Tom D,

Wow, that was fun to see.

I think trying not to use any of my list or Tom Mac's made it even tougher. Still, your front is awesome too, with all those holes removed, I think your list is as good or better than the other two.

I need to see Myopia Hunt some day.

You have a couple on the back that I don't know, which I'll have to do something about. I loved the choice of 12 at San Francisco - the scale of bunkering is possibly the most impressive I've seen (particularly the left one).

Reading your left-off's was as interesting as the list.

Thanks Tom, I still would love to see your first choice of 18.

Ian

Tom MacWood:

Do you believe the 18th green at Seminole today is in the same place and the same green as was built by Ross originally or another green and in another place?

My biggest headache is the fourth hole.  I want to use the fourth at Cruden Bay, the fourth at Rye, the fourth at Royal Melbourne (West), the fourth at Barnbougle Dunes ... I think you could make a great 18 entirely out of fourth holes.

I know this is breaking the rules because you're not supposed to mix in the live guys with the dead guys, but it took me forever to come up with so I'm gonna post it anyway.  This is the best I could manage of places I've played:

1.  Spyglass, RTJ, par 5
2.  Pasatiempo, MacKenzie, par 4
3.  Pine Needles, Ross, par 3
4.  Royal St. George's, Purves, par 4
5.  Cuscowilla, Coore & Crenshaw, par 4
6.  Kingsbarns, Kyle Phillips, par 4
7.  Teeth of the Dog, Dye, par 3
8.  Pebble Beach, Egan, par 4
9.  Royal County Down, Croome, par 4
par out 35

10.  Yale, Raynor, par 4
11.  Waterville, Hackett, par 5
12.  Portmarnock, W.C. Pickeman/Geo. Ross, par 3
13.  Royal Portrush, Colt, par 4
14.  Royal Dornoch, Morris, par 4
15.  World Woods (Pine Barrens), Fazio, par 4
16.  Ballybunion, Simpson, par 5
17.  Walton Heath (Old), Fowler, par 3
18.  Boat of Garten, Braid, par 4
par in 36  

Ian:  You forgot Prairie Dunes among the 8th hole P's.  But you picked the best one, anyway.

John G:  The ninth hole at County Down was Arthur Croome's idea?  I learn something new every day; what a wild hole that is from the back tee!  But the fifth at Cuscowilla FOLLOWED BY the sixth at Kingsbarns is a bit much for me in the quirk department.  I think Kingsbarns is mostly great stuff, but the two holes with the blind water at the back of the green, I could do without.

"The ninth hole at County Down was Arthur Croome's idea?  I learn something new every day; what a wild hole that is from the back tee!"

TomD:

In my opinion, at some point despite seemingly everything and everyone's opinion to the contrary, you just have to draw the line between good and not good in golf architecture.

The 9th at RCD is clearly one of the more dramatic (photographable) holes in the world and clearly one of the most challenging for some. But a great hole hole from the back tee? No conceivable way in my opinion. Whoever put in that back tee or whenever it was put in just made a mistake---a classic architectural mistake I generally call a "disconnect".  If architects and others who understand this stuff don't admit at least that then they aren't doing their job very well.

This kind of "disconnect" is frankly just stupid, and it's something that's in danger of happening on some of the best and most famous holes in the world if prudence is not used. This perhaps includes the 18th at Merion East, the 18th at PVGC and from what I hear the most potentially egregious of all the 4th at PVGC.

RCD's #9 is a very unusual and stunning setting, but a great hole? Not even close in my book. Now go forward four holes to RCD's #13 and there you have a truly wonderful world class and phenomenally interesting hole tee to green and for everyone. The differences in this way between RCD's #9 and RCD's #13 should be a mandatory case study for every golf architectural school in the world!

"I would agree that 18 at Merion East is in the same class.  Even if you play it from the right tee, the second shot is impossible for most mortals."

TomD:

To me this in entirely the issue with holes like these, although I definitely do not see the problem relating that much to the second shot for most mortals, I see the true and egregious architectural problem on holes like these relating to the tee shot. If mere mortals can't reasonably reach some long par 4 in two shots they always have the option to chip or pitch on the third and hopefully one putt. That's been part of the realities and strategies of golf forever and there's nothing wrong with it (that is the fabulous old tortoise and hare analogy which is truly one of the great descriptions and explanations of how golfers intelligently play their human opponent).

But on the tee shots of holes like these that truly "disconnect" for some (and from the back tees) the options aren't remotely like chipping and putting on the third and fourth which has always been the "fail-safe" "go to" option in strategic golf. Options don't exist on tee shots like those holes---they are strictly one dimensional "shot demand" golf. And the realities of what some golfers (even good ones) are forced to do is without any question at all totally architecturally dumb, even preposterous---eg a prescription for really bad design!

It's no different than some of the egregioius errors in both redesign and set-up the USGA made on a few of the long par 4s of Bethpage in the Open. If even a small number of the competitors in THE US OPEN can take their absolute best shot off a tee and not even reach the fairway you have what I call a true  architectural "disconnect"----perhaps one of the most egregious architectural mistakes there is. These are players in the US Open for God's Sake, no one needs to do something architecturally like that to them!

I can understand some committee making an architectural "disconnect" mistake like that because they don't know much about architecture or the realiities of golfers who will use that architecture in expected circumstances but if an architect did that I feel he shouldn't be practicing golf architecture or else should be labeled a poor golf architect.

TD
I like what Wethered and Simpson said when they picked their ideal course and explained why other attempts proved to be cold and lifeless.

"The reason is not far to seek. The point was emphasised by Ruskin many years ago that the demand for perfection was invariably a 'sign of misunderstanding of the ends of art.' As for architecture, he even went as far as to lay down the seeming paradox that 'the work of man cannot be good unless it is imperfect.' The application of this principle does not imply that all imperfect golf course are necessarily admirable; but it does suggest that in the absence, fortunately, of any existing course that confounds all criticism, some imperfect courses are amongst the most interesting and amusing to play."

They deliberately included one bad or amusing hole in their eclectic 18 (actually one and one-half). There choice for the bad/amusing hole: The Alps at Prestwick.

""The reason is not far to seek. The point was emphasised by Ruskin many years ago that the demand for perfection was invariably a 'sign of misunderstanding of the ends of art.' As for architecture, he even went as far as to lay down the seeming paradox that 'the work of man cannot be good unless it is imperfect.' The application of this principle does not imply that all imperfect golf course are necessarily admirable; but it does suggest that in the absence, fortunately, of any existing course that confounds all criticism, some imperfect courses are amongst the most interesting and amusing to play."

Tom MacWood:

This particular quotation you've put on this website maybe 3-4 times over the time that we've both been on this website (perhaps from the beginning in 1999).

To me it's one of the most interesting, one of the most revealing and also one of the most seemingly inscrutable remarks I've ever seen regarding golf course architecture or even "naturalistic" art or art forms, for that matter.(and believe me, I did not miss the fact that Rushkin's name was mentioned in the remark ).

I think it would be worthwhile, almost, to start a thread to discuss the many seeming ramifications and meanings of that remark as it applies to golf course architecture, or even "art" forms in general, particularly landscape architecture (which seems to be becoming more and more the most logical interface between "art" and golf course architecture).

However, the example Tom Doak gave above about Pine Valley perhaps in the opinions of some not being an "ideal" golf course because it's design (or even the dedicated intention of its design) was not to accomodate all levels of golfers is not in the slightest the same thing, in my opinion, as what Simpson and Wethered were referring to with what they said about some courses having bad holes (imperfection) as a sign of desired "art" because they were "imperfect" (as they should be).

In other words, I think this remark of Simpson and Wetherd, as fascinating as it is, has an apropos time to be presented, and a time where maybe it isn't all that apropos.

I think you may find if you ever actually see PVGC in person that it really doesn't have any bad or "imperfect" holes and that it really doesn't matter in this "ideal"  context.

Of course, if that is so, one probably needs to define whether "ideal" basically means the lowest common denominator or the highest common denominator in golf, and amongst the total ranks of golfers.  

TE
My reply was not directed toward PV, but his coice of the quirky 9th at County Down.

I think the reason that courses like County Down, Cruden Bay, Westward Ho! and Mayfield appeal to so many of us is because of their imperfections...not only do they have a number of great golf holes, but they have their fair share of quirky, amusing or bad holes. It is the same reason why certain natural phenomenons and monuments appeal to many...be it the Alps, the Grand Canyon or the Acropolis.

'The work of man cannot be good unless it is imperfect.'

It is the reason why certain women are more appealing, certain singers are more appealing and certain artists are more appealing...interest created by some imperfection.

Peter
Good stuff.

Tom MacWood:  I would agree with Wethered and Simpson (and Ruskin, I guess) that the result of these eclectics is usually a course that no one would want to play -- they would be too hard from 1-18, and a lack of flow is an inherent problem.  

I don't really worry about Ruskin's or the Navajos' points about perfection because, to me, there is no such thing as a perfect golf course anyway.  There are always going to be things which are left out, and there are always going to be people who think the seventeenth at Pacific Dunes would be better if there were bunkers at the back right of the green.    But, I do understand their point, and on reflection I believe there were decisions at Pacific Dunes [like not tightening up the tee shot on the 12th hole, or not leveling part of the 16th fairway] where I was following that philosophy of not overcooking things.  As I've said before, I think a lot of modern design fails because designers are trying too hard.

BTW, I didn't select the ninth at County Down, John Goodman did.  I don't know if I would ever have the guts to build a hole like that myself.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=2949;start=0

We have discussed the concept of imperfection several times on this site.  The reference above, which was one of them, also refers to much earlier discussions.  We all seemed to believe then (and seem to continue to believe now) that some imperfections are good.

PS--Another piece of trivia.  All street maps (maybe all maps) have at least one error in them.  This is done to protect copyright.