Is playing a vast majority of an architects designs necessary to judge his work?

[A.G._Crockett]

An incorrect generalization about an architect's work is INCORRECT no matter how many courses it is based on.

Jim,
Absolutely!

If I take Jeff Fortson's point correctly, the problem he is referring to is when an opinion is labeled as invalid by some ONLY on the basis of the number of courses played, rather that the merits of the thought or opinion involved.  This tactic is intended to establish  the superiority of the writer without any further discussion on the merits of the argument.

There was a really lengthy discussion here a couple of years ago about criticism based on posted pictures of courses that had not been played by everyone involved in the discussion.  There were some who contended that pictures were virtually useless if one had not played the course in question.  Their argument wasn't about what the pictures showed, but rather the very use of pictures vs. on-site time.  This "number of courses" approach often takes that same direction.

I don't think that anyone would seriously argue that playing fewer courses is better, and no one ever has, to my knowledge.  But that is far, far different from the arguments advanced by some here from time to time that the opinions of others are less valid SIMPLY and ONLY because of a % of courses played.  (By the way, since there is no way of objectively setting such a %, it is always the % that the individual played; if you have played less than that, you can't possibly know as much!  It is arrogance personified...)

[Patrick_Mucci]

AG, Jeff, et., al.,

Would playing Notre Dame only, give one a sense of C&C's work ?  Yet, it represents about 10 % of their work.

Would playing Crestmont only, give one a sense of Ross's work ?

Would playing North Jersey and White Beeches, only, give one a sense of Travis's work ?  Yet, it represents about 10 % of his work.

Would playing Alpine, Shackamaxon, Forest Hills, Suburban and Brook Hollow, only, give one a sense of AWT's work ?
Yet, it represents about 10 % of his work.

Would playing Spring Lake, only, give one a sense of Thomas's work ?  Yet, it represents about 10 % of his work.

Would playing Kentucky Dam Village, Palmetto and Bayou de Siard, only, give one a sense of Perry Maxwell's work ?
Yet, it represents about 10 % of his work.

Would playing Everglades and Roselle, only, give one a sense of Raynor's work ?
Yet, it represents about 10 % of his work.

If you played all of these courses, would it give you a sense of each architects style, relative to the others ?

Jeff Fortson,

Your parents only know about marriage in the context of who they are, or have been married to, not in the context of their children marrying others.  Chemistry remains an important ingredient that can't be predetermined and when coupled with the blindness of LOVE who would want to be the matchmaker ?

But, I'll add another factor.
What parent would want that awesome responsibility ?
If the marriage goes bad, the parents would forever be blamed for making the choice.  Whereas, when we make our choices, we're responsible for the outcome, good or bad.

An adage says that a woman has to date a lot of bad men, so that she will recognize a good one when he comes along.
The same can be said about architecture.
Experience usually produces the ability to differentiate, except in TEPaul's case, that's why he has an architectural guide dog.

[Jeff Fortson]

An incorrect generalization about an architect's work is INCORRECT no matter how many courses it is based on.

Jim,
Absolutely!

If I take Jeff Fortson's point correctly, the problem he is referring to is when an opinion is labeled as invalid by some ONLY on the basis of the number of courses played, rather that the merits of the thought or opinion involved.  This tactic is intended to establish  the superiority of the writer without any further discussion on the merits of the argument.

There was a really lengthy discussion here a couple of years ago about criticism based on posted pictures of courses that had not been played by everyone involved in the discussion.  There were some who contended that pictures were virtually useless if one had not played the course in question.  Their argument wasn't about what the pictures showed, but rather the very use of pictures vs. on-site time.  This "number of courses" approach often takes that same direction.

I don't think that anyone would seriously argue that playing fewer courses is better, and no one ever has, to my knowledge.  But that is far, far different from the arguments advanced by some here from time to time that the opinions of others are less valid SIMPLY and ONLY because of a % of courses played.  (By the way, since there is no way of objectively setting such a %, it is always the % that the individual played; if you have played less than that, you can't possibly know as much!  It is arrogance personified...)

Patrick,

You are cherry picking details from my posts to divert the topic.  Instead of addressing what I am saying you are creating a subject that was never intended to be focussed on.  

Read A.G. Crockett's post above.....  it summarizes my point beautifully.


Jeff F.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Fortson,

Then I'll try to make it clearer for you.

Three blind men are tasked with evaluating the body of an elephant.

The first examines the ear and declares that it's a leaf like animal.

The second examines the trunk and declares that it's serpentine in nature.

the third examines the trunk and declares it's a mollusk.

The get together and discuss their findings after their examination.

Individually, and collectively they have no idea, no concept on the form and function of the object they've examined.

They need more, comprehensive data, more experience to make a credible judgement.

It's the same thing with the body of an architect's work.

AG's post doesn't summarize your post, it merely agrees with it.

Read page 295 of "Scotland's Gift"

[Michael Moore]

Interesting debate.

Let us bear in mind that if three blind men fondled a clam or an earthworm they would all come to the same correct conclusion.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Moore,

Interesting debate.

Let us bear in mind that if three blind men fondled a clam or an earthworm they would all come to the same correct conclusion.

Exactly, simple, monolithic or featurless objects are easy.

It is the complex ones, like golf courses, that require an abundance of data, experience and insight.[/color]

[A.G._Crockett]

Patrick,
Phrased another way:

Wouldn't your opinion possibly be more valid than mine if you had played somewhat fewer courses than me, but I lacked "insight"?   The answer is clearly "yes" since insight can't be adequately quantified.  Do I gain insight with the 10th course played, or is it the 11th?  Is insight achieved with 10% of the courses, or is it 15%.?

If the answer above is "yes", and I think it must be, then for me to disregard your opinion, or claim to be refuting your arguments, simply by the condescending statement that I have have played more courses than you would be the height of foolishness and arrogance, wouldn't it?

Again, NOBODY is arguing that there is any other way to judge golf courses than to see them in person.  The issue is how much is enough to gain "insight".  I just object to people who claim that the number THEY have decided on is the correct number of courses from which to gain the magic wisdom, which means that only they can possess the magic!

[JakaB]

Again, NOBODY is arguing that there is any other way to judge golf courses than to see them in person.  

Wrongo muchacho....I will argue that I don't need to either visit or play a course to give it an accurate review....Give me some pictures from someone I trust and a historical record of the place including architect and construction specifications and I will tell you everything you need to know...

[SL_Solow]

For me, the answer to this issue is dependent on the question that is being asked.  If one is being asked to evaluate the style of a particular architect, his historical significance, or his rank in the architectural pantheon, clearly the greater exposure that one has to the entire body of work by that architect, the greater the liklihood that one will have something meaningful to contribute.  Of course, if the evaluator lacks the judgment to give a useful opinion, then he will give an informed but ultimately unhelpful evaluation.  If the purpose of the evaluation is to compare 2 courses or to evaluate a single course, then the number of courses the critic has seen is far less relevant while the importance of the analysis and judgment remain critical.  Of course, many of us might suggest that as one sees and compares more courses, one's frame of reference grows and the opportunity to make informed comparisons and judgments is also likely to increase.  But this is only true if the critic starts with sound premises and has the ability to make accurate observations and well reasoned judgments.  Otherwise, even the most experienced observer will render opinions of little worth.  In short, there is no easy answer to this question.  I suggest that it is not enough to say, "you are wrong because you have not seen enough of the work of architect x."  A more meaningful criticism would consist of a statement to the effect of  " your comment illustrates an ignorance of a large body of architect x's work.  For example, his work at courses a,b, and c do not illustrate the (flaws) (strengths) suggested by you and are more typical of his work."  This type of discussion allows the reader to understand whether there is a real basis for the dispute or whether either side is just "showing off."  On this board, we get comments that fit both of these models and some in between.

[A.G._Crockett]

Again, NOBODY is arguing that there is any other way to judge golf courses than to see them in person.  

Wrongo muchacho....I will argue that I don't need to either visit or play a course to give it an accurate review....Give me some pictures from someone I trust and a historical record of the place including architect and construction specifications and I will tell you everything you need to know...

o.k., ALMOST nobody is claiming that...

[JakaB]

Over the last couple days I have seen a few members of this site put a lot of stock into the thought that if you haven't played a vast majority of an architect's work than your opinion of that architect means squat.  I vehemently disagree with this criteria.  This criteria is being used by members here to invalidate others opinions due to their lack of access or funds.  I would qualify that

Just because someone has played many works of an architect doesn't make his/her opinion of that architect any more important or valid than someone else's.  Especially, when the "experienced" person's own biases, ability and agenda in forming  their opinion about the architecture can be put into question.

To me, this line of rationale is being used to pump up the importance of certain posters own opinions and to brag about the exploits of their golfing conquests.  In many cases, I think it's an attempt to pull the wool over others' eyes.  It is nothing more than a way of trying to make one's opinion more important than someone elses based on something that can potentially be very important but in many cases means little.


Jeff F.

Huck...here you go...Jeff goes on to argue that he never named names and wasn't looking for an argument....funny stuff..

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wouldn't your opinion possibly be more valid than mine if you had played somewhat fewer courses than me, but I lacked "insight"?   The answer is clearly "yes" since insight can't be adequately quantified.  Do I gain insight with the 10th course played, or is it the 11th?  Is insight achieved with 10% of the courses, or is it 15%.?

Insight is individualistic, and it may be inate or never acquired.[/color]

If the answer above is "yes", and I think it must be, then for me to disregard your opinion, or claim to be refuting your arguments, simply by the condescending statement that I have have played more courses than you would be the height of foolishness and arrogance, wouldn't it?[color]

That's not the issue.

The issue is, if you've played very little of an architects work, what's your basis of comparison in evaluating his work ?
A limited data base usually creates flawed results.
In addition, if you've played a small number of the architects courses, will that provide you with a broad enough cross section to establish his style ?

My example, in posting the courses designed by a few prominent architects is to show that if you played those courses you wouldn't gain overwhelming or moderate insight into their respective and comparitive styles.[/color]

Again, NOBODY is arguing that there is any other way to judge golf courses than to see them in person.  The issue is how much is enough to gain "insight".

Again, a golfer could play 50 courses of a particular architect and never gain insight, and, other golfers will find that playing a few of another architect's golf courses doesn't provide sufficient data to prudently evaluate the particular architects work and style.[/color]

I just object to people who claim that the number THEY have decided on is the correct number of courses from which to gain the magic wisdom, which means that only they can possess the magic!

Noone, including myself has indicated that there is a set number of courses one must play before being able to evaluate all of the architects work, the architects style and equally as important the evolution of the architects work.

All too often I hear that Pete Dye's early work was great, or that Nickllaus's later work is good, but, if you only played their golf courses, created during a limited time frame, you would never be able to see and evaluate the growth, deterioration or stagnation of ther work.  You would have a limited data base upon which to base your conclusions, and this leads to misguided conclusions.

You and others have chosen to look at the issue as one of access, when it's not about access, it's about seeing a broad spectrum of their work, a spectrum that will provide adequate data upon which prudent evaluations and conclusions may be drawn.[/color]

[A.G._Crockett]

"Insight is individualistic, and it may be inate or never acquired."[/b][/color]

Agreed, and agreed 100%!



"Again, a golfer could play 50 courses of a particular architect and never gain insight, and, other golfers will find that playing a few of another architect's golf courses doesn't provide sufficient data to prudently evaluate the particular architects work and style."[/b][/color]

Again, agreed 100%.  However, you beg the question here.  Where is the middle ground between the person that never gains insight despite 50 courses played, and the person that feels that they need to see more to prudently evaluate?  How do we judge the point at which "insight" has been achieved?  Am I to evaluate the number of courses that YOU need to play or see to gain insight?  Said another way, am I free to dismiss your opinion out of hand because I have played more courses than you?

The original point here by Jeff Fortson, with which I heartily concur, is that individuals here sometimes take what they consider to be the moral highground ONLY because they have played an arbitrarily larger number of courses, without regard to the quality of insight (theirs OR another's).  If the question is "insight", then the discussion should focus on the level of insight, rather than a magic number.




"You and others have chosen to look at the issue as one of access, when it's not about access, it's about seeing a broad spectrum of their work, a spectrum that will provide adequate data upon which prudent evaluations and conclusions may be drawn."[/b][/color]

I never talked about access, Patrick, though goodness knows my access is limited.  I agree with you that "it's about seeing a broad spectrum of their work"; I just wonder who decides when broad is broad enough, and I get weary of the argument that evaluations aren't "prudent", NOT because they are wrong, but because of a number chosen by someone else.  That's all.

By the way, how do you do all this stuff with colors and fonts in your posts?  I am way, way behind the curve of this stuff!

[Patrick_Mucci]

AG,

The colors are easy, I don't know how to do the fonts and moving object trick.

For bold, just type the opening bracket, the letter "b", and the closing bracket.  I'll do it in reverse order other wise it won't print.  ]b[.

For color, do the same thing, type the opening bracket, the words color=____, and then the closing bracket.  I'll do it in reverse to show you. ]color=red[.

To end the bold or color text, just type in a backslash.
Again, I'll do it in reverse ]/b[.

To end color you needn't repeat the color you've chosen, only the word color. Again, in reverse ]/color[.

Now you have it.

As to defining the necessary breadth, I don't know that there is a specific, finite answer.

But, I do know that playing 1 or 2 percent of an architect's work, when he's done 450 golf courses over a 50 year span is insufficient.

Is 10 % sufficient ?
I don't think so.  Playing 1 of only 10 courses wouldn't provide a sufficient sampling of his work, and, much of it depends upon which courses you played, as evidenced by the post where I listed courses by architects.

Making a general statement about ALL of an architects courses, when you've only played a small percentage of them, would seem to be contrary to prudent and accepted research and analysis guidelines, in any discipline.

Quantity has a quality all of its own.

[Matt_Ward]

A.G. et al:

People have gotten hung up on this topic. It's quite simple and fairminded.

How would you like someone to judge your collective work if they had only personally sampled 4-5 of your courses from a total poll of say 75 or more?

Let me state with utter clarity that simply playing courses ALONE is not sufficient. A person must provide some sort of cogent analysis that demonstrates they can decipher what has been done and how it advances or diminshes the architecture that comes from each site from that architect.

One other point -- if you told the survey people (Gallup, CBS/NY Times, NBC/USA Today, etc, etc) that they are going to have draw some sort of conclusions from just a few phone calls -- say 4-5 -- the likelihood that their survey had some sort of statistical credibility would likely be nill. They would say -- correctly I might add -- that you need a fair representation of the total base in order to draw some sort of meaningful / relevant conclusion.

I said this before you have people opining on courses only from their "neck of the woods" -- they have not played a broad range of courses from different parts of the country or over the breath of a designer's career to see if there has been an evolution in the manner by which they design. I see that as a very limited sample to draw any meaningful conclusion.

I never said a person can't have an opinion from the playing of even just one design -- I just don't place much stock in that because one course alone is not enough to provide some sort of sweeping judgement IMHO.

[A.G._Crockett]

Actually, Matt, if I played 4-5 courses out of 75 by a particular GCA, I would be MILES beyond the pollsters in terms of the sample size relative to the total population of the U.S.  By that standard, they would have to contact around 16 million people for every question they were polling.  I'm going way out on a limb here that their sample is smaller than mine as a % of the whole!  Anyway, thanks for helping me make my point!
 
By the way, your standard IS "fairminded";  to YOU and all others who happen to agree with your particular point of view about a particular architect.  The problem here is that you are dismissing the other argument NOT on its merit, but on YOUR "fairminded" decision about the appropriate sample size.  IMHO.

[Matt_Ward]

A.G.

I enjoy your analysis -- shall I call it that !

I don't have a particular point of view until I do the legwork and play the courses in question -- that's a novel thought right? I don't think it's unreasonable for people to go out and do the heavy lifting before they blop in front of their computer and write that person "X' does get it or doesn't get it because their sampling size is completely inadequate.

If you've only played 4-5 courses from an architect's portoflio of 75+ courses I would say such a analysis is limited. Are the 4-5 courses from one area of the country -- are the 4-5 spaced out during the breath of that person's design life? Explain to me how you extrapolate anything from such a small base of courses on the qualities of the architect in question?

If you take the time to read what I said -- I never opined that simply playing coursses ALONE (my emphasis added AGAIN!) provides the person with some sort of gold card status. The person must also provide cogent analysis on what makes those courses good, bad or somewhere in between. Analysis is no less a part of the situation.

A.G. wake up and smell the cofffee -- I never "dismissed" the so-called "other argument" -- I'm free to place it at a much lower level of credibility because sample size + analysis is key for me in understanding what conclusions are ultimately reached by that respective person. When people "dismiss" adequate sample size as being relevant than I know these folks are more interested in their opinion no matter how little personal research they actually do. So be it for them.

[BCrosby]

Matt -

National polls sample about 1500 people. That's a very, very small percentage of the US population. Yet they are generally accurate within a couple of percentage points.

I've played six or seven courses by Rees. Maybe double that by Fazio. Certainly those represent a small fraction of the output of those architects.  

I am always open to new evidence to the contrary, but I believe I am justified in having opinions about their skills as architects. Even based on incomplete data.

(Don't we all form opinions everyday about all sorts of things based on incomplete data? Do I need to read all of Ambrose Bierce's novels before I can conclude that he is a middling writer? How many hours of Michael Moore films to I need to watch before I can conclude that he is a dope? Why is all this so much more troubling in the world of gca?)

I hold my opinions lightly, however. Like a hypothesis in science, I remain open to the possibility that new facts will show me I'm wrong.

It's a virtual necessity that we hold such opinions along the way. Why? Because life is short and capital resources are limited. I've got to allocate my time and money as wisely as I can. So at some point I've seen enough and make a call.

Thus I usually chose to spend my time and money playing courses designed by people not named Rees Jones or Tom Fazio. As with almost every other decsion I've ever made about anything in my life, it's based only on available data.

Bob

   

[SPDB]

A couple of things should be noted.

First, In standard statistical theory, the size of the sample does not move in lockstep with the size of the general population.

Second, in response to Pat's point that it also matter what courses you play, isn't this a value judgment? Who says what courses you should play? It screws up your hypothesis.

Assume out of 450 courses, the architect designed only 45 that are really worthy (taking your criteria). Then it is possible that I could play 90% of this particular architect's courses, and still not have a basis, in your opinion, with which assess the architect. You start to see the arbitrariness of your criteria, and, more important, its logical impossibility.

Any system for determining the qualifications for assessing the body of an architect's work is, in this context, necessarily incomplete. It sort of gets you back to an idea of relativism. All opinions of persons, irrespective of the number of courses they have played are truths relative to that individual. There are no absolutes, either in somebody's opinion of an architect, or the procedure by which you reach those opinions.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

BCrosby,

Doesn't volume increase credibility ?

SPDB,

How do you know the good ones from the bad ones prior to playing them ?

Or, are you prone to being predisposed by the evaluation of others who preceeded you ?

Anyone can have an opinion of a golf course or courses, with or without ever having seen them, but how credilble is that opinion ?

Do opinions take a quantum leap in their credibility because someone played 1 % to 10 % of an architect's work ?

Why did/would Tom Doak, Crenshaw and others seek to examine as many courses as they could, in order to better understand architecture  ?

I would imagine that they wanted to broaden their data base, educate themselves, develop abilities to discern and evaluated courses and features in the context of what they like or would like to do.

These fellows have made a career based on extensive study.
I find it interesting that you were able to divine a short cut to achieving their goals.

[SPDB]

SPDB,

How do you know the good ones from the bad ones prior to playing them ?

Or, are you prone to being predisposed by the evaluation of others who preceeded you ?

Pat - I don't. But in an earlier post, you yoked qualifying experience to specific courses when you said:

Playing 1 of only 10 courses wouldn't provide a sufficient sampling of his work, and, much of it depends upon which courses you played, as evidenced by the post where I listed courses by architects.

Apparently, you know the what would constitute the quality end of a sufficient sampling?

This just further illustrates the contradictions in your theory. SL Solow has it right in his post above. You may illustrate the contradictions in somebody else's propositions, but you can't tell them they're wrong or somehow unqualified. You spend too much time trying to discredit other's opinions. On the RTJ thread, for instance, you posted 6-8 times on the thread in a vain attempt to broadcast my lack of credibility and never once did you even attempt a response to the thread. It just seems like a very unproductive use of time, IMO.

[BCrosby]

Pat askes: "Doesn't volume increase credibility?"

Possibly, but not necessarily.

It is certainly possible that there is one course out there so unlike the seven or eight I've played by a given architect that it would cause me to change my opinion.

That's possible.

But I think it highly unlikely. So unlikely in fact, that at some point I am comfortable forming an opinion - even if based on less than perfect data.

Remember, these are empirical conclusions. We make empirical claims all the time about all sorts of things. They are always subject to change if contradictory evidence pops up. But that does not mean that I am not entitled to hold them.

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

Of course you can tell them that they're unqualified.

Just like you can tell that a surgeon who does 2,000 procedures a year is more qualified then a surgeon who does
10.

Are we now to understand that everyone's opinion has equal weight, equal credibility ?

That you, Tom Doak, Brad Klein and Ben Crenshaw are now on an equal footing, equally qualified to make evaluative pronouncements.

BCrosby,

Go back and look at my post where I named select architects and select courses of theirs, and tell me, if you played the ones I listed, if it would give you a good feel and understanding of their work.  Go ahead, go back and review them, and then tell me that they represent, in a clearly identifiable way, the style of each architect.

I could take you to a golf course and you wouldn't know it from a Banks a Raynor or a MacDonald unless someone tipped you off or you had knowledge beforehand.

You fellows seem to have extremely lofty opinions of your architectural eye.  Possessing evaluative skills far beyond mine.

[SPDB]

Pat - Your lost. You've shifted the argument in order to (try to) support the error in your logic. You've now brought in competency as an factor independent of quantity, and in doing so have confused your own premise.

I may play 2X the courses of Doak, Klein and Crenshaw, put together, and still not be as competent as they are.  These men have studied golf course design, its history and its architects.

Before you changed the topic, we were talking about the ability to express an opinion based on levels of experience of a particular architect. You've introduced an appeal to authority, where none is needed. In such a subjective art as golf architecture there is no such thing as an "expert." And so introducing Mssrs. Doak, Klein and Crenshaw as such is irrelevant to our discussion.

Furthermore, no one (except you) has mentioned anything about an "architectural eye" or ability to spot characteristic features. It has nothing to do with the argument.

[Matt_Ward]

Bob C:

When you say you you've "seen enough (to) make a call" I have to ask that may be true to your limited level of satisfaction, but when you compare that to someone else who has played a much wider array of courses -- over a greater period of time and from different sections of the country -- isn't it fair to say that because of their greater sample size they may have more to go on than what you have seen?

Bob -- to take your opinion through to conclusion it's nothing less tha saying that you have played "x" amount of courses from architect "y" and ergo anything else that person "y" has designed would not be worth your time, $$ and effort. There are plenty of people who piss on Tom Fazio for any number of reasons -- some using that same form of logic. The sad reality is that their base of courses is very small and likely they have not had the pleasure (shall I use the word  ) in sampling some of his finest work which I believe goes under the radar screen.

Bob -- you say you're open to change your mind, but then you just as quickly say that if you've seen one film of Michael Moore the rest he produces in the future will always be the same. Explain for me how you can be in both camps without any serious inconsistency in logic and / or fairness.

I never said people must play some herculean number in order to pass judgement on an architect with a vast portfolio. But, when people only play 5-6 and leave out the fact that they fail to identify which courses played, at what time frame (early on or later in that designers lifetime) and if some, if not all, are from the same section of the country -- I have to wonder if their analysis / opinion is not seriously limited.

Bob -- just because you say you've seen enough doesn't mean others should be held to your unwillingness or inability to see other courses that an architect has designed. I know of people who are firm on their opinions of TF, Jack Nicklaus and Rees Jones, but would be surprised to see certain designs they have each done fairly recently. I applaud your desire to change your mind -- but some people here on GCA see and play a limited sampling and then forever pronounce architect 'A' either to always be great or someone misguided in their final product offerings.

Too many people are quick to apply a "tag" label because it's convenient -- even from a sample size that's far from conclusive or even meaningful.

One last item -- I also stated that playing courses is not the only aspect of importance to me. A person must be able to provide some sort of cogent and penetrating analysis of what is played. Both aspects, I believe, are essential.