[Tom Huckaby]

The ever-astute Patrick Mucci made the following statement:

The moment anyone focuses on collateral issues instead of the architecture and play of the golf course it's an admission that they can't support their position. [/b]

Is that really all there is?  I've felt for a long time that there is SO much more to golf, and golf courses, than their "architecture" and how they play.  Oh those are the two main issues, the crux of the whole matter, for sure.  But my standard line is one I leave assessments of "architecture" to those in the business, and one also doesn't play the game with his eyes or heart closed.

What say the rest of you?  Are what Patrick would call "collateral issues" meaningless in an assessment of a golf course?

Personally I find they have quite a large effect on my enjoyment of the game, thus I simply can't discount them completely.

Or is this just a matter of degrees?

TH

[ForkaB]

You are right, Tom.  Pat's just trying to be difficult again.

[Ted Kramer]

Part of GCA is how the course or hole or feature fits with the environment. How can the environment be considered collateral?
Mr. Mucci's comment makes no sense to me.

-Ted

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Ihrc,
I don't think Pat is being difficult, I think he's giving it a really good playing perspective of how to play golf or play a golf hole.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

 I meant to add a "per say" in there!

[Tom Huckaby]

Gents, I really didn't mean to pick on Patrick - hell if I want to know how to play a golf hole and why it works or it doesn't, I can think of no greater expert to ask than the esteemed Golden Domer.  In fact if I ever have a huge money match, there is NO ONE I'd want more on my side, either as playing partner, coach, caddie, whatever.

 

My question is more to the general:  how do the rest of you make your assessments of golf courses?  Is it really architecture/play and nothing else matters at all?

That to me has always seemed odd.  But I'm also not insisting I am "right" in my consideration of "collateral matters".  My aim here is not to make any point, but to be educated.

TH

[George Pazin]

Huck, I don't know if you saw Patrick's post #174 at the bottom of the page, right before your post #175. It seems to me, he was saying that outside issues are all important in determining one's level of enjoyment, but not in assessing the architectural merits of the course. Sounds reasonable to me.

[Kyle Harris]

All,

This ultimately boils down to a semantic post:
What is the definition of architecture?

I've often voiced my frustration over the lack of acceptance of comments I've made about architecture because of non-architecture related reasons.

My local muni has one of the best routings for the land I've ever seen, yet these comments (even on this site) are descredited because it's a muni, because of other architectural features like the greens, bunkers, length of holes etc.

I have an axiom somewhat related to this topic: "Good architecture can save bad maintenance, but good maintenance can't save bad architecture."

Frankly, Pat is right. Architecture is a different beast than the quality of the golf experience. I often walk away from playing my local muni feeling horrible because the experience was bad, but that doesn't change the quality of the routing.

[Ted Kramer]

Part of GCA is how the course or hole or feature fits with the environment. How can the environment be considered collateral?
Mr. Mucci's comment makes no sense to me.

-Ted

After going back and reading a few posts from the Pebble Beach thread, I have to say that my post above represents a complete misuderstanding of the issue at hand. Pls ignore it.

-Ted

[Kyle Harris]

Huck-a-bee,

I see your point, for some reason, I've always been able to seperate architectural enjoyment from "other" enjoyment. Probably a result of the couses I grew up playing.

I tend to keep coming back to the courses that provided more architectural enjoyment than "other" enjoyment, though.

[Matt MacIver]

For what it's worth...

architecture (noun)

   the profession of designing buildings and environments with consideration for their esthetic effect  

Just ask Howard Roark.

[Tom Huckaby]

Huck, I don't know if you saw Patrick's post #174 at the bottom of the page, right before your post #175. It seems to me, he was saying that outside issues are all important in determining one's level of enjoyment, but not in assessing the architectural merits of the course. Sounds reasonable to me.

Ah, here's the crux of the issue.

My question is this:  are the "architectural merits" of the course all that matters?

I think collateral issues do matter quite a bit in the assessment of a golf course.  If one wants to assess "architecture", then things like difficulties in development, cost, skill in getting the deal done, etc. all would have to matter as well, and to me as a golfer I could care less about all of that.

Perhaps it is semantics:  that is, what each of us means when we say "architecture"?

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Huck-a-bee,

I see your point, for some reason, I've always been able to seperate architectural enjoyment from "other" enjoyment. Probably a result of the couses I grew up playing.

I tend to keep coming back to the courses that provided more architectural enjoyment than "other" enjoyment, though.

Kyle - well done.  This is more what I'm trying to get at.

And I suppose it is a matter of degrees.  Yes, I too would come back more to courses with greater "architectural" enjoyment, because the game remains in the playing.  I just too can very much enjoy courses with "other" enjoyment.  I just don't see many courses - if any - that are all or nothing in either of those assessments.

Perhaps it might help to put this in percentages?  I bet if we do, well I'd likely give the higest percentage of anyone here to "other" enjoyment.  I just want to know how anyone could put that at ZERO. That I don't understand.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

The ever-astute Patrick Mucci made the following statement:

The moment anyone focuses on collateral issues instead of the architecture and play of the golf course it's an admission that they can't support their position. [/b]

Is that really all there is?  I've felt for a long time that there is SO much more to golf, and golf courses, than their "architecture" and how they play.

To GOLF, YES, there is more.
To GOLF COURSE ARCHITECTURE AND PLAYABILITY, NO, there isn't more.[/color]

Oh those are the two main issues, the crux of the whole matter, for sure.  

If you concede that they're the crux of the matter, the discussion is over. [/color]

But my standard line is one I leave assessments of "architecture" to those in the business, and one also doesn't play the game with his eyes or heart closed.

When you, Sweeney, Greco and I played our match at Sand Hills, which part of your heart was open and which part of my heart was closed ?[/color]

What say the rest of you?  Are what Patrick would call "collateral issues" meaningless in an assessment of a golf course?

Personally I find they have quite a large effect on my enjoyment of the game, thus I simply can't discount them completely.

But, we're not talking about the "GAME" we're discussing the golf course in terms of its architecture and playability, and you have to learn to seperate the two.[/color]

[George Pazin]

I think collateral issues do matter quite a bit in the assessment of a golf course.  If one wants to assess "architecture", then things like difficulties in development, cost, skill in getting the deal done, etc. all would have to matter as well, and to me as a golfer I could care less about all of that.

And how are we supposed to evaluate those things? They might matter to an owner/developer looking for a new architect, but the rest of us should probably just stick to evaluating what's in the ground.

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

Many thanks - that does help a lot.

And I agree with all of that.

But help me out some more, if you would be so kind.

Why do "collateral issues" NOT matter when one assesses the worth/greatness of a golf course?  If they matter in the playing of the game at such a course, why are they to be discounted in an assessment of its worth?

That's what I don't understand.

TH

ps - rest assured all parts were open for both of us at that wonderful Sand Hills match, only the openness also included the wallet for just me and Sweeney.  

[Tom Huckaby]

I think collateral issues do matter quite a bit in the assessment of a golf course.  If one wants to assess "architecture", then things like difficulties in development, cost, skill in getting the deal done, etc. all would have to matter as well, and to me as a golfer I could care less about all of that.

And how are we supposed to evaluate those things? They might matter to an owner/developer looking for a new architect, but the rest of us should probably just stick to evaluating what's in the ground.

ABSOLUTELY!  No way can we do that.

So we ought leave "architecture" to those in the business, and as golfers, stick to assessing "golf courses."

Get the difference?

TH

[Kyle Harris]

Tom,

I'll agree to that assessment. A lot of times, "other" enjoyment courses for me are courses I meet old friends for and forget about playing well for a day. Enjoy the amenities and time spent with good people.

If I am playing alone though... I need a different type of stimulation.

The best of both worlds tends to happen with GCA-type people. I can certainly see myself finding common ground playing with people like Wayne, Doug, yourself and all... regardless of the course.

I do share in Pat's frustration though. While there is more to golf, it shouldn't necessarily cloud architectural discussions. That tends to lead to a rather nasty subjective vs. objective argument where there is nothing to be gained.

[Michael Hayes]

This is EXACTLY why I am so drawn to Bandon Dunes.  The bonding with friends, great food and drink, quality staff, poker, Sheep Ranch, varied weather, walking only, and relief from the fairer sex only serve to make 3 great golf courses even better!

[Tom Huckaby]

Kyle:

Good point.  My take here certainly can lead to the clouding of issues.

But read my last response to George... how also are we to adequately assess "architecture"?

We can't do it.

So why SHOULDN'T we assess what a course means to us as GOLFERS?

Sure it's going to get subjective, and sure it's going to be difficult.  But in the end, none of this is ever "right" or "wrong" - it's all opinion.  

To me, these discussions would have far more worth than discussions of "architecture", as cloudy as they might get.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

This is EXACTLY why I am so drawn to Bandon Dunes.  The bonding with friends, great food and drink, quality staff, poker, Sheep Ranch, varied weather, walking only, and relief from the fairer sex only serve to make 3 great golf courses even better!

RIGHT ON BROTHER!  Full agreement about that haven of joy up there in Oregon.

Of course I ought to put the brakes to this a bit:  I am in NO WAY saying things like food and drink, weather, staff, cart girls and the like ought to go into these assessments.

When I say "collateral issues" I mean scenery/views/playing conditions/esthetics.  But we also need to be careful taking this too far.

Because "architecture/play" does remain the crux of the issue.  My question remains why don't collateral issues matter AT ALL.

TH

[Kyle Harris]

Tom,

I think one of the many appeals to this site (for me at least) is the challenge to make myself be able to respond to those architectural discussions.

Who are we? We are free-thinking and intelligent human beings who participate on a web discussion board with a wealth of information regarding the topic of golf architecture! The site exists for this purpose, and it's ultimately what drew me to joining the group. It was a place to bounce ideas around, hone my own knowledge and yes, even make a few mistakes.

The people here are great too, but like this topic of this thread, that is different and seperate from the above - yet there is a synergy. The people of this site make it what it is, but so does the content.

My point is, that with a little effort and learning, we can all make informed architecture posts, and we all have.

[Tom Huckaby]

Kyle:

Concur with that.  My aim is certainly NOT to stifle "architecture discussion."

I'm just trying to get a handle on what really matters.  I've never been able to figure this out, and it's troubled me for a long time.

I guess it comes down to this:  if someone asks me about #8 at Pebble, am I to stick to:  "blind tee shot, tough to judge, then mid-long iron with a long carry over a hazard, to very difficult highly-sloped green with great short game interest"?

That would be a quick off the cuff "architectural" assessment, no?

Isn't there WAY more to that great golf hole?  Are we really to STOP at that point?

TH

[Kyle Harris]

Tom:

I think you may be oversimplifying it a bit. Your assesment of the 8th at Pebble Beach seems to be more of a "what is there" assesment.

I think an architectural assesment would take things a step further.

"The small target green at the 8th at Pebble Beach places a premium on judging the correct distance off the blind tee. Since the landing zone abruptly cuts off at about 280 (?) the golfer is required on the tee box to think about his approach. Not putting himself in a position to try for the green makes the golfer decide how to navigate the chasm to get to the green, while there is ample room left to lay up, the green's features place an even greater premium on that shot, making par more and more elusive as the golfer compromises. All in all, the hole is the type of hole that at one point during play, will force the golfer to take a risk in some form."

To me, architecture blends that physical feature with strategy and how to play. Now, you may be able to argue that the hole's location (the aesthetic) plays a major role in influencing how the golfer plays a shot... thereby making the aesthetic a part of the architecture.

[A_Clay_Man]

Imagine, if you will, someone stating that they didn't like Sand Hills because there weren't any houses or other structures nearby.

Applying this to what Pat originally said, and you have proof that whoever this person is, their evaluation of the GCA is completely discounted because they cite off-course elements that sway their evaluation.

Here at Pinon Hills there are many Natural Gas pumps that are in view while on the golf course. With the recent increase in NG prices the incentive to build more wells is great. Do these wells enter into the evaluation of the GCA? No. Never. And if someone were to cite them as a negative, their opinion of the gca should be discounted.

So Huck, The fact that the new fifth has an ocean to the right should not enter into the discussion of the gca of that hole. And your opinion should be discounted.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()