What's the value of architectural research?

[TEPaul]

Serious Question?! After a few years on Golfclubatlas I look at the contributors as broken down into about three categories. 1. Those that like to come on here and learn more about architecture, find out what others are thinking (those in the business(?) and offer their opinions and comment on others opinions of various things relating to architecture and maybe help educate others. 2. Those that like to play golf courses, gain access to golf courses, discuss the relative architectural merits of golf courses and rank and rate golf courses. 3. Those that like to do research on golf architecture, golf courses, trends of various times and the history of golf architecture.

I've just had a fairly healthy discussion with Mark Fine on the "Framing--blame it on Pine Valley" thread about Pine Valley and also Seminole and Huntingdon Valley. A lot of the discussion revolved around the specifics of these golf courses architecturally and the opinions expressed about them. Mark clearly likes to play a lot of courses and does and he might be a rating panelist for one of the golf magazines. He also says that he doesn't have the time to do research on many or maybe even any of these courses (I don' know if that means he's not interested in research and doesn't care about it) but he says he does know the architects' styles and such since he's played so many their courses and his opinion even on architectural specifics, right or wrong, should be valid because of that. I have no problem with that unless his opinions and statements are proven inaccurate by research and he still doesn't consider changing his opinions or statements because of it. If he doesn't believe the research for some reason then that's a great reason to do more research in my opinon. Otherwise I'm not sure where it leads except to misinformation and misunderstanding.

I like to do research on courses, their architecture, the evolution of their architecture, styles, trends, architects and such. I admit, I don't like ratings and rankings personally, and have just resigned from the rating panel I was on for one  year.

There seem to be a number of people on here like Shackelford, Bahto, TommyN, Mike Cirba, Tom MacWood, Jeff Mingay and many others who like research and are some of the best one can find with it.

There are those in the business who come on here and explain and discuss technical issues, construction, maintenance practices and such like Jeff Brauer, Doak, Meagher, Echenrode, Rewinski, Curry, Tiska, Hanse, Phillips, Andrew, Glenn and many others that are very valuable to this site.

There are others like the writers; Klein, Shackelford, Wexler, Papazian, Kelly, Ward and many others that are real valuable. And then there are the owners/developers like Bakst, Hansen, the man from Black Creek and some others. They could be some of the most interesting and valuable of all since they sort of span all these interests and categories and they're the ones who put all this together and get done those courses we can talk about and hope for.

My interest primarily is restoration and that to me requires research--and the more the better. I was just at the New Jersey Turf Expo in Atlantic City at a seminar on restoration where Ron Forse, Craig Currier (Super Bethpage Black), Joe Alonzi (super Westchester) and Geoff Shackelford spoke on the panel. All the panelists were excellent as were their presentations but Shackelford was the best to me with his presentation "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" which spanned almost every vantage point of architecture but being that the overall subject was restoration, he stressed over and over the importance of research.

So anyway, this might sound self-evident that there are a number of different interests on here but they all go into making this website very unique and potentially an enormously valuable resource, in my opinion. To me, if Golfclubatlas was nothing else, Tom MacWood's five part essay on the influence of the Arts and Crafts Movement on golf architecture would have been enough--and I can't imagine the research that must have gone into those essays.

What do you'all use this site for and what would you like to see it concentrate on more with these various interests or which would you like to see it get further into? For me its research, definitely not exclusively, but I sure think it's valuable. Do you agree with that?

[Matt_Davenport]

Ka-boom!

Tom,
I'm not sure it is fair that I write this but I will anyway...

I've learned more from the fellowship of GCA than I had in six+ years as an employee in the golf design business.  Sure, in my six years I learned what it takes to a be technically competent designer; but my exposure to excellent design and what makes it excellent was lacking.  My role in the golf design office was primarily plan production with a small amount of direct client relations.  I visited many of the golf courses in the Philadelphia area, with a measuring wheel in hand, and I could appreciate the visual beauty and apparent challenge of these courses.  But as some of you know, office staffs in the profession are typically small and exposure to ideas other than your own is seldom experienced.  What GCA provides me with is a sounding board for potential ideas, a pulse point for determining the current state of (golf course) nation, and a readily-available pool of critics and researchers who are willing to comment on the smallest of nuances.  

To the brethren who flock to GCA, "Thank you."  We are a varied group, some lurking and not writing, others writing unsubstantiated opinion, while others provide a literal translation beyond the wildest dream of a "scotch-induced buzzed" Tillinghast or golden-age architect.  It is our differences that provide the fuel for discussion.  

To me, golf has always been about the history of the game.  I love the research.  To know what a course looked like in its infancy, how it has changed, why it was changed are the reasons that drive this passion.  My answer should be clear that I enjoy the research possibilities that exist here at GCA.  Some days, I do appreciate the banter about who should play last in future GCA outings.  Hell, if you can't play a golf course in 3-1/2 hours, why play?  (That must be why I don't play enough?)  I'm certain my wife does not support my last statement...  Well, thanks for being there and continued good health to all who enjoy GCA.com!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
You are 100% right, there is no substitute for research when doing or talking/writing about restorations. So much has been done to so many courses that it takes tremendous diligence to identify what is original and what is not.

I have definitely gleaned much from reading the interviews, courses/architects, in my opinion and home courses. The more expansion of these areas the better.

Of course, the DG is also informative and lively:)


.    

  

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Excellent post!  Well done and well stated.  Research on courses is extremely valuable and when facts can be presented here, everyone benefits and learns something.  But as you know detailed research is very time consuming.  I'm sure we'd all do more if we had the time.  

Yes I love to play courses as you know and that gives me a certain perspective.  When someone asks me what I think of an architect's designs, I generally can offer an opinion that I believe has at least some value because I've usually played a number of their courses.  

But at the same time my golf architecture book collection is well over a hunderd and growing.  Anytime something new comes out or I can find something old (that doesn't cost $3500 or more and believe me there are architecture books out there that do), I buy it and read it sometimes several times.  If a prominent club I play has a book written about its history, I buy it and read it.  So I do a lot more than just play.
I may not call the club a dozen times looking for all the history I can find on it, but I'm glad when someone like yourself who has the time can do that and share it with the rest of us.  

You research on the C nine at HV was outstanding and I learned a lot from it.  It is very out of character compared to his many other designs and it sure surprised me.  I wouldn't have made the statements I did if I saw similarities to the other ones.  We all learned something.  

So research is very important, but it shouldn't take away from good old first hand playing and seeing experiences.  They should compliment one another and be seen as such!  
Mark

[THuckaby2]

This might be patently obvious, but you asked... so to give a response from another part of the spectrum...

I am MOST DEFINITELY in your category 2, unashamedly.  I'm not in the golf business (wish I were), there's little I can ever offer to educate others here and I wouldn't have the hubris to suggest such anyway, and these days I barely have time to play the game a few times a month, let alone research courses.  It interests me, perhaps some day I'll go down this road....

So is it ok for a category 2 fellow to just listen and follow along as you "students/researchers" discuss your theories, findings, etc.?

My $.02 is also that if ALL that was discussed in here were topics of this interesting, but quite esoteric, nature than it would be a pretty dry site... I swear I mean no offense, but isn't there room for one and all here?  Restorations are wonderful, and oh yes I'd have to agree they require painstaking research... but don't you want the take of your consumer?

In the end, that's guys like me....

TH

[GeoffreyC]

Tom

Research is what I do for a living although nothing to do with architecture. When we are speaking of restoration or preservation of classic golf courses, there is NO substitute for carefull research.  I see now that perhaps the single most important decision a golf course of historic significance can make is the choice of an architect to oversee a project.  Obviously we have seen that picking a "name" architect is not enough.  The chosen individual must be sensitive to reconstructing as precisely as possible the features revealed by the research. If a course is very lucky and documentation can be uncovered, there also must be a willingness of the committees to impliment to changes AND to preserve them into the future. Research is the key to a successful project.

That said, we are still playing a recreational game here!  I want to enjoy the companionship of friends during my free time.  I also want to play BETTER golf or at least try to get better.  These are also very important to me. I have met wonderful individuals (you included) on this site to enjoy the game with.

I think the combination of enjoying WALKING outdoors, occasional competitions, companionship and the fine playing fields we have the privilege to compete on all are important to me.  As for the value of this site, I do agree that we must learn from the past.  The discussions of the old courses AND how researching them and understanding why they are so great to play over and over (including their optimal maintenance) gives me more enjoyment when I play and has helped my game.

[BillV]

I like to think that I do a little of all three.  I really am particularily interested in the future of golf and its architecture as well as proper historical preservation in spite of inevitable evolution.  I want to see the discussion be as pointed as possible without resorting to personal sniping.

I personally don't have the time to do actual research (Other than in the "field" of the courses that I visit) and I greatly benefit from what I learn here.  This site is invaluable in that regard and I believe that many lurkers do just that.

I hereby nominate Tom Paul to write a proper Mission Statement for GolfClubAtlas.com.

Two big thumbs up.

[THuckaby2]

Concur with Dr.V.  If there is to be a GCA mission statement and it's NOT the owners who write it, Tom Paul is the best and only candidate to craft such.

Just make sure all 3 categories are represented!

TH

[TEPaul]

Mark:

Good post and good show yourself! I think if this particular topic thread gets a lot of input we will see that all three categories of interest are as important as the others and go together to make up the interest and value of Golfclubatlas.

Incidentally, there seems to be a bit of a phenomenon among the group that gets heavily into research--that is they seem to play less golf than before they started the process. That obviously isn't good and I hope to change that. It's also part of that phenomenon that the best architects seem to play less and less golf too--strange, and maybe they too should make more time to get out and see how the ball bounces for them!

[A_Clay_Man]

In the best of worlds we could all share our opinions without fear of recrimination. It would appear there are plenty of folk(lurkers or anons) who live in fear that what they might post will be detrimental to thier, or thier loved ones, careers. I understand completly but cannot relate. So, I think there would be many more categories than the author of this post quantifies. Just as there are numerous answers to the question of What golf means to you?

[TEPaul]

I feel the text by Ran and John on the opening page of Golfclubatlas is as good an intro and mission statement as the website needs.

My hope has always been that Golfclubatlas will become the best resource location for course restoration and basically enduring, interesting and valid priniciples of golf architecture that can be found. That's why I wrote the "In My Opinion" article a long time ago on "A Renaissance in Golf Architecture" with this site as the resource.

What I would really like to see, though, is a whole flood of Green Chairmen or club presidents and such come on here, identify themselves and start asking, discussing and processing information and ideas. But to get to that point obviously most everyone is going to have to try to be helpful, at least civil, and do their best not to drive people out of here. Dick Sayer of HVGC is the only club president I'm aware of on here so if there are others, particularly green chairman please come on here and identify yourself and tell us what your course is up to now and in the future--it would be great.

[BillV]

Oh Tom, think outside the box.  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
I would generally agree with your assessment, especially the part about A&C golf.  

I would think most on this site are a little bit of all three categories, but most probably fall into one dominate category. And there are probably a few more categories -- but since site is devoted to golf architecture, I think you pretty much hit the basic types. I know personally I evolved from #2 to #1 which led to #3. I loved playing great golf courses (and still do), which sparked an interest in architecture, which brought out my personal inclination to explore an interest in depth. And a major part of the research is the process of continuing to seek out interesting golf courses, only with perhaps a different focus or purpose. After all seeing the finished products is clearly the most important factor in researching the subject.

I use this site mostly to learn. Although I am fairly well traveled, there are many who have traveled a great deal more than I have. For me the profiles are the single greatest resource on this site. And the reason the profiles are so valuable is because the Morrissets are not only exceedingly well-traveled and astute observers, but they also bring an exceptionally strong background from the research side.

And I would breakdown those well traveled golfers (#2) into a couple of groups, those who are well read and those who are less interested in reading about the subject. Mark Fine is an example of someone who is well read. There are others who are also well traveled, many time raters, and their observations are equally valuable, but sometimes they are not as successful in describing or explaining what they see or their tastes sometimes reflect less emphasis on the architectural side.

This site is also valuable because of the input of architects, bringing practical considerations to many of us who have little or no practical background. What good is a theory or theories if it has no basis in reality?

This site is also great platform to share ideas and theories, all the research in the world is not going to do anyone any good if you don’t have a way of sharing your information with the public. This site gives someone like myself who has done research a forum to express themselves. To take their ideas and fine tune them, and share them with a group who will immediately appreciate, question, agree, disagree, expound upon and/or refute your findings.

And we are all doing research in a way, every time we read the comments of someone else we are expanding our knowledge which is the essence of research.

[GeoffreyC]

Tom

Great point you make about the value of this site to greens chairman and club officials.  I think we could see concrete change or at least education if only they would come on here and join in the dialog and ask questions and debate.

However, I must say that the important individuals at my club who I have pointed to this site consider it a little chat room full of fanatics not to be taken seriously. They especially don't want to debate in public and also just object to criticism of their vision.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I would categorize GCA as an extension of my love for GOLF.

I don't know that I would limit the categories you listed to three, I think there may be more divergence amongst the group.

I think your essay on research is accurate, and I feel that if most of this group had our collective way, we'd probably embark upon restoration after restoration, especially at those revered courses that have been disfigured over the years.

The problem we have, and the problem that exists within most clubs, is that many members would disagree with us, our opinions, our methods and our goals, and unfortunately some of those contrary member views are in the majority (power base) at many clubs.  That is how many clubs altered or diminished the design integrity of their golf course in the first place.

I think research provides a valueable resource and area of study.

It can be used when a club, considering a restoration needs a body of evidence in order to get it right.  More importantly, it can be used educationally, to get clubs to better understand their asset, the architects intent, the changes that have occured over the years, and the best method to recapture the architects intent, if that is the direction the club wants to go.

I believe lack of continuity, vis a vis short term Presidents and Boards have contributed to the discarding of the original design principles in favor of trendy popular design principles, and that this clash has resulted in the ongoing disfiguring of golf courses.

When a membership desires to understand....,
and concludes that they want to embark on a restoration, research become worth its weight in gold.

But, research is but one facet of golf course architecture.

[Lynn Shackelford]

Tom

I think you are wondering out loud where all this is going for you and what others are thinking about all the time we spend on this site.  It has been my experience that people have many different reasons for serving their club or course.  A small select few who care about the past and future of their course would benefit from some participation here.  For example, few know what you have done at Gulph Mills, the Design Evolution 1916-1999.  This should be in the hands of every club built before 1950.  Are we fanatics? Maybe.  But anyone lurking won't pass everyone off as goofy.  
I believe knowledge gained here will influence far more than you know.  More than just the lurkers here.  People we play with and folks who even over hear us in the clubhouse, or in your case "The Pit."
On the subject of playing, it does seem to follow that more study and research means less play.  Is this true with you?  I suspect it is with Crenshaw, Geoff Shackelford, Brad Klein.  As for me, the more I learn the less I play mediocre designs.  They just seem a waste of my time.  18 great players including Tiger are at Sherwood this week.  I have no desire to watch, I have walked that course enough.  It doesn't interest me.  I would rather read a book on golf architecture.  I would rather play 10 rounds on good courses than 20 rounds on average ones.

[THuckaby2]

Well said.  But I would expect nothing less from the all-time basketball hero of my father and me.

I do have one quibble though, re:

 I would rather play 10 rounds on good courses than 20 rounds on average ones.

I believe that one has to reach a very definite "critical mass" before that becomes true.  Obviously fellows like yourself, your son, Messrs. Paul, Fine, Mucci, MacWood, and most others who regularly post here have reached that most definitely.

But Mark's 99% rule applies here too - that's surely not the case for most people.

I consider myself somewhat of a student, even if I do fall in TEPaul's category 2 - hell, I have 4 shelves full of golf architecture books that would attest to that - but I still tend to love the playing of the game far more than the study.

And given the realities of life and how tough it is for me, like most people, to find time to play at all...

Give me the 20 rounds, thank you.  I'll be sorta bummed I'm doing too many on crappy designs, but at least I'll be playing golf.

TH

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I agree with Lynn. I have become more and more picky about where I play - most of us have a finite amount of time due to work and family. I would rather learn something than play a round on a less than stimulating golf course.







_{Ohio State 88  Santa Clara 41}

[THuckaby2]

Mr. MacWood:

Your signature is duly noted - OUCH!  Why do you think I'm so silent about men's hoops, which I normally live and die for?  Your Buckeyes happened to catch the worst SCU team in 30 years.  My we are awful... not that a good SCU team could generally compete with OSU, but this was pathetic.

You will be interested to know that as a result of this game, my desk now sports  a red and grey OSU bumper sticker, being held upright by an Archie Griffin figurine, all compliments of the OSU grad sitting two doors down from me.

All hail the Buckeyes!

TH

ps - re golf, you guys have a point, and I shouldn't overstate things also, I too do go for quality far more now than I ever have, mostly as a result of my learning in the last few years here on GCA and other sites.  However, if it comes down to golf at a crappy course or staying home doing chores, well... any golf is better than no golf for me.

[Mike_Cirba]

I think the personal value of studying architecture, as well as researching course design origins and evolution, is simply the gratification found in knowing and learning.

What makes it truly of value, however, is sharing it with others.

[George Pazin]

I'm just hanging around for two things:

Pat Mucci's pictures & descriptions of NGLA #1;

and

Tom Paul's posting of the routing for Androssan Farms(I think that was the name...).



In the meantime, I will continue to ask questions & hassle Matt Ward & Scott Burroughs about Wolf Creek.

[ian andrew (Guest)]

Tom,

I'm a history buff and golf design enthusiast. Each time a course gets mentioned that I haven't seen, I get very intrested in the features that have brought out the conversation. Financially I can't afford to see all these great courses and I often have to "see" them through the thoughts shared on this site. Designers are always looking for new ideas, and this site often presents wonderful oppertunities. I've always admired the architects who continuously tried completely new ideas (whether they shine or fail, it will always be better than repeating themselves). When I do renovations, I have to spend a great deal of time researching each architect, if I don't do this, I do the club a diservice. It is the research that leads a good renovation. The funny part is with new work, I find I'm always looking for a new way of challenging players. Some ideas are classics from the past, occasionally a modern architect provides a new variation.

So where does the site fit in? Is this not architectural reaearch, each time we log in to the site?

[Willie_Dow]

What this sight has done for me is to love Pete Dye's book "Bury Me in a Pot Bunker".
GCA was my prep school course in evaluating what a golf course architect looked for, decided what he can do, and consulted with his wife whether or not it was a good idea.
As far as restoration goes it will require a PG course at prep school.
Whether or not I will go to college is another question.  After being asked to "try other games" at the age of 73, I wonder about my admissions committee.
Willie

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Pazin,

I have purchased a digital camera and if all goes well, this spring I will take and post an abundance of pictures on holes
# 1,6,8, 18, and others.  Perhaps someone can give me some tips on the best way to capture green contours on a digital camera. (angle, time of day, etc., etc..)

I'm hoping to have some pictures of Pine Tree, Seminole,
The Medalist, Old Marsh and more of Boca Rio for you after the 1st of the year.

Stay tuned.

[GeoffreyC]

Pat - Seminole was very clear about leaving the camera in the car during my visit.

For capturing contours of any kind its best to use light coming from a sharp angle so early morning or late afternoon is best.  Also, if you can manually control the f-stop and shutter speed (your Olympus can do this) try to use higher f-stop values because you will get better depth of field (more back to front area in focus).