Exceptions to The Big World Theory; Or, Dictated Architecture is for Weenies

[Adam Clayman]

Since it has yet to be properly published, deciding on exceptions to a theory that ethereal, could be a tricky posit. BUT,,,,


 if you start with a freedom filled design, and turn it into a dictated slog, through a pop-up Arboretum, you might not deserve protection from criticism that The Big World Theory allows, unless you were designed as a dictated slog.




Other than ANGC, who doesn't deserve "Big World" protection? 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam,


Your phrasing took a while to decipher.  That said, not sure ANGC is the top contender.


In my obviously biased opinion, it would be horrible courses resulting from the Owner's decision to "save money" by not hiring an architect, and using almost anyone other than a golf course architect to prove some invalid point they are trying to make.

[Adam Clayman]

Jeff, Thanks for persevering. Ignoring, or not fully paying the original architect, might be the first clue you'll do most everything "in-house".  ANGC being the exception. But, they've clearly never been happy with their design, otherwise why so many changes?

[/size]
[/size][size=78%] [/size]

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam,


My feeling is, that in the Big World theory, we know one (or maybe a dozen) course would try to attain maintenance perfection.  It's ANGC and a few others. If they didn't do it, surely someone would have, just to see what might be done.


I think I would rank the next 75-100 or so trying to outdo perfection much lower, while giving ANGC a pass.  I don't like copycat architecture (another good candidate for your list) and tend not to like copycat maintenance, either.

[Mike_Young]

I think I understand your post but may be off a little.I think the biggest culprit in so many of these types of courses is a rotatong board or either an owner who likes golf but just came into money etc and doesn't really understand golf.  Both don't know what they don't know and are sitting ducks for the industry..maintenance is design to these types...

[Adam Clayman]

Mike, I'd agree that culture formation relies heavily on someone knowing the sport they chose to earn a living at. And switching up the committee, every couple years, with individuals that know even less, is a root cause for a lot of problems.


Even if you apprenticed for two years under some legendary pro, does not mean you learned anything beyond folding shirts, or, the bullshit better golfers want. A Soft canvas with plenty of frames of reference to ease their task.   

[Tom_Doak]

Adam,


My feeling is, that in the Big World theory, we know one (or maybe a dozen) course would try to attain maintenance perfection.  It's ANGC and a few others. If they didn't do it, surely someone would have, just to see what might be done.


I think I would rank the next 75-100 or so trying to outdo perfection much lower, while giving ANGC a pass.  I don't like copycat architecture (another good candidate for your list) and tend not to like copycat maintenance, either.

Similarly, there is always room on such lists for the ultimate test of golf, but being the #14 ultimate test of golf falls back to being a boring slog.


But I don't agree about the maintenance -- because ranking the best courses could easily be done without considering maintenance.

[Peter Pallotta]

Adam, I think for me the exceptions are those golf courses where the architect, consciously or not, saw the restrictions on his work as an excuse instead of as an opportunity -- as a reason to settle for a course not as good as it might've been instead of striving (by stepping outside his usual approaches & preconceptions) to find the best solution to a less than ideal situation. Whether those restrictions-on-his-work are the limitations of the site itself, or environmental regulations, or a small/tight budget, or an overbearing client with strong opinions and a ready made wish-list, I think I can tell (though, admittedly, it's an often ephemeral/subtle feeling) when the architect has too easily 'bowed to the realities' instead of 'imagining the possibilities' -- and, it often seems, has assumed that most golfers won't know/sense the difference anyway.

[Ronald Montesano]

You need to clarify what the "Big World Theory" is. We cannot attempt to answer this question without a definition.

[Adam Clayman]

Ronald, The premise of the Big World T" is that all types of design are acceptable. A kind of different strokes for different folks attitude.


Initially, being on the far side of the spectrum, I had difficulty in considering Anti-strategy Golf, as a proper test. But, I've mellowed in my old age and certainly don't want to be the dictator of how anyone should golf their ball or where. Or, how an artist should design. My objection, as veiled as it appears is when subsequent committees alter the landscape so much, that the canvas the artist painted on, is no longer recognizable as the canvas they started with. And, whether that type of an occurrance deserve the protection of the Big World T, or not?  I'm not old enough to have mellowed that much because I vote NO.


Peter, I suppose there's a ton of assumptions in my posit that the original archie created a site specific design. Pulling from its specific region and environs to utilize as much of the natural terrain as possible. It's highly probable that most modern designs aren't worthy of that assumption. Wall to wall irrigation, the Augusta syndrome on TV and a general lack of guidance from the protectors, being the reason for further loss of principles and knowledge all kowtowing to Man's most destructive force, ego.


Tom D, I think "easily" only happens for the very small world of beard pullers. .

[Lou_Duran]

Nah, the "Big World Theory" as was explained to me by its proponent on this site "posits" that golf is experienced in many different ways by the populations which play the game, not a small percentage which enjoy golf without much thought to the who, what, how, and when of the course.  I think that TE Paul was cautioning about group think, and for those who did care about golf architecture, against narrow definitions and black or white opinions.  Yes, under BWT, it is possible to enjoy Doak in the morning and Fazio or Rees Jones in the afternoon without your opinions and preferences being dismissed.


I've played some 1k courses in my life and the thought that I was being dictated to by the designer has seldom entered my mind.  Some courses do provide more options than others, but most allow a larger variety of play than I am capable of employing.


Maintenance is an issue that plays a role in the subject matter.  Tom Paul also wrote a lot about the Maintenance Meld, essentially the marriage of playing conditions to the course's architecture.  This, IMO, included not only F & F conditions, but also turf and bunker maintenance, and course setup.  It is my experience that most golfers (under BWT) notice these things far more than the actual architecture or design intent.  I think that most golf course operators, especially at the daily-fee level, would opine that in terms of the customer experience, green conditions are #1 by a good margin. 

[Kalen Braley]

I'd say it combination of both responses by Lou and Adam.

Here is the earliest mention I could find by Tom Paul in 2004.

"Pat: Are you aware of what's now called "The Big World theory"? If not it's based on the phrase;"Golf and its architecture is a great big thing and there really is room in it for everyone."

In my search for that quote, I found many others where he alludes to courses of all types being a good thing, because personal preferences can be so varied from person to person, or even by the same person.  So it really is a wide and far reaching theory where all are individual preferences and course types are ultimately welcome...

P.S.  It rings true with me as while I really like Tom Ds stuff, I enjoy Jim Enghs too....