I always thought of existentialism as the theory that "existence predates essence", and transcendentalism as the theory that "essence predates existence".

In golf course architecture terms, do fundamental principles exist a priori, i.e. independently of whether they are manifest on any given/specific golf course?

Is a Vision of Quality out there already, existing in the architect's mind and embedded in the earth, ready for the hand of man to brush away the excess and let it shine?  

Or do golf courses exist firstly, and only manifest their essence subjectively and to those who play them a posteriori, leaving it to us to ascribe to them Quality and greatness?

I don't know/I'm not sure.

But I don't play enough golf/golf courses (and certainly not enough of the kind that would be of interest here) to try to contribute experimentally....so I'm glad there's room for both

Peter

John - I think that was an excellent post. To me, all the great books written about gca (then and now) and all the debates waged about what makes it great (then and now) can mean only one thing -- that there IS a theoretical component to gca. I tend to think -- partly because it's the way my mind works -- that it is very important; but I can understand why others think it less so. And I appreciate very much the experimentalist posts, like the ones you tend towards (e.g. an excellent re-cap of a great course played, or some good-player's speculation about a golf shot's "time in the air") - good stuff!  

I would imagine the physicists are all big fans of quark.  

John, Just a few q's...

Can one be a serious theorist or experimentalist without studying all the written words ever written on the subject?

On a quality course is this formula

Quote

a golf ball is struck with a slightly glancing blow at 100 mph, based on the material characteristics of the ball and club, yielding a launch angle of x degrees and a spin rate of y rpm, with a three dimensional, or spherical axis of rotation, and how that ball is affected by a wind speed of j mph at sea level air pressure, and when that ball strikes the firm, fast turf with a coefficient of restitution of v,

longer or more complex, than on an inferior course?

Question 1.  I would assume the answer is no.  However, one needs to have a thorough education in the mathematics, knowledge of the currently known particles, and the experimental experience, in order to  do either job.  In our case, the academic part is the never ending debate on GolfClubAtlas, where we share ideas and pictures, our likes and dislikes.  Then, it helps a lot to have seen a great number of golf shots under varying conditions.

Question 2.  This is easy.  A more varied field of play will yield a greater spectrum of results, and is therefore more complex.  Really complex.  Once you calculate the third or fourth bounce, even on rock hard turf, the bounce factor is neglible and you would probably assume roll at that point.  I wonder how the golf simulators and computer games deal with that.

Thanks so much for responding.  I'm not trying to make a grand point, but I'm able to riff on the subject with ease.  I love math and physics, but was never a great student, as I loved basketball, girls and intoxicants more.  There's still time.

Regarding Peter's remark about The Vision Of Quality, I would say some of our favorite modern architects "see" the course embedded in the land, and brush away the excess.  On the other hand, when an architect creates a golf hole schematic in his office at home, isn't he really saying, "Theoretically, this is a good golf hole."

I would imagine the physicists are all big fans of quark.  

...and, obviously, st-range-ness and (lines of) charm.

Always happy to discuss the influences of Hawkwind upon golf course design too....

F.

Quote from: MPCirba on December 07, 2007, 04:19:53 PM

I would imagine the physicists are all big fans of quark.  

...and, obviously, st-range-ness and (lines of) charm.

Always happy to discuss the influences of Hawkwind upon golf course design too....

F.

...thats 'curves' of charm, or am I just the eedjit.

Kirk - just to clarify, I also don't live in a cave (unless bars and casinos count, but that was a few years ago now). It may have sounded lke I was talking about Platonic ideals, but I meant something a little less lofty.

I've read some jazz theory; what I've decided is that in that art form, Louis Armstrong (and others) played what sounded good, and later academics and theorists 'explained' what he was doing/what was going on: e.g. the typical chord progressions and rhythms/patterns that make jazz jazz. In other words, the great music came first (it existed) and then its essence was described later, and upon reflection. And yet, what sounded good coming out of Armstrong's horn sounded good for a reason, didn't it? What 'pre-existing' theory/principles of harmony and intervals etc was Armstrong tapping into, consciously or not?

I'll leave any parallels to golf course architecture alone. But I honestly don't understand how there can be much resistance to the idea of and the value of 'theorizing' about gca: music, film, playwriting etc all have their theoretical components/underpinnings....and at least in the couple of areas I know fairly well, I know that the modern day greats have all studied very carefully those underpinnings. Why would gca be much different?    

Peter

Mr Joe

no, I think I'm describing the opposite. (By the way, are you a minimalist in your non-writing work as well? )

I'm suggesting that unless we assume the existence of some fundamental principles, what we're LEFT WITH is the type of relationship you describe, in which it is only the, let's call him 'outside observer', who gives the course its 'essence'.

Do we believe that's the case? Are the great students of the game from Macdonald to Tom Doak who have written about (and tried to identify) the world's great courses doing that SOLELY on the basis of personal/subjective opinion? I think that's maybe become the sophisticated answer around here, and maybe I'm the rube; but for some reason I can't bring myself to believe that.  

Rich keeps saying that "it's only a bloody game". He might even be right about that; but the grounds on which we play the game is another matter, and one that's been studied/pondered by wiser men than me.

And (I hope needless to say) I try to keep ALL of this talk, pro and con, in a healthy perspective.

Peter

"I love Rich's take on this.  And his thoughts on two teams of physicists playing softball... man that had me ROLLING!

That was a candidate for post of the year.

But as for the substance, I'm with Rich:  it's just a game, John!  I really believe the heavier one gets into it, the sillier he looks.

So I am neither Theorist nor Experimentalist, and it also cracks me up that those are capitalized.

I just play the bloody game (not enough) and like to talk about it (way too much).  I feel silly nearly every day about this.  But I console myself in that at least I don't spend my life worrying about what Max Behr said or did 50 years before I was born."



Tom Huckaby:

I know you and you're a nice fellow but that post is just really pathetic. It's probablly one of the worst ever to hit this board but it probably still beats Rich's which is close.

I don't know whether the both of you just have no ability or no inclination to think more deeply into golf and golf architecture, the thing some call "a game", some have called "a sport" or some have called an an actual microcosim of life itself but I think people like you and Rich should do others on here who feel like calling it and looking at it more deeply or differently than you two do a favor and that is try not telling any of us what you think we should feel about it! Tell us what you feel about it but stop telling us what we shouldn't feel about it!

My own opinion is people like you two say the things you do because you neither have the ability nor the inclination to know how to feel about golf and architecture as others on here do!

 

John Kirk:

Most interesting thread.

Theorist and Experimentalists?

OK. But your story and analogy is theorists and experimentalists in PHYSICS!

Isn't physics considered to be one of the physical sciences?

If so, how does one apply math and science to human feeling and ever expect to qualify or quantify it?

Don't you think if you try you're beginning to get into the realm of epistemology, and that is most definitely as theoretical as it can get?

And believe me I don't mention that term lightly.

This is precisely what Behr was trying to tell Crane about his mathematical proposal for testing the quality of golf course architecture.

A guy like Goodale can't remotely contemplate things like this. All he can think to say is Behr's writing style wouldn't garner an A from an English teacher---and no more!

And all a guy like Huckaby can say is----it's just a bloody game and please don't ask me to think more than that.  

"I can't understand how some really bright guys can't see any deeper than if they flushed their last 5-iron or whether they scored 4 or 5 the last time they played the 7th hole at Course X.  

MikeC:

You know, I think they can see deeper than that. But the test, the deal, is sort of on the flipside----it's when they don't flush their 5 iron and their ball gets f...ed, they are what some call---timid people---they can't take the responsibility for it themselves, and so they just say---"Oh, it's just a GAME----and never more than that!  

These are the people who need to get in touch with their real feelings!

The problem is they're probably the ones who are so disappointed in themselves they need to rationalize it.

But as Behr correctly pointed out---this is not in the realm of REASON---it's in the realm of EMOTION----eg feeling!

The question here is---is there a true difference---and if so, what is it?

"When the scientific model uses to mimic human feeling produces a behavior that humans cannot distinguish from true human feeling behavior, then it has qualified.

A couple of fellers from your state of PA got the whole ball rolling on that type of scientific endeavor."


Maybe they did do, Garland, but in my opinon, it's bullshit!

I asked one of the brightest minds in mathematical analysis the other day what he thought of "string theory" and he said he thought it was a bunch of over-confident young scientific minds trying to to use scientific theory in a way he termed not that much different than "mental mastrubation".  

Pete,

You asked, "Theoretically, could one design and build a golf course on a mobius strip?"

Yes, they could, it just couldn't be called Mobius Hills...

I find this quite interesting as a mobius strip is perfectly suited to be a course with returning nines with the clubhouse in the middle.

Try it for yourself after having constructed a mobius strip:

Follow your finger [or for some here just close your eyes and imagine] around the strip until your finger ends up on the other side from where you started...that's the clubhouse!
Now continue your finger along  until you come back to where you started on the same side of the strip....welcome back to the club!....and a classic figure 8 routing. [I haven't figured out where to put the practice range though ].

Note: I am a little confused if this falls into theory or experimentation...clarification requested.