[mike_malone]

   Routing is high on my list . The variety of challenge is also high. The creativity of the green complexes  is also important..


    Having played my third favorite course in Delaware County on Saturday and then my home course on Sunday I find myself  at a loss to understand how courses are evaluated.

[Tom Huckaby]

For judging golf course architecture?

1.  What the land was like prior to construction - the challenges to be overcome, or not.

2. How is the client - easy to deal with, meddling, cheap?

3.  Regulatory issues - easy to overcome, or difficult?

How the architect does with those three issues truly shows his skill as an architect.

Mike, the things you list show how great a GOLF COURSE is. And they also show the skill of the architect, for sure.  But without skill in these matters I list, he doesn't even get to start on the things you list.

TH

[mike_malone]

 Tom,

   I thought my choices were focused on decisions made by the designer.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom,

   I thought my choices were focused on decisions made by the designer.

Mike:

I agree they are.  But my response stands.

If you want to assess how great or fun a golf course is, then I'm right with you in that the items you list are right at the top of what matters most.

But if you want to assess GOLF COURSE ARCHITECTURE, you have to start with my three items.

Are you getting that I believe these are two different things?  I've made this point countless times in here, few if any buy it... but your thread here so perfectly sets it out, I had to try again.

 

[mike_malone]

 I think that we often equate the rankings with architectural quality. But, so much is based on other factors such as tradition and conditioning.


  Tom,


    I think we can only judge based on what we experience while on the course. Your criteria require investigation.

[Tom Huckaby]

Michael:

Agreed on all of that.  That's why my point remains none of us are really qualified to assess "golf course architecture" without the investigation required.  And we can't typically do that.

But we can assess "golf courses" and what they mean to us.

So just change the terms and I'm off your back.

 

But then again, make this more than the top three and it could get very interesting... because then I am darn sure going to add things that have very little to do with what most in here call "architecture" but darn sure do have a lot to do with one's enjoyment of a golf course.

TH

[Sean_A]

- The land including undulations, contours, elevation changes and any natural hazards

- green surrounds

- greens

Ciao

[PThomas]

routing, green complexes, shaping

[archie_struthers]

 

how about memorability.....flow......and strategy

[Adam Clayman]

MM, Is the word Judging what you mean to ask?

Look at what it did to Huck, he went all Confucius on ya.  

[mike_malone]

 Could "evaluating" be better?

[Tom Huckaby]

Could "evaluating" be better?

Maybe for Adam, but not Confucius me.
 

Make the topic "what are the three most important criteria for assessing the greatness of golf courses" and Confucius will say "Huckaby gets off one's back."

 

[David Stamm]

Routing

Use of natural land forms

Greens and the immediate surrounds



To cite Thomas, can you easily remember the holes after playing?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Tom H, why don't you start a thread off your second post -- but title it along the lines of "how to judge golf course architect's effort"?

There's a difference between the architecture vs. how good a job the architect did.  Think about it as controllable vs. uncontrollable variables, or: "VORP" for architects.

Mark

[mike_malone]

 Tom,

   I would choose "architecture" as the #1 criterion in that case and everything else a distant #2. In fact, so far back as to be insignificant.

   It's all about the architecture for me.



    I come to this because on Sat. I played Merion and the greens had been aerated and heavily sanded so that the normal putting intensity was eliminated. But, I still could experience the architecture .

[mike_malone]

 David,

   I wanted to separate out "uses of landforms" but decided it was part of "routing", which tells you why I see the routing as so important.

[mike_malone]

 Archie,


   I love "flow", but again isn't it part of routing?

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom,

   I would choose "architecture" as the #1 criterion in that case and everything else a distant #2. In fact, so far back as to be insignificant.

   It's all about the architecture for me.

Is it?
Then define "architecture."

I think you - like seemingly all others - miss my point.  I've yet to mention anything about tradition or conditions or the things you seem to think this is all about for me.  I do think those things MATTER, for sure - but they fall low on the list as well.

Nope, my point is more that we get this definition very wrong in here - and why that matters to me remains a mystery, but it does.

It really can't be all about architecture if you define it as I do (which I believe is the correct definition).. not unless you know the answers to the three big criteria I listed.

It's all about GOLF COURSES, my friend.  Come on over to the dark - and correct - side.

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Does it have 18 holes?

Does it drain?

Does it play well in a variety of condtions?

Does it need to maintained well to play well?

do you want to play again?

does it have sense of place, like it belongs on the site, and because of its site, its a bit different than any other course you have played?

Might as well take on the big picture concepts before looking at the details of how the gca accomplished that.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Tom,

   I would choose "architecture" as the #1 criterion in that case and everything else a distant #2. In fact, so far back as to be insignificant.

   It's all about the architecture for me.

Is it?
Then define "architecture."

I think you - like seemingly all others - miss my point.  I've yet to mention anything about tradition or conditions or the things you seem to think this is all about for me.  I do think those things MATTER, for sure - but they fall low on the list as well.

Nope, my point is more that we get this definition very wrong in here - and why that matters to me remains a mystery, but it does.

It really can't be all about architecture if you define it as I do (which I believe is the correct definition).. not unless you know the answers to the three big criteria I listed.

It's all about GOLF COURSES, my friend.  Come on over to the dark - and correct - side.

 

I think Tom is right here. Great architecture is surely more about how the architect has improved and used the land, knowing the before and after and conditions, restrictions or problems along the way must surely decide if the architect did a good or not so good job. In some respects we credit the old golf courses too much to the original design, golf courses evolve and it may be that the work done in 1980 improved the 1880 layout. Modern golf courses really get a bad rap when it comes to ranking great courses, because the finished product is often not fully complete for 20-30 years after as they mature, that aside great architecture should or could be understood much earlier by knowing the initial three criteria that Tom mentions.

[archie_struthers]

 


Mayday....nice to hear from you ...hope all is well!

 as flow relates to routing ...flow is so much more amorphous than the physical location of the holes themselves...

 the difficulty of the holes  relate to flow .....as does the severity of the terrain (for walking esp)

how about the way a hole feels...how the shots set up in the golfers mind...and the need for variance of same in good architecture

I'm just thinking that this is more than the routing ...but I'm listening  

[Tom Huckaby]

Adrian:

Thanks.  I really don't think my point is all that tough to understand, but you are one of a very select few who has "gotten" it.

See, if we're going to discuss "architecture", then those things matter - a LOT.  That is what goes into "architecture."  None of the rest happens if the architect doesn't successfully get past those issues.

And some jobs are going to be easier than others, for sure.  But then if those obstacles are easily surmountable, then we assess the work based on the more fun issues, and he better have done darn well with those....

Here's a statement that might help:  THE RANCH in San Jose is one hell of an architectural achievement, showing damn good skill in the craft of golf course architecture by Casey O'Callaghan.  It's also one of the worst golf courses I have ever played.

TH

[TEPaul]

"What are the three most important criteria for judging golf course architecture?"

Well Mayday, I'd say they are these four criterieye:

1. A very strong belief that you are right despite what anyone else says or feels to the contrary.

2. A serviceable pair of eyes.

3. A very very strong belief that you are right despite what anyone else says or feels to the contrary.

4. Being able to call yourself a professional architect so that most everyone else will assume that you must know things about architecture that others could never know until they call themselves a professional architect. And even then you must have a very strong belief that you are right despite what anyone else even other architects say or feel to the contrary.

[mike_malone]

 Tom,

  I seem to have led you astray. I wasn't talking about the person who judges but the most important few factors that determine one's opinion of architecture.

[Adam Clayman]

And Besides, he forgot the flask.

Huck, You seemed to get ruffled by my comment. I was actually impressed with your answer, BUT, I sensed MM meant golf courses already built.
The process and indiosyncrasies that individuals bring to a project are very important. All but a few wouldn't be privy to those, once the course is in the ground.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()