Well, yes, there's a quantity aspect to this question, too, but it's not just about quantity. At least, I don't think it is. I don't believe anyone is seconding Rhic's example, i.e., the more the better. I think the point is that comparing the quality of golf course architecture becomes difficult if one architect did very little designing on a fabulous site while another had to solve numerous problems on a more difficult site, and yet both came up with great courses. I see that as a question of quality of work.

But I'm also largely in agreement with Huck in that, as a golfer, I don't really care.

How do you know that if Crump had been given Sand Hills to do, he would have restrained himself enough to produce a course of the same quality that C&C did? You don't! Which is to say again, you cannot say one is better than the other simply because man intervened more.

"The Pine Valley golf course literally had to be built to a much greater degree.  While there is a lot of natural features at work, there is much more architecture by definition."

Correct me if I am wrong, but this quote is all about quantity.

If you are having trouble understanding the objections, it is all right there.

Quote from: Garland Bayley on September 17, 2007, 02:21:48 PM

How do you know that if Crump had been given Sand Hills to do, he would have restrained himself enough to produce a course of the same quality that C&C did? You don't! Which is to say again, you cannot say one is better than the other simply because man intervened more.

I never did say that, and neither did Wayne.

I am not sure what "that" refers to.

Not to be too simplistic but does the fact that the quantity of work needed to make one apple pie is greater than that needed to make another apple pie, really have anything to do with which one tastes better - or what if there really is no distinquishable difference in how they taste? Who cares so long as they are both deserving of the blue ribbon at the fair?

AwsHuckster

Some might argue that fully using the land (and if the piece of land is extraordinary you may end up with a Sand Hills scenario) is a reason why they may think one course is better than another.  IE man cannot properly duplicate what nature can provide. For my part, it doesn't matter to me if the archie cut the grass and stuck a pin in the ground - that is still architecture because an archie has to decide what stays and what goes.  Sometimes knowing what not to mess with is more important than what an archie actually builds.

Ciao

One of the greatest bands ever - The Grateful Dead - always said it was more about the notes you don't play than the ones you do. I would venture most people at the highest level of something would say something to that effect. Amateurs tend to try to do much. So, it is great architecture when a team like C&C knows when to leave well enough alone on a site like Sand Hills. I've seen plenty of posts on here about good sites being messed up by bad architecture so an architect knowing what to leave should qualify as good architecture.

Dick, I think I get what you're saying.  Doak took land that wasn't as great as Sand Hills and more or less recreated a Sand Hills-like course.  Given he had to do this creating - and also make it LOOK like he didn't actually do such creating, but that it was natural and always there - and succeeded so mightily at it - this is a greater expression of architectural skill than what C&C did at Sand Hills, which was just stay out of the way and let the land do what it could.  To you, the work of Doak was more difficult, and thus superior.  I get this.

Many will disagree with that though.

But the key is taking a lesser piece of land, manufacturing it into a great golf course that LOOKS NATURAL, as if the great land it sits on were there all along.

That is a tough trick, rarely done.  And that's why you don't want to give credit to Shadow Creek, which looks so obviously manufactured.

Do I have this correct?

I hope so.

But now the kicker.  My main problem with this thinking is this:  how do we as golfers really know what was there at any of these courses before the work began?  How do we really know what obstacles needed to be overcome, if any?  How do we really know what budgetary or regulatory issues might have impacted the design?  I guess in the case of Ballyneal/Sand Hills, enough was written that maybe many have a good sense of these things.  But these have to be the very rare exceptions.

So is it not more effective to just assess/think about / evaluate how the courses PLAY?

I just don't get the point of trying to assess architectural skill when we know so little of what really goes into it.

TH

George - I think Dick would agree that very few have the courage and self-confidence not to overbuild.

What he's saying is that fewer can actually do some hand of man things on a golf course and NOT MAKE IT LOOK LIKE THEY DID than can those who just leave things truly minimalist.  And he respects that skill - which apparently is exhibited big-time at Ballyneal.

Dick, if I got that wrong, may a badger attack my extremities.

 

TH

ps - thanks for the late add.  You know if one posts enough he's bound to eventually get something right.  

I have to say I'm amazed reading some of these posts.  Do we really want architects blowing up natural features and rebuilding them so they can get more architecture credit  Sometimes less is more.  

No, we don't, and I still don't know who's advocating that.

...

Just in the comparison to those two closely matched courses of similar land (although Bally was not as perfect of a land parcel) similar design ideals, similar region and terrain, and in the same era, Ballyneal may be the more architecturally significant model of golf design, construction and learned skill applications by the architectural teams.  That very factor that is was not on as perfect of ground is probably what is by definition the determinant factor in my saying, architecturally superior.  

...

Same old (what is getting to be tired) more is better argument. No it is not "architecturally superior"! It simply costs more. More work done means more cost. It has nothing to do with architecturally superior.

If you say it demonstrates more techniques, then it is a better source of examples for those techniques. However, that does not make it "architecturally superior" it simply makes it architecturally more complex.

Rick,

You did less work and the result was more satisfying? And the other one was better architecture? You are prolonging the argument needlessly with that kind of logic.

Rick, I for one appreciate the last analogy.  It makes sense to me and is very much akin to what I'm trying to say.

I suppose I can take credit for not screwing up my beach with a waterfall or something -- and I might be damned good at converting rocky coastline to smooth beachfront, if I ever had to -- but in this one instance, you did better work than I did.

Huck, you got it too.  

There is one fellow, possibly two, who actually worked at both sites.  But, you probably couldn't beat a straight answer on this issue out of him or them with an experienced 15th century Spanish Inquisitor, or a round of interrogatives by Mucci.  

Quote from: Wayne Morrison on September 17, 2007, 12:31:57 PM

Architecture is man-made.  If there is far more architecture on one great course compared to another great course with a lot less architecture, the one with more is superior.

Following that argument, then minimalist architects (Doak, C&C, Flynn, Ross) who do less man made work than Engh, Fazio, Macdonald, Raynor... are less superior architects?

surely minimalism has nothing to do with how much man-made work there is?