News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Don Mahaffey made a post in the Sweetens Cove thread that I thought deserved a topic of its own.  Here it is:

The challenge for all modern cult classics with followings built on social media and the internet is sooner or later they will become the subject of a real critique. Wolf Point may be in that group and while I love the golf course and what we did, it’s never really been the subject of serious criticism like all the greats. Sweaters, WP9, WP...all deserve real study to back up the hype. I happen to believe that one or two can withstand it, but maybe not all will survive and come out on the other side ranked as high.



This post made me smile because it raised several questions simultaneously:

1.  Is there really much "serious criticism" of golf architecture?

2.  What are the other "cult courses" Don left out?

3.  The importance [or not] of rankings generally, because he did go there at the end of his post.



So, here goes my response.  Apologies if it gets a bit long.

1.  I'll keep this part short.  There is not a lot of serious criticism of golf architecture.  There certainly isn't in the golf magazines:  they don't want to offend anybody.  This web site is supposedly a leading source of such criticism, but its founder never says writes anything critical.  I used to do some, but I get attacked as "biased" half the time I try nowadays.  No one has picked up the mantle, as far as I have seen.



3.  The magazines use rankings as a proxy for criticism, because they can't be bothered to write a long form piece about design.  Most people fall into that same trap, which might be why Don fell back on talking about rankings in the end . . . plus his and Mike's work at Wolf Point has now been "validated" by a ranking, so he now believes they are important.


Rankings are pretty important WITHIN THE GOLF BUSINESS.  Golf courses advertise off the back of them; once you've been ranked you can advertise it forever, even if your course was removed years ago.  Designers whose courses are ranked can charge much more to future clients for fees, in theory anyway.  They can make or break careers, even though getting a ranking is no guarantee of business success, for a golf course or for a designer.


And, let's face it, rankings are trash.  They are the carefully assembled and collated opinions of a bunch of anonymous guys who think they know something.  When I was a freshman at MIT, there was an acronym for that:  GIGO.


[To all my panelist friends, this is not a personal attack; I was once in the same place, fighting valiantly to make the system better.  If you really want to contribute, start asking, why are all these other guys on this panel?  What do they know?]


I'll tackle the cult courses in a separate post.


Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cult Courses, Architectural Wastelands, and Serious Criticism
« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2021, 09:29:19 AM »
Tom-Do you think your courses get a fair critique or are they muted by your presence on this site? If you choose the former you aren’t being honest with yourself.

Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cult Courses, Architectural Wastelands, and Serious Criticism
« Reply #2 on: March 14, 2021, 09:51:07 AM »
Regarding other cult courses, don’t the high end destination courses beloved (mostly) on here qualify? Certainly there is a cult following for Bandon. I think the courses deserve their reputation. Same is true for Streamsong although I could see Black wearing out its welcome. Kingsbarns and Castle Stuart had a bit of a cult following, and I am surprised that they have held up so well in the rankings—which perhaps helps prove the problems with the rankings.


The absence of serious Gca criticism is an interesting one. It cannot be just about advertising dollars because even in the Internet Age, my guess is that the New York Times derives a higher % of dollars from Broadway show advertisements than the golf magazines do from golf resorts. The theater critics rarely pull their punches. On the other hand, other “art” forms also are not subject to heavy critiques while some are. I read a lot of book reviews, and there must be 9 positive reviews for every negative one. Restaurants and movies both seem to attract more mixed if not downright negative reviews.


Ira
« Last Edit: March 14, 2021, 09:52:44 AM by Ira Fishman »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Cult Courses, Architectural Wastelands, and Serious Criticism
« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2021, 10:00:36 AM »
2.  ON CULT COURSES


When I was a junior at Cornell, trying to figure out where I should go on my overseas scholarship, I stumbled upon a picture of the 8th hole at Cruden Bay, with sheep all over it, in a 1929 copy of GOLF ILLUSTRATED in the basement of the ag school library.  [Who says an Ivy League education isn't good for anything?  ;) ]  Honestly, I had never heard of the golf course, and wondered if it still existed . . . that's how unknown it was in 1980. 


Somewhere in between then and now, Cruden Bay became a cult course.  Maybe I even played a small part in that.  I loved it when I first saw it, but I also understood it had its limitations [total length, blind par-3's, a heart-attack-hill climb, and some lesser holes to offset the awesome ones].  I was quite surprised when it made a ranking of the top 100 courses in the world years later, but I believe the main reason it did is because rankings were seen as the only way to recognize it, so its fans just kept pushing until they succeeded.


Don Mahaffey's post named the current internet darlings [Sweetens Cove, Wolf Point, and Winter Park] as examples of cult courses, but there have certainly been others, in the stone age days of traditional media.  Many designers have cult followings at the start of their careers, when nobody in the mainstream will pay any attention to them.




The course that Sweetens Cove reminded me of most is Tobacco Road, which is a great study for this exercise.  Tobacco Road has legions of loyal fans, including myself, but it has never done well at all in the magazine rankings, and I don't really think that is even seen as a controversy -- I can love it and yet agree that it does not meet the working definition of "great" employed by most of the ranking panels. 


So why is Tobacco Road like that, but Sweetens Cove and Wolf Point have people insisting they belong in the rankings?  Volume.  Tobacco Road is less than an hour from Pinehurst, and it cannot help but be compared with all of the courses there, whose pecking order is well established.  The contrast with everything in Pinehurst has been key to Tobacco Road's business success:  it adroitly siphoned off the golfers who were sick of playing five courses that all looked the same, and established its own little niche.  Indeed, it was so successful that it caused the owners of Pinehurst and Mid Pines to start re-investing in their own properties to make sure their courses did not look all the same.


[If you didn't notice, I have switched words now, because that's what this is REALLY about.  Golf, like other luxury goods is a niche business, and if you can find your own niche, you can be very successful without worrying about what's happening in other niches.]




By comparison, Sweetens Cove and Wolf Point and Winter Park are in tiny, tiny markets that also happen to be architectural wastelands.  There is not much around them to compare them to, and nothing whose pedigree is firmly in place to peg them on the pecking order like Pinehurst et al do for Tobacco Road.  Their charms are magnified a million times by the size and structure of the internet, which seems like free word-of-mouth advertising:  but remember, GIGO goes double on the internet, because you don't know who are the people whose word you're taking, or whether they are even real people!


Will these courses find [or create] their own niche?  Perhaps.  Sweetens and Winter Park are nine-hole courses, which conveniently keeps them from having to be compared apples to apples against full-size courses; the same applies to The Cradle, Bandon Preserve, The Mulligan, and all the other "short courses" making waves these days.  They may help popularize a resurgence of nine-holers that somehow makes them the granddaddy of that genre, because their advocates have never been to Whitinsville or the Sacred Nine.  [Wow, talk about cult status, just think of that nickname!  Or of The Dunes Club in Michigan which preceded these newcomers.] 


And really, for Winter Park, if it works for the community, it doesn't matter a bit whether Matt Ginella fans are going there, too.  But Sweetens and Wolf Point must operate under a different measure.






[size=78%]  [/size][size=78%]]  [/size]

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Cult Courses, Architectural Wastelands, and Serious Criticism
« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2021, 10:07:25 AM »
Tom-Do you think your courses get a fair critique or are they muted by your presence on this site? If you choose the former you aren’t being honest with yourself.


Tim:


That was an excellent straw man, except for the part where you answered your own leading question, and therefore blew the setup.

I don't really think very many courses get an honest critique here, or anywhere else.  It's not just mine.  But mine are the only courses where that is ascribed to BIAS because I participate so prominently on the site, and that's pretty annoying, now that you ask.  So thanks for asking!  :D


ADDING:  One of the advantages of participating here is that 1500 people who supposedly care about design can ask me questions about my work, and provide me with direct feedback.  I've always seen that as valuable, for both sides.  There are only a few guys who insist that it's a negative.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2021, 10:18:08 AM by Tom_Doak »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Cult Courses, Architectural Wastelands, and Serious Criticism
« Reply #5 on: March 14, 2021, 10:11:02 AM »
Regarding other cult courses, don’t the high end destination courses beloved (mostly) on here qualify? Certainly there is a cult following for Bandon. I think the courses deserve their reputation. Same is true for Streamsong although I could see Black wearing out its welcome. Kingsbarns and Castle Stuart had a bit of a cult following, and I am surprised that they have held up so well in the rankings—which perhaps helps prove the problems with the rankings.


The absence of serious Gca criticism is an interesting one. It cannot be just about advertising dollars because even in the Internet Age, my guess is that the New York Times derives a higher % of dollars from Broadway show advertisements than the golf magazines do from golf resorts. The theater critics rarely pull their punches. On the other hand, other “art” forms also are not subject to heavy critiques while some are. I read a lot of book reviews, and there must be 9 positive reviews for every negative one. Restaurants and movies both seem to attract more mixed if not downright negative reviews.



Ira:  See my substitution of "niche" for "cult" in the post above.  Bandon Dunes is certainly a niche business, but like Tobacco Road, once your niche gets big enough you cannot avoid comparison with the other great courses of the world, and at that point a cult must give way.


As to "serious criticism", just try naming some people who have ever really done it well, and you will identify the problem.


Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cult Courses, Architectural Wastelands, and Serious Criticism
« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2021, 10:23:40 AM »
Tom,


I understand your amendment. But it also means that the courses that have become “big” niches should face even more serious scrutiny than when they were just cults. To your point, that rarely happens.


I gladly would take up Gca criticism in my retirement. In my “real” life, I make you seem like weak tea in the candor department. Alas, I do not actually pretend to know enough about Gca to be useful.


Ira

Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cult Courses, Architectural Wastelands, and Serious Criticism
« Reply #7 on: March 14, 2021, 10:27:04 AM »
Tom-Do you think your courses get a fair critique or are they muted by your presence on this site? If you choose the former you aren’t being honest with yourself.


Tim:


That was an excellent straw man, except for the part where you answered your own leading question, and therefore blew the setup.

I don't really think very many courses get an honest critique here, or anywhere else.  It's not just mine.  But mine are the only courses where that is ascribed to BIAS because I participate so prominently on the site, and that's pretty annoying, now that you ask.  So thanks for asking!  :D


ADDING:  One of the advantages of participating here is that 1500 people who supposedly care about design can ask me questions about my work, and provide me with direct feedback.  I've always seen that as valuable, for both sides.  There are only a few guys who insist that it's a negative.


So not only yours but few courses get a fair critique? You better tell Ran because I’m not sure he knows. ;)

Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cult Courses, Architectural Wastelands, and Serious Criticism
« Reply #8 on: March 14, 2021, 10:33:49 AM »
This thoughtful post provoked me to chime in with my lingering malaise about the faux criticism posted here. It seems like every day somebody posts a list seeking bit of near triviality. Like:


Best two or three hole loops.
Three or more course clubs.
Best nine hole courses.
Cult following courses.
Tough greens on par 3’s or 5’s.
Greatest courses not named after their location.
Top Ten in Your Town.
Most underrated courses.
Most overrated courses.
Courses where you are allowed to play all day.
Courses you would play every day.   
Best American links.
Faux links courses.
Real links gems.
Best Irish courses.
Best Australian courses.
Great courses nobody ever talks about.
Overly penal courses.
Great courses on indifferent landforms.
Indifferent courses on great landforms.


Don’t get me wrong: I plead guilty to engaging in this rote behavior. Years back I started a few threads dubbed Mister Lister seeking such information.


It just seems that the collective obsession with ranking and rating has turned into perseverating instead of golf architecture perspicacity.


Glad I got that off my chest. What are the highest rated courses that you wish you hadn’t played?  😅
« Last Edit: March 14, 2021, 10:44:39 AM by Terry Lavin »
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cult Courses, Architectural Wastelands, and Serious Criticism
« Reply #9 on: March 14, 2021, 10:40:42 AM »
IMHO :
true critique would require that one not know who the architect was.  Most people are not capable of critique w/o knowing who the architect is.
The person doing the critique would have to be capable of removing maintenance from his critique.

critique would be of the "whole" and not "holes" of the course and this eliminates much of the 80's and 90's era product when each hole was there to produce lots for homes.  And it should..IMHO
But I just don't know where you find the people to critique.  Most people in golf are ass kissers...contractors kiss ass to work for the archie, vendors kiss ass to sell the irrigation, golf car companies want to be sure they get the fleet and boards just usually have no clue and go with the fad...the average board member plays a course based on name of archie and not architectural merit.  And they would critique that way.
But I am sure of two things that produce better architecture assuming one is a good architect.  Design/build cannot be beat and if you take on more work than you can do with the people you trust to do the work the work will not be as good. 

Just not sure there can ever be a FAIR serious criticism...IMHO

 
« Last Edit: March 14, 2021, 10:42:57 AM by Mike_Young »
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Don Mahaffey

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cult Courses, Architectural Wastelands, and Serious Criticism
« Reply #10 on: March 14, 2021, 10:53:11 AM »
Tom,
I mentioned the rankings because...what else is there..?!?.


WP9 - Yes Ginella hyped the course and Keith and Riley. But in my mind what makes WP9 worthy of study is not just the architecture! And among successful golf course renovations and creations isn't it often more than just the architecture? While you have to get that right in some manner, what happened at Winter Park was the transition of a run down small muni that was losing money and fighting to survive in some manner...to a community task force that found a way to get some energy into the process, hired some young guys who may have been considered unproven in some circles (you and I knew better as we know Keith and Riley) and turned a loser into a winner. last time I was on a call about WP9 they were trying to figure out how to expand the parking lot! They made a profit for the first time ever in the first few months and it's been record breaking for them ever since. However the architecture is measured, it is a success story worthy of real study.


Wolf Point - Built for one guy who absolutely abhorred the idea of anyone ever telling him how his course was architecturally or in any other way.  It was his course built for one purpose, for him to have a recreational 18 holes every day it was 60F or higher. One tee time at 9 am every day. If Mike or I wanted to bring someone out, he was Ok with that but he wasn't interested in anyone's opinion about his course. Does that mean its good? Of course not, but it was developed free of many constraints and that does make it unique. And yes, in its region, it is a star. But in any region it would still be unique.


Sweetens - Never been. Just watched with amusement when the SC cheerleaders would relentlessly hype the course and trash the opposition during the Covid driven twitter face offs. Reading SC fans trash #2, Prairie Dunes, and any other opposition with their only real reason being, Sweetens was more fun.  Maybe that's enough.
I have a feeling they've developed something really cool there and it does seem to be lasting. I need to see it.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2021, 10:56:00 AM by Don Mahaffey »

Adam Lawrence

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cult Courses, Architectural Wastelands, and Serious Criticism
« Reply #11 on: March 14, 2021, 10:56:58 AM »
2.  ON CULT COURSES

By comparison, Sweetens Cove and Wolf Point and Winter Park are in tiny, tiny markets that also happen to be architectural wastelands.  There is not much around them to compare them to, and nothing whose pedigree is firmly in place to peg them on the pecking order like Pinehurst et al do for Tobacco Road.  Their charms are magnified a million times by the size and structure of the internet, which seems like free word-of-mouth advertising:  but remember, GIGO goes double on the internet, because you don't know who are the people whose word you're taking, or whether they are even real people!



Architectural wasteland, sure. But Orlando is about as far from a tiny golf market as it is possible to get.
Adam Lawrence

Editor, Golf Course Architecture
www.golfcoursearchitecture.net

Principal, Oxford Golf Consulting
www.oxfordgolfconsulting.com

Author, 'More Enduring Than Brass: a biography of Harry Colt' (forthcoming).

Short words are best, and the old words, when short, are the best of all.

John Emerson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cult Courses, Architectural Wastelands, and Serious Criticism
« Reply #12 on: March 14, 2021, 11:00:34 AM »
Wolf point is a cult course?  Did I miss something?  Is it widely available to many? [size=78%]Who has played it besides raters, friends of the  owner, or friends of Don M?  Many many have played the other examples.  [/size]
“There’s links golf, then everything else.”

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cult Courses, Architectural Wastelands, and Serious Criticism
« Reply #13 on: March 14, 2021, 11:01:40 AM »
Rankings are utterly pointless. I participate in one just because I get to meet up with people I know to discuss golf courses. I like that.


If you think about it, rankings are entirely random because they are driven by a few or all of the below:


- Historic positioning
- Trends in course types / loves
- Love of an architect
- Tournament history
- Social Media viral marketing / hype
- Desire to be promoting an unusual course that few others are
- Based often on only one or two rounds
- An amalgamation of many different thoughts that cancel each other out and defer to the norm


Rankings only work if they belong to a single person (see Doak scale) with reasoning and individual biases that are very clear to that person.


The way Tom evaluates courses is his and his alone. Others can be different and still as valid. Everyone has personal preferences.... But the point that there is very little honest critique is very true, sometimes through lack of knowledge of either what makes a great course or at least how to put that in to words, sometimes because of a desire not to offend.

Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cult Courses, Architectural Wastelands, and Serious Criticism
« Reply #14 on: March 14, 2021, 11:10:51 AM »
IMHO :
true critique would require that one not know who the architect was.  Most people are not capable of critique w/o knowing who the architect is.
The person doing the critique would have to be capable of removing maintenance from his critique.

critique would be of the "whole" and not "holes" of the course and this eliminates much of the 80's and 90's era product when each hole was there to produce lots for homes.  And it should..IMHO
But I just don't know where you find the people to critique.  Most people in golf are ass kissers...contractors kiss ass to work for the archie, vendors kiss ass to sell the irrigation, golf car companies want to be sure they get the fleet and boards just usually have no clue and go with the fad...the average board member plays a course based on name of archie and not architectural merit.  And they would critique that way.
But I am sure of two things that produce better architecture assuming one is a good architect.  Design/build cannot be beat and if you take on more work than you can do with the people you trust to do the work the work will not be as good. 

Just not sure there can ever be a FAIR serious criticism...IMHO


Mike,


This might explain the difference between book reviews on the one hand and theater, movie, and restaurant reviews on the other. The vast majority of book reviews are written by other authors who probably are hoping for positive reviews of their own work. Theater, movie, and restaurant critics are highly unlikely to have to worry about being in a position to be reviewed by those who they review.


As it relates to Gca rankings, they should be taken with a grain of salt. However, I think it is fair to say that the “top” several hundred or so are far better than the thousands in the middle.


Ira

Don Mahaffey

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cult Courses, Architectural Wastelands, and Serious Criticism
« Reply #15 on: March 14, 2021, 11:19:47 AM »
Wolf point is a cult course?  Did I miss something?  Is it widely available to many? [size=78%]Who has played it besides raters, friends of the  owner, or friends of Don M?  Many many have played the other examples.  [/size]


John,
I don't know the definition of a cult classic.
Re WP, there is a new owner now and my understanding is he does host groups. I'm not involved but I've heard there is a link that one can use.
Before it changed hands, we hosted annual outings for the last few years, and Mike Nuzzo and I hosted friends and golf architectural nerds over the years. But yes, no where near the volume that have played the other courses mentioned here.


PS...raters have never been part of the equation, and my understanding now is that is still the case. One magazine rates the course, and thru the years many raters have seen it because they were friends of Mike and me. But the owner never wanted it "judged". Only after he died did his wife allow it, and while that may have helped with the sale, it was more as a favor to Mike and it wasn't ranked by any pub during the sales process, only after did it come out in Golf Mag's top 100 US.

PCCraig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cult Courses, Architectural Wastelands, and Serious Criticism
« Reply #16 on: March 14, 2021, 11:22:10 AM »
WP9 - Yes Ginella hyped the course and Keith and Riley. But in my mind what makes WP9 worthy of study is not just the architecture! And among successful golf course renovations and creations isn't it often more than just the architecture? While you have to get that right in some manner, what happened at Winter Park was the transition of a run down small muni that was losing money and fighting to survive in some manner...to a community task force that found a way to get some energy into the process, hired some young guys who may have been considered unproven in some circles (you and I knew better as we know Keith and Riley) and turned a loser into a winner. last time I was on a call about WP9 they were trying to figure out how to expand the parking lot! They made a profit for the first time ever in the first few months and it's been record breaking for them ever since. However the architecture is measured, it is a success story worthy of real study.


Interesting thread.


Funny that WP9 is mentioned. I first visited there a few years ago the week before it opened while on a day trip there for work. They were nice enough to let me walk around before there was even a scorecard. I took pictures and posted a thread here on GCA. I've been back a few times and love the course.


I think, given the site and constraints, the golf course is terrific. I think the par-3 holes hold up incredibly well to almost anything you find on a new C&C or Doak course.


My appreciation of WP9 though does come from the entire experience, though. How can it not...small clubhouse/patio, no carts, quick play, interesting golf course, for less than $20 in a metropolitan area?
H.P.S.

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cult Courses, Architectural Wastelands, and Serious Criticism
« Reply #17 on: March 14, 2021, 11:25:06 AM »
Years ago Ron Whitten had a column entitled "Architorture." It was as close to serious criticism as a magazine gets.
As for this site, I do try to begin threads about some aspect of architecture.
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cult Courses, Architectural Wastelands, and Serious Criticism
« Reply #18 on: March 14, 2021, 11:32:21 AM »
Just when I was thinking I might get enough downtime by early April to write my "Year in Review" of all 78 courses I played in 2020...

I like to think I did serious criticism in my 2019 reviews, although invites did dry up a bit this past year which I had hoped was Covid-related.    :-X ;)
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

Ben Hollerbach

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cult Courses, Architectural Wastelands, and Serious Criticism
« Reply #19 on: March 14, 2021, 11:34:39 AM »
The most prevalent level of criticisms performed by the golfing community today is through money spend and rounds played. None of it directly applies to the architectural merits of a property, but it does take into account desirability and interest. New properties full of hype are not judged today, they're judged in 10, years, 20 year, 50 years. As properties age and new interests pull for player's attention does a course's price and tee sheet drop.


Places like Pebble and Pinehurst have not only been able to stand the test of time, they've thrived because of it, demanding $500 a round with a constantly full tee sheet. While other high-profile venues from the past 20-30 years have dramatically fallen off in stature.


Sweetens, Winters Park, Goat Hill, Schoolhouse Nine, and other properties represent a new model for golf. And as such presents a different value proposition to the consumer. Among this group of courses Sweetens may be the most architecturally examined, but the main drivers of these courses are as community and entertainment centers. A serious critique of these facilities should not solely focus on the architecture, in actuality grading these course should focus the most on how the community embraces them and less on the actual design features of the course.

Blake Conant

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cult Courses, Architectural Wastelands, and Serious Criticism
« Reply #20 on: March 14, 2021, 11:36:28 AM »
To Tom's first question, no, there isn't much serious criticism in golf. Many have an opinion on why they love a course, but few have the tools/knowledge to perform a proper critique. The bigger problem is there are many who have the tools, they just aren't because they don't want to ruffle feathers of potential clients, colleagues, employers, etc.


The Feldman Model of Art Criticism is as follows:


1. Description - what do you see?
2. Analysis - how did they do it?
3. Interpretation - why did they do it and what does it mean?
4. Judgment - is it good?


In golf, a lot of people go from 1 to 4 because they don't know how to execute 2 and 3. That's because analysis and interpretation requires a baseline (if not robust) understanding of principles of design, historical context, regional context, discerning hierarchy, etc. Judgment is based on criteria and evidence, and without proper analysis and interpretation, judgments fall back on "I like it" or "I hate it".


That's my biggest problem with cult courses combined with social media. Everyone has a voice, everyone can be a critic, but few have seen enough golf courses, know enough about golf's history, or know the principles of design well enough to make a worthwhile judgment of said cult course within the broader context.

Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cult Courses, Architectural Wastelands, and Serious Criticism
« Reply #21 on: March 14, 2021, 11:41:15 AM »
Just when I was thinking I might get enough downtime by early April to write my "Year in Review" of all 78 courses I played in 2020...

I like to think I did serious criticism in my 2019 reviews, although invites did dry up a bit this past year which I had hoped was Covid-related.    :-X ;)


Mike-Keep doing what you are doing as that was a great thread in 2019. It’s hard for me to put much weight behind the criticism of the criticism. ;D

PCCraig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cult Courses, Architectural Wastelands, and Serious Criticism
« Reply #22 on: March 14, 2021, 11:43:49 AM »
As mentioned above, this is an interesting thread.


A couple of months ago I started a thread on Mid Pines not being *considered* the best course in the Sand Hills and the main response I seemed to get back is "because its not." After that the thread devolved into a "I have 10 plays in Pinehurst, which courses should I play?"


It's also interesting that Tobacco Road is mentioned. I played there on the same trip after having not been there for many years and loved it. After I played I posted on Twitter on 1/3/21: Tobacco Road manages to succeed in all the ways other modern big name courses, such as Mammoth Dunes, have fallen short. TR provides visual intimidation paired with supreme strategy and, in the end, forgiveness and FUN. Why isn't TR in the Top 100 US?!" I received a fair amount of interesting comments to that post, and I planned to post a thread here, but after Mid Pines I just didn't feel like it would really drive an interesting discussion.


Why? Well you could compare TR to the new #4. I don't think its even close which the better golf course is but few here would openly post something negative about a Gil Hanse / Caveman course. #4 is a fine course, with some cool holes built on a not-as-good-as-you'd-think site, but is it a Top 100 golf course in the US? I don't think so. It throws every modern minimalist trick at you...wide fairways, scraggly bunkers, internal putting contours, etc. etc. but it all felt so contrived when a place like Tobacco Road feels so much more authentic and interesting.


So, yes, I agree with the general premise of the original post. There is a lot of group think out there, both with the NLU/Sweetens/Zac Blair crowd as well as here. Not sure what's driving that, but it's there.


I think it would be interesting to pull this thread back up in a few years when The Tree Farm is considered a cult course?  :)
H.P.S.

Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cult Courses, Architectural Wastelands, and Serious Criticism
« Reply #23 on: March 14, 2021, 11:48:57 AM »
2.  ON CULT COURSES

By comparison, Sweetens Cove and Wolf Point and Winter Park are in tiny, tiny markets that also happen to be architectural wastelands.  There is not much around them to compare them to, and nothing whose pedigree is firmly in place to peg them on the pecking order like Pinehurst et al do for Tobacco Road.  Their charms are magnified a million times by the size and structure of the internet, which seems like free word-of-mouth advertising:  but remember, GIGO goes double on the internet, because you don't know who are the people whose word you're taking, or whether they are even real people!



Architectural wasteland, sure. But Orlando is about as far from a tiny golf market as it is possible to get.


Adam,


As a member of the Gca publishing world, where do you go to find serious criticism?


I think the guys at The Fried Egg do a nice job of explaining Gca, but they tend to go light on the critiques. The reviewers on Top100 Courses seem to be the most willing to attach their names to critiques.


Ira

Don Mahaffey

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cult Courses, Architectural Wastelands, and Serious Criticism
« Reply #24 on: March 14, 2021, 11:51:06 AM »
To Tom's first question, no, there isn't much serious criticism in golf. Many have an opinion on why they love a course, but few have the tools/knowledge to perform a proper critique. The bigger problem is there are many who have the tools, they just aren't because they don't want to ruffle feathers of potential clients, colleagues, employers, etc.


The Feldman Model of Art Criticism is as follows:


1. Description - what do you see?
2. Analysis - how did they do it?
3. Interpretation - why did they do it and what does it mean?
4. Judgment - is it good?


In golf, a lot of people go from 1 to 4 because they don't know how to execute 2 and 3. That's because analysis and interpretation requires a baseline (if not robust) understanding of principles of design, historical context, regional context, discerning hierarchy, etc. Judgment is based on criteria and evidence, and without proper analysis and interpretation, judgments fall back on "I like it" or "I hate it".


That's my biggest problem with cult courses combined with social media. Everyone has a voice, everyone can be a critic, but few have seen enough golf courses, know enough about golf's history, or know the principles of design well enough to make a worthwhile judgment of said cult course within the broader context.


I'm not sure about all that Blake. I get the academic version, and of course academics like to push the empirical or academic method.
But in the end, isn't art about the emotions it stirs? How did the critics judge a Picasso? A Tobacco Road? I fear that this method can, as Sir Ted Robinson described in his TED talk. "educate the creativity out". Ultimately I believe we need to start by deciding if golf architecture is art or engineering? Engineers can be creative so I don't mean to be pithy. But what I often hear among the well traveled educated golf builders when they critique seems to be more engineer based than artistic. And of course its simpler to talk about greens slopes that are too steep/flat and bunkers that wash rather than composition.