[Evan Fleisher]

I would personally grade my openness as very high (not quite to the level of Senior Huckaby, but close).  I think that playing golf is all about the experiences we have, and the architectural merit of the layout is just icing on the cake.

Having said that, of course the day and events can always be made better by playing on one of the "grand old courses" that are talked about in here all the time, but there are SO MANY courses out there to experience and see, why limit ourselves or our enjoyment of the game we all cherish?  I started out as a public golf player at age ten, and it wasn't until I turned 30 recently that I was fortunate enough to join a small private club here in Dubuque.  For those twenty years in between, I played only a handful of "named" layouts, and even those were not of the ilk we speak of in here...but there we plenty of great courses played (by guys you and I have probably never heard of) and I will always cherish those memories and experiences.

Having spent the past few years here on GCA (and it's Predecessors) has given me a MUCH greater appreciation for the "finer" things in my golfing life...and when I get (or have gotten) the opportunity to see/touch/feel them, it has made those moments that much more special.

But, c'mon guys...I'll take a bad day of golf, on a bad course, in bad weather just about ANY time as opposed to doing just about ANYTHING else...wouldn't you???

...well, almost anything!

[George Pazin]

Gotta disagree with Tom H's last point vis a vis comments from Mister Rich. I don't believe at all that studying things beforehand necessarily means that you have preconceived notions - kind of smacks of Larry King bragging about not knowing anything about his interviewees so that he doesn't have any biases. Weak weak weak. Ignorance is not something to be proud of & I firmly believe you can learn something & still be objective. Heck, I would rather have had Gil Hanse speak to us before playing Inniscrone last year so that I could have picked up on more things while playing - I don't consider myself so astute as to pick up on everything myself, I'm primarily concentrating on playing when I golf.

Count me in the Tom MacWood camp, in terms of believing there is a difference between bias & opinion (certainly not in terms of thoughful, well researched opinion :-). Some of you guys who preach bias need to read up on a few scientific studies on how to determine bias - it's not as simple as disagreeing with someone & then pointing a finger & claiming bias.

I also agree totally with his point of using the differing opinions of others to sharpen your own arguments. If more architects posted with the thoughtfulness of the architects who do post, like Tom Doak, Mike DeVries, Todd Eckenrode, Tony Ristola, Gil Hanse and especially Jeff Brauer, who always gives the real world side of GCA with refreshing openness, I would venture that the whipping boys would have a whole lot more respect, if not necessarily more fans.

As far as my own openness goes, I'll leave that for others to decide. I'm guessing we have differing opinions.

[THuckaby2]

George - I likely misrepresented what Rich told me. I'm sure he won't mind, so here's what he said:

"I took the question to read to what extent any of us look at a new golfing experience as a blank slate, and check their preconceptions at the door.  By that definition, you are not 3***, based on our brief golfing experiences together, but don't take that as a criticsim, just as an observation of fact.  We are all different, and those of us who are purer experiencers are not at all any better than those like yourself who are more scholarly and deductive.  After all, how could you be anything else with all that SJ training? "

I truly think I'm not nearly as scholarly and deductive as Rich says, as he has played with me primarily at GREAT courses which to me are WORTH the preparation and study, but I appreciate the thought!  But I believe his point in my case is that when I get to play a hallowed course like NGLA, Shinnecock or several others the wonderful folks I've met through GCA and other web sites have made available to me, I do tend to study up on them, and when I see them in person, I do indeed tend to look for what the writers were saying, at least to some extent, rather than just "experiencing" them as a blank slate.  I don't think Rich is saying that EVERYONE does this - just that Tom Huckaby does, and he's right.

Thus in terms of "open-ness", I have to agree with him that I am NOT at the top of the list.

But on the other hand, I do have exposure to all ends of the golf spectrum, the good and the oh-so-bad, better than just about anyone, that I will stand firm on.  And THAT helps the open-ness, indeed.

So I can live with the two stars and I thank Rich for the wisdom, once again!

TH

[George Pazin]

Tom H -

I think you're giving yourself too little credit using Rich's approach.

Let me pose the following:

Would you accept the judgement of any player (other than a complete beginner) who had never read a single architecture book, course review or had anything vaguely resembling a discussion on golf course architecture, simply because he is going in with a "clean slate?"

A limited amount of time spent on this site will allow you to see how different everyone's views are, almost regardless of his own background.

I have said many times, & will continue to say, that anyone who dismisses the comments of those on this site as having preconceived notions is doing themselves a great disservice. One look at the first page of discussion topics should make this patently obvious - anyone who shuns discussion due to this belief is kidding themselves. It's like criticizing Rush Limbaugh without ever listening to his show, or criticizing Maplethorpe's pictures without ever actually seeing them, or any one of a thousand examples I could think of.

Anyone who soundly thinks out decisions should welcome the opportunity to discuss them. The problem is, it's harder to be open or objective with oneself than anyone else - this is the real reason for those who avoid participating.

[THuckaby2]

That is definite food for thought and I appreciate it, George.

Very interesting indeed.

"Would you accept the judgement of any player (other than a complete beginner) who had never read a single architecture book, course review or had anything vaguely resembling a discussion on golf course architecture, simply because he is going in with a "clean slate?""

Hmmmmm.... you seem to have hit on a "problem" I face all too often regarding golf.  It seems that you have captured a great description of 95% of my non-GCA golf friends... and while on the one hand you're right, I take their judgments with a grain of salt, on the other hand in my view, THEY represent the vast majority of today's golf "consumers", for good or bad, so I take what they say seriously in that light.

By that I mean, I know what to expect from them, and what context to put it in, just as I know what to expect from the more "learned" folks who post here.

And both assessments to me have value, in different ways.

I will say this:  you are right that it is silly to dismiss ideas presented here as having "preconceived notions".  People here are indeed far beyond that.  I learn so much here... I would indeed do myself a great disservice if I didn't take what's said here seriously.

In any case, thanks for the thought - this has intrigued me greatly.  I'm gonna cogitate (another word my Dad loves) on this a bit more....

TH

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

There seems to be a number of definitions of openness. Some think it means being able to enjoy the company of old friends and new acquaintances on any course - good, bad or indifferent. I suppose that is a form of openness, but under that definition isn't everyone open. Golf is a fun game, who doesn't enjoy the company of friends, especially while playing game?

Just because a golfer is interested in finding/seeking out great golf designs and attempts to identify why certain designs are more appealing than others through searching all corners of the globe and reading/researching the subject -- does not mean he can not enjoy a round on the neighborhood goat track with his son or daughter.

And I do not believe being member (or not being a member) of a golf course necessarily determines if a person is open or not open. In fact one sign, in my mind, of an open mind is the ability to indentify the weaknesses of their beloved home course or favorite course or favorite architect.

I may be accused of having a predispostion toward the old - but I would say my predisposition is toward excellent work, old and new. And how can a preference for excellent work limit my learning and playing experiences?  I've played more RTJ (9), Dick Wilson(3), Rees Jones(5), Tom Fazio(2), George Fazio(2), Jack Nicklaus(4) and Pete Dye(5) designs than Raynor, Flynn, Travis, MacKenzie, Macdonald, Alison and Tillinghast. And just because I prefered Camargo to Coldstream or Kirtland to Sand Ridge or Cypress Point to Spyglass or Eastward Ho! to Nantucket, doesn't mean I will not try to play Pine Tree, Shadow Creek, Peachtree or The Bridge -- and play them with an open mind.

And to those architects who say my mind or this group's mind (if there is such a thing) is made up and why bother. I'd be the first to admit there are many on this site who are firmly entrenched in their views or who have developed very specific tastes, but among that group there are many differing views and there are also many who haven't made up their minds or are constantly developing their views - why not present your views to that large group. If you believe strongly in your viewpoint you should be able to present a very compelling case...on the other hand if you're not so confident in your stand, thats another story.

And finally on being open or closed minded, in my mind those who study and research and seek out great golf designs are amongst the most open minded. The reason they seek out information is becasue they want to learn and isn't that the true definition of an open mind.

[George Pazin]

And another thing...

I respect and value Rich's opinions a great deal, but do you think, given the excellent quality of courses he's played in general, and in particular the tremendous number of times he's played one special course, that he doesn't have preconceived notions of how a golf course should be? This is not to diminish this notion, simply to clarify it. If he thinks this background has not influenced him at all, he is kidding himself. As Mark Fine has stated accurately so many times, you can only judge a course relative to those that you've played.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

George

Not sure to whom you are referring who "dismisses" opinions because the author might have some preconceived notions, but it ain't me!  We all have preconceived notions.  Some just don't want to admit it.

In terms of your question about the relaibility of observers who haven't read anything about GCA, well, I know many such people--in fact most of my golfing acquaintances could be characterized as such, particularly those in Scotland.  It may shock you but we can talk about the relative merits of courses or golf holes or individual golf shots for hours on end in clubhouses without reference to any writer, or without even knowing the name of the architect who designed the course we just played on.  It wasn't until I found this site that I realized that a course I had played in Scotland 5-10 times was a McKenzie one.  Noone I had played the course with, mostly members, ever thought it noteworthy enough to tell me this!

Rich

PS--despite the hyperbole I sometimes use when bantering with Tom MacW, I do read books from time to time.......

[THuckaby2]

George - Rich has shown up to speak for himself here - WHEW!  But I will also chime in that his pre-conceived notion, from my limited time with him on golf courses and chatting here and on email, is that all things do indeed pale to Dornoch, and thus are judged in that light.  I'd have to guess he'll admit that!  And there's nothing wrong with this - I'd say we all have favorites against which the others are judged.  But beyond that, I can't think of anything else.... and the more I learn of his life and world experiences, the more I am amazed....

But Rich makes another good point, and my experience is similar in that:  the only time the architect name has ever come up in course or hole discussions, not to mention any books on the subject, is with people on this site.  My every day golf friends wouldn't know a redan from a sedan and CB MacDonald would be thought to be a place to get a hamburger!  And in this context, just like Rich, yes, we do have these discussions.

Different contexts, that's all.

TH

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom and George

In case it wasn't clear in my last post which crossed with George's, I very much included myself when I said we all have preconceptions.  Vis a vis Dornoch, Tom, I do not at all think that other courses "pale" in comparison.  In fact, if you held a gun to one of my daughters' head and asked me to "rank" the courses I had played, RDGC would be in the top 5, but probably not #1.  I use it as a comparison or a prism when I look at and think of other courses only becuase I know it so well.  The fact that it is one of the greatest courses in the world just means that is a very good prism to use.  I also use Aberdour, and Half Moon Bay, and Stanford, and Sawgrass and Stow Acres as prisms, because these are other courses I have played a lot.

And George, while I have played a lot at RDGC, in the 10 years I lived in Scotland I played far more golf at Aberdour and Burntisland and Pitreavie and Kinghorn and Lochgelly and Canmore and Balbirnie and Glenrothes and Thornton and a lot of other courses that nobody here has probably ever heard of.  They also very much shape my preconceptions about what is the good, the bad and the ugly in GCA.

[THuckaby2]

Uh, Rich, several times, but in particular one LONG night in Southampton, you said to my face that Dornoch is unquestionably #1.  Of course I am more fickle than the worst woman and everyone has a right to change, so I make no judgments here, but let's set the record straight!

 

Your other thoughts there make perfect sense to me.

TH

[George Pazin]

Rich -

That was a twist of argument worthy of another one of this site's great contributors.

- I never included you among those who dismiss opinions as preconceived; sorry if I gave that impression. I was referring to Ran's openning remarks regarding architects who decline participation based on this faulty notion. I was simply pointing out to Tom H that everyone who has played the game more than a few times has preconceived notions on the game. Being educated with respect a course has virtually no connection whatsoever to one's ability to be open or objective with regard to that course. These facts are simply unrelated - it's kind of like people who try to correlate the stock market to skirt lengths or Super Bowl victors. There are tremendously educated people who are completely biased, there are ignorant folks who are completely open, much as there are well informed people who are open & objective, as well as ill-informed individuals who are biased. There is no correlation between the two - each person is an individual & it is up to others to examine his argument in an effort to see if that person if open.

- It doesn't surprise me at all that there are individuals who can discuss gca without referencing writers. It also doesn't surprise me that Raynor & Mackenzie were great architects who either played at a mediocre level or didn't really play at all. Again, no correlation. I was trying to make the point to Tom H that having a "clean slate" does not mean what you guys seem to think it means, or, at the very least, it does not imply "openness." A thoughtful individual can discuss golf courses without referencing writers & simply discuss the course, but this does not necessarily mean that someone who is in fact well educated with regard to a course, or with regard to writings of the past or present, cannot also be open when discussing a course. Again, no correlation here.

- Lastly, I don't recall even implying that you haven't read any golf books. It's quite obvious from the breadth of your knowledge that you are a very well read individual. Though perhaps you would benefit from reading a little novel I sent you last year...

If nothing else, I would hope that everyone on this site will soon realize that no one is two words.

[Tom Doak]

I like to think I'm pretty open-minded about other people's work, although I make no bones about having a fondness for courses with good short-game interest, and no fondness for courses without it.  It's simply too big a part of the game to ignore.

Ron Whitten is dead right that being open to different styles is what makes a good panelist.  How ironic, though, that his GOLF DIGEST system of voting attempts to define what a "great" course is so thoroughly that many good courses are doomed to lose out in the polls even if his open-minded panelists like them!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()