[Patrick_Mucci]

Some time ago I created a thread that alluded to the significance of Macro over Micro architecture.

Recently, Tom Doak made an interesting comment about restorations and their failure to greatly influence the ratings.

Is that further proof that the Macro architecture is far, far more important than the Micro architecture ?

And, isn't it the Micro architecture that's most often tampered with ?

Aren't routings difficult to reconfigure as opposed to individual holes ?

If my premise and Tom Doak's statement are correct, then isn't the routing, by far, the single most important architectural element in a golf course ?

If a routing is great does it provide generous margins of error/quality for the individual holes ?

If the routing is questionable to poor, do most/all of the holes have to be outstanding in order for the golf course to be well regarded ?

[Steve_Lovett]

I'd say the answer is "yes" to all of the Yes/No questions you have posed.

Then I find it interesting to read of the changes to #12 at Garden City, or the "disfiguration" of Yale, or the much-discussed bunker work at Merion.  By your definition, each of those are "micro" architectural issues, yet the consequences of each is significant to people's opinion of the quality of the course.

Given that, I'd say that Macro & Micro architecture need to be taken together to be ideal - with Macro architecture creating the "bones".  The "magic" usually lies in the Micro architectural detail.

[Phil Benedict]

For what it's worth I tend to react to a course as a whole.  I think a course can be great with mostly good holes and maybe a couple of great holes and no bad holes.  I focus on the flow, variety and overall look of a course. The discussion we had about the short hole at Sleeply Hollow didn't interest me that much.  Sure the restoration looks better but it doesn't change the play of the hole that much. On the other hand, restoring the entire course to a unified architectural theme makes a huge difference.

[David_Elvins]

Pat,

I tend to agree with the general premise however:
-if routing is macro, then site selection is mega-macro
-rating arent proof of anything!

[Jim Nugent]

Pat, if you believe macro counts way more than micro, why do you get so worked up over all the "disfigurations" members and committees perform on their courses?  Don't they usually act on the micro scale, not the macro?

And back to an old refrain of mine -- if routing is by far the most important element of golf course architecture (which I agree with), is Jack Nicklaus a golf course architect?  

[John Moore II]

Pat- I agree with what you say about MacroArchitecture. I do think it is the most important part of the course. Like you have said the routing is most important. I played Duke Golf Club today and must admit that the holes fit very well where they were placed. MicroArchitecture is ok I suppose, as long as what you are doing/renovating works with the rest of the course. The green contours, bunkers and so forth must match with the spirit and character of the rest of the course or the course will go from good to foolish and dumb looking.

[JC Jones]

The problem with routing being the most important is that it is hard to discern from playing the course.  Not many of us can play a golf course and then sit down and think, well, here is how I would have taken that same piece of land and routed the holes.

Are there obvious issues that can be spotted (i.e. long walks from green to tee, etc.)?  Yes.  

Can a golfer subjectively say that the holes, "fit well together?"  Yes.

However, I dont think that most non-GCA's can effectively comment on what changes should be made to the routing.

Therefore, I believe that Macro is the most important, however, from a ratings standpoint, I'm not sure the raters are able to legitimately determine the quality of the routing vis a vis the other routing options.

So, from a ratings standpoint, I think the micro and the quality of the holes, individually, is the most important.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'd say the answer is "yes" to all of the Yes/No questions you have posed.

Then I find it interesting to read of the changes to #12 at Garden City, or the "disfiguration" of Yale, or the much-discussed bunker work at Merion.  

Steve,

As you walk from # 11 green to # 12 tee and then play # 12, and then walk to # 13 tee to resume play, it's hard NOT to be jarred by what you've just seen and experienced, especially if you've seen the old 12th.

GCGC has a wonderful flavor/style and harmonious flow that is suddenly disrupted, and then resumes.

The spectacular continuity is lost, albeit briefly, and then  regained.

# 12 is so out of context with the rest of the golf course that it's hard not to feel as if something strange just happened, and, if you saw the old 12th, and how super spectacular that hole was, you're baffled, and left wondering how did this happen, and how has it been allowed to continue.

It's a real eyesore.

But, the routing remains intact and most other holes are great and have a long and distinguished history[/color]

By your definition, each of those are "micro" architectural issues, yet the consequences of each is significant to people's opinion of the quality of the course.

# 12 is so disruptive to the style and harmonious flow of the course that it's almost at the routing level[/color]

Given that, I'd say that Macro & Micro architecture need to be taken together to be ideal - with Macro architecture creating the "bones".  The "magic" usually lies in the Micro architectural detail.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, if you believe macro counts way more than micro, why do you get so worked up over all the "disfigurations" members and committees perform on their courses?  

Don't they usually act on the micro scale, not the macro?

No, not at all.
I"ve noticed the "domino" principle at many courses.
Once one feature or hole is modified/altered/disfigured it opens up the flood gates to all other features and holes and then, slowly but surely the golf course begins to lose its distinctive character, that which made it unique and seperated it from every other golf course.

In some cases the disfigurations are limited to the micro, in others they extend to the macro, but, almost universally, they all begin with the Micro.

Many courses altered their routings for ....... TENNIS COURTS
Montclair, Metropolis and many others disrupted and reconfigured their routings, ruining holes and routings, for what, for tennis courts that are mostly empty today.

And, even if they were full, I believe it's a mistake.

Other courses altered their routing for practice range purposes and others altered the routing for a variety of reasons.  In almost every case, the quality of the golf course suffered.

I'm generally against modifications because the great majority of them seemed to have turned out for the worse.  

All of the restorations that have been undertaken over the last decade or so are being done because the club finally realized that the prior surgical work left scars and ruined the architecture, either the Macro, the Micro or both.

But, they all usually start on the Micro, hence my sense of enlightened suspicion and aversion to the smell of ether.[/color]

And back to an old refrain of mine -- if routing is by far the most important element of golf course architecture (which I agree with), is Jack Nicklaus a golf course architect?  


I'll let others answer that question.[/color]

[Sean_A]

The problem with routing being the most important is that it is hard to discern from playing the course.  Not many of us can play a golf course and then sit down and think, well, here is how I would have taken that same piece of land and routed the holes.

Are there obvious issues that can be spotted (i.e. long walks from green to tee, etc.)?  Yes.  

Can a golfer subjectively say that the holes, "fit well together?"  Yes.

However, I dont think that most non-GCA's can effectively comment on what changes should be made to the routing.

Therefore, I believe that Macro is the most important, however, from a ratings standpoint, I'm not sure the raters are able to legitimately determine the quality of the routing vis a vis the other routing options.

So, from a ratings standpoint, I think the micro and the quality of the holes, individually, is the most important.

JC

I agree with you.  That is why if I look around and see some wierd stuff going on it makes me really question the routing.  However, I think it is far more difficult to critique a modern routing because of the numerous restrictions that may be in place.  That said, whether I am qualified to understand the whys of a routing I still believe the combination of the land and the routing is the most important aspect of a course.  

Pat

I don't know where you get the idea that the great many alterations have been for the worse.  I do believe that in the UK, a great many courses have been drastically improved with later changes - minor and major.  I have said this before, change is inevitable, its how the changes are managed and the reasons for the changes that are important.

Ciao

[John Moore II]

I think that changes can be fine, as long as the person doing the changes has a clue what they are doing, and can work to keep the course in the same character it was before. This goes for either Micro of Macro changes. If changes are made that are out of sorts with the orignal design (as long as the orignal was good that is) it can destroy the character of the original course.

[JC Jones]

The problem with routing being the most important is that it is hard to discern from playing the course.  Not many of us can play a golf course and then sit down and think, well, here is how I would have taken that same piece of land and routed the holes.

Are there obvious issues that can be spotted (i.e. long walks from green to tee, etc.)?  Yes.  

Can a golfer subjectively say that the holes, "fit well together?"  Yes.

However, I dont think that most non-GCA's can effectively comment on what changes should be made to the routing.

Therefore, I believe that Macro is the most important, however, from a ratings standpoint, I'm not sure the raters are able to legitimately determine the quality of the routing vis a vis the other routing options.

So, from a ratings standpoint, I think the micro and the quality of the holes, individually, is the most important.

JC

I agree with you.  That is why if I look around and see some wierd stuff going on it makes me really question the routing.  However, I think it is far more difficult to critique a modern routing because of the numerous restrictions that may be in place.  That said, whether I am qualified to understand the whys of a routing I still believe the combination of the land and the routing is the most important aspect of a course.  

Pat

I don't know where you get the idea that the great many alterations have been for the worse.  I do believe that in the UK, a great many courses have been drastically improved with later changes - minor and major.  I have said this before, change is inevitable, its how the changes are managed and the reasons for the changes that are important.

Ciao

I agree, the routing is the absolute most important.  But without a topo map of the property, I cant tell when I am on the 5th tee whether or not it was the best place for the 5th tee.  

Routing certainly makes or breaks a course, Im just not sure it can be determined by the rater.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't know where you get the idea that the great many alterations have been for the worse.

I get the idea from several sources.

One is the great number of restorations that are being undertaken.

Obviously, a restoration wouldn't have been needed if the previous alterations to the golf course hadn't been for the worse. [/color]

I do believe that in the UK, a great many courses have been drastically improved with later changes - minor and major.  I have said this before, change is inevitable, its how the changes are managed and the reasons for the changes that are important.

I couldn't speak to the quality, or lack thereof, of alterations in the UK, but, in the U.S.  the disfigurations far outnumber the improvements.[/color]

[Sean_A]

I don't know where you get the idea that the great many alterations have been for the worse.

I get the idea from several sources.

One is the great number of restorations that are being undertaken.

Obviously, a restoration wouldn't have been needed if the previous alterations to the golf course hadn't been for the worse. [/color]

I do believe that in the UK, a great many courses have been drastically improved with later changes - minor and major.  I have said this before, change is inevitable, its how the changes are managed and the reasons for the changes that are important.

I couldn't speak to the quality, or lack thereof, of alterations in the UK, but, in the U.S.  the disfigurations far outnumber the improvements.[/color]

Pat

What about the courses which were continually tinkered with/improved through the Golden Age?  Or are you lamenting some changes made during a specific time period?  As it happens, I haven't personally experienced a fairly serious change to a course which I have been entirely happy with, but I have only seen a few which I knew well enough to judge.  As I say, change is inevitable.

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

What about the courses which were continually tinkered with/improved through the Golden Age?  


You'll have to be specific and identify the courses and how they were tinkered with.[/color]

Or are you lamenting some changes made during a specific time period?  

I wasn't referencing a specific time period, but, one could confine the discussion to the time frame begining with televised golf.[/color]

As it happens, I haven't personally experienced a fairly serious change to a course which I have been entirely happy with, but I have only seen a few which I knew well enough to judge.  As I say, change is inevitable.

Ah, but, in what form, a harmonious one, or, a disruptive one ?[/color]

[Sean_A]

Pat

What about the courses which were continually tinkered with/improved through the Golden Age?  


You'll have to be specific and identify the courses and how they were tinkered with.[/color]

Or are you lamenting some changes made during a specific time period?  

I wasn't referencing a specific time period, but, one could confine the discussion to the time frame begining with televised golf.[/color]

As it happens, I haven't personally experienced a fairly serious change to a course which I have been entirely happy with, but I have only seen a few which I knew well enough to judge.  As I say, change is inevitable.

Ah, but, in what form, a harmonious one, or, a disruptive one ?[/color]

Pat

Most of the top courses in the UK were altered/tinkered with during the Golden Age and beyond.  The number is far too long to bother listing - check the any UK rankings and this will give you a good idea of the clubs.  Some changes were welcomed and some lamented.  These changes on venerable courses continue today with much the same response as ever.  Just in the very recent past there have been significant changes at TOC, Birkdale (yet again). Lahinch, Castletown, St Enodoc, The Island, Royal Aberdeen, Murcar, (I have to chuck in) Pennard  and Hoylake (yet again) - and I am sure many more.  Changes were made for specific reasons and I am sure were well managed.  Change has never really stopped at a great percentage of courses.  This is why finding a relatively unchanged course is so rare and often refreshing.  

I have seen Hoylake since the changes and can understand why people were against the idea of a new green for 17.  Hoylake long enjoyed (if this is the correct word) a reputation for having severe oob on the course.  The 17th is the second instance of removing the fear of oob and perhaps the detractors are correct.  The fact remains that the club felt it more important to get an Open and to make the hole safer than to retain that green.  However, I cannot see how anyone could complain about the quality if the new 17th green.  In fact, its one of the best on the course.  

It would be interesting to see the number of changes made to courses since the start of televised golf.  I suspect the normal complaints will be the narrowing of fairways and growing of trees.  I also suspect these same two items will be a source of praise.  

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean Arble,

I'm totally unqualified to comment on alterations to the courses in the U.K.

I'm more familiar with alterations made to courses in the U.S. especially courses in the NY/NJ Met area.

In the 70's the introduction or expansion of tennis courts ruined many courses in these parts.

[Steve_Lovett]

I'd say the answer is "yes" to all of the Yes/No questions you have posed.

Then I find it interesting to read of the changes to #12 at Garden City, or the "disfiguration" of Yale, or the much-discussed bunker work at Merion.  

Steve,

As you walk from # 11 green to # 12 tee and then play # 12, and then walk to # 13 tee to resume play, it's hard NOT to be jarred by what you've just seen and experienced, especially if you've seen the old 12th.

GCGC has a wonderful flavor/style and harmonious flow that is suddenly disrupted, and then resumes.

The spectacular continuity is lost, albeit briefly, and then  regained.

# 12 is so out of context with the rest of the golf course that it's hard not to feel as if something strange just happened, and, if you saw the old 12th, and how super spectacular that hole was, you're baffled, and left wondering how did this happen, and how has it been allowed to continue.

It's a real eyesore.

But, the routing remains intact and most other holes are great and have a long and distinguished history[/color]

By your definition, each of those are "micro" architectural issues, yet the consequences of each is significant to people's opinion of the quality of the course.

# 12 is so disruptive to the style and harmonious flow of the course that it's almost at the routing level[/color]

Given that, I'd say that Macro & Micro architecture need to be taken together to be ideal - with Macro architecture creating the "bones".  The "magic" usually lies in the Micro architectural detail.

Pat:

Your response is biased by your familiarity with Garden City.  You are obviously so familiar with #12 at Garden City that the character is so grotesquely DIFFERENT that it affects your perception of not only #12, but also #'s 11 and 13.  

I've never seen Garden City, so the hole wouldn't be different for me - although yes, I may think it it out of character.  But - it still "fits" as it should within the routing - and my perception may well be that it's micro-characteristics are wrong, but it is sound on a macro-basis.

Do you think that I, as someone who has never seen GCGC would find the current 12th hole so objectionable that it would affect my opinion of the overall course on a macro level?  Can a single hole which still has an ideal place in the routing have such a profound impact?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Your response is biased by your familiarity with Garden City.  You are obviously so familiar with #12 at Garden City that the character is so grotesquely DIFFERENT that it affects your perception of not only #12, but also #'s 11 and 13.

That was my impression the first time I played the golf course.

Interestingly enough, a good number of first time guests ask me about the 12th hole and why it's so jarringly out of context with the rest of the golf course, and a lot of them are not architecture buffs.[/color]  

I've never seen Garden City, so the hole wouldn't be different for me - although yes, I may think it it out of character.  But - it still "fits" as it should within the routing - and my perception may well be that it's micro-characteristics are wrong, but it is sound on a macro-basis.

It's a par 3.
The old hole was a par 3 and a par 4 at one time.[/color]

Do you think that I, as someone who has never seen GCGC would find the current 12th hole so objectionable that it would affect my opinion of the overall course on a macro level?  

Yes, I think debit points would be attributed to the 12th hole.[/color]

Can a single hole which still has an ideal place in the routing have such a profound impact ?

I believe it can exert an influence and result in debit points.
Whether those debit points can overcome the credit points is open to debate.

Belmont in MA is an example of a course where the debit points are substantive, even though it was eminent domain that did the damage.[/color]

[Andy Troeger]

JC,
What you are saying is correct, but I don't believe that raters even TRY to discern current rountings from other possibilities. There may be a few that are moderately qualified to try, but the majority are not and probably don't even think about it. Its a fun mental exercise once one has played a course multiple times and becomes familiar with the property, but really critiquing it is beyond most of our abilities as you said.

From what I know of the various processes, the magazines ask us to look at what's there, not what could have been or should have been.

[Sean_A]

Sean Arble,

I'm totally unqualified to comment on alterations to the courses in the U.K.

I'm more familiar with alterations made to courses in the U.S. especially courses in the NY/NJ Met area.

In the 70's the introduction or expansion of tennis courts ruined many courses in these parts.

Pat

Altering golf courses (at golf clubs) for additional tennis courts is not, imo, a well managed reason for change.  Making the course better in some way (even safety may come under this guidance, but it better be something that is practically forced on the club) should be the guiding principle for change.  Though I have always believed that there are some courses that shouldn't be touched even if they can be "improved", but this is a fairly short list.

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()