[Matt MacIver]

I read the title differently - we now know what Michael (and Gil Hanse) would do since Grove 23 has been built.


If Magic made a golf course?  No look passes (blind shots), Showtime (running game = fast and firm ground game) and involving every teammate (use every club in the bag) - that’s a course I’d play daily.

[Mark_Fine]

Peter,
I am sure you realize if every new course were a 10 (or at least what I think most of us here would call a 10) the game of golf would be reserved for a very small set of golfers.  Very few golfers would want to play (or enjoy) most 10's day in and day out.  Most great courses would not be sustainable as they appeal to a small subset of all golfers.  I always said if my old golf league had to play Pine Valley or Oakmont or Shinnecock Hills every day, most would take up tennis. Much too tough and would take too long for them to play.  They would all lose interest after a few rounds. 

[Ira Fishman]

Peter,
I am sure you realize if every new course were a 10 (or at least what I think most of us here would call a 10) the game of golf would be reserved for a very small set of golfers.  Very few golfers would want to play (or enjoy) most 10's day in and day out.  Most great courses would not be sustainable as they appeal to a small subset of all golfers.  I always said if my old golf league had to play Pine Valley or Oakmont or Shinnecock Hills every day, most would take up tennis. Much too tough and would take too long for them to play.  They would all lose interest after a few rounds.

Mark,


I disagree with the notion that architects could design 10s regularly if they had no constraints. However, it is not the case that most 10s are not enjoyable on a regular basis. I do not have the CG with me, but my memory is that many 10s are quite enjoyable. I know that I could play CPC and Royal Dornoch every day. I have not played TOC or NGLA but I believe that they are 10s as is Royal Melbourne.


Perhaps you have a different definition of a 10, and I do not agree with all of the CG ratings but I think the definitions are sound. And for the courses that I have played, it is not a disagreement that difficult courses are rated too low.


Ira

[Mike_Young]

Ally, just read yours before posting this: see immediately above. Are we here on this august board of experts and fans and panelists really unable / unwilling to see and appreciate greatness simply because it doesn't suit our personal aesthetic?

Or instead, are you and I wrong, i.e. is it simply not true that, even with magic at their disposal, many professional architects simply could not -- and wouldn't know how to -- create a truly great course, one of the best in the world?

Peter,  I do think this site leans heavily toward one particular type of golf design.  And , while sounding arrogant, I think there are plenty of professional architects who could not design a great golf course.  And really it is because they are just not into it that much.  I can say that now because I am at a stage where I don't care if they don't like my work.  Here are a few of my random thoughts on why...First, if all we had were 10's golf would not exist.For me...IMHO... to be great it has to have good strategy and good strategy can have a modern look, an Engh look, a minimalist look or whatever.  Location of a bunker is more important than whether it is a frilly edge, or a Raynor style or a mickey mouse ears style and the same for green contours and surrounds. Tee can be runway tee or 4 circles.Strategy is not seen by many and what sell the masses on great is the artistic ability of the architect to blend these strategic features into a particular environment.  Strategy blended into a form that the masses like creates great courses.  The bigger issue is the number of writers and raters that go "great" on courses lacking strategy just because they like the setting or the bunkers.  JMO

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
I didn't say architects can design 10's regularly if they had no constraints.  Some might be able to and some might not (doubt anyone will argue with that).  Maybe this is not relevant to the main point of this thread but I do feel most courses that the majority of us would classify as 10's would NOT be enjoyable for most golfers on a regular basis anyway.  One example; yesterday I was playing golf at Palmetto Dunes in SC and in the twosome ahead of me there was supposedly a gentleman who was a member at Oakmont.  I have a good friend who is a member there so after the round I noticed the two guys in the parking lot and said to the one gentleman, "Do you belong at Oakmont CC?"  He said to me, "Well yes I am a member there, but I don't really belong"!    Long story short, he said the course has become way too tough for him as he has aged and it is no longer enjoyable to play.  He did happen to know my friend there quite well.  Another example; when Forrest and I were working on a Master Plan for the two George Thomas courses at Griffith Park in LA, I remember watching golfers come through there foursome after foursome and thinking, if we made either of those courses look anything close to Riviera or LACC, no one would finish their rounds.  These players would not have fun playing courses like that.


Even a course like Cypress Point which is one of my all time favorites would be far too much golf course for 90% of the golfing public to play every day.  They would tire of golf quickly as the course is far too hard for them to play.  Sorry but that is the truth.  The far majority of golfers would not enjoy playing any course we call a 10 on a regular basis.  Maybe that was not what Peter was looking to hear but I think most architects would want to build courses they feel would be great for the golfers that they expect to be playing there.  I think Mike's comments are somewhat in line with this same opinion. 


 

[Peter Flory]

Most artists thrive when there are constraints and struggle when there aren't any.  With no constraints, there are no puzzles to solve and nothing to rebel against.  It's just you and your concept of ideals. 

There are many examples of bands that created masterpieces with no budget and then rotted away in the expensive studio to produce trash when they have unlimited budgets.  I suppose that no constraints also meant unlimited drugs in those scenarios... but I digress. 

[Ira Fishman]

Ira,
I didn't say architects can design 10's regularly if they had no constraints.  Some might be able to and some might not (doubt anyone will argue with that).  Maybe this is not relevant to the main point of this thread but I do feel most courses that the majority of us would classify as 10's would NOT be enjoyable for most golfers on a regular basis anyway.  One example; yesterday I was playing golf at Palmetto Dunes in SC and in the twosome ahead of me there was supposedly a gentleman who was a member at Oakmont.  I have a good friend who is a member there so after the round I noticed the two guys in the parking lot and said to the one gentleman, "Do you belong at Oakmont CC?"  He said to me, "Well yes I am a member there, but I don't really belong"!    Long story short, he said the course has become way too tough for him as he has aged and it is no longer enjoyable to play.  He did happen to know my friend there quite well.  Another example; when Forrest and I were working on a Master Plan for the two George Thomas courses at Griffith Park in LA, I remember watching golfers come through there foursome after foursome and thinking, if we made either of those courses look anything close to Riviera or LACC, no one would finish their rounds.  These players would not have fun playing courses like that.


Even a course like Cypress Point which is one of my all time favorites would be far too much golf course for 90% of the golfing public to play every day.  They would tire of golf quickly as the course is far too hard for them to play.  Sorry but that is the truth.  The far majority of golfers would not enjoy playing any course we call a 10 on a regular basis.  Maybe that was not what Peter was looking to hear but I think most architects would want to build courses they feel would be great for the golfers that they expect to be playing there.  I think Mike's comments are somewhat in line with this same opinion.

Mark,


I was a 13 when I played Royal Dornoch at age 59 and probably a 15 when I played CPC the following year. My wife was probably a 25 for both rounds. We both would happily play both courses every day. They are more enjoyable than difficult as I believe many 10s are. If your definition of a 10 is limited to Oakmont and PV, then it is a not particularly coherent or well considered.


Ira

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
Pick any of the Top 25 golf courses in the world and I will argue most (not all) golfers would get worn out playing those courses every day.  You are your wife are in the minority 

[Ira Fishman]

Ira,
Pick any of the Top 25 golf courses in the world and I will argue most (not all) golfers would get worn out playing those courses every day.  You are your wife are in the minority 

Mark,


I have no idea how you define the Top 25 because you actually never commit to an opinion, but of the courses two pretty average golfers would play every day in addition to CPC and RD:


Pacific Dunes
Bandon Trails
PH2
Swinley Forest
The Island Club
St.George’s Hill
Pasatiempo
Woking
Brora
Waterville


Clearly not all of them are Top 25, but several are. So what are your Top 25? Are they all too difficult for average golfers?

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
Just go to the Top 25 in the world per Golf Digest or Golf Magazine, either list is fine to use.  Let's just agree to disagree what the average golfer would enjoy playing every day.  I just spent days for example trying to convince a club that a centerline bunker would be a great addition to a hole and would not be "unfair".  I was not successful and it was not allowed in the planl. Maybe we have a different opinion of how most golfers play the game. 
Mark

[Ira Fishman]

Ira,
Just go to the Top 25 in the world per Golf Digest or Golf Magazine, either list is fine to use.  Let's just agree to disagree what the average golfer would enjoy playing every day.  I just spent days for example trying to convince a club that a centerline bunker would be a great addition to a hole and would not be "unfair".  I was not successful and it was not allowed in the planl. Maybe we have a different opinion of how most golfers play the game. 
Mark

Mark,


What club? What recommendations did they accept?


What courses do you consider 10s? Why?


Ira

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
The name of the club doesn't matter as it is not appropriate for me to discuss specific client details like that on a public forum, but what I will say is that Forrest and I surely couldn't have done it at Griffith Park which is put in a centerline hazard.  It would NOT have been approved, simple as that. 


ANY of the Top 100 in the world as determined by those two magazines are close to 10's or 9's, or high 8's..  My point is the average golfer would not have fun for long at most any of the greatest golf courses in the world.  That is my opinion. 

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,


This was a little story (see below) that Tim Weiman told on another thread.  I have heard similar kinds of comments hundreds of times.  This is a very common opinion about things most here would just shake their head at. 


"One funny experience I had one time at Little Met, a 9 hole course that used to charge like $6-7 dollars to play. I got fixed up with this very pleasant young guy who seemed to love playing but was really a terrible golfer. Somehow we got into a conversation about how much he loves to play. Naively I said: “Well, the game gets even better when you play a good course”. Hell no, he told me. He said he did that onetime and never wanted to do that again.So I asked him why and responded telling me he played a course where you had to hit over about 50 yards of water. No thanks!"

[Ira Fishman]

Ira,
The name of the club doesn't matter as it is not appropriate for me to discuss specific client details like that on a public forum, but what I will say is that Forrest and I surely couldn't have done it at Griffith Park which is put in a centerline hazard.  It would NOT have been approved, simple as that. 


ANY of the Top 100 in the world as determined by those two magazines are close to 10's or 9's, or high 8's..  My point is the average golfer would not have fun for long at most any of the greatest golf courses in the world.  That is my opinion.

This is what I find disingenuous. You are the only “architect” who posts here fairly regularly who will not discuss by name specific work that you have done.  If you don’t want to be specific, then stop pontificating. Generalizations are pretty much useless.


Ira

[Mike_Young]

There are many great golf courses I could play everyday.  Of course, I would need to play the proper tee for most fun...also, I don't necessarily equate strategy to difficulty...Off top of my head:Holston HillsPlainfieldAronominkPH2RivieraSouthern HillsShinnecockHonorsLongCove

[Greg Hohman]

No such thing as artists without constraints, cf "The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry" (1973) by Harold Bloom.

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
I have listed many courses I have worked on.  Read my posts.  Some things are sensitive and not for public discussion but where I can discuss I will.  Would you like to talk about Bethlehem or Mira Vista or Bucknell or Brookside or Waynesboro or Copake or Hanover or Champaign or Tucker's Point or Willow Brook or Chestnut Ridge or Irem Temple or Cherry Hills or Oyster Harbor or Southmoore or Suneagles or Colonial or Arcola or Pocono Manor or Kennett Square or Oakmont East or Griffith Park or Shepherd Hills or Allentown or  ...?  I just finished a major 18 hole renovation of Bethlehem GC this past spring.  An article is coming out in the USGA Green Section in March or April.  Do you want to discuss that one?  Happy to as it is getting a lot of attention back this way as it should.  It won't make any Top 100 lists but it might win best renovation of a public golf course.  But who cares if it does or doesn't as the local golfers seem to love it. 

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
There are many great courses that most of us HERE could play everyday.  There is another thread about that.  What I was saying is that many of the courses that most of us would give 10's or something close to that like Pine Valley, Winged Foot West, Oakmont, Merion, Shinnecock Hills, Pinehurst #2, Royal Portrush, LACC, Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes,...to list ten would wear out the average golfer from any set of tees.  I refer you to the story from Tim Weiman

[Peter Pallotta]

No such thing as artists without constraints, cf "The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry" (1973) by Harold Bloom.

An excellent thread topic all on its own.


I've not read that book [though I spent 2 years at university with (Leo) Straussian professors and several of their Chicago grad students going line by line through Bloom's edition of Plato's Republic!]


I know a tiny bit about trying to create, writing and music.


My thumbnail (and tentative) theory: 'No true art without constraints, much excellent minor art with some constraints, very little I'd consider meaningful art with too many constraints -- especially of the self-imposed variety".

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()