Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: George Pazin on September 18, 2009, 05:47:49 PM
-
Some food for thought over the weekend.
Many on here dismiss criticism of certain courses (who shall remain nameless). This dismissal usually takes the form of:
You obviously are biased against courses by ____, you shouldn't even post on said courses, you obviously have nothing to share. I, on the other hand, can appreciate a wide variety of courses, so I am allowed to praise said architect's courses. You may not criticise them.
As I sit and observe the world today, I wonder if our praise for non-judgmentalism has resulted in the lack of exercising those muscles. The desire to be seen as non-judgmental, able to "tolerate" or appreciate other course, has resulted in a lack of proper peer evaluation for golf course architecture, imho.
I'll spare everyone the political rant, and I hope you will, too.
What do you think about my premise, as it relates to architecture? If you are accepting of gca in all it's forms, can you really be seen as properly critical of good and bad architecture?
Just something to think about over the weekend, hope everyone has a good one.
-
George,
Being tolerant of GCA in all it's forms has nothing to do with a person's capacity to judge, all it says about that person is that they are comfortable in what they think and don't waste time judging stuff that has no meaning for them.
As I sit and observe the world today, I don't wonder at all about judgemental-ism, it's the underlying problem in just about every crisis. If you stop judging people on 'what' they are you can actually see 'who' they are.
I'll stop now George.
-
Well now, for example...I spoke with a guy yesterday that has played Rock Creek and the Stock Farm and he said in his mind the Stock Farm is a notch or two above Rock Creek in every way...in fact he said he thought the Stock Farm is a better course than Hazeltine, Torrey Pines, and several others that I blanked out on mid way through his sharing of his opinion....
He said, for example that he did not like the "bumpy" tees at Rock Creek...
-
(which Rock Creek? There's one in Portland OR that's not so good ;) )
-
there is a fine line between disagreement and belligerence
-
Where's Matt Ward when his presence is invoked. Here, this should work.. WOLF CREEK!!
-
Some food for thought over the weekend.
Many on here dismiss criticism of certain courses (who shall remain nameless). This dismissal usually takes the form of:
You obviously are biased against courses by ____, you shouldn't even post on said courses, you obviously have nothing to share. I, on the other hand, can appreciate a wide variety of courses, so I am allowed to praise said architect's courses. You may not criticise them.
As I sit and observe the world today, I wonder if our praise for non-judgmentalism has resulted in the lack of exercising those muscles. The desire to be seen as non-judgmental, able to "tolerate" or appreciate other course, has resulted in a lack of proper peer evaluation for golf course architecture, imho.
I'll spare everyone the political rant, and I hope you will, too.
What do you think about my premise, as it relates to architecture? If you are accepting of gca in all it's forms, can you really be seen as properly critical of good and bad architecture?
Just something to think about over the weekend, hope everyone has a good one.
George
Is it not reasonable for a guy to think that all or most forms of architecture can produce exceptional results? I know I used to believe, for the most part, that only courses well integrated with their surrounds both immediate and in the distance and on proper golfing terrain could ever be considered great as total package. A few courses changed my mind on this issue, Beau Desert and Kington. Both are awkward looking courses but great none the less. Also, while Yeamans didn't strike me as a home run, I could see where that style toned down a bit around the greens could produce greatness. In fact, I could see changing my mind about Yeamans given enough rounds - I changed my mind about BD and Kington. Also, pix of Lawsonia strike me this is another of the geometric style that could be great. Given the visual mismatch, imo, between the the courses mentioned and the terrain the set on, I now think it possible for almost anything to work. Of course, I will always be heavily critical of mountain and desert golf because of the tie in and walking issues, but I can see where somebody could pull off a great course, but I think it would be very, very difficult to do so.
So I guess my answer to your question is yes.
Ciao
-
Well now, for example...I spoke with a guy yesterday that has played Rock Creek and the Stock Farm and he said in his mind the Stock Farm is a notch or two above Rock Creek in every way...in fact he said he thought the Stock Farm is a better course than Hazeltine, Torrey Pines, and several others that I blanked out on mid way through his sharing of his opinion....
He said, for example that he did not like the "bumpy" tees at Rock Creek...
Your point? He was "wrong?" Or was he expressing his honest opinion, based on his own set of criteria - criteria with which you may completely disagree?
George, when it comes to golf course architecture, one can embrace the "big world theory" advocated by Tom Paul, and still make judgements about what courses you like, and what courses you don't. At the same time, I guess you're proposing that there are enough rules and regs about what constitutes good architecture that one can confidently say that some courses are bad and some are good, without adding an "imho" at the end. It would be an interesting exercise to try and come up with a set of criteria by which courses could be judged that everyone would agree with. Tom Doak has his scale, and it's worth paying attention to because of how many courses he's seen and played, and how smart he is about it. But still, you can't necessarily consider those rankings as definitive - it's one man's opinion, despite how well-informed an opinion it may be.
I guess I feel like there's enough art in GCA to make good and bad and best and worst a matter of opinion. I like when someone has an opinion that's very different than mine, and can defend their opinion. I really like it when my mind gets changed, but I also like a quality disagreement. It's silly to just like everything, but it's equally silly to be convinced that what I believe is Right and what everyone else believes is Wrong, and that's that.
-
I don't know if I would couch it in terms of a desire to be "tolerant" or "non-judgmental" but otherwise think George may be onto something. Expressing one's own personal likes and dislikes is well and good, but that sort of thing is better left for opinion polls than it is for actual discussions of the merits of golf courses (or anything for that matter.) In order to have an actual productive discussion, those involved must be willing and able to move beyond their own visceral preferences to, at the very least, some understanding of what is driving that visceral reaction. But that is just a beginning. They should also be able to consider the broader issues that their particular personal preference might implicate, explicitly or implicitly. They should also be able to at least try and consider other frameworks from which to view the medium.
The way it works often works on hear is something like this. I really liked X. Why? It was challenging and fun. But what about all of the (some critical observation.) It is at this point that things fall apart, as the first party usually either denies the validity of the observation (you aren't qualified to say, or he doesnt do that any more, or you just don't like the guy, or that doesnt really happen) or the person simply doesn't care (that doesn't bother me or it doesn't impact me, or that's just your opinion. In all these cases there is not much to talk about after this, at least nothing that will be immediately productive or at all advances the conversation. The conversation is effectively over, at least from their perspective.
I'm rambling, but I guess what I am saying is that this website needs to decide whether it is ready and willing to entertain open and frank discussion and debate about all aspects of golf course design, or whether it is simply a place where people come to express their personal preferences, visceral reactions, or deeply held (but often unsupported) beliefs, without meaningful discussion, comment, or challenge.
_______________________________________________________________________
Well now, for example...I spoke with a guy yesterday that has played Rock Creek and the Stock Farm and he said in his mind the Stock Farm is a notch or two above Rock Creek in every way...in fact he said he thought the Stock Farm is a better course than Hazeltine, Torrey Pines, and several others that I blanked out on mid way through his sharing of his opinion....
He said, for example that he did not like the "bumpy" tees at Rock Creek...
Your point? He was "wrong?" Or was he expressing his honest opinion, based on his own set of criteria - criteria with which you may completely disagree?
He is very likely expressing his honest opinion and "wrong." Wrong because I very likely disagree with him, but then I am entitled to my honest and heartfelt visceral reaction to, aren't I? But the problem with heading down this path is we are left with nothing to discuss. The reality is that his or your or even my visceral reaction to the courses is not really all that interesting, at least to me. I want to know the WHY of it. That is what this place should be about.
So if this guy wants to provide a coherent description of his criteria, and he is able to place those in the larger context of golf design generally, then I'd be glad to hear what he has to say and consider it and discuss it with him. But if all he has to say is I don't like bumpy greens, then I've not nothing to discuss with him because he has very little to say which is at all relevant to the larger discussion. The fact that people like him have this preference may be relevant and worth noting, but if that is all he has to say then this is not really the place for him. He hasn't yet broken through the "surface tension" between visceral reaction and actual coherent analysis and a more in depth understanding.
George, when it comes to golf course architecture, one can embrace the "big world theory" advocated by Tom Paul, and still make judgements about what courses you like, and what courses you don't. At the same time, I guess you're proposing that there are enough rules and regs about what constitutes good architecture that one can confidently say that some courses are bad and some are good, without adding an "imho" at the end.
This "big world theory" is a crock. It is an agreement to disagree, and generally cuts off all meaningful and relevant conversation. There isn't room in golf design for everything. Some courses are bad for golf design and bad for golf, whether they evoke positive visceral reactions or not. But I don't think George is proposing "one set of rules and regs" at all, but he does seem to be suggesting that we ought to be concerned with certain standards or bases or principles that ought to play a role in our analysis. These don't have to be shared by everyone and I would hope they wouldn't be, as these ought to be what our discussions are about.
What I don't get is that some people around here don't really seem to give a damn beyond their visceral likes and dislikes. That is well and good and the way most people operate, but WHY ARE YOU HERE? Certainly not to actually discuss golf course design.
-
Actually, I think ranking/rating golf courses...in other words saying this one is better than that one....is a crock. If you want to say this course is better maintained, has better facilities, is more fun to play, has nicer views, etc...fine with me....we all use our "judgement" in different ways...and thus...to tell me that Course A is better than Course B...is rubbish....and if you want to lay a bunch of good architecture vs. bad architecture on me I don't see how that changes much...I still might not like the view, the ball washers, the bumpy tees, the HOC of the fairways...whatever.
I guess what I'm saying is MOST people do not rank their enjoyment of a golf course on architecture...
-
Craig,
I agree that saying something is "better" is meaningless without a criterion for comparison.
I guess what I'm saying is MOST people do not rank their enjoyment of a golf course on architecture...
But this is supposed to be a website about golf course architecture, isn't it?
Yet I guess what I'm saying is that MANY here do not seem to consider the golf course based on the golf course architecture.
-
David,
George's example.......
You obviously are biased against courses by ____, you shouldn't even post on said courses, you obviously have nothing to share. I, on the other hand, can appreciate a wide variety of courses, so I am allowed to praise said architect's courses. You may not criticise them.
which he sees as not using your judgment doesn't jive with his premise.....
What do you think about my premise, as it relates to architecture? If you are accepting of gca in all it's forms, can you really be seen as properly critical of good and bad architecture?
......because the speaker in his example seems to be extremely judgmental of whoever it is he is talking to. ???
If you want to define what the person in George's example is guilty of it's arrogance and intolerance, and not the virtue of being tolerant.
-
Some food for thought over the weekend.
Many on here dismiss criticism of certain courses (who shall remain nameless). This dismissal usually takes the form of:
You obviously are biased against courses by ____, you shouldn't even post on said courses, you obviously have nothing to share. I, on the other hand, can appreciate a wide variety of courses, so I am allowed to praise said architect's courses. You may not criticise them.
As I sit and observe the world today, I wonder if our praise for non-judgmentalism has resulted in the lack of exercising those muscles. The desire to be seen as non-judgmental, able to "tolerate" or appreciate other course, has resulted in a lack of proper peer evaluation for golf course architecture, imho.
I'll spare everyone the political rant, and I hope you will, too.
What do you think about my premise, as it relates to architecture? If you are accepting of gca in all it's forms, can you really be seen as properly critical of good and bad architecture?
Just something to think about over the weekend, hope everyone has a good one.
David,
I think that non-judgementalism is intellectually stultifying. I also find it amusing that those who pontificate tolerance, have very little tolerance for those who question tolerance.
-
George - good and interesting topic, but too much for my brain to think about right at the moment. But I will note that there is what people say, and then there's what people do. I wonder how judgmental we are (or aren't) when it really counts, i.e. when choosing what courses to actually play, and pay for.
Peter
-
Jim,
George can speak for himself, but I agree with you that this hypothetical person is actually acting arrogant and intolerant. But in this speaker's mind he thinks he is tolerant because he claims he "can appreciate a wide variety of courses." The hypocrisy comes in when that person then tries to end the conversation by claiming that those who disagree with him are biased. If you don't like what I like you must be biased and you should stay out of it. Not exactly advancing any sort of meaningful conversation.
___________________________________
Bradley, I think your post may have been directed at George.
As for your second sentence, wouldn't it be just as "amusing" if those who pontificated for tolerance simultaneously welcomed intolerance? What you apparently do not understand is that many of those who advocate for tolerance do so not just from a personal point of view, but as a general guideline or model for societal behavior. So a better way to describe their position is that they try to be tolerant of all but intolerance. Because without the exception, the rule is unworkable. After all, you can try to live and let live but you might have trouble with the first part if another disagrees with you as to the second part.
_____________________________
Peter,
I am very judgmental when it comes to choosing which courses to play, which is why you will probably never here me saying that I don't like X's work even after having played 15 of his courses. I have trouble getting past the first one.
-
Maybe when we've got judgmentalism sorted out, we can debate the perils of over-analysis. It's stuff like this that finished off Tony Jacklin.
All forums on all subjects display flashes of rancour and intolerance. This forum is streets ahead of many in keeping it to a minimum. As long as we don't confuse a difference of opinion with a full-frontal assault on our integrity, there's no reason why we shouldn't all opine away as usual.
But I still think Firestone's crap ;D
-
Use your judgment at your own peril....
-
I am very judgmental when it comes to choosing which courses to play, which is why you will probably never here me saying that I don't like X's work even after having played 15 of his courses. I have trouble getting past the first one.
Understood. Of course, the architect might change, and the courses might be different, but I get your drift.
If there was some kind of all-encompassing criteria by which we all judged golf courses......then what would be the purpose of a dicsussion group? If it's all so clear as to what architectural features are beloved and which are not, then why talk about it at all?
Like I said before.....you don't have to like everything. Have a strong opinion. State it. Let others examine it. Back it up. What gets me is how rancorous this process becomes sometimes. How personal it gets. Maybe that bespeaks the passion about architecture that exists on this site.
I don' think that respecting opinions means that there aren't actual qualitative differences between golf courses. But just because a course isn't as great as Pine Valley doesn't mean its crap. It doesn't mean that it doesn't have features that someone can appreciate without that person being considered a moron. Appreciating what a lesser course brings to the table doesn't mean that it is being elevated to the heights of greatness.
One of the things that George said in his initial post was that often a person gets shouted down with a "you are not quailified to assess this course as you haven't played it and a bunch of others....." etc. We all know that someone who has played a course, especially multiple times, is able to assess a course in a way that you just can't from pictures. At the same time, pictures can illustrate some "macro" themes that a course has, and certain kinds of assessments can be made from them. Assessments that obviously might change once the course is actually played ! No one likes their opinion to be smugly dismissed, and that does happen all too often. In those cases, I just try to consider the source of the dismissal, and move on.
-
Jim, I think you are confusing using your judgment with being judgmental.
As an analogy, many years ago it was good to be seen as discriminating. Now the word means something totally different.
I'll address your accusations that my premise is flawed and directly contradictory in a bit, I have to print some bandannas.
-
David,
George's example.......
You obviously are biased against courses by ____, you shouldn't even post on said courses, you obviously have nothing to share. I, on the other hand, can appreciate a wide variety of courses, so I am allowed to praise said architect's courses. You may not criticise them.
which he sees as not using your judgment doesn't jive with his premise.....
What do you think about my premise, as it relates to architecture? If you are accepting of gca in all it's forms, can you really be seen as properly critical of good and bad architecture?
......because the speaker in his example seems to be extremely judgmental of whoever it is he is talking to. ???
If you want to define what the person in George's example is guilty of it's arrogance and intolerance, and not the virtue of being tolerant.
To expand on what I posted, I am saying that the person who dismisses crticism in this manner believes he is using his judgment to determine that the other poster is biased, shouldn't post, etc. I am saying that people who simply dismiss criticism without addressing it more often than not lack the critical reasoning to address the other poster's criticisms.
Simply put, if you do not practice critical thinking on a regular basis, you will lack the skills to properly evaluate whether arguments or premises are accurate or not.
I believe far too many people, both at large and on this site, are afraid of making reasoned judgments, precisely because they are afraid of being labeled judgmental. People confuse the terms, and lump all criticism into very broad categories, rather than addressing the specific criticism.
As I see it, you use it or you lose it.
Here's an admittedly absurd example (using myself, because I wouldn't want to put anyone else into this absurd situation, lest they throw a fit):
I personally value the ability to see across broad cross sections of a golf course. I like seeing other holes and other golfers. Pine Valley (which I have not played) is the poster child for the opposite - isolated individual holes. My home muni, North Park GC, which is probably a Doak 2 or 3, is wonderful when it comes to seeing multiple holes and golfers. If I were to say I think North Park is a better golf course than PV because of the openness and lack of isolation, I would hope everyone would question my judgment!
Kirk, I have to think a bit more about your posts. While I do not advocate one regimented set of rules, I do think it's possible to see right and wrong on a golf course - I don't think it is 100% subjective.
Thanks everyone for sharing some interesting thoughts.
-
George, you wrote:
"If I were to say I think North Park is a better golf course than PV because of the openness and lack of isolation, I would hope everyone would question my judgment!"
If I was to use your own words as an example, ...."I think North Park is a better golf course than PV because of the openness and lack of isolation" I would have no problem in making a reasoned judgment, you'd be crazy! ;D
...and:
"I do think it's possible to see right and wrong on a golf course - I don't think it is 100% subjective."
I might not call it right or wrong, more like good or bad, and I don't think it's all subjective either. I just believe that for the most part we needn't even think about what's bad at all the 2s and 3s and 4s and 5s and 6s that are out there. Those courses should be off the radar screen of negative criticism. They are where the vast majority of rounds are played and for the most part they aren't sticking their heads up and saying "Look at me". They're like the character actor vs. the star. Have you ever heard Siskel and Ebert rip a character actor a new one?, I don't think so. If anything they'll highlight the journeyman actor's good performance. That's the way I think it should be in the world of golf course criticism, you should only 'go after' the venues that think they're the 7s and 8s and 9s and 10s, and when you identify a 10 it should become an icon, with immunity from us peons. ;D
-
Craig,
I agree that saying something is "better" is meaningless without a criterion for comparison.
I guess what I'm saying is MOST people do not rank their enjoyment of a golf course on architecture...
But this is supposed to be a website about golf course architecture, isn't it?
Yet I guess what I'm saying is that MANY here do not seem to consider the golf course based on the golf course architecture.
Count me in that group that doesn't rank my enjoyment of the golf course based solely on the architecture. I like to think I still "consider" the architecture, but its only part of the whole.
I'm actually often surprised at how blunt some folks are given that their comments are out there for anyone to read. I have to wonder if some (admittedly including myself) use their judgment quite often and just choose not to post everything they think!
-
... We all know that someone who has played a course, especially multiple times, is able to assess a course in a way that you just can't from pictures....
Actually that is not true. Some people can play a course many times and still believe and make false factual statements about the course. When handicapped by such misconceptions, it is easy for such a person to make mistakes in reasoning and opining about the course.
-
Maybe when we've got judgmentalism sorted out, we can debate the perils of over-analysis. It's stuff like this that finished off Tony Jacklin.
All forums on all subjects display flashes of rancour and intolerance. This forum is streets ahead of many in keeping it to a minimum. As long as we don't confuse a difference of opinion with a full-frontal assault on our integrity, there's no reason why we shouldn't all opine away as usual.
But I still think Firestone's crap ;D
Again, I think you misunderstand my point, as do several others on this thread, which tells me I am not being clear in my expression of my thoughts.
I am not trying to rid this site of posters who choose to dismiss criticism, or insist on arrogant condescension as a mode of argument. That's tilting at windmills, and as you rightly point out, this site is far ahead of most in the decorum of posters.
What I am trying to say is that I think people need to actually exercise their critical thinking muscles, lest they atrophy. (And I am not exempting myself from this observation.) The instant dismissals are obvious cases of arrogance, but I also see the need for everyone to really examine and challenge his own beliefs, and the exact details of others. When everything is swept aside as "You just don't like Architect XYZ" or "you are biased against whatever", or even in some cases, the agreement to disagree, I think everyone loses in the process.
I'm continually amazed at how many folks excel at identifying problems, yet promote solutions that exacerbate the problem. Fighting today's bombers with length is the perfect example of this phenomenon in the arena of golf course architecture.
At any rate, I appreciate the thoughts offered on this thread, even if it didn't really accomplish anything.
:)
-
Bayley, I didn't say that having played a course is an end-all be-all justification for any comment about a course - some folks miss certain things, or don't think about certain things, or just don't know what they're talking about - but golf courses were designed and built to be played rather than photographed (although there may be exceptions to this!). I'd likely trust Sean Arble's opinion of a course he's assessing only from pictures more than I might trust my own opinion of a course I've actually played before - but I do believe what I said in that quote, that someone who has played a course is able to assess it in a way that you can't from pictures. So many times I've played a course that I've seen previously in photographs and had my expectations confounded by reality. It doesn't mean that if you haven't played a course you can't have an opinion about it, just that playing the course might inform or even alter that opinion.
George, I may have missed your point as much as anyone, but I like these sorts of threads. All too often discussion of a course ends with "you don't like this guy, so forget it" or "you haven't played the course, so forget it," or even "you're obviously a shill for this architect, so forget it." It's the courses that matter, shouting down folks who disagree with you or walking away when someone questions your assertions doesn't take any thought, and doesn't help anyone.
-
FWIW,
I've found pretty much every course I've played to be significantly different in person than from what I could see/gather in pictures. I completely agree with Kirk on this one that seeing/playing a course is much different than just viewing pictures of it. Because often pics don't do any justice to scale, slope, elevation differentials, surrounds beyond the course, views, undulation, etc, etc.
Some courses have totally far exceeed my expectations from what i had seen in pics, and others underwhelmed...for 99.9% of folks you really never know until you go see it.
-
All too often discussion of a course ends with "you don't like this guy, so forget it" or "you haven't played the course, so forget it," or even "you're obviously a shill for this architect, so forget it." It's the courses that matter, shouting down folks who disagree with you or walking away when someone questions your assertions doesn't take any thought, and doesn't help anyone.
Well said. I am all for not just making statements, but being pressed to defend them as well.
Kalen -
I think it depends hugely on the individual doing the critiquing. I'd guess most of the architects on here could derive more from a photo than most of the regular golfers who actually played the course, though this of course depends a lot on the photos as well.
When one poster tried to shout down questions and comments from people merely observing photos, I asked the following:
If playing trumps photographic analysis, does playing multiple times trump playing once? Does playing in different conditions trump playing multiple times on the same day? Where does designing the course fall into this trumping scheme? How about building, as opposed to designing?
I see merely the need to be honest and forthright with one's level of information, and then it is up to the reader's to assign value to the post - to judge it, if you will. :)
-
Kirk,
I am simply trying to point out that what you say is not true all of the time.
For example, in a Ran review a point would be made and demonstrated. On a separate thread about the course a person not having played the course reviewed might state that they would probably skip the course because of X where they state without attribution the thing demonstrated clearly to be true in Ran's review. This would be followed by a statement to the effect that another poster has played the course countless times and X is not true, and the first poster should withhold comment until that poster had played the course.
There simply are people in the world that let their prejudices over ride facts. We see it all the time in the political arena, and it happens here to.
-
All too often discussion of a course ends with "you don't like this guy, so forget it" or "you haven't played the course, so forget it," or even "you're obviously a shill for this architect, so forget it." It's the courses that matter, shouting down folks who disagree with you or walking away when someone questions your assertions doesn't take any thought, and doesn't help anyone.
Well said. I am all for not just making statements, but being pressed to defend them as well.
Kalen -
I think it depends hugely on the individual doing the critiquing. I'd guess most of the architects on here could derive more from a photo than most of the regular golfers who actually played the course, though this of course depends a lot on the photos as well.
When one poster tried to shout down questions and comments from people merely observing photos, I asked the following:
If playing trumps photographic analysis, does playing multiple times trump playing once? Does playing in different conditions trump playing multiple times on the same day? Where does designing the course fall into this trumping scheme? How about building, as opposed to designing?
I see merely the need to be honest and forthright with one's level of information, and then it is up to the reader's to assign value to the post - to judge it, if you will. :)
George,
I agree with your last post.
There is certainly context in all things. I would guess a good architect could probably detect/see more things in one playing than an average joe who may have played a course dozens of times. However I still stand by my comment that seeing something in person is usually a very different experience than seeing a photo.
To me, the worst type of analysis I see/have seen on this site is:
1) One who has not played the course in question.
2) Does not work in the industry.
3) Has never travelled to the region where the course exists.
4) Has played little or none of the architects work.
....and then summarily dismisses/becomes highly critical of said course based only on pictures.
-
To me, the worst type of analysis I see/have seen on this site is:
1) One who has not played the course in question.
2) Does not work in the industry.
3) Has never travelled to the region where the course exists.
4) Has played little or none of the architects work.
....and then summarily dismisses/becomes highly critical of said course based only on pictures.
Just out of curiosity, how often do you see this happen on this site? GOING STRICTLY BY MY (AMPLE YET SHRINKING) GUT, I would guess that it is far more common that posters ask pointed questions going from photos, and then the folks who have played the course attempt to shout down reasonable questions.
-
To me, the worst type of analysis I see/have seen on this site is:
1) One who has not played the course in question.
2) Does not work in the industry.
3) Has never travelled to the region where the course exists.
4) Has played little or none of the architects work.
....and then summarily dismisses/becomes highly critical of said course based only on pictures.
Just out of curiosity, how often do you see this happen on this site? GOING STRICTLY BY MY (AMPLE YET SHRINKING) GUT, I would guess that it is far more common that posters ask pointed questions going from photos, and then the folks who have played the course attempt to shout down reasonable questions.
For what it's worth, the discussion a couple weeks ago about a Jim Engh par 5 closer fit these two posts above to a T.
Kalen pronounced the hole brilliant and strategic and all sorts of great things and I asked him a few questions and it went downhill from there with Matt W and David M displaying their own unique forms of charm...
-
Fundamental principles can be written about and seen in photos, but, how a course makes one feel, during or after play, can not. So, I see no problem analyzing a course without having played it, but evaluations must be saved until one has.
What George may be getting at is an ability to have a critical eye. Use it or lose it.
Obviously differently by different people, are the methods of analyzing and evaluating golf courses. How both those are ultimately relayed, and, the style it is presented determines whether another person can relate, or not.
George, I'm not sure experience trumps anything, if all one takes away from the golf course is how they played it. Or, even worse, how the pros would play it.
-
Fundamental principles can be written about and seen in photos, but, how a course makes one feel, during or after play, can not. So, I see no problem analyzing a course without having played it, but evaluations must be saved until one has.
I couldn't agree more with Adam here. Analyzing a course and asking questions is great, but coming to conclusions and a formal opinion/take is beyond absurd.
-
To me, the worst type of analysis I see/have seen on this site is:
1) One who has not played the course in question.
2) Does not work in the industry.
3) Has never travelled to the region where the course exists.
4) Has played little or none of the architects work.
....and then summarily dismisses/becomes highly critical of said course based only on pictures.
Just out of curiosity, how often do you see this happen on this site? GOING STRICTLY BY MY (AMPLE YET SHRINKING) GUT, I would guess that it is far more common that posters ask pointed questions going from photos, and then the folks who have played the course attempt to shout down reasonable questions.
For what it's worth, the discussion a couple weeks ago about a Jim Engh par 5 closer fit these two posts above to a T.
Kalen pronounced the hole brilliant and strategic and all sorts of great things and I asked him a few questions and it went downhill from there with Matt W and David M displaying their own unique forms of charm...
Nope! Not true! Kalen said summrily dismiss the course. The course was not dismissed based on the par 5 closer.
If you want a closer example, there is the Red Sky Ranch Norman course. I and another poster of similar ilk looked at the pictures and called it ugly. I will note that I do play ugly courses, so I haven't summarily dismissed it, but it has a $250 green fee, and I don't play courses I perceive to be ugly that have a $250 green fee.
;)
-
I couldn't agree more with Adam here. Analyzing a course and asking questions is great, but coming to conclusions and a formal opinion/take is beyond absurd.
Again, the bigger problem I see on here is people shouting down questions and observations, rather than a rush to judgment based on photos.
In a roundabout way, this exchange perfectly illustrates my original point. I question the judgment of those who read questions and observations and then conclude the individual is evaluating the course. They are essentially creating a straw man equivalence that does not exist in any place other than their minds.
What's the bigger problem? People evaluating from photos or people shouting down questions/comments/observations? No question in my book.
Take posters at their word: Answer the questions and comment on the observations - if they're full of it, it will shine through.
Adam is also right about using one's critical eye, but that is a thread for another day. :)
-
Kalen,
If I went to some small town in the plains states and posted pictures of their hazardless, flat, smooth faiways and greens golf course, that was no more interesting to play than going to the driving range, would it be absurd for you to conclude from the pictures that it was not your cup of tea?
-
To me, the worst type of analysis I see/have seen on this site is:
1) One who has not played the course in question.
2) Does not work in the industry.
3) Has never travelled to the region where the course exists.
4) Has played little or none of the architects work.
....and then summarily dismisses/becomes highly critical of said course based only on pictures.
Just out of curiosity, how often do you see this happen on this site? GOING STRICTLY BY MY (AMPLE YET SHRINKING) GUT, I would guess that it is far more common that posters ask pointed questions going from photos, and then the folks who have played the course attempt to shout down reasonable questions.
George to answer your question, I have seen both scenarios occur. I was merely explaining what I felt was the "worst case" scenario.
No doubt, many on GCA.com get very passionate about thier opinions and I get that. But when someone has played a course and explains several times with words and pictures why a certain feature, hole, or course works...and they are continually dismissed by someone who has never played the course, nor seen it in person, then its hard to have respect for that persons limited opinion...plain and simple as that.
-
...Answer the questions and comment on the observations - if they're full of it, it will shine through.
...
Bingo, you nailed it George.
-
Kalen,
If I went to some small town in the plains states and posted pictures of their hazardless, flat, smooth faiways and greens golf course, that was no more interesting to play than going to the driving range, would it be absurd for you to conclude from the pictures that it was not your cup of tea?
Garland,
I never said people can't form initial opinions of a place based on pictures...I think everyone does that. But there is a big difference between me forming an opinion and having my own private take, over me being critical and making conclusions about a place in a public way.
I'll use an example. I've seen several pics and reviews of Wild Horse. To me...and to me only... the course looks good and very much worth a visit if/when I find myself in the area. But in the meantime I will not stand on a soap box and say the course sucks, or criticize it, or try to influence anyone that the course doesn't deserve a visit and/or is worthy of someones time to see it. That would be disingenous and dishonest based on the fact that I've never been there to even form a valid opinion that anyone should give merit to. Its really as simple as that.
-
Kalen,
If I went to some small town in the plains states and posted pictures of their hazardless, flat, smooth faiways and greens golf course, that was no more interesting to play than going to the driving range, would it be absurd for you to conclude from the pictures that it was not your cup of tea?
Garland,
I never said people can't form initial opinions of a place based on pictures...I think everyone does that. But there is a big difference between me forming an opinion and having my own private take, over me being critical and making conclusions about a place in a public way.
I'll use an example. I've seen several pics and reviews of Wild Horse. To me...and to me only... the course looks good and very much worth a visit if/when I find myself in the area. But in the meantime I will not stand on a soap box and say the course sucks, or criticize it, or try to influence anyone on whether said course deserves a visit and/or is worthy of someones time to see it. That would be disingenous and dishonest based on the fact that I've never been there to even form a valid opinion that anyone should give merit to. Its really as simple as that.
I was not specific enough on my question. For the course described, are you going to tell me that you would not say to someone "from what I know of the course and of you being a discerning architecture student, it probably is not worth your taking the time to play it"?
-
Kalen,
If I went to some small town in the plains states and posted pictures of their hazardless, flat, smooth faiways and greens golf course, that was no more interesting to play than going to the driving range, would it be absurd for you to conclude from the pictures that it was not your cup of tea?
Garland,
I never said people can't form initial opinions of a place based on pictures...I think everyone does that. But there is a big difference between me forming an opinion and having my own private take, over me being critical and making conclusions about a place in a public way.
I'll use an example. I've seen several pics and reviews of Wild Horse. To me...and to me only... the course looks good and very much worth a visit if/when I find myself in the area. But in the meantime I will not stand on a soap box and say the course sucks, or criticize it, or try to influence anyone on whether said course deserves a visit and/or is worthy of someones time to see it. That would be disingenous and dishonest based on the fact that I've never been there to even form a valid opinion that anyone should give merit to. Its really as simple as that.
I was not specific enough on my question. For the course described, are you going to tell me that you would not say to someone "from what I know of the course and of you being a discerning architecture student, it probably is not worth your taking the time to play it"?
Yes Garland, you would be correct.
I've never discouraged anyone from seeing a course that I haven't played 1st myself.
-
Kalen,
If I went to some small town in the plains states and posted pictures of their hazardless, flat, smooth faiways and greens golf course, that was no more interesting to play than going to the driving range, would it be absurd for you to conclude from the pictures that it was not your cup of tea?
Garland,
I never said people can't form initial opinions of a place based on pictures...I think everyone does that. But there is a big difference between me forming an opinion and having my own private take, over me being critical and making conclusions about a place in a public way.
I'll use an example. I've seen several pics and reviews of Wild Horse. To me...and to me only... the course looks good and very much worth a visit if/when I find myself in the area. But in the meantime I will not stand on a soap box and say the course sucks, or criticize it, or try to influence anyone on whether said course deserves a visit and/or is worthy of someones time to see it. That would be disingenous and dishonest based on the fact that I've never been there to even form a valid opinion that anyone should give merit to. Its really as simple as that.
I was not specific enough on my question. For the course described, are you going to tell me that you would not say to someone "from what I know of the course and of you being a discerning architecture student, it probably is not worth your taking the time to play it"?
Yes Garland, you would be correct.
I've never discouraged anyone from seeing a course that I haven't played 1st myself. I have told others that such and such a course seems to be good but have always prefaced it with "I haven't played it, but it looks like it'd be worth a play"
And after they play it and come back and ask why you had not warned them? ;)
-
Kalen,
If I went to some small town in the plains states and posted pictures of their hazardless, flat, smooth faiways and greens golf course, that was no more interesting to play than going to the driving range, would it be absurd for you to conclude from the pictures that it was not your cup of tea?
Garland,
I never said people can't form initial opinions of a place based on pictures...I think everyone does that. But there is a big difference between me forming an opinion and having my own private take, over me being critical and making conclusions about a place in a public way.
I'll use an example. I've seen several pics and reviews of Wild Horse. To me...and to me only... the course looks good and very much worth a visit if/when I find myself in the area. But in the meantime I will not stand on a soap box and say the course sucks, or criticize it, or try to influence anyone on whether said course deserves a visit and/or is worthy of someones time to see it. That would be disingenous and dishonest based on the fact that I've never been there to even form a valid opinion that anyone should give merit to. Its really as simple as that.
I was not specific enough on my question. For the course described, are you going to tell me that you would not say to someone "from what I know of the course and of you being a discerning architecture student, it probably is not worth your taking the time to play it"?
Yes Garland, you would be correct.
I've never discouraged anyone from seeing a course that I haven't played 1st myself. I have told others that such and such a course seems to be good but have always prefaced it with "I haven't played it, but it looks like it'd be worth a play"
And after they play it and come back and ask why you had not warned them? ;)
Lol.
Well thats yet to happen, so I guess I consider myself lucky!! Or it could just be that I keep my limited, partial opinions to myself!! ;) :D
-
George to answer your question, I have seen both scenarios occur. I was merely explaining what I felt was the "worst case" scenario.
No doubt, many on GCA.com get very passionate about thier opinions and I get that. But when someone has played a course and explains several times with words and pictures why a certain feature, hole, or course works...and they are continually dismissed by someone who has never played the course, nor seen it in person, then its hard to have respect for that persons limited opinion...plain and simple as that.
Again, I will ask, what is the bigger problem on here? People "evaluating" a course without playing it or people shouting down questions and comments from those who haven't played it?
On those rare occasions someone offers up an evaluation of a course not played, you simply ignore it.
When someone drives away a poster for asking questions or commenting on photos without addressing the questions or comments, we all lose.
It is that very type of equivalence that bothers me and prompted this thread. Thank you again for providing an excellent example!
:)
-
George to answer your question, I have seen both scenarios occur. I was merely explaining what I felt was the "worst case" scenario.
No doubt, many on GCA.com get very passionate about thier opinions and I get that. But when someone has played a course and explains several times with words and pictures why a certain feature, hole, or course works...and they are continually dismissed by someone who has never played the course, nor seen it in person, then its hard to have respect for that persons limited opinion...plain and simple as that.
Again, I will ask, what is the bigger problem on here? People "evaluating" a course without playing it or people shouting down questions and comments from those who haven't played it?
On those rare occasions someone offers up an evaluation of a course not played, you simply ignore it.
When someone drives away a poster for asking questions or commenting on photos without addressing the questions or comments, we all lose.
It is that very type of equivalence that bothers me and prompted this thread. Thank you again for providing an excellent example!
:)
George,
Perhaps you could provide specific examples of where one was shouted down for asking questions. This is not to say this hasn't happened, but in my experience it usually follows this pattern or something related:
1) Person A posts pics of something or makes a comments about a hole or course or whatever.
2) Person B asks a question.
3) Person A answers question.
4) Person B asks a follow-up question and either directly or in-directly implies that the initial answer wasn't good enough.
5) Person A then re-answers question and attempts to explain answer more completly.
6) Person B once again is not satisified with answer and continues to Badger Person A for a "better answer".
7) Person A then goes on the defensive and suggests person B needs to play the course or see it for themselves so they could better understand the answer.
8 ) Person B then accuses Person A of dodging the question and continues to berate Person A
9) Person A then discontinues conversation.
10) Person B continues the attack on Person A and accuses Person A of not wanting to have "real dialogue" or something similar.
IMO, in this particular scenario when someone gets shouted down, its often because Person B is not interested in a getting a real answer but they have an agenda and resort to using whatever trick they can to claim A is not "engaged in having real conversation".
-
Is it really necessary to work in the golf industry to have extensive knowledge and the ability to articulate about GCA?
By the way, I worked for several years at courses you've heard of (not just in the Pinehurst area).
-
Kalen,
If I went to some small town in the plains states and posted pictures of their hazardless, flat, smooth faiways and greens golf course, that was no more interesting to play than going to the driving range, would it be absurd for you to conclude from the pictures that it was not your cup of tea?
Recently I saw a hidden gem that impressed me staring on the very first tee shot. The ground movements were remarkable but as I stood over my approach from 116 yards, I was taken aback by the flat green. Much to my surprise and delight as I walk onto the green it had more movement than ex-lax has pills. So, if that green appeared flat from 116 yards how would it look in a photo.
BTW, I'm curious as to how that particular deception occurred. Any one want to try and guess?
The green was elongated perpendicular to the line of play and had a saucer shaped bunker directly in front. Perhaps placed just slightly right of center.
-
If the art and craft of golf course architecture is rooted in fundamental principles, there's at least the potential for an objective (and, if the architects are involved, instructive) discussion. Anything less, though, and it's essentially a subjective free for all, one to be embraced (or not) independent of whether posters have played a course once or ten times, or not at all. But to be honest, George, even then I'd much rather read Matt W than most others (including myself, of course), despite our starkly different sensibilities. IMHO
Peter
PS - any chance you are working your way to the Toronto area this weekend, George? If so, drop me a cell-phone number, I'd very much enjoy buying you a few drinks if our schedules allow.
-
... So, if that green appeared flat from 116 yards how would it look in a photo.
...
I guess that depends on whether the photo was taken from 116 yards or from 1 yard.
:D
-
George
I am not really sure what this thread is about other than you would like folks to offer more opinions backed with substance. Of course, substance could be anything depending on whos calling it substance. Peter seems to think there is such a thing as grounded architectural principles which is difficult to argue with. Only, we can't seem to quantify, qualify or codify these principles. Well at least we can't figure out what the true basic elements are. At the most basic level members of this site are still divided if a course can be considered proper, genuine golf if the site/routing isn't reasonably walkable. To me, its a no brainer. Getting the golfer around on foot is part and parcel of good design. Some believe that getting the most spectacular golf out of the land is the most important thing. Some believe its ok to sacrifice the good walk once or perhaps twice in a round if it means an exceptional hole can therefore be included. On one level, all are correct and right. One another level, if we truly do have a "set" of principles to design by, only one or perhaps two scenarios can be correct. In reality, it doesn't work this way because the product is for golfers, not designers or their ideals of what should be. It sounds like the wild west and in truth it pretty much is when we look at what has been built.
My question would be, and remember, that I don't care how you play your golf, do the folks who encourage cart golf design by using carts often (assuming the course is not easily walkable) have any sense that the course they are playing lacks a critical element of design? My guess is that in the main stream we are so far removed from this core principle that folks don't give it a second thought.
So far as the photo deal goes, I believe some can get much more out of them from a analytical PoV than others. Just as some get more than others in a round. That isn't meant to be snooty, just that some folks look at pix with an eye to perhaps visit one day and the info gleaned could be a big part of the decision-making process.
Ciao
-
"Quote
George, when it comes to golf course architecture, one can embrace the "big world theory" advocated by Tom Paul, and still make judgements about what courses you like, and what courses you don't. At the same time, I guess you're proposing that there are enough rules and regs about what constitutes good architecture that one can confidently say that some courses are bad and some are good, without adding an "imho" at the end.
This "big world theory" is a crock. It is an agreement to disagree, and generally cuts off all meaningful and relevant conversation. There isn't room in golf design for everything. Some courses are bad for golf design and bad for golf, whether they evoke positive visceral reactions or not. But I don't think George is proposing "one set of rules and regs" at all, but he does seem to be suggesting that we ought to be concerned with certain standards or bases or principles that ought to play a role in our analysis. These don't have to be shared by everyone and I would hope they wouldn't be, as these ought to be what our discussions are about.
What I don't get is that some people around here don't really seem to give a damn beyond their visceral likes and dislikes. That is well and good and the way most people operate, but WHY ARE YOU HERE? Certainly not to actually discuss golf course design."
The "Big World Theory" is definitely not a crock even though I admit I think a pretty good number of people are not exactly aware of what it means.
I coigned the term "The Big World Theory" but I definitely did not invent the theory itself. That came to me (over time) from Bill Coore, and fairly recently I actually asked him about the theory again just to be sure and to confirm that I really had gotten his ideas about it right in the beginning. He said I had.
The quickest way to misunderstand what "The Big World Theory" means is to assume that it means that all types and styles or even architectural principles can somehow be contained into one single golf course. Clearly that would be a virtual impossibility if one carefully considers what "The Big World Theory" actually does mean (at least to Bill Coore and me) which is merely that golf course architecture to be and to remain a viable and vibrant ART FORM, that art form really does need a pretty wide spectrum of what-all is offered and provided across the board and around the world. Obviously the reason for that is people across the board have vastly different tastes and opinions and perhaps requirements of what they would like to see in a golf course.
This means if their tastes and requirements are vastly different from mine or from yours then there will be something out there in that wide spectrum ("The Big World Theory") for them just as there will be something very different for us and our particular tastes and opinions and requirements.
Bill Coore is the first to admit there is plenty out there in the world of golf course architecture that he doesn't personally like (and so do I) but he is certainly a big enough thinker and enough of a realist to admit it should be out there if there are people who like it.
The opposite of "The Big World Theory" and probably the opposite of Bill Coore or me are these people who try to argue that the entire spectrum of golf course architecture should be narrower and limited to perhaps a particular type and style or even set of principles----eg that set of principles and type and style of golf course architecture THEY LIKE!
To me that is both narrow minded and probably something more than a little bit selfish or self-centered too.
No, "The Big World Theory" is no crock, but I'm willing to give the person who said it's a crock the benefit of the doubt that perhaps heretofore he just didn't understand what the theory is suppose to be and is suppose to mean. But if he did heretofore completely understand what it is supposed to be and mean, then the thing I feel is the real crock is him! Because if he continues to think and propose that only what HE LIKES is all that should be done or should exist and that what others like that he doesn't like or agree with should not be done, I believe all he is really doing is trying to forfend (in the archaic meaning) the real and true beliefs and opinions of other people!
That is why the colloquial explanation of "The Big World Theory" has always been; "Golf and golf course architecture is a great big thing and there is plenty of room in it for everyone." (even though and again, clearly the entire spectrum could never possibly be done or offered in some single golf course)
-
"What I don't get is that some people around here don't really seem to give a damn beyond their visceral likes and dislikes. That is well and good and the way most people operate, but WHY ARE YOU HERE? Certainly not to actually discuss golf course design."
Why are we here and what should we say and discuss on here? In my opinion, we should simply articulate and discuss what we like and don't like and why we like what we like, and perhaps why we don't like what we don't like and just leave it at that! ;)
If we just do that everyone should be able to learn something from any of us (even if they may not agree with it or with us or any one of us may not agree with them).
Ultimately, what we should all learn, at least in my opinion, and apparently in Coore's ("The Big World Theory"), is that with a sport that is constructed as golf's is and with an Art Form like golf course architecture, the spectrum of type, style and perhaps even principles should be quite wide to remain both viable and vibrant both now and into the future!
C.B. Macdonald said:
"It would seem that in this striving after "novelty and innovation" many builders of golf courses believe they are elevating the game. But what a sad contemplation."
I will admit that in my own PERSONAL preference in golf course architecture he may've been right but that does not mean to me what he said above is right for everyone, and since it probably isn't I feel that remark of his should never been construed in such a way that someone would argue to forfend in golf course architecture what some consider to be novelty and innovation!
-
"Anything less, though, and it's essentially a subjective free for all,"
Peter:
What is wrong with a subjective free for all if those articulating their subjective opinions are articulate about them? Does someone or anyone on here really believe this website is supposed to come to some general consensus of opinion on everything or even anything to do with golf course architecture? If that is what some on here believe, perhaps any or all of them should explain why they believe that!
-
Kalen,
I've read your posts on this thread, and while I can't quite put my finger on it I think eventually I might be able to figure out who you are talking about.
In the meantime I wonder if what you are doing not is just another version of what George is talking about? Rather than critically considering the points raised in this conversation or past conversations you are instead making all sorts of blanket claims about some hypothetical person (I wonder who?) doing all sorts of horrible things, and obviously you aren't doing so for the purposes of advancing the conversation but to argue that this hypothetical person has nothing to offer.. After all, it is not as if you have or can offer any sort of factual support for your claims, so you are just throwing them out there, unsupported and unsupportable, expecting others simply to accept your word without challenge. There is no real place for a critical discussion to go from there.
I pity the poor fool you are ridiculing. He doesn't even have a chance to counter your ridicule. Plus, I've read many of these threads, and I have a feeling that your claims are not even close to accurate. I wonder if he'd be pissed off if he knew you were dissing him without even giving him a chance to respond?
Is this the sort of thing what you consider productive in a conversation? If so then perhaps this hypothetical asshole has a point.
-
"George,
Perhaps you could provide specific examples of where one was shouted down for asking questions. This is not to say this hasn't happened, but in my experience it usually follows this pattern or something related:
1) Person A posts pics of something or makes a comments about a hole or course or whatever.
2) Person B asks a question.
3) Person A answers question.
4) Person B asks a follow-up question and either directly or in-directly implies that the initial answer wasn't good enough.
5) Person A then re-answers question and attempts to explain answer more completly.
6) Person B once again is not satisified with answer and continues to Badger Person A for a "better answer".
7) Person A then goes on the defensive and suggests person B needs to play the course or see it for themselves so they could better understand the answer.
8 ) Person B then accuses Person A of dodging the question and continues to berate Person A
9) Person A then discontinues conversation.
10) Person B continues the attack on Person A and accuses Person A of not wanting to have "real dialogue" or something similar.
IMO, in this particular scenario when someone gets shouted down, its often because Person B is not interested in a getting a real answer but they have an agenda and resort to using whatever trick they can to claim A is not "engaged in having real conversation"."
Kalen:
Your above looks like a pretty fine multiple iteration of the kind of scenarios on here that a lot of us have been guilty of in the past. However, you forgot to add the last part of these kinds of scenarios (even though it has now been added by someone else) that generally involve some on here trying to figure out who exactly you are referring to and even claiming that you are implicitly identifying someone who they claim you are calling as asshole even if you did not identify anyone or even refer to anyone as an asshole (but maybe you did---I can't bother to go back through this thread to check that part out). ;)
Not to even mention these kinds of things can and do eventually devolve down to some degree of an argument about what does and what does not constitute a conversation or a discussion or at least a "productive" one. ::)
-
TomE -
the term "subjective free for all" sounds negative, but I didn't mean it to. I could see this topic was being addressed with more and more qualifiers and 'subsets', and all I meant to say was that, unless we agree (and are able) to stick absolutely to a discussion of how a course manifests strategic and shot-testing principles, we might as well accept and embrace that what we're discussing is our like and dislikes and preferences and "what ifs" -- all fine, in my books, from all points of view (whether deemed 'authoratative' or not).
Something I wrote on Jim Engh's thread relates here too. I wrote that a good present-day architect is essentially transmuting for the modern game the principles of golf design orginally found in the great British courses, much like Pete Dye did when he re-fashioned the classic playing angles and risk-reward equations and shot-testing for the big-money, television game of professional golf at Sawgrass. And If THAT is what a golf course architect is trying to do in a new design, I think the only 'objective' critique (and discussion) is in terms of whether or not the goal was accomplished. Subjective and aesthetic tastes and judgments and preferences certainly have their place, but not I don't think in the context of deciding whether an architect has done his/her job properly and skillfully.
Peter
-
Kalen:
Your above looks like a pretty fine multiple iteration of the kind of scenarios on here that a lot of us have been guilty of in the past. However, you forgot to add the last part of these kinds of scenarios (even though it has now been added by someone else) that generally involve some on here trying to figure out who exactly you are referring to and even claiming that you are implicitly identifying someone who they claim you are calling as asshole even if you did not identify anyone or even refer to anyone as an asshole (but maybe you did---I can't bother to go back through this thread to check that part out). ;)
Not to even mention these kinds of things can and do eventually devolve down to some degree of an argument about what does and what does not constitute a conversation or a discussion or at least a "productive" one. ::)
Tom P,
I agree whole-heartedly with your last statement and indeed most of us have been guilty of at one point or another of relaying too strong of an opinion about a course that we never played.
I guess if some feel singled out, then perhaps they are just feeling a little insecure about themselves and thier tactics! ;)
-
"Something I wrote on Jim Engh's thread relates here too. I wrote that a good present-day architect is essentially transmuting for the modern game the principles of golf design orginally found in the great British courses, much like Pete Dye did when he re-fashioned the classic playing angles and risk-reward equations and shot-testing for the big-money, television game of professional golf at Sawgrass. And If THAT is what a golf course architect is trying to do in a new design, I think the only 'objective' critique (and discussion) is in terms of whether or not the goal was accomplished. Subjective and aesthetic tastes and judgments and preferences certainly have their place, but not I don't think in the context of deciding whether an architect has done his/her job properly and skillfully."
PeterP:
That is a very well articulated point or example to follow, I think!
It is a lot better than just saying something like: "A good conversation or discussion should provide some FACTUAL SUPPORT."
What you just said there is a good example of providing some factual support to have a conversation or discussion about golf course architecture.
-
Subjective and aesthetic tastes and judgments and preferences certainly have their place, but not I don't think in the context of deciding whether an architect has done his/her job properly and skillfully.
Peter,
Determining if an architect did a proper and skillful job is either tethered to 'subjective and aesthethic' thought or else it's just a construction project.
-
Subjective and aesthetic tastes and judgments and preferences certainly have their place, but not I don't think in the context of deciding whether an architect has done his/her job properly and skillfully.
Peter,
Determining if an architect did a proper and skillful job is either tethered to 'subjective and aesthethic' thought or else it's just a construction project.
Jim
I disagree, and this is where Huckster was always spot on. Very few of us know what the archie's remit, goals, budget and restraints were/are. Without this sort of intimate detail it is impossible to make a judgement on the architect. We can always look at the work and decide if we like it or not and offer good reasons, but that is a far cry from taking an archie to task - at least that was always my take - criticize the course, but not the archie (well, not too much)unless who have loads of info about projects. Hopefully, the archies on this site get this not so subtle difference between the needs and ambitions of the users and the needs and ambitions of the designer.
Ciao
-
Jim - a pithy line, and maybe true, but I'm not so sure. I'm all about the natural experience on a golf course, and greatly admire the skill (and CHOICE) of some architects to hide the hand of man. But I do see it as a partly a choice. And my point was that, if the architect who makes a choice not to hide his hand still manages to create a field of play that provides strategic interest and challenge, far be it for me to say he hasn't accomplished his goal, or that the golf course in question is somehow not viable, or worthwhile, or that it's somehow lacking (objectively speaking). Take TPC Sawgrass - I happen to think that it's an excellent golf course, but if I play it once that would be enough for me (and if I never play TPC that would be fine too). Even though I don't particularly want to walk its fairways, I think it's a 'construction project' that succeeds. And so too do the construction projects that we know of as Pine Valley, and The Quarry, and Muirfield Village, and NGLA, and Harbour Town and Old Macdonald and The Mines etc etc.
Peter
-
Interesting thoughts, and roundabout restraint from some. :)
George
I am not really sure what this thread is about other than you would like folks to offer more opinions backed with substance.
Sean, I'm not really sure either. It really is just born of an observation: I think as people essentially lower the bar for debate, they somehow lose the ability to make good judgments. I kinda hate myself for that observation, as it is horribly condescending in many ways, a trait I abhor.
Your cart usage question is an interesting one. My hunch is that the old excuse of "everyone uses carts" is a crutch for shortcuts in design and anyone designing assuming cart usage most likely does miss an integral part of the game, but then again, I'm big on walking, so maybe I just can't see the other side of the argument.
-
Sean,
I think you have to read all of Peter's original post to get a better understanding of what I am saying.
TomE -
the term "subjective free for all" sounds negative, but I didn't mean it to. I could see this topic was being addressed with more and more qualifiers and 'subsets', and all I meant to say was that, unless we agree (and are able) to stick absolutely to a discussion of how a course manifests strategic and shot-testing principles, we might as well accept and embrace that what we're discussing is our like and dislikes and preferences and "what ifs" -- all fine, in my books, from all points of view (whether deemed 'authoratative' or not).
Something I wrote on Jim Engh's thread relates here too. I wrote that a good present-day architect is essentially transmuting for the modern game the principles of golf design orginally found in the great British courses, much like Pete Dye did when he re-fashioned the classic playing angles and risk-reward equations and shot-testing for the big-money, television game of professional golf at Sawgrass. And If THAT is what a golf course architect is trying to do in a new design, I think the only 'objective' critique (and discussion) is in terms of whether or not the goal was accomplished. Subjective and aesthetic tastes and judgments and preferences certainly have their place, but not I don't think in the context of deciding whether an architect has done his/her job properly and skillfully.
If Peter's method is followed then GCA is reduced to the scientific.
-
Sean,
I think you have to read all of Peter's original post to get a better understanding of what I am saying.
TomE -
the term "subjective free for all" sounds negative, but I didn't mean it to. I could see this topic was being addressed with more and more qualifiers and 'subsets', and all I meant to say was that, unless we agree (and are able) to stick absolutely to a discussion of how a course manifests strategic and shot-testing principles, we might as well accept and embrace that what we're discussing is our like and dislikes and preferences and "what ifs" -- all fine, in my books, from all points of view (whether deemed 'authoratative' or not).
Something I wrote on Jim Engh's thread relates here too. I wrote that a good present-day architect is essentially transmuting for the modern game the principles of golf design orginally found in the great British courses, much like Pete Dye did when he re-fashioned the classic playing angles and risk-reward equations and shot-testing for the big-money, television game of professional golf at Sawgrass. And If THAT is what a golf course architect is trying to do in a new design, I think the only 'objective' critique (and discussion) is in terms of whether or not the goal was accomplished. Subjective and aesthetic tastes and judgments and preferences certainly have their place, but not I don't think in the context of deciding whether an architect has done his/her job properly and skillfully.
If Peter's method is followed then GCA is reduced to the scientific.
Jim
I must not be understanding what you are saying. I don't see why looking at project goals and outcomes is scientific. Furthermore, that doesn't mean one can't criticize a course regardless of the goals, only that the archie isn't necessarily the reason(s) why the course isn't what you or me think it should be. Perhaps even, we may think that the project is hopeless as a course because of the terrain, but that doesn't mean the archie wasn't successful.
Ciao
-
we may think that the project is hopeless as a course because of the terrain, but that doesn't mean the archie wasn't successful.
You just proved my point, thank you. ;D
-
Jim - if you knew me, you'd know how funny it is to suggest I'd have anything to do with anything 'scientific.' I can't even think straight, let alone scientifically. I failed math three times in highschool! But still, I think my post #60 gets closer to what I'm trying to say than the post you quoted -- and I'll add that, you know, maybe you're right, i.e. maybe I am proposing a more 'scientific' approach so as to counterbalance what I think may be the current in-balance heavily in favour of the 'art'.
Peter
-
I guess if some feel singled out, then perhaps they are just feeling a little insecure about themselves and thier tactics! ;)
Kalen, I can't speak for your highly fictionalized anonymous antagonist or his/her tactics, by I do find your tactics interesting, given the gist of the thread. What you are doing seems to be just another example of what George was talking about in his original post. I guess your railing against fictional foes might make you feel good, but I am having trouble understanding what purpose it serves other than that. It certainly does nothing to advance the conversation.
-
...
I guess if some feel singled out, then perhaps they are just feeling a little insecure about themselves and thier tactics! ;)
Hey Kalen,
What's that? An ad hominem attack?
;)