Golf is a game we play.....

[TEPaul]

Come on Rich, for God sake don't just ask Geoff Shackelford to educate you on Hunter and Behr and particularly their writing! Just read what they wrote a few times and I think you'll have gotten all the education you'll need. If at that point you haven't or feel like you haven't then ask Shackelford to help you learn something more!

And no, from the quote of yours that Dan Kelly produced you didn't actually say that those men and their writing were "irrelevant" but your implication that you couldn't see how it (or they) were "relevant" was pretty darned clear! It's all pretty clear but maybe hidden from you in things like the need and efficacy for restoration and preservation on certain courses with things like design intent and so forth!

And I don't think we need to preface a discussion about this subject with the way a jurist might be considered a "liberal interpreter" of the US Constitution or a "strict constructionist" either.

[Andy Lipschultz]

Where Tom and I disagree, and probably disagree pretty strongly is in the relative value of these two aproaches in determining the quality of a particular golf shot, or golf hole or golf course.  I tend to think that this is determined more by the collective experience of golfers, not just me

Right on. I work in the film industry where the actors, directors and writers fall into two camps. One think that they are artists and the other camp consider themselves craftsman. It is not for anyone to term what they do as "art." Art is determined by the "collective" and it usually becomes art because it reflects how a society lived, thought, expressed themselves. Acting is not art; directing is not art and screenwriting is not art. But together, on occassion, art can result. Remember that Ordinary People won the Oscar over Raging Bull 20 years ago; the "collective" would say otherwise if voting today. Citizen Kane got some crappy reviews when it opened 60 years ago by the leading critics of the day. Art, in movies and golf, is visceral and is to experienced.

(I just wrote that? Forgive me. Now, I'll bury myself in a Dan Jenkins book and get back to reality)

[George Pazin]

Rich,

The architects whose relevance you are questioning designed courses, and those courses are still played to this day. Even revered by some who play them. Even criticized by some who go on to try to mimic their styles (Tom Fazio). Either way, their work has endured.

So shouldn't it be the other way around, shouldn't you explain why they are irrelevant? After all, these architects put themselves out front by writing and creating courses. They exposed themselves to critics and golfers by designing and writing. They left something behind that is still enjoyed. They took chances and backed up their ideas. Their designs and their views have lasted despite an onslaught of egotism, difficult economic times and changes in the game. Their legacies endure because people love playing golf on their courses. I'd say that makes them pretty relevant.

So are they irrelevant simply because you think so? Seems to keep coming back to the same thing, which I can understand.
Geoff

Come on, Rich, how can you write that last post? How can you say Geoff didn't read or respond to your post? "Their legacies endure because people love playing golf on their courses." Their writing was a way of explaining what they were thinking of while designing. Who is it that is trying to learn here?

P.S. This time I added the bold intentionally!  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I have a feeling this thread was inspired by my response to Pat Mucci's thread on his home course. Rich wrote, "I find it laughable and sad that, on a another thread, some are suggesting to Pat Mucci that he, in effect, go back to the library before he comments more on the Tucker course that he has been playing and observing for over 50 years—all with a very high degree of competence and interest, I can presume. You could get 500 non-Mucci DG participants and give them 500 typewriters, 10 years, an unlimited travel budget and all the library cards they ever dreamed of and I would be surprised if they were to reach anything close to the understanding that he probably has of that course and of Tucker, much less a conclusion."

Pat agreed and said, "Research can be beneficial, provided the data base isn't flawed. Would one gain any indication of Tucker's work if they visited my club and studied it. The myriad of changes to the golf course over the last fifty years would confuse them, and I would challenge anyone on this site to identify all of the changes, especially the bunkers that have been removed, and altered." It sounds like he believes there may not be much of Tucker remaining. He goes on to say, "How would they evaluate entire holes that have been completely redesigned? How would they understand the order, the evolution of the changes? Talk is cheap, there is no substitute for experience." My answer: through research.

He goes to say, "What I find interesting, is that I am deeply involved in this project, have been on the green committee and board for over thirty years, yet individuals who have never layed eyes on the property, have no idea of the politics, and no historical perspective, are contradicting me on what to do, especially in areas where they don't have the facts, and don't understand the particular circumstances unique to this club."

If I'm not mistaken Pat requested four individuals, none of which have seen the golf course, for their advice. I was the first to respond, asking for more information about the architect and the evolution of the course. My advice: if you want to preserve and restore the Tucker course (and it now sounds like there isn't much Tucker left to preserve), take the TE Paul route and present a well researched document as to why it was in the club's best interest. I wouldn't characterize that as telling him to go 'back to the library.' Nor would I say that advice discounts his 50 years of experience. The response was sad, but not my response. The irony of this thread, Pat wants to preserve and restore his vintage course, Rich feels that restoring GCA is a bad idea. Their common thread, they both disagree with me. Explain that one to me.

[George Pazin]

My old logic professor used to say something to the effect of "From faulty premises anything follows." Seems like as good an explanation as anything.

[D. Kilfara]

Rich (and Jeff and Chris),

Thanks very much for your company up at Dornoch this weekend. It was very highly appreciated and enjoyed, even if some of my responses to my (many) bad shots may have indicated otherwise.

I don't quite know how to add to this discussion, nor am I sure that I want to. I do know that I wish I had more fun on the golf course than I do when I play the game poorly. I suspect (though may well be wrong) that some people, in forcing themselves to agonize over the logic/wit/clarity of their replies, aren't having much fun on this thread. Self-importance - pride, by any other name - goeth before many a fall...

Cheers,
Darren

[TEPaul]

I really do wonder why many, if not most of the contributors on this site even bother to read and write on here the way they seem to feel about things on some of these threads!

It seems like more and more the subject of discussion is the self importance that contributors feel that others show! It sure does get a little depressing around here sometimes!

[Dave_Miller]

TEPaul:

Don't get depressed.  

Just think about a great weekend in New England and all the wonderful things you saw at Kittansett, Brookline and The River.

Best,
Dave

[TEPaul]

Dave:

Oh sorry, to say things get a little depressing around here sometimes I didn't exactly mean I get depressed! And you're right, if ever I do get depressed I'll just walk through Charles River in my mind! You guys sure are right, you can't forget a thing about it!

I feel like it's almost unfair to the course to mention one thing over another about it but #11 keeps coming to my mind first!

If a golfer ever passes through that hole and the hole can't get some kind of reaction out of that golfer, the golfer probably shouldn't be playing golf, in my opinon! That's a hole that will definitely span the ages!

[SVEN]

Dear Rich and other readers/writers,

You have brought up a very good subject here.

But the answer lies in both research and experience. I am currently seeking my own niche in the Architecture market. Hopefully someday my name will be spoken along with the Joneses, Dyes, Fazios, Rosses, et al. But for now I can only use my experience along with my research to expand my knowledge to make me a better Architect in the future.

My experience stems from over 20 years in the golf business. Job titles have included cartboy,greens keeper,Asst. Golf Professional, General Manager, Irrigation Foreman, construction Foreman, and now Asst. Superintendent. I have also played extensively throughout the country on every imaginable type of golf course as well as some in Ireland.
I don't know if that all qualifies as golfing experience but let me know if I'm lacking in a particular area and I'll do my best to try and cover it, cause you can't get too much experience.

As for research experience I have a degree in Landscape Architecture and also participated in the golf course design,development, and planning seminars at Harvard a couple of years back. I do have one weak point in that I have only read maybe 8 to 10 books on the subject of Architecture . I feel that for my future creations to be unique, following the design philosophy of others would just be repetition.

Now, golf is a game that we play! It is played on ground manipulated by someone(e.g. Architect) or something(e.g.Nature). Architects of golf courses are bound by the parameters of the game in creating their art and at the same time creating something which should be aestethically pleasing for the player.For someone to accomplish this they MUST have experience with the playing of the game. They MUST also be supported by research and education in order to make informed decisions on how the game will be played on their new creation.

The Architect therefore uses both his knowledge from experience and from research to provide the best piece of work he can. So to say that research is inferior to experience when it comes to understanding subtleties in architecture doesn't hold water. They must work hand in hand to make informed decisions, or comments for that matter.

Criticisim and controversy will always be there. "Why does this hole play this way",or "This hole should go like that" are comments heard at every club no matter how great it is. You can please some people sometimes but you can't please all the people all the time.

P.S. Frank Lloyd Wright's masterpiece is "Falling Water" not "Waters".

[Andy Lipschultz]

P.S. Frank Lloyd Wright's masterpiece is "Falling Water" not "Waters".

Well, since you inisisted on correcting him, I'll do it to you: It's "Fallingwater." One word, not two.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom MacW

I do not believe that "restoring GCA is a bad idea."  Sometimes it is a good idea, sometimes it is not.  Same thing, in effect, that Tom Doak said in his thoughtful post earlier on.

Sometimes I agree with Pat Mucci, sometimes I do not.  Life is not so black and white as some people seem to want to make it to be.  Or, as one of my Professors once said:  "There are two kind of people in the world--those that divide things into twos and those that do not..........."

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
Kind of like this thread?

[TEPaul]

SVEN:

You said in your post above; "architects are bound by the parameters of the game in creating their art....."

That is precisely why anyone truly interested in architecture should read a thinker and writer such as Max Behr!

He makes the very point that the "game" as opposed to golf as a "sport" is the very thing that has saddled man, golfers and certainly architects with the idea of "boundaries" and endless "restrictions" of how the game "must" be played (and obviously how design and architecture "must" conform to those boundaries and restrictions)!!

Behr's reference to golf as a "sport" vs a "game" is precisely the context in which golfers can somehow get away from endless "boundaries and strictures" and then consequently be allowed to express themselves in the playing of golf and experience a certain sense of individual "freedom" (of expression) in doing so instead of always being dictated to and sort of "shown the way" (architectural roadmapping)!

His basically simple principle of "lines of charm" is no more than an architectural application of that very freedom and sense of individual expression!

This is a fundamental and most interesting distinction ("game" vs "sport") and when it's made you will hear almost everyone say that it's impossible in today's world due to land requirements, economics, legal liabilities, golfers' preferences etc, etc.

This is evidenced too by architects like a Tom Fazio telling us in his book he knows EXACTLY what golfers want and don't want and what they will accept and won't accept!

Well, that's basically crap! Fazio does not KNOW any such thing! Of course he may sense such a thing for some particular reason of his own but then he only perpetuates the perception by making public remarks like that (he "KNOWS" what golfers....blah, blah, blah)!

Clearly there may be all kinds of problems involved in the application of Behr's principles in today's world but those problems are prescisely what today's architects need to solve in new and interesting ways and applications that are architectural to return strategies and golf and the playing of it to some form of individual expression and freedom!

That's why, of course, experience is necessary but so is reading and research into some adventurous and creative thinking like that of a Max Behr!

He wrote those things 75+ years ago and clearly he did not give us an exact "blueprint" in how to accomplish some of these things architecturally in today's world. But he outlined a wonderful and adventurous idea and it's up to us to figure out how to make it work today--and certainly since it's undeniably valid in principle! And if one didn't read and research how would one have ever become aware of it?

[TEPaul]

Rich:

For us to go forward into all kinds of interesting possibilities and even some extraordinary "sunlit uplands" in golf and golf architecture in the future, maybe it's about time all of us stop telling each other what things like life is and isn't!

Maybe you should just stop saying things like; "Life is not so black and white as some people seem to want to make it be", and maybe you should stop quoting some professor who said; "There are two kinds of people in the world, those that divide things into twos and those that don't...."

Maybe it's just a better idea to recognize that life is whatever the hell anyone wants to make it be for himself and just leave it at that!

I have a feeling if we can start to get into a bit more of that we just might be able to get away from the constant striving on here to get others to agree with us... and then consequently maybe much of the arguing on here would begin to cease!

I like professors too, and I respect you as well, but they have no more idea about what life is to you or me than we do--that's for sure!

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom MacW

I'm very pleased that you "kind of like this thread."

Tom P

That "Professor" thing was an attempt at self-deprecating humor (as if I ned to deprecate myself these days what with all that's eing said about me on this thread!).

Have nice days

Rich

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Sorry I missed the humor of the professor thing and the philosophical certainty of what life is and isn't! I need to work on my humor sense, I guess, but don't worry, we all still love you on here!

But you know, you of all people should look very carefully into the writing of Max Behr!

You would be a natural to subsribe to his ideas and principles! Anyone who even thinks of the joys of playing golf holes in some kind of odd progression and odder spectrum of 40 yard holes to 800 yard holes even over previously uncharted directions on any golf course is very much naturally into true "freedom of expression" in golf (and architecture) and basically that is most of what Behr is all about!

Knowing you, the man will probably turn out to be your long lost great uncle anyway!

[Andy Hodson]

I find it helpful on threads like this to go back to the original post to see the genesis of the discussion.

I think Rich's first post had to do more with the  differences between research or study in the GENERAL sense and experience in the SPECIFIC (one day I'll learn how to italicize) sense, and which is a better mentor when it comes to a specific course (his examples were Pat's course and NGLA).

It since seems to have gotten into a research vs. experience debate. Which of course is somewhat nonproductive because both are important tools in understanding GCA in the macro and a particular course in the micro. Imagine a doctor with no body of knowledge of medicine treating a patient. Just as silly as the same doctor treating a patient armed only with a medicine book and no personal history of the patient.

[George Pazin]

Hod -

Good points indeed.

If you didn't lurk much before posting, then you would have no way of knowing this, but Rich has always taken a perverse pleasure in belittling those of us who choose to read & analyze the many writings on golf course design, always somehow implying that we were nothing more than automotons (sp?) who mindlessly spit out what we read. When he starts making statements like finding research "laughable," then we have to rein him in. Particularly since Patrick specifically invited response & advice from the four individuals who had not played his course. Who knows why Patrick even asked?

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Dear George

The only thing I get perverse pleasure in is playing the game of golf.

I have never consciously "belittled" anybody on this site.  If you or anybody else feels that way, I aoplogise.

I don't remember using the word "laughable," and could not find it in this thread or elsewhere using the crack GCA search engine.  (OK, that's two things I get perverse pleasure in, playing golf and belittling the crack GCA search engine....) .  Please let me know when and where I said it so I can see the context.  I would be surprised if I said anything like "finding research 'laughable'" since I do not beleive that to be true.

I've never called anybody on this site an "automonon" or anything similar or even implied such, as I do not believe that to be the case.

In fact, I think I am one of the more civil of the fairly regular posters.

It is sad to me that you obviously disagree.

Cheers

Rich

[TEPaul]

Rich:

The word "laughable" is in your first post in this thread a couple times and it's not that hard to tell where you seem to be going with it!

I don't think you've ever belittled anyone on this website that I can remember but you certainly have questioned the usefulness and relevancy of some of the architects and writers that have been mentioned on this site many times as respected architectural minds and writers, particularly Robert Hunter!

You said you've read his book and his writings (or some or parts of it) but I wonder how well you've read them and how interestedly you've read them!

There's no question in my mind and memory that you passed Hunter off as some kind of rich dillettante who dabbled in architecture and may not have been an opinion to be considered or respected.

I hope you remember that and I certainly hope you won't say that was just your self-deprecating sense of humor!

[George Pazin]

Thus, I find it laughable and sad that, on a another thread, some are suggesting to Pat Mucci that he, in effect, go back to the library before he comments more on the Tucker course that he has been playing and observing for over 50 years

This darn quote feature always comes back to bite you (general you, not you specifically - I'm sure many of my quotes could be used to get me too).

Rich, I certainly find you civil & I always enjoy our little debates - that's why I jokingly refer to you as my "archnemesis." We often find ourselves on different sides on the more theoretical discussions on this site.

As for belittling, that's probably me reading too much into your comments - I've always maintained the worst thing about online discourse is that there are no personal inflections to read. When I made my comments to Hod re: your style, it was more of a friendly teasing nature, that's why I put the smiley face in. Still, you must admit it's quite easy to read your initial post & infer that you are looking down on those who choose to research & read - how else is one to interpret the 500 non-Muccis sitting at 500 typewriters? This is a pretty clear reference the old theory of 500 monkeys sitting at typewriters randomly hacking away in an effort to reproduce Shakespeare (not worth reproducing, IMHO).

[Dan Kelly]

George Pazin --

This is starting to drive me batty!

You write, to Rich: "You must admit it's quite easy to read your initial post & infer that you are looking down on those who choose to research & read - how else is one to interpret the 500 non-Muccis sitting at 500 typewriters? This is a pretty clear reference the old theory of 500 monkeys sitting at typewriters randomly hacking away in an effort to reproduce Shakespeare (not worth reproducing, IMHO)."

(1) Mr. Goodale VERY CLEARLY said, right there in that initial post, that he values the insights gained from the experience of playing a course more than all of the insights that could be gained from reading about it. He very clearly did not say that research was worthless. He has very clearly said, since, that he considers both playing experience and research to have usefulnes -- though he considers experience superior to research.
    Why do you need to INFER anything?

(2) Shakespeare: not worth reproducing?
     In the immortal words of Charlie Brown: AUUUUUUUUGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

[Ken_Cotner]

Dan, Mr. Editor Sir:

Isn't it "ARRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH"?  

KC

[Dan Kelly]

Ken  --

Could be. "Bartlett's" doesn't have it -- yet.

Our paper -- which once employed Charles Schulz, but then let him go (I think he wanted a raise -- to 15 bucks a week, or something equally outrageous) -- has never carried "Peanuts." And in the immortal words of our accountants: ARRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!