News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


TEPaul

Re: Who buys into the "aging" factor?
« Reply #25 on: May 18, 2002, 09:17:51 AM »
Pat:

Maybe you didn't say "the look" (form) and "strategy" (substance) were mutually exclusive but I still can't see why you continue to imply that some of us advocate form without substance has ever been acceptable!

Who really cares which one is more important or even how much more important? Our point is a really good golf course should have both!

And further it's not all that hard to do both although apparently a lot of architects don't seem to know that, or don't seem to care or else just don't think it's necessary!

All I really want to hear you say is that you do or do not think that form ("the look") is important at all, and if you don't think it is, why the hell don't you? I'm not interested any more which is MORE important just whether you think "the look" (form) has any importance at all, period---end of story!

It's a real simple question that deserves, at the very least, a real simple answer! Even yes or no would do!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Who buys into the "aging" factor?
« Reply #26 on: May 18, 2002, 09:31:01 AM »
A great look without appropriate strategy and playability is inevitably an empty experience to a great extent.  

(Reminds me of the joke that admits that sex without love is an empty experience, but argues that as far as empty experiences go, it's one of the best!). :)

In fact, we often find fault with many modern courses for focusing more on the photogenic aspects than the actual strategies, and appropriately so.

A strategic golf course with a sterilized or unnatural look often creates much the same longing feeling of what might have been.  It is hardly as fulfilling as it could be, because while our minds might be engaged, our senses ultimately aren't, or worse yet, are offended or repulsed.  

A great course combines both in not only equal measure; they are usually inseparable.

I argue this because while strategy suggests potential road maps for appropriate play, "the look" suggests, and sometimes dictates how we "feel" about what we are doing.  A great look can intimidate, cajole, inspire, uplift, calm, motivate, tempt, deceive, and stimulate a whole host of emotions that increase our enjoyment of the game.  A great look can even appeal to our spirituality by seamlessly conjoining the hand of God and man in ways that touch us deeply.  That inner appreciation cannot be garnered through the pure, cold logic of strategy.

Ultimately, a great look combined with superb strategy affects our play in subtle and sometimes subconscious ways, and increases our innate understanding of the possibilities of what a golf course can be.  

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:05 PM by -1 »

TEPaul

Re: Who buys into the "aging" factor?
« Reply #27 on: May 18, 2002, 10:37:02 AM »
I sort of wonder what some actually mean by "the look" anyway. I suspect they mean the smaller details like bunker lines and shapes and the natural looking edges compared to those that aren't and maybe green shapes too, or whatever.

But in a general sense I'll tell you a "look" that really stuns me every time as hitting the bullseye. It's Flynn's #3 hole and greenend and green at Lehigh.

It just looks like that site and that hole were always there. Somebody else could have put a hole there and done things that would have missed the mark somehow and upset everything about the general "look". But that one is a real stunner when it comes to a general "look"!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom Doak

Re: Who buys into the "aging" factor?
« Reply #28 on: May 18, 2002, 11:46:03 AM »
I think the need for "aging" depends entirely on the course.
A newly created landscape which is dependent on native grasses (Whistling Straits) or trees (Texas Tech) will usually mature and continue to look better for quite some time after opening.

However, a place like Pacific Dunes [or Black Forest, cut through trees] is pretty much mature the day it's open.  High Pointe, looked much better on opening day than it does now.

Half the "aging" argument is just from stuck-in-the-mud old guys who won't give a new course its due.  No matter how good it is, they'll dismiss it by saying it might be as good as the great ones when it matures.

There are also some older golfers who say Tiger Woods will be one of the greatest ever if he can hold up for another 10-15 years.


« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Who buys into the "aging" factor?
« Reply #29 on: May 18, 2002, 01:06:52 PM »
Isn't that just such an interesting remark there by Doak about Tiger Woods!

"There are some old golfers who maintained that Tiger Woods will be one of the greatest ever if he can just hold up for another 10-15 years."

Despite the fact that Jones appeared to pass that mantle gracefully to Nicklaus quite early in Nicklaus's career and Nicklaus very much did the same thing with Woods even earlier in Wood's career.

Those top flight Champions know the real deal when they see it but these old golfers who've just watched them seem to know better than those champions do about what real championship golf and golfers are all about!

It sure is funny, but they'll still be back on here maintaining the same thing!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Who buys into the "aging" factor?
« Reply #30 on: May 18, 2002, 03:11:37 PM »
Mike Cirba,

Can you think of a golf course that possesses great strategic values, that is dull, unaesthetic or uninteresting.

Doesn't great strategy breed a distinct look, a substantive look of its own ?

TEPaul,

I think Mike Cirba echoed my thoughts on Form Vs Substance.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Who buys into the "aging" factor?
« Reply #31 on: May 18, 2002, 03:34:46 PM »
Strategy is dependent upon the contours of the ground, natural features and the placement of hazards. The effect of these features and how they register in one's mind is dependent of their look or appearance or aesthetic. The two are interwoven and really are the essence of golf architecture. So many unique styles and interesting strategies -- from Ross to Raynor to MacKenzie to Alison to Thompson.

Pat
How do you differentiate the work of Raynor and MacKenzie, by look or by strategy or by both? How about Thomas and Ross? Or Travis and Thompson?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Who buys into the "aging" factor?
« Reply #32 on: May 18, 2002, 03:50:31 PM »
Tom MacWood,

Each has a ,usually, identifiable style.

TEPaul,

Nicklaus's record has been amassed over decades.  
It has been enduring despite the vicissitudes of life, personal, financial, marital, physical, emotional and familial.

Tiger Woods certainly seems headed for golfing glory, but, many's the slip tween the cup and the lip.

Time alone will tell.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Who buys into the "aging" factor?
« Reply #33 on: May 18, 2002, 04:28:12 PM »
Pat
When you say they had their own identifiable styles -- do you indentify their unique styles by their look or by their strategies or by both?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Who buys into the "aging" factor?
« Reply #34 on: May 18, 2002, 06:25:18 PM »
Tom MacWood,

Style is style, a manner of expression characteristic of the individual.

How do you tell a Dali from a Picasso, from a Renoir ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Who buys into the "aging" factor?
« Reply #35 on: May 18, 2002, 07:00:54 PM »
Pat
Why of course by looking at them, that is why painting is referred to as a visual art. You have to view the work to identify a surrealist from an impressionist from a modernist. A very telling comparison, comparing golf architecture to the visual arts. As is your use of Louis Sullivan's "form ever follows function" -- the founding idea of Modernist architecture. I'm not sure you want to go down that road.

I think we agree that aesthetics and strategy are inseperable in golf architecture. Without strong visuals you don't have strong strategy.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Who buys into the "aging" factor?
« Reply #36 on: May 18, 2002, 07:19:35 PM »
Tom MacWood,

How would you account for strategy on blind holes, with little or no visual information ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Who buys into the "aging" factor?
« Reply #37 on: May 18, 2002, 08:05:06 PM »
The best blind holes provide visual clues and in many cases are followed by very visually stimulating approaches -- the blindness is partial and temporary. And not being able to see where the ball come to rest does not mean the shot is not aesthetically striking or visual.

Would you approve of a resurgance of the formulaic rampart and rectangular bunkers? Certainly they could meet your form vs function formula.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Who buys into the "aging" factor?
« Reply #38 on: May 18, 2002, 08:36:13 PM »
Tom MacWood,

I like square greens and rectangular bunkers !

Substance, Strategy is so much more important than the look, if you're playing the game of golf.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Who buys into the "aging" factor?
« Reply #39 on: May 18, 2002, 08:56:37 PM »
Pat
You would have felt right at home in Victorian times, you were born a century too late (or at least a couple decades). The formulaic artificial courses of the Dark Age would have been just perfect -- very little 'look' to get in the way of your game.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Kelly_Blake_Moran

Re: Who buys into the "aging" factor?
« Reply #40 on: May 19, 2002, 09:07:34 AM »
Pat,

Some have been critical of my squared off pin areas.  They fear it will look bad.  I want maximum area for peripheral pin positions, strategically some of the best pin areas.  From ground level you can not tell the greens are squared off, yet when people see the plan view they get concerned for the aesthetics.  Some bunkering I do is squared off as well...for simplicity.  This has been criticised as well, but more and more I appreciate the simplicity of the presentation, the strategic location is never in question, but some are aghast at what they preceive to be a lack of concern for the aesthetics.  As time goes on, most begin to appreciate the simplicity.  I agree with you.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Who buys into the "aging" factor?
« Reply #41 on: May 19, 2002, 11:14:51 AM »
Kelly Blake
I think you will find plently of squarish features in the works of Ross, Thompson, Raynor, Langford, Fowler etc. as well as in Nature. No doubt they arre among the most aesthetically astute designers past or present. (In fact I think it can be argued that the flowing curves found in many overly shaped modern design is unnatural) Although squarish features (or bunkers that are perfect circles for that matter) do not work - in my opinion - unless they are subordinate to the drama provided by Mother Nature.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who buys into the "aging" factor?
« Reply #42 on: May 19, 2002, 11:21:09 AM »
Are there many instances(besides tree trunks) that straight lines occur in nature? Just wondering.....

Joe
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Who buys into the "aging" factor?
« Reply #43 on: May 19, 2002, 11:54:00 AM »
Trees, blades of grass, veins in leaves, rocks, mountains, the horizon, coastlines, rivers, the flat water of a pond, seashells, broken or eroding ground, teeth, the lines on your hand ....
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Who buys into the "aging" factor?
« Reply #44 on: May 19, 2002, 02:54:12 PM »
Tom MacWood,

I truely believe that the game is primarily about function and strategy, and that the look is secondary, but not unimportant.

It would not matter one iota if greens were in the shapes of triangles, squares, pentagons, hexagons, circles, etc..
nor would it matter if bunkers were in the shapes of triangles, sguares, pentagons, hexagons, etc, etc..  It is their strategic relation to one another that makes the "GAME", which is.....
Get the ball from the teeing ground into the hole in as few strokes as possible.

For those that think geometric patterns don't exist in nature, look at the honeycomb in a bees nest the next time you hit one in the woods.  Examine also the shape of the barb at the end of the stingers as you remove them from your body, then say,  maybe I should have taken Pat's word for it !  ;D ;D  ;D,
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »