Well, one thing has happened in the last page of so... you guys quit talking about Sand Hills v Pine Valley -, which is superior architecture?  Maybe, somehow it is sinking in that particular discussion is a non starter.  They aren't anything alike to evaluated in terms of architecture of designed features, nor routing methodology.  I'm glad we cleared that up..    

except for George being a faster typer than I.  

Slag,

Architecture is a perfectly good word for golf course design if we are all defining concepts similarly.  For the sake of my discussion, I defined architecture as the man made features used on a golf course.  I was consistent throughout my comments in its use.  Others misapplied the definition.

For the last time, I am not saying what you are implying.  In a comparison of two great courses (Pine Valley and Sand Hills) I appreciate the architectural work that made PV great a bit more so than the work involved to make Sand Hills great.  In choosing the superior architecture between two great courses where one has a lot of architecture and the other very little, I cannot see how this is a troublesome concept.

I endorse naturalism and minimalism more so than the manufactured.   Naturalism is what made MacKenzie, Flynn, Thomas and others so different and so much better than their predecessors.  However, my comment was related to two specific courses and not a general statement yet others chose to extrapolate my specific comment about two courses into a comment about all courses.  I don't know why, but they did.  Please don't misunderstand my specific yet simple concept nor look for any unified theory.  It related to Sand Hills and Pine Valley.

Tom,

I agree that golf course architecture incorporates nature and should mimic nature where man-made must take place.  Naturalism is its highest expression.

"But, if I were to agree with your definition, I still don't see how you find more "architecture" at Shinnecock than at Pine Valley.  Pine Valley was a huge construction project that took years to complete.  Very little of it is natural; I think more of the fairway shapes at Shinnecock are natural."

I totally agree with you.  I never said that Shinnecock Hills had more architecture than Pine Valley.  I believe Pine Valley has more.  What I said was Sand Hills has so much less architecture than Pine Valley.  Earlier references to SH refers to Sand Hills not Shinnecock Hills.  Sorry for the confusion.

I did say that at Shinnecock Hills, where there are less natural features (the flat portions) there is more architecture, namely manufactured undulating sandy waste and bunkers.  Where there is more topographic movement, there is far less architecture.

Wayne,
I think I understand how you define golf “architecture”.  Only "man made" features fit your definition and that is fine but I don’t agree with it.  I’m not sure what Tom Doak agrees and doesn’t agree with but based on his last comment about which course has “more architecture”, I don’t necessarily agree with him either.  If all you are both talking about is which courses have more “man made” features, then just say it that way and be done with it but I'm still not sure how (or why) you would tally that up  

By Wayne’s definition, a natural stream running through a property is NOT part of the architecture.  I think that is very shortsighted because even if the architect doesn’t physically touch that stream, his use of it in angles of play, etc. can dramatically influence the quality and interest of the golf course.  The same goes for a natural hummock or hollow or sand blowout or a back drop,…etc.  They all can play very differently based on the vision of the architect (where he sets a tee, how he orients and positions their location for different golf shots) and so on.  All of this combined is “golf architecture” in my opinion.  Doesn't the architect get any credit for his creativity, etc when you tally up which course has more or superior "architecture"?  And what good or purpose does it serve to try and separate?  

Furthermore, even if you accept Wayne’s definition of "superior architecture", why does it only apply to PV and SH?   That is really where you are confusing people even further.  Why can't you use your definition to compare the man made features on any course to that of another?  

I apologize for dragging on this thread  
Mark

Tom,
You said, "Okay, we seem to agree on everything now."

I didn't realize you were being facetious.  

Let's end this thread, PLEASE!
Mark

On the other hand, the point that Tom Doak makes that "architecture" in golf does not necessarily have to be actually and physically "built" to pass as architecture is a good one and seemingly undeniable.

If it were not so then the basic routing of a golf course, which, preconstruction, can be nothing more than a plan on paper and on the preexisting ground and therefore not physically "built" on the ground, would not pass as architecture. And I think it really would be a stretch to not include a golf course's basic routing as part of the course's architecture.

There are some, including some golf course architects who do make a distinction between the words "design" or "designer" and "architecture" or "architect" even though they may make that distinction in the context of salesmanhip or a sales pitch.

I once had some representative from the Fream Company tell me I did not want to hire Coore and Crenshaw because they were only "designers" and not "architects" like Fream & Co. was.

That's the point, years ago, when I first came to understand the absurdity of the way these types of words and their definitions are used or can be used.

Wayne,
Just so you know, I was not even thinking at all about the Cascades, never mentioned it in any of my posts, nor was I trying to figure out what was built vs. found.  My reference to a stream was just an example and it could be any stream.  If I was thinking of one, it might have been Lehigh's.  I don't think Flynn manipulated that one but his architectural use of it was brilliant and it is clearly part of the golf architecture  

Wayne:

I understood your definition of architecture as the quantity of work/design needed to create a golf hole/course.  I did not understand you to say that because there was more architecture at one course versus another that one would automatically be a better or lesser course simply because of that.

Using your definition I would suggest that employing more architecture than is necessary to create a quality course/hole, is where we differentiate minimalism from other types of architecture.  That is not to say that minimalism is the only answer and is the best answer - it is simply one answer/design.

Allow me to bring up a situation where we get some strong differences of opinion.  In the design and construction of a hole there was a dry creekbed running through it and it was decided to pump water through it for aesthetic reasons.  Does this additonal architecture, which might arguably disqualify the design as minimalism,  automatically diminish the quality of the design/hole?

...
As for Mark Fine's statement that I do not think the use of a natural stream is architecture, it is not.  It is of a design process unless the stream was manipulated, then it would be architectural. ...

I think you would be hard pressed to find any accepted definition of architecture that leaves design out as you just did.

Some of the old dead guys would say you are glorifying builders, not architects.

We accept that it is your definition. However, you must accept that your definition disagrees with the vast consensus on what the definition of architecture is.

I think Wayne and I basically use the very same definition of architecture as something that is actually built or designed and built by a golf course architect.

So what do we call the rest of a golf course?

Well, I guess we just call it natural landforms or natural features or whatever. The reason we make that distinction is because it simply connotes for us what was man-made and what was not.

I really don't care all that much what definitions people want to use in this business---if they want to call everthing that was natural and not really touched by man that's used on golf courses architecture, then fine. Some even include many things in the definition of architecture that frame and backdrop golf courses and golf holes like the Mountains of Mourne at RCD that aren't even on the golf course and over which the golf architect had no control whatsoever other than to line up some of his holes with them in the backdrop.

But I do recognize, that a most important feature of golf architecture---eg routing---is not exactly "built" by the architect either---it's nothing much more than a "plan" outlined on the ground over which golfers will proceed.

At least that's what a completed routing is preconstruction and I guess I'd have a hard time not considering a routing at that point to not be architecture even if it was not, at that point, actually built on the ground---if in fact one could ever even say a routing is actually "built". It was however, designed by the golf course architect across the raw natural landforms before man evn physically altered any of the natural site.

This fact is also why I seem to make a much greater distinction between the routing phase and what I call the "designing up" phase of a routing, a good deal of which is man-made although by no means all of it.

I call the "designing up" phase a process in which the architect builds things (architecture) and just uses other preexisting things, natural things and otherwise as they were before a course was planned on that site.

To me this thread is not really some philosophical misunderstanding about what golf course architecture is, it's merely an argument over the definition of a word, in my opinion.

If people want Wayne or me to make the distinction we do by calling man-made architecture "man-made architecture" and the rest "non-man-made architecture" or "naturally occuring architecture" that would be just fine by me.  

I guess another way of looking at it is that Wayne and I just do not call everything that is on or part of a golf course architecture.

But obviously some do call everything architecture.

Wayne and I probably just felt that if you do that then how do you try to distinguish between and then define what is naturally occuring vs what is actually man-made on a golf course?

Well, on second thought, after all this, I think I'm going to start making a distinction between golf course "architecture" and golf course "design".  

Jeez, what's wrong with you Philly area people?

From my Webster's NewWorld Dictionary

architecture .. 1. the science, art, or profession of designing and constructing ...

emphasis added

Garland:

Wayne's point, and my point, is, we feel, something that almost everyone on here knows precisely what we mean by the way we use the word "architecture"---eg in a golf architecture context.

If some on here just wants to argue technical dictionary definitions then I can only tell you, I, for one, am not interested.