[Tom Huckaby]

David:

Understood.  I'm just guessing as to why a golfer would be less effected by surroundings in great places like that than I am.  I know when I play competitively, the focus changes quite a bit and Patrick's right, surroundings are noticed less and thus effect me less.  That's absolutely NOT to say they cease to exist, it's just a different focus. Call it more business and less spiritual/fun.

And I absolutely don't mean to these things need to be mutually exclusive.

But good point nonetheless.

TH

[Tom_Doak]

David Ober:

It may be true that being a good player does not exclude one from enjoying the view and the esthetic elements of the golf course (and even the strategy of the design), but it does often happen.  I've been told by many good players [everyone from Peter Oosterhuis to Ian Baker-Finch to Bill Shean to Tom Paul] that when they were serious competitive players they just didn't notice the nuances of the architecture that much.  All they thought about was how to score and what spots they had to avoid.

[George Pazin]

Damn, all this time I thought Pat was beating me up, he was actually letting me feel like I won. Who'da thunk it?

In all seriousness, I think Pat is 99% correct on this issue, with the exception being the sort of thing that Tom D describes. By and large, I think the collateral things are highly important to one's enjoyment of the course, but of minor significance when assessing the architectural value.

But, just as strategy might be the half a stroke a round that determines the winners from the losers, those minor issues might be the difference between someone feeling a course is a 9 or a 10.

How else can you explain Tom D not valuing Oakmont as a 10, other than the setting?

[Tom Huckaby]

In all seriousness, I think Pat is 99% correct on this issue, with the exception being the sort of thing that Tom D describes. By and large, I think the collateral things are highly important to one's enjoyment of the course, but of minor significance when assessing the architectural value.

You can't be serious, and you too can't have missed this extremely simple point so poorly.  I just can't believe it.  Let's try this again:

Yes, "collateral things" are of minor significance when assessing "architectural value."

BUT THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION!  Pat keeps saying the same thing, keeps missing the point.  Now you too.  It is very odd.

The question is this:  is "architectural value" truly ALL that ought to be involved in assessing the greatness of the golf course?

And if you say yes, then you are as soul-less as Patrick.

And remember I'm not trying to say HOW MUCH such things should be considered (though I've put the value at 5%) - rather I am just making the simple point that they cannot be valued at ZERO.

Why oh why is this so difficult for otherwise intelligent people to understand?

[George Pazin]

The question is this:  is "architectural value" truly ALL that ought to be involved in assessing the greatness of the golf course?

Obviously, greatness means different things to different people.

To me, the answer to this is no.

But I might be soul-less anyway.

[Tom Huckaby]

The question is this:  is "architectural value" truly ALL that ought to be involved in assessing the greatness of the golf course?

Obviously, greatness means different things to different people.

To me, the answer to this is no.

But I might be soul-less anyway.

WHEW!

Of course the freakin' answer is no.  How can it be anything else for anyone with vision and a soul?  One does play with his eyes open.

OK, Clayman down, Pazin down, Doak on my side... the only one left failing this 7yr old logic lesson remains the Golden Domer.

 

What's really funny about this Topic is that when I started it, I assumed one and all would see the basic logic, then we could move on to the better question - one Pat keeps trying to nail me on but which really hasn't been asked yet - which is how MUCH value does one give to these collateral issues.  I am shocked to shit that this has gone on for 6 pages now debating the very basic logic.  But maybe I shouldn't be....

 

[David Ober]

Of course the freakin' answer is no.  How can it be anything else for anyone with vision and a soul?  One does play with his eyes open.

OK, Clayman down, Pazin down, Doak on my side... the only one left failing this 7yr old logic lesson remains the Golden Domer.

Hey, Ober's on your side too!!!  

[David Ober]

David Ober:

It may be true that being a good player does not exclude one from enjoying the view and the esthetic elements of the golf course (and even the strategy of the design), but it does often happen.  I've been told by many good players [everyone from Peter Oosterhuis to Ian Baker-Finch to Bill Shean to Tom Paul] that when they were serious competitive players they just didn't notice the nuances of the architecture that much.  All they thought about was how to score and what spots they had to avoid.

Ian Baker-Finch can't play a lick!!!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

As for why the knees shake on 16 Cypress and why one might be inspired to greatness on 7 Pebble, well your explanation is how it works for soul-less, hypercompetitive YOU;  just please don't come close to assuming that's how it works for those of us more attuned to the spritual nature of the game.
That's pure nonsense.

If instead of "sporty" stakes and pride, we were playing a
$ 10,000 Nassau at Sand Hills, you wouldn't know or remember anything beyond the borders of the hole and shots at hand.

Obviously you didn't bother to read what I posted about the varied purposes of a round, and what they require of the golfer.[/color]

You are so far off on that, it really does make me kinda sad.  You are missing so much this game has to offer...
I'm not missing anything.[/color]

Patrick - of course golf remains in the playing - I've said that many, many times and in fact chide those who walk around golf courses without their sticks in their "study" of the courses.  I could never do that.  

Again, you fail to accept or understand the "purpose" of the round or exercise.[/color]

The hitting of the shots - what you call "interfacing with architecture" is indeed the largest part of playing the game.  It's just NOT 100%, all of what is involved in golf.
Again, it depends upon the purpose of the round or exercise.
If it's to study bunkers, green contours or other internal features, then everything beyond the golf course is of no relevance.[/color]  

The reason I went out and played that extra nine really did reverse the roles - it was 95% sprituality, 5% hitting the shots.  I damn near did leave the clubs at the Porch.  But that 5% was as necessary and real as the 5% of what you would call extraneous is when I'm playing a normal round.  In any case, you all said you were watching me through the binoculars - you didn't notice me sit behind 2 green for a good 5 minutes, just soaking things in, my gaze looking OUTWARD?  Yep, that was all about hitting the shots.  Mm-hmm.  

It looked like you were huffing and puffing and a little tired.[/color]

I don't expect you to come close to understanding this.  But then I would never expect you to leave the Porch to play a late Church Nine, either.

The only thing that prevented me from playing more than 36 a day was the pain in my feet and hips, it had nothing to do with the desire or spirit of the game.[/color]

You remain completely wrong, though.  All that one can see and feel while playing a golf hole is indeed part of that golf hole.  The same goes for courses.  You can deny this, explain it away, try to redefine it, whatever.  It's just never going to change this very basic truth.

So when you play Liberty National and Bayonne Golf club, the Harbor areas and New York Skyline will determine your evaluation of those golf courses ?

I guess you're the reason Trump and Fazio build waterfalls on their golf courses.[/color]

And I remain saddened your focus blinds you to this - for your sake.  I shall pray for your golfing soul.

That's nice, but quite unnecessary.
My soul, golfing and otherwise is well and burns brightly.[/color]

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick, tomato, tomahto, I am going to call it all off.  I really do have some desire to refute the silly points you make in green in that last point as GOOD LORD are you way off about so many things, but I shall resist.  We are getting nowhere.  You keep making so much more out of what should be such a simple concept - one that everyone except you seems to understand.

Collateral issues matter.  We can debate all day as to HOW MUCH they matter - which is what you keep wanting to do -that's good fun.  But to say they have ABSOLUTELY NO WEIGHT IN ANY EVALUATION - as you seem to want to say - that is just plain wrong.

And I will pray for your golfing soul - the sinner is always the last to understand that he needs such assistance.

 

Tell ya what:  just acknowledge this very simple fact that they do have some weight - as Tom Doak has said, Clayman acknowledged, Pazin acknowledged, Ober understands - and then we'll get into the weightier questions you keep asking.  That will be good fun.  And then you're also going to see that I'm not at all saying what you claim I am.

TH

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom,
Part of the problem is semantics. You use the word "greatness" and clearly that is a subjectve thing.

 To perhaps illustrate the difference, we need go no further than Banff and Jasper Pk. (you did get to Jasper didnt you?)
Would the Cauldron be any less great a golf hole, if the rock were'nt looming large? If you answer that in the negative, I think we are at the meat of the semantic argument. As for the  distant mountains, they have lost any relevance to the GC design with the change in configuraton. Be it the river, or, the "V" that guides you  back to the River. At Jasper, there was less emphasis on the feelings the surrounds can evoke (save for the water holes and the fences reason for being   ) and more on the "in the ground" golf course features. And IMO, the greatness of Jasper is higher than Banff.

[Tom Huckaby]

Adam:

I didn't get to Jasper.  I was in the area for family fun, and Jasper is quite off the beaten track as you know.  I only got to play Banff because a free afternoon was given where the boys did something and the girls did another.  My son loved it, btw.  

But you're right - I'm not sure "semantics" is the proper word but a lot of the problem here is indeed in how one defines things.  Patrick keeps wanting to answer the question by referring to his definition of "architecture", which doesn't include what he calls "collateral issues" - so of course it's impossible to refute anything he says, because they're his definitions.

But outside of that, yes this does get interesting if we take it farther and start to ask HOW much influence these things have, and why.  Just do understand that such is not what I've been asking in this thread.  My question all along has simply been how can you put such things at zero.

So apologies, but I can't directly compare Jasper and Banff for you - although I very much understand what you are saying.  Seems to me those who value great vistas might prefer Banff, those who dig "in the ground" things and don't care as much about the vistas would prefer Jasper.

Different strokes for different folks.

Just don't ever try to say the folks who prefer Banff are WRONG, nor that what they value should not be valued.

 

The funny thing is Patrick's gonna assume I'd love Banff and hate Jasper.  The truth is, I'd probably enjoy both, but want to play Jasper more.  I just sure as hell wouldn't say the views at Banff were meaningless.

TH

[Pete Buczkowski]

Tom,
Part of the problem is semantics. You use the word "greatness" and clearly that is a subjectve thing.

 To perhaps illustrate the difference, we need go no further than Banff and Jasper Pk. (you did get to Jasper didnt you?)
Would the Cauldron be any less great a golf hole, if the rock were'nt looming large? If you answer that in the negative, I think we are at the meat of the semantic argument. As for the  distant mountains, they have lost any relevance to the GC design with the change in configuraton. Be it the river, or, the "V" that guides you  back to the River. At Jasper, there was less emphasis on the feelings the surrounds can evoke (save for the water holes and the fences reason for being   ) and more on the "in the ground" golf course features. And IMO, the greatness of Jasper is higher than Banff.

Wow.  It goes to show you that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.    I would argue that the surroundings at Jasper are more than the surroundings at Banff, save for Mt. Rundle behind the Cauldron and the Bow River along 10.  Jasper is also a sportier course, with more varied shots to play throughout the round and slightly more interesting greens.  

And count me in the camp who believes that Mt. Rundle does ratchet the hole from great to top echelon of par 3's in the world.  Maybe I'm a sucker for the view too.  

[Tom Huckaby]

Pete - very well said.  This is very subjective and beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder.  Of course my comments were just working with Adam's assumptions given I haven't been to Jasper.

It just remains interesting to me how views and the like are so often mentioned, but some continue to want to discount them.  The man who can play the Devil's Cauldron and come back talking about nothing but the shot requirements, well... to me is golf soul-less.  No golf hole better illustrates why scenic views do matter.

But expect some to disagree.  That's what makes this fun.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby, et. al.,

What is it about the areas outside of a golf course that influence you when you're studying greenside or fairway bunkers ?

What is it about the areas outside of a golf course that influence you when you're studying internal contouring on a putting surface ?

What is it about areas outside of a golf course that influence you when you're studying "punchbowl" features ?

What is it about areas outside of a golf course that influence you when you're studying "skyline" greens ?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[A_Clay_Man]

Wow.  It goes to show you that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.    I would argue that the surroundings at Jasper are more than the surroundings at Banff, save for Mt. Rundle behind the Cauldron and the Bow River along 10.  Jasper is also a sportier course, with more varied shots to play throughout the round and slightly more interesting greens.  

And count me in the camp who believes that Mt. Rundle does ratchet the hole from great to top echelon of par 3's in the world.  Maybe I'm a sucker for the view too.  

Pete, Only Holes 4 and 10? You clearly mssed the V that looms large in the distance over 6, 7 & 8.  The drama in Jasper surrounds is mostly towards the Face in the mountain, yet Thompson only ran one hole (that I recall) in that direction. Cleopatra #9 the downhill par 3. Anyone who is there for golf, cannot help but be mezmerised by that hole, and The need to figure IT out, was all I could pay attention to.

[Mike McGuire]

Tom Huckaby, et. al.,

What is it about the areas outside of a golf course that influence you when you're studying ..... ?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Is it possible that observing areas outside of the course could be of benifit to someone if they knew the tendancies of the architect?

Do some designers use helpful aiming features ( a distant tree/hill/skyscraper.etc) while others would not (or try to trick you) ?

If  the architect considers the area outside the golf course carefully during conception (I think Tom Doak has talked about this here) ...is it not a vital part of the end result ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Is it possible that observing areas outside of the course could be of benifit to someone if they knew the tendancies of the architect?

Could you cite a tendency of Pete Dye, Tom Doak or C&C ?[/color]

Do some designers use helpful aiming features ( a distant tree/hill/skyscraper.etc) while others would not (or try to trick you) ?

Have you ever seen holes where the architect designed the hole based on an outside aiming landmark ?

Do you think that happened by accident, or did he route the entire course such that the one hole would have the outside landmark as the golfer's aiming point ?[/color]

If  the architect considers the area outside the golf course carefully during conception (I think Tom Doak has talked about this here) ...is it not a vital part of the end result ?

How would he consider it ?  And to what degree ?

Is it a vital part of the end result ?   NO

The golf course as manifested by its "in ground" architecture is the vital part of the end result.

If SanD Hills was an abominable golf course would the surroundings mean anything to you ?  Would they make it a better one ?

Do the surroundings at Wild Horse make it an inferior golf course ?

Would the views be prettier absent the structures, sure, but the golf course is WORLD CLASS with or without pretty views.[/color]

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

I don't study such things.

I play the game.

When playing the game, I definitely notice the views.  So sad that you don't.  I shall continue to pray for your golfing soul.  It's obviously not working yet.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

I don't study such things.

Now I understand.
You've confirmed my thoughts.

Why didn't you say so in the first place ?[/color]

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

Sorry man, you never asked.

Of course I've made it very clear from day one on this site that the "study" of golf courses doesn't interest me.  Of course that doesn't mean I don't know the concepts you ask about, and don't notice them when I play, or when I look at pictures.  I just don't STUDY them like you freaks - er I mean gentlemen - do.  

Now let me ask you a question, and please give a simple answer if you would be so kind:

How did you get so good at the game playing with your eyes closed?

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

It's called "feel"

Letting "The Force" be with you.  

Plus, a lot of luck.

[Tom Huckaby]

EXCELLENT!

I knew in the end we'd come out on the same side.

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()