Are Architects Biased ? Do they know it ?

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Dan,

I think you can be biased toward your own natural ability to observe, absorb, process, and then infect your next work of art, and be assured that this process you undergo will allow you to impart your very best efforts on the matter at hand your present work.  I would not go quite as far as Miles Davis, who never looked back at his work, and I think hated to even listen anymore to the album he just released, but I do think a completed work of art is hard to look back on because it is a past relic of this ongoing process so the real enegy and focus is on what is ahead.

  Now, the bias  or confidence or whatever you want to call it comes from knowing that you have internalized your past work, and that you continue to internalize other works by others in a way that will feed new energy and thoughts to the next work.  So in a way the past work seems dated and slightly out of step with where you are going.  

To be consumed by what you have done, possibly meaning to be biased to your past work, I think endangers you by possibly causing you to fall back on paradigms, thus stunting your growth.  I think people that fall prey to their own press, and begin to believe the good things others say, could risk stagnating in their own glory, and begin repeating what they think are absolute qualities, when in fact certain qualities, or bias, are merely temporary stages on the road to something quite different.  

I do not think it often that someone has the "Road to Damascus" experience, rather it is a very slow evolving process that causes architects to create great works, to make a career that consistantly produces great works, because they have delved into a special process of creativity through which they constantly grow their ideas, and never fall back on old true and tried ideas.  

That analysis takes time to uncover, and is usually why most people whom are considered giants of their profession are discovered later after they are gone, and those people whom are considered great, or fashionable at the present time they are creating often fade with time and are largely forgotten.

[Dan Herrmann]

Kelly,
Wow - that's well said!!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Brauer,

Can't help but jump in.  I don't know why Pat phrases questions in such a way as to take a good topic, and yet inflame people at the same time!

You have to learn to accept the good with the bad,
the bitter with the sweet, and to know when your leg and chain are being pulled.

If I can create a good topic, and inflame people at the same time, then I have created interest, discussion and debate.
All good things for a discussion group.

Here in Texas, there is a saying that "After wrestling with a pig in mud for a while, you begin to realize that he just actually likes it" or something to that effect.  Perhaps the same applies here!

And it took you four years to figure that out ?  

Am I biased, or do I just do things that I know work?  As Dan notes, a golf course is a work of art, and has no predefined limits as to what constitutes good art.  

However, it is also very much a practical thing.  If I don't put a par 3 first (although I have designed a few par 3 10th holes to fit the land) it's because I know it will back up play unnacceptably to a course owner hoping to make a profit, or even because I know golfers really don't like it, and they don't like slow play, either.  So, its a real life solution to a very real problem.

In fact, I think it is Pat who argues often that many conventions in golf design are simply things that have proven to work well or be popular, which is my opinion, too.  However, golf courses are also a little like pop culture, in that we are also looking for the "next big thing" constantly.

As an architect, I have to balance out the "knowns" versus the new things to keep design fresh, while not going away from the basic principles that have given me whatever success I've  had.  No question most of us lean to the knowns on 12-15 holes, and only spice a design up with 3  - 6 radical ideas (for us) per course.  In that way, our designs evolve as golfers preferences change.

Despite the labels of "formulaic" from the Cirba/Paul crowd, certain things in golf course architecture are repeated because they make sense, are prudent and successfully empolyed.

For the dolts who couldn't get past the word "bias" the underlying issue was, an architects predisposition, conscious and sub-conscious, in the creation of his work, his designs, routings and features.

What themes or patterns did they put into the ground and why ?  And, where they themselves aware of some of their predispositions.

WSMorrison,

It's difficult to accept your counsel that we should disregard what the architects themselves wrote.

Ross, MacDonald, Flynn, you, me and everyone else doesn't practice what we preach 24/7.  There are always going to be contradictions between what is said and what is done, but that doesn't mean that an architect doesn't hold sacred, their stated principles.

And, if an architect states that blind bunkers have no place on a golf course, and 99.1 % of his bunkers are visible, then I think you can prudently conclude that that architect abhored blind bunkers.  It's not a leap of faith.

[wsmorrison]

Pat, you can be really irritating.  But you already knew that.  

Where did I say we should disregard what the architects themselves wrote?  The work I'm doing requires hundreds of hours studying what Flynn and people asociated with him wrote as well as what is on the ground.  You have a remarkable tendency to distort things that serve your arguments.  Did you work for the Clinton administration?  

What I said was that we should disregard some of what you write:

"Most architects did not have enough writing to make any worthwhile conjecture about what they knew or did not know about their propensities or preferences (I, like SPDB and Tom Paul prefer these terms rather than bias).  Rather than consider what they knew of these preferences, let's stick to conducting just the type of exercise you initiated here with Ross and his top shot bunkers."

Given that no architects ever wrote everything they thought on the subject of their design tendencies and many wrote little, my point is why make conjectures about what preferences they didn't realize they had.  Better to analyze the preferencies we can see on the ground along with any corresponding written record.

Your sampling is pretty faqued up if you think that 99.1% of his bunkers are visible and this proves he abhorred concealed bunkers.  Maybe you should do a more sophisticated analysis and consider the topography and other factors.  I can think of a number of concealed bunkers at Shinnecock, Philly CC Huntindon Valley, and Cascades some at Rolling Green and Lancaster and others.  What courses have you been to tht had no concealed bunkers--or rather 99.1% not concealed?  

What I don't feel like doing is arguing this point anymore.  The majority of his bunkers were not concealed, he definitely wrote about the desire to use the visual hazard to impact the mind of the player.  He did not abhor the use of concealed bunkers.  You know, the possibility that you could be wrong should occur to you.  That is a leap of faith you should take.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick, It has become quite apparent that either you dont what bias means or you are intentionally misusing the word.

On an early thread I listed what I thought Fazio thought were his preferences, from his book:

--  Fazio often builds courses on sites unsuitable for golf, by traditional standards.
--  Fazio often disregards the natural landscape/setting if the natural landscape/setting doesnt suit his design preferences.
--  Fazio sets out to build golf holes which photograph well.  He aims for an instant visual wow factor, with waterfalls, sharp features and contours, and other forms of visual flash.
--  Fazio aims to instantly gratify the golfer.
--  Fazio courses prefer downhill and avoid uphill par 3s.  
--  Fazio courses tend to contain misses, especially those on the right side of the golf holes.
--  Fazio courses tend to emphasize framing;  that is, they tend to feature vertical containment on each side of the hole to seperate the hole from the others and provide a vertical, visual frame for the golf shot.  The framing exists throughout the golf hole, and not just off the tee.
--  Fazio courses tend toward elevated, dramatic tees.
--  Fazio courses tend to minimize hazards which are actually in the line of play, and favor hazards which run parallel to the line of play.  
--  Fazio courses arent much concerned for creating strategic, risk/reward options for the golfer.  
--  Fazio courses tend to inform the golfer of the proper avenue of play, rather than confounding the golfer with multiple avenues and multiple choices.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Thanks Dan.  You have your own piece of art to be proud of at French Creek, and hopefully you will have the opportunity to learn more about Gil's brilliant approach as time goes on.  

Judging from the direction this thread is now going it is probably best for us to check out and allow the "owners and experts of GCA" to resume their debates. Best Wishes Dan.

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

BIAS Bent or Tendency

BIASED Tending to yield one outcome more frequently than others in a statistical experiment.

I think I understand all of the meanings of the word, I'm just not so sure that others do.

[Michael Moore]

Look out, he's added all the colors of the rainbow on top of bold, italic and all caps.

[Doug Siebert]

When I saw this thread, I thought of Nicklaus, and his predisposition to create holes that play well for a power fade.  I'm sure he's aware of that bias, if for no other reason than it has been commented on so much I remember reading about it long before I had any knowledge of or interest in GCA!

But I have to wonder if he can stop himself.  He might think "I'm going to try to be evenhanded on this next design and not favor the fade" but to the eye of someone for whom every shot is a fade, doesn't a routing which emphasizes the fade naturally follow when you look at a site and try to imagine the holes?  A hole with a draw bias would have to be all that much better to overcome this.  Those fade holes just look "better" in his mind's eye, and perhaps he's not conscious of that being the case due to his fade.  His "line of charm" is just a little bent, perhaps  

[DMoriarty]

DMoriarty,

BIAS Bent or Tendency

BIASED Tending to yield one outcome more frequently than others in a statistical experiment.

Interesting choice of definition and synonyms;  colorful in apperance, yet a rather lifeless and nondescript manner of describing a word which is usually loaded with emotion and accusation.  

Your past posts notwithstanding, you nowseem to be partial the sterile, scientific meaning of the term.

Myself . . . I'd probably have gone for something like:

-- An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.
or
-- To influence in a particular, typically unfair direction; prejudice.
or
--  a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation.

Not as colorful as yours, in apperance anyway.

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

Unfortunately, you've fallen victim to the dark side of Political Correctness.

If you would have carefully read my posts, you would have understood the theme and use of the word bias in this thread, especially after my Basketball analogy.

You are aware of the UCLA professor, his study and his endorsement of the movement in California to give
Illegal Aliens the vote ?

IS IT THE WATER IN CALIFORNIA, THE AIR, DRUGS OR A COMBINATION OF THE ABOVE THAT IMPAIRS INTELLIGENT THOUGHT ?  [/b]

Doug Siebert,

Ah yes, but did Nicklaus recognize it when he was doing it, or did it come natural or sub-consciously to him ?

[DMoriarty]

DMoriarty,

Unfortunately, you've fallen victim to the dark side of Political Correctness.

If you would have carefully read my posts, you would have understood the theme and use of the word bias in this thread, especially after my Basketball analogy.

Patrick, I understand your "theme and use" of the word in this thread.  I also understand that you are using the word incorrectly and contrary to accepted usage and definition.

I've fallen victim to political correctness?  My definitions are all from major dictionaries.

[Michael Moore]

Pat -

This is a serious post, as was the one about the mythological forms that populate the collective unconscious of the architects. There was in fact an excellent thread a while back about the very existence of bunkers.

I am willing to work with your definition of "biased". What is the statistical experiment that is being thrown off here?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, I understand your "theme and use" of the word in this thread.  

I also understand that you are using the word incorrectly and contrary to accepted usage and definition.

Not according to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary.

I took the definition straight from pages 105 and 106.

Perhaps you're looking at the California dictionaries  
 

[DMoriarty]

Not according to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary.

I took the definition straight from pages 105 and 106.

Perhaps you're looking at the California dictionaries  

Speaking of bias . . . your definition of bias consists only of the second of three subsets of the second definition of bias.    Here is the complete second definition, from the Webster's New Collegiate, Ninth Edition, with your definition in bold:

2a: an inclination of temperament or outlook; esp : a highly personal and unreasoned distortion of judgment: PREJUDICE
 b: BENT, TENDENCY
 c(1): deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates
  (2): systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others

Did they leave 2.a out of your dictionary?

If not, dies your selective choice of definitions constitute bias, or preference?

[Mark_Fine]

Guys,
Why argue over definitions?  The bottomline is all architects have some kind of style whether or not they want to admit it or we want to admit it.  If you play enough of their courses coupled with extensive study of what they wrote, you will figure it out.  Their styles, preferences, biases (call them what you want) may change over time or even from course to course, but they do exist.  Is it the old 80/20 rule?  For some maybe it is.  For others, it might vary more, but every architect had/has some style, favored design concepts,...,personal likes and dislikes,.....when it comes to golf course architecture.    

How many of you here couldn't recognize a Smyers course from a C&C course?  Do you think you could confuse a Ross course with a Mackenzie design?  How about a Dye with a Fazio?  Sure you will get fooled once in a while but if you see enough and study enough, those times you are fooled will be few and far between.  In fact, that is one of the best and most enjoyable things about playing different courses of the same architect - to look for and discover those features that are different and those design concepts that are the same.

Architects know what works for them and they incorporate those design features whenever they can.  They might disguise things a bit differently but generally the core of their beliefs are still present.  Even an architect like Tillinghast who many people feel was too difficult to figure out, had preferences.  Play 30 or 40 or his courses and read all the letters/articles he wrote and you'll figure out many of them.  

Just my opinion!
Mark

[Mark_F]

Patrick Mucci:

Perhaps most architects are biased toward particular types of holes, patterns of bunkering or whatever, and I am sure they are aware of it, even if they don't call it bias, but something along the lines of "My way of doing this is right".

The more interesting question is why do some architects who have certain types of bunker construction, for instance, build them to the detriment of sites.  Here I am thinking of poor old Peter Thomson's horrible bunkering at Moonah Links.

Don't the really good architects build what is best for the site irrelevant of personal bias, no matter how strongly they would like to follow their instincts?  

And isn't this factor what separates the good from the rest?

[Mark_Fine]

Mark F,

You stated - "Don't the really good architects build what is best for the site irrelevant of personal bias, no matter how strongly they would like to follow their instincts?  And isn't this factor what separates the good from the rest? "

Which "really good" architects would you be referring too?
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

Why didn't you find that definition in the first go round ?
Or, did you ?  But, due to bias, you didn't post it  

As I'm sure you're aware, words can have more than one meaning or definition.  Since I originated the thread, I used the word with the definition I cited above and in the context that I wanted to use it in.

Perhaps your mind is conditioned, predisposed or biased toward reading words and interpreting their use in a certain way.

Mark Fine,

I'm not familiar with Moonah so I can't comment.

I don't know if there is an absolute use of the land on a golf course.  There are so many variables.

In addition, architects have forced their style onto the land.
Some do it more appealingly then others, but woulnd't the strategy remain constant ?

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
Mark F is not Mark Fine!  Not sure who he is?
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

Sorry about that.

It would also be interesting to see the number of dogleg left, versus dogleg right holes that each architect has designed.

One would think that the number would balance out,
but I believe that more dogleg lefts exist.

[Forrest Richardson]

Jeff makes a nice summary of what is the reality. I'd add that golf architects are no more biased than golfers or golf enthusiasists. It cannot be more emphasized that golf architects also have the nack for that side of the equation which is technical and not "art". This knowledge often leads us to decisions which may appear as "bias" when, in reality, they are founded on other grounds than whim or preference.

[Mark_Fine]

Forrest,
But golfers and golf enthusiasists ARE biased aren't they?  
Mark

[Forrest Richardson]

"Bias" = Personal and sometimes unreasoned judgement.

Without a proper dose of bias in design we have no real design. We have merely the mechanics of completing a task.

Yes, everyone is biased to various degrees.

[Mark_Fine]

Forrest,
That is all I am saying.  You just worked on a Billy Bell course didn't you?  I assume you tried to bring back some of Bell's design features.  And where there wasn't good evidence of what was originally there, you probably incorporated some of Bell's "preferences" to blend things in.  I could be wrong but that is my guess.
Mark