News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


TEPaul

The way too many on this board analyze architecture...
« on: March 23, 2004, 10:26:50 AM »
particularly strategically is a little bit laughable and a whole lot limited!!

I've been watching this for years now on here. Those regular contributors tend to fixate on a hole such as CPC's #9 as to its high risk driveable temptation ONLY that's probably doable in the most ideal circumstance by only 1/2 of 1% of those that ever play that golf course--and even among those it's probably not much of a reward payoff. CPC was also probably designed by MacKenzie to accomodate a general memberhip too!

This same mentality is what so often fixates entire green committees too for some reason as someone goes on and on about what some long player may do or has done while all the ladies and higher handicappers on the committee sit there and listen to all this quietly.

I don't think any analyst is very good at architectural analysis until he or she truly learns how to understand architecture and all the ramifications of it through the eyes of every level of player. I surely do know that an architect who can't understand or do this well isn't going to be very good architect! That is unless he's designing exclusively for something like the tour pro set.

So come on with this constant discussion that sounds like endless stories about ringing the bell with the sledgehammer at the state fair! Learn how to analyze and discuss some of other strategies and the finer points that involve the most golfers too.

The way this board talks isn't much different than the most dangerous green committees--believe me, I know! Get used to looking at things through the eyes of those who play different than you do---just like a good architect or good architectural analyzer does. And just for your information the guy who I think is able to do this better than almost anyone I've ever seen can play a lot better than anyone on this board---Nick Faldo. Start looking at architecture more the way he does when the subject is designing a golf course---it's more productive for all in the long run!

Frankly, the entire distance increasing manufacturing industry has probably been feeding on your fixation of how to anaylze architecture for years!

;)



James Edwards

Re:The way too many on this board analyze architecture...
« Reply #1 on: March 23, 2004, 10:45:17 AM »
Tom,

The posters are talking pure 'golf course architecture', so pure it's their opinion and no one elses.  I applaud that!  Their own personal feelings, views, 'histrionics' and experiences about the 'said' architecture - that is what the site is all about!
« Last Edit: March 23, 2004, 10:49:18 AM by James J.S Edwards »
@EDI__ADI

A_Clay_Man

Re:The way too many on this board analyze architecture...
« Reply #2 on: March 23, 2004, 10:47:11 AM »
Tom- The correlation to greens committees is astute. I'd speculate that the 'many' you speak of, are individuals, such as myself, who are mostly interested in learning, which implies a certain level of ignorance. As someone who values your contributions and patience, especially with all the revolving doors this media offers, I salute your spirit.

Back to us "many"...With just a little knowledge  (very little), and alot of opinion or experience, It would appear that anyone with nimble political prowess, can place themselves in a position to control the decision making process at their chosen club. Doesn't make them objective, does it?

To the heart of the crux, and I agree with you completly (and not just in golf) is the subjectivity that most, can't get beyond.

Justifications are key, and should be the focus during open discourse.
 
« Last Edit: March 23, 2004, 10:51:15 AM by Adam Clayman »

THuckaby2

Re:The way too many on this board analyze architecture...
« Reply #3 on: March 23, 2004, 10:48:06 AM »
I've been watching this for years now on here. Those regular contributors tend to fixate on a hole such as CPC's #9 as to its high risk driveable temptation ONLY that's probably doable in the most ideal circumstance by only 1/2 of 1% of those that ever play that golf course--and even among those it's probably not much of a reward payoff. CPC was also probably designed by MacKenzie to accomodate a general memberhip too!;)

TEP - in the current thread on 9 CPC, I don't see that kind of analysis at all... in fact most of the talk has been going on assuming the green CAN'T be driven... or at least taking that into account only for the very longest of hitters.

I do concur that sometimes fixating on what the pros would do does happen a bit too much here.  Just not on that thread!

TH

Bob_Huntley

Re:The way too many on this board analyze architecture...
« Reply #4 on: March 23, 2004, 11:29:49 AM »
TEP,

Lest you think that my original thread was to boast "of ringing the bell at the state fair," I can assure you I could hardly lift the hammer.

I do think that there has come from the thread, some quite acute observations of the hole and MacKenzie's genius in design. It obviously piqued an interest in a number of contributors, not all of whom have had the opportunity to comment on the plethora of posts concerning the exquisite minutiae of every hole at NGLA.


Tiger_Bernhardt

Re:The way too many on this board analyze architecture...
« Reply #5 on: March 23, 2004, 11:42:33 AM »
lol well said Sir Bob.

TEPaul

Re:The way too many on this board analyze architecture...
« Reply #6 on: March 23, 2004, 11:48:58 AM »
Adam et al;

I don't think constantly looking at architecture through the eyes of how the 1/2 of 1% of all golfers may be able to play a hole or architecture generally shows ignorance about architecture at all. I only think it shows a lack of concern or lack of interest in the way the other 99 1/2% of golfers have to look at architecture and play it.

Most all the regular and general contributors to this website know more than probably 99 1/2% of all golfers about golf architecture and probably vastly more, in my opinon! It's not about lack of knowledge--its only about willingness. This type of approach in the context of a green committee is really really dangerous both to architecture and also the attitude of the members generally towards their green committee. Learning this lesson just might be the most valuable of all things that has happened to me on this entire subject of golf course architecture.

THuckaby2

Re:The way too many on this board analyze architecture...
« Reply #7 on: March 23, 2004, 11:51:46 AM »
TEP:

That's all very true.

You just chose a bad example to illustrate it in the discussion of CPC#9, that's all.

TH

A_Clay_Man

Re:The way too many on this board analyze architecture...
« Reply #8 on: March 23, 2004, 12:37:54 PM »
TP- I guess I was mis-understood because I didn't mean to call anyone ignorant, other than myself. And maybe those power players who have made the "freshman" mistakes, I found myself concluding, too early (and still) in my contiinuing education.

Does anyone know where Hootie got his gca education?

TEPaul

Re:The way too many on this board analyze architecture...
« Reply #9 on: March 23, 2004, 02:12:16 PM »
Bob Huntley said;

"TEP,
Lest you think that my original thread was to boast "of ringing the bell at the state fair," I can assure you I could hardly lift the hammer."

Bob:

That's a good one! I'm with you Pal. I wouldn't even think of lifting the hammer much less swinging the thing to ring the bell at the state fair. If some caddie handed me my driver from the tips on the 9th at Cypress and told me to have a go at driving the green, I'd tell him; "Fine buddy and you can carry me up to the lady's tee too if you want me to have a go at ringing that bell!"
« Last Edit: March 23, 2004, 02:13:32 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re:The way too many on this board analyze architecture...
« Reply #10 on: March 23, 2004, 02:16:11 PM »
"Does anyone know where Hootie got his gca education?"

Adam:

What gca education? Let's not jump at assumptions here, OK?

Patrick_Mucci

Re:The way too many on this board analyze architecture...
« Reply #11 on: March 23, 2004, 06:03:29 PM »
TEPaul,

A good architect forges a disinterested tactical challenge that doesn't favor any one element of the membership.

Unfortunately, most green committee members view the tactical challenge that the golf course presents, solely in the context of their own games.

You've gotten it right......... finally   ;D

Gerry B

Re:The way too many on this board analyze architecture...
« Reply #12 on: March 25, 2004, 12:14:50 AM »
To; Patrick Mucci

Excellent point. Most of us mere mortals would not dream of driving the green. It is about the wishes of the membership. Not all holes have to be par 4's on steroids like many of the holes at Medinah and Bethpage. I have played CPC and  #9 is a very scenic short par 4. For us  230 yd hopefully straight hitters it is a driver  or 3 wood and a short iron or wedge into the green -still a great hole and a preview for an astonishing back nine after following 3 great holes -6,7,8. It fits in with the character and flow of the course -as do other short par 4's such as  #7 at Olympic Lakes Course / #10 at Merion  / #9 at Fishers Island and #7 and #8 at Baltimore CC Five Farms East

SPDB

Re:The way too many on this board analyze architecture...
« Reply #13 on: March 25, 2004, 01:27:11 AM »
TEPaul -  good god man! have you lost sight of Behr-ist principles? Have temptation and lines of charm fallen from your vocabulary?!

The 1-2% success rate is irrelevant. The 50+% "temptation" rate is more of what I'm interested. And what's more important, is there is nothing one dimensional about CPC 9- we're not talking about a forced carry of 270, where there are no choices.

I hope for their sake, the casino industry doesn't start thinking in your terms.  ;D

ed_getka

Re:The way too many on this board analyze architecture...
« Reply #14 on: March 25, 2004, 02:32:50 AM »
Tom,
  I hope you were just having a bad hair day to come up with  a thread like this. Why didn't you just come out and call us idiots. ::) Nobody I've ever talked to on this site has had anything but good things to say about you, but that is one of the more arrogant posts I have read on this site.
    BTW, how many Faldo courses have you played to even know if he has a clue about architecture? Anyone can talk a good game, but can they actually do it.
   I can't talk a good game or do it when it comes to architecture,  thus I am a nurse. :)
« Last Edit: March 25, 2004, 02:41:32 AM by ed_getka »
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

TEPaul

Re:The way too many on this board analyze architecture...
« Reply #15 on: March 25, 2004, 07:08:42 AM »
Ed;

If you really think I'm being arrogant on this thread and calling all of you idiots just read again post #6. If you still feel like I'm being arrogant and calling all of you idiots, well, then, I'm sorry about that.

Tom

THuckaby2

Re:The way too many on this board analyze architecture...
« Reply #16 on: March 25, 2004, 09:53:20 AM »
David:

What percentage of players can drive #9 CPC?

So tell me again why we should start by considering them, in terms of the worth of the golf hole?

Seems to me it's such a low percentage as to be statistically insignifcant, discussed only as a curiousity.

But then again YOU are one of them, so I can see how YOU would start from that frame of reference.  Just don't expect many other people to look at it that way!

TH
« Last Edit: March 25, 2004, 09:53:57 AM by Tom Huckaby »

TEPaul

Re:The way too many on this board analyze architecture...
« Reply #17 on: March 25, 2004, 10:35:37 AM »
DaveS:

You're so right in post #16 in one respect. The good player should always be considered first when considering architecture---and particularly when serving on a green committee. He should come first not because he's necessarily more important than the little old lady but mostly for spatial reasons. It's just more logical that way or one might end up running out of space in negative little ways and creating unnecessary problems for others as an offshoot of that.

So my point is, particularly for those who create architecture and also those who sit on things like green committees that the strong player should be considered first but it's just very important for those strong players on green committees to think of the games of those little old ladies SECOND! Problems arise when he NEVER thinks of her at all!

THuckaby2

Re:The way too many on this board analyze architecture...
« Reply #18 on: March 25, 2004, 10:37:51 AM »
TEP:

That's a fair answer in terms of creating architecture - it's obviously quite logical.

But very few people actually create architecture, also.

In terms of assessing the worth of the golf hole as it is played, wouldn't you say it makes sense to consider the vast majority far more than the tiny minority?

TH

George Pazin

Re:The way too many on this board analyze architecture...
« Reply #19 on: March 25, 2004, 01:10:52 PM »
A far bigger problem, IMHO, is basing analysis on a career shot you hit or how you assume Tiger would robotically play it.

Too many people extrapolate their best shots into all the time occurences, or at least overwhelmingly frequent occurences, and generally overestimate just about everyone's golfing skills. I've hit a few drives over 300 yards, but I wouldn't say I drive the ball 300 yards. Heck, I've seen JohnV hit a drive over 350. Lou hit one at TRC well over 350, and Don Mahaffey hit a 4 iron about 240! These were unique occurences based on conditions at the time (at least I think so - that was my only round with Lou and Don to date :)).

People frequently say on here things like "If you put me 290, that only leaves an 8 iron in", etc., etc. The most accurate male drivers on the PGA tour hit around 70-75% on their fairways, and 60-65% of greens in regulation, yet many seem to assume everything is 300 straight down the pipe on every shot. (Some have even offered to wager on their ability to hit a certain green at Rustic on a certain driveable par 4 on the backside at around 80%, if my memory serves - when the best players in the world are averaging maybe 75% GIR on par 3s that don't measure 300+ yards. :))

It is my belief that:

 those other 25% of fairways missed and 35% of greens missed are the things that really make golf design interesting!

Anyone that analyzes a hole based on one great shot is really missing the boat, IMHO (kind of like Trent declaring #4 Baltusrol eminently fair after acing it - it might be, but not based on that one shot!).

Another poster on this site, a few years back, dismissed Riviera #10 as just a drive and 2 putt birdie for himself (haven't seen him around since that comment). Gee, most of the best players in the world would say it's a little more than that....

All of which just goes to show you that, the average GCA poster is definitely going for the green on CPC #9! I know I would. :)
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

ForkaB

Re:The way too many on this board analyze architecture...
« Reply #20 on: March 25, 2004, 02:21:39 PM »
Excellent post, George!

I fully agree that we talk far too little about what happens in the real world of golf when discussing architecture.  To me great courses reveal their greatness when you miss a shot, not when you hit it like you have planned.  Since even Hogan agreed that 95% of his shots were imperfect (excluding, of course, the 18 putts he would make in every round), isn't this obvious?  You and I and the rest of the hackers on this board are probably lucky to hit 1 perfect shot every few rounds.  Why do we focus our architectural attention on those very rare shots and not on what happens to our misses?

This is particularly true, IMO, in and around the greens.  Great courses have great green complexes that challenge and interest you whether or not you hit your approach to position A.  On not so great courses, the difference between hitting a green and missing it is either trivial or so binary (i.e. penal) as to not be of interest.

Thanks for your thoughts.

ed_getka

Re:The way too many on this board analyze architecture...
« Reply #21 on: March 25, 2004, 02:28:11 PM »
Tom Paul,
  You said, "The way this board talks isn't much different than most dangerous green committees--believe me, I know!"

I am curious how you spin this such that you are not being arrogant and or calling us idiots? Post #6 doesn't change what you said. Sure we know a lot about architecture on this site, because we care about it. Apparently we don't know as much as you (which is certainly true in my case) from what you are saying. I disagree, there are many regulars here who opinion and judgements regarding architecture I value. A la your big world theory.

  I hope you are having a better day today. :)
« Last Edit: March 25, 2004, 02:29:08 PM by ed_getka »
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

George Pazin

Re:The way too many on this board analyze architecture...
« Reply #22 on: March 25, 2004, 02:50:08 PM »
On not so great courses, the difference between hitting a green and missing it is either trivial or so binary (i.e. penal) as to not be of interest.

This is one great sentence - I think I'm gonna add it to my posts as a tag line.

Thanks for the kind words - the question is, have I drifted over to the dark side, or have you come on over to the good side... :)
« Last Edit: March 25, 2004, 02:51:08 PM by George Pazin »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

TEPaul

Re:The way too many on this board analyze architecture...
« Reply #23 on: March 25, 2004, 03:38:28 PM »
Ed;

My experience for years with green committees--on them--dealing with them, has been for some reason they tend to look at almost everything considered, architecture, maintenance, whatever, only through the eyes of good players. I'm not sure why that is exactly---pride in the defense of the course via scoring, some possible awe in good players so their opinions which tend to focus on ONLY their own games dominates the issue etc. Not sure why this happens as much as it does but in the context of a general membership it can become a real problem in so many ways---architecture, maintenance, God knows what.

I so often see discussions on this website only in the context of good players games, often the touring pro's game, even if those doing the discussing may not be that good. Sometimes it merely fixates on length considerations only and on those who hit the ball really long--something that a very small percentage of golfers do or do consistently.

So I wrote a thread here saying that I thought everyone should both think about and discuss architecture in more general terms or at least make the effort to look at it from the perspective of most golfers' games, even the little old lady and even if they just do that occasionally.

I don't see what's arrogant about that and I can't see I ever called anyone here idiots for doing that---merely unwilling to discuss architecture this way or perhaps unconcerned about the way probably the vast majortiy of golfers play the game and need to think about it.

So if you really think that's arrogant on my part or I'm having a bad hair-day then, again, I'm sorry about that but after your last post all I'll say is that's just too bad if you think this thread is arrogant on my part. I see this issue and subject, generally speaking and particularly at the green committee level, as a problem and I don't mind saying so.

Matter of fact, it seems to me it wouldn't be a bad idea if this website started a section called "The Green Committee" and maybe more on here could see what goes on in a green committee setting regarding golf courses, architecture and maintenance issues. It's just amazing to me how many golfers, most particularly good ones, look at the entire subject ONLY through the top players game. I see nothing wrong with everyone learning better to see the entire subject through the eyes and games of others who don't play the same way they do, again particularly the good and very long player!

« Last Edit: March 25, 2004, 03:44:31 PM by TEPaul »

Willie_Dow

Re:The way too many on this board analyze architecture...
« Reply #24 on: March 25, 2004, 10:20:49 PM »
Tom

You may be on to something here.  Following up on the thread by Sarge - "Scary News" - I had an oyster urge, and went down to Fort Pierce.  Good, but not as good as those Rhode Island oysters at Ludwigs Tavern.

Indian Hills is like Melbourne, FL, but not as popular a course.  "Modern Architecture" just seems to rule today.  Muni play will not accept holding on to what we really want.  It is'nt their fault, it is the modern look is accepted like tube tops were in style.  

I'm not giving in, mind you - but it is going to take a lot more time to convince a lot of people that we old timers are right.  Or, when we are gone - we were right!

This is the drift I got from Ward W. Northrup today.

Willie

Tags: