[henrye]

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.

Exactly!  Doesn't almost every good architect do this?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I do think that rankings and such are too heavily influenced by the outside factors.

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.  
Agreed.[/color]

You enjoy the beauty of different landscapes and vegetation and how golf is adapted to those environments.  
Agreed.[/color]

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, I think you have to seperate or bifurcate the disciplines.

I don't always visit and play a golf course for the same reasons.

On my last visit to Seminole I had little interest in studying the architecture.  I was there for one primary reason.... to play competitive golf and not to look at bunkers, the juxtaposition of the features, pitch of the greens, elevations, construction, etc., etc., but to play golf as well as I could under competitive situations.

Other times, my interest in my score isn't the primary reason I'm there, rather, I'm there to study the features and how they interface with my play.  To examine the architecture, hole by hole, feature by feature without any regard for anything that resides outside the boundaries of play.
Do I know what's there, sure, but, it's not my focus.

Again, Seminole would be a good example.
I'm particularly enamored with Ross's treatment of the holes and green sites along the ocean, and along the primary dune, much as I was intriqued by your use of the ocean at Pacific Dunes.

On some holes you play TO the ocean, on others you play along the ocean.  Ross did the same thing at Seminole.

I'm intriqued by the 13th and 17th holes at Seminole, much the same as I'm intriqued by the 10th and 11th holes at Pacific Dunes.  All holes are par 3's, but their design and orientation to the ocean is dramatically different.

Ask me if I care about that during the course of competitive play.   I don't.

My point to Tom Huckaby was that when I'm evaluating a golf course, from an architectural perspective, I'm not unduly swayed by elements removed from the golf course, be it windmills, oceans or cattle.  I"m more focused on the details in the ground with allowance for the influence added by the wind.

When I'm playing golf in a casual setting I'm keenly aware of everything, from the gingersnap cookies to the salt water pool to the flagpole and the tournament boards in the locker room, but, when I'm there for a competition, my focus is narrowed to my warm up routine, the challenge presented by the golf course, my play and score.
 
And when I'm there to study the architecture the collateral issues or distractions are deeply discounted, even if the food is great and the waitress gorgeous.

View my perspectives in the context of compartmentilization.
I think it makes them easier to understand.

You can have the most beautiful vistas in the world, but, if the core values of the architecture are inferior, the golf course will fail in a comparitive environment and under the weight of its own inadequacies.

Wasn't there a thread accompanied by pictures of Trump Los Angeles, where people stated that the views were breathtaking but the golf course mediocre at best ?

Isn't that the same ocean that sits beside Pacific Dunes, Bandon Dunes, Bandon Trails, Pebble Beach and Cypress Point ?
And, doesn't Torrey Pines, which everyone was so critical of sit beside the same Ocean ?  

Pelican Hills ?  Bodega Harbor ?

Then again, I recall a thread about The Bridge and the magnificent views of Peconic Bay.  Doesn't NGLA and Sebonack have views of that same Bay ?

Should I judge all of those courses by the commonality of their surroundings ?  Or their inherent architectural values ?

I'm not saying that views shouldn't be recognized or even appreciated, just that they're not at the core of architectural values and merit when it comes to the analysis of a golf course.  

It's in the dirt and how it affects your golf ball, not in the vistas.[/color]

[David Ober]

It's in the dirt and how it affects your golf ball, not in the vistas.[/b][/color]

No, it's in both the dirt AND the vistas, and no amount of green-colored rhapsodizing will change my opinion of that.

Not that you were talking to me.

[A_Clay_Man]

David - Are you a magazine rater?

Is that really fair to designs close to population centers? Power line nines, condo encroached etc.

[Joe Hancock]

Could it be simply, that some sites are better than others?

Joe

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

I understand all of what you reply to Tom Doak.  The fact you CONTINUE to miss the point is getting to be rather strange.  I know you're a smart guy.  I trust your opinions implicitly.  But you're making rocket science out of a concept that cave-men could have handled.  

What you call "vistas" still don't get a ZERO value in any assessment of a golf course[/b].

If you want to limit the assessment of golf courses to their ARCHITECTURE, then that's just fine.  Every word you say about that to Tom Doak is rock-solid and unassailable.

BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT!

The point remains that golf courses simply aren't limited to their "architecture."

Like David says, you can color this however you want, that fact is never going to change.

So your problem seems to remain - god knows why - that you want to limit golf course evaluation to how you do it - that is, from an architectural perspective.  Tom Doak has shown how "vistas" matter even in that context.  But ok, let's say for the sake of argument he's full of shit and you who just play the game are correct.  

The fact remains that golf courses simply cannot be limited to their "architecture."  If any golfer sees it and feels it in the playing of the course, it matters.  And remember once again, I'm not asking how MUCH it matters - not in the main point anyway, that's a separate issue - but just pointing out that there's no way it cannot matter AT ALL.


Adam:  Why does it matter if David's a magazine rater or not?  This could lead to some fightin' words...  
And hell yes this is "unfair" to GOLF COURSES closer to population centers, given their generally lesser esthetics.  If you want to assess "design" then such would matter only in the skill in the designer in hiding those poor esthetics - as Tom Doak stated was a large part of what they try to do.   But I guess you, like Patrick, know a hell of a lot more than he does.     If you want to assess the overall quality of a golf course, then yes, a course next to condos and smoke stacks and factories is always going to have a strike against it.  Not that such strike can't be overcome, but to deny that it EXISTS just again seems so silly to me.  The whole key here is that once again, designs are one thing, GOLF COURSES are another.

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom H-I will admit you are RIGHT, under one condition.

You have to also admit that you being RIGHT leads to a dilution in quality, a homoginization of the art leading to a commercialsm that should never be confused with great.

Why does Saleri keep coming to mind?

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom H-I will admit you are RIGHT, under one condition.

You have to also admit that you being RIGHT leads to a dilution in quality, a homoginization of the art leading to a commercialsm that should never be confused with great.

Why does Saleri keep coming to mind?

Adam, that is certainly a negative effect of TOO MUCH emphasis being placed on non-architectural issues in the development of a golf course.

But that's never what I asked.

I asked about this really in the context of evaluations of ALL golf courses, including those that have been there for ages.

But that is a good point.

So is my 5% too much?

 

[David Ober]

David - Are you a magazine rater?

Is that really fair to designs close to population centers? Power line nines, condo encroached etc.

No, I'm a golfer.

[Tom Huckaby]

David - as am I.

Adam seems to think one can't be both, though.

 

[A_Clay_Man]

I asked David Ober a question. You read into it my entire philosophy? Or what I think? I'm sorry but this is getting ridiculous. Five percent my ass!

Ya know what Huck, you have injected so many assumptions in your recent diatribes, on what constitutes great GCA, even proclaiming your right, or you won. I have a wild idea you have been kidnapped by Matt Ward. The similarity to his position on conditionng, and yours on vistas along with other collateral influences, is remarkably inconsistent.

 At least Patrick's and my approach, to attempt compartmentalize, is consistent.

[Tom Huckaby]

Adam:

My apologies for that, if I read an implication into it that was too great.  But you tell me then, why did you ask David if he was a magazine rater?

And I have not injected any assumptions at all into this about what constitutes great golf course architecture.  I believe I've made clear all along that I am not asking about "architecture" at all - I am asking how best to assess golf courses.

As for proclaiming I'm right and I won, well... Mucci gets very little of that - and it was meant to be all in good fun.  Yes that is Wardian.  But I also thought you guys could take a joke.

 

I asked what I thought would be a simple question.  That is, is architecture all there is.  

I see no inconsistencies in anything I've stated here.  'Tis you who have continually taken this to rather bizarre levels, asking about curtains at dances and the like.  But I CAN take a joke, and did so, and remain smiling.  Are you?

 

In any case, I am pleased you finally did see the logic behind all of this, as you agreed with me a few posts ago.  All the rest is more grist for the mill if you like, or we can just leave it at this.

But again, I apologize for taking your implications too far.  But gee, you just did NONE of that to me through this....

 

[Tom Huckaby]

One more thing - good lord if I've made diatribes here, what has my friend Patrick done?

 

[Tom Huckaby]

I just thought of something else... something that might be causing the whole disconnect between us....

When I say "how to assess golf courses" I sure as hell don't mean in the magazine context alone.  For that, I do what the magazine tells me.  We can and have argued which system is better, which incorporates what matters more, etc.

BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT I MEAN HERE.

I mean assessing golf courses just for what they are, for what they mean to you, for what anyone wants to call great - completely outside the magazine context - that is, as a golfer.

Perhaps that helps?

TH

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom- I will do you the favor of answering why I asked David. It was his post that basically said he liked evalating G.Cs his way and would never change his mind.

Here is the only reason why the GCA matters and collateral does not. FOR ME, it is in the replaying. Courses without compelling GCA, marketing their aeshteic value, will NOT stand the test of MY time.

I dont beleve I have an agenda to sway you or anyone i'm right. I'm much more interested in just proving you'all wrong. Is that smiling enough?

[David Ober]

Tom- I will do you the favor of answering why I asked David. It was his post that basically said he liked evalating G.Cs his way and would never change his mind.

Here is the only reason why the GCA matters and collateral does not. FOR ME, it is in the replaying. Courses without compelling GCA, marketing their aeshteic value, will NOT stand the test of MY time.

I dont beleve I have an agenda to sway you or anyone i'm right. I'm much more interested in just proving you'all wrong. Is that smiling enough?

What does how a golf course markets itself have to do with anything? Does how a course markets itself influence how you rate your experience there?

I'm interested in my actual experience at each golf course I play (and re-play), not the experience that was "marketed" to me.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom- I will do you the favor of answering why I asked David. It was his post that basically said he liked evalating G.Cs his way and would never change his mind.

Here is the only reason why the GCA matters and collateral does not. FOR ME, it is in the replaying. Courses without compelling GCA, marketing their aeshteic value, will NOT stand the test of MY time.

I dont beleve I have an agenda to sway you or anyone i'm right. I'm much more interested in just proving you'all wrong. Is that smiling enough?

Very well, and understood.

These are separate issues from what I was asking, for sure.  But more importantly I'm happy we're both smiling.  

And they are very relevant issues, nonetheless.

TH

[Tom_Doak]

These issues cannot be separated entirely no matter how much you try.  Subconsciously, the effect of the location of the green and the background of the hole has an effect on how you visualize your shots and how you play them.

Take a green where you cannot see anything beyond the green ... say the 12th at Stone Eagle, which is a downhill par 3.  First of all, the green sits between two natural rock features, so it's in a saddle which feels comfortable; it's a big green with bunkers around it, because if the members don't hit a perfect shot we don't want them to have to take a penalty stroke; and you can also see the whole green because of the elevated tee.  So all of those factors make the hole play somewhat easy.  

We did leave a decent area for chipping and recovery play beyond the green, but we made a point to not show it from the tee, so that the profile of the green is all you see against the rocks way in back ... so that players would be a little scared about hitting their shot deep through the green.  That visual is VERY important to how boldly people attack the hole.

There are also some houses off-property way back behind the green, and we were careful to orient the tee and green and use the elevations to minimize that distraction, knowing how these panelist types hate to see any houses around a golf course.  

This is just one example of a way to use the background of a hole for different purposes.  Another:  Dr. MacKenzie built a big mound with a bunker in it at the back of the 17th green at Cypress Point, so it wouldn't be quite so scary.  I would have done my best not to build anything "up" behind that green so you could see on down the coast toward Big Sur through the putting surface.  We did that a lot at Cape Kidnappers, too.

[henrye]

If you want to limit the assessment of golf courses to their ARCHITECTURE, then that's just fine.  Every word you say about that to Tom Doak is rock-solid and unassailable.

No it's not and Tom Doak has again pointed out why.  Surely this isn't that difficult to understand.  Tom, this summer you played Banff.  Thompson routed that course to take advantage of a number of distant visuals.  Most would concur he did a great job.  Is routing not part of GCA?

[Tom Huckaby]

Henry:

OK, that part is assailable.  Works for me.  I was just trying to be nice to the poor Golden Domer as he's getting beaten to a pulp here, logic-wise... but that shit-giving comment aside, I really just wanted him to see my main, very simple point, which he continually misses.

Please understand that my point all along has been that visuals matter, PERIOD.  How they work in with "architecture" has not been my point here, although obviously Tom Doak is correct.

Pat would play Banff and never notice the mountains at all.  Kinda sad, isn't it?

Here's the one picture I took during my entire afternoon there.  It sure as hell wasn't for the quality of the practice green.  So sad Pat would notice nothing above my son's head, that is if he even noticed the little split-gripper at all:



TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

Perhaps it's a matter of what we're trying to extract or better yet, distill and filter when it comes to architecture.

Yes, I see the mountains, but, if the holes where they come into view are lousy all the window dressing in the world won't improve them.

You can attempt to make a case that if the mountains were replaced by condo's that the architecture would be compromised, but then, I"d refer you to # 17 at TOC.

Let's get Tommy Naccarato involved.
If the 7th hole at Sandpines had those mountains behind the green would it alter his architectural assessment of the hole ?

If instead of oblique dunes, the Pacific Ocean was off to the left, would that change his opinion ?

Window dressing has no impact on the play of the hole, only the WOW factor.

I'll accept a Doak caveat that the backround, vis a vis # 13 at Pacific Dunes can have an impact on the play of the hole, as a fear factor is created by the LACK of a backround, thus depriving the golfer of a mental safety net.

As Jim Kennedy pointed out, I think that's inherent in island or skyline type greens.

Dave Ober,

Tom Huckaby's barbs are in good fun.
We understand each other and enjoy the joust.

Lastly, my father taught me a long time ago that it's important in any negotiation or debate to make the other guy feel as if he's won.  Just agree with and humor him.

[Tom Huckaby]

Lastly, my father taught me a long time ago that it's important in any negotiation or debate to make the other guy feel as if he's won.  Just agree with and humor him.

And just what do you think I've been doing off an on here?  

As for the rest, this statement is illustrative at how you miss a very simple concept, while retaining your impressive astuteness about "architecture":

"You can attempt to make a case that if the mountains were replaced by condo's that the architecture would be compromised, but then, I"d refer you to # 17 at TOC.

You keep using that term ARCHITECTURE when I am not talking about it at all, I am talking about GOLF COURSES.

So I'd never make such statement at all.  Cover those mountains with condos and the architecture wouldn't have changed a whit.  Yes.  Agreed.  Concur.

But the GOLF HOLE[/b] would be at least a bit worse.

And I'd question the architect for aiming a hole at such an awful view - IF other great views were available - that would be a routing issue, no?

In any case the fact you continue to fail to grasp this very basic concept that architecture is not ALL that makes up a golf course is getting to be very, very strange.

And heck, I'm even willing to grant you a HUGE benefit of the doubt re how what you call "window dressing" plays into architecture.  Doak has shown you how it does; you can buy that or not.  That's not my point here at all.

My sole and only point all along is that what you call window dressing does matter in the assessment of the greatness of a golf hole.

And the whole world can see this except you.  Hell even Adam Clayman eventually saw the logic.

As for the rest, we will just have to agree to disagree on how it effects playability.  Doak has shown you has that can work also in the negative; ie the lack of view.  I'm here to tell you great views can inspire (7 Pebble), awesome views can make the knees shake  (16 Cypress).  In each case - FOR ME - the window dressing effected my shot.  One positive, one negative.  If such don't for you, well I'd say that's kinda sad, but hell that's what makes you a great competitive golfer.  Just don't deny it can happen for other golfers.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lastly, my father taught me a long time ago that it's important in any negotiation or debate to make the other guy feel as if he's won.  Just agree with and humor him.

And just what do you think I've been doing off an on here?  
Is that why you keep repeating that you've won ?[/color]

As for the rest, this statement is illustrative at how you miss a very simple concept, while retaining your impressive astuteness about "architecture":

You keep using that term ARCHITECTURE when I am not talking about it at all, I am talking about GOLF COURSES.
No, you're not, you're talking about features outside of the boundaries of the golf course.[/color]

So I'd never make such statement at all.  Cover those mountains with condos and the architecture wouldn't have changed a whit.  Yes.  Agreed.  Concur.

But the GOLF HOLE[/b] would be at least a bit worse.

The golf hole would remain static, only its outside surroundings would have changed.[/color]

And I'd question the architect for aiming a hole at such an awful view - IF other great views were available - that would be a routing issue, no?

No.
From my recollection hills and mountains preceded condos.[/color]

My sole and only point all along is that what you call window dressing does matter in the assessment of the greatness of a golf hole.

And I disagree.
If Peconic Bay had oil platforms sprinkled about the architectural integrity and the greatness of the 17th and 18th holes at NGLA would remain unchanged.[/color]

And the whole world can see this except you.  Hell even Adam Clayman eventually saw the logic.

So the Nielsen ratings determine the quality and merit of the show ?[/color]

As for the rest, we will just have to agree to disagree on how it effects playability.  Doak has shown you has that can work also in the negative; ie the lack of view.  I'm here to tell you great views can inspire (7 Pebble), awesome views can make the knees shake  (16 Cypress).  In each case - FOR ME - the window dressing effected my shot.  One positive, one negative.  If such don't for you, well I'd say that's kinda sad, but hell that's what makes you a great competitive golfer.  Just don't deny it can happen for other golfers.

You just don't understand what you're looking at.

Your knees shake at # 16 at CPC because the architect designed a hole and configured the features such that you have to carry a difficult hazard which is an integral component of the hole.

The same with # 7 at PB, from an elevated tee, buffeted by wind the architect created a small target surrounded by a hazard.

Is # 7 at PB that much different from # 17 at SH from the top tee, other than length ?

In the picture of your son, when playing the golf course, after the initial WOW wears off, the mountains become a blur, like the sky on any other golf course.

The same applies to the ocean or a large lake.

It's the distracting WOW factor that grabs your eye while the static golf hole, the one with the green grass, bunkers, tees and greens, which you've seen a million times remains in the unnoticed in your view of the grand features surrounding you.
UNTIL, you have to play the hole.
And then, it is only the architectural merit of that hole that determines it's worth.

When we played our match I didn't notice you drinking in the vistas or commenting on the beauty of the land, the backdrops, etc., etc..  You were focused on each golf hole, each shot at hand, with total disregard to your surroundings, and, I'd dare say, that as each day went by, you noticed your surroundings less and less.

But, I'll bet you were keenly aware of the elevated nature of the 4th green, the hill to the left, the bunker front left and the fall away feature to the right.

Your eyes were focused on the golf course and how you could best devise and execute a plan to best it.

How come you chose to play another nine late one day instead of sitting up on Ben's porch to look at the vistas ?

Is is because you had seen them all before ?
Is it that there was a sameness to the backdrop ?
OR, was it because you wanted to interface with the architecture in the ground some more ?

I think the difference in our approach to evaluating golf courses is that I notice the surroundings, you focus and fixate on them.  [/color]

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick, Patrick, Patrick.

I appreciate the lengthy response.

But you still miss the point.

No, I don't fixate on surroundings - not unless you consider the 5% value I've stated at least a dozen times to be fixation - I just acknowledge they exist.  And if you really believe I was that focused on the competitive aspects of the match against you, to the extent that I forgot where I was and what was around me, then you have a GREATLY enlarged impression of the importance to me of that match.

Which of course I also believe.  

As for why the knees shake on 16 Cypress and why one might be inspired to greatness on 7 Pebble, well your explanation is how it works for soul-less, hypercompetitive YOU;  just please don't come close to assuming that's how it works for those of us more attuned to the spritual nature of the game. You are so far off on that, it really does make me kinda sad.  You are missing so much this game has to offer...

Your question as to why I went and played what Sand Hills regulars call a "church nine" so completely reveals your ignorance that I really need say nothing more.  Oh yeah, that was all about the playing of more golf holes, nothing more.  Sure it was.

Patrick - of course golf remains in the playing - I've said that many, many times and in fact chide those who walk around golf courses without their sticks in their "study" of the courses.  I could never do that.  The hitting of the shots - what you call "interfacing with architecture" is indeed the largest part of playing the game.  It's just NOT 100%, all of what is involved in golf.  

The reason I went out and played that extra nine really did reverse the roles - it was 95% sprituality, 5% hitting the shots.  I damn near did leave the clubs at the Porch.  But that 5% was as necessary and real as the 5% of what you would call extraneous is when I'm playing a normal round.  In any case, you all said you were watching me through the binoculars - you didn't notice me sit behind 2 green for a good 5 minutes, just soaking things in, my gaze looking OUTWARD?  Yep, that was all about hitting the shots.  Mm-hmm.  

I don't expect you to come close to understanding this.  But then I would never expect you to leave the Porch to play a late Church Nine, either.

Ok, so you say Potato, Tom Doak and I say potahto.  It's just about time to call the whole thing off.

You remain completely wrong, though.  All that one can see and feel while playing a golf hole is indeed part of that golf hole.  The same goes for courses.  You can deny this, explain it away, try to redefine it, whatever.  It's just never going to change this very basic truth.

For me anyway.

And I remain saddened your focus blinds you to this - for your sake.  I shall pray for your golfing soul.

 

[David Ober]

As for why the knees shake on 16 Cypress and why one might be inspired to greatness on 7 Pebble, well your explanation is how it works for soul-less, hypercompetitive YOU, just please don't come close to assuming that's how it works for those of us more attuned to the spritual nature of the game.

His competitiveness has nothing to do with this discussion. Being a tournament level player and allowing the surroundings of a golf course affect your enjoyment/rating of a golf course are not mutually exclusive.

It may be a reason that he gives for not caring about the surroundings (Is it?), but if it is one of his reasons, that would in no way mean that other competitive golfers don't feel differently.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()