Double standards, an old BIAS returns

[George Pazin]

Because I guarantee if Fazio or Rees put one in today, he would be ridiculed.

Thanks for telling everyone how they feel & how they would respond.

I guarantee you have not read any of the Fazio threads closely, because this is exactly the sort of thing people on this site have been begging him to do, along with stop butchering, excuse me, restoring the old classic courses.

Apparently you also did not read Mr. Fazio's own written words, where he explains in detail his disdain for such quirky features often found on the older classic courses.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Good points, George.

My 2 cents:  who says that a crossover is a flaw?  I don't think it's a flaw if the holes/course are good designs.  All it is (I'm deducing from the talk) is walking around a green to get to the next tee.  If anything, wouldn't actual HOLES that cross each other be more considered a flaw?  Like the one on TOC.  Or Astoria.  I don't consider them flaws if they work in the design.

Don't forget that many of these courses were designed either when few played the game (TOC, centuries ago, or others early in the century) and/or for courses that would have limited play, thus walks or holes crossing each other doesn't matter much as no one would be in the way.


BTW, LACC (North) has a crossover from #10 to #11.

[mike_beene]

Crossovers give variety to a small property and make a course feel more sociable.I think that is good in a club setting.For that matter,part of the fun of playing Pebble or the old course is watching others play it.

[RC_Stanfield (Guest)]

I agree wit Burrougs and Beene and Pavin,

The only point I have is wit modern design utilizing crossovers...IMHO I can't help but try and figure out what went wrong during the drawing board stages to justify te crossover.

TOC #8 & #11, Merion etc are courses that did not have the benefit of the present maps, topos, and env. mapping(if needed).

So to me its still an issue of history and the evolution of available knowledge for the designer.

[Andy Hodson]

George

On the contrary, I have read closely most, if not all, of the Fazio threads. Enough to understand not only what is written, but also what is implied between the lines. And I was stating not what others should feel, but what I felt would be the reaction here if a Fazio, for example, employed features such as crossovers in his newest $20 milion dollar creation. And it would be about the same as Jones' reception at Atlantic. I can't believe anyone here is begging Fazio to do this (crossovers or horseshoe green features) at his next project, unless it is in the same vein that I beg for the Cowboys to lose...so I can rag them.

And Tim, this goes to the heart of the discussion,which is: If a feature is OK on an older classic, yet not OK on a modern course...is that a double standard? And I agree that it is. And bias may mean in this context a negative bias toward certain modern day architects; not a bias for or against certain courses, or era of course architecture.

[Lefty Mace]

Hod
Its sounds to me like you have a bias against this website and those who like older courses. Everybody says the other guy is bias who they disagree with....what's up with that? I enjoy learning from those who like the classics, they seem to be the most knowledgable and well traveled on this site. Maybe you and I should be quiet and pay attention to what they say.

Have you ever played a hole with a horseshoe green, I haven't but it sounds cool? Have Rees Jones and Tom Fazio designed greens with horseshoes or are you making it up to try make your point?

[Andy Hodson]

Lefty
Down boy...the issue was originally brought up by Mr. Mucci and had more to do with a double standard than with bias. I happen to agree with Pat that there is a double standard on this (now overwrought)issue.

The bias brought up is with certain modern day architects (I assume) and (George, this I can guarantee) has nothing to do with this site or anyone who frequents it. My discussion has everything to do with a percieved double standard (or bias) in the on going discussion and dialogue here, and nothing to do with classic architect lovers or haters or agnostics. I am neither a classic architect hater nor Fazio apologist. At worst, I may be a devil's advocate; but I hope there is a place in the GCA world for one like me.

I would hope this forum would not become a sycophant-only praise room. And I would hope that if you disagree with this post or any others, you would also feel free to make your thoughts and opinions known.

Andy

[Andy Hodson]

BTW Lefty, here is the link for the picture of the horseshoe feature alluded to.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/yeamans1.htmlI happen to think it is kinda silly, whether on an older classic, modern classic,or any type course in between. Point being, do we think it is "quaint" only because it is on an older course?
But, of course, this was the point of a topic long ago.'

I, of course, could be biased.

[Lefty Mace]

Hod
With all due respect I don't think name calling is the same as being a devil's advocate. I am sorry for calling you biased, but from your reaction it is obvious you do not enjoy being called that name.

To accuse someone of bias because they do not criticize the crossovers at Merion and Atlantic, is one thing. To invent a bias like the horseshoe is ridiculous. If you are going to accuse someone of a bias at least make it a legitimate example and anyway its not good to generalize.

As far as the Merion + Atlantic example. It may not be fair to use that as proof of a bias either. A golf course is the sum of many parts, to take single part out, like the crossover, as proof that many are biased, ignores the many qualities of a course like Merion. I’m sure Atlantic is a fine course, but the sum of its parts is not the same and to take out one feature, seems unfair. There is course outside Bismarck with a crossover, the course is not well designed. The crossover is just one of a number of bad features……am I biased?

[George Pazin]

Hod -

I have no problem with a differing opinion & neither does anyone else on the site, in my experience. This site is wonderfully tolerant of differing opinions. provided they are backed up with at least a modicum of rationale. The only thing the members of the site are generally intolerant of is anonymous personal criticism.

I have a big problem with inventing a hypothetical, telling us what "everyone's" reaction would be and using that as evidence to support your point. If reading between the lines of the Fazio threads leads you to conclusions like this, I suggest you simply stick to reading the actual lines.   Seriously, if you can go through one of the latest Fazio threads, maybe one on Shadow Creek or Mike Cirba's "Anti-Strategy" thread and find ONE POST where someone criticizes Fazio for a quirky trait on one of his courses, I might be inclined to put a little more faith in your argument.

As one of the wise members on this site likes to say, a difference in opinion is not automatically bias, it could be a matter of judgement.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lefty Mace,

The post was initiated because there was a great deal of criticism leveled at Atlantic over the crossovers when the course was discussed about a year and a half ago.

When I played Merion the other day, I noticed the crossovers, which I had forgotten, especially the one from the 13th green to the 14th tee.

My post was made in the context that Atlantic took a lot of heat for the crossover, yet everyone conveniently overlooked, or forgot, as I did, the crossovers at Merion.

The individuals that I was debating with, regarding Atlantic, are astute individuals, some extremely familiar with Merion, so I was just reminding them, so that the could see the double standard they seem to enjoy.  
Especially my good friends and master debators, Tom Paul and Tommy Naccarato          

[Tim Weiman]

Hod:

All this talk about bias against modern architects, e.g. Fazio, is overdone. If you enjoy their work, just pick an example or two and tell us why..... with as much detail as possible.

Preference for classic architecture doesn't equate to bias against the modern guys..

[Grover "Lefty" Mace]

Patrick
I think I understand, you were just trying to keep your friends honest. We all need that.
What are some of the positives and negatives of each design. Could you go through a Ben Franklin exercise that lists the negatives, like the cross over, and the positives? That might show that these courses are very different designs, with very differents strengths...that might appeal to different folks. That would seem more useful than calling someone biased or prejudiced.

[TEPaul]

If Rees or Tom Fazio did a horseshoe on a green they might be criticized but I doubt by any or many on this website.

A crossover as a flaw?? Why would that be? If you analyze crossovers they generally have a purpose and a very good one. One of the best at it was William Flynn. Some of the crossovers he did at various courses is the single ingredient that not only created some really interesting routings but also the ability for players to play interesting sets and progressions of holes if there might not be time for 18 or even 9. It's just fascinating to see how he did this so brilliantly with clever and well timed cross-overs--one of the most interesting I've seen being Lancaster C.C. And Lehigh's #1 to #2 crossover got the whole front nine outside the back nine!!

[Andy Hodson]

Pat, how did I get to be the main whipping boy in your fight? Seriously, though, I found this to be an interesting topic of discussion. Somehow though, it became about my "bias" (of which I have in this thread professed none) and less about a legitimate dialogue of features found in older courses that may, I say may, be thought to be illegitimate in newer courses and whether that constituted a double standard. As stated before, I neither have a bias against older courses nor a love of Fazio courses (for that is not the issue here); I, like Pat, was just wondering if sometimes we like features found on older courses simply because they are older courses, and would not like them on newer courses? And, does this constitute a double standard?

On review, maybe I have stated a bias against horseshoe features on greens. I do not think I would like them on newer courses, older courses, on a plane, on a train....

But, like green eggs and ham, I have never tried them.

[Mike_Cirba]

Hod;

Get thee to the 6th hole at NGLA!

If you still have an aversion to the horseshoe feature, then Dr. Katz is probably available for future bookings!

[George Pazin]

Somehow though, it became about my "bias" (of which I have in this thread professed none) and less about a legitimate dialogue of features found in older courses that may, I say may, be thought to be illegitimate in newer courses and whether that constituted a double standard.

You touched on two points I have been trying to make for quite a while now:

1) You say you haven't professed a bias: Who among us has? Preference is not bias. Do you not understand that throwing out your hypothetical situation & telling everyone what their feelings & reactions would be is in itself a form of bias?

2) This is the biggie: These bias threads are NEVER about architectural features & discussion. They are always about trying to show bias. Period. If they were about the architecture, why isn't the thread simply about crossovers, their pros & cons and why some may be good & some may not be? Instead, they usually revolve around pointless name calling & circular logic.

P.S. I hope you don't feel like anyone's whipping boy. As I always say, try to imagine we're sitting around after a round, having a beer, discussing golf. We can have disagreements without getting heated. The informal tone of a friendly debate is usually lacking with the utilization of a computer to interact. That's why I use those darn smiley things so much. My dry humor is usually lost on people in person - online it comes across simply as cold.

P.P.S. If you want to see the proper way to hold a discussion about contrasting architectural elements, go read the thread on North Berwick #16. Clemnet managed to question the hole & its controversial elements very clearly without simply chalking everything up to the group's bias. People actually discussed the architecture, not the comparative treatment of architects.

[Tim Weiman]

George Pazin:

Your clear thinking is very refreshing.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
I think the fact that you had forgotten about the Merion crossover says something about the courses overall quality. Perhaps you can overlook such a feature when the rest of the design works so well, especually in the context of a design that fits upon its site so naturally.

[TEPaul]

It would be fine with me if I didn't see anymore threads that have the word "bias" and "double standard" in the title.

That kind of thread, as with this one, just devolve into constant posts of "You're biased", "No, I'm not", "yes you are!"

How about if we discuss the architectural and design ramifications and reasons that the person who posted the thread mentioned constituted bias in the first place between different designers and different courses--reasons like why CROSSOVERS exist and if they're a compromise or not or even a necessity for some reason?

I've seen about two posts on this entire two page thread that attempts to do that--one by Scott Buroughts.

I don't know Atlantic so I have no idea if the crossovers on that course are necessary and are, in some way a compromise that has some greater benefit.

But I do know Merion--and I know why the crossovers on that course exist and what the course would be like if they didn't!

First of all the so-called crossovers at Merion really aren't crossovers at all certainly not in the traditional sense of what a crossover meant in early architecture which were holes that generally played across each other for various reasons and in various ways.

What you have at Merion between #2 & #3 is about a 75 yard walk at most from #2 green across the 6th tee to the 3rd tee and then about the same walk from the 5th green across the 3rd tee to the 6th tee!

As for the reasons for that--it's quite interesting and actually means a good deal to the overall routing of Merion! One of the real beauties of the golf course and it's unique routing is what's called the "three stretches of Merion". The opening stretch of holes 1-6 (which have very much their own character), followed by the so-called "short stretch" (holes 7-13) and then the finishing stretch 14-18 which is distinctly different and demanding!

With this routing progression people who know the course well say the trick of Merion is to get through the opening stretch without too much damage and then try to make up what damage happened in the opening stretch on the short stretch or else get a head start on the short stretch for whatever damage you can generally expect to happen on the finishing stretch!!

This routing progression is much of the uniqueness of Merion and is what makes the routing and the course so terrific! And the only way to keep that unique routing intact is with the two front nine crossovers or across tee walks.

And then you need to consider that this is not the way the routing progression of Merion originally was when the golf course was built!!

The original routing progression on the front nine was #1, 2, 6, 7, 4, 5, 3, 8, 9......! That original routing progression did not have the later advantage of Merion's "three stretches" and actually included a walk from #3 to #8 tee anyway that would have been longer than the other two (and across #4).

At least this routing progression change did not change any of the designs and individual hole routing of the front nine holes, just their progression.

And if someone can figure out a way to route or design the holes of Merion better than what they are I would very much challenge them to tell any of us what that would be.

These kinds of compromises are generally part of the site requirements or restrictions anyway and when you think about the overall narrowness of Merion's site there isn't much lattitude anyway--if any at all. Merion is a site that on either side of the road the property really can't accomodate more than 3-4 holes wide anyway and that alone explains the necessity and actually the benefit of the front nine crossover.

The crossover from #13 to #14 has everything to do with the narrowness of the clubhouse side of the road and the fact that the clubhouse was part of an existing building (the barn) that was there before the course was laid out and built--an also the origina driveway that ended in a circle about where present #1 tee is now!!

That walk (it's certainly not a crossover) is completely necessary and actually Wilson and Flynn made it a lot better from the way the routing originally was by briging #13 geen closer to #14 tee and creating in the process one of the most original and unique 1st tees in the world.

So that's the so-called crossovers of Merion--in my mind they are completely necessary and very much contribute to the greater good of the golf course.

I've never been to Atlantic so I can't comment on it's crossovers, whether they're necessary for some reason and whether they contribute to the greater good of the golf course or not.

So let's stop arguing about who's biased and who isn't and discussed the architecture of these courses being compared and how they compare to each other in some particular architectural sense like the necessities and reasons for crossovers!

[Andy Hodson]

Thanks guys for the perfect exit lines.
On to new business.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I would like to accept your theory, but, I think my memory loss is more a function of time and age.

Hod,

I'll address your point Sunday, if I remember. Stay tuned, or remind me  

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I never thought the first two "crossovers" at Merion could possibly be considered a problem, but the background you provided on the alternate routing was interesting.

Nor long ago I walked the course I played as a young kid (Pelham Ccountry Club) and saw the routing had been changed - one crossover was substitued for another.

After walking the course I went to the pro shop to ask why the change had been made, but none of the staff (who had been there 15-20 years) were even aware of the way the course once played.

Pelham shares one characteristic with Merion: a very small, cramped site. To make the most of it, a crossover or two was inevitable.

[TEPaul]

So, that's why the crossovers at Merion exist! So what about the reasons the crossovers at Atlantic exist and whether they contribute to the greater good of Atlantic or not like they do at Merion?

Do you want to talk about that at all? Do you want to talk about the architecture of each course in that context and compare the pros and cons of it at each course or do you just want to tell each other your biased or not--and maybe look for convenient exit lines?

This is supposed to be a discussion of the finer points of architecture fellows--can you do it? Do you know anything about these courses in this context?

I'm beginning to wonder!

I for one, would like to hear an analysis of the crossovers at Atlantic or at least some discussion of my analysis of the pros and cons of the so-called crossovers (which they aren't) at Merion!

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I can't address the crossovers at The Atlantic. My only experience playing the course was with Superintendent Bobby Raynum and we didn't play the holes in sequence. Bobby just took me around to show me what he thought I would appreciate most. I vaguely remember Bobby expressing concern about the original routing, but not well enough to provide details.