[Patrick_Mucci]

The main question here, the crux of the whole thing, is this:

WHY MUST AN ASSESSMENT OF A GOLF COURSE BE LIMITED TO ITS ARCHITECTURE AND PLAYABILITY (even as you've defined those terms)?

For the same reason that a painting is judged by what's on the canvas, within the frame, and not where it hangs out  [/color]

Tom,

The above answer is right on target, you just don't want to accept the succinct analogy.

Regarding the other fellows formula, what the hell does natural setting mean ?

What golf courses aren't in natural settings ?
Shadow Creek and other desert courses.

My answer with regard to evaluating a painting by what's on the canvas, within the frame, is right on target, a perfect analogy.  Everything else beyond the frame is merely collateral clutter or window dressing.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

You agree with Jay Flemma's assessment method because it's in harmony with your ideas.

I reject his method because he factors in extraneous items not remotely related to the golf course, it's unique architecture and its playability.

You may prefer threads about food and clubhouses, I prefer threads actually related solely to golf course architecture.

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

Ok, that's better.  When you first posted this the part in blue was left out.

But once again, you fail to answer except with more questions.

You are hopeless.  Loveable, but hopless nonetheless.

So OK, you give zero weight to issues to which Jay Flemma gives 66 2/3%.  Interesting difference there.  Your strained and oh so off target pithy analoguy - which fails to acknowledge that a painting is not a field of play on which a game is played - doesn't help me to understand WHY you feel the way you do.  But thanks for trying, anyway.

The bottom line is this:  didn't someone - ME - say what this comes down to is the weight one gives to such matters?

You might find Mr. Flemma - and me - to be WRONG.  I find no one wrong, no one right.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom Huckaby,

You agree with Jay Flemma's assessment method because it's in harmony with your ideas.

I reject his method because he factors in extraneous items not remotely related to the golf course, it's unique architecture and its playability.

You may prefer threads about food and clubhouses, I prefer threads actually related solely to golf course architecture.

Overlapped with mine.

Where did I write I preferred Jay's method?

Where also did I write that I prefer threads about food and clubhouses?

Giving me thoughts I surely don't have doesn't help this discussion.  You know this.  Now be a good boy, will you?

Jeez Pat, all I am trying to ascertain is why such issues such as I've listed at least four times - and they have nothing to do with food or clubhouses - are given ZERO weight.  I never said they are all that matter to me, in fact I once posted I put their worth at 5%.  And they are all things either on the golf course or viewable as part of the golf course.  Need I list them AGAIN?  It's the stuff about #8 Pebble, and I even deleted out those you find fall under your definition of "architecture and playability."



TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

I think everyone sees the light but you.

You want to include extaneous, if not distant factors that are not relevant to the land form that comprises the field of play, and/or the play on that land form.

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

I think everyone sees the light but you.

You want to disregard from one's assessment of a golf course factors that very much effect one's playing of the game and enjoyment thereof on the course in question.

TH

ps - have we reached the end here?  You've helped me a little, but not much.  Care to try to answer once again WHY those factors I listed about #8PB don't matter?  Specifically these:

One of the world's greatest views?  

The feeling one gets on the tee, how cool it is how it sits so near seven, allowing for views of the ocean crashing below in one direction and shots coming into 7 in the other?  

The incredible sense of "place" one has there, as nature combines with the historic feel, knowing who has walked that fairway before you?

I know you believe one must stick to only factors that are relevant to the land form that comprises the field of play... I just still don't know WHY you feel that way.  I also believe each of these things ARE relevant to the land form that comprises the field of play.

If you wish to give up, that's fine.  Just do realize you have me very much thinking, waiting for inspiration.

[TEPaul]

Back on page one Kyle Harris asked;

"What is the definition of architecture?"

Kyle:

To me the definition of "architecture" in golf course architecture is real simple---it's that about the golf course that's man-made!  

[Kyle Harris]

Tom Paul,

With definitions like that, this thread is going hard into the effects of the man made waterfall on playing the approach to Trump's (insert hole number here) at Trump (National/International/Regional/Statewide/Provincial/Colonial/Grand Duchy/Republic/Personal).

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Boy, this DG is getting HARD!  It's no longer good enough to read the posts, but you also make cross references backwards and forwards and a number of assumpitons to understand what people mean when they are talking.-Rich Goodale

icrh, You've been doing that for years....

[Tom Huckaby]

Back on page one Kyle Harris asked;

"What is the definition of architecture?"

Kyle:

To me the definition of "architecture" in golf course architecture is real simple---it's that about the golf course that's man-made!  

Aha!  Glad another heavy hitter has arrived.

So Tom, thanks, that is an interesting way to define architecture.

It just doesn't help me understand how best to assess golf courses. I know you didn't try to do so, but help me out if you would be so kind.

Now I don't expect you to read this whole thread, coming in late as you have.

But care to answer the questions I just asked Patrick?

I'd be very interested in your take as well.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Aha!  Tommy's here also - fantastic!  

Same for you, Tommy - those three things I listed re PB#8.  Do they matter in assessment of that as a golf hole, or not?

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Care to try to answer once again WHY those factors I listed about #8PB don't matter?  Specifically these:

I already answered every one of these.[/color]

One of the world's greatest views?

Of what, the golf course, or features and vistas beyond the boundaries of the golf course ?[/color]  

The feeling one gets on the tee, how cool it is how it sits so near seven, allowing for views of the ocean crashing below in one direction and shots coming into 7 in the other?

That's not a universal feeling.  That's your feeling.
I wonder how you'd feel if you just made an 8 on # 7 ?[/color]

The incredible sense of "place" one has there, as nature combines with the historic feel, knowing who has walked that fairway before you?

That's no different than a number of golf courses.
Seminole, Pine Valley, Merion, Winged Foot, etc., etc..[/color]

I know you believe one must stick to only factors that are relevant to the land form that comprises the field of play... I just still don't know WHY you feel that way.  

Because that's my inherent belief based upon the integration of my eyes, brain and the golf course at hand.[/color]

I also believe each of these things ARE relevant to the land form that comprises the field of play.

We disagree[/color]

If you wish to give up, that's fine.  Just do realize you have me very much thinking, waiting for inspiration.


There's nothing inspirational about it, it's simply a matter of boundaries and definition.

It's not a matter of giving up, it's a matter of diminishing returns.  There's no sense in continuing to explain if you don't understand it, or want to rigidly maintain that pretty sailboats at sea impact the architecture of the golf course and its playability[/color]

[TEPaul]

"So Tom, thanks, that is an interesting way to define architecture.
It just doesn't help me understand how best to assess golf courses."

TomH:

The best way for you to assess golf courses is for you to consider anything about them you want to. If that's the waves crashing on the 8th at Pebble or the thought of those famous golfers who've trod that hole before you, then so be it.

To me "architecture" is that about a golf course that's man-made, but I never said that's all there is to a golf course.

Secondly, it's a total waste of time trying to discuss anything with Patrick Mucci, particularly for three pages. Not many people look at golf courses and architecture the way Patrick does---and THANK GOD! Furthermore, he acts like his definition of things is the only way it can be---and anyone should know that's pretty close to the definition of narrow-mindedness.  

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

No, this is the first time you answered WHY these issues shouldn't matter in the assessment of a golf course.  Before, all you said was they aren't part of "architecture and playability."  This is a rather big difference, and I appreciate this latest post.  It does help me understand things much better.

In any case, let's take them one by one, so perhaps you can get an understanding of my take, one that might help you grant me a bit more than silly quips:

1.  One of the world's greatest views.
When I say that, I mean as you stand atop the cliff waiting to hit your approach shot.  The view comprises the rest of 8 and holes 9, 10 and part of 11, but yes, is one hell of a nice view of a very cool coastline extending beyond that.  This view inspires me, and given I am at least a little afraid of heights, effects the golf shot I am about to play.  If you are above these things, that's cool.  But I'm not.  They effect the play of the golf hole for me, and thus affect my assessment of the hole.

2. The feeling one gets on the tee, how cool it is how it sits so near seven, allowing for views of the ocean crashing below in one direction and shots coming into 7 in the other?

OK, so maybe I alone feel that, but I doubt it.  In any case, again, this feeling effects how I am going to play the drive.  As an example, I surely feel nothing like this effect on the 9th tee at Santa Teresa, which is a boring bombs away tee shot with no inspiration to be felt.  The feeling on the tee effects the shot to be played.  Again, you may be above these things - but that doesn't mean they don't exist in this great world of golf.

3.  The incredible sense of "place" one has there, as nature combines with the historic feel, knowing who has walked that fairway before you?

I concur that this sense of place does exist at quite a few other courses - the ones you list being some of them - but I'd just say this matters in the assessment of those as well.  At Pebble, this historic feel combines with an incredible sense of what nature provides, at this place that some have called the greatest meeting of land and sea on this planet.  Add all this together and it effects my mood and effects my play.  Once again, you could well be above all this, but can you discount it exists for some of us?


As for the rest, well yes we obviously disagree on quite a few matters here.  But whereas you fall on insults, I ask for education.  Interesting different manners of discussion we have.

 
Smiling all the way.  This remains fun.  But yes, you did almost have me pissed there for a minute.

TH

ps - you know what else might help?  Describe the features of #8PB to me, what you see as important to give one a good description of the golf hole and why it is great, or not.  Kyle did this and it helped me understand things quite a bit.  Again no right or wrong, just an attempt to understand.

[Tom Huckaby]

"So Tom, thanks, that is an interesting way to define architecture.
It just doesn't help me understand how best to assess golf courses."

TomH:

The best way for you to assess golf courses is for you to consider anything about them you want to. If that's the waves crashing on the 8th at Pebble or the thought of those famous golfers who've trod that hole before you, then so be it.

To me "architecture" is that about a golf course that's man-made, but I never said that's all there is to a golf course.

Secondly, it's a total waste of time trying to discuss anything with Patrick Mucci, particularly for three pages. Not many people look at golf courses and architecture the way Patrick does---and THANK GOD! Furthermore, he acts like his definition of things is the only way it can be---and anyone should know that's pretty close to the definition of narrow-mindedness.  

TEP - many thanks - in fact you have no idea how grateful I am.  That makes great sense to me.  And yes, I have gathered that Pat feels his definitions are the ONLY definitions.  But you know me, I always think the best of people.

 

[TEPaul]

TomH:

Look, I know you want to get to the great Pine Valley someday and when you do you'll see what Patrick Mucci's opinions on architecture are worth when you're about halfway down #1. Anybody who actually says that green would make a good skyline green and then has the lack of sense to actually defend that opinion on here should never be taken seriously by ANYONE on this subject of golf course architecture.

[Tom Huckaby]

TomH:

Look, I know you want to get to the great Pine Valley someday and when you do you'll see what Patrick Mucci's opinions on architecture are worth when you're about halfway down #1. Anybody who actually says that green would make a good skyline green and then has the lack of sense to actually defend that opinion on here should never be taken seriously by ANYONE on this subject of golf course architecture.

TEP - I look forward to that "evidence."

 

So why have I fallen in his trap and why do I take him as seriously as I do?  Because dammit all of that is true.  Save me!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom,

This will be my last response to you on this subject.

My remarks aren't born of flippancy, rather frustration that you don't or refuse to understand the premise in the context of the field of play.  You rejected the painting analogy which is 100 % on target because you declared that it's not a field of play, yet, you want to introduce elements outside of the field of play when evaluating architecture.

You can't have it both ways.

1.  One of the world's greatest views.

This view inspires me, and given I am at least a little afraid of heights, effects the golf shot I am about to play.
That's a stretch by any barometer.

How does it affect the shot you're going to play ?  

If you are above these things, that's cool.  But I'm not.  They effect the play of the golf hole for me, and thus affect my assessment of the hole.

I'd guess that not one in a million or more golfers has their shot into # 8 affected by their fear of heights.
That's a desperate attempt to ratify your theory.

2. The feeling one gets on the tee, how cool it is how it sits so near seven, allowing for views of the ocean crashing below in one direction and shots coming into 7 in the other?
What's that got to do with the architecture and the playability of the hole ?

There are many instances where the next tee sits near or next to the previous green.   See # 2 tee at NGLA.

OK, so maybe I alone feel that, but I doubt it.  In any case, again, this feeling effects how I am going to play the drive.

HOW ?[/color]

As an example, I surely feel nothing like this effect on the 9th tee at Santa Teresa, which is a boring bombs away tee shot with no inspiration to be felt.  

That's because the architecture and configuration of the holes and hazards is different, not because you feel euphoria.[/color]

The feeling on the tee effects the shot to be played.  

HOW ?

Does it determine where you aim ?
Does it determine how high or low you hit it ?
Does it determine how you flight it ?

NO, it doesn't, the land and wind as they blend with the ON-COURSE ARCHITECTURE determine that.[/COLOR]

Again, you may be above these things - but that doesn't mean they don't exist in this great world of golf.
It's not relevant as to whether they exist in GOLF.

We're talking about GOLf COURSE ARCHITECTURE AND PLAYABILITY and you keep reverting to "Golf" in an attempt to support your position.[/color]

3.  The incredible sense of "place" one has there, as nature combines with the historic feel, knowing who has walked that fairway before you?

I concur that this sense of place does exist at quite a few other courses - the ones you list being some of them - but I'd just say this matters in the assessment of those as well.  At Pebble, this historic feel combines with an incredible sense of what nature provides, at this place that some have called the greatest meeting of land and sea on this planet.  Add all this together and it effects my mood and effects my play.  Once again, you could well be above all this, but can you discount it exists for some of us?

Not when it comes to evaluating the merits of the architecture and playability oof the golf course.[/color]


As for the rest, well yes we obviously disagree on quite a few matters here.  But whereas you fall on insults, I ask for education.  Interesting different manners of discussion we have.

No, Tom, you're not looking for education, you're looking for validation of your position.  A position absent substance.

You want to look beyond the canvas to extraneous factors when evaluating the painting, and I want to stay within the frame.[/color]

 
Smiling all the way.  This remains fun.  But yes, you did almost have me pissed there for a minute.

There's nothing wrong with that.[/color]

TH

ps - you know what else might help?  Describe the features of #8PB to me, what you see as important to give one a good description of the golf hole and why it is great, or not.  Kyle did this and it helped me understand things quite a bit.  Again no right or wrong, just an attempt to understand.

Some other time, I'm going to have dinner.[/color]

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

If this is your last post on the subject, then need I bother to respond?

I too am out of here for the weekend shortly.  But before I go, let me give my word on this, which might be my last, might not.

If you feel frustration, then my apologies.  But in all honesty and truth, I am trying to learn and no matter what TEP says - which of course is all in good fun - I aim to learn from you.  I respect your opinions a hell of a lot, as much as anyone here.

I just don't find you give my opinions even close to that type of respect.  I guess that's OK - respect must be earned - but you could give me the benefit of the doubt at least a little.  I am neither as stupid nor unyielding as you imply here.

So I guess we've gone as far as we can with the specifics and though I could give replies to every point you make, well it never seems to help, as you continue to pick out tiny things that don't matter in the big picture, like my fear of heights.  Of course I only mentioned that as a TINY part of why that view from the cliff on 8 effects the playing of the shot, but of course you also choose that to pick on.  How about a little benefit of the doubt?  The main point is that is one hell of an inspiring view, and I sincerely doubt I am the only one who before playing his shot there is effected in a deep emotional way by what is before him, to the extent that it's not the same as the tee shot on #9 at Santa Teresa.  This emotional effect can cause the shot to be more difficult, or in a different way might inspire one to greatness.  By your definition this is outside of the "architecture", but by to me is at least part of the MANY reasons this is a great golf hole - to say it doesn't matter, well I just can't understand that.

In any event, maybe YOU are talking about "Golf Course Architecture" as YOU define that - I am not.  I am talking about what makes #8 at Pebble a great golf hole.

So in the end, you have your definitions, I have mine.  I would have hoped you'd give me a little credit and try to understand the validity of my take, but I guess that is too much to expect.

In any case, the bottom line you state is a good one:  you want to stay in the frame, I want to look at the whole picture.  I'd count as part of why a painting is great how it makes me FEEL, you seem to want to limit it to how skillfully the brush strokes are applied.

Different strokes for different folks.

TH

ps - I've only said at least a dozen time I am evaluating golf courses, not architecture.  Your insistence to make those two terms the same and then discount anything you don't consider to be "architecture" is perhaps the most frustrating part of this.  You can't see that those are two different things?

Because here's a bombshell for you: if you want to discuss "architecture", then you and I remain in complete agreement - none of these three issues I present matter a whit.

They just DO matter in a discussion of GOLF COURSES.

[Bill_McBride]

The main conclusion to be drawn from this thread:

Huckaby and Mucci have WAY too much free time!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill McBride,

You're probably correct about yesterday.

I was up and on my computer by 5;00am.
The snow storm had slowed most business activity so I had a little free time.  Had I been dealing with a person of sound mind and body, a paragraph or two would have sufficed.
The scarey thing is, this is how TEPaul got started.

Sean Arble

Tom Huckaby's position is in harmony with the efforts of Steve Wynn and Tom Fazio at Shadow Creek.

The beauty of the vistas.
The mountains, the waterfalls, the streams, the trees, few of which have anything to do with the design and play of the golf course.

When evaluating a golf course, I think our debate is one of form versus substance.

I'd rather focus on what's in the ground and how it affects playability and he'd rather expand that to include the extraneous items he's alluded to.

[Kyle Harris]

Just for kicks:

Architecture is the fusion of natural and man-made features for the purpose of providing a playfield within the rules of golf, for golf.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kyle,

I think that's accurate and succinct.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

Tom was enamored with features beyond the boundaries of the golf course.

The mountains that serve as a backround at Shadow Creek are his Pacific Ocean at PB.

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

The moment anyone focuses on collateral issues instead of the architecture and play of the golf course it's an admission that they can't support their position.

I would agree with Patrick on this one (a rare, rare thing indeed! )

However, I think that what Pat sees as collateral to golf architecture (the beauty of the surrounding landscape, for example...), I rather see as an intergral part of golf architecture.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()