Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: John Kavanaugh on September 26, 2007, 08:12:17 AM
-
What opinions do you have about golf course architecture that would cause an intellectual to attack you with these words? Are there givens in the GCA world and if so, what are they?
-
Ummm,
Pretty much every thing I say here seems to cause a backlash, but thanks for the op to have it happen again, John! ::)
Although I have said these before:
The old guys were basically not thinking about much other than drainage when contouring putting greens. We give they WAY too much credit.....
Participants here take this gca thang WAY too seriously in general. I'm not saying that any gca, moi included, shouldn't give his/her all when actually designing a course. Just that we should break our backs analyzing it here. Just go play, dammit!
-
Given today's technology (balls, drivers), Augusta National is a better and more challenging course than it was (pick a year....in 1986), and provides greater options on how to attack it.....
-
What opinions do you have about golf course architecture that would cause an intellectual to attack you with these words? Are there givens in the GCA world and if so, what are they?
"I really like this course -- it's all right there in front of you."
-
Jeff,
You are correct in that some of what you state can bring about challenges. For example, I must take exception to your statement that, "The old guys were basically not thinking about much other than drainage when contouring putting greens. We give they WAY too much credit....."
Speaking only about Tilly, I maintain that you are way wrong in your belief and that, at least in his case, maybe we don't give him enough credit for a design philosophy. Consider what Tilly stated about greens and their designs and let me know where he even intimates anything at all about drainage:
“So our first step toward supplying our putting greens with character is the consideration of the type of shot which is to find that green and construct with that thought ever uppermost...”
"In introducing undulations the builder of courses must consider the shot which is to fit the green...”
“Construct your greens boldly and naturally, remembering at all times from which side of the fairway the approach is to come and the character of the club with which the approach is to be made...”
“The character of the putting greens and their approaches mark the quality of a course to a far greater extent than anything else. No matter how excellent may be the distances; how cunningly placed the hazards, or how carefully considered has been the distribution of shots, if the greens themselves do not stand forth impressively the course itself can never be notable...”
-
Given today's technology (balls, drivers), Augusta National is a better and more challenging course than it was (pick a year....in 1986), and provides greater options on how to attack it.....
What is not debatable is the fact that ANGC is the number one greatest course in the world.
-
In my opinion Bernard Darwin was a great essayist, but only so-so as an analyst of golf course architecture.
I suppose if I said something like that I would get told I am astonishingly uneducated.
I've also been told by Pat Mucci on more than one occasion I belong to the Flat Earth Society because I disagree with him on equipment issues. Does that count?
-
JK: What does being an intelectual have to do with golf course architecture? Now, if some mega developer/billionaire said that to me well that would be a different story. My response would still be - get rid of the waterfall.
-
National Golf Links of America is too quirky and has too many blind shots.
-
Phillip,
I admit I was thinking more of Ross, but I also recall a quote from somewhere saying "You can always tell a Tillie green - it drains!"
I also find it interesting that his comments on green contouring relate more to the approach shot. It reads to me like he wanted the green basically both angled and sloped towards the premium side of the fw to assist stopping shots. As to overall slope, Thomas wrote that short shots should have steeper greens to help with backspin and long shots should have flatter ones to allow run out. I am not sure that with standardized clubs now that it might not be the other way around, but I also think Tillie was making a similar statement.
I don't doubt that Tilly had thoughts about green design. Given train travel, I wonder how closely those building the courses with his one or two site visits might actually get to that philosophy.......
-
Jeff,
I think you're just being brazenly provocative.
;D
-
There is no "greatest course." The higher you go on the rankings, the more ludicrous the whole idea of "ranking" becomes.
(I believe this is a corollary to Mr. Brauer's second brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated point.)
-
Mike,
perhaps so....
However, to stay in character, the proper answer to Phil would have been:
There you go again, giving him WAY too much credit. I will credit Tillie with a great marketing peice, making (as gca's do now) it seem very mysterious....just enough to discourage anyone at home from trying it!
If he was really wrting about design philosophy, why wouldn't he have just said "I provide more receptive contours from the premium side of the fw by tilting the green up to that side to better help stop a shot?"
He was writing to sell his services, not inform the masses. As such, its all a bit suspect to use any quotes to really determine what he was thinking.
-
He was writing to sell his services, not inform the masses. As such, its all a bit suspect to use any quotes to really determine what he was thinking.
The above is perfect reasoning for the Fazio book. He was not writing to critics, he was writing to members and potential clients.
-
"I don't know, sometimes I like flat greens. I think they look pretty, and very natural too. That's what I would look for if I was an architect, a patch of round, flat ground, and I'd put my green there and worry about the rest of the hole and the routing later. Flat greens are especially good if there are no bunkers around them, just the flat, round green surrounded by rough. You can't run the ball up, you have to hit one high and soft. It's better if they are quite small, like 5,000 square feet, so that the inaccurate iron player pays a big penalty, seemingly incommensurate with the degree of his miss. And if they are also slow and a bit bumpy, that's the best of all, because then the good putter doesn't have much of an advantage over the bad one."
-
He was writing to sell his services, not inform the masses. As such, its all a bit suspect to use any quotes to really determine what he was thinking.
The above is perfect reasoning for the Fazio book. He was not writing to critics, he was writing to members and potential clients.
Aren't they all?
-
Given: There isn't one living architect who has contributed to this site that hasn't received some form of recognition/accolade for his work, be it here or in golf/trade/travel publications.
In all likelyhood they too will become the beloved ODGs, and probably harbor the desire that their work will still merit discussion, but I don't think they should rush it. :o
-
"You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.."
Why should it be either/or? Can't I be both?
-
Mike,
perhaps so....
However, to stay in character, the proper answer to Phil would have been:
There you go again, giving him WAY too much credit. I will credit Tillie with a great marketing peice, making (as gca's do now) it seem very mysterious....just enough to discourage anyone at home from trying it!
If he was really wrting about design philosophy, why wouldn't he have just said "I provide more receptive contours from the premium side of the fw by tilting the green up to that side to better help stop a shot?"
He was writing to sell his services, not inform the masses. As such, its all a bit suspect to use any quotes to really determine what he was thinking.
Jeff,
You ignorant slut...
(http://snltranscripts.jt.org/77/pics/77rupdate2.jpg)
;)
-
Jeff,
You need to get a set of original green drawings from any of the better Ross courses. Augusta CC would be a good choice.
Having the accompanying hole drawing would would be good as it shows the approach shot values and why he design some of the green contours.
Of course when viewing them you can't impose 2007 golf shots on them.
-
Mike,
Jeff isn't a slut!
Again you are incorrect regarding Tilly. You stated, "He was writing to sell his services, not inform the masses. As such, its all a bit suspect to use any quotes to really determine what he was thinking."
Jeff, the quotes I gave you were taken from articles that Tilly wrote specifically dealing with aspects of course design and his philosophies. They were not part of a marketing campaign for his services. As they were published in Golf Illustrated they were definitely written for "the masses."
As for his greens draining... so what. A well-designed green will drain properly and they had to account for this back then just as we do today.
As for your observation of how you, "Find it interesting that his comments on green contouring relate more to the approach shot..." Consider what Tilly also wrote:
"That which concerns me most is where the ball lands and exactly what it does after. In most instances the golf holes I plan are conceived in looking backward from a green’s site or from a favorable contour to locate properly the teeing ground."
"The building of a golf course is costly, and it should not be attempted without serious thought."
Tilly designed holes from the perspective of how the greens would accept shots played into them and therefor he would write that he first and formost gave consideration to the green entrances and their contours.
Finally, you wondered, "Given train travel, I wonder how closely those building the courses with his one or two site visits might actually get to that philosophy......."
Although there were some exceptions, Tilly made numerous site visits to the courses he designed regardless of distance. he also provided not only detailed drawings of green complexes, but he himself made and left plasticine models of both greens and holes for the builders to work with. He meticulously demanded that they be followed and reflected in the finish product.
For exmple, his contract with 5 Farms (since the Seniors will be there shortly it is apropos) called for "One Thousand ($1,000) dollars upon the delivery of the plans, specifications and models, and your approval of them." Note he would provide plans and specifications and models. In fact, he actually delayed the project for several weeks after hurting his wrist and being unable to make the plasticine green models for the project. He would do this work on site.
Your turn...
-
Mike,
perhaps so....
However, to stay in character, the proper answer to Phil would have been:
There you go again, giving him WAY too much credit. I will credit Tillie with a great marketing peice, making (as gca's do now) it seem very mysterious....just enough to discourage anyone at home from trying it!
If he was really wrting about design philosophy, why wouldn't he have just said "I provide more receptive contours from the premium side of the fw by tilting the green up to that side to better help stop a shot?"
He was writing to sell his services, not inform the masses. As such, its all a bit suspect to use any quotes to really determine what he was thinking.
Jeff,
You ignorant slut...
(http://snltranscripts.jt.org/77/pics/77rupdate2.jpg)
;)
Wow,
Jane Curtain looks TERRIBLE in that photo!
Ralph,
I have spent several days in the Tufts Library looking at Ross green plans. Most mention where to get cut and fill and so forth, rather than any detailed strategy or design thoughts. That in part was the basis of my original brazen statement.
-
Phillip,
You are giving him way too much credit.....that's my story and I'm sticking to it!
-
Phillip,
BTW, define numerous? I make 30-60 site visits. I bet Tilly was 3 to 6, making it much harder to control every aspect. I take his wide variance of style from course to course as proof that he left a lot of details to whatever construction crew was on board, even given the shorter construction times of the day.
-
that, based on launch optimaization, etc, the game is already bifurcated and therefore the equipment section of the rules should be adjusted to acknowledge this and create a competition ball
-
Powell,
Considering you see it as already bifurcated, what difference would a competition ball make?
-
Jeff, the quotes I gave you were taken from articles that Tilly wrote specifically dealing with aspects of course design and his philosophies. They were not part of a marketing campaign for his services. As they were published in Golf Illustrated they were definitely written for "the masses."
I'm just curious:
If Tillie (and other architect/writers of the so-called Golden Age) hadn't imagined that potential clients were out there hiding among "the masses," would they have written their magazine articles?
My suspicion, of course, is that everything any of them wrote was, more or less directly, in the service of "marketing" their services.
But I'm willing to have my suspicion routed (pun belatedly recognized).
-
Powell,
Considering you see it as already bifurcated, what difference would a competition ball make?
thinking that if the competition ball flew 10% shorter, older courses wouldnt be obsolete or strecthed like ANGC for pros and newer courses would not all need to be built to 7500 yds
Obviously, the other side of the arguement is that if the distance is simply frozen now, all of the changes have already been made and courses won't need to be longer
Please keep in mind that my response was meant to answer the original question (although perhaps not directly on point for GCA)
-
My point is that too small of a fraction of players actually "obsolete" golf courses for us to worry about...golf course operators need to find the self respect to handle what they have with a little more care and respect...
-
My point is that too small of a fraction of players actually "obsolete" golf courses for us to worry about...golf course operators need to find the self respect to handle what they have with a little more care and respect...
Fair enough, although I wonder if they ahve the self discipline to build a course tipped out at 6800 yards, or do they fear that the lack of tips makes them a non-championship course, and that the 99.9 % of the public that will never use the tips anyway avoid the course because it can't host the PGA or would be eaten up by Tiger, etc.
Well, it appears I managed to be either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated, or both.
-
So far, what I get is that Jeff is being brazenly provocative in his use of irony to sarcastically draw light on the issue of green design. And he has found the perfect comedy partner in the point-counterpoint routine.
And Phil is being astonishingly intellectual in his ability to use his wealth of knowledge of Tillie to go to the quotes to demonstrate the proof of Jeff's ironic misdirection.
Nice going fellows...
-
My point is that too small of a fraction of players actually "obsolete" golf courses for us to worry about...golf course operators need to find the self respect to handle what they have with a little more care and respect...
After seeing the new 7200 yd tees at Wolf Run I must protest the above statement. The course needed the new tees a lot more than it needed women members.
-
RJ,
In all seriousness, and not meaning disrespect either Tillie or his supporters, my statements weren't made in jest, nor do I think they are totally misdirected.
To quote the PGA Tour, "These guys were good". Its really more a comment on the fact that us modern gca fanatics possibly analyze these things more than they did. In reality, not every stinking little contour was really thought out in the construction time frame as it might be over the next seventy years.
But I do think that the comic element does address gca with all the "seriousness" it deserves. So, lets keep it coming!
-
Apache Stronghold is an all around better golf course than Oakmont CC. :o
I think that statement caused Jordan Wall to call me stupid, so....
-
Jeff, well then IMHO, Phil just kicked your ass.
I'm not intellectual enough to go to the quotes as Phil can, but I know the writings left behind by all those ODGs and the writers of the time that I've read, point more in the direction of deep consideration they gave for all the dramatic contours they incorporated into their green designs, and LZs, where the shots and angles were directly correlated to the contours found or constructed, and not haphazard happenstance.
-
My point is that too small of a fraction of players actually "obsolete" golf courses for us to worry about...golf course operators need to find the self respect to handle what they have with a little more care and respect...
After seeing the new 7200 yd tees at Wolf Run I must protest the above statement. The course needed the new tees a lot more than it needed women members.
That may well be the case John...do they have women's tees? are they acceptable to the women that play there? More importantly, how many other sets of tees do they have? How is play broken out among all of the mens sets? How did the new tees effect the overall experience? Is it cramped with the new length? Is there room for more?
-
The new championship tees at Wolf Run are fantastic and seamless. I did not study the locaton of the womens tees because I could care less.
-
What was the purpose of putting in the new tees at Wolf Run?
-
The course plays far too short at 6900yds...They needed more fun.
-
The course plays far too short at 6900yds...They needed more fun.
For whom?
-
For 90% of the people who would join a Smyers course over any of the other options in Indy. I will not apologize for those without the game (financial or athletic) who make poor choices. Some of us outlive our choices which is why senior tees get built.
-
And therefore it was a sensible decision...
My club is considering adding 30 - 50 yards to a good 560 yard par 5 because when it is firm...and...when we host a top flight amateur event a couple of guys are able to hit 7 irons into the green...it runs significantly downhill, and they really do keep it firm...but...the best part of the hole is standing out in the fairway trying to figure out how to get it on the green...even if it is a 7 iron...sad days...
-
For 90% of the people who would join a Smyers course over any of the other options in Indy. I will not apologize for those without the game (financial or athletic) who make poor choices. Some of us outlive our choices which is why senior tees get built.
Wolf Run was too short (not enough fun) for 90% of the members at 6900 yards?...
-
For 90% of the people who would join a Smyers course over any of the other options in Indy. I will not apologize for those without the game (financial or athletic) who make poor choices. Some of us outlive our choices which is why senior tees get built.
Wolf Run was too short (not enough fun) for 90% of the members at 6900 yards?...
Yes, for people who should join a course like Wolf Run. The mistake is not made in which tees you play so much as where you play. It makes me sick to see a great course dumb itself down just to pay bills.
-
These are not courses on an island John...they're businesses...how many people are there in the northern suburbs of Indianapolis with a 5 handicap or better AND the time AND the means to join a new country club?
Make the handicap cutoff for 7000 yards 8 if you really want...
-
RJ,
I don't know if I'm put off more by your being "astonished" at my intellectualism or that you consider me as being intellectual! :o
Jeff, the flaw in your logic, at least about Tilly and probably about some of the other ODG's is that you are looking at them through 21st century eyes rather than putting yourself back into the culture of their day. This is a common problem that people have when they try to understand the history of anything.
You asked a very good question, "BTW, define numerous? I make 30-60 site visits. I bet Tilly was 3 to 6, making it much harder to control every aspect..."
Each job was different as the work that the customers would contract for was defined by their budgets. That seems so logical, but consider, saving $1,000 in 1918-1928 was a significant sum of money where today it is but a minor change order. A number of clients wanted Tilly, Ross, and others to give the design and then leave the construction to themselves. Tilly preferred to design courses where he controlled the construction process rather than just giving a set of prints and strongly insisted on this. As a result, most of his designs were constructed with his full knowledge and approval.
Now earlier, I used 5 Farms as an example and will continue to as it is quite representative of how he worked.
Tilly visited the site more than a dozen times throughout the project. you mentioned that you visit your work 20-30 times; how much time do you spend on site when you do this? Aren't many of these visits just fly in and back out?
Tilly would spend longer stretches on site, so even where he would only visit 5 or 6 times, the overall time spent was far closer to what you spend then what you might imagine.
For example; when he contracted 5 Farms, he stated in the contract that, "I will arrive at the club on the morning of Wednesday, June 18th, to begin my preliminary work and it should be possible to have the courses staked completely within two weeks..."
Tilly would often have mail and telegraphs forwarded to wherever he was stopping so that all of his projects would continue in a timely fashion. For example, on one occasion he wrote to the 5 Farms committee and told them if they had need to contact him he could be reached in Babylon, New York, where he was also building a course.
Because he spent longer periods of time on site when he was there, it enabled him to carefully examine the work that was being done in light of what his plans called for. He wrote the committee at 5 farms that, "I find that he [Robert Scott] has followed my directions faithfully and well…"
Remember, the original contract called for him to design and build two courses. It was changed to one as a result of the club members who preferred tennis. In fact his original design for the present 5 Farms course had to be redone when they decided that they needed 40 tennis courts, a number of which would be on portions of the property that he had already planned to use for the course, and later on a Polo field.
You also are mistaken in your assumption that, "I take his wide variance of style from course to course as proof that he left a lot of details to whatever construction crew was on board..."
Tilly designed his courses for the land it was to be built on. He did not believe in template holes; in fact he wrote that it was his opinion that to do so was the wrong way to carry out a proper design. That is why, though he greatly liked a number of the courses that CB McDonald designed and wrote about them with great praise, he still took exception to this design philosophy.
Dan, you asked, "If Tillie (and other architect/writers of the so-called Golden Age) hadn't imagined that potential clients were out there hiding among "the masses," would they have written their magazine articles? My suspicion, of course, is that everything any of them wrote was, more or less directly, in the service of "marketing" their services."
Again, just like Jeff, you lack a clear understanding of the day and how Tilly, and others, obtained their work. Most of it came to Tilly as a result of networking his friends and acquaintances and then because of the reputation his courses garnered.
For example, Shawnee was a good first design, but it was Tilly's friendship with many of the players of his day that allowed for the Shanee Open (Eastern Open) to be a success from the very first one in 1912. This, in turn, brought his name as a designer out across the country by the word of mouth of all the players who came there to play.
I would love to see Wayne write an article about the real effects that Philadelphia area golf had on the spread of golf course construction in America. So many fine players and who also would end up relocating elsewhere.
A good example is Cameron Buxton. It was when he relocated to Dallas that he persuaded those locals who wanted to build a great cliub for themselves that they should hire his good friend Tilly, and so Brook Hollow was born.
Many of the great commissions in the teens and twenties were awarded because of connections.
So again, you asked, "If Tillie (and other architect/writers of the so-called Golden Age) hadn't imagined that potential clients were out there hiding among "the masses," would they have written their magazine articles?"
The answer is yes as Tilly had begun writing about golf more than a dozen years before he ever designed Shawnee. We have found an article dating back to 1898 that included photos of St. Andrews that he had personally taken.
Tilly was into any and everything golf related and his writings were both a source of pleasure and revenue for himself. That is why your, "Suspicion, of course, is that everything any of them wrote was, more or less directly, in the service of "marketing" their services..." is incorrect; at least in Tilly's case.
-
Tilly was into any and everything golf related and his writings were both a source of pleasure and revenue for himself. That is why your, "Suspicion, of course, is that everything any of them wrote was, more or less directly, in the service of "marketing" their services..." is incorrect; at least in Tilly's case.
Great post...this last thought grabbed me though...just because he did not design his first course for a dozen years does not exclude Tilly from writing with the thought that it may put his name in front of someone that might let him do just that...
How would you compare and contrast Tilly's earliest writings with the Confidential Guide by Tom Doak?
-
These are not courses on an island John...they're businesses...how many people are there in the northern suburbs of Indianapolis with a 5 handicap or better AND the time AND the means to join a new country club?
Make the handicap cutoff for 7000 yards 8 if you really want...
As long as I can afford I will continue to try to avoid the paychitecture courses and frequent the art that is left in the game.
-
Tilly was into any and everything golf related and his writings were both a source of pleasure and revenue for himself. That is why your, "Suspicion, of course, is that everything any of them wrote was, more or less directly, in the service of "marketing" their services..." is incorrect; at least in Tilly's case.
Great post...this last thought grabbed me though...just because he did not design his first course for a dozen years does not exclude Tilly from writing with the thought that it may put his name in front of someone that might let him do just that...
How would you compare and contrast Tilly's earliest writings with the Confidential Guide by Tom Doak?
That's exactly what I had in mind, JES II, with the parenthetical "more or less directly." Thank you for putting it so succinctly.
-
That's all well and good, but I took you at your word that the move from 6900 to 7200 benefited 90% of the membership/prospective membership and Cabell challenged that...how would you respond to him?
-
Tilly was into any and everything golf related and his writings were both a source of pleasure and revenue for himself. That is why your, "Suspicion, of course, is that everything any of them wrote was, more or less directly, in the service of "marketing" their services..." is incorrect; at least in Tilly's case.
Great post...this last thought grabbed me though...just because he did not design his first course for a dozen years does not exclude Tilly from writing with the thought that it may put his name in front of someone that might let him do just that...
How would you compare and contrast Tilly's earliest writings with the Confidential Guide by Tom Doak?
That's exactly what I had in mind, JES II, with the parenthetical "more or less directly." Thank you for putting it so succinctly.
Brevity is my thang...does that make me a genius in Shakespeare's mind???
-
How dare I replace "wit" with "genius"...I'd certainly prefer wit[/i]...
-
That's all well and good, but I took you at your word that the move from 6900 to 7200 benefited 90% of the membership/prospective membership and Cabell challenged that...how would you respond to him?
People who should join courses and people who do join courses are two different things. Crooked Stick is next to Wolf Run and can and does provide a perfect experience for the woman or less skilled player.
-
Similar to people who drive on public roads and people who should drive on public roads?
-
JK is right--Wolf Run was too short at 6900.
I had the pleasure of playing with John and two buddies yesterday and Wolf Run is a shadow of its former self. Still a very solid and good test but it needed the extra 300 yards.
I've been a(n) (honorary) member there since 1991 and can remember when that was one of the hardest courses I'd ever been on.
The rough is much wispier and has been both thinned out and cut back from right around the edges of "in play" areas. I like that a lot but as an example I might have hit 5 fairways all day and still shot one under par. In the old days I would have easily shot 80.
In the afternoon we played an alternate shot format and the back tees were the way to go. The only hole that might be too long would be #8. In the AM from 435 and into a decent breeze I hit a really good drive and carried the crossing creek by maybe 35-40 yards. At 460 from the tips I really don't know how playable the hole is for anyone except a pro. I'm not silly long but I can hit it out there pretty decent.
Anyway, the fairays were soft and wet and I was very surprised at how much shorter the course still seemed to play.
I understand the sadness of losing the old atmosphere but you gotta do what you gotta do to survive and without the changes there may not have been any Wolf Run to enjoy.
BTW--difficulty is kinda relative. the 3 handicap in the group shot 84 and the 11 shot a 94. But, JK is right that it wasn't the length that killed them.
-
I have told my reality friends that I like the new tees and rough better than before. I believe the architecture has been improved. When guys like me start flying fairway bunkers you need more length and new tees make more sense than moving the bunkers.
-
". . .too short at 6900."
Why do I even live?
-
"Width and Strategy and Options and Angles are all just code-language synonyms for "easy"."
Why do I even live?
-
Jeff, well then IMHO, Phil just kicked your ass.
I'm not intellectual enough to go to the quotes as Phil can, but I know the writings left behind by all those ODGs and the writers of the time that I've read, point more in the direction of deep consideration they gave for all the dramatic contours they incorporated into their green designs, and LZs, where the shots and angles were directly correlated to the contours found or constructed, and not haphazard happenstance.
RJ,
I mean no disrespect to you, Phil, or anyone on a thread sort of set up to make provocative comments. That said, I don't feel Phil kicked my ass with any comment, and I kind of resent you saying it.
Anyone can pull a pithy quote from someone else out, post it, and feel smug in their "intellectualism." But, how intellectual is it to let some dead guy do your talking for you and how does posting a quote demonstrate your understanding of a design concept? I equate it to a cover band claiming they are as good a songwriters as the Beatles because they can sing their songs. But are they?
At least I tried to rephrase the saying to demonstrate my understanding of it. You and Phil simply demonstrate my point in taking quotes of Tillie and giving them some mystical qualities in your own mind that are greater than what they really are, or IMHO, were meant to be. Thanks for proving my point! ;D
Now, having said that, I don't think they put no consideration into design, nor that they weren't great designers. I just still believe that it was far less than what their fans think it is.
And, while the point is certainly up for discussion, we can't argue based on this series of posts that this is my provocative POV that would elicit a strong response, as asked for by JK.
PS to Phil - Thanks for those quotes. I do enjoy reading them and trying to devine architectural nuggets. But, I also believe all gca's are marketing all the time. Perhaps Tillie wrote early, as suggested, thinking it would be great marketing for his future career. It's clear he liked to write, as you point out. Its also possible he wrote to clear his mind or clarify his concepts in his own mind. All are valid points.
-
Jeff,
You need to get a set of original green drawings from any of the better Ross courses. Augusta CC would be a good choice.
Having the accompanying hole drawing would would be good as it shows the approach shot values and why he design some of the green contours.
Of course when viewing them you can't impose 2007 golf shots on them.
For those of you that might want to see a repro of an original Ross green drawing, hop over to the thread on Donald Ross tee shirts.....you can not only see a plan, but you can get to wear one too!
-
". . .too short at 6900."
Why do I even live?
It bothers me too to say that. 6900 used to be a fine back tee yardage until all the "improvements" in technology came along and allowed a bunch of guys to start hitting the ball way too far on a consistent basis.
the game has changed--bombs away and strategy be damned :(
Sorry but 6900 for a good club player isn't what it used to be.
-
I like trees.
I prefer Winged Foot's tree lined holes over Oakmont's wide open course.
I do agree that Oakmont was likely originally intended to look as it now does, and that the current tree-less Oakmont is how Oakmont should be.
However, I would rather my home course have trees of abundance such as found at Winged Foot, rather than being tree less such as now found at Oakmont. Neither of these course are links courses. I prefer my inland non-links courses (is that redundant) to include trees as one of the obstacles that will affect my strategy and my options.
Go back and look at the St. Louis C.C. photos. The trees play an integral part of that course.
Of course, I also prefer the trees to be native to that local.
-
The best thing Winged Foot ever did was cut down about a thousand of those damn committee planted trees!
Old pictures of Winged Foot show a far more open course. while trees were no doubt planned for but not to the claustophobic extent that occured by the mid 1990's.
Trees are fine but too much of a good thing can ruin everything.
-
Jes,
You asked, "Great post...this last thought grabbed me though...just because he did not design his first course for a dozen years does not exclude Tilly from writing with the thought that it may put his name in front of someone that might let him do just that... How would you compare and contrast Tilly's earliest writings with the Confidential Guide by Tom Doak?"
It's a good question and again illustrates what I meant when I said that most people have problems understanding the past historically as they tend to view it from current perspectives.
When Tom wrote the Confidential Guide, he had already gone to school with the express purpose of becoming a golf course architect. He visited and played numerous courses both for the joy of the game and as a learning experience to aid him toward his goal of designing. That he had a passion for writing was separate to his desire to design, yet he found an outlet for it in writing about what he was most interested in.
Tilly, on the other hand, was quite the opposite. When he began to write about golf in the late 1890's, the idea of being a golf course architect as a profession was unheard of and not something that he gave consideration to. Tilly visited Scotland in 1895, 1898 & 1901 with the express purpose of bettering himself as a player. He was convinced that he was a world-class player and his greatest desire was to win a USGA championship. He competed on very high levels, but the reality was that he was at best a second-tier talent.
In addition, those who desiged golf courses at the turn of the century in America, did a relatively uninspired job for the most part. That is one of the reasons why Macdonald's NGLA was greeted so sensationally. Here was a work of art as well as a challenging golf course.
Tilly & his friends, what we refer to as the Philadelphia School of Design, were nothing more than a bunch of friends who played a lot of golf together. They had a passion for the game and with a growing realization that golf courses could be designed and built to both challenge and please they would often discuss their different philosophies of how they would design if they could.
When Tilly got the commission to design Shawnee in 1909, it was given to him by his close friend C.C. Worthington with whom he spent many hours playing golf and speaking about the game. He was 34 years old and working for his father's rubber goods company part-time while he spent ,most of his time playing and practicing golf.
Tilly's writings then were not done to bring him dsign commissions, but rather were done as a natural byproduct of his passion for playing the game. This can be seen as the content of most of his writings in these early years dealt almost exclusively with tournament results, personal gossip and poetry. not the type of golf writing that would inspire someone to say, "Here's a person I want to design my course."
On the other hand, Tom's Confidential Guide established him early as a young man with a keen mind and eye to understanding golf course design.
Jeff, please appreciate that the "kicked your ass" phrase was not uttered by me.
Since the idea of advertising of design services back in the "Golden Age" has been beaten around, I think it is important to appreciate just how Tilly did advertise his availability to design professionally.
After Shawnee opened, and it did so to very fine reviews, within 3 years Tilly had gotten a number of commissions from Pennsylvania to San Antonio, Texas.
As a result he began to purchase advertising space in the golf journals of the day. As course design had now exploded nearly overnight, a number of early architects chose this path to market themselves.
His first advertisements were simple, yet within a short time he was advertising that he could provide full course designs on paper for those that desired something that simple, specifications, plans and models for greens as a separate product and even "Lilliputt Links", a product that he patented and trademarked as small courses on small properties.
As his work gained in respect and his fame as a designer grew, he began including sobriquets in his advertisements; thus he referred to himself not as the designer, but as the "Creator of Baltusrol." Next came listings of his designs and current work and even which courses were now being used to host national championships. There is no question that Tilly understood the importance of marketing his services.
At the same time his magazine writings drastically decreased as a result of a quite large design schedule. It would take the Depression and few design commissions to see Tilly once more writing a great deal as both the Editor of Golf Illustrated and later for the Pacific Coast Golfer.
-
Jeff,
If the ODG's greens were mostly about drainage, I'd be interested to know why the #8 green at Cypress Point, which is perched near the top of a knoll, has four separate plateaus (lower front, middle center, upper left and upper right), while #16, which sits on a fairly flat piece of land, is about as flat a green as you can find.
I'm not saying your theory is wrong, but these two greens certainly strike me as an exception. #8 is a fun little hole of no extraordinary architectural significance, but the green is spectacular in its movement and personality, whereas #16 doesn't need a memorable green to be one of the most dramatic holes in the world.
I don't know whether any subsequent work has been done to either green since Mackenzie designed the course, but the difference between these two greens can't be just about drainage.
-
I have a question for Jeff about his assertion (or is it an implication?) that the ODG's get too much credit.
The sentiment implies today's archies are so much better because they have so much more to think about and work around. It also implies the modern guys do it exponentially better.
If that were true, why does one of the most prolific modern guys have to re-do so many of his designs?
-
Rick,
Fair question and you are right. Of course there were different green designs out there, and the good doc was famous for what he termed "freak greens" of unusual contour.
I was really thinking about the more garden variety greens out there by the Golden Age guys and the fact that every little nuance is sometimes credited to the designer when in fact, settling over the years, later renovations / topdressings / resurfacings, caused the contours we see. Or, for that matter, just the fact that they were graded at 6% and are now too fast caused the difficulty, rather than deep design thought.
Really, how many greens of Ross really stand out? Just taking Pinehurst No. 2 as an example, all kind of follow the same pattern, no? 9 may stand out as a 2 tier affair, but none is as unique as a Mac green like you describe, even if taken together, they make a great set of greens! Ditto with the Tillie greens at WF, etc.
Adam,
I don't agree with your logical extensions. Just because some gca fans give, IMHO, too much credit for certain aspects of the Golden Age designs doesn't imply that I think modern gca's are better. Nor do I think the fact that one modern gca has a mulligan problem implies that we are worse.
As a matter of fact, I do think the broad spectrum of architecture is better today - i.e., the 20th ranked modern gca is far better than the 20th ranked (if there was one!) gca of the golden age. The top designs of any era match up well, IMHO. And it has nothing to do with more to work around, better or worse sites, etc. Good architecture is good architecture, regardless of era.
The fact that so many responses here are "era comparitive" rather than discussing actual designs suggests to me that some have too much mental energy invested in brands rather than design itself.
-
As a matter of fact, I do think the broad spectrum of architecture is better today - i.e., the 20th ranked modern gca is far better than the 20th ranked (if there was one!) gca of the golden age. The top designs of any era match up well, IMHO. And it has nothing to do with more to work around, better or worse sites, etc. Good architecture is good architecture, regardless of era.
Jeff:
Here are 20-plus golden-age architects. You choose the one who you think was 20th best, and select his best work, and then choose the 20th-best modern architect, and his best work, and compare:
Tillinghast, Mackenzie, Ross, Thomas/Bell, Flynn, Langford/Moreau, Banks, Macdonald, Raynor, Colt, Alison, Emmet, Park, Travis, Strong, Leeds, Fowler, Fownes, Crump, Egan, Hugh Wilson, Thompson, Stiles/Van Kleek, Simpson, Maxwell, Braid.
-
As a matter of fact, I do think the broad spectrum of architecture is better today - i.e., the 20th ranked modern gca is far better than the 20th ranked (if there was one!) gca of the golden age. The top designs of any era match up well, IMHO. And it has nothing to do with more to work around, better or worse sites, etc. Good architecture is good architecture, regardless of era.
Jeff:
Here are 20-plus golden-age architects. You choose the one who you think was 20th best, and select his best work, and then choose the 20th-best modern architect, and his best work, and compare:
Tillinghast, Mackenzie, Ross, Thomas/Bell, Flynn, Langford/Moreau, Banks, Macdonald, Raynor, Colt, Alison, Emmet, Park, Travis, Strong, Leeds, Fowler, Fownes, Crump, Egan, Hugh Wilson, Thompson, Stiles/Van Kleek, Simpson, Maxwell, Braid.
I will say that DeVries Kingsley Club is better than Stiles Taconic. So there.
-
John:
I assume, then, that you'd put DeVries as the 20th best modern architect. Who are the 19 better ones?
-
Here is a map...get yourself some darts. http://www.asgca.org/members/index.cfm I think anyone who I put in the top twenty should stop and reconsider what they want to do with my ass.
-
Jeff, I didn't mean to insult you. My comment was in the spirit of a thread of brazenly provocative statements. Maybe I'm not as good at it as JK. I'd prefer you think of it as a hockey analogy, and while you are playing the game, you did, in my opinion, get hipchecked into the boards on that run, by Phil! Maybe after a short blow, you can come out and deek him on your next shift. ;D
But, to the point, I really think I've detected an almost a standard defensive attitude in your on-going theme of trying to "myth bust" the ODGs contributions, and their attention to detail. When you say that many of the contours and nuances now examined by ODG-o-philes are more likely just greens soil and FW settling, I think you minimise what was always there and observed and found in writings contemporary to their hayday. The 6% slope stuff you now scorn as not relavant to modern conditions and speed, are simply not looking at the genius they were in their time when they were not beyond the pale of great design due to turf maintenance and qrowth abilities. I think Phil has the upper hand here in the discussion simply because he has the better handle on historical context, and he seems to have nothing to defend in terms of a practicing archie business and modern design and construction techniques that are too often simply declared superior, when often they are only technically superior, not superior in an intellectual sense of being more well crafted or thought out, IMHO.
-
If I'm understanding Jeff B right, I think he's making a very good point. But I don't want to put words in his mouth, so what follows is my point, not his.
I think in reading the writings of the great old writers-architects, we can too easily fall into the trap of giving an isolated quote too much meaning, or even the incorrect meaning, i.e. of believing that the quote serves as a handy and accurate snapshot of that architect's overall philosophy, and then later finding that it's not the case.
I know I've fallen into that trap many times, reading one striking comment by Behr or Macdonald and drawing conclusions that prove, upon reading further, unfounded. Those who know more than me (and that's a lot of people), won't likely fall into that same trap; but from what I can tell, much of what the ODGs wrote is buried in journals and periodicals that are now hard to find, so it's no shame to admit we don't know everything.
I think it's too easy to forget/ignore/be unaware of the larger context of an isolated quote: e.g. its place in the architect's long-term development, or its function as an (often implicit) rebuttal of some other philosophy or on-going argument, the nuance and details of which we're not fully aware.
I have learned and still have a lot to learn from Geoff Shackelford, but I don't think the short quotes from the ODGs he often includes on his site are a good thing. Even if I can trust that Geoff is picking quotes that truly reflect a given architect-writer's overall philosophy (and I think I can, but am not sure), reducing that philosophy to a sound bite without any context or nuance is not the best way, I don't think, to evangelize; not in the long run at least.
Such quotes serves for those who know/agree as no more than a pithy reminder of what they already know and agree with; but for everyone else they simply lower the level of discussion and debate to worn-out jargon and simplistic thinking, and that can't be good for a long-term conversion in thinking and practical application.
Peter
-
Peter,
You raise a very good point when you state that, "Much of what the ODGs wrote is buried in journals and periodicals that are now hard to find..."
That is why the Tillinghast Association has turned their website into a virtual archive and research center. Already we have placed copies of a large volume of Tilly's writings on the site with the goal of shortly having everything that he ever wrote in one place so that anyone with internet access can examine, study and appreciate his work.
Visit the site and take a look. you'll find that the quotes I used were not taken out of context but actually do reflect a definite design philosophy that he adhered to.
Just as some do use a quick quote from an ODG to back up an idea in an inappropriate fashion, many today are too quick to simply take the stand that since we are in the here and now the here and now is better and the architects are superior. That too is false reasoning.
Balance must be struck when studying history and also considering current actions for their relative place in history.
RJ, as much as I appreciate the compliments, for the sake of accuracy I must let you know that I have now consulted with several courses considering renovations and/or restorations to their courses. This has taken both the form of historical research and on-the-ground advive of proposed work. So in that sense, I am performing very minimal architectural services, though not in the sense of what you wrote, "terms of a practicing archie business and modern design and construction techniques."
-
Jeff,
If you take the contract for a gof course, you take it for the entire course...if serendipity strikes and you leave, untouched, a little mound out there somewhere that makes someone think that is the best little mound in all of golf and helps to make that hole the best hole in all of golf, you get the credit for it...we cannot sit here today and blow it off as simply as..."he couldn't possibly have thought about that little mound way back then, he was only on the property 5 times..."
Phillip,
Thanks for that reply, but what I think you are missing in the comparison of Tily at the turn of the century versus Daok with TCG is Doak's explanation of his intentions with that book. I am under the impression he wanted very limited distribution to a close circle of friends. Not exactly mass production to grab the golf worlds attention. I would equate that publication to this paragraph from your last post..."Tilly & his friends, what we refer to as the Philadelphia School of Design, were nothing more than a bunch of friends who played a lot of golf together. They had a passion for the game and with a growing realization that golf courses could be designed and built to both challenge and please they would often discuss their different philosophies of how they would design if they could.[/i]
EDIT: since we crossed in cyberspace...that quote is from your second to last post...
-
Peter,
Thanks for the support, and well said. I recall a discussion here a long time ago about how the ODG could write that they were against blind shots, and yet they managed to show up, either because of tough sites, or who knows, maybe every once in a while they had the same feeling many of us do here - as in "why not try something different every once in a while?" We will never know, really.
RJ,
I considered that you were being provocative. No prolemo there. I don't think I am defensive. As per above, I think I just read those quotes a little differently than most here, usually seeing that they were reacting to a situation or comment (why do all books by ODG start by questioning the wisdom of the greens committee? How many modern gca's know that feeling?) rather than setting out the ten commandments or something.
I like quotes from books that actually say something. One of my faves is Thomas, because he will say something very straightforward like putting fw chipping areas behind long par 4 greens because a long miss is superior to a short one.
Saying "I am very concerned about where the ball lands and what it does after" doesn't really tell me much about architecture, or what Tillie did about his concerns. I surmised that in addition to hazard placements, and green angles, that he might have tipped his greens up slopes to one side of the fw or the other to help stop shots (as I would) better from that side. My only point is that this isn't as mystical a concept as some here would think, or imply from his non specific quote.
As to overall greens design, hey, they were good. But they each had a pattern. As I once explained to Brian Phillips, Colt and Allison in particular affected my green contouring thinking. But again, it was a simple concept - while KN always put the green surround mounds on inside green curves, CA put them on outside curves, giving a better rolling edge. When I study Ross, Mac, Tillie, etc. they all have their own versions of this but all generally have a pattern to their greens.
I think it was to make them attractive and gently rolling for their day, the same thing we are trying to achieve today with flatter slopes. (I don't recall any gca writing that a ball should roll of the green on a regular basis) I still seriously doubt that they designed to place such a premium on being below the hole, as now happens when tournament green speeds occur on old greens. I think the upslope was to help stop shots, based on what I read from their quotes and see in their work.
So please, if you tell me that I am missing their genius, please tell me in a specific way that I can incorporate in my architecture - like they had little internal bumps, or their slopes came two thirds the way across the greens, etc. Telling me I miss their genius without saying why isn't contributing to anyone's gca education.
BTW, I appreciate all the authors who study these guys life and works. I study their works too, and like the back story. I am not sure that those authors have more historical context. While they probably have studied more cousres of one particular gca, I have the benefit having been in the arena, as it were, which gives me a different perspective than that of a writer or historian only. Whether better, I guess I don't know, but it is different, and that clearly comes out in my views as compared to the gca buffs.
-
From the Washington Times...
Who could have imagined that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would meet his match in the Ivy League?"
"Mr. President," President Lee Bollinger of Columbia told him, "you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator." And how about this: "When you come to a place like [a university], it makes you simply ridiculous. The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history." Or this: "You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated."
-
From the Washington Times...
Who could have imagined that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would meet his match in the Ivy League?"
"Mr. President," President Lee Bollinger of Columbia told him, "you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator." And how about this: "When you come to a place like [a university], it makes you simply ridiculous. The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history." Or this: "You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated."
That is a strange coincidence. I did have a Carly Simon moment when Bollinger said "You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated." It seemed like something some smarty pants had said to me before.
-
Iranian President AHMADINEJAD:
"In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country. We don't have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have it."
-
Jeff,
If you take the contract for a gof course, you take it for the entire course...if serendipity strikes and you leave, untouched, a little mound out there somewhere that makes someone think that is the best little mound in all of golf and helps to make that hole the best hole in all of golf, you get the credit for it...we cannot sit here today and blow it off as simply as..."he couldn't possibly have thought about that little mound way back then, he was only on the property 5 times..."
JESII,
No doubt the gca gets the credit. I didn't say I was blowing anything off, did I? Nor do I care that some here find little features to be so charming or personally important. That's the great thing about architecture.
At the same time, I think credit and what actually went on in the designers mind aren't necessarily the same issue. I believe that the GA gca probably left that little mound without thinking much at all about it because his budget didn't allow extraneous grading. Nothing more, nothing less.
If future golfers now declare that its the best mound in all history, so much the better, but again, its them attributing qualities to it that the original gca didn't necessarily do. His "core values" to use current terminology was to save money, or maybe even preserve nature. Both can be considered genius to be sure. I'm certain that there are some little mounds right in or around greens that were carefully planned and field crafted by Tillie or Ross (PH No. 2, for example) as a feature to affect play. But, the realities still are that for most courses designed by both of them (or Mac), they didn't - couldn't - spend that much time on site getting those little details that close.
I still wonder how Mac got the results he did on his whirlwind trip to Australia, for example. He somehow taught the field guys (who were quick learners) his general principles or patterns of green molding and they did great. Did his plans show a lot of mystical details on that? My reading of them again says no, despite the great results.
So, its hard to generalize and it would be far better to discuss individual greens on a subject like this, assuming the first discussion was whether that green had changed since the original design. And, even then, it would be hard to know exactly what was said and thought, even if plans are there, old photos are there, etc. Its fun to contemplate, but I'll never know if my provocative theories are right or not, barring a seance!
-
Dammit, I wish people would not interject politics into this website as I find it inappropriate and needlessly inflammatory.
Let's stick to architecture. There is no place in this discussion for bashing world leaders or making sport of sexual orientations.
;)
-
Dammit, I wish people would not interject politics into this website as I find it inappropriate and needlessly inflammatory.
Let's stick to architecture. There is no place in this discussion for bashing world leaders or making sport of sexual orientations.
;)
Gib,
Here hear!! ;D
-
Definitely not interested in diagraming a sentence with you again anytime soon...but the guy was saying (through an interpreter) that the phenomenon of homosexuality does not exist in his country...because they execute known homosexuals
-
Participants here take this gca thang WAY too seriously in general. I'm not saying that any gca, moi included, shouldn't give his/her all when actually designing a course. Just that we should break our backs analyzing it here. Just go play, dammit!
Bless you, Jeff. I thought it was just me. Must be something about the name...
-
HMM...guess I could start by saying :
many of the features the ODGs are considered genius for creating...they did not even know they had created them....
many of the ODGs considered their architecture as a part time job
most of this ODG stuff is a myth and with the stuff being written today will continue to escalate....
Donald ross was a dork.....
-
Iranian President AHMADINEJAD:
"In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country. We don't have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have it."
I'd love to know the question that was asked of him because, to me, it's not clear on its face from this quote that he was saying that Iran doesn't have homosexuals. He said that they don't have homosexuals like in the US. That's open to a little bit of interpretation.
Try these:
In Iran, we don't have music, like in your country.
In Iran, we don't have entrepreneurs, like in your country.
In Iran, we don't have air travel, like in your country.
How would you interpret these statements? That they don't have music, entrepreneurs or air travel?
Or was he saying that the "phenomenon" of our homosexual community was different than theirs? Or in my examples, that their music is different, their entrepreneurs aren't as aggressive and that air travel is rare there?
There's also an interpreter involved, too, don't forget.
I don't see how the man could have said they don't have homosexuals there, period, given the fact that a schmoe like me knows their word for it here in Chicago. I do see how he could be saying that the "phenomenon" is treated differently there.
Of course, you won't get a thought like this from the mainstream media. They just want the sensational headline and want to run with it before anybody thinks it through...
Shivas,
Come on. He avoided the original question and was brought back to the question. The audience in the clip I saw was laughing at the statement and he kind of smirked for a second. I have some Persian friends here but he said what he said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401042.html
Here is the transcript:
___________________________________
QUESTION: Mr. President, another student asks -- Iranian women are now denied basic human rights and your government has imposed draconian punishments, including execution on Iranian citizens who are homosexuals. Why are you doing those things?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Freedoms in Iran are genuine, true freedoms. Iranian people are free. Women in Iran enjoy the highest levels of freedom.
We have two deputy -- two vice presidents that are female, at the highest levels of specialty, specialized fields. In our parliament and our government and our universities, they're present. In our biotechnological fields, our technological fields, there are hundreds of women scientists that are active -- in the political realm as well.
It's not -- it's wrong for some governments, when they disagree with another government, to, sort of, try to spread lies that distort the full truth.
Our nation is free. It has the highest level of participation in elections, in Iran. Eighty percent, ninety percent of the people turn out for votes during the elections, half of which, over half of which are women. So how can we say that women are not free? Is that the entire truth?
But as for the executions, I'd like to raise two questions. If someone comes and establishes a network for illicit drug trafficking that affects the youth in Iran, Turkey, Europe, the United States, by introducing these illicit drugs and destroys them, would you ever reward them?
People who lead the lives -- cause the deterioration of the lives of hundreds of millions of youth around the world, including in Iran, can we have any sympathy to them? Don't you have capital punishment in the United States? You do, too.
(APPLAUSE)
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In Iran, too, there's capital punishment for illicit drug traffickers, for people who violated the rights of people. If somebody takes up a gun, goes into a house, kills a group of people there, and then tries to take ransom, how would you confront them in Iran -- or in the United States? Would you reward them? Can a physician allow microbes symbolically speaking to spread across a nation?
We have laws. People who violate the public rights of the people by using guns, killing people, creating insecurity, sells drugs, distribute drugs at a high level are sentenced to execution in Iran.
And some of these punishments, very few, are carried in the public eye, before the public eye. It's a law, based on democratic principles. You use injections and microbes to kill these people, and they, they're executed or they're hung. But the end result is killing.
QUESTION: Mr. President, the question isn't about criminal and drug smugglers. The question was about sexual preference and women.
(APPLAUSE)
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country.
(LAUGHTER)
We don't have that in our country.
(AUDIENCE BOOING)
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have it.
(LAUGHTER)
But, as for women, maybe you think that being a woman is a crime. It's not a crime to be a woman.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Women are the best creatures created by God. They represent the kindness, the beauty that God instills in them. Women are respected in Iran. In Iran, every family who is given a girl -- is given -- in every Iranian family who has a girl, they are 10 times happier than having a son. Women are respected more than men are.
They are exempt from many responsibilities. Many of the legal responsibilities rest on the shoulders of men in our society because of the respect, culturally given, to women, to the future mothers. In Iranian culture, men and sons and girls constantly kiss the hands of their mothers as a sign of respect, respect for women. And we are proud of this culture.
________________________
The comments were so absurd that it was erased from the Iranian release of the speech:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20070926-1422-iran-ahmadinejad.html
Sorry for the off topic and one of my few political post on GCA, but I was waiting for him to say, "we don't have it..............not that there is anything wrong with it!"