Where is GCA in architecture's spectrum?

[Gib_Papazian]

Mrs. Morrissett,

The drive is lovely, true enough. However, the town itself is a nightmare of broken down shacks, fast food and driveways full of rusting cars.

I do not mean to communicate a sort of elitist snobbery, but upon stopping and asking for directions, we strolled into a conveniance store where a line of guys were busy writing checks for cartons of cigarettes and 12-packs of Bud. Hats on backwards, no bath for a week and their young children waiting in the pickup truck.

Sorry, but Doak's work warrants better places than that to show off his talent. Not that the course isn't superb, not that the Casino staff isn't helpful, not that my friend Al Murdoch is not a great head pro . . . just that I wish it was in a more pleasing place - like Scottdale.

If we're going to drive several hours, a charming place like Bandon is what I want to find when I get there, not a decaying place like that.

[TEPaul]

BarnyF:

As usual, I'm fascinated by your turn of mind and your logic--I really mean that!

For some reason, when you mentioned the possible need for the "average" in any field, whether electricity or golf architecture, it made me think of an editorial in the New York Times on the subject of the nomination to the Supreme Court of Clarence Thomas.

Since the Senate hearing on Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill was not a court of law hearing and one really of fact finding and then probably subjective judgement and decision making, given what Thomas was in front of the Senate to discuss (had he or had he not sexually harassed Anita Hill), that then the Senators involved actually had a great deal of latitude to make a truly subjective decision!

Further, the New York Times's editorial advice to the Senators, given the facts produced in the sexual harassment discussion, was that a nominee of the legal stature and true and serious brain power, of say, a Felix Frankfurter, would be worthy of nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court (presumably even if he had sexually harassed Anita), but that given the fact that Clarence Thomas was a known legal light-weight and probably no better than a plain and simple politcal animal (albeit with the right family background and political color for the times), that he, in fact, should not be worthy of the benefit of the doubt (of the hearings), since basically he was a man of extremely "average" mind.

But they wrapped up the editorial with the caveat that, unless the Congress and the Administration was interested, for some reason, in representing that large segment of clearly "average" minds throughout the population of the United States with a Supreme Court Justice with a clearly "average" mind, then it wouldn't be the New York Times's recommendation to nominate the clod, Clarence Thomas!

Absolutely brilliant reasoning or satire! Never been too sure which. But for some reason it reminded me of you, BarnyF, and your post about the need for the "average"!

[GeoffreyC]

Tom Paul

This site has made a concrete difference.  It’s obvious from Ran’s Yale course profile to the numerous rantings from many including George Bahto, myself and others that we all absolutely love and appreciate the great features of the course. It was also brought out at this site the butcher job to the front 9 bunkers during a renovation/repair job that was started a couple of years ago. I will not put blame for this on any individual but attention was raised at this site.

There is now a RESTORATION plan in place and fund raising for this plan as well as subsequent maintenance.  George Bahto has opened their eyes to the great possibilities for restoration.  Unlike this small committee, the general membership, however, didn’t really realize the need for this nor did they object in any way to the previous work.  Why? Probably because they are among Mark Fine’s 99%. They are not educated about who Raynor was. They don’t know what a redan hole is and why watering the front is bad practice. They don’t know why the fairway corridors should be widened to bring ground features into play. I could go on about the membership.

We had our first GCA get together at Yale in late May. Everyone loved the course as expected but many were saddened because the course could/should be so much better.  Tony Pioppi subsequently wrote an article about the get together as well as some other things that he separately researched.  The article praised the course to no end and also criticized where necessary. Well, that article raised a furor at Yale in addition to getting me into a precarious situation educated the whole membership.  They think I’m a crazy zealot but they now know what golfclubatlas.com is and some of them might even be lurking. The article was handed out in the parking lot, talked about in the dining room and posted (until removed by management). It raised consciousness of the members and that is VERY GOOD. It is a result of GCA.

Best of all, every one of the drawings for the new work to the back nine will have to be approved before hand and they must be faithful to the 1934 aerial and construction photos.  Work on the front 9 that is offensive will be corrected.  Zealots of course are not allowed on committees but I have confidence in the head of the project.  While GCA did not make this happen, it (indirectly) made an important group of individuals aware of a problem.  It also educated directly and indirectly part of the membership.  They may not like the process that educated them (or the individuals   ) but I’ll venture to guess that they will like the finished product and the subsequent upkeep a whole lot more. Maybe we have made a difference!

[THuckaby2]

GC - that is wonderful and inspiring to hear.  Thanks for the report.

Cool to hear the GCA has indeed made a difference at Yale.

The "defeats" are still so numerous, my pessimism remains...

It is lessened today though!

TH

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Gib:
You obviously haven't spent much time in the town of Bandon.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Interesting....

RJDaley wants architects to poll the average golfers, Tom Huckaby thinks the average golfers like frills and have no interest in architecture.

I look at GCA a little differently.

1.  Do you love golf ?
2.  Do you love golf architecture ?
3.  Do you love to learn and teach ?
4.  Do you love to be stimulated ?
5.  Do you love to have fun ?

If the answer to all these questions is yes,
then GCA is great to log in to.

Contribute and Extract from it what you wish.

[THuckaby2]

Well said, Mr. Mucci.  No one should thus expect GCA to change the golf world, and we should't be disappointed with the golf world as it is.  I gather you don't and you're not.  Me too.  I have the exact same expectations regarding this site.

TH

[BarnyF]

Gib,

Much like you I envy people who have rusted cars in their driveways...buy cigarettes and 12 packs of Bud and feed their dogs better than their kids.  Because it is a sign of a satisfied wife at home...if men like us could only learn to bring out the primal savage in our women we too could live without all of the frills of the qusiorgasmic elite.  Did Roxanne "play" her trumpet out of happiness or pity...Gib, men like you and I don't know where sangri-la is because we can't look out our own windows.  I raise my glass to the men of Globe in the hope that men like Gib stay away from their course and men like them stay away from our women.

[TEPaul]

The Hell with sleuthing around trying to figure out what Harry Colt or Geo. Crump did at Pine Valley 90 years ago--I want to find out who the Hell this BarnyF is!!

Why? Because I'm gonna buy the rights to him--put him on Broadway or in the movies and make myself a small fortune. Then I'll go build a total "throw-back in time" golf course somewhere and live out my days with no computer within fifty miles of me!

[Ed_Baker]

We all have our individual reasons for participating on here, most would fall in to one of the categories that Pat listed,mostly for fun!

The regular contributors certainly have more than a casual interest and concern for golf architecture.I'm sure that many of our friends and golf aquaintences view us as zealots,extremists and in many cases just plain nuts!

That's fine.Anybody that has strong opinions and an ability to articulate them will create lively debate and ultimately controversy as the number of particpants increases.

I think that the amazing thing about GCA.com is that there has been a positive influence on raising the level of awareness of what constitutes good golf architecture and why.

With the cummulative knowledge of the regular contributors ,it is quite obvious that anyone willing to post, better have facts and a well reasoned presentation to support their posistion.

I think everyone on here has learned from their participation and I'll bet almost universlly everyone has changed their minds about a certain topic based on facts presented on here.I know I have!

How many more good architecture books have been purchased because of this site? How many more will be been written? Do we not evoke new thoughts on the subject of architecture and its profound effect on the game we love through our daily discourse?

I know that in my small circle of the golf world,that this site has already had a positive influence on some area clubs simply by concerned members lurking and learning and saying "WHOA,there is a lot more to be considered than we realized,we need more information." I have sent several new Green Chairmen Tom Pauls "In My Opinion" piece on restoration,every one of them has thanked me and check in to the site regularly.

So,are we really going to change the golf world? Maybe we already have by preventing amatuer architecture and in house meddling that would have taken place.

How much influence did GCA have on Yale?
Amazing what bright people will do when given the facts,I think this site IS making a difference.

[D Moriarty]

Mr. Papazian

First, if you feel the need to repeatedly apologize for sounding elitist (like here and on the Pizza Man thread), then you probably are being just that.

Second, since when is it desirable to locate great golf only in the "more pleasing places?"  For that matter, what makes Scottsdale a "more pleasing place?"  

Great golf was created and still exists in small communities of modest men seeking local enjoyment of their environment.  At its deepest roots, and at its best, golf is populist and local.  

Pardon my rancor, but your comments regarding the good citizens of Globe hit close to home-- I come from a long line of unwashed, beer drinking, chain smoking, shack living, pick-up driving, check-writing golfers.   In fact, while I don't know for sure, I like to think that some of my unwashed Scottish and Irish ancestors were toting their kids from the broken-down-shack they called home to the local pub after a round (of golf). I am sure that, until relatively recently, upper crust Londoners viewed my Irish and Scottish ancestors the same way you view the good people of Globe.  

My question you you is this:  Is it a pity they did not build Dornoch and Ballybunion closer to London or some other "more pleasant place?"  

Here is a suggestion:  Before you venture out of pleasant Scottsdale again, you may want to purchase a full tank of gas and a GPS mapping system for your automobile (much like the ones they have in the golf carts in Scottsdale).  Also, book and pay for a foursome even if you are single.  That way you won't have to mingle with the rabble when you play their course.

By the way, you should try wearing your hat backwards, so it won't blow off in the desert wind.  If only I could figure out a way to sew a collar on my tank top . . .

[D Moriarty]

Gib,

I must apologize. I re-read the Pizza Man thread and was wrong about your comments.  There, you did not apologize for your "elitist snobbery," but instead admitted it and embraced it.

By the way, I do appreciate and enjoy reading your opinions on issues about which you obviously know much more than me.  Maybe if knew as much as you I would also think so little of the unwashed.

[TEPaul]

Man, Robert Hunter would have loved Golfclubatlas. We've got some serious closet social engineers and cultural opinions on this site. You can start a social, cultural or political dialogue or debate on here almost as easily as you can start one on golf course architecture.

[Patrick_Mucci]

D. Moriarty,

Personal attacks serve no useful purpose !

You can disagree with everything Gib or anyone else, posts, but the use of language in your post indicates you possess the intelligence to understand good manners.

Disagree with his point of view, but there is no need to attack him or anyone else, personally.

[RJ_Daley]

Pat Mucci, just a small correction on what you think I said.  Nowhere does the word "average" appear in my recent post.  When speaking about the value of GCA in the architecture spectrum, I mean that this forum is NOT average, and doesn't just represent the "average" golfer's level of understanding.  It gathers and focuses the not so average (but dedicated and informed golfer and design afficianado) and places them in an ongoing discussion where an archie can cut through the prattle of the average golfer mis-information and attitudes that comes from marketing hype based on a response to averaging.  I am saying that if you want to improve your craft as an archie, this is the best place you can come to cut through the average crap.  The participants here vary greatly in their opinions, but they make an effort to learn and pass along what they know or observe for the betterment of the game and its fields, which is not characteristic of the "average golfer".  The discussion herein for an archie wanting to improve his design craft is more valuable than a board room full of wise guys going over marketing trends and bottom lines and advertising outcomes.  Go where the people gather that love golf and good design, and play the game with them, and watch them play the game and listen to what they say they like about the field of play.  

When I mentioned that certain archies don't go to local muni's to associate and listen to the "regular playing public", I didn't mean it as "average playing public".  I meant it as those that play regularly because they love it and have a set of values and opinions about why they like it and do it regularly.  When I mention that the big name archies don't seem to go to GB&I to spend time listening and playing with the "real folk", I meant those folk that have a tradition and culture that has grown up with the real and authentic game.

Averages are for marketers and sales professionals to interpret in order to make economic sense and success of a given golf design project and to market design firms reputations.  They have their place...  But, reading our discussion, debate, critical and complimentary comments are for those to appreciate the functional and art and aesthetic aspects of GC archtecture in order to make their craft and art better.  So if the archie is looking, here is where you can find a focused repository for learning those matters.

[Gib_Papazian]

Mr. Moriarty,

I am afraid what was essentially a throw-away line in an impassioned rant has vectored the discussion into a hopelessly circular cul-de-sac.

Therefore, to rub a salve into the wounded egos of the good people of Globe, I hereby offer a heartfelt, tearful apology and a total retraction for any and all statements construed as disrespectful to that fine community.

Okay, happy now?

That said, "oh man of the little people," your Ballybunnion and Dornoch comparison holds no water.

There is a difference between small villages in out-of-the-way places, and grimy wastelands where people take no pride in the appearance of their community.

Sorry, my years living in 'the hood' of South Central gave me a bit of an attitude. I shall endeavor to be less judgemental in the future.

BUT THE POINT OF THE POST WAS my lament that too may plum assignments in popular areas go to the factory firms! Globe is a long way from nowhere, and unless you have a penchant for cheezy gaming Indian casinos, it is not the kind of place one would otherwise venture to.

Therefore, a smaller number of affluent people - and they are the ones paying the freight for the courses in places like Scottsdale - are naturally going to take the time to experience Apache Stronghold.

Go take a count in the Phoenix area of who has done the most courses down there. The same names pop up again and again.

You can say "if you build it they will come," and Bandon is an example of that. But in my experience, the resort is full of fellow purists and this is hardly the demographic that needs to be educated in the difference between brainless eye-candy vs. strategic and thoughtful design.

If you come to all the way to Bandon, you probably already "get it."

But would it not be nice if courses with that measure of intricacy were found near the major population centers instead of a tape-loop of Nicklaus or Fazio courses?

The fact is that this site is a terrific resource for a small percentage of golfers who drink deeply from the cup.

Nothing is ever REALLY going to change until Joe Country Club begins to demand more from his golf courses.

And that is not going to happen until we put the good stuff directly in his path. Places like Globe are not anywhere on his likely path. It is not even on the radar screen.

Put a thoughtful minimalist Doak, Eckenrode, Hanse or C&C course out there in the mix directly next door to the Nicklaus and Fazio courses, and in time people will vote with their feet.

Don't worry, they'll "get it" then and the tide will turn.  

[Gib_Papazian]

Barny F,

Shoot me your e-mail address, we need to continue this joust in private.

Gibpap@aol.com

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJDaley,

I think in re-reading the first sentence of your second paragraph you can understand my confusion.

[TEPaul]

D. Moriarty:

What, Gib can't call Globe Arizona a gawdforsaken hell hole? Sometimes I call my own home town worse things than that. Come on, you really shouldn't take a remark like that personally and feel the need to launch into a defense of yourself, your family history and all the idiosycracies of your aunts and uncles. Maybe he just didn't feel like going out there to play golf that day but I know Gib and he's had some of the best times of his life in gawdforsaken Hell holes. Me too! I once left just one of my least favorite socks in a gawdforsaken hell hole I ordinarily would have forgotten about but for some reason I felt the need to turn around and go back.

[D Moriarty]

Mr. Papazian,

I apologize to you and any readers I may have offended.  I meant no ill will. My comments were meant in the spirit of passionate discourse, but in the future I will temper my words.  Please let me know when and where the anger management class meets.

Believe it or not, my real intention was to make a few points related to CGA.

1)  Historically and currently, great golf architecture thrives mostly in underpopulated and inaccessible places.  To insist that at a great course deserves a better location is to misunderstand the factors which may have contributed to the course's greatness in the first place.  

2)  You don't need to be educated or articulate (or even clean and sober) to appreciate great golf architecture.  All you need is the love of the game and access to a good course.  To assume otherwise is contrary to history and counterproductive for the future.

3) And another thing, how dare cast aspersions on cheesy Indian casinos.  I come from a long line of dealers at cheesy Indian casino's . . . I am kidding, of course.  

"To suggest we somehow temper our words to spare the feelings of guys like Fazio, Rees or Pascuzzo because we are afraid of alienating them . . . . well their golf courses are alienating some of us!"  
-Gib Papazain.

[Duke Maas]

Hey Dean Moriarty how is Sal Paradise?

Fellas (as JN would say),
GCA has a very limited influence within a very limited spehere.  It is a great website that is populated with a lot of connoisseurs of classic golf design but on the whole it has zero influence on how golf architecture is practiced or how it is perceived.

You guys from Gulph Mills, Garden City, Olympic, etc.. may not realize it but if tomorrow I interviewed the first 100 players to tee off on just about any public or resort course in America chances are that zero people would be able to indentify Gil Hanse, Tom Doak or Golf Club Atlas let alone Seth Raynor, George Thomas or Robert Hunter.  In fact I would be willing to bet that less than 50% could name the architect of the course that they were playing that day.

This site has criticized Tom Fazio from day 1 and you know what? He has more business than he has ever had before and he is thought of more highly by the general golf press and public than he was before this site started.

This site is a wonderful and interesting resource and I am sure that the number of hits just keeps growing and that many people all over the planet have actually been on it and maybe even participated. Overall however this web site is virtually unknown among the golfing public.

BTW, why are people so sensitive about anyone criticizing anyone or any place? Get over it. Globe, AZ is a hellhole but so is most of Augusta and Philadelphia to me and I wouldn't live on Long Island on a bet.

                         

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Barney,

Pardon me for saying this, but your analogy is pretty wrong. An electrician is nothing more then an installer and trouble-shooter. In the long run, I'm no different then the guy who installed your carpets or unplugged your toilet.

However, I have to bring up some other facts.

First off, Franklin, Edison and Marconi weren't electricians either, they were inventors, and if you want to go a step further, Franklin really didn't invent Electricity, it has been there since the beginning of time and maybe even before that.

(Dealing with atoms and other pertinent electrons breaking valance shells, etc. Let me know if I'm boring you yet.)

Marconi invented the radio, yes, only after much help from others who taught him the theories of electricity. He explained this many times over when he was not given credit for desigining the device early on.

Now brace yourself for a shock.

Thomas Alva Edison may go down as one of the greatest con artists of all-time.  He really wasn't so much the inventor as he was a businessman. He utilized people to invent for him by putting them on staff. (Doesn't this sound ironically like Rees Jones, Tom Fazio, Ed Seay, Jack Nicklaus and way too many others way too numerous to count?)

One of these staff members was a gentleman who is without doubt in my mind the man who took electrcity and developed a proper use for it. He knew more, figured out more, and even had more then unbelievable plans to change the world as we know it. Unfortunately, thanks to millionaire industrialist, James Pierpoint Morgan, (The industrialist, not the famed doctor from the great state of Indiana ) saw exactly what it all meant....

FREE ELECTRICITY

For a person of Morgan's business acumen, that just wouldn't do.

This genius's name?

Nikola Tesla

Please remember that name. He is a legend not unlike Old Tom Morris, Bill Kittleman, AW Tillinghast, CB MacDonald, Alister MacKenzie or Donald Ross.

You can thank him for discovering alternating current, radio control, three phase-electricity, power generation and transmission and many other things too far numerous to mention. He was one of the greatest genius' the world has ever known, and Edison went out of his way to not only destory him, but all of his ideas. (More Fazio and Rees?)

After many disagreements over the "positives and negatives" of alternating current vs. direct current, Tesla left Edison's employ and went to work for Charles Westinghouse who knew that Tesla was a genius and wanted to see him succeed. Together they brought alternating current to the world, first at the 1908 world's fair in St. Louis, where they succefully received the contract to light-up the fair at night, (using alternating current.) and then eventually succeeded in winning the contract to build the first power generating station in Niagara Falls, NY.

Edison, a pretty arrogant individual decided to go out of his way to show how dangerous AC current was by electrocuting elephants and dogs, showing how dangeous the stuff is. (A truth) However, the cost to utilize direct current, even today would require power generating substations less then a 1000' feet from your home, combined with voltage drop from those distances. (In other words, some houses would be brighter lit then others.) Guess who owned this patent?

(Thomas Edison)

Common sense eventually prevailed with Edison and he bought the rights to Westinghouse's patent, which was invented by Tesla.

So, in ending, how do I know all of this? Unlike messers Fazio, Jones, and Pascuzzo, I have gone out of my way to learn it and give the person who revolultionized it, his due.

I have also learned that while electrical construction is far advanced today then it was in the old days of the youth of refineable electrical power, the process and theories have not changed. When I read of the works of Nikola Tesla, I get excited to learn more. Its not boring like the instructional manual of a programmable logic controller that simplifies electrical theory. All of that equipment costs a lot of money, and while it may save time as far as installation, in the end, the old stuff works the same at a much less cost.

It is minimal.

For more information on Tesla: http://www.parascope.com/en/0996/tesindex.htm

[Tommy_Naccarato]

One other thing I forgot to add Barn....

I didn't wire my own house. I live in a condo, but I did hook-up the generator for the trailier at the Sheep Ranch, which was pretty close to killing someone if they had one damp/wet foot on the solid ground and the other damp/wet foot on the stairway attached to the trailer itself. I even made use of the most ramshackle ground rod I have ever seen that was made-up in Ken Nice's workshop at Bandon.

I took great pride in hooking-up the generator because I knew my friends were out there busting their butts to get the place perfect. I contributed the only way I knew how.

Funny how Tom Fazio knows how and just doesn't care to do it.

Its called "pride in workmanship" and it comes when you know that you, the person has created to the best of your ability. To me, Tom Fazio is an underachiever in this regard.

[BarnyF]

Tommy,

Thank you for the reply...in all my years of verbal sparring I do not recall a more entertaining comeback to one of my remarks.  The comparisons of modern architects to Thomas Edison was dissingenius.  Please note my compliments in no way endorse your opinions.

Gib,

I am sorry I can not give you my email address but if you are ever in the midwest let me know and I will join you to golf our balls.

[mothman]

This site has made a big difference to me both personally and as a designer of golf courses.

I may not post very often - certainly under my own name!, but I sit back and digest the thoughts of all those on the board, from the fanatical to the thoughtful -  all impact upon my thought process and philosophy (as one whose design philosohpy is not yet as set as perhaps a Ted Robinson or Tom Fazio - and no comparison is meant with the losting of those in the same sentance).

Now when I am designing a course I may think "what would the guys on the DG think", before I add seom unecessary mound, hump, flower bed, waterfall or bunker or multiple tiered green (all thankfully are fast disappearing from my paltry repertoire).

I may not be an avowed minamilist yet, but every night spent reading and learning drives me to think in a more minamilist manner, so the board will make a difference to at least one architects work.

Shame no one will see or appreciate the work as most of it is in the outer boonies (ie beyond the black stump).