Ideology-Free Golf Courses

[Peter Pallotta]

I think ideology-free golf can find its expression (or one aspect of its expression) in certain kinds of golf courses; and, precisely because these kind of courses are ideology-free, what they tend to have in common is that they are all different!

[Aside: I think this is at the core of the objections to the USGA's set-ups for US Opens, i.e. the USGA forces an ideology (theirs) on a course's inherent nature/design, and often lays that ideology on so thickly that the architecture is essentially obliterated. It makes one ask: why go to Merion (or Olympic etc) if you don't want Merion?; but alas, that is the single-mindedness of all ideologies.]

So, if you have any sense of what I mean, I'd ask: what golf courses would you describe as being, architecturally-speaking, ideology-free? What courses seem to have been designed independent of any prevailing/dominant ideology?

Peter

[RJ_Daley]

Well,if you are speaking of how the various golf courses are maintained or set up on a daily basis for the golfer-users of the facilities as intended by their design-archies, I'd say the courses that put a premium (usually public or municipal) that doesn't emphasize amenities, and does stick to the focus on golf-the game.  I say that with the notation that many muni and mom and pop privately owned-public courses run by as much efficiency as possible, and may have taken steps to dumb down original architecture in favor of efficient maintenance.  But, the course that set up less manicured, perhaps modest to lower cuts of rough, and less fert and chem inputs, may have managers that know their courses land features and may try to highlight the underlying design and use of contours and features to offer stimulating play, as opposed to costly eye candy.  I'd add to this category, golf courses or clubs with highly active men's and women's clubs or leagues of avid golfers. 

I think the ideology may be preferable if it is one that has a savvy benevolent dictator as decision maker, who is focused on the golf more than the maximizing of every profit center and too many amenities, that such may be a rare ideology of management.  Of course profitability must be balanced and go with provision of a great golf course that sticks to principles of good golf design (if that particular facility has good design).

Of course, if you mean membership ideology, and the club social and prevailing political ambiance, well that is a different kettle of fish.
 

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks RJ - I liked and appreciated your post, but it made me realize that I'd been even less clear than I thougyht. I went back to change my post to make it clearer: I'm asking about courses that are, architecturally-speaking, ideology free (or as close to that as we find).

Peter

[Steve Burrows]

Peter,

I'm not sure it is possible to attain an ideology-free architecture, where the form does not in some way represent a higher vision (what ever that may be).  I certainly can't think of a physical example of a golf course that meets the criteria of what I believe you are asking.  Even during the modernist movement in building architecture -- led by Walter Gropius, Mies Van Der Rohe, etc. -- which alleged to promote an architecture "without historical precedent," the ideas were governed by a larger (often Marxist) reaction against the ornamentation of, for example, Victorian architecture.  In other words, there is always something, if not a clearly defined "something," that governs the decisions made by a designer and necessarily situates themselves and their work in the artistic and aesthetic (if not political) spirit of their age.  To me, it seems that even a golf course which is imagined to be some sort of outlier, after closer inspection, can never fully escape their roots in prevailing ideolog(ies).

[BCrosby]

Peter -

To paraphrase J.M. Keynes, those who claim they are operating without preconceptions are usually slaves to some older ideology.

Bob

 

[Adam Clayman]

PP, If you're speaking of freedom, isn't that an ideology too?  

 
Fundamentally, the sport of golf can be played anywhere. I've even seen it played in the streets of San Francisco, on an early Sunday morning. By people wearing the oddest of costumes. An artistic endeavor if ever I saw one. Apparently, the modern game can only be played on saturated, ribbon striped narrow fairways, that is, until the 2014 u.s. open. At Pinehurst, there will be a shift away from the dictated setups. The Deuce's freedom is less constricting than most every open played in my lifetime . (save for the Open Championships, years and years ago, before the R&A started adopting the U.S. ideology)

[Jason Thurman]

Ideologies are like accents. Everybody has one, even when they don't realize it.

The closest thing to a course without ideology seems to be a place like The Old Course where so many different people have shaped the course along with nature so that it has no single dominant concept. But then, doesn't that mean it's a conglomeration of many ideologies instead of being without ideology?

This strikes me as looking for the society with the least culture. The quest to find the answer reveals more about the searcher than anything else.

[Mark Pearce]

TOC.  It just evolved.

[RJ_Daley]

Peter, yes I focused more on the set-up maintenance of your post when mentioning the changing of the original intent of the architecture to hide it among penal aspects of narrowing and rough growing, etc, and why even go to Merion or Oly, if that was what they would do with their ideological input into the game via the set ups and maintenance.

But, as Adam says, even freedom is an ideology.  Thus if the intent of the architect was an heroic hole or series of holes on a course, or a strategic presentation, shaped or routed on the natural existing terrain, or penal... all that is ideology and even we see many courses that are mixed ideologies of these design styles or approaches. 

Perhaps the only close thing we do have is TOC and maybe a few links laid out on natural, minimally altered terrain of Scotland or Ireland.  And of course, that is the naturalism ideology. 

Wouldn't ideology free mean that the golfer would not have to think, to approach playing the presentation?  To avoid ideology seems to me to avoid the need to think anything.  One never does get to that state of playing golf without a thought about what is being asked of your next shot or read of the putt, thus you confront some manner of ideology of the question before you. 

[Carl Rogers]

If just a few of you on this site that live on the East Coast of the USA would ever get to Riverfront in Suffolk, VA, I think you would see a very elcletic composite of many GCA ideas.

[Jason Thurman]

The naturalism/minimalism which allows The Old Course to evolve is an ideology in and of itself. Our world is full of people who love to see deserts watered into courses, mountains sculpted into courses, and all terrain pumped full of fertilizer, lined with trees, and watered to a bright green to create courses. The Old Course going against all that is very much an ideology of its own.

Just browse a few topics to see some of the outrage spewed toward the general direction of the game outside of traditional links golf by The Old Course's biggest fan(s). There's clearly an ideology behind The Old Course's existence and its preservation that is very different from the ideology of Trump National, but equally strong.

[RJ_Daley]

Yes Jason, The Old Course is about as ideology free as Melvyn's unending fervent support of it.  Ironic that among the strongest supporter is perhaps the most ideological and dogmatic in beliefs, while so strongly identifying with a course we could make a argument is the least influenced in a construction design sense of ideology as an architectural device.

[Mark Pearce]

The naturalism/minimalism which allows The Old Course to evolve is an ideology in and of itself. Our world is full of people who love to see deserts watered into courses, mountains sculpted into courses, and all terrain pumped full of fertilizer, lined with trees, and watered to a bright green to create courses. The Old Course going against all that is very much an ideology of its own.

Minimalism may be an "ideology" now but it wasn't whilst TOC was evolving.  No-one gave a stuff about ideology then.  TOC may inspire an ideology but it itself is ideology free.

[Jason Thurman]

Mark, don't confuse the meaning of ideology. It's a set of ideas that constitutes ones goals, expectations, and actions. As it's only pertinent to the individual, the fact that "no one cared about ideology when TOC was evolving" really doesn't matter at all. Ideology exists whether shared by masses or possessed by only one.

The ideology behind the creation and evolution of St. Andrews is minimalistic throughout. The course exists today because it was constantly tweaked in sustainable ways. The large greens and fairways that could be played in either direction resulted in less land needed and less maintenance. The 4.25 diameter cup originated at St. Andrews because that was the size of the water pipes under the property, which were handy for the purpose of reinforcing the hole. The revetting of bunkers likely began at St. Andrews, again to make maintenance easier.

It's true the course evolved considerably, but the hand of man making tweaks for sustainability is present throughout. Ideology does not need to be conscious or written down. The fact is that The Old Course evolved along very specific lines, always trending toward sustainability, and that's as much an ideology as any other course possesses.

[Tom_Doak]

I wanted to nominate Askernish, but the ideology there of not touching ANYTHING was quite resistant to even our small tweaks.  And, to be honest, there are a bunch of tees placed for views that I can't imagine Old Tom Morris actually thinking about.

I can't imagine there is a golf course built in the past 75 years by any architect whose name we know, which would be ideology-free.  Heck, just look at most designers' web sites ... nearly every one of them has a "philosophy" of design!

I am just curious, Peter, whether to describe my first course (High Pointe) as my MOST ideological, or my LEAST.

[David Harshbarger]

What are some ideologies out there, and what are the perfected instances of them?

For example. Is Ballyneal a perfected instance of the "Golf is meant to be fun" ideology?

Is Pine Valley a perfected instance of the ideology "provide a stern test of the expert player?"

[Peter Pallotta]

Good discussion, thanks gents. I can see both points of view; but Jason, your conception of an ideology certainly leaves very little wriggle room, i.e. if an ideology need not be written down or even conscious, and if any trend -- even one that aims simply towards continued existence and sustainablity -- is an expression of said ideology, then your conception strikes me as more akin to, say, a Shavian "Life Force" than it does any kind of political, philosophiocal or aesthetic manifesto/ideology that I know of. (Which is a long way of saying I agree with Mark: i.e. that TOC is as close to ideology-free as we get.)

Tom - your question gets to the heart of this (that). Your first time out, with no reputation yet to uphold, designing the best golf course you possibly could on a budget that precluded massive earth-moving, on a site so very close to Crystal Downs, with a young man's certainty about what makes great great and the bravado to believe you could pull it off...well, with all that, my guess is that nothing so ethereal and airy-fairy as an ideology could've withstood/stood up against what you wanted and needed to do. So I'd say it was your least ideological...which probably means you'll conclude it was your most

Peter

[Jason Thurman]

Well of course you do, Peter. You started the topic. I just think it's a misuse of the term "ideology," which everyone possesses. It seems like you want more to discuss which course has the most "hands off" ideology, or the least formal ideology. The answer may well be The Old Course, but to suggest it's without ideology is to ignore the consistent minimalistic and sustainable decisions that shaped its evolution. Considering the number of people who had a hand in the creation of the course we see today, it's actually stunning how realized that ideology is. As far as I'm aware, most of the decisions made in the course's evolution were based on those two principles, regardless of who made the change.

On the other hand, there's a poor daily fee course in my hometown that was designed by an amateur and then continually evolved as an encroaching subdivision took over its playing corridors, tee boxes, and sight lines. The ideology of that course is far less defined than the ideology that spawned the systematic changes we've seen at The Old Course over the last 400 years. It's been open 15 years and has changed dramatically in that time, and there's virtually nothing cohesive about the course at all. It has far less of a governing ideology than that of The Old Course, and yet, its ideology too is simple. It exists to make money, and allowing home lots to encroach at the expense of the course is ultimately to the profit of the owners.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jason - thanks, good post; but I simply disagree that you can describe a process, undertaken largely unconsciously and by many different hands, and focused mainly on keeping the course alive and well, as being ideologically-driven. Now, if you wanted to claim that The Spirit was involved, I might agree with you. I found it interesting that Tom referenced courses built in the last 75 years; if I had to pick courses that I thought were close to ideology free, many who be from those that Sean profiles here, including Notts. I think the muni I first played in Toronto - Scarlett Woods, by Mr. Anonymous - is the same. Of very famous US courses, I think Pebble and Prairie Dunes are on a different end of the ideology spectrum than, say, NGLA or Pine Valley.

Peter 

[BCrosby]

"I am just curious, Peter, whether to describe my first course (High Pointe) as my MOST ideological, or my LEAST."

...which captures the paradox. The opposite of ideological is not non-ideological. It is a different ideologiy.

Bob

[Marty Bonnar]

Most Fifers couldn't spell Ideeolojy far less know what it means. TOC? - ideology? - I hae mah doots.

F.

[Mike Nuzzo]

..