[Tom Huckaby]

Kyle:

Note I said mine was a "quick off the cuff" assessment.  Obviously we could go on even further than you did on the "architecture" there.

My question is this:  why no mention of one of the world's greatest views?   The feeling one gets on the tee, how cool it is just off 7 green, allowing for views of the ocean crashing below in one direction and shots coming into 7 in the other?  The incredible sense of "place" one has there, as nature combines with the historic feel, knowing who has walked that fairway before you?  The sense of terror on the approach, given the great height you are playing from?  The ability to play missed approaches off the beach, if one gets very lucky? (I've done that).

I could go on - hopefully you get the point.

Maybe you'd count these things as part of "architecture."  I get the feeling Patrick at least calls these "collateral issues."

In any case, if I'm to assess the greatness of #8 Pebble, all of these things do matter.  I can't understand why they shouldn't.

TH

[Kyle Harris]

Tom:

This is where my lack of playing the course comes into play. The only reason I didn't include it was because I don't know how (or if) it would influence my shot. That, to me, is something the golfer's personality dictates, and this is where we get into that gray area.

Perhaps Pat is the type of golfer who can see through all that and just focus on the ground between him and the hole?

I think there lies a critical point where for each individual golfer the surrounds become a part of the golf courses.

I'd imagine, that regardless of the influence of the view itself, that being next to the ocean does influence the wind... and therefore the shot. Was the hole designed with the prevailing wind in mind?

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

Let me try to explain the difference.

If you found an incredibly beautiful, intelligent, curvacious, humorous woman, with character and integrity, would you care about the rest of her family ?

Now, you get married, and her family moves next door.
Now do you care about her family ?

They're different issues connected by a common denominator.

I hope that helps.[/color]

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.  

Believe me, money wasn't my motivation.
Seeing Sweeney perpetually decked out in his "Irish" best, is one of the joys in my life.  Getting to see it again at The Creek made my summer.[/color]

[Tom Huckaby]

Kyle:

Very interesting - a critique of a statement by Patrick leads us back to a point he's made many times - that one can't fully assess the worth of a golf hole until he has played it.  One can surely come close - enough to add input to a discussion - but you've just illustrated why one can't get there COMPLETELY.

Because all those things do matter on #8 Pebble.  If they don't, you're either target/score obssessed or soul-less.

And no way is Patrick either of those things.  I know this having had a hell of a lot of fun playing golf with him at one of the more soulful sites in the golf world - Sand Hills.

But you ask a very good question, one that is helping my understanding of this quite a bit.

The more one is target-obssessed the less "collateral issues" matter.  That might seem simple but it is an important point.  This is why competitive golfers are really the last people to ask when trying to assess a golf course.  Remember what JES said about his take on Pebble?  He played it in USAm... not the best context for assessment.

I just don't think any architect creates a golf course with target obssesion in mind.  Do you?

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

Understood that money was FAR from in motivation in that match.  

As for the rest, is it just that such "collateral issues" matter only depending on what is discussed?

Because that I do understand.  If we are to discuss "architecture", they don't matter.

But if we are to discuss "golf courses", I think they do.

No?

TH

[Kyle Harris]

Tom,

I agree, and Pat seems to be trying to hammer home that point with the horizon greens thread and NGLA. A cognition of the surroundings definately has an influence on golf architecture.

I think the difference comes in how it is presented. Simply routing a golf course to provide maginificant views, or actually having the features integrate with the surroundings visually to directly influence the shot like a horizon green.

This thread is wonderful, and it's always good to occassionally go back and reassess what we deem to be inate.

BTW, check out the video at the bottom of my profile... the Google video one. PSU highlights and you get to see the drum major do his flip!

[George Pazin]

Methinks Huck is playing semantic word games, the last resort of the desperate.

[Tom Huckaby]

Kyle - love the clip!

And well said re the rest.  "A cognition of the surroundings definately has an influence on golf architecture" - absolutely.  I think we do need to keep this in mind.

George - no way - I am not playing word games at all.  This is something I've tried to figure out for years and this discussion is helping me a lot.  I am also far from desparate -how can I be when I am attempting to make no point, only to learn?

So I ask for your help as well.  Describe for me your favorite hole at Oakmont, and why it is great in your eyes.  What you include in that - or don't - will help my understanding of this issue.

Thanks.

TH



 

[ForkaB]

Boy, this DG is getting HARD!  It's no longer good enough to read the posts, but you also make cross references backwards and forwards and a number of assumpitons to understand what people mean when they are talking.

Now that I see that Pat was making the distinctions implied in the paragraph quoted below I have more sympathy for his point of view:

"NO, when you're discussing golf courses, you're discussing arcgutecture and playability, not the bag drop, how the attendent shines your shoes, how much seasoning they put in your hamburger or the lack of a smile on a staff member's face, because all of those things can and do change, hourly, daily, weekly, monthly and annually, while the golf course remains essentially static."

Not 100%, however.........

Many non-"architectural" factors influence attitude and attitude affects playablility.  Most of these these are also both changeable and person specific.  Some examples are the drop-dead awe of the 2nd shot to the 8th at Pebble, the sense of the presence of the town behind you on the 1st tee of the Old Course, the anticipation of the walk from the 15th green to the 16th at Cypress, etc.

Oh, yeha, there is also that little thing called weather (particularly wind) which can tend to vary.......

Maybe all these are included in what Pat wants to define as "architrecture."  If so, it's a pretty big world, and probably also includes the cart girl's smile too.....

[Tom Huckaby]

Rich:

I didn't mean for this to be so difficult, nor require cross-references to other threads.  I just find this to be a very interesting issue, so I started a new thread on it.  It wasn't intended to be about Patrick Mucci - I just figured it was wise to attribute a quote correctly.  And I do think that quote, coupled with my explanation, is all that's required to discuss the issue.  But yes, cross-references would help if one's aim is to determine Pat's motivations.  Just understand that was not my aim.  But mea culpa also - I can see this is all very unfair to Patrick.  He can take it though.  

I any case, you and I seem to be in agreement here.  Yes, I too can understand Patrick's take, and as I've said in this thread, one does need to be careful how far he takes his consideration of these "collateral issues."

However, as you so rightly state here, there are some that truly do matter, for the reasons you state.  That's what I've been trying to get at - many thanks.

I too have asked if Patrick - and others - would lump this in under "architecture" as a term.  I will say that these things do go into my assessment of a golf course.  I can't understand why they wouldn't.

But again, we do have to draw the line somewhere - and a good line might be the parts that don't so easily change.  

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

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.

Adam - sorry - missed this until now.

I suppose we're on a streak of agreeing to disagree.  Because to me its part of the soul of Sand Hills that there are no houses around, that the views stretch for so many miles.  Others might not value that, and that's just fine.  But to discount such a thing at all - one way or the other - seems to me to be foolhardy.

As is a complete discount of the presence of the ocean at Pebble Beach.

Or are you one of those who'd say Cypress Point #16 would be just as great if the ocean was replaced with a toxic waste site?

Come on man - we don't play the game with our eyes closed.  I KNOW you don't - you're one of the more spiritual, soulful golfers I've ever met.  None of the surroundings or playing conditions at PG Muni effect you at all?  And such don't have to be outside the golf course... maybe that's our disconnect here.  I'm talking about beauty of the course, however one wants to define that.  To me it matters, and I can't understand why it wouldn't.

Please tell me your post above was tongue in cheek, to try and bolster your preference for the warty old hag that was #5 Pebble.  If not, well Lucy you have some 'splainin' to do about your inconsistencies.

 

[George Pazin]

Huck, what you seem to be calling simply "the golf course" is probably what most people would call "architecture", hence the word games post from me.

I don't really have a favorite hole at Oakmont, I'll have to think more about that.

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

You can't see the difference between those two terms?

Oh well.  I just made the distinction to try to understand how best to assess a golf course.  I am playing no games.

So help me out, my friend.  It doesn't have to be a favorite hole - just pick any hole, at any course - just hopefully one I'd know at least a little about, so I can understand the context.  Hell bash one at Black Mesa if that's easier for you.  I am truly interested in what people value - not at all insisting that I am right in the way I do it - just trying to learn.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

The more one is target-obssessed the less "collateral issues" matter.  That might seem simple but it is an important point.

That's an absurd example and an extreme conclusion.

Noone narrowed the study of the architecture and playability of a golf course to a laser like beam from Point A to Point B, with all factors on the golf course, but outside of that beam being declared as being collateral issues.

The chasm the intervenes in the 8th fairway is a hazard that's an integral part of the golf course, it's architecture and if impacts playability, it's not a collateral issue.

Neither is the wind.
The wind may be used as an inspiration for the design of a hole/s and the wind certainly impacts playability.

But, bag drops, food and structures removed from the golf course are not integral features to be considered when evaluating architectural merit or playability.

That's the desperate attempt of the misquided to redefine the issue in terms that suit his purpose.[/color]


This is why competitive golfers are really the last people to ask when trying to assess a golf course.  Remember what JES said about his take on Pebble?  He played it in USAm... not the best context for assessment.

Charles Blair MacDonald and Ben Crenshaw might take issue with the above.

Again, you've conveniently blended functions.

When competing in the U.S. Am or U.S. Open, one's purpose isn't to make an  independent evaluation of the architecture.

One's focus is on shooting the lowest score possible and/or beating their opponent.[/color]

I just don't think any architect creates a golf course with target obssesion in mind.  Do you?

It depends upon how you define "target obsessed"[/color]

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

Now we are getting somewhere.  Just understand that my performance in front of you nothwithstanding, I do have a history of playing competitive golf - not at the high levels you have - but enough so that I understand that while playing competitively, one isn't there to appreciate or assess architecture.  The aims and goals of the round are entirely different.

Further, obviously there are going to be exceptions to the rule, competitive golfers who ALSO have achieved great understandings of golf course architecture - your two examples being great ones.  But I also bet if you asked Ben Crenshaw what he thought of Pebble after his first round there (which I'm going to assume was in a competitive setting) his answer then would surely not be what his answer is now.  That's the point there.

And no need to keep bringing in cart girls or the like - not into this discussion anyway.  I've stated several times on this thread that one has to be careful the lengths to which he takes the import of "collateral issues" - we agree completely that such things as that ought not to be considered.  I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you've read all prior posts, but if you had, it would have been difficult to harp on this again.  I've made this point several times in several ways.  Read back a little if you would be so kind.

In any case, we are making progress - I do believe this gets down to how one defines "collateral issues."  And the more I think about it, the more I believe we actually agree on this, and the perceived disagreement was just in the definitions.

Let's try this:  #8 at Pebble.  I had thought that you'd call each of these "collateral issues":


One of the world's greatest views?  The feeling one gets on the tee, how cool it is just off 7 green, allowing for views of the ocean crashing below in one direction and shots coming into 7 in the other?  The incredible sense of "place" one has there, as nature combines with the historic feel, knowing who has walked that fairway before you?  The sense of terror on the approach, given the great height you are playing from?  The ability to play missed approaches off the beach, if one gets very lucky? (I've done that).

I could go on - hopefully you get the point.  

If these are part of what you consider "architecture", then our only issue would be how much weight we give to such things in assessments.  If you don't, then I'd appreciate explanation/education as to why they are not to matter in an assessment.

God help me but Rich Goodale did sum this all up very succinctly many posts ago.  An answer or reply to him would achieve these same aims.

TH

[George Pazin]

Seemed to me Rich was agreeing with Patrick, all the way up to but not including the over the top comment about the big world including cart girls. Including setting and weather hardly seems collateral, or even overly expanding the great big world of architecture. Can't say the same about cart girls, much as I appreciate 'em.

[Patrick_Mucci]

But I also bet if you asked Ben Crenshaw what he thought of Pebble after his first round there (which I'm going to assume was in a competitive setting) his answer then would surely not be what his answer is now.  That's the point there
I can't speak for Ben Crenshaw, but, I would imagine, if he was playing a competition, his first round would have been a practice round, but that doesn't matter, because his purpose for being there was to prepare for and play in a medal play event, and thus his focus was but one discipline, scoring.

Obviously, if he returns for other reasons, and views the golf course in a context other than shooting the lowest score possible, his perspective, not his views will change.[/color]

Let's try this:  #8 at Pebble.  I had thought that you'd call each of these "collateral issues":

My answers are based upon the context in which I'm playing the golf course.  If I'm in a competitive atmosphere, much of what appears below is merely window dressing.
Impressive window dressing, but window dressing nonetheless.
[/color]

One of the world's greatest views?  

Agreed, it's gorgeous, but that doesn't affect my evaluation of the architecture or play of the hole.[/color]

The feeling one gets on the tee, how cool it is just een, allowing for views of the ocean crashing below in one direction and shots coming into 7 in the other?  
It's terrific, but has nothing to do with evaluating the architecture and playability.

To me, architecture is the land form that has the potential for interfacing with your golf ball.  The same goes for playability.[/color]

The incredible sense of "place" one has there, as nature combines with the historic feel, knowing who has walked that fairway before you?  

It's a nice place, but, there are a number of nice places, including real cow pastures that offer the same views along the coast.[/color]

The sense of terror on the approach, given the great height you are playing from?

Finally, you get to architectural features.
The saddling or benching of the green into that slope is terrific, great architecture and great risk-reward[/color]

The ability to play missed approaches off the beach, if one gets very lucky? (I've done that).

I'm afraid that the climb down there is too hazardous for me, plus, I think my chances of executing a better shot reside up top, on the fairway, and not on the beach.[/color]


If these are part of what you consider "architecture", then our only issue would be how much weight we give to such things in assessments.  If you don't, then I'd appreciate explanation/education as to why they are not to matter in an assessment.

See my above responses.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

To illustrate one of my points, Imagine a golfer driving into the entrance to a golf club he's about to play for the first time.

There's a sign with an arrow, "Bag Drop >"

Then the parking attendent takes his car and as he asks directions, he hears him, but drives away without responding.

Then hs has a bite to eat but doesn't like the service or the food.

It's 3:00 pm when he changes in the locker room and the attendent tells him that he closes in 3 hours so he has to be off the golf course before 6:00pm.

Then, when he goes to tee off he's told that he has to take a cart, and that he has to tee off on the back nine first.

What are the chances that he's going to be objective when it comes to evaluating the golf course ?

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

Very well.  We are down to brass tacks, and this helps me tremendously.

Let's just agree that we both know the difference between competitive play and non-competitive play.  No need to belabor that point any more.  I understand completely and agree with every word you state in this last post on this issue.  The whole point there was an attempt at understanding how people view golf courses - the competitive golfer isn't there for inspiration, he's there to achieve a score.  Thus his take on the architecture - based solely on his competitive rounds - would not be the best one to follow.  God help us if you find something to disagree with here.  

As for the rest, I now have quite a better understanding as to what you consider to be "architecture".  BUT - my next question is this:  WHY don't the other things I mention matter in the assessment of a golf course?  Why must such assessments be limited to your very strict definition of "architecture"?

Because I agree with you on each point you make in this last post.  Only OBVIOUSLY I didn't hit it down on the beach on purpose.  

I just remain no closer to understanding why we should ONLY assess "architecture", however that is defined.

Because all of the other things I mentioned do effect one as he plays #8 Pebble - and for the most part they are static, not changing due to whim.

And if they effect ME, well then they matter.  The differences between us will then come down to how much effect they have - that is, how we weight such things.  I gather the weight you give them is ZERO.  Does it follow that I am necessarily wrong if I give them a weight of 5% (just off the top of my head)?

I postulated long ago that what this all might come down to is the percentage of weight we give to collateral issues (defined as in these last few posts - not food, cart girls, etc.).

What I can't understand is giving those ZERO percent.  And I'm talking about these, each of which you seem to dismiss:


One of the world's greatest views?  

The feeling one gets on the tee, how cool it is just een, allowing for views of the ocean crashing below in one direction and shots coming into 7 in the other?  

The incredible sense of "place" one has there, as nature combines with the historic feel, knowing who has walked that fairway before you?  


Read Goodale's post.  They effect the soul, they effect the mood, they effect HOW ONE PLAYS - and perhaps more importantly, how much he ENJOYS the playing.

Isn't enjoyment (outside of competition / winning prizes / winning money) what the game is all about?

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom Huckaby,

To illustrate one of my points, Imagine a golfer driving into the entrance to a golf club he's about to play for the first.

There's a sign with an arrow, "Bag Drop >"

Then the parking attendent takes you car and as you ask directions, he hears you, but drives away.

Then you have a bite to eat but don't like the service or the food.

It's 3:00 pm when you change in the locker room and the attendent tells you he closes in 3 hours so you have to be off the golf course before 6:00pm.

Then, when you go to tee off you're told that you have to take a cart, and that you have to tee off on the back nine first.

What are the chances that you're going to be objective when it comes to evaluating the golf course ?

You're not going to be.  But none of that is what I am talking about.  Please do respond to my last post - sorry we overlapped - thanks.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

Should the golf architecture and playability of Liberty National be evaluated in the context of the views of the Statue of Liblerty and the New York Skyline, a mile or so away ?

Should Lake Oswego Golf Club be judged on the views of Mt Hood or Mt St Helens, 25, 50 or 75 miles away.

My evaluation of a golf course's architecture and playability is confined to the field of play, and no further.

My appreciation for my surroundings is a seperate issue.

The rest is window dressing, no matter how good or how bad.

If tomorrow, the areas 200 yards from the golf course at Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes were turned into residential and commercial developments, how would that affect the architecture and playability of those golf courses ?   Assume that the wind is unchanged.

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

Big sigh.

Please understand I am not asking what ought to make up one's assessment of "golf architecture and playability."  As you've defined those things, obviously only the issues you state matter.  It's your definition, so how can I possibly disagree with it?

The main question here, the crux of the whole thing, is this:

WHY MUST AN ASSESSMENT OF A GOLF COURSE BE LIMITED TO ITS ARCHITECTURE AND PLAYABILITY (even as you've defined those terms)?

Sorry to shout, but I've tried many ways to understand your take, many ways to get you to answer this, and you still fail to answer.

And please also understand - though I gather you and many here find it hard to believe - I seek not to make a point, but to be educated.  I am very open to the possibility that the weight I give to these things is too great.  I just have a very hard time understanding how such weight could ever be zero.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick - one more attempt at this, as it pains me to some degree that you can't seem to understand the question I am asking.

In another thread, Jay Flemma (new poster here, writes a really cool blog on golf courses) gives his method of assessing (and I gather ranking) golf courses:


I try to keep it simple.  1/3 Strategy/design + 1/3 natural setting + 1/3 a combination of conditioning, walkability, facilities and intangibles thrown in to boot.

He fleshes it out in much great detail - my question here isn't the worth of his system, my question is this:

As he has written this right there, is 2/3 of his assessment meaningless?  And if so, why?  Remember too he's not assessing "golf course architecture and playability", he's assessing golf courses.

 

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

The main question here, the crux of the whole thing, is this:

WHY MUST AN ASSESSMENT OF A GOLF COURSE BE LIMITED TO ITS ARCHITECTURE AND PLAYABILITY (even as you've defined those terms)?

For the same reason that a painting is judged by what's on the canvas, within the frame, and not where it hangs out  [/color]

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

Pithy, but not helpful as the analogy fails in too many ways to count.

Try answering the next one, regarding Mr. Flemma.

Thanks.

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()