The True Test of Architectural Merit (?)

[Peter Pallotta]

I think the truest test of a golf course's quality and architectural merit might be whether or not its designer -- i.e. the architect who actually designed and built it -- would happily be willing to play it every single day for the rest of his life.

I'd bet that, if he had to, CBM would've been very happy to play NGLA every day for the rest of his life.  I bet the same could be said for Crump and Pine Valley, and MacKenzie with Royal Melbourne (and maybe Alwoodley and Augusta and Pasatiempo and Cypress Point etc).  
We could go right down the list of all the old dead guys.

Of course, I don't think we could ever get an accurate and/or honest and/or definitive answer: the old guys are dead, so we can't ask them; and our moderns -- all of them -- would just have to say yes, and yes to every single course they have ever built -- and so it's no use asking them either.

But, in theory at least, I do think that this would be the truest test of a course's architectural merit -- not, please note, because the collective deemed it to be of merit, but because its individual creator would've obviously designed it to suit his own truest tastes/ideals, which in and of itself would be both the course's merit and its raison d'etre.  

Needless to say, I've played one or two courses by one or two designers who would never, I don't think, willingly play the ugly torture chambers they'd created every single day of their lives. On the other end of the spectrum, I'd bet that old guys like Colt and Park designed dozens of courses that, if they had to, they'd happily play every day for the rest of their lives.

Peter

[Mike Nuzzo]

I guess some of the modern guys may actually want to play their course every day - honestly
I would just hope that they tire of them over time

Some do like the repeat business - fixing the same course over and over

If I were to play it every day it would need to be totally flexible - tees, pins, winds, hole order, hole direction...

[Keith OHalloran]

Peter, this may have been true with Crump and CBM, but how many other architects really get to design a course "to suit his own tastes and ideals"?
It seems that every architect has to compromise something due to owner, environment, etc.

[Bill_McBride]

If I were to play it every day it would need to be totally flexible - tees, pins, winds, hole order, hole direction...

Hmmmmm.   Sounds like Wolf Point!   

[Peter Pallotta]

I'm not so sure of that, Keith.  Take, for example, the work of an architect who now longer posts here, but who was never a big name and who I assume never had his choice of clients or pick of sites, nor the clout to flaunt other's wishes -- i.e. Scott Witter, who designed the Arrowhead Golf Course in upstate New York.  I don't know the details, but I assume he had all sorts of 'restrictions'; and yet I'd bet - never having played the course, just knowing it from a profile on here that Ron M did -- that if he had to Scott would happily play that course every single day of his life. As far as I know, the course hasn't won any awards, and is not on anyone's top 100 list....

Peter

[Tony_Muldoon]

Another nice thought Peter, you can add Colt to the list. When he left Sunningdale and moved to East Hendred he lamented the loss of his regular fix at Swinley Forrest.  A course where he was able to make all the decisions.


MacKenzie built his house at Pasatiempo.

[Keith OHalloran]

Peter,
I am certain that there are many architects would be happy to play one of their course every day. What I am not so sure about is whether any architect in the last 80 years has truly gotten to design for his won tastes and ideals.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I always strive to design a course you could play every day, over a "championship course" and find I never tire of playing some of my best in that category, although I wonder if I could play Colbert Hills or the Quarry every day, as much as I like the designs.

I am fortunate to have several here in DFW to rotate around, and I like that better. (along with the free greens fees.....)

The funny thing is, I can usually play without bashing my self or worrying what I might have done better, unless its my first trip back in a year.

I played Tangleridge on New Years Eve and enjoyed it thoroughly.(sp)

[Tom_Doak]

Peter,
I am certain that there are many architects would be happy to play one of their course every day. What I am not so sure about is whether any architect in the last 80 years has truly gotten to design for his won tastes and ideals.

Keith:

I've actually got to design for my own tastes and ideals a handful of times, for clients that turned me loose:

High Pointe [when I was too young to understand that I should listen to the client]
Barnbougle Dunes
St. Andrews Beach [Mike Clayton had some input on both of these, but nothing I disagreed with]
Ballyneal

Note the very mixed financial success of these particular projects.  I'm hoping it had more to do with location than design; or maybe it just had something to do with the fact that a client who would turn an architect completely loose doesn't have a great idea what he's doing running a golf course! 

Despite the above note, it is a rare privilege for an architect to be given such freedom to design as he sees fit.  I've actually got several other projects right now that might fit in the same camp ... Dismal River, Mulan Bay in China, our new project in New Zealand, and the one in Madrid ... but it's too early to tell if the freedom will hold up to the end!

I would happily play any of the courses mentioned here every day, and a few others besides.  But I would miss not getting back to some of the others.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter,

I would disagree for the simple reason that the architect might be incapable of being 100 % objective.

Pride of authorship, ego, etc., etc., could easily cloud his judgement.

Objective, third party analysis would seem to be a better indicator.

[Tim Nugent]

I think most, that are comfortable in their own skin, would play their work and if given a free hand, play it all the time.  Simply because it fit their ideals and eye when they designed/built it.  We were building championship after championship courses when we built our little 9-holer and I never got tired of playing it. - however, being on a lanfill, it did change (or caused me to change it) slighly year-to-year

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks gents - I sidetracked my own thread by the reference to the architect's own tastes/ideals, and to playing his own course every day.  My main point was not primarliy based on either of those elements; instead, I meant to to suggest that a subjective assessment of merit is as worthy, indeed more worthy and true, as an objective assessment, especially if that subjective assessment comes from the architect himself.  And the simplest and most honest/practical measure of that architect's own assessment is whether or not he'd be willing to play his own course every day.

Patrick - I understand your pov, and it is certainly defensible.  But I'd suggest that, if you were forced to pick only one course to play every single day of your life, that choice would be based on your own subjective feelings/assessment of a course's merit rather than a consensus/objective opinion.  In other words, you would pick the course that you liked best, not necessarily the one that was ranked highest in some poll or another. And if that's true and meaningful in your case, why wouldn't it be equally meaningful in terms of an architect and the course(s) he has built himself.

Peter

PS - Thanks, Tim