Might there be times where perhaps it does matter, irrespective of the final product? A manufactured finished product may be marvelous, but you can always speculate what would have been the result had the land been better utilized or less manipulated (e.g. manufactured)
You can always speculate about everything.
But, so what ?  If a good/great product has been produced, why go through a process of mental masturbation trying to figure out if it could have been better ?  OR, why not try to figure out how it could have been worse ?  In each case, it's your personal perspective in a speculative sense, and if 400 people went through that exercise you might get 400 different speculative opinions because each individual is fantasizing based on their preferences, tastes and intellect.

Without knowing the specific details of the entire project in a macro and micro sense, speculation is a pure waste of time.[/color]

It gets maybe to the heart of what was being debated over on the Sandpines thread. The finished product might have been a very decent course, but could it have been better given the land prior to construction? (and again, so there is no misunderstanding, this is a rhetorical question, not a position on either the land prior to construction or the course following it).

I understand the rhetorical nature of the question.

When I first saw the scorecard for the back nine at Pacific Dunes it was one of the first questions I asked myself.
Could the land/routing have produced a more traditional balance with respect to par.  After I played the golf course I wondered the same thing.  This personal exercise wasn't a criticism of any hole on the back nine, merely intellectual curiosity with respect to the configuration of the back nine.

Part of the answer is yes, the back nine could have been more balanced, but then, the odds are that the individual holes would have been worse.

Before each individual speculates on a particular golf course, all of the facts regarding the site and project would need to be known.  Environmental, permitting, financial, owner mandates, etc.,etc..

Most certainly almost every course could be improved.
It's the degree of the undertaking that would produce a better product that would determine the merits of the existing golf course, taking into account all of the substantive facts.[/color]

I'm sure there are some architects who agonize over the dilemma of whether or not to manipulate, and I'm sure the quality of the land deters certain architects from taking a job (where they have the luxury).  To others, I'm sure such matters are not as perplexing.

I was thinking about this very subject in the context of the green sites at NGLA and GCGC.  One is incredibly manufactured, the other seems like they just mowed the approaching fairway to putting green height.  Yet both work incredibly well.  Could any of the greens at both clubs be improved ?  Probably a number of them.  But, by what degree would each change to those greens make the final product incrementally better ?[/color]

It does present an interesting challenge to an architect -
Where the architect makes the decision to move massive amounts of earth - the architect who is presented with a marvelous piece of land (acknowledging the subjectivity of that conclusion), had better produce an absolute superlative product. He has a much narrower margin of error than the architect who makes the same decision on a non-descript parcel.

I view it somewhat differently.  Your above example is already down to considerations involving individual holes.
I view it in the context of the architect's ability to route.
That talent often impacts eveything else, including specific hole and feature design.

Wayne Morrisson and TEPaul have brought up York CC.
A golf course that has the benefit of a routing from Flynn and Ross, ON THE SAME PIECE OF LAND.

I think this is one of the most valueable studies one could ever undertake.  Studying the disparities between two of the world's greatest architects, on the same piece of land.
One can study their design philosophies through their routing plan and the treatment of individual holes and features within that routing plan to see how they differed in their approach to creating a golf course.  What a great opportunity.

What would be interesting is to see a topo of that property, and design your "speculative" version of what you felt should be in the ground, without ever having seen either plan from Ross and Flynn.

Any schmuck can always criticize a finished product.
The question is, could you have done better from scratch, in a vacuum, without any benchmarks or targets to zero in on.

Which plan is better, Ross's or Flynn's ?
And, is the answer strictly subjective, in the eye of the beholder ?

Donald Ross, CBM, Emmett and Travis and I would imagine many others continued to fine tune golf courses they designed, long after opening day, so I would imagine that any and every course can be improved.

I predict that Atlantic will be elevated beyond its current status/stature by the end of 2006 due to ongoing improvements to the golf course.[/color]

As for discerning what is manufactured from what isn't - I agree that it is largely irrelevant.

If it works well, who cares whether it was natural or constructed ?[/color]

The only black and white photos I have ever seen on this site are the ones that are featured on the Friar's Head review.
Didn't you ever wonder why ?
Why aren't there any color pictures of Friar's Head ?

Other courses have been posted in B&W.[/color]

I believe that these gorgeous photos were taken by Ken Baskt.

Noone disputes that.[/color]

The combination of long shadows with the black and white lends an idealistic and downright mysterious aura to this REPRESENTATION of the course.

Why the need to "represent"  and not post pictures as it actually exists, in color ?[/color]

The EFFECT is tremendous - for those who have not visited, the course exists as a dreamscape of immaculate portraiture.

Why the need to create an "effect", why not post in color ?[/color]

On this site they are sort of the "official" photos of the course.

I fully understand "most favored nation" status that is bestowed upon the fortunate few on this site.[/color]

The next time you are there, tell your host that you would like to blast through a couple of rolls of film and post the results on the internet, and see what the response is.
Why shouldn't other hosts and other golf courses be afforded the same courtesy ?

I didn't know that good manners were dependent upon situs.

Why is it okay to take rolls of photos of Sandpines, Hollywood and other golf courses and blast those golf course and their designers, but, the same process is off limits at Friar's Head and other "select" sites ?

I'll bet that Sandpines LOOKS better in B&W.

It's a clear double standard.  If you can't see that, you just don't get it. [/color]

What other courses have been show in grayscale here?
Cypress and many others[/color]

Didn't you ever wonder why ?
Why aren't there any color pictures of Friar's Head ?
 
There are.  They have been used in a number of magazines and I even posted some quite some time ago.  As for the write-up, why don't you ask Ran?
You know as well as I do that B&W's far outnumber color photos, and we're not talking about a course built in 1921.[/color]

Other courses have been posted in B&W.

Did it make them better?

It was meant to.[/color]  

Why the need to "represent"  and not post pictures as it actually exists, in color ?

What representing?

The representing that Michael Moore alluded to.[/color]  

--Do the black and white pictures show contours that don't actually appear on the ground in person?  

--When people see black and white photos that accurately show contours, they can envision what they would see in color.  But when they see color pictures that don't accurately depict the ground contours, they can't envision them.  So which medium is better for a golf architecture website?  I would suggest that black and white is more accurate, but I guess that depends what you are looking for.

Or, in which light you'd like to portray a golf course[/color]  

Pat, your always singing the praises of NGLA, but most on this site have never been there.  Wouldn't you want them to see the movement of the ground, as only B&W can show, so that they can better understand what you are always talking about?[/color]

Tommy, you know as well as I do that B&W romanticizes those courses deemed to enjoy "most favored nation" status.
I'd rather post pictures of NGLA as it exists in real life, in living color.[/color]

Why the need to create an "effect", why not post in color ?

What effect?  B&W is more accurate, at least the photos of FH are!  What would posting in color accomplish?  Take the 7th green photo at FH for example.  I would much rather see the B&W picture than the color one, which would be far less representative of that green!  Is it that hard for you to envision the colors?
Michael Moore alluded to it, and my above post speaks to this.
Show us the green as it exists in the real world, not in shades of grey.[/color]  

I fully understand "most favored nation" status that is bestowed upon the fortunate few on this site.

How can a GREAT course be given its due without you always resorting to your endless "most favored nation" argument?  There haven't been that many deserving of such accolades.  If my love of what was built at FH constitutes "most favored nation" status in your opinion, then so be it.  You obviously don't think it's as great as I do, otherwise you would understand my passion for FH which you obviously don't yet have as you do for NGLA.
Tommy, my argument is with neither Friar's Head or NGLA.
I love them both and think that both are exceptional golf courses.  My argument is with the cognoscente on this site who seek to glorify their darlings while denegrating those they label as inferior.[/color]

Why shouldn't other hosts and other golf courses be afforded the same courtesy ?
 
They have every right to be afforded the same courtesy.  Friar's Head is a private course and can make whatever rules it wants and every other course can do the same if they wish. This is America isn't it? Courses can control their photographic content if they want to, but what has stopped you from posting black and white photos of courses you would like to discuss? Futher, what has stopped Rees Jones from contributing them? I would be more then glad to post them for him!  

Why the need to CONTROL photographic content ?
Rees Jones doesn't own/run any golf courses.  How can you compare Ken's position to his ?
One only has to look at the hatchet job fostered upon Hollywood by people who never saw Hollywood prior to Rees's project.  Yet, photos were posted from odd angles with the deliberate purpose of knocking the golf course.  Brian Schneider did it and Tom MacWood continues the effort.[/color]

I didn't know that good manners were dependent upon situs.
 
It's not dependent upon SITUS, it's dependent upon respecting the RULES & REGULATIONS at whatever facility you might be visiting.  Don't both Seminole and Shadow Creek prohibit guests from taking photos?

When people visit a golf club, bent on trashing it before they set foot on it, effectively misrepresenting the use of their guest status to their sponsor, that's BAD MANNERS.[/color]
Why is it okay to take rolls of photos of Sandpines, Hollywood and other golf courses and blast those golf course and their designers, but, the same process is off limits at Friar's Head and other "select" sites ?
 
If you want to blast Friar's Head, what's stopping you?  Do you need color pictures to do so?  If Friar's Head doesn't permit guests to take photos of the golf course and Sandpines, Hollywood and other golf courses do, isn't that within all of their rights? (Even you have always professed this about private clubs!) Are you now suggesting that private clubs be forced to allow photographs to be taken?  If so, perhaps we should advocate forcing GCGC and Augusta to admit women!

Do you think Ken would let anyone on as a guest if he knew their intent was to bash Friar's Head ?
The people who duped those at Hollywood kind enough to extend a gratis invitation, knew what they were doing.
It's called malice a forethought.  And one has to question the integrity of those who would knowingly deceive their host relative to their mission, just to gain access.[/color]

I'll bet that Sandpines LOOKS better in B&W.
 
Really?  I'll take that bet!

You're on.

Why has Rees Jones never gone and with a camera and taken B&W photos of Sandpines? Could it be that he just really didn't care or even knew how to? What are B&W photos of Sandpines going to show that color photos don't already show?  Are you suggesting there is actually something on the ground there worth seeing? Do you think Rees' containment mounding at any of his courses would look better in B&W than color?[/color]

Absolutely.  Every course looks better in B&W and you know it.

Rees's role at Sandpines differs from Ken's role at Friar's Head. Rees doesn't actively seek to enlist members.[/color]

It's a clear double standard.  If you can't see that, you just don't get it.
 
It seems like you are the one that doesn't get it.  You are always saying that you can't render an opinion from photographs and now you are complaining about the difference between B&W and color!  Talk about a double standard!  That being, Pat, you are always harping about double standards, but what about holding yourself to the same standard?  You are always hammering people when they don't get their facts right - in your opinion -  but when you get your facts wrong you don't seem to want to admit to your own mistakes!  

Photographs don't provide sufficient data, upon which to judge the merits of a golf course, playing it does.  You seem to confuse the issues.[/b]

When you got it all wrong about Ken Bakst and Tom Fazio on the Merion -1916 thread, did you admit publicly that you might have been wrong? TE Paul is right about you!  

TEPaul, in a recent conversation indicated that Ken had spoken to Fazio and that Fazio had provided a routing for Friar's Head.  I recall having a conversation with Ken where I believe he said that he had spoken to Fazio and that Fazio had provided a routing.  Now perhaps TEPaul and I both misunderstood him.  And then again, perhaps we didn't.[/color]

Tommy,

Quote from: Tommy_Naccarato on December 20, 2004, 04:54:10 AM

Didn't you ever wonder why ?
Why aren't there any color pictures of Friar's Head ?
 
There are.  They have been used in a number of magazines and I even posted some quite some time ago.  As for the write-up, why don't you ask Ran?
You know as well as I do that B&W's far outnumber color photos, and we're not talking about a course built in 1921.[/color]

First off, if Ken Bakst wants to portray Friar’s Head as a course based on “golden age era” design principles, what’s wrong with that? In my opinion, that’ s accurate and doesn’t he have the right to do whatever he wants?
And you are ignoring the fact that color pictures of Friar’s Head have already been published in Links Magazine, The Met Golfer and other publicationis. So go back to Ran’s review of Friar’s Head and study the photos and tell me if you have ever seen a set of photos that more accurately show ground contours. And if you agree, then isn’t that a gift that we should be applauding? If you have a problem with Hollywood and Sandpines, then stick to those problems. But if you are suggesting that there is something wrong with Ran’s FH review using B&W photos, then we will just have to disagree because neither color photos of FH or black and white photos of Sandpines are going to change my or your opinion of either of those courses!


Other courses have been posted in B&W.

Did it make them better?

It was meant to.[/color]

First you say that Photographs don't provide sufficient data, upon which to judge the merits of a golf course, playing it does. You seem to confuse the issues. But if photos don’t provide sufficient data to judge the merits of a golf course, then what the heck is the difference between black and white and color photos? It is you who is confused! I for one am thankful that those B&W photos exist on this website and they can’t possibly make Friar’s Head any better than it already is! Are you truly suggesting that Ken Bakst thought black and white photos of Friar’s Head would make it a better golf course?

You are all over the place on this issue just trying in vein to prove a point. Once again, if photographs don't provide sufficient data, upon which to judge the merits of a golf course, playing it does , then how can black and white photos make the course better? It is what it is!
 
Why the need to "represent"  and not post pictures as it actually exists, in color ?

What representing?

The representing that Michael Moore alluded to.[/color]  

--Do the black and white pictures show contours that don't actually appear on the ground in person?  

--When people see black and white photos that accurately show contours, they can envision what they would see in color.  But when they see color pictures that don't accurately depict the ground contours, they can't envision them.  So which medium is better for a golf architecture website?  I would suggest that black and white is more accurate, but I guess that depends what you are looking for.

Or, in which light you'd like to portray a golf course[/color]

You want to see pretty pictures. I want to see what’s on the ground. We are coming from completely different perspectives on this one. And are you suggesting that color photos of Friar’s Head would make it a lesser course?


Pat, your always singing the praises of NGLA, but most on this site have never been there.  Wouldn't you want them to see the movement of the ground, as only B&W can show, so that they can better understand what you are always talking about?[/color]

Tommy, you know as well as I do that B&W romanticizes those courses deemed to enjoy "most favored nation" status.
I'd rather post pictures of NGLA as it exists in real life, in living color.[/color]

Why the need to create an "effect", why not post in color ?

Again, if you want to see what’s on the ground, black and white is the best medium. If you don’t care, which seems to be your perspective, then by all means go with color. The magazines all want color because it is what their readers want – color! They want pretty pictures. If you want color, it’s out there for you to see.


What effect?  B&W is more accurate, at least the photos of FH are!  What would posting in color accomplish?  Take the 7th green photo at FH for example.  I would much rather see the B&W picture than the color one, which would be far less representative of that green!  Is it that hard for you to envision the colors?
Michael Moore alluded to it, and my above post speaks to this.
Show us the green as it exists in the real world, not in shades of grey.[/color]  
This is a golf architecture website. What better way to promote the discussion of golf courses than to be able to actually see what’s out there in pictures. You are going about it all wrong by screaming for color photos of FH. Instead you should be calling for B&W’s of other courses. You can post black and whites of Hollywood and Sandpines if you want and you know I’ll even help you do it if you want.!

I fully understand "most favored nation" status that is bestowed upon the fortunate few on this site.

How can a GREAT course be given its due without you always resorting to your endless "most favored nation" argument?  There haven't been that many deserving of such accolades.  If my love of what was built at FH constitutes "most favored nation" status in your opinion, then so be it.  You obviously don't think it's as great as I do, otherwise you would understand my passion for FH which you obviously don't yet have as you do for NGLA.

Tommy, my argument is with neither Friar's Head or NGLA.
I love them both and think that both are exceptional golf courses.  My argument is with the cognoscente on this site who seek to glorify their darlings while denegrating those they label as inferior.[/color]

There is nothing wrong with glorifying ones darlings, so stop the nonsense. Everybody seems to love Friar’s Head, so its not like we are trying to turn dirt into gold. And if somebody wants to denigrate a golf course that they label as inferior, then that is their right as well, just as you have the right to take issue with them all you want! Once again neither color photos of FH or black and white photos of Sandpines are going to change our opinions of Sandpines or Friar’s Head!

These four-color posts of yours, gentlemen, neatly illustrate the superiority of black-and-white.