Not to pick on Wayne, but I just read a comment of his which I found interesting.    

"In comparing Sand Hills and Pine Valley, I would never change my mind about Pine Valley having superior architecture because it has a lot more architecture in it.  All but one green site at Sand Hills is completely natural as are many of the sandy waste areas and blowouts.  Of course there was a lot of genius at work to find the sites, create a routing and course flow and the like.  It took a significant amount of work; but not quite the same process as at Pine Valley.  The Pine Valley golf course literally had to be built to a much greater degree.  While there is a lot of natural features at work, there is much more architecture by definition."

I am not one who subscribes to the belief that "discovered" architecture is any less valid/good/desirable then "built" architecture.  So far as I can tell, Sand Hills is the only course to come along in many a year which can stand shoulder to shoulderish with Pine Valley in terms of quality and admiration.  For those that do agree with Wayne, could you explain your position of why "natural" architecture is not as good as "built" architecture?

Ciao

No it would not, Rich.  I am comparing two great courses.  One has a lot more architecture than the other.  I appreciate the design that is more made than found.  They can both be terrific, in fact natural can be superior to man-made.  However, if I am going to compare two greats, the one that is designed versus the one that is found is the better design because it has more of it.

You introduce another variable and superficially attempt to make generalizations.

Architecture is man-made.  If there is far more architecture on one great course compared to another great course with a lot less architecture, the one with more is superior.  That isn't too hard to understand, is it?

How about putting in Whistling Straits instead of Shadow Creek?

Isn't the routing one of the most, if not the most, important features of a course. A course can be tweaked over time, but a bad routing seems like it would be hard to overcome later. Hence, whether or not the greensites were found or made seems to be of less consequence. Either way it still takes a real man of genius (cue song) to come up with either course.

I really don't see why it matters anyway. A great course is a great course no matter the method the architect used.

Rich,

What important point do you think I'm trying to make?  I thought I made it already.

If I am understanding you correctly, Whistling Straits is superior to Pacific Dunes simply because WS was completely manufactured and PD was natural so WS has more "architecture?"  

taking this to a logical conclusion, the more man made, the more "architecture."  

Architecture is man-made.  If there is far more architecture on one great course compared to another great course with a lot less architecture, the one with more is superior.

Following that argument, then minimalist architects (Doak, C&C, Flynn, Ross) who do less man made work than Engh, Fazio, Macdonald, Raynor... are less superior architects?

This is why, as per the point I've tried to make many times in here, it's silly to even bother evaluating "architecture."  Seriously, unless you're in the business and/or looking to hire someone who does this, why do you care if one golf course shows better "architecture" than another?

Dick says it well in his last two paragraphs (before the added disclaimer!).  Evaluations of architecture and golf courses truly are two different things.

So this is a semi-interesting exercise... but as for me, I'll stick to thinking about which GOLF COURSE is better.  Architecture really is for whackos unless you happen to do it for a living.

 

All right then, in this battle to see how many angels can indeed dance on the head of a pin, put me down with Rich and others - I can't see why manufactured architecture is necessarily better than "found" architecture.

But again, the better question is why does this matter?

Shouldn't we as golfers care far more about which golf courses are better?

Jerry,

It's your second question that's the sticking point. I know it's an incredibly narrow distinction, but I believe we're talking about the quality of the work done, not how much you enjoy the finished result.

If you want to evaluate which architecture is better, then tell me whose greens drain better, which course is less expensive to maintain, which course stands up to the vagaries of nature that it is subjected to, etc. Do not tell me it is better because man chose to modify the land instead of using it in it's natural state. I think that is an argument without substance.

If you want to evaluate which architecture is better, then tell me whose greens drain better, which course is less expensive to maintain, which course stands up to the vagaries of nature that it is subjected to, etc. Do not tell me it is better because man chose to modify the land instead of using it in it's natural state. I think that is an argument without substance.

YES YES YES YES YES!!!!

Someone FINALLY gets this!!!

Thank you Garland, you've saved my sanity.  I've been trying for five years to get someone to understand this.

It is an argument without substance.  THus it's far better for us to discuss golf courses and how much fun they are to play, or not.

TH

Thank you, Rick.  You got my point perfectly well.  These other dunderheads must have been hanging around Mike Malone for far too long  

Of course it is a fine distinction, but a distinction none the less.  Architecture, by the definition I used is man-made.  If one great course had more architecture than another great course, why wouldn't you think that one has superior architecture?  There is no bearing on whether one is a better course than the other; merely that one has more architecture than the other.  In the case of PV and SH, the amount is much more.

You fellows that seek to reduce this notion down to some nonsense that I feel that any course with a significant amount of architecture is better than a course with minimal architecture is ridiculous.  There has been no attempt to state that one course is better than the other (although for the record, I'll take Pine Valley if you don't mind) but that they came about in very different ways.  

"Some might argue that fully using the land (and if the piece of land is extraordinary you may end up with a Sand Hills scenario) is a reason why they may think one course is better than another."

Sean,

I can see your point and believe strongly that the first thing an architect should do is use what is there naturally to the best of his ability.  But short of a site like Sand Hills, where the architect must cut or build, he ought to do so in a way that is sympathetic with nature.  

"Do not tell me it is better because man chose to modify the land instead of using it in it's natural state. I think that is an argument without substance."

Garland,

I was not attempting to do this.  Others mistakenly thought I was and that doesn't make it so.  You make a very good point, but while maintaining a look, being efficient to maintain and properly constructed, the course has to be not only playable but  enjoyable to play.  You can have a course that is easy and inexpensive to build, has the most efficient drainage and have an ideal Maintenance Meld.  But if it doesn't present an enjoyable challenge, it fails in a significant way.

Jerry,

It's your second question that's the sticking point. I know it's an incredibly narrow distinction, but I believe we're talking about the quality of the work done, not how much you enjoy the finished result.

WRONG!

What he has specified in his posts is the quantity, not the quality.

Quote from: Garland Bayley on September 17, 2007, 01:57:16 PM

If you want to evaluate which architecture is better, then tell me whose greens drain better, which course is less expensive to maintain, which course stands up to the vagaries of nature that it is subjected to, etc. Do not tell me it is better because man chose to modify the land instead of using it in it's natural state. I think that is an argument without substance.

The points you raise are only part of the equation which make up what a good course is about.  

That's why I used the etc. There are far too many things to list.

In fact, sometimes, the things you list can be overlooked because the end product is so compelling.  ...

Perhaps, but saying one is better than the other, because man intervened is not the way to discern the most compelling.