How "Big" is the golf course?

[Mark_Fine]

Didn't Mackenzie talk about the importance of surroundings in his 13 essential features of an ideal golf course?  I think he did

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
To answer your question we are not talking about what the architect has control over, we are talking about what constitues the "actual architecture".  There are some things that many here have pointed out that the architect has little control over but are still very much part of the design."

Mark:

Oh yeah, like what?

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Rule #7.

Furthermore:

Mackenzie qoute -"Another common erroneous idea is that beauty does not matter on a golf course.  One often hears players say that they don't care a "tinker's cuss" about their surroundings:  what they want is good golf."  

He goes on to say how this is BS.

I'm not going to type all this, you can read it yourself  
Mark

[TEPaul]

Mark:

When Alister practiced his talent could be limitless---but when he wrote he was nothing more than a pathetic lying sot!

Do you actually believe all that the great old guys wrote? They were bigger bullshiters than some of these jokers today!

[Lou_Duran]

Patrick Mucci says:

"The inherent architectural values of Pebble Beach are within the confines of the golf course, everything else is window dressing.  Very attractive window dressing I might add."

and

"However, if tomorrow, there were 1,000 oil platforms starting 1,000 yards off the coast, would that change the inherent architectural values at Pebble Beach, or just the views ?"
 
I can agree with this, but the "inherent architectural values" of PBGL alone do not make the course what it is.  When we play golf, we not only experience what the architects and superintendents have done on or to the ground, but what we see, hear, and, to a lesser degree, smell.

This has been discussed here before but I just don't think that the architecture at PBGL is all that compelling.  Holes 8-10 are world class.  The last three par 5s are very good, and #16 is a also a very good par 4.  Three of the par 3s are very scenic, but none (including #7) are particularly outstanding holes.  Move the course to the valley and I don't have it in the top 50.  And the green fees would be more on par with Pasatiempo which has more interesting topography and green complexes.  

Perhaps not as much now as during the Golden Age, but site selection is an important part of the architect's work.  With ample budgets and time, some great courses can overcome what's around them.  ANGC, Shadow Creek, and Brook Hollow come to mind.  Dallas National and Rawls are two new courses where a lot of attention and expense went into ameliorating the less than desirable surroundings.  I am assuming that these resources are spent because a nice frame brings out the best in the picture.

I also believe that Texas is not highly regarded in high-class golf circles not because of the lack of "inherent architectural values" of its courses, but because of the often drab topography and surroundings.  Golfers will often overlook awkward architecture if the course is pretty and in great condition.  But on this site, we know just how low we hold golfers in general when it comes to recognition and appreciation of great golf architecture.    


 

[Mark_Fine]

Of course I don't believe everything they wrote Tom.  I only believe what suits me.  And this I happen to believe  

[TEPaul]

Mark, that's a great answer, and certainly one of the most honest on this website of analysts who don't have the vaguest idea what intransigient means. It's refreshing to hear you say something like that on a site like this where one has to deal with people like Tom MacWood!