Generational Tastes, Part 2

[John Kirk]

I'll take the coveted 25th response slot on my own thread.
It's obvious my attempts to establish pretentiousness as a factor in golf architecture are misguided.  Three of my good friends on the board have challenged the notion, and that's enough for me to give up on the idea.
I hope other aspects of the thread has offered something of value.

[Ira Fishman]

John, I am not a good friend so my "vote" may not count as much, but I agree with you about Pretentious being a good descriptive category.  I may not agree exactly with your definition (but we are pretty close)  and hope to find some time later to offer my version.


As for the thread generally, the fact that it has generated such lengthy and thoughtful posts confirms its high value.


Ira

[Kalen Braley]

John,


Once again, I love this thread topic...don't give up on us yet! In the spirit of not getting stuck, I wanted to dive deeper into Sophistication, or subtlety and/or nuance.


As I think about courses I've played where I was awestruck/impressed, the more I ponder, the more things sort of bubble up.  Like routing nuances, hole sequences, risk/reward, pacing, easy vs difficult holes, etc.  There is so much to consider in retrospect and I wonder how much of it was intentional by the architect or they more or less had an accidental stroke of genius.

[Peter Pallotta]

John -

please don't misunderstand: while my posts raised questions about/differences with your concepts & definitions, I didn't intend that to be the focus. (Indeed: that I might have a different conception of 'pretension'/'sophistication' than you matters not one iota here; and I certainly don't think the attempt to see these as 'factors' is misguided.)

Instead, I wanted to note the reasons why I think that *your* framework and analysis is a perfectly sound and viable and valuable perspective, i.e. just as legitimate an expression of your values/hierarchy of values when it comes to gca as Tom's Doak Scale and Gringo's personal/favourite Top 20-GB&I are of theirs.

In other words: I wanted to celebrate your particular subjective understanding of/experience with the golf courses that you play; and suggest that (in keeping with the wabi-sabi approach), once you have put that on paper, there is still much room left for us/the audience to bring our *own* experiences/insights/imagination to the table.

Judging from the many & varied responses, you've succeeded very well.

Peter         

Edit: Maybe in such matters we can't ever be perfect, or even "right" -- but we can at least be honest, and without self-seeking artifice, as you have been. 

[Michael Whitaker]

John - don't give up on the pretentious category for courses... there are MANY pretentious courses.

I'm thinking of one in north western SC that was designed by one of the most popular designers of our lifetime... the course is littered with unnecessary bunkers, elaborate rock walls trim every water hazzard, intricate brickwork paths lead to every tee and green, continuous cart paths are made of curbed concrete, comfort stations every six holes have facilities as nice as one would find in the most upscale homes, and there is a turnhouse that would rival some club's main clubhouse.

None of these things are necessary to the game of golf and are just there to make the course a "special" environment for the club's elite membership.

I think that qualifies as pretentious.

[John Kirk]

Thanks to Peter, Ira and Kalen (and Mike W. at the last minute!).

I'm not disappointed or irritated by any of the responses.  I'm frustrated by my heavy-handed attempts to write something compelling on this subject.  By the end I'm grasping at straws.

I haven't been writing much lately, so I used this exercise to warm up my skills a bit before turning my attention to other writing projects.  Writing is a skill that must be practiced.  I'm sure I'll respond in more detail if there's more to discuss.


Kalen, the general feeling around here is that great courses are mostly the product of thoughtful planning and construction, but there's always a bit of serendipity where some courses emerge better than expected.

[Mike_Young]

I see nothing wrong with pretentious being used to describe courses.Like you, I favor the music from mid 60's until late 70's and am amazed at how that music seems to stick around even with kids today.  What made that music so great were the words the messages and how they blended with the bands.  And so I would venture to say we could say the same about golf clubs.  It's the overall experience that brings out the pretentiousness IMHO. Could we equate the words of the music to the course itself and then equate the music itself to the presentation via conditioning and the club amenities?  Merion would be wooden music with a simple tune and limited instruments.  Mountain Top would be a full rock band..and some of this new stuff is Eminem...
Are we on the same track or am I out in left field?

[Mike Sweeney]

I'm frustrated by my heavy-handed attempts to write something compelling on this subject.  By the end I'm grasping at straws.

I see you slowly swim away
'Cause the light is leaving town
To a place that I can't be
But there's no apologies
Just go on
Just go on
There's still so many things
I wanna say to you
Go on
Just go on
We're bound by blood that's moving
From the moment that we start
Jack Johnson

[Carl Rogers]

The Golf to popular music analogy does not ring true to me because it is far easier to experience wider range of music through the mass media than the occasional course particularly  those of us from non-golfing families.
With retirement coming along soon, I hope to expand my range of experiences and be open minded.