[Patrick_Mucci]

I wonder if architects have their own biases relative to design principles, routing and features ?

And, could architects be unaware of their biases ?

For example, do they have a preference to start a golf course on a par 4 versus a par 5 hole, a benign versus a difficult hole ?  Does that apply on # 10 as well ?

Does that also apply to the finishing holes 9 and 18 ?

Flynn, for example is alleged to have opposed invisible bunkers.

Do the designs of any architect reveal a pattern, a preference that reoccurs to the extent that it could be deemed a theme or pattern, or a bias ?

[SPDB]

Excuse the syllogistic response, but i think all people are biased, or have certain preferences. All architects are people. Therefore, all architects are biased.

[TEPaul]

The real question for Golfclubatlas.com is what is it exactly that Pat Mucci is BIASED against?    

After about four years of "BIAS threads" from Pat I think there's hardly any doubt whatsoever that Pat is completely biased against almost every memberhip in America that other than perhaps a single club dictator or czar, has a single thing to say about the courses they belong to.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

It's not a crime to admit that you don't have anythiing meaningful to contribute  

SPDB,

Yes, but what are those tendencies, those biases that you see or detect ?

[A_Clay_Man]

Does that include what the principle wants, but the architect would rather not?

[Patrick_Mucci]

A clayman,

No, that's an external influence.

[wsmorrison]

I don't know what definition of bias you are referring to in all these bias threads Pat.  In this thread, if you refer to the inclination of some architects to do something systematically in their designs, of course there is a bias.  We all have these sorts of biases in many aspects of our lives.  

If by bias you are talking about a tendency with prejudice that results in a systematic error or something that encourages a certain outcome over others that may be an improvement.   A bias of this sort that results in an unreasoned judgment and is not a good thing, we all agree on this.  So what's your point?

Did Ross exhibit a tendency to rout his courses from high tees to high greens?  Yes.  Do you have a problem with that?  Did Ross tend to have a great deal of variety in his par 3s?  Yes.  Is that a problem?  Did Macdonald and Raynor have a fairly narrow portfolio of hole designs?  Yes.  Any problems there?  I'm not convinced it was such a great attribute but that's me.

Did Flynn have a tendency to make visible his bunkers?  On hillsides?  Absolutely.  Did he hide bunkers?  There are a number of examples where bunkers are hidden depending on topography.   Flynn would rout his courses in many daring ways and often times he would do so perpendicular to topographical movement.  Did he hide bunkers on flat ground?  I can't think where.  But where landing areas are hidden due to slopes, then of course he has bunkers that are hidden.  

I can think of many examples some obvious others less so.  There are at least one, possibly two bunkers depending on the tee used on the 10th hole at Rolling Green--245 yard uphill par 3 that cannot be seen.  There are whole series of bunkers at Shinnecock that cannot be seen.  Immediately comes to mind (because I landed in them the first time I played the course) are the bunkers on the landing area left of the 6th (Pond) hole.  Its hard to tell where the fairway is from the tee on this hole.  

In the less obvious category, the bunker right and short of the 7th hole at Huntingdon Valley.  Flynn added a second bunker on the back/left side of the hill after the course opened(I think it is in the course evaluation that Ran did here on GCA) with an extension fairly far into the fairway that is no longer there.  Tom Paul might correct me here, but I think that was fairly obscured from the landing area of the second shot on this great par 5.  What Flynn was systematic about was that bunkers on hillsides were meant to be seen and he flashed these up to weigh more on the mind of the player.

Did Flynn have a tendency to use psychology and perception in his designs?  Absolutely.  As I said, he often wanted bunkers to stand out and play on the mind of the player.  Sometimes he put bunkers (Kittansett and Indian Creek are great examples) 20-40 yards short of greens but built up the back edges so that they appear to be fronting the greens.  Sometimes he used the overall movement of the land and green surrounds to make you think the green is severely sloped back to front when it is really front to back (3rd at Rolling Green and 4th at the Cascades).

Flynn wrote about a great many things.  He did not stick to them universally although he did have a strong tendency to do many design concepts.  For instance, he wrote about water and the detrimental effect it has on the recovery shot (one shot that he particularly valued--OK Pat, he had a bias for) but he used it effectively on occasions.  In fact some of his early designs called for damming streams to create ponds.  He wanted to do this at Kittansett (5th hole), he did it at Huntingdon Valley (5th and 13th), he wanted to do this at Rolling Green (15th), and there are many other examples.

Did Flynn have a bias for natural lines and not having abrupt slopes around tees, greens, and hazards?  Not on his earliest projects (CC Harrisburg, 1916; Eagles Mere, 1917) but certainly universally afterwards.  This became something he believed firmly in...mostly but not only because he appreciated the natural look but also because he proved that it was cheaper to maintain natural lines in the long run over artificial ones.

Did Flynn believe that the modern courses being constructed in his time should have trees on them?  YES.  He felt this for 4 reasons:
1.  there were few if any sites available devoid of them
2.  trees add beauty forming picturesque backgrounds and vistas
3.  refreshing summer shade
4.  practical value in separating holes

Too many on this website think there is no place for trees on a golf course.  This is an example of narrowmindedness at best and at worst a bias that shows unreasoned judgement.  Sorry redanman, but you're bias is definitely showing in this regard.

Your last question about whether they knew it.  I would think they knew what they were doing.  Do you think they'd need Pat Mucci or GCA to point it out to them?

Honestly Pat, I have no idea what you're talking about here.
I can't fathom why you would question the fact that there are tendencies in golf design.  So I must assume that you question the negative implication of bias.  Where do you see this bias in Flynn specifically or in other designers?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,

I don't know what definition of bias you are referring to in all these bias threads Pat.  In this thread, if you refer to the inclination of some architects to do something systematically in their designs, of course there is a bias.  We all have these sorts of biases in many aspects of our lives.

A predisposition  

If by bias you are talking about a tendency with prejudice that results in a systematic error or something that encourages a certain outcome over others that may be an improvement.   A bias of this sort that results in an unreasoned judgment and is not a good thing, we all agree on this.  So what's your point?

To see if architects had a conscious or subconscious predisposition that manifested itself in their designs, routing and features

Did Ross exhibit a tendency to rout his courses from high tees to high greens?  Yes.  Do you have a problem with that?  Did Ross tend to have a great deal of variety in his par 3s?  Yes.  Is that a problem?  Did Macdonald and Raynor have a fairly narrow portfolio of hole designs?  Yes.  Any problems there?  I'm not convinced it was such a great attribute but that's me.

Did Flynn have a tendency to make visible his bunkers?  On hillsides?  Absolutely.  Did he hide bunkers?  There are a number of examples where bunkers are hidden depending on topography.   Flynn would rout his courses in many daring ways and often times he would do so perpendicular to topographical movement.  Did he hide bunkers on flat ground?  I can't think where.  But where landing areas are hidden due to slopes, then of course he has bunkers that are hidden.

Flynn's abhorence of invisible bunkers would be a predisposition

I can think of many examples some obvious others less so.  There are at least one, possibly two bunkers depending on the tee used on the 10th hole at Rolling Green--245 yard uphill par 3 that cannot be seen.  There are whole series of bunkers at Shinnecock that cannot be seen.  Immediately comes to mind (because I landed in them the first time I played the course) are the bunkers on the landing area left of the 6th (Pond) hole.  Its hard to tell where the fairway is from the tee on this hole.  

In the less obvious category, the bunker right and short of the 7th hole at Huntingdon Valley.  Flynn added a second bunker on the back/left side of the hill after the course opened(I think it is in the course evaluation that Ran did here on GCA) with an extension fairly far into the fairway that is no longer there.  Tom Paul might correct me here, but I think that was fairly obscured from the landing area of the second shot on this great par 5.  What Flynn was systematic about was that bunkers on hillsides were meant to be seen and he flashed these up to weigh more on the mind of the player.

Did Flynn have a tendency to use psychology and perception in his designs?  Absolutely.  As I said, he often wanted bunkers to stand out and play on the mind of the player.  Sometimes he put bunkers (Kittansett and Indian Creek are great examples) 20-40 yards short of greens but built up the back edges so that they appear to be fronting the greens.  Sometimes he used the overall movement of the land and green surrounds to make you think the green is severely sloped back to front when it is really front to back (3rd at Rolling Green and 4th at the Cascades).

Was this copied from Ross and others

Flynn wrote about a great many things.  He did not stick to them universally although he did have a strong tendency to do many design concepts.  For instance, he wrote about water and the detrimental effect it has on the recovery shot (one shot that he particularly valued--OK Pat, he had a bias for) but he used it effectively on occasions.  In fact some of his early designs called for damming streams to create ponds.  He wanted to do this at Kittansett (5th hole), he did it at Huntingdon Valley (5th and 13th), he wanted to do this at Rolling Green (15th), and there are many other examples.

Did Flynn have a bias for natural lines and not having abrupt slopes around tees, greens, and hazards?  Not on his earliest projects (CC Harrisburg, 1916; Eagles Mere, 1917) but certainly universally afterwards.  This became something he believed firmly in...mostly but not only because he appreciated the natural look but also because he proved that it was cheaper to maintain natural lines in the long run over artificial ones.

Did Flynn believe that the modern courses being constructed in his time should have trees on them?  YES.  He felt this for 4 reasons:
1.  there were few if any sites available devoid of them
2.  trees add beauty forming picturesque backgrounds and vistas
3.  refreshing summer shade
4.  practical value in separating holes

Too many on this website think there is no place for trees on a golf course.  This is an example of narrowmindedness at best and at worst a bias that shows unreasoned judgement.  Sorry redanman, but you're bias is definitely showing in this regard.

Your last question about whether they knew it.  I would think they knew what they were doing.  Do you think they'd need Pat Mucci or GCA to point it out to them?

Noone questioned if they knew what they were consciously doing.
The question was, did they have built in predispositions that they may have, or may not have been aware of ?
The ones that they were aware of, that they published are obvious.  But, perhaps they were predisposed on other design issues and were unaware of how they manifested those predispositions in their designs, but in looking at the collective of their work, those predispositions become noticeable

Honestly Pat, I have no idea what you're talking about here.
I can't fathom why you would question the fact that there are tendencies in golf design.  So I must assume that you question the negative implication of bias.  Where do you see this bias in Flynn specifically or in other designers?  

Don't get nervous of defensive.
It's a legitimate question.
You and others have chosen to view bias or predisposition in a negative manner, and that's not necessarily the case.

[wsmorrison]

Pat,
You said "Flynn's abhorence of invisible bunkers would be a predisposition"

Let's stick to the facts here, Pat.  Where is it written that Flynn abhorred hidden or "invisible" bunkers?  I thought I gave ample evidence where he did use them.  If I took the time, I could come up with dozens more.  How could he not have had hidden bunkers on some of the topography he worked on and the way he routed?  

Mark Fine quoted Flynn as saying:

“…Hazards should be plainly visible,… a concealed bunker has no place on a golf course,…when concealed it does not register on the player’s mind as he is about to play the shot and thus loses its value,…the best looking bunkers are those gouged out of the faces of slopes, especially when the slope faces the player,…they are much more effective in that they stand there like sentinels beckoning the player”


Although Flynn writes that concealed bunkers have no place on a golf course....it is out of context.  How could you have blind shots and not have hidden bunkers?  This partial quote out of a large amount of writings is not the gospel according to Flynn.  In no way should this be construed to mean that Flynn never used them.  I have never seen in any Flynn writings where he stated he abhorred hidden bunkers.  On level ground and on slopes he did not as far as I know conceal bunkers.  I hope I have established to your satisfaction that he did use them on very rolling terrain.  
AsTom Paul stated on another thread, Flynn and Hugh Wilson and later Joe Valentine established the use of flashed bunkers at Merion that were clearly intended to be visible and be a factor in the mind of the player.  Flynn's work is full of variety.  His bunkers were likewise varied.  He routed on all kinds of properties and his designs were tailored to the site at hand and the wishes of his clients, hopefully educated by Flynn and others so they were informed and could know the options available.

I'll tell you one interesting use of bunkers that Flynn used often and that is bunkers in the corner of doglegs.  Many playing a Flynn course for the first time or others that don't use their mental faculties as much as their physical might think that these bunkers are something to be challenged and rewarded for going over them--cutting the dogleg.  Well Flynn intended them to be used as a miscue.  

For first timers without benefit of a knowledgeable caddie that is a problem but I think it was intended to test the mental capacity of the player because many times the best place to be on these holes is on the outside of the dogleg away from the bunkers.  This means the better players hoping for the best angle into the green have to play the hole longer.  Could this have been a systematic method of allowing for the technological advances that frequently obsoleted courses and that Flynn feared as early as the 1920s?  It may be.

Pat,
Thanks for clearing up what you mean by bias.  How are we supposed to know what the master architects were unaware of?  I suppose we can guess but what good is that, especially to someone like yourself that only wants to deal with facts?

"Don't get nervous of defensive.
It's a legitimate question.
You and others have chosen to view bias or predisposition in a negative manner, and that's not necessarily the case."

Pat,

It takes a lot more than a friendly conversation with you to make me nervous.  And I see no reason whatsoever to be defensive about anything.  I would like you to answer your own question if you can.  That is, what predispositons do you think the Golden Age architects were unaware of?  My questions to you are what predispositions by classic architects do you think were faulty as a result of bias and for what reasons?

[Mark_Fine]

Flynn wrote what he wrote and we can all intrepret it different ways.  I do believe architects had/have tendencies.  However, as I pointed out in another thread, there are ALWAYS exceptions to those tendencies.  

Here is what Tom Paul said about Flynn in another thread about visibility of bunkers, etc:

"I wouldn't say Flynn was a real advocate of fairness either, certainly not in the sense some think of "fairness" today, perhaps the most extreme example and cliche we hear today being;

"Everything should be right in front of you."

Clearly, Flynn felt that bunkering, however, should be visible. Frankly, he generally felt it should be more than just visible, he felt it should be extremely visible in the sense of perhaps almost intimidating the golfer. It's my sense that Flynn definitely picked up this extremely visible bunker principle from Merion East. It's believed that Hugh Wilson was an early advocate of extremely visible flashed sand bunkering ("White faces of Merion").

Flynn and Wilson got into what had become known in America in the teens and 1920s as "scientific architecture". Tillinghast was also and advocate of that.

In my opinion, Flynn used highly visible bunkering frequently to hide the visibility of safe areas such as fairway areas or ideal fairway areas. The best of his architecture shows this technique clearly. The best examples being on the;

10th hole of Lehigh
6th and 8th at Shinnecock
a number of holes of Indian Creek
8th and 9th Philly C.C.
And numerous others

For what it is worth.
Mark

[Mark_Fine]

More quotes from Flynn:

"In designing greens the architect not only makes a close-up study of the green sites but also studies from a distance, that is from the spot where the shot to the green is supposed to be played.  Having visibility of the green surface from this point is one of the most important considerations in the design of a golf course.  The drive, with the exception of the carry or accuracy required is practically similar on each hole and securing visibility of the area played to is not nearly as important as securing visibility for the shot to the green on any type hole.  The green is the final objective and how can a man reach the objective satisfactorily if he can not see it?"  

Flynn went on to say, "It naturally follows that any bunker construction in conjunction with the greens should also be visible.  However, it is not always possible to have visibility of every green but the hole that does not have a visible green should have some other feature or indicator which tells the player where to go to get the best results."  

We can all intrepret quotes like this from Flynn however we want.  Did Flynn follow these ideas on every hole he designed; of course not.  But these are the kind of design philosophies he favored whenever possible.
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,

Pat,
You said "Flynn's abhorence of invisible bunkers would be a predisposition"

Let's stick to the facts here, Pat.  Where is it written that Flynn abhorred hidden or "invisible" bunkers?  I thought I gave ample evidence where he did use them.  If I took the time, I could come up with dozens more.  How could he not have had hidden bunkers on some of the topography he worked on and the way he routed?

Just look at the highlighted quote from Flynn that appears below.  Flynn said that a concealed bunker has no place on the golf course.  If his own words don't tell you that he abhored hidden bunkers then I don't know how to convince you.

Mark Fine quoted Flynn as saying:

“…Hazards should be plainly visible,… a concealed bunker has no place on a golf course,…when concealed it does not register on the player’s mind as he is about to play the shot and thus loses its value,…the best looking bunkers are those gouged out of the faces of slopes, especially when the slope faces the player,…they are much more effective in that they stand there like sentinels beckoning the player”


Although Flynn writes that concealed bunkers have no place on a golf course....it is out of context.  

No it's not, it's exactly what he wrote

How could you have blind shots and not have hidden bunkers?  This partial quote out of a large amount of writings is not the gospel according to Flynn.  In no way should this be construed to mean that Flynn never used them.  I have never seen in any Flynn writings where he stated he abhorred hidden bunkers.  

When he says that they have no place on the golf course that's pretty strong evidence that he abhored them

On level ground and on slopes he did not as far as I know conceal bunkers.  I hope I have established to your satisfaction that he did use them on very rolling terrain.  
AsTom Paul stated on another thread, Flynn and Hugh Wilson and later Joe Valentine established the use of flashed bunkers at Merion that were clearly intended to be visible and be a factor in the mind of the player.  Flynn's work is full of variety.  His bunkers were likewise varied.  He routed on all kinds of properties and his designs were tailored to the site at hand and the wishes of his clients, hopefully educated by Flynn and others so they were informed and could know the options available.

I'll tell you one interesting use of bunkers that Flynn used often and that is bunkers in the corner of doglegs.  Many playing a Flynn course for the first time or others that don't use their mental faculties as much as their physical might think that these bunkers are something to be challenged and rewarded for going over them--cutting the dogleg.  Well Flynn intended them to be used as a miscue.  

For first timers without benefit of a knowledgeable caddie that is a problem but I think it was intended to test the mental capacity of the player because many times the best place to be on these holes is on the outside of the dogleg away from the bunkers.  This means the better players hoping for the best angle into the green have to play the hole longer.  Could this have been a systematic method of allowing for the technological advances that frequently obsoleted courses and that Flynn feared as early as the 1920s?  It may be.

Pat,
Thanks for clearing up what you mean by bias.  How are we supposed to know what the master architects were unaware of?

By an evaluation of their collective work.
It may reveal a tendency that they might have been unaware of
 
 I suppose we can guess but what good is that, especially to someone like yourself that only wants to deal with facts?

There's no need to guess.  If an analysis of their collective work reveals a design, routing or feature tendency, then we can conclude that it was a theme or pattern.  Whether it was conscious or not might be revealed by studying their writings.

"Don't get nervous of defensive.
It's a legitimate question.
You and others have chosen to view bias or predisposition in a negative manner, and that's not necessarily the case."

Pat,

It takes a lot more than a friendly conversation with you to make me nervous.  And I see no reason whatsoever to be defensive about anything.  I would like you to answer your own question if you can.  That is, what predispositons do you think the Golden Age architects were unaware of?  

One could cite Fllynn's accentuation on visibility.
Template holes by CBM, SR and CB, and I'm sure that there are others, that was the point of my query.

My questions to you are what predispositions by classic architects do you think were faulty as a result of bias and for what reasons?

Why do they have to be faulty ?
If, when you play basketball, you drive to the right 75 % of the time, hitting 85 % of your shots, while driving straight away and left 25 % of the time results in you hitting 65 % of your shots, why is driving to the right viewed as a fault in your eyes ?

[Andrew Summerell]

Of course, many architects would believe they have no bias in regard to routing, as they claim to be minimalists who allow the land to dictate the routing. The strange thing is a majority of newly designed courses are par 72, with 4 par 3's & 4 par 5's. Strange.

Generally, if you know the work of a particular designer you can pick their work out, especially when it is redesign work. Quite often the bunkers are the greatest give away. The 'Moonah News' thread referred to TWP's design of the Moonah Links course. I've played quite a few of their courses & find many similar charactaristics in most of their courses. None more obvious than their pot style bunkers, no matter where the course is situated or what the land is like.

I believe certain biases are justified. A course like Royal Lytham & St Anne's starts with a long par 3. Most architects these days would avoid that, maybe even if the land presented them with the oportunity to build a great long one shotter.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,

I'd be curious to learn if there was a pattern to the holes on which Ross and others placed top-shot bunkers.

Were they primarily par 4's or primarily par 5's ?
And, was there any similarity in these holes that had top-shot bunkers.

The same for cross bunkers, and many other features.

Will a study of their collective works reveal a pattern, a tendency that might have been a conscious or subconscious predisposition on their part with respect to design, routing and features.

The question has merit once you overcome and understand the word "BIAS' in the context of this thread.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
Your response to the question ..."what predispositons do you think the Golden Age architects were unaware of?"  
was, in part: ....."Template holes by CBM, SR and CB,...

Do you believe that?

[ian]

Are they biased....NO! No architect is biased

Do they have preferences? Now that's a better question.
My favourite architect has a written preference on what he likes to start with, but I have seen long 5's, short 5's, long fours, mid fours, and a shortish fours all as openers.

Knowing this I can't answer your question because I don't understand what you want from that information.

Ask your question differently or explain what you would like to know.

[SPDB]

TEPaul,

It's not a crime to admit that you don't have anythiing meaningful to contribute  

SPDB,

Yes, but what are those tendencies, those biases that you see or detect ?

Pat, I, too, am uncertain what this thread is about. The subject seems to indicate that you are curious if architects are biased. I think every person is biased or has preferences. Its human nature.

Are you simply looking for features which characterizes an architect's design? or themes that run like a current throughout their bodies of work? The questions you pose are a little misleading (or perhaps overly stigmatized because everybody is a little gun shy when seeing BIAS in a Mucci thread), or simply unclear.

[TEPaul]

SPDB:

I agree with you that Pat Mucci should probably use the word preference in this thread instead of bias.

He asks a question about Ross and his "top shot" or "fore" bunkers. On my course (1916) Ross had "top shot" bunkers on up to 11 out of 18 holes. On most of the other holes he didn't use them perhaps because there were other things (natural) where they might have been.

Why was Ross so inclined to use the "top shot" bunker (a bunker pattern app. 100 yds off tees)?

1. Some say Ross hated topped shots because they were poor shots that tended to run out on firm ground to where a good tee shot might go.

2. Some say it was to give the weaker player some challenge and interest (as Ross really was what might be considered Golf's "democratic" architect!).

3. Some say they were there because Ross was an economical/cost conscious architect and "top shot" bunkers were a way of Ross construction crews getting fill near areas they needed fill--eg tees!!

The reality of Ross's "top shot" bunkers was probably a little of all three of those reasons!  

[paul cowley]

...are architects biased ?

    no.

   do they know it ?

   no.

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

As Mark Fine pointed out, the philosophies in Flynn's writing were not absolutes.  How can you ignore the evidence that Flynn did use concealed bunkers on certain kinds of terrain when you say that he abhorred them?

Most architects did not have enough writing to make any worthwhile conjecture about what they knew or did not know about their propensities or preferences (I, like SPDB and Tom Paul prefer these terms rather than bias).  Rather than consider what they knew of these preferences, let's stick to conducting just the type of exercise you initiated here with Ross and his top shot bunkers.

This kind of analysis is very informative.  Where there is writing such as the quotes Mark fine's posted in combination with a study of on the ground work, we are getting into something quite revealing.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
One thing I am certain of is that Flynn's design philosophies would have been different had he spent time in the British Isles.  Can anyone name an architect who visited and studied the classic links and great inland courses over there and wasn't influenced?  I don't think so.  Did this exposure result in a bias or strong opinions on golf course architecture for some architects - absolutely.  

As most of us know, you'll never look at a golf course in the U.S. in the same manner once you've spent time playing and studying the "real" golf courses in Scotland, England and Ireland.  

Mark

[Michael Moore]

Mr. Mucci -

"The collective unconscious is a part of the psyche which can be negatively distinguished from a personal unconscious by the fact that is does not, like the latter, owe its existence to personal experience and consequently is not a personal acquisition. " - Carl Jung

All architects are gripped by certain mythological forms, including:

18 holes

grass

par 3, 4 and 5

and, most interestingly, sand bunkers

[wsmorrison]

Mark,
Although Flynn never did go to the UK to visit the storied links and heathland courses, he certainly spoke at great length and studied documents and drawings with Wilson, Macdonald, Crump, Travis and others that went over.  We have documentation that Flynn spoke with Alison and corresponded with Colt so he must have been pretty well up to speed regarding design concepts and course conditioning in the UK.  As a matter of fact on at least one occasion Colt contacted Hugh Wilson for agronomic advise.  Collaborating with Fownes, Tillinghast, and Thomas probably gave Flynn as good an education as needed witness his designs for Atlantic City CC, Shinnecock, Kittansett, Boca Raton, and other designs sympathetic with links.  His work at TCC in Brookline and others show he learned a thing or two about parkland courses as well all this with only having visited Cuba and perhaps Canada outside the USofA.

[Dan Herrmann]

Did you see Peter Jacobsen's quote in Golf Magazine this month?  Paraphrasing - "I (Peter) feel that my architectural firm is doing the best work out there today...."  

Shouldn't an architect be biased?  To me, a great golf course is a work of art, the same way traditional building-centered architecture is art.   And what artist isn't biased to his/her own genre and their own work.

It doesn't mean they can't appreciate other works of art, but their own is "their baby"....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Can't help but jump in.  I don't know why Pat phrases questions in such a way as to take a good topic, and yet inflame people at the same time!

Here in Texas, there is a saying that "After wrestling with a pig in mud for a while, you begin to realize that he just actually likes it" or something to that effect.  Perhaps the same applies here!

Am I biased, or do I just do things that I know work?  As Dan notes, a golf course is a work of art, and has no predefined limits as to what constitutes good art.  

However, it is also very much a practical thing.  If I don't put a par 3 first (although I have designed a few par 3 10th holes to fit the land) it's because I know it will back up play unnacceptably to a course owner hoping to make a profit, or even because I know golfers really don't like it, and they don't like slow play, either.  So, its a real life solution to a very real problem.

In fact, I think it is Pat who argues often that many conventions in golf design are simply things that have proven to work well or be popular, which is my opinion, too.  However, golf courses are also a little like pop culture, in that we are also looking for the "next big thing" constantly.

As an architect, I have to balance out the "knowns" versus the new things to keep design fresh, while not going away from the basic principles that have given me whatever success I've  had.  No question most of us lean to the knowns on 12-15 holes, and only spice a design up with 3  - 6 radical ideas (for us) per course.  In that way, our designs evolve as golfers preferences change.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()