suggested the shorter overall length to an 18 hole layout? I’ll hang up and listen.

The idea of a shorter, Swiney Forest/ Colt tribute type design was pitched and explored by the Keisers at least a couple years ago, with a different designer who they have worked with numerous times. So, they are proceeding with that idea, just with a different designer.

Whoa Joe ... Expect a phone call!

[Joe Hancock]

Maybe I missed it in a previous post but perhaps the field of play that Tom is working with suggested the shorter overall length to an 18 hole layout? I’ll hang up and listen.

The idea of a shorter, Swiney Forest/ Colt tribute type design was pitched and explored by the Keisers at least a couple years ago, with a different designer who they have worked with numerous times. So, they are proceeding with that idea, just with a different designer.

Whoa Joe ... Expect a phone call!

I didn’t intend for my comments to be salcious, just factual background on the 4th course at Sand Valley.

[Carl Rogers]

Why is this thread is getting overly testy?

[Tom_Doak]

The idea of a shorter, Swiney Forest/ Colt tribute type design was pitched and explored by the Keisers at least a couple years ago, with a different designer who they have worked with numerous times. So, they are proceeding with that idea, just with a different designer.

Wow.  I was under the impression, based on what has been said publicly by the Keisers and here on GolfClubAtlas that the idea was entirely Doak's.

It's possible that Joe's info is accurate, but it's news to me.  I think Bill Coore is as bothered with the bulging size of some modern courses as much as I am; Adam Lawrence said something to that effect here, a couple of months ago.


This is hardly the first time I've pitched the idea of a shorter course.  Rich Mack from Streamsong sent me a note of congrats for "finally selling the idea to someone," as I'd proposed something similar to him a few years ago.  I've also got one other proposal out there to do something similar, though probably a short par-70 instead of a par-68.


As for the notion that this idea is "contrived", it's not the first term I would use, but so what if the concept came before the site?  So did The Loop.  And so did Pine Valley.  And what's more "contrived" about setting out to build a par-68 course than setting out to build a 7000-yard par-72 course?  Nothing at all.




Carl:  It's getting testy for all of the reasons I outlined to Bn Sims a few posts earlier in this thread.

[Ben Sims]

Why is this thread is getting overly testy?

Carl,

Tom already gave you an answer, but I’ll venture a longer guess.

In re-reading the thread it seems I’ve just repackaged an old GCA.com argument. Nerds vs Frat Boys, elitism, the experience vs the architecture, etc. This website has a dreadful track record of that debate resolving itself, generally devolving into someone like me presenting an idea that others take as parental or nerdish. That wasn’t the intent at all.

The intent was more to discuss what purposely building gigantic courses vs purposely building something smaller might mean going forward for golf.

I always thought it was interesting that Tom begins the story of the Mulligan course at Ballyneal by simply stating “the club told me they had enough water for nine acres of turf.” If folks don’t think that’s where we are headed with golf architecture writ large, they’re not paying attention to population growth, water usage, and land availability.

In the future, when an architect gets a client that says they have enough water for 67 acres of turf, wouldn’t it be cool if there wasn’t a paradigm of par 72 and 7000yds? I think it would be very beneficial for the game in general if folks were more knowledgeable about these sorts of options.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks for that clear-headed post, and for putting the focus on where it should be (IMO). We all love golf and great golf courses. It seems clear (IMO) that the latter need to evolve if the former is to survive/flourish. This site is only one of many 'marketplaces' of ideas; but I'm glad there are many here who take such topics seriously, which (IMO) we need to do if this site is to serve any real/useful function moving forward. For me, there is nothing in golf that has made me sadder/angrier than what I saw as the trend in gca towards excess for excess' sake.
P

[Kalen Braley]

I think both Ben and JC are both making valid points here.


Ben seems to be concerned about what golfers should want....
While JC is detailing what most golfers have shown to want and accustomed to.


Ideally we would all dine at fine restaurants or prepare the finest of foods for ever meal, but reality tells us the vast masses consume far far far more fast food/crappy food otherwise. 

[Ben Sims]

Ideally we would all dine at fine restaurants or prepare the finest of foods for ever meal, but reality tells us the vast masses consume far far far more fast food/crappy food otherwise.

Kalen,


I think you’re on to something with the food analogy. But I’ll take it a step beyond fine dining vs fast food.


In my line of thinking, one is a fine dining restaurant that serves food with decent flavor and big prices. The other is a food truck with minimal overhead that serves a small menu of exciting, bright and simple food.

[Kalen Braley]

Ben,


I think you're on to something as well. Many food trucks certainly are no longer the "roach coaches" of years past.  I've had a few excellent and simple meals for $10 off a truck or two.


However, the point I was trying to convey is probably best told with another story...


For my parents, dining at sizzler was a "top notch" experience for them.  After I flew the nest and tried different stuff I tried to expand their horizons with Thai, Lebanase, Indian, etc and without exception it always concluded with "I don't like this, can we just go to Sizzler" next time.  After half a dozen or so attempts, I gave up. 


As much as it dismays to arrive at the conclusion, I think most people like what they like and are difficult to be swayed otherwise..

[JC Jones]

The idea of a shorter, Swiney Forest/ Colt tribute type design was pitched and explored by the Keisers at least a couple years ago, with a different designer who they have worked with numerous times. So, they are proceeding with that idea, just with a different designer.

Wow.  I was under the impression, based on what has been said publicly by the Keisers and here on GolfClubAtlas that the idea was entirely Doak's.

It's possible that Joe's info is accurate, but it's news to me.  I think Bill Coore is as bothered with the bulging size of some modern courses as much as I am; Adam Lawrence said something to that effect here, a couple of months ago.


This is hardly the first time I've pitched the idea of a shorter course.  Rich Mack from Streamsong sent me a note of congrats for "finally selling the idea to someone," as I'd proposed something similar to him a few years ago.  I've also got one other proposal out there to do something similar, though probably a short par-70 instead of a par-68.


As for the notion that this idea is "contrived", it's not the first term I would use, but so what if the concept came before the site?  So did The Loop.  And so did Pine Valley.  And what's more "contrived" about setting out to build a par-68 course than setting out to build a 7000-yard par-72 course?  Nothing at all.




Carl:  It's getting testy for all of the reasons I outlined to Bn Sims a few posts earlier in this thread.

I don't think its getting testy.  I just find it disappointing that those who dare to question are dismissed as trolls or naywishers; the mere idea being unacceptable on GolfClubAtlas.com.  Maybe they can convince Ran to enact sedition rules in his 2019 State of the Union address....


I would agree that starting out to build 7000 yards and par 72 is as equally contrived as starting out to build 6100 yards and par 67.  But what you're basically doing is relativism as a means for justification. 


Ideally, you'd create the best course on the land provided (certainly there will be external constraints such as how much and which land the developer will give you, government/environmental, etc).  And, as I've said, if the result of that exercise is 12 holes, 18 holes, 15 holes, 4400 yards, 7200 yards, 6100 yards, then so be it.


But, to artificially place constraints on yourself and then try to sell it as some noble endeavor to save the game (I don't think Tom has been as guilty of this as others), to me, is nonsense.

[Ben Sims]

JC,


I’d argue you’re not daring to question, you’re just poking at the fringes of the conversation in an antagonistic manner. The one time you addressed the heart of the matter, that is, a smaller golf course is inherently easier to manage, easier to walk, and quicker to play—you said you liked it. You’re genuinely confusing me. You like the idea of these ideals, just not if someone set out to build smaller in the first place?


And further to your point about false constraints, by your logic, there could theoretically be a piece of property that lent itself to 16 tremendously cool par 5’s at 500yds each. Par 80, 8000yds, 16 holes...but it’s the best holes on property!


I don’t think I once talked about saving the game. But darned if I don’t think having just as much fun on a more compact and manageable golf course is pretty cool and a worthy goal.

[JC Jones]

JC,


I’d argue you’re not daring to question, you’re just poking at the fringes of the conversation in an antagonistic manner.

Well, your argument would be wrong.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()