[Tom Huckaby]

Kyle - apologies for blowing past the skyscraper point.

I understand what you're getting at there, and while there might be sites of golf courses definitely chosen for the views they provide (Cape Kidnappers?), well that's not the first reason to build a golf course, for sure.

This gets back to the proportionality of all of this.  Way way way back, I set for Pat at FIVE PERCENT the value I give to these views, in an assessment of a golf course.  Jay Flemma seemed to put it at 33%, in a post I dragged from another thread.  In any case, you want to talk funny?  Pat and I did all this arguing over 5%.

 

So might not 5% of the decision to build a skyscraper as high as it goes be for the views it provides?  Hell if I know.  I just do believe firmly that 5% is not too great a value to give to views extending out from the golf course.  My issue is with those like Pat who would seem to put this at zero.

And of course, these views aren't ALL I mean when I try to fit under Pat's definition of "collateral issues" - but this is enough to respond to your skyscraper analogy.

TH

[Kyle Harris]

Tom,

I think Pat's point (valid, IMO) is analogous to defending a skyscraper collapsing by saying it provided splendid views. The view means nothing if the building won't stand.

The view only starts to enter in if the architecture itself is sound.

[David Ober]

Gents, I really didn't mean to pick on Patrick - hell if I want to know how to play a golf hole and why it works or it doesn't, I can think of no greater expert to ask than the esteemed Golden Domer.  In fact if I ever have a huge money match, there is NO ONE I'd want more on my side, either as playing partner, coach, caddie, whatever.

 

My question is more to the general:  how do the rest of you make your assessments of golf courses?  Is it really architecture/play and nothing else matters at all?

That to me has always seemed odd.  But I'm also not insisting I am "right" in my consideration of "collateral matters".  My aim here is not to make any point, but to be educated.

TH

To me, they all figure significantly, though playability and the interestingness/fairness ratio are more important than the setting and aesthetics.

Of those on the board, though, I would probably say I give more weight to setting and aesthetics than most.

[Tom Huckaby]

Kyle:

Ok, whatever you say.  Of course the first thing is that the golf course "work" - but of course I've also acknowledged that many times, and in fact placed a defined value on these "collateral issues" - five percent.

So none of that changes the fact that views and "collateral issues" matter at least a little in the assessment of a golf course.  But we've now taken this to painting and buildings... are cars or music next?

This really need not be rocket science.  See my post to Sean Arble. Once again:


If one wants to define architecture very narrowly and eliminate those views, and then evaluate the architecture without them, that remains just fine.  Just don't use that evaluation to assess the totality of the greatness of the golf course, that's all.


David:  there are some here who would put the weight of setting and aestethics at ZERO, and defend this by saying such are not part of the "architecture."  To which I'd actually agree, but then counterpoint with the part in italics above.

There, I just saved you 5 pages worth of reading.

 

[David Ober]

HUck, Now who's going to far fetched lengths?

All of that crayon, the big blue pacific, is not visible while playing 90% of that 6th hole. So, your point is not made.

Also, Your litte snipping at Pat on the 17th at SH because he cited the vista, was also a stretch.

I have one question for you Tom...

When you are over the ball, just prior to taking the club back, as you look at your target for that one last time before pulling the trigger, does your periphreal vision see anything going on outside the reduced frame of your focus?

What difference does that make, pray? Golf is as much a game of walking and enjoying the surroundings as it is a game of hitting a ball toward a target. In fact, as we all know, we spend much more time walking and noticing than we do actually preparing for and playing our shots.

I can't believe this conversation is still going on, actually. Aesthetics matter to many, many people. To those of you who think they don't matter, that's fine, but don't argue that your way of viewing golf courses is the "right" way or the "logical" way, because it's not.

FWIW, I would rather play 6 at Pebble than just about any par 5 I have ever played.

[Kyle Harris]

Tom,

I actually found a flaw in my analogy. It boils down to values. I am sure there are a lot of architecturally crappy buildings out there that provide scenic views and make people happy.

For myself: I don't mind a housing development course if the golf in between is sound. Ron Prichard built PineCrest in Montgomeryville, PA as such. There is a good set of greens and some decent golf that is choked off by houses. On the other end, I think Pebble Beach has a lot of architectural merit without the ocean being alongside it, that just adds to an already solid course. At Pebble, I'd imagine that my architectural tooth would be sated, as well as my desire to see beautiful views.

Two seperate things, but both pleasurable.

[Tom Huckaby]

David:  I too find it odd that anyone can argue with this.  But yet they do... and since they are friends, well I try to get them to see the error of their ways.

I too love #6 PB, btw.  I actually prefer it to #14.  Why?  Well did you see that stuff I blacked out of the picture?  Go back a page.  6 has that, 14 doesn't.  Given they are BOTH great golf holes that BOTH play very well (in very different ways), well that stuff in black tips the scale.  Pat would tell us it doesn't matter - I think.  That to me seems very strange.


Kyle - well said, agreed.  My bottom line incredulity remains with those who say these collateral issues don't matter AT ALL.

TH

[A_Clay_Man]

Aesthetics matter to many, many people. To those of you who think they don't matter, that's fine, but don't argue that your way of viewing golf courses is the "right" way or the "logical" way, because it's not.

Who ever presented anything other than a personal opinion or preference?

Aeshthetic visuals matter so much for so many modern desingers they will totaly disregard magnificiant on the ground natural featues, along with an ease of flow, just to take advantage of said vista. It's CRAP.
Crap that is a waste, and I loathe waste. "Wrong" is your term, but if the fu shits?

The fact that a long trail ride is needed to get to the next vista,  and that "flow" falls right into the owner/operators hands, by requiring the use of carts, is what? An addeed bonus?  

[Tom Huckaby]

Adam:

Of course that is a negative in putting too much emphasis on such things.  

But of course that's also not at all what we're talking about.  We're talking about how to assess golf holes and golf courses, and these "collateral issues" will always be just a small part of such assessments.  My question remains how can one put them at zero.  In any case, the prettiest golf hole in the world won't be worth much if the playing characteristics are crap.  Same goes for the flow of the course - if such is ruined to allow for better visuals, then the net is a negative.

But can you say, with a straight face, that you play #6 PB as it is in the 2nd picture I posted?  All that I put in black is black in your mind?

If so, well I feel bad for you, as you miss so much.

 

[A_Clay_Man]

But can you say, with a straight face, that you play #6 PB as it is in the 2nd picture I posted?  All that I put in black is black in your mind?

If so, well I feel bad for you, as you miss so much.

 

Huck, What if your crayon was fog? Then I'd say I already have played the hole that way. Did it diminish the greatness of the hole because I couldn't see the surroundings? No, it did not. Chew on that for a moment, and save the pity for somebody who you have never cited as an expert on PB.

P.s. I meant to mention this so much earlier, but a course like Steve Smeyers Southern Dunes is a perfect exampe of compelling architecture despite the condo surrounds.

[Tom Huckaby]

Adam:

Would you consider the hole just as great as it is if you played it in fog every single time?

I surely wouldn't.  I'd call it 5% less great.  I'd also get tired of the damn fog.

 

And you'll also note I never said fine golf couldn't exist at courses surrounded by houses or other sights less pleasing to the eye.  So I'm not sure what point you make by mentioning Southern Dunes - I'm sure it's great.  The point is it would be greater without the houses, or I should say with more pleasing esthetics.  Say 5% greater.

This isn't rocket science.  Need I post my summation AGAIN?

th

[A_Clay_Man]

C'mon Tom. Now the criteria is fog everyday?

[Tom Huckaby]

Adam:

The necessity is that all factors need to be considered.  Is there fog every single day there?  If so, then that's the how the golf hole is, and we'd assess it as such.

I sure seem to have played it sans fog.

Maybe Scott B. doctored his picture, or I was dreaming.  

BTW, the fact it plays great in the fog is a great testament to its "architecture" and would add into the assessment of it as a great golf hole.

That just also doesn't mean it's surroundings cease to exist - that is, unless it is played every single day in the fog.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Sure, the fun and challenge of putting the ball in the hole probably is one of the reasons why people play golf.

But it isn't necessarily the MAIN reason.

It SURE IS.[/color]

How about enjoying the outdoors?  Exercise?  Fresh air?  Social interaction?  As a pass-time?

You must be kidding.

Exercise, what exercise ? Walking or riding in carts ?
Fresh Air ?   You can get that in your back yard at no cost.
Social interaction ?  A local gin mill provides more social interaction with diversity amongst a larger number of people, hence, greater social interaction.
As a pass time ?  At what expense.[/color]

These are all perfectly good reasons to enjoy the game

NO, you're wrong.  You enjoy the game because you enjoy the fun and challenge of getting the ball from point A to point B in the fewest strokes possible.   The reasons you cite have nothing to do with the play of the game.[/color]  

Who are you to say they are secondary?.

Let's just say I'm the voice of common sense.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam Clayman,

I'm talking about architecture and Tom Huckaby is talking about the experience of playing golf, and Sean Arble doesn't like the spectacular windmill in the picture of the 17th at Sand Hills.

I wonder, how many ships have to be at sea behind # 6 before he doesn't like that hole either ?

[A_Clay_Man]

BTW, the fact it plays great in the fog is a great testament to its "architecture" and would add into the assessment of it as a great golf hole.

I believe this is the best example of what we've wasted endless bandwith with, trying to covince you of.

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

Wow, Patrick.  I don't even know how to respond.......

[Tom Huckaby]

Adam/Patrick:

This hasn't been a waste of bandwith for me.  I care about you two blokes, and your lack of cognititive ability here worries me.

Golfing Man does not live by "architecture" alone.  It just seems absolutely illogical that anyone would assess golf courses based purely on the architecture.  The fact you two can't see this very basic concept understood perfectly by my seven year old son has me worried indeed.

 

You two keep assessing architecture, and pretend you know it as well as those in the business.

Me?  I'll assess golf courses.  As a frequent player, I'm the consumer they ought to try and please, so I can tell them what's what.

TH

ps to each of you:  would Cypress #16 have the same greatness if the ocean were replaced by a toxic waste dump?  The shot wouldn't have changed at all.... And yes, if you put 38 oil tankers going by constantly behind #6 Pebble each day, and/or added in 55 horrid oil platforms, each of the ocean-side holes would be worse.  But I'm sure not for you guys, for whom huge dark walls extend upward from every OB line you ever encounter.  Just how did you get these blinders?  

[A_Clay_Man]

 

Me?  I'll assess golf courses.  As a frequent player, I'm the consumer they ought to try and please, so I can tell them what's what

.

Thomas of Huckabian fame-
If I may be so bold as to suggest that if the daily average consumer is the benchmark for quality, in anything, I'll gladly eat, not only my scorecard but yours too.
Without trying to be pompass, as David Ober intimates, I do believe this distinction is exactly why Ran's Folly has been so succesful. Whether it be conscience or not, there is a component of quality GCA that is not accurately quantifiable.  I usually refer to these as intangibles because they are not clearly evident to even the avid golfer, until he/she makes an effort to understand exactly what is going on in the big world of GCA.

Jus because so many people "like" something, does it imply it's great?No!

Some drink their wine out of a box, but I wouldn't call them sophisticated vintners, would you?

[Tom Huckaby]

Adam:

Er, uh, yeah, whatever.  That was a silly thing for me to say, good point - of course you do take it to levels I sure as hell didn't intend, but well said in any case.

But of course that's MILES from the main point here, which you still cannot deny.


Golfing Man does not live by "architecture" alone.  It just seems absolutely illogical that anyone would assess golf courses based purely on the architecture.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Me?  I'll assess golf courses.  

No, you don't, you assess what lies beyond the border of the golf course.  You assess factors which the architect and the owner have no control.  You assess the ambiance and atmosphere of a restaurant instead of assessing that which you came for, the food.

Like many raters, you like glitz and window dressing, form.
We like substance, what's in the ground.[/color]


ps to each of you:  would Cypress #16 have the same greatness if the ocean were replaced by a toxic waste dump?  

That would depend upon the direction and velocity of the wind.[/color]

The shot wouldn't have changed at all....

Yes, it would.
Without the Pacific Ocean, the wind would be greatly diminished, or isn't the wind a factor when you play golf ?[/color]

And yes, if you put 38 oil tankers going by constantly behind #6 Pebble each day, and/or added in 55 horrid oil platforms, each of the ocean-side holes would be worse.  
How is that different from herds of cattle roaming next to a golf hole ?[/color]

But I'm sure not for you guys, for whom huge dark walls extend upward from every OB line you ever encounter.  

Your tastes are exactly what Trump and other developers appeal to.  Adam and I are more like Clara Peller.[/color]

Just how did you get these blinders?  

They're to keep out the glare and extraneous distractions not relevant to the play of the golf course.[/color]

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

Weakest effort yet.  Come on, you can do much better.  But changing the assumptions in my question re 16 Cypress reveals the fallacies of your arguments better than anything I've ever said.  So thanks for that.  

You assess architecture, I assess golf courses.  I do not play the game blindly, and neither do you.  To continue to deny that such things matter remains foolhardy.

But I guess this means we've taken this as far as we can.  Too bad, it has been very fun.

And I win.

 

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

No, you don't, you assess what lies beyond the border of the golf course. You assess factors which the architect and the owner have no control.  You assess the ambiance and atmosphere of a restaurant instead of assessing that which you came for, the food.

Patrick,

Of course I don't control what lies beyond the borders fo the golf course.  But I control if, how, and when, you'll see it.  That's golf course architecture.

But hey, whatever... In the end, you can enjoy your "Duck à l'orange" on paper plates, at a pic-nic table at the side of the highway, alone and in the rain.  I'll enjoy it in a nice, warm restaurant, with good service, good friends, and a good atmosphere.

Same food.  Not the same meal.  

Bon appétit!

[Tom_Doak]

I do think that rankings and such are too heavily influenced by the outside factors.  I look at my own body of work and it's not hard to see that the three most highly ranked courses are oceanfront venues [all of them open to the public as well] without any housing component; and my other two highly ranked US courses [Stonewall and Lost Dunes] are the most self-contained of private clubs with very limited views to housing outside the boundaries.

By that measure, Stone Eagle and Sebonack and Ballyneal and Rock Creek will all be winners, while Tumble Creek and the Bay of Dreams will fail in the rankings, regardless of how well we did our job or not.

HOWEVER, I do agree 100% with Jeremy that how you utilize the outside factors at your disposal is certainly a big part of the golf architect's job, and I think it definitely should be considered part of the quality of the golf course.  We spend a LOT of our time thinking about that stuff, trying to reduce distractions from the golf experience.

And Patrick, I disagree with you completely.  You travel around the world to see other great courses for reasons other than the placement of the bunkers.  You enjoy the beauty of different landscapes and vegetation and how golf is adapted to those environments.  If you didn't, then there would be no point in traveling, you could just figure out what was the best "golf" course in the world and keep playing that one.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom Doak:

Understand that I made no attempt to connect this to how rankings are done and why.  I concur with you that outside factors likely do have too much effect in the rating/ranking process.  Just note that although Patrick and Adam keep saying that's all I care about, I even quantified for them how it works for me:  5%.  The more I think about it the more that actually might be too low - but that too is not my point in this thread.  My point is that putting such at ZERO as Patrick and Adam seem to want to do is just plain wrong.  Or to say that better, I just can't understand that type of valuing.

In any case, well said.  Just don't expect either of these guys to see the light.  I think they're staying in the darkness now out of the "can't see when I'm wrong" principle!

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()