Apache Stronghold vs. Victoria National

[Eric Smith]

Bump

[Don Mahaffey]

Awesome Bump!
All the snowflakes on this site ought to read this to see what real discussion used to be.  John K tries and most everyone gets butt hurt.
We used to discuss architecture no matter the architect.  We are what we loathed 17 years ago 

[Anthony_Nysse]

Awesome Bump!
All the snowflakes on this site ought to read this to see what real discussion used to be.  John K tries and most everyone gets butt hurt.
We used to discuss architecture no matter the architect.  We are what we loathed 17 years ago

Cant agree with Don more....


Also something to note- There were some heavy hitters posting on this thread, some of the original OGs....

[Kyle Harris]

Awesome Bump!
All the snowflakes on this site ought to read this to see what real discussion used to be.  John K tries and most everyone gets butt hurt.
We used to discuss architecture no matter the architect.  We are what we loathed 17 years ago

Meh.


I've been underwhelmed, in person, by many of the people contributing to this thread.


A bunch of posts telling the other person to improve their reading comprehension passes for discussion? Lists comparing holes?

What happened to discussions like this is the some of the same posters in this thread continued their same tropes for the next ten years - meanwhile the golf and the architecture advanced to a point beyond their discussion abilities and the "mental/dirt talent" moved to other platforms because of, not in spite of, some of these guys.

[Mark_Fine]

Been sooo long since I played both but I do remember this thread.  AS was great but I recall a half dozen of the greens were over the top (I think looking back Tom Doak might even agree  ).  VN was Tom Fazio on steriods in that I remember it being one of his most demanding designs.  Again only play each once and a long time ago so both need another look.  I had AS in the Doak 6.5 range and VN 7+. 

[Tom_Doak]

Been sooo long since I played both but I do remember this thread.  AS was great but I recall a half dozen of the greens were over the top (I think looking back Tom Doak might even agree  ). 

Actually, no, I don't agree.  Apache Stronghold had a good mix of greens, with a few gentle ones to balance the few edgy ones.  There are only four I can recall [1, 5, 15, 17] that someone might characterize as "over the top," but they were designed with the idea that the Tribe would never keep the greens above 8 or 9 on the Stimpmeter, and at least they can say they got that part of the maintenance program right. 


Even so, if Apache Stronghold were in a parallel universe where it was in perfect condition, I doubt it would crack my top ten courses today.  Tommy N might disagree, but he hasn't seen seven or eight of my top ten.

[John Kirk]

Awesome Bump!
All the snowflakes on this site ought to read this to see what real discussion used to be.  John K tries and most everyone gets butt hurt.
We used to discuss architecture no matter the architect.  We are what we loathed 17 years ago

Meh.


I've been underwhelmed, in person, by many of the people contributing to this thread.


A bunch of posts telling the other person to improve their reading comprehension passes for discussion? Lists comparing holes?

What happened to discussions like this is the some of the same posters in this thread continued their same tropes for the next ten years - meanwhile the golf and the architecture advanced to a point beyond their discussion abilities and the "mental/dirt talent" moved to other platforms because of, not in spite of, some of these guys.

Thanks for encouraging The JK to continue his analysis.  Comparing two very different courses gives the participants a great opportunity to explain what they like, and why they like it.

[Derek_Duncan]

Awesome Bump!
All the snowflakes on this site ought to read this to see what real discussion used to be.  John K tries and most everyone gets butt hurt.
We used to discuss architecture no matter the architect.  We are what we loathed 17 years ago

Don, to what do you attribute this to?


It's entirely possible that golf course architecture has been talked to near death on this site. Not to suggest there aren't still interesting discussions taking place, but there's not the wonder and intrigue and desire to learn that there was 15 or 20 years ago.


Think about all the golf courses that had yet to be built in 2001. All the great restorations that had yet to take place. All the historical research that had yet to be uncovered.


But it's entirely likely that communication, and the depth of conversation that occurs on this discussion board, has grown to the point it's outpaced golf developments in the real world. Has GCA.com run its course?


Kyle Harris is wrong to dismiss the conversations that were taking place in the early 2000's because he wasn't there. He entered, later, an architectural discussion environment that was fully formed. The sense of discovery then was exciting because it hadn't existed in this format before.


But again, not to be critical, but how much is there really to say at this point, especially from people who have been posting here going on decades? Wasn't it bound to deteriorate?

[Kyle Harris]

Derek Duncan,


Kyle Harris WAS there back then. And contributing. This is my second account on GCA as I went on hiatus for a year or so following the opening of Streamsong because of some of the more aggressive behavior exhibited by some on this site in private messages or in person.


I don't recall much chatter on my "discoveries" of courses like Galen Hall or Reading CC at the time outside of the local Philadelphia contingent. But by all means, compare the obvious in Pac Dunes and Victoria National and call the "Wardian" stats prick-waving "discussion."

Tom Doak,


I almost wrote what you wrote about AS being in your Top 10 golf courses, verbatim, as it supports my point. Back then in that 1999-2004 timeframe it was also MUCH easier to discuss golf architecture because the truly noteworthy courses were few and far between as compared to whatever Rees or Art were dolling out several times per year. I am sure somewhere, somehow, we can compare the relative merits of Tattersall Broad Run Golfers' Club and Lookaway.


What you're all reminiscing over is akin to the same romantic notion we have to the steam locomotive or Elvis or Watergate. You're 20 years older now. It was novel to you at the time because you were at an age where anything you were interested in at the time was novel.

The question I have for everyone:


Interesting golf architecture discussion happens every day, just as frequently as it did in the GCA "golden years" (ugh), on Twitter. This being the case, it's clearly not a dearth of ideas or thoughts or "discoveries" but something else. So, what is it?


I propose it was because of a dearth of actually having a thought on the subject that didn't fit the borderline personality cults some of our "esteemed" posters of the era relied upon for their platform.



Coincidentally, I've spent more time in the past few days enthralled with the long-form golf writing found in both Caddie Magazine and Golfers' Journal. In the timeframe under discussion I attempted and failed, more than once, to start similar long-form analysis but I was young and an idiot back then. Today only one of those things has changed. That being said, GolfClubAtlas in that era filled the vacuum, but did it ever really fill it completely?

There is more meat to golf architecture discussion in 2019 than there ever was back in the seminal days of this website. The fact that it is "elsewhere" says more about the company we keep than the amount of ideas, thoughts, or opinions.

All that off my chest: I sure do miss Pat Mucci. He is in the opposite category of being far more disappointing in his online presence than in person.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
You say 4 and I say 6.   Close enough.  I do remember when I played, the greens were rolling much above 8 or 9.  At least 10 and some were simply not puttable as you couldn’t stop the ball near the hole locations.  I distinctly remember on hole #1 picking up and I like to think of myself as a very good putter.  An average putter had no chance.   


I still liked the golf course.  That was my main criticism.  Fun match play course but for stoke play most wouldn’t post an honest score with the greens rolling at 10.  Don’t know what they keep them at now?   8 would be plenty even 7.  Also course conditions (outside of something like that) don’t really move me one way or the other.  I don’t like over maintained golf courses.  They should be rough around the edges. 

[Joe Hancock]

I propose it was because of a dearth of actually having a thought on the subject that didn't fit the borderline personality cults some of our "esteemed" posters of the era relied upon for their platform.

This, without naming name.

[Tom_Doak]

Kyle:


You lost me at Twitter.  Sorry.


Tom

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle:


You lost me at Twitter.  Sorry.


Tom

Instagram is a much better platform, but not nearly as discussion based. The combination of the two is powerful.

[Ted Sturges]

I propose it was because of a dearth of actually having a thought on the subject that didn't fit the borderline personality cults some of our "esteemed" posters of the era relied upon for their platform.

This, without naming name.

I don't believe I was "esteemed", but I was definitely on golfclubatlas.com in the very early days.  Could someone please explain the above quote?  I am not on twitter, so that part sailed right over my head as well.


TS

[Kyle Harris]

I propose it was because of a dearth of actually having a thought on the subject that didn't fit the borderline personality cults some of our "esteemed" posters of the era relied upon for their platform.

This, without naming name.

I don't believe I was "esteemed", but I was definitely on golfclubatlas.com in the very early days. 


I've always enjoyed your posts.


Could someone please explain the above quote? 


I'm doing so right now.


I am not on twitter, so that part sailed right over my head as well.


TS

[Ted Sturges]

Kyle,


That made me laugh.

TS

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,


That made me laugh.

TS

Listen pardner,


The irony is that Pat actually did have some deeper [/size]thoughts and contributions, as does Barney Gillette Silver Kavanaugh.

[Tim_Weiman]

Awesome Bump!
All the snowflakes on this site ought to read this to see what real discussion used to be.  John K tries and most everyone gets butt hurt.
We used to discuss architecture no matter the architect.  We are what we loathed 17 years ago

Don,


Agree. This is an awesome bump. I miss Tommy.

[Don Mahaffey]

Awesome Bump!
All the snowflakes on this site ought to read this to see what real discussion used to be.  John K tries and most everyone gets butt hurt.
We used to discuss architecture no matter the architect.  We are what we loathed 17 years ago

Don, to what do you attribute this to?


It's entirely possible that golf course architecture has been talked to near death on this site. Not to suggest there aren't still interesting discussions taking place, but there's not the wonder and intrigue and desire to learn that there was 15 or 20 years ago.


Think about all the golf courses that had yet to be built in 2001. All the great restorations that had yet to take place. All the historical research that had yet to be uncovered.


But it's entirely likely that communication, and the depth of conversation that occurs on this discussion board, has grown to the point it's outpaced golf developments in the real world. Has GCA.com run its course?


Kyle Harris is wrong to dismiss the conversations that were taking place in the early 2000's because he wasn't there. He entered, later, an architectural discussion environment that was fully formed. The sense of discovery then was exciting because it hadn't existed in this format before.


But again, not to be critical, but how much is there really to say at this point, especially from people who have been posting here going on decades? Wasn't it bound to deteriorate?

How much is there really to say?
Lets use this metric - if speaking about a renovation or new course, did the creators or renovators take advantage of available resources and talents to create the best possible outcome? You seem to be thinking, well if they didn't build some 80s crap Florida course, then its all part of this second golden age.
My contention; there is just as much crap, wasted opportunities happening now, on a % scale, as there was in the 80s and 90s. Have we evolved? Yes  Have we gotten way to comfortable? Yes


Lets take a success story that's been talked about a lot. Winter Park. on a purely business sense, its home run, from a loser of public funds to a huge winner. You telling that story? Ever interview the Major to learn why? Surly that's man bites dog news. And why should that news matter in these architectural circles? Because it was the architecture that nailed it. the complete package. If they awarded Oscars it would have been nominated for best picture. Instead, most of the golf world, while acknowledging it's good, treat it as a one off. Tim Liddy goes on some pod cast and says, it was kids having fun, but you can't really make money doing that. You and others in the golf media should have attacked that because it is simply not true. Someone else here writes a post saying...why don't the big firms do pro bono work like that? Know why? Cause they couldn't do it if they got their full fee!!! And their fee would have cost more than the entire project!!!
Here on GCA we say Winter Park is good, but have no idea why. No idea the ingenuity that went into delivering that sort of product on that budget. The golf industry dismisses it because its a threat.


Another example is happening in Philly. Big name busy guy re-does Merion. Couple young guys are re-doing Rolling Green. You HAVE to follow this story and compare the process, the $$$ spent, and the outcome. honest and frank discussion should follow. A vert small amount of work was done at RG this fall, but it was some of the best work I've seen. That story will unfold and it will be interesting to see how the golf world and GCA reacts. With frank discussion, or press release talking points?


Why is Torrey Pines spending $14M to renovate bunkers and the irrigation system and Memorial Park in Houston can be fully renovated for much less? Worth of discussion on not only resources used and architectural outcomes?
I think there is plenty to discuss. Just some of the big internet voices have reversed roles. That shouldn't stop the rest of us.


[size=78%] [/size]

[Tom_Doak]

Don:


I think you're asking for a lot there.  Most people have no idea of the $ amounts in this business, what's appropriate, and what's not.  And that's the way most in the business would like to keep it.  Plus, a lot of the numbers you do hear are lies [aka exaggerations], which poison the well for comparison with real numbers from any project.


"The golf industry dismisses it because it's a threat."  Yeah, absolutely, I got the same reaction thirty years ago at High Pointe for telling people fescue might be a good playing surface.  But, do even Riley and Keith want to talk about the numbers for Winter Park?  I presume they did the work for a song in order to establish themselves, and that they're charging Rolling Green more for their time and effort.  Likewise, when stories are spun about the cost of building Sand Hills, it's rarely told what Ben Crenshaw took as his fee for the project.


Also, if you are going to champion certain projects, you should be more transparent about your role in the projects you mention and your working relationship with the principals.  You are right to be proud of what was accomplished but you aren't exactly a neutral observer of them.  Maybe some here know that but there are undoubtedly a lot who don't.

[Don Mahaffey]

Tom,
Yes I was/am involved in all three and many here know it.


As for Winter Park fees, I just bid a proposal for a nine hole course for less than I made at Winter Park. The lower fee was based on my estimate of the scope and time required, and it was for a non-profit working to get kids into golf. I'm don't know what Riley and Keith made, but I think it considerable more than what they make shaping.


All I've ever said was the sort of process used at WP should be on the menu. Since when do we care how much someone makes? They took a risk and made it work. It was a public job so the budget is public knowledge. That's the only number I have ever shared. I think they'd be happy to sign up for a string of Winter Park type projects.


And I realize the conflict of talking about work I'm involved with. You know that dynamic better than anyone. Its one reason I don't participate here much anymore. But I don't know that we still shouldn't talk about it. You've been talking about your process for years...but you also know it's a great deal for clients in most cases. The truth is the truth, even if it comes with a conflict.

[Roman Schwarz]

Been sooo long since I played both but I do remember this thread.  AS was great but I recall a half dozen of the greens were over the top (I think looking back Tom Doak might even agree  ). 

Actually, no, I don't agree.  Apache Stronghold had a good mix of greens, with a few gentle ones to balance the few edgy ones.  There are only four I can recall [1, 5, 15, 17] that someone might characterize as "over the top," but they were designed with the idea that the Tribe would never keep the greens above 8 or 9 on the Stimpmeter, and at least they can say they got that part of the maintenance program right. 


Even so, if Apache Stronghold were in a parallel universe where it was in perfect condition, I doubt it would crack my top ten courses today.  Tommy N might disagree, but he hasn't seen seven or eight of my top ten.

I played AS for the 1st time September 2017 and can verify that the greens were running at an appropriate speed.  Never once did I feel like the greens were out of control on the undulation/speed spectrum.


Personally, I had a great time.  Given the location, I think it needed to be a little wild, all the way from tee to green.  People aren't going to drive 2 hours from Phoenix for something that's just "very good" for no other reason.  It's gotta be unique.


One hole I found unique and fun was (I can't remember the number) the one where you could either hit the tee shot blind over a bluff on the right, or lay out left, but going left off the tee made the approach blind.  Given that I had no course map, layout, or anything to work with, it was little surprises like that hole that made it even more interesting.


If I hadn't sold the golf bag I took on that trip, I'd still be emptying sand out of it.  You win some, you lose some.

[Mark_Fine]

Roman,
An "appropriate" speed for the AS greens might be around 7 or 8 and if that is the case I would agree.  I played Stone Eagle not too long ago and was told many members think the greens are too severe.  I loved the golf course and thought the greens were great.  If you get them rolling at 11 or 12 that might be a different story but you could say that about a lot of greens.  Stone Eagle's greens, however, were tame compared to many of AS's.  I will leave it at that.


Note:  My own personal rule of thumb - when I stand over a putt and say to myself, I am not sure I can even three putt from here, then the green might be teetering toward goofy    To each his own 
Mark 

[Derek_Duncan]

How much is there really to say?
Lets use this metric - if speaking about a renovation or new course, did the creators or renovators take advantage of available resources and talents to create the best possible outcome? You seem to be thinking, well if they didn't build some 80s crap Florida course, then its all part of this second golden age.
My contention; there is just as much crap, wasted opportunities happening now, on a % scale, as there was in the 80s and 90s. Have we evolved? Yes  Have we gotten way to comfortable? Yes


Lets take a success story that's been talked about a lot. Winter Park. on a purely business sense, its home run, from a loser of public funds to a huge winner. You telling that story? Ever interview the Major to learn why? Surly that's man bites dog news. And why should that news matter in these architectural circles? Because it was the architecture that nailed it. the complete package. If they awarded Oscars it would have been nominated for best picture. Instead, most of the golf world, while acknowledging it's good, treat it as a one off. Tim Liddy goes on some pod cast and says, it was kids having fun, but you can't really make money doing that. You and others in the golf media should have attacked that because it is simply not true. Someone else here writes a post saying...why don't the big firms do pro bono work like that? Know why? Cause they couldn't do it if they got their full fee!!! And their fee would have cost more than the entire project!!!
Here on GCA we say Winter Park is good, but have no idea why. No idea the ingenuity that went into delivering that sort of product on that budget. The golf industry dismisses it because its a threat.


Another example is happening in Philly. Big name busy guy re-does Merion. Couple young guys are re-doing Rolling Green. You HAVE to follow this story and compare the process, the $$$ spent, and the outcome. honest and frank discussion should follow. A vert small amount of work was done at RG this fall, but it was some of the best work I've seen. That story will unfold and it will be interesting to see how the golf world and GCA reacts. With frank discussion, or press release talking points?


Why is Torrey Pines spending $14M to renovate bunkers and the irrigation system and Memorial Park in Houston can be fully renovated for much less? Worth of discussion on not only resources used and architectural outcomes?
I think there is plenty to discuss. Just some of the big internet voices have reversed roles. That shouldn't stop the rest of us.

Don,


First, I misread the intention of this bump and your original comment, and was more or less waxing nostalgic for the early days of CGA.com. Maybe it was or wasn't the good old days for everyone but it was exciting times for people like me. I never got into the personalities or politics, just the information.


I think you need to take your rant and direct it somewhere else.


I've talked about Winter Park extensively and promoted it as a project that should/could be a model for other existing public courses. Not here, but elsewhere. Many, many times.


Others have too. Extensively. Keith was just on the iSeekGolf podcast for 90 minutes talking about nothing but Winter Park and how it was built and created. I had Keith on last year and we talked about it. Mike came on and talked about Grand Oaks Reserve, and I've commented on that project several times regarding the model it could be for integrating various iterations of golf into a very public setting.


I'm not sure where you're getting your news from but it seems incomplete.

[George Pazin]

This thread, both pages, reminds me of the old adage, and I'm paraphrasing here, that there are two things you can't comment on: a man's wife and his golf club.


I enjoy reading the threads about golf course viability, sustainability, economics, etc, but certainly can't contribute to those. I also enjoy reading about course comparisons between courses I haven't played, and likely never will, and I can't contribute to those either, beyond asking an occasional question or two.


But maybe I'm just weird like that. And maybe there were more weirdos like me in the early days. Or maybe not. I do miss Tommy N, Tom MacWood, David Moriarty, Rich Goodale, redanman, JohnV, and a whole host of others, and I wish people like Ted Sturges, Gib, Noel, Dan King, etc., would post more, but to each his own.


It's not easy to discuss things on the interweb-thingy. You don't see the body language of BSing at the 19th in person, and people are generally more aggressive in saying things they wouldn't say in person. It's tough to take what seems like a punch to the face and stop and think about it, without reacting immediately. In that regard, this site is no different than what's happening in the rest of the world. But that's probably not a good thing.


This site sure is a good thing, though, that'll never change, no matter how much it changes on a day to day basis.