Stone Harbor vs Tobacco Road

[Mike_Sweeney]

The thread on Muirfield Village and Desmond Muirhead got me thinking about Stone Harbor GC, which I joined as a summer/associate member in the mid to late 80's. Yes I actually paid to be a member of this:



At the time, there was not much else in that area, but Stone Harbor was also meant to be something completely different on the South Jersey/Philly map. Reality is Stone Harbor had some interesting stuff (much has been softened, I am told) , but it just wore you down. Maybe the most penalizing golf course I have even played. Tom Paul mentioned one day it was one of the hardest courses he ever played from the Black/back, but I never thought of going back to those tees !

Muirhead, I think, was an artist. He clearly was going for some sort of deeper meaning, but it appears that he did have talent at Muirfield Village. If the only complaint is the houses at MV, that is a developer decision not an architect question.

Last summer I played Tobacco Road which seems to be completely different from all the other Pinehurst area courses similar to how Stone Harbor was different, with maybe the exception of The Pit. Mike Strantz is an artist and clearly made it work. I can see why it is a "Cult Course", but please include me in the cult. Visually powerful, fun stuff, and yes 3 or 4 holes that were over the top, but did not kill you like Stone Harbor.

Why did TR road work, and SH did not? Both are resort area courses. Both have a fairly sandy base. Both were set up to be different. Was Stranz a better artist, a better golf course architect? Or is it apples and oranges that should not be compared.

[FREEMAHC]

I have not played Stone Harbor, but based on that pic, I'd have to say that while both architects were artists, Stranz uses nature as his pallate, while Muirhead manufactures his work. One is not necessarily beter than the other, but my impression of Tobacco Road was that while it is stunning, sever, and different, it seems to fit the land. It was built in a rough asphalt quarry, and the course, in my mind reflects that. Stone harbor, from the looks of it, des not make any effrot to use the featuresof the land. This is not true of all Muirhead courses, but Stone Harbor is not alone in this sense either.

[Mark_Fine]

There is a big difference between downright goofy and brilliantly creative.  I'll let everyone decide for themselves which they think is which  

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

the main problem with Stone Harbor is that tee shots landing in the middle of the narrow fairways usually bound off mounds into the rough behind trees.  Balls aimed in the rough usually end up in the fairway if the trees are avoided.  Then there are the greens.  I spun a ball back over 50yards(no exaggeration here) on the par 3 4th.  Strategy is limited because every hole requires a carry of some sort over a hazard in usually very windy conditions.

[TEPaul]

MikeS:

I've always said on here that Stone Harbor, particularly the way it was originally, really fascinated me---I'm sure that must have been true for a lot of people. I could never say I liked it architecturally the way I do something like CPC but it sure did fascinate me because it was at the absolute outside edge of the spectrum in creative architecture and the fact is it was both really tough but interesting to play. The margins for error were probably as thin as any golf course in golf architectural history but the course did reward good and intelligent play too which has to be a sign of something.

It's interesting what JakaB said about restoring it to the way it originally was! I guess I'm being only a little facetious but I also have always believed, and said on here that it should be restored or certainly it wasn't that positive the course was softened. It should've been preserved just the way it originally was it was so radical.

Muirhead was no lightweight in architecture although Stone Harbor obviously represents an offering which won't be emulated in the evolution of architecture.  Muirhead's career probably wasn't that different from Picasso who started out very traditional, as did Muirhead but Muirhead's radical expression (Stone Harbor) just basically bombed where Picasso's radical expression created a pinnacle in art! I guess one never really knows, except for the fact that painting art and golf architecture art are not that similar for a whole variety of reasons!

[TEPaul]

"TomP,
How is saying that the original architecture of Stone Harbor bombed because it NLE any different than saying Lido bombed because it NLE..."

JakaB:

I'm not sure I get what you're saying or asking. Firstly, right out of the box Lido was considered one of the truly great golf courses (and architecture) of the world. Stone Harbor right out of the box was considered to be one of the true abberations in the history of golf course architecture. And these considerations of both courses were not the considerations of a few but general considerations!

Secondly, Stone Harbor is no NLE--it's only been slightly softened from the way it was originally---while the great Lido  basically started to go down the tubes only a few years after it opened. Lido's demise had very little to nothing to do with the quality of its architecture. Stone Harbor got softened because it was not well received by almost everyone.

Would you like to reconsider or rephrase your question or statement?

[TEPaul]

JakaB:

Those are much better questions--much better! Let me sleep on it! Get back to you tomorrow.

[ForkaB]

Tom P

Your Picasso analogy is intriguing.

My understanding is that at a very early age (20 or so) Picasso concluded that he could draw and compose as well as any of the old (or new) "Masters," and became intellectually bored with "classic" painting.  Hence his experimentation with cubism and abstraction which led to his amazing body of work and contributed enormously to the change in what the Western world defined as being "art."

Did Muirhead reach a similar conclusion in 1974, after designing/co-designing (let's not argue here) Muirfield Village?  At the time this course was considered one of the most perfect examples of GCA modern "art," and even today it is generally considered to be one of the finest courses in the world.

Can we see Stone Harbor, Aberdeen, etc. as being attempts by Desmond to take GCA to a higher level?  The fact that he failed, relative to Picasso, might be due to a lack of relative skill and vision, but might it not also be because the world of GCA (encompassing not only architects, but also patrons (developers) and ruling bodies) was (and is) much less conducive to change than the art world of the early 20th century?

What is wrong with "Jaws" other than the fact that it doesn't "look" like what the powers of be (and maybe many of us too) think a golf hole ought to look like?

Most importantly, if there really were a BWT (Big World Theory) at work, wouldn't Muirhead's work and concepts be part of that world?  Rather, isn't GCA really a very "little" world, with advances and experimentation done only at the mundane (construction techniques) or trivial (e.g. endless "Variations on the Redan") levels?

Is this what we want, or is there more?  My guess is that Muirhead thought the latter, and the fact that he failed is due less to the stars than to ourselves........

[Mike_Sweeney]

What is wrong with "Jaws" other than the fact that it doesn't "look" like what the powers of be (and maybe many of us too) think a golf hole ought to look like?

Rich,

The problem was that in the wind (5 or 6 flat miles from the ocean) it was impossible to play the hole, especially a cross wind. I probably hit it in the teeth ah I mean bunkers a few times, and it was interesting to play that shot !

M uirfield Village has never been that high on my list due to the houses and Stone Harbor in the back of my mind. Maybe i should be more open minded, but I know I want to see more Mike Stranz. The few holes I saw at MPCC looked very nice.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Rich.
It was generally believed that DM received short shrift from his collaboration with Nicklaus, causing him to abandon golf architecture for community development in Australia. I think it was a ten+ year hiatus.
It must have been something in the water down under that changed his outlook.

DM didn't "fail". Nicklaus said he was a "Brilliant man and a visionary, who greatly influenced his career". John Strawn sadi of him: "His competitors feared and mocked him and then adapted many of his innovations."

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Very good questions and some very fundamental questions about the art of golf architecture too interpersed with some interesting ones about possible analogies within Muirhead's and Picasso's entire careers and works.

I'm not much up on painting art and what I said about Picasso's unusually varied body of work only comes from spending a day at a very comprehensive exhibit of his career in NYC's Museum of Modern Art perhaps fifteen or so years ago. The exhibit was reputed to be the largest and most comprehensive collection of his life's work ever assembled in one place.

He sure was prolific and varied from one end of his long career to the other. The exhibit included some very traditional portrait painting very early in his career and also included an amazing array of work from stage sets to pornography to sculpture and finally to what really put him on the map---his cubist period. His products included the very small and the incredibly large (Guernica).

Again, I'm sure no expert on painting art but Picasso never did all that much for me other than to say the art works that made him famous surely are moving in some way--perhaps troubling would be a better way for me to explain my feeling about some of it. He also appeared to be quite sloppy in the detail of some of his work as when you get close enough to some of it you could detect arms and such moved and painted over including paint and colors that ran unintentionally (I guess).

You asked;

"Did Muirhead reach a similar conclusion in 1974, after designing/co-designing (let's not argue here) Muirfield Village?"

Probably, although of course it's only speculation. What else could Muirhead have been thinking about and trying to do when he designed and produced Stone Harbor other than to push the art form of golf architecture into another dimension---in that case obvious symbolism?

"Can we see Stone Harbor, Aberdeen, etc. as being attempts by Desmond to take GCA to a higher level?"

Of course. He had to see it at least as another distinctly different level if not a higher level.

"The fact that he failed, relative to Picasso, might be due to a lack of relative skill and vision, but might it not also be because the world of GCA (encompassing not only architects, but also patrons (developers) and ruling bodies) was (and is) much less conducive to change than the art world of the early 20th century?"

That's the most interesting and relevant question for this website and discussion group, isn't it? Surely the appreciation of painting art by the viewer is quite different than the appreciation of the art of golf architecture due to the inclusion of and the interactive participation of golfers in the art form. It may be true that a viewer of Guernica might feel quite different about it if he could somehow step inside the subject depicted and experience it---as golfers do on a golf course!!

But I don't know that I'd say the world of GCA is much less conducive to change than the art world of the early 20th Century (painting art) other than to say I think the world of GCA is definitely much less conducive to accepting change than the world of painting art!

Why is that? Hard to say and in a certain way that's fundamentally what we try to discuss on here. My opinion is golf and even golf architecture is inherently conservative in certain expressive ways (golf architecture) for a variety of reasons. I really hate to have to say this to you Rich but I think Max Behr probably touched on the reasons why that is as well as and probably far better than anyone else ever has. Behr not only got into the nuts and bolts of certain aspects of the art form of golf architecture but he got far deeper into the mind, psychology and almost subliminal yearnings of the golfer himself! His conclusions on it all apparently intended to point out that golf and golf architecture must somehow not depart too far from a bedrock principle---and that of course was Nature's own necessary part in the art form and the game or the sport. I guess one might have to say, if one believes much of what Behr came up with as I do, that golf and golf architecture therefore is somewhat limited as to how far or how much it really can change and still be accepted.

"What is wrong with "Jaws" other than the fact that it doesn't "look" like what the powers of be (and maybe many of us too) think a golf hole ought to look like?"

Probably that---that it's so far removed from anything natural looking. Certainly one can't deny that golfers really don't enjoy hitting perhaps 2/3 of their tee balls into the water. That early hole had so many balls going into the water, the lake itself had to be dredged of balls! (I'm not kidding about that!). Also, you can simply look at that photo above and see what a hole like that might do to the general golfer's sense and feelings about fairness in golf and architecture.

"Most importantly, if there really were a BWT (Big World Theory) at work, wouldn't Muirhead's work and concepts be part of that world?"

Yes, definitely! Muirhead's Stone Harbor would be a very important part of that "Big World" theory of golf architecture (which is really about DIFFERENCES in golf architecture and keeping those differences distinct from one another!). That's why I've always said I think Stone Harbor should have been left as it was built or even restored to its original radicalness as it represented the outside edge of the sprectrum in the evolution of the art form of golf architecture.

Some probably think I'm being facetious about that but I'm not--I mean it. It doesn't matter to me if the golfing public accepted it or not--it should be preserved because it has something interesting and important to say about the creative impulses in the art form and even if it was not accepted or roundly criticized it should stand as a fascinating example of where the art form should not or even ever again try to go.

As such it very well may be as definitive on one end of the spectrum of the art form as a course like Sand Hills (ultra naturalism) is on the other end of the spectrum. It should be preserved in all its radical glory and then the "Big World" theory would be even bigger, wouldn't it?

For some odd reason I think that would be a good thing ultimately for golf and golf architecture. It certainly would be a wider spectrum of the idea of something for everyone!

The "Big World" theory of GCA is mine but I'm not all that interested in defending it as the truth, the way and the light. I just think the "Big World" theory (keeping the vast DIFFERENCES in style, type and look distinct from one another) is an interesting new way to consider for the future because no one interested in golf architecture can possiblly deny that in the last 50-70 years in the evolution of golf architecture the strong inclination was to homogenize the different types and styles and maintenance practices and all the rest of it into a "one size fits all" mentality of overall conformance.

And I think that more and more are beginning to understand these days that that might not have been the best way to go!


 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
I played it at least 10, probably closer to 15, years ago. The most recent DM course that I've played is Silver Spring Shores in Ocala, which was interesting.

[ForkaB]

Tom

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, and I hope you had a nice time in Florida.  These days I try to avoid the place like the plague, as I have this nagging fear that some 70-year old hottie will look at me, spike my Chardonnay with Viagra, and before you know it I'll be driving a big 15-year old Cadlillac between the golf club and the early bird specials at Denny's wondering where my life has gone.  Hope yours has survived intact.....

Getting back to golf, I take a different view than your interpretation of what Behr thought.  I think the difference between GCA and "painting art" has far less to do with the psychology of the golfer (individual or collective) than with natures of the "beasts."  "Art" has form but not much "function" outside of the esthetic or motivational (particulary when it was so closely linked to organised religion and/or politics).  GCA, on the other hand is defined by the function (the game of golf) and many of the forms are pre-defined within the scope of this function.  Furthermore, GCA must work with "Rules" (both formal and informal) which define the form of various elements (e.g. putting greens, hazards, tee boxes, the "hole" itself) in a fairly narrow sense.  "Holes" are not put in bunkers nor tees in heavy rough, not because either option is unthinkable within the context of the game, but because they do not conform to the written and unwritten rules.

Likewise, we are restricted by various conventions, such as the one that golf courses "must" be 18 holes, and holes "must" be in the 100-600 yards range and confined to "pars" of 3, 4 or 5.  All this just because that was the way things were decided by some small coterie 150+ years ago in some pub at St. Andrews.

Somehow, I think Max Behr would have relished the concept of a 850 yard "par" 7, or a 37 yard "par" 2 1/2, both as constituent parts of a 21 hole course that went from point A to point B without returning.  Surely it would have fit his concept of golf as a "sport" more than the pedestrian 18-hole, play by the rules of the games, in and out, constricted forms that he ended up creating.

No?

[TEPaul]

Rich:

If you choose not to call golf architecture an art form for whatever reason, that's fine, since I think we speak of it on pretty much the same page as it compares to other art forms such as painting art. It seems that since golf architecture has some things about it---ie the game of golf itself--- which other art forms don't you choose to define it as something outside the basic definition of art. That's fine---I guess my definition of what art is may be broader than yours but, again, we seem to agree what golf and golf architecture in and of itself is and isn't.

And interestingly, although you have never seemed much interested in what Behr had to say you do seem to have some understanding of what he was trying to conclude and what he was warning against.

Behr surely believed in naturalism--or nature's place or important and necessary plart in golf and golf architecture, but the reason I think he felt that way was due to how he ultimately felt naturalism vs artificiality affected the golfer--even the tyro and even subliminally. That was important to him and something he saw as an ingredient that could ensure the survival of golf as more the sport-like pastime.

Excessive rules, delineations, preconceptions of man's "game mind" were not that conducive to golf or architecture as he felt they should best be perceived by the golfer and of course he was always warning against those things intruding too far into both golf and architecture.

But Behr intelligently made a number of exceptions--four actually--- as to what could never really be perceived as natural and he made those exceptions very clear. They were tees, fairways, greens and that odd vestige feature from the original linksland, the sand bunker (in certain areas where there was no natural sand). He made it very clear those four things could never be made entirely natural appearing but since they were essential to golf (except the sand bunker, of course), golf would just have to live with them eternally but strive to blend them into nature's look as best and as completely as possible!

You're probably right that Behr may have enjoyed playing something like an 800 yard hole as he did speak of what he called "wild golf" but admitted it probably was never to really be again---just something as a vague theory to be striven for to guard against excessive artificiality and complete formulaics in golf and architecture.

Behr was probably far more of a realist than you might think he was---and it's probably true to say that many of the things we complain about today about golf and its architecture happened because the very things he said and warned against were not heeded when he and others said them and warned against them!

[Matt_Ward]

Mike S:

The thing about the original Stone Harbor was much, much more than tha Jaws hole. I'm sure you remember such "unique" and "fun" holes like the 6th -- with its split fairway and bulkheaded green! I mean the left handed fairway option was really never an option -- great design no doubt.

Or how about the tee-pee designed tee at the 17th. I mean if at was just a little bit higher you could have a view of the Atlantic!

Let's not forget the par-5 3rd with the tree hanging in the green! Or the single file fairway at the par-5 5th?

One other example -- how about the delightful 18th? I mean when people talk about the 18th at TPC in Florida the 18th hole at SH is simply a great example in "over-the-topitis!"

Here you have a narrow fairway that eventually closes down in front of a water hazard and then you have that "fascinating" bulkheaded green with the delightful back right pin placement. I played the hole with a driver and SW one time and nearly reached the H20 that cuts off the fairway -- the only problem was that the approach was practically impossible to play because of the angle you were left with.

The famed former Jaws Hole makes the 17th at TPC in Florida look like childs play.

Mike, you hit the nail right on the head -- when the hole was played either in the wind or worse yet -- with a cross wind -- it was simply a question of how many balls would make a donation to the club. At 190 yards from the tips the target was simply a sheer joke because the opportunity for reward was akin to getting all six numbers in the lottery. Mike, they should have given you a token prize in getting your tee shot into the bunkers! If they simply played the hole at a maximum of 110 yards it would have generated far less scorn.

One of the better holes I really enjoy at SH is the 2nd -- after you play the lame opener you then encounter I first rate par-4 as the hole slides around the water hazard down the right side of the fairway and then crosses by the green.

For those "unfortunate" souls who never played the original SH they will indeed miss out on what Jaws has become today -- but the ingredients of SH could have been softened just a tad by DM and been a much better received effort.

It's also possible that DM said screw'em all this is my vision and so be it. Way to go for individualism!

[Mark_Fine]

For those of you that didn't play Stone Harbor years ago, you don't know how BAD golf architecture can get.  Doak may have overrated it when he gave it a 0!  

Sorry Mike but there is absolutely ZERO comparison between Stone Harbor and Tobacco Road.  

[TEPaul]

Mark:

BAD architecture at SH now or orginally? It sure is and was odd looking--completely radical looking, particularly if one is into natural looking golf architecture but is the look of a golf course the only thing? If the look alone is a complete washout does that take the course down to a 0 or below on these ratings? What about the play of the course, the demand, the strategy, the sometimes unique options?

I'll admit that golf course, particularly originally, was probably the thinniest margin for error course one could have found but I've played it alot over the years and particularly in its original form and although completely intense in various spots it was an incredibly thoughtful course to play. Talk about rewarding really first class golf shots. The only time it never did that that I'm aware of was the first year it was open when it was so firm you couldn't stop the ball anywhere. Then it was completely impossible--but the ground matured and you could control the ball.

Tom Doak rating it at 0 is strange to me. TomD admittedly concentrates on and puts a lot of weight on recoverability, particularly around greens and I'll sure admit that SH, particularly originally, was about as tough on recoverability in certain spots as any course ever built (unless one is into "relief" recoverability).

But there were some real thoughtful holes out there to play. The approach to the 3rd green sure was. The par 3 4th hole in a strict strategic playability sense when you consider the green's shape, length, height and diagonal side angles was about as interesting and demanding of really good thought and execution as one could find. It never looked good, certainly in a natural sense but from a golf playability standppoint it doesn't get much better. There were and are a number of other thoughtful holes out there too or at least some parts of them. Obviously by anyone's standards #7 was just completely over the top originally. Water separating corrugated shaped bunkering with wood sides from the green was probably Muirhead's way of saying screw architectural formulaics, principles and standards. Plus the hole just looked like one of those phantasmagoria drawings one sometimes sees in golf magazines! With that hole both owner and architect probably just said let's really get everyone's attention for the course and with that hole they sure succeeded!

The look of the course is and was about as radical as any in golf architecture annals, but is that what puts it at or below 0 in some rating? If so, no wonder I think this rating stuff is basically a bunch of crap!

I really enjoyed going down there once or twice a year and trying something really different. But I sure wouldn't want to try it more than that and I never did accept that invitational they had down there as playing stroke play on that course for a few rounds probably would've been too great a shock to my system! But they should have left it the way it was, in my opinon---the "Big World" theory of architecture may never be as broad as it once was when that course originally came on stream! I guess I probably could think of some courses I've played that might be down around 0 on some ranking but Stone Harbor either now or originally wasn't one of them despite the crazy look of it!

[Mark_Fine]

Origninally Tom, not now.  Playability has improved some.  I'm talking about what was there.  Frankly I it was not just the look, it was stupid design.  Actually I am being kind compared to what others once said about it.  

I'm all for creativity (that is why I seek out Mike Strantz courses) but SH was far beyond way over the top.  Rarely have I ever played a golf course I would never want to play again.

[TEPaul]

"Rarely have I ever played a golf course I would never want to play again."

Mark:

That's interesting if you're just referring to Stone Harbor, even originally. I really enjoyed it, particularly originally, but only in very small doses. I think if you looked very closely at that course and it's design it really did make strategic sense, albeit unbelievably thin in margin for error in some places that were generally the places you shouldn't have been going anyway. But name me a hole out there even originally that completely flew in the face of commonsense architecturally in a sort of formulaic way. The shots that were the long and high demand ones generally offered some really larger targets (greens) and the shorter demand shots mostly didn't in one way or another. Again, the only hole that flew in the face of all commonsense was #7---ironically the hole that made the course famous or I guess I should say infamous! Of course all that is not considering the look of most all the course with it's bunkers looking like the State of New Jersey or some Norse Sword or whatnot!

I'm not trying to defend the look of SH as something that should be copied or ever mimiced again and I'm not saying the course couldn't be really hard--but a 0?? No way! Not unless you rating fellows have some rating and ranking criteria that can take some course down to -10 or something.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom P

Your Picasso analogy is intriguing.

My understanding is that at a very early age (20 or so) Picasso concluded that he could draw and compose as well as any of the old (or new) "Masters," and became intellectually bored with "classic" painting.  Hence his experimentation with cubism and abstraction which led to his amazing body of work and contributed enormously to the change in what the Western world defined as being "art."

Did Muirhead reach a similar conclusion in 1974, after designing/co-designing (let's not argue here) Muirfield Village?  At the time this course was considered one of the most perfect examples of GCA modern "art," and even today it is generally considered to be one of the finest courses in the world.

Can we see Stone Harbor, Aberdeen, etc. as being attempts by Desmond to take GCA to a higher level?  The fact that he failed, relative to Picasso, might be due to a lack of relative skill and vision, but might it not also be because the world of GCA (encompassing not only architects, but also patrons (developers) and ruling bodies) was (and is) much less conducive to change than the art world of the early 20th century?

What is wrong with "Jaws" other than the fact that it doesn't "look" like what the powers of be (and maybe many of us too) think a golf hole ought to look like?

Most importantly, if there really were a BWT (Big World Theory) at work, wouldn't Muirhead's work and concepts be part of that world?  Rather, isn't GCA really a very "little" world, with advances and experimentation done only at the mundane (construction techniques) or trivial (e.g. endless "Variations on the Redan") levels?

Is this what we want, or is there more?  My guess is that Muirhead thought the latter, and the fact that he failed is due less to the stars than to ourselves........

Rihc, Your point is right on, if not spot on. Mike Sweeney is incorrect though in regards to this being his first course when he supposedly "got back." If you talk to Ella, she'll tell you that he never really left. He did a lot of stuff in the ten years he was out of the limelight--he owned an art gallery in South Coast Plaza, Orange County's answer to Rodeo Drive and while at first, very successful, having to go in there as an everyday employee got to him quick. He designed courses in Australia and Indonesia during that time, and this is where the Sybolism thing got its start.

When he designed Stone Harbor, it was his "formal" rentry as he probably today would have called it, and probably described it as that in Executive Golfer. Desmond had a flarif ro the dramatic, and I wouldn't doubt him portraying it as such. It wasn't the first work he had done in the US since Muirfield, but it was close. But the time away in other countries and businesses did something to him, he was going to do it the way he wanted almost as if it was infact an artistic reaction to the people that drove him to resignation--and he came back from it with a vicious stir.  The developers of Stone Harbor saw it and wanted it also--They were the ones that wanted him to create what he did, giving him the license to do so.

Till the day he died, Desmond always told clientele he could design them any type of golf course they wanted. The two in Geogia are prime examples of him toned-down greatly, but they allowed him to stioll do what he wanted. He had his eye on some land in Northern California that was sandy dunes, and unfortuantely he wouldn't divulge where it was, but he said he had the funding in place to build there, just needed to the funding to buy the land. He claimed it was going to be the best course he ever designed, and with that, I'll let you guys haggle over what it may have looked like. I have already been down that road before!

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
There are better subjects to debate than this one.  Again, I thought the golf course made no sense (maybe it was above me) or one I needed to play 20 times to figure it out.  Frankly, I couldn't handle it more than once and I don't say that very often.  I can't think of one hole that was any good.  Maybe all the completely absurd stuff blinded me from seeing the little that made sense.  

I do distinctly remember after playing it being concerned that "maybe I am missing something" because I can't think of too many other courses I've thought were that bad.  Year's later I picked up Doak's book and read what he wrote about it.  I won't print what he wrote but you might want to take a peek and see for yourself.  

But let's face it Tom, the original course was down right terrible.
Mark

[ian]

Tom and Rich,

The Picasso discussion, in context of Muirhead, was facinating. I was particularly interested when Rich commented about Picasso's need to explore and reach further, and what influence that had on modern art.

How could someone push golf architecture to the extreme edge, when they will always be held back by the fact that a golf course is still a playing field, and that it will always be judged as a playing field before it will be judged as a piece of art.

The other problem is the nature of the patrons. Golfers are generally traditionalist who do not like change. Why would they give up there Ross, to play the modern golf version of a Picasso (or a Muirhead).

I think whether you like what he did or not, you must admire his guts to go beyond what is concidered acceptable, especially in a business that truly takes few major risks.

I say restore Stone Harbour as vigorously as you would a Ross or a Mackenzie, just don't make me play it!


Regarding Tabacco Road:

If the course was built in 1920, we would all gush at the architect's bold vision. It only suffers from being built in the "fair play" era of Fazio and Jones.

In comparison to Stone Harbour, Tabacco Road is another traditional course; bold, but still traditional.

[T_MacWood]

I've played two Muirhead courses, Muirhead-Nicklaus collaboration, The Bear at Kings Island and MVGC. The Bear is not good; MVGC is MVGC. I preferred the first MVGC when it opened, a more coherent design IMO. From what I understand Muirhead was hired at Muirfiled Vg for his land planning expertise and the two parted ways prior to the course being built, based on The Bear that might not have been a bad move.

The difference between Muirhead and Picasso. Picasso creative peak was early; Muirhead's late. Many art historians claim Picasso was on the downward slide after 1928. Muirhead's slide was early and often and his creative peak late. I don't know if those symbolic designs were good golf courses or not, but those experiments should be preserved in my opinion. Perhaps, if anything, as examples of what not to do.

I agree with Ian's comments regarding Tobacco Road. TR was the most fun I had on any golf course last year. I played it with a diverse group of golfers, some high handicappers, some good golfers, all who prefered their golf quite conventional. After some early complaints and reservations, by the end they were totally infatuated and gained an appreciation for a different kind of golf.

[Scott_Burroughs]

I echo Tom' statement about what Ian said about TR.

[TEPaul]

Ian:

When I made an analogy between the careers of Picasso and Muirhead I didn't mean to imply that Muirhead was on some creative level with Picasso--or not! I only used that analogy because both seemed to have pushed hard on the creative envelopes of their respective art forms and both also produced work that was incredibly varied within their respective art forms during their careers. Both Picasso and Muirhead appear to me to have evolved from the traditional to the radical or radically creative within their respective art forms. Clearly one became world famous for his reputed radical creativeness and the other basically bombed with his radical creativeness.

I guess one would have to honestly say that to a large extent the arbiter of the quality of art is the audience and in the analogy of Picasso and Muirhead their respective art forms are probably very different indeed in both the latitude of expression and/or acceptance.

You're right, in my opinion, that the art form of golf architecture is probably far more limiting in creative latitude than painting art for a whole variety of reasons not the least of which there sure is an interactive game attached to golf architecture's art form while there certainly isn't with Picasso's art form!

Perhaps, Muirhead's most radical golf architecture expression, Stone Harbor, should be completely restored to its original radical glory and simply be pondered and not played by golfers something like the contemplative purpose of a Japanese garden.

I'd like to see it restored for the reasons I've already given above and it seems that there are a very large number of golfers who think it would be better to only ponder it rather than play it!