Cult Courses, Architectural Wastelands, and Serious Criticism

[Ben Sims]

• As a guy with two English Lit degrees, I can appreciate a canon's ability to provide a little conversational direction when you meet someone else who appreciates literature. But it's not really necessary in a field as narrow as golf course architecture. There are more books at my local library than there are golf courses in the world.
• I love Bob Dylan more than most, which is why it's hilarious to me when old guys try to use him as a trump card to prove that nobody's any good at writing songs anymore, or whatever they think their point is. "Pop music today is a joke!" yells the Boomer as the hook implores him to "Sit down... be humble." Anybody who really thinks Bringing it all Back Home is objectively better than Folklore has frogs inside their socks. Isn't there a Dylan song about times changing or something?
• This thread calls out the issue of lack of serious criticism. I'd call out that it hasn't stimulated any real criticism among its replies, although it has stimulated some wild tangential thought. I just want to call out Rob Collins' post. I played Sweetens during grow-in, 8 years ago nearly to the day. More and more, that cold morning feels like the closest I ever came to falling in love with a band in a club and watching as they became stars over the years. I posted about it at the time. I'll see if I can find the thread. I would humbly suggest that it offered some real criticism. It was based on my experiences playing a ball over the growing-in course with a group.  I don't think criticism is that hard to drum up, but I do think it requires you to really think about the golf, and not just fall back on tropes, rules of thumb, and a fear of disagreeing with the published "right answers."
• Honestly, if I think about it, we practically never discussed "quality" in a university-level English Literature class. Certainly not "relative quality" - there was never a discussion at the end of a semester where we ranked the 15 books we had read.  Meanwhile, that feels like the only damn discussion that ever happens around here sometimes. The simple step might be to stop worrying so much about whether this course or that course is "better," and worry more about the elements of the architecture that influence a given course's character, central challenges, themes, etc. I love the thumbs up/down system, but that was just a way to summarize Gene and Roger's takes, not the entire conversation.

Text from a buddy...“That guy called you a Boomer!” Which easily qualifies as the worst put down I’ve had since the kids said I wasn’t cool enough to be any other Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle except the nerdy Donatello back on the playground in ‘91.

From same buddy. “Bringing It Back Home” was recorded in three days. Folklore took four months and five studios. That brings me to my biggest point over what you said. If you’re going to say I’ve got frogs in my shoes, let’s at least wait awhile until they aren’t tadpoles. I’m happy to discuss Folklore’s spot in the canon in 35 years.

I disagree that a canon isn’t necessary in a field as narrow as golf architecture. Full stop. Conversational direction is one thing. But at some point we have to recognize that commercial success and availability doesn’t make for quality control. I doubt Rob wants to argue that McDonalds is the standard bearer for a hamburger. But he did infer that the quality of  Sweeten’s design can be backed up by its full tee sheet. And I couldn’t disagree more. There’s more to it than that.

Lastly, the reason you don’t hear about quality in university level literary courses is because it’s likely heretical to any quality lit dept to allow a professor to present texts that *aren’t* generally recognized as canon in 400-level and below courses. At least that was my experience.

Look, I don’t need to defend Tom Doak. He’s been getting dragged by fellow architects for daring to opine honestly on the art since before I wanted to be Michelangelo turtle on the playground. But the reason this site exists to to discuss the matter at hand. And that involves being critical.

Thanks for fun and thought provoking post. Cheers.

[Tim Martin]

• As a guy with two English Lit degrees, I can appreciate a canon's ability to provide a little conversational direction when you meet someone else who appreciates literature. But it's not really necessary in a field as narrow as golf course architecture. There are more books at my local library than there are golf courses in the world.
• I love Bob Dylan more than most, which is why it's hilarious to me when old guys try to use him as a trump card to prove that nobody's any good at writing songs anymore, or whatever they think their point is. "Pop music today is a joke!" yells the Boomer as the hook implores him to "Sit down... be humble." Anybody who really thinks Bringing it all Back Home is objectively better than Folklore has frogs inside their socks. Isn't there a Dylan song about times changing or something?
• This thread calls out the issue of lack of serious criticism. I'd call out that it hasn't stimulated any real criticism among its replies, although it has stimulated some wild tangential thought. I just want to call out Rob Collins' post. I played Sweetens during grow-in, 8 years ago nearly to the day. More and more, that cold morning feels like the closest I ever came to falling in love with a band in a club and watching as they became stars over the years. I posted about it at the time. I'll see if I can find the thread. I would humbly suggest that it offered some real criticism. It was based on my experiences playing a ball over the growing-in course with a group.  I don't think criticism is that hard to drum up, but I do think it requires you to really think about the golf, and not just fall back on tropes, rules of thumb, and a fear of disagreeing with the published "right answers."
• Honestly, if I think about it, we practically never discussed "quality" in a university-level English Literature class. Certainly not "relative quality" - there was never a discussion at the end of a semester where we ranked the 15 books we had read.  Meanwhile, that feels like the only damn discussion that ever happens around here sometimes. The simple step might be to stop worrying so much about whether this course or that course is "better," and worry more about the elements of the architecture that influence a given course's character, central challenges, themes, etc. I love the thumbs up/down system, but that was just a way to summarize Gene and Roger's takes, not the entire conversation.

I doubt Rob wants to argue that McDonalds is the standard bearer for a hamburger. But he did infer that the quality of  Sweeten’s design can be backed up by its full tee sheet. And I couldn’t disagree more. There’s more to it than that.

There absolutely is more to it and that’s when the conversation begins to veer away from the architecture. That the tee sheets are full is a fact. That the architecture is the sole reason for same I don’t believe to be the case and I am comfortable in saying that without ever setting foot on the property. That said I would like to check it out somewhere down the line and decide for myself.

[Peter Pallotta]

It's natural and to be expected:
An architect believes a course is successful because of the architecture.
A developer believes it's successful because of his due diligence and early key decisions.
A superintendent believes its successful because of the maintenance.
A rater believes it's successful because he's helped others to see its true worth.
A golfer believes it's successful because he and all his friends have chosen to play there often.
A magazine writer believes it's successful because of the sparkling prose with which he's profiled it.

So maybe the smart, well-informed and serious critic is the only one who can see the big picture and take a bird's eye view. And if he's honest and not currying favour, that's worth something, no?

[John Mayhugh]

If there's value in our geekdom, it's that we might be just a little more willing to dig into what actually creates architectural appeal. The traveling retail golfer sees it, and consumes it. He sees it at Augusta, Sawgrass, Tobacco Road, and even locally at a place like Henry County CC that every golfer in Kentucky this side of Mayhugh loves, even though it's a $30 course that just looks like a rolling bit of farm land with a Doak 2 slapped down on it. There's SOMETHING that makes it different from the rest of the $30 farmland courses scattered around the state, and I don't totally understand it, but it's clearly there when I talk to golfers, or register months in advance to ensure I get a spot in their fast-filling 144-person Invitational.

Serious criticism, to me, is seeking to understand that appeal. We spend too much time prescribing what should be appealing, and then complaining that the average player just doesn't get it. I think that more often means that WE aren't getting it.

"Everyone in Kentucky likes it" therefore it has architectural merit is not a conclusion I would agree with. The popularity you refer to could be due to hospitality (first rate), price (cheap), or course design. I'm sorry that I did not succumb to the charms of the course as you did. I can accept that it appeals to some (maybe even many), but not that discussion of its design justifies more than a brief thread. There's little on the ground that needs to be copied or isn't executed better elsewhere.

[Ted Sturges]

This is one of the most interesting threads on this site in a long time. 


I want to go to one of the points that Tom Doak made when he said that serious criticism was getting lost at the crossroads of "searching for the truth versus trying to be popular."


The first edition of The Confidential Guide, in my opinion, was "searching for the truth".  Many (who would have been wrong) would have predicted that a young architect who hadn't built much was wrecking his chances at a decent career by writing a book like that.  Tom was/is a rare breed in that field who was (and is) as much interested in "the truth" as he was/is in his career.  Maybe nobody else has ever been that person in the golf industry.  I think it is an easy argument to make that golf architecture (and the golf industry) is better because of his hunger for finding the truth.


To the other points made about the rankings and other potential "serious critiques" of golf architecture...it's easy to get frustrated searching for truth along that road.  With a very small minority of exceptions, it's hard to view golf course raters as anything other than people seeking access, and people seeking access are not well-served giving negative reviews.  The magazines are selling publications and ads so they are not in the business of offending.  While I have heard Ran speak negatively about certain golf holes in person, Tom's criticism of his course profiles ("he skips over the bad holes") is feedback that could help improve our attempt to seriously study golf architecture.  To Tom's point, there is value to be derived from studying what not to do.


But unlike movie critics who will both praise and crucify a film once it is released, the golf architecture industry resides in a vacuum that eliminates a very high percentage of serious critique due to a multitude of conflicts of interest.  That is why I would argue that we need more resources like The Confidential Guide.  Maybe some young gun who is less concerned with how he/she will be viewed and more interested in searching for "the truth" will come along and provide us with more of what is missing. 


TS

[Lou_Duran]

Lou,


Regarding the question of whether Tom Doak’s rating of the Ohio State Scarlet course was based on just looking over the fence, that seems unlikely to me. From my one visit and experience playing the course (circa early 1980s), I don’t recall it being a gated community. One could just drive up and, at a minimum, have a look around. Knowing Tom, it seems well out of character for him to just look over the fence, especially given his well known respect and love for Alister MacKenzie.


That aside, one thing stands out from playing the Scarlet: though I lived in Cleveland and had a former neighbor that worked in the pro shop, I never really had a desire to return. That was my feeling before ever hearing about and reading Tom’s review in the Confidential Guide (which I just re-read). In short, I think Tom got it right. It is a “5”, a course to play if you are in town, but not one worth driving very far to get to and far from being a Mackenzie course worth seeing and studying.


I think the genius of Tom’s Confidential Guide is not the ratings. Rather, it was his ability to summarize and objectively state what is noteworthy about the course being reviewed. Again, IMO, Tom got it right with the Scarlet.

Tim,


I didn't imply that the Scarlet & Gray GC was gated.  The pro shop building forms a boundary to the course with a single-strand chain fence on one side all the way to the starter's shack and a split rail fence on the other (north and east).  As told to me, the opinion of the Scarlet course was based from the confines of these boundaries.


The gentleman who shared this and similar insights on some other visits frequents this DG regularly and has seen this thread.  He can step in if he wishes and set the record straight.


Relying on information from knowledgeable sources once again, we might remember that the original "Confidential Guide" was more of a pamphlet than a book, for the use of friends and colleagues and not meant for wide dissemination.  Also taking into account Tom's age and level of experience at the time, I see the original CG more as being directionally useful, another source of interesting information.  His much later multi-volume Confidential Guide is certainly more complete.


Re: Scarlet's rating, I confess to being greatly biased.  I have probably played the course 400-500 times, and it is the place where my affection for the game was born and nurtured.  In the years since leaving Ohio in the summer of 1978, I've yet to find a club experience that I enjoyed nearly as much.


Having said all this , I've played over half of the courses in most America's top 200 lists and believe that Scarlet fits easily among them.  IMO, if it had the conditioning, set-up, and exclusivity of most courses on the list, I could see it cracking the top 100, at least under the Golf Digest methodology.       

[Jason Thurman]

If there's value in our geekdom, it's that we might be just a little more willing to dig into what actually creates architectural appeal. The traveling retail golfer sees it, and consumes it. He sees it at Augusta, Sawgrass, Tobacco Road, and even locally at a place like Henry County CC that every golfer in Kentucky this side of Mayhugh loves, even though it's a $30 course that just looks like a rolling bit of farm land with a Doak 2 slapped down on it. There's SOMETHING that makes it different from the rest of the $30 farmland courses scattered around the state, and I don't totally understand it, but it's clearly there when I talk to golfers, or register months in advance to ensure I get a spot in their fast-filling 144-person Invitational.

Serious criticism, to me, is seeking to understand that appeal. We spend too much time prescribing what should be appealing, and then complaining that the average player just doesn't get it. I think that more often means that WE aren't getting it.

"Everyone in Kentucky likes it" therefore it has architectural merit is not a conclusion I would agree with. The popularity you refer to could be due to hospitality (first rate), price (cheap), or course design. I'm sorry that I did not succumb to the charms of the course as you did. I can accept that it appeals to some (maybe even many), but not that discussion of its design justifies more than a brief thread. There's little on the ground that needs to be copied or isn't executed better elsewhere.

Hey man, I don't hold it against you. I wish we'd had a little more downtime at this year's Mashie to talk through some of what we see differently out there, keeping it as brief as the course warrants. It's not in my canon by any means, but I grew up playing the Longviews, Wild Turkey Traces, Duckers Lakes, and Coal Ridges of the world. Weissinger Hills might have been the nicest course I had ever played when I first saw it about age 20. Kearney Hill blew my mind a few months later.


I probably have more of an appetite than most to dive into the nuances of a pasture links, but hell, I spent the first 15 years of my golf life playing nothing else, with people who played nothing else. A few guys at the Mashie thought I overrate Lawsonia too, but it's just about the pinnacle of that variety of golf that I love so much and I've accepted that I think it's the best course in Wisconsin. I first learned of it the same way I first heard of HCCC - through the mouths of local retail golfers I met at the munis of Madison who insisted it was a great place to play.


My wife got real fired up about the literary canon last week, and at some point during a two hour debate about whether anyone should ever care about an old white guy's opinion or not (her arguments have a horrifying way of time traveling into the future), she actually brought up The Old Course to be like "Just because you and your golf nerd friends think that place is so awesome doesn't mean it's any better than some course you'd never give a crap about because it's not as fancy." So then I tried to explain that it in some ways has more in common with the unfancy courses than the fancy ones, and that it's basically the answer to every architectural question, and that those things do sort of make the case that it occupies a unique place of influence and relatability that make it canonical. And then I wondered aloud whether Dannebrog is canonical and she told me to shut up about the place with the damn cows already.


And of course, she also added "And don't even get me started on that Sawgrass piece of shit again!"


I don't know what my point is. I guess it's that I hate The Great Gatsby, but I do think there's value in everybody reading it because it gives me a nice barometer. When someone says "I like Fitzgerald" I immediately know "That's someone whose opinion I should not plan my reading list around."


I think you should definitely stop at Dannebrog on a trip to the Sandhills if you haven't already. It's useful that when I say that, you know you shouldn't, right?

[Sean_A]

Sweet Lou

Regards the Confidential Guide, yes, it was meant as a travel guide for friends. It is in no way a serious critical review of courses. That said, in a way the book worked almost like social media. Quick hits, summary number then on to the next would be tweet.

Ciao

[JMEvensky]

Jason T, as a fellow English Lit guy, I'm down with pretty much everything you've written in this thread--until the comment on The Great Gatsby.


I'll just assume it was a typo .

[Jason Thurman]

• As a guy with two English Lit degrees, I can appreciate a canon's ability to provide a little conversational direction when you meet someone else who appreciates literature. But it's not really necessary in a field as narrow as golf course architecture. There are more books at my local library than there are golf courses in the world.
• I love Bob Dylan more than most, which is why it's hilarious to me when old guys try to use him as a trump card to prove that nobody's any good at writing songs anymore, or whatever they think their point is. "Pop music today is a joke!" yells the Boomer as the hook implores him to "Sit down... be humble." Anybody who really thinks Bringing it all Back Home is objectively better than Folklore has frogs inside their socks. Isn't there a Dylan song about times changing or something?
• This thread calls out the issue of lack of serious criticism. I'd call out that it hasn't stimulated any real criticism among its replies, although it has stimulated some wild tangential thought. I just want to call out Rob Collins' post. I played Sweetens during grow-in, 8 years ago nearly to the day. More and more, that cold morning feels like the closest I ever came to falling in love with a band in a club and watching as they became stars over the years. I posted about it at the time. I'll see if I can find the thread. I would humbly suggest that it offered some real criticism. It was based on my experiences playing a ball over the growing-in course with a group.  I don't think criticism is that hard to drum up, but I do think it requires you to really think about the golf, and not just fall back on tropes, rules of thumb, and a fear of disagreeing with the published "right answers."
• Honestly, if I think about it, we practically never discussed "quality" in a university-level English Literature class. Certainly not "relative quality" - there was never a discussion at the end of a semester where we ranked the 15 books we had read.  Meanwhile, that feels like the only damn discussion that ever happens around here sometimes. The simple step might be to stop worrying so much about whether this course or that course is "better," and worry more about the elements of the architecture that influence a given course's character, central challenges, themes, etc. I love the thumbs up/down system, but that was just a way to summarize Gene and Roger's takes, not the entire conversation.

Text from a buddy...“That guy called you a Boomer!” Which easily qualifies as the worst put down I’ve had since the kids said I wasn’t cool enough to be any other Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle except the nerdy Donatello back on the playground in ‘91.

From same buddy. “Bringing It Back Home” was recorded in three days. Folklore took four months and five studios. That brings me to my biggest point over what you said. If you’re going to say I’ve got frogs in my shoes, let’s at least wait awhile until they aren’t tadpoles. I’m happy to discuss Folklore’s spot in the canon in 35 years.

I disagree that a canon isn’t necessary in a field as narrow as golf architecture. Full stop. Conversational direction is one thing. But at some point we have to recognize that commercial success and availability doesn’t make for quality control. I doubt Rob wants to argue that McDonalds is the standard bearer for a hamburger. But he did infer that the quality of  Sweeten’s design can be backed up by its full tee sheet. And I couldn’t disagree more. There’s more to it than that.

Lastly, the reason you don’t hear about quality in university level literary courses is because it’s likely heretical to any quality lit dept to allow a professor to present texts that *aren’t* generally recognized as canon in 400-level and below courses. At least that was my experience.

Look, I don’t need to defend Tom Doak. He’s been getting dragged by fellow architects for daring to opine honestly on the art since before I wanted to be Michelangelo turtle on the playground. But the reason this site exists to to discuss the matter at hand. And that involves being critical.

Thanks for fun and thought provoking post. Cheers.

• Man... would I rather be called Donatello or a Boomer? That's seriously tough. I get it and apologize for any hurt I caused.
• The Bringing it all Back Home vs Folklore comparison is seriously one I wish we could dive deep into. I find both brilliant if slightly uneven. I also find them both part-and-parcel of the record that followed them. Dylan wins because Highway 61 has no weaknesses, whereas Evermore is more than half weakness in my book. But I can't front on the prolificness, and there's still some awesome stuff on Evermore, and to be honest... I think Blonde on Blonde is a little uneven too.
• Here's what really blew my mind about Folklore: I thought that girl was totally uncanonical until I heard it. And now I'm realizing that she's been hiding in plain sight as perhaps the most gifted songwriter of her generation for 15 YEARS! I've listened to New Morning in the last 15 years, but never sat down and actually listened to Our Song. That's the problem with canons... you end up listening to Desire a dozen times trying to convince yourself that you'll eventually like it, while all you need to do is turn on the radio and listen to the 15 year old with a teardrop-stained guitar to find what you're really looking for.
• I do think we'll know a lot more about the staying power of Sweetens and Folklore in 35 years. But it doesn't take 35 years to realize that Invisible String and Betty are just about perfectly constructed songs, or that 5 is a pretty freakin' awesome short 4.
• I had the thought yesterday that maybe Doak is crossing a line when he tries to be both artist and critic. And then I remembered that my favorite music critic is definitely Noel Gallagher. It's not that I always agree with him, but I'm always glad I listened to his opinion.

[Michael Whitaker]

Some other courses off the top of my head that fall along these lines not mentioned yet I'd put Aiken Golf Club, Goat Hill, Santa Anita, Triggs Memorial and Wilmington Municipal.   

That's funny because I went to see Aiken Golf Club on this trip, too, and I had planned on going to Wilmington Municipal originally, but shortened the trip due to the cold snap.


Perhaps it is easier to become a cult course if I haven't posted a review of it and it's free game!

Tom - in my neck of the woods Aiken Golf Club is the closest thing we have to a "cult" course... it's history, it's uniqueness of design compared to all the modern courses, and it's owner's commitment... all give AGC a mystic attraction amongst those who care about such things.


Another course that fit the "cult" moniker was one Mike Young could really appreciate... the Penny Branch Golf Course in the Low Country of South Carolina... a McKenzie design!!!  (no, not that McKenzie) It was a "home made" family-built, family-run course that was well know for having great conditions. Sadly, they closed several years ago:  https://www.facebook.com/103657769435/videos/10153339839514436

[Kalen Braley]

A perfect example: my visit to Spokane, Washington in May 2019, which I added onto a media visit to Coeur d'Alene. Spokane is not at the top of anyone's list of golf destinations, but between Indian Canyon, the Creek at Qualchan, Kalispel G&CC and the three delightful Spokane County courses - Hangman Valley, MeadowWood, Liberty Lake - it kind of blew me away as far as solid, affordable golf goes. Are the courses I mentioned on the same level of architectural sophistication as, say, Gamble Sands or the courses in/around Bend, Oregon? No, but they were pleasurable places to play in a city I found very enjoyable overall, as someone from Connecticut who now lives in Florida. I think an approach more loaded with "serious criticism" might have yielded a more dour take than Spokane seems to deserve. (If you want to read what I wrote about it, here it is.)

--Tim

Tim,

Thanks for this post, it warms my heart. You've probably done more in one post than I did in several years of posting on the merits of that area along with the several course reviews I did when I lived there.  But that was 10+ years ago and those posts/course reviews have certainly fade on GCA.  I lived in the Liberty lake area and have played Meadowood and Liberty Lake at least 50+ times as well as Indian Canyon and the others 10+.  I may have to dig up some of those old course reviews, Indian Canyon at least is always worth another look.. just a gem of a course!

And now I find myself in Northern Utah with lots of great value proposition courses (low green fees, easy to get on, decent architecture) akin to what is in Spokane, but they are also very unknown in these circles.

P.S.  I don't know how well you recall the 2nd hole at Qualchan Creek, but I've always thought that's one of the coolest holes I've ever played and potentially competes with some of the besties I've seen on the big name courses.

[John Kirk]

Here are a couple things I wanted to share:

1.  Bringing It All Back Home was recorded in three days, while Folklore was finished over the course of somewhere between two and four months.  In the olden days of the mid-20th century, studio time was expensive, and even famous artists felt a sense of urgency to complete the work.  As a result, the music has an imperfect, less refined sound.  Certainly, some of Bob Dylan's song required numerous takes, and songs like "Like a Rolling Stone" were only played all the way through once, and a final version was spliced together from the tapes.  But many of these songs are just tried a few times, and the decision is made to move to the next song.

I would suggest this is relevant for golf architecture, that course designs are best done in a few takes, and not necessarily with concrete, detailed plans.  Striving for perfect is the enemy, and compromises human inspiration.

2.  One of the greatest songs on Bringing It All Back Home is “It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue”.  It is a duet, with Dylan on vocals, guitar and harmonica, and Bill Lee (Spike Lee’s dad) on bass.  Lee is a trained jazz musician, so I’m sure Dylan simply tells him the chord sequence, and then he starts playing the song, with Lee following along and improvising throughout.  I can listen to this over and over, focusing on any of the four voices, three provided by Dylan, or Bill Lee’s wonderful contribution.  The performance swings so hard.  It’s the best song of the album, along with “Mr. Tambourine Man”.

So far I’ve listened to two hits on Folklore, “Exile” and “Cardigan”.  Thanks for the suggestion.  They’re really good.  I can see why many consider this her best work.  On this album, she is working with her friend Jack Antonoff, and a new collaborator, Aaron Dessner from the National.

A key difference between these two songs and a good Dylan record is that the musicians on Folklore establish the background for Taylor Swift without making their own statement.  Everything is geared to be of service of Ms. Swift and her story.  Being an old basketball player, old enough so that Mom and Dad loved Dixieland jazz, I like music where each artist’s voice is heard.  The modern style of popular music has strayed from the Dixieland ideals of improvisation and spontaneous inspiration.  It abides by a star system at the exclusion of the team.

In a sense, golf course development at the highest level seems to abide by these Dixieland ideals.  Plans and general concepts are discussed at the nightly pow wow, and the "associates" go out each day and put their stamp on individual design features.  The lead architect oversees the whole project.  Sometimes he suggests changes, and within a few takes he says “good”.

3.  We don’t know yet whether Folklore will be remembered as a classic.  How many songs will become “pop standards”, remembered by fans and coveted by musicians fifty years from now?

As GCA fans, speculating on which courses will become “standards” is what we do. 

4.  I admire Taylor Swift’s music more than I love it.  The recordings are too flawless for me.  I generally pursue syncopated music that makes me excited and happy.  Swift is earnest and sings about love almost exclusively.

I like Kacey Musgraves a little more than Swift, and my favorite modern female singer/songwriter is Natalia Lafourcade from Mexico, especially when she performs with Los Macorinos.  What a team.     

[Scott Weersing]

Yes we need to be critical of cult courses.


Some that come to mind:


Rustic Canyon
Bandon Trails
Torrey Pines
Whistling Straits
Shadow Creek in Las Vegas
Common Ground
(is there one in Arizona that everyone loves?)


I think Rustic Canyon has dropped in the ratings as it became more and more popular. It was once ranked in the Top 100 Modern but it now rated no. 151. I think it is great and yet GCA has been critical of it. There was a thread about how the seventh hole is not what it once was. I am not a big fan of no. 15 either. I see it as connector hole, but a par 3.  So we do need to be critical of our favorite courses in order to see that no course is perfect.

[Tom_Doak]

I think Rustic Canyon has dropped in the ratings as it became more and more popular. It was once ranked in the Top 100 Modern but it now rated no. 151. I think it is great and yet GCA has been critical of it. There was a thread about how the seventh hole is not what it once was. I am not a big fan of no. 15 either. I see it as connector hole, but a par 3.  So we do need to be critical of our favorite courses in order to see that no course is perfect.

Scott:


I like Rustic Canyon, and this point is not about Rustic Canyon specifically.  But, as I posted somewhere earlier -- I think about Cruden Bay -- because the only real discussion of golf courses in the magazines is via rankings, when there is a course that a dedicated following believes to be important, they will just lobby and push and bend arms and do anything they can to get that course into a ranking, to prove its worth and vindicate their strong opinion of it.  And once that happens, and they're satisfied, it will often disappear.  I can think of lots of courses that fit this pattern.  Remember Lehigh?? 


That's why there are more than 350 courses in Paul Rudovsky's "top 100 ever" list.

[Tom_Doak]

It's natural and to be expected:
An architect believes a course is successful because of the architecture.
A developer believes it's successful because of his due diligence and early key decisions.
A superintendent believes its successful because of the maintenance.
A rater believes it's successful because he's helped others to see its true worth.
A golfer believes it's successful because he and all his friends have chosen to play there often.
A magazine writer believes it's successful because of the sparkling prose with which he's profiled it.

So maybe the smart, well-informed and serious critic is the only one who can see the big picture and take a bird's eye view. And if he's honest and not currying favour, that's worth something, no?

Yep.  That's a keeper of a post.

[Tom_Doak]

The first edition of The Confidential Guide, in my opinion, was "searching for the truth".  Many (who would have been wrong) would have predicted that a young architect who hadn't built much was wrecking his chances at a decent career by writing a book like that.  Tom was/is a rare breed in that field who was (and is) as much interested in "the truth" as he was/is in his career. 
. . .

But unlike movie critics who will both praise and crucify a film once it is released, the golf architecture industry resides in a vacuum that eliminates a very high percentage of serious critique due to a multitude of conflicts of interest.  That is why I would argue that we need more resources like The Confidential Guide.  Maybe some young gun who is less concerned with how he/she will be viewed and more interested in searching for "the truth" will come along and provide us with more of what is missing. 

Hi Ted:


You've known me longer than most here; Tim Weiman, too.  I appreciate your defense.


My "search for truth" was going to see all of those golf courses for myself, which I was still doing until this COVID thing happened.   The Confidential Guide was just an attempt to help friends decide what courses they should see for themselves.


Here's a small piece from the Introduction:


"Along the way, I hope to impress all of you with my opinions on general issues of design, so the book [like its author] tends to be very critical in nature.  Who knows?  Perhaps someday I'll be quoted in textbooks on golf architecture, like Charles Blair Macdonald:  "I only approve of the Maiden at Sandwich as a bunker, not a hole."  That sort of thing."




I was 27, and that was tongue in cheek.  It is absolutely amazing to me that 30+ years later, the book is taken so seriously that Lou Duran is going to doxx me for not spending more time at the Ohio State University Golf Course [the version they blew up!] before giving it a 5.  I don't know whether to laugh or cry.


I've spent the last twenty years on Golf Club Atlas disclaiming every statement with what Pete Dye told me:  everything in golf is a matter of opinion.  [Sayeth Pete:  "There is no right way to swing the club, no right way to grow grass, and no right way to design a golf hole."]  And I understand, as he did, that the important thing is to believe in what you are doing.  So I know that the only reason my book touched so many nerves back when I was a nobody [and still does to this day] is because it had the ring of Truth.  If it didn't, people would just dismiss my opinions as easily as anyone else's.


I'm certainly not always right, and everything's a matter of opinion, but there is so much bulls**t around the golf business that even a passing glance of the Truth is downright dangerous.

[Scott Weersing]

I think Rustic Canyon has dropped in the ratings as it became more and more popular. It was once ranked in the Top 100 Modern but it now rated no. 151. I think it is great and yet GCA has been critical of it. There was a thread about how the seventh hole is not what it once was. I am not a big fan of no. 15 either. I see it as connector hole, but a par 3.  So we do need to be critical of our favorite courses in order to see that no course is perfect.

Scott:


I like Rustic Canyon, and this point is not about Rustic Canyon specifically.  But, as I posted somewhere earlier -- I think about Cruden Bay -- because the only real discussion of golf courses in the magazines is via rankings, when there is a course that a dedicated following believes to be important, they will just lobby and push and bend arms and do anything they can to get that course into a ranking, to prove its worth and vindicate their strong opinion of it.  And once that happens, and they're satisfied, it will often disappear.  I can think of lots of courses that fit this pattern.  Remember Lehigh?? 


That's why there are more than 350 courses in Paul Rudovsky's "top 100 ever" list.

I like that you wrote, "and vindicate their strong opinion of it." People love a course, it gets ranked, and then they move on to play their new favorite course. No one goes there anymore because it is crowded and overpriced. I would expect there is a developer and designer out there planning or dreaming up the next cult course with wild greens and layout.

[Kalen Braley]

I'm certainly not always right, and everything's a matter of opinion, but there is so much bulls**t around the golf business that even a passing glance of the Truth is downright dangerous.

Tom,

This was an interesting comment in your last post.  I'd be very surprised quite frankly if there wasn't.

Where a chance exists to make money, gain power, or develop a prominent reputation this kind of bull shit will always be around any type of organizational structure or niche you can find whether it be business, political, religious, educational, governmental, etc. in nature.

[Tim_Weiman]

Lou,


Regarding the question of whether Tom Doak’s rating of the Ohio State Scarlet course was based on just looking over the fence, that seems unlikely to me. From my one visit and experience playing the course (circa early 1980s), I don’t recall it being a gated community. One could just drive up and, at a minimum, have a look around. Knowing Tom, it seems well out of character for him to just look over the fence, especially given his well known respect and love for Alister MacKenzie.


That aside, one thing stands out from playing the Scarlet: though I lived in Cleveland and had a former neighbor that worked in the pro shop, I never really had a desire to return. That was my feeling before ever hearing about and reading Tom’s review in the Confidential Guide (which I just re-read). In short, I think Tom got it right. It is a “5”, a course to play if you are in town, but not one worth driving very far to get to and far from being a Mackenzie course worth seeing and studying.


I think the genius of Tom’s Confidential Guide is not the ratings. Rather, it was his ability to summarize and objectively state what is noteworthy about the course being reviewed. Again, IMO, Tom got it right with the Scarlet.

Tim,


I didn't imply that the Scarlet & Gray GC was gated.  The pro shop building forms a boundary to the course with a single-strand chain fence on one side all the way to the starter's shack and a split rail fence on the other (north and east).  As told to me, the opinion of the Scarlet course was based from the confines of these boundaries.


The gentleman who shared this and similar insights on some other visits frequents this DG regularly and has seen this thread.  He can step in if he wishes and set the record straight.


Relying on information from knowledgeable sources once again, we might remember that the original "Confidential Guide" was more of a pamphlet than a book, for the use of friends and colleagues and not meant for wide dissemination.  Also taking into account Tom's age and level of experience at the time, I see the original CG more as being directionally useful, another source of interesting information.  His much later multi-volume Confidential Guide is certainly more complete.


Re: Scarlet's rating, I confess to being greatly biased.  I have probably played the course 400-500 times, and it is the place where my affection for the game was born and nurtured.  In the years since leaving Ohio in the summer of 1978, I've yet to find a club experience that I enjoyed nearly as much.


Having said all this , I've played over half of the courses in most America's top 200 lists and believe that Scarlet fits easily among them.  IMO, if it had the conditioning, set-up, and exclusivity of most courses on the list, I could see it cracking the top 100, at least under the Golf Digest methodology.     

Lou,


I won’t go over ground we have already covered, but perhaps I shouldn’t have used the words “gated community”. I merely meant to say that from my recollection the Scarlet course was pretty accessible if someone merely wanted to have a look at the place.


By contrast, my father had a friend who lived very close to the entrance of NGLA. Mistakenly, my father’s friend said there would be no problem going through the gate and having a look at the place.


Wrong! I did make it to the parking lot, but only barely made it out of my car before some guy came up and told me I should leave. Now!


Thank heavens for the Walker Cup. I may never have seen the course otherwise.

[Tom_Doak]

I'm certainly not always right, and everything's a matter of opinion, but there is so much bulls**t around the golf business that even a passing glance of the Truth is downright dangerous.

Tom,

This was an interesting comment in your last post.  I'd be very surprised quite frankly if there wasn't.

Where a chance exists to make money, gain power, or develop a prominent reputation this kind of bull shit will always be around any type of organizational structure or niche you can find whether it be business, political, religious, educational, governmental, etc. in nature.

Kalen,


I suppose that's true, but it's enough to drive you crazy sometimes if you're in the business.  People tooting their own horn is of course to be expected, but the lying about other people and other places is not.


When we were building High Pointe, almost from the day we started, I was amazed at the crazy rumors about what we were doing:  that someone else had bought it, that it was bankrupt, etc. etc.  The only possible reason for some of those was to deliberately denigrate the project in the minds of potential visitors.  Welcome to the neighborhood! 

[V_Halyard]

I don't buy that golf needs a "canon." As Vaughn also points out, there's already a wealth of "best-of" lists that serve any purpose a "golf canon" ever would. There are "GCA Best Of" lists all over the history of this forum. I never found any of them more worthy of reference than a mag list.

As far as I'm concerned, the lamest thing we do around here is seeking to reinforce our own notions of taste. "RTJ bad!" "Ross good!" "Water bad!" "Width good!" That's what I hear in the urge to canonize: let's further formalize our tastes as the "right" ones.

If there's value in our geekdom, it's that we might be just a little more willing to dig into what actually creates architectural appeal. The traveling retail golfer sees it, and consumes it. He sees it at Augusta, Sawgrass, Tobacco Road, and even locally at a place like Henry County CC that every golfer in Kentucky this side of Mayhugh loves, even though it's a $30 course that just looks like a rolling bit of farm land with a Doak 2 slapped down on it. There's SOMETHING that makes it different from the rest of the $30 farmland courses scattered.

Serious criticism, to me, is seeking to understand that appeal. We spend too much time prescribing what should be appealing, and then complaining that the average player just doesn't get it. I think that more often means that WE aren't getting it.

Thurm
I concur.
That said, we overthink l so normal golfers don’t have to. Lol

[Greg Hohman]

Last month I attended a virtual conference entitled “The Temperature of Art Book Criticism and Scholarship,” the term “art book” referring to books which are art works in their own right. The instructor of an online course in which my wife participated last year made books out of meat. At a 2019 NYC exhibition of works inspired by Whitman, a remarkable homage to one of his poems hung from the ceiling like drapery, text imprinted in a very calculated way (which I won’t attempt to describe or explain) in blues and greens, iirc. Conference practitioners lamented the art book’s lack of standing in art, literary and academic institutions. Two young individuals without specialized programs to enter trained themselves. One obtained a BA in visual arts and an MFA in literature. The other earned an English Lit. BA and a visual arts MFA. One publishes art book reviews in a Brooklyn-based arts journal. There is no art book Ph.D.
 
The audience for even the best GCA criticism—as written—is small and will remain small because there is no money in it and the focus is too narrow. A multi-disciplinary approach would reach some new people, albeit still a small niche—and perhaps retain some of the present company. My hypothetical “serious” GCA critic would resemble the aspiring book art critics in having a passion for something without its neat place in the hierarchy (hire-archy). Here’s the resume of someone whom I would love to see supplement his existing gifts by boning up on our favorite land art and its history, taking up the game and then letting fly:
 
“Allen S. Weiss is committed to both interdisciplinary research and experimental performance across the media. Among his theoretical works are The Aesthetics of Excess (SUNY); Phantasmic Radio (Duke); Breathless: Sound Recording, Disembodiment, and the Transformation of Lyrical Nostalgia (Wesleyan); Feast and Folly: Cuisine, Intoxication, and the Poetics of the Sublime (SUNY); Varieties of Audio Mimesis: Musical Evocations of Landscape (Errant Bodies); and most recently Zen Landscapes: Perspectives on Japanese Gardens and Ceramics (Reaktion). He has also written two gastronomic autobiographies, Autobiographie dans un chou farci (Mercure de France) and Métaphysique de la miette (Argol). His creative work includes Theater of the Ears (a play for electronic marionette and taped voice based on the writings of Valère Novarina), which premiered at CalArts and ended its tour at the Avignon Off Festival; Danse Macabre (a marionette theater for the dolls of Michel Nedjar), which premiered as part of the Poupées exhibition that ASW curated at the Halle Saint Pierre in Paris, and subsequently showed at the In Transit festival at the Haus der Kulturen der Welt in Berlin; and a novel, Le livre bouffon (Le Seuil). His radio productions include L’Indomptable (with Gregory Whitehead) for France Culture; the Hörspiel Glissando as well as Radio Gidayū (a soundscape of Kyoto), both for the Klangkunst program of Deutschlandradio Kultur; and Carmignano, an audio essay on wine for Radio Papesse in Florence. He most recently produced and directed Poupées des ténèbres / Dolls of Darkness, a documentary film about the dolls of Michel Nedjar and the Holocaust. He created the photographic illustrations to Chantal Thomas' latest book, East Village Blues (Le Seuil), which won the Prix Le Vaudeville (2019). His most recent book is Unpacking My Library, or, The Autobiography of Teddy (K. Verlag, 2020), co-authored with his Teddy bear.”
 
If Weiss or similar can’t be hired, then why not a DG commission? Start a kitty, solicit proposals, and then select a winner to compose something really “out there.”
 
Disclaimer: I have thought vaguely about such an essay (or art book ) before, am unqualifed to write one. This proposal was a “free write,” a term Jason, Peter and others will know. No doubt many holes can be shot in it. I also did not read every post before me. Hey, it’s my hypothetical full-time career critic who will read every DG thread and post.
 

[Peter Pallotta]

Greg - good post there, and you may be absolutely right about how small a niche is the niche for serious critiques of gca. Mr. Weiss sounds a fascinating fellow -- you need one heck of a subtle and diverse mind to produce that interdisciplinary range of experimental performance art! Ha -- I'm chuckling at the thought of what he might do with a small bit of turf from a C&C course and a lock of Ben Crenshaw's hair, as it relates to the concept of par! But before you posted, I was thinking along much more 'main stream' lines. Earlier tonight and out of the blue I thought: if gca had even one writer who wrote about it like David Foster Wallace did about tennis, we wouldn't have need of this thread at all, nor any of our posts. The truth would be there for all to see, the inherent value of the endeavour self evident. But we don't. We don't have anyone who writes about gca with the insight of an expert, the precision of a scientist, the heart of a poet, and the literary talents of a Willa Cather. There's at least a few courses in the world merit that/that treament.

[Ira Fishman]

I am not convinced that the niche interest in Gca fully explains the dearth of serious criticism. If you look at the biographies of the architecture critics for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post, you will see real life versions of Allen Weiss. My guess that the same is true for their art critics. Yet how many people actually read their pieces regularly and closely? The difference is that the editors of the papers view the topics as being a traditional function of a serious publication. I do not know if that ever was the case for Gca.


Ira