[Brent Hutto]

GolfClubAtlas.com is presented to promote the frank commentary on the world's finest golf courses. Within this site, the subject of golf course architecture is discussed in several different sections...

It doesn't say "frank commentary on the process of golf course architecture" but only mentions the courses. I am always quite frank in my comments.

[mike_malone]

  Allrighty then, just close the discussion group.

[Tom Huckaby]

Michael - see Brent's eloquent response.  Obviously we should not shut down the site - nor the discussion group - I just think it would be more effective - and fun - if those who truly know "architecture" evaluate it, and those who know "golf courses" evaluate those.

This leaves room for a LOT of great discussion.

It might also mean we evaluate things that mean something to a lot more people.... and more effectively at that.

TH

[Doug Wright]

Doug,

    I agree that it is subjective, but one still has a point of view. I want to know what the components of one's point of view are.

Mike,

When I saw Ran's comment on the GCA.com front page, I focused on the words "art form" rather than "subjective." It's pretty hard to be other than subjective in thinking about art. I might take issue with Ran's comment and say that golf course architecture is as much science as art. Since I know very little about the science of golf course architecture, I don't really use it as a criterion when I evaluate golf course architecture. So back to the "art." I'd say one of the criteria I use (and this would apply whether I'm playing or doing a drive-through) is "what do I see"? Is the architecture appealing to MY eyes; does it make me say "Hey, this is an interesting (for me read FUN) hole/course to play." Is there a connection between the holes or is this merely a collection of holes?

[mike_malone]

 This discussion group would die if only the "archies" discussed between themselves.

[Tom Huckaby]

This discussion group would die if only the "archies" discussed between themselves.

And of course that is not at all what I am suggesting!

They discuss "architecture" - which they know and can adequately comment on  - we discuss how fun (or not) a course is to play - which of course any of us can comment on.

Allow me to quote the great Ran Morrissett:

"GolfClubAtlas.com is presented to promote the frank commentary on the world's finest golf courses."

Seems like my suggestion fits under that.

And btw, just change the last part of the topic line of this thread from "GCA" to the words "golf courses" and perhaps a valuable discussion might result.

 

[Doug Wright]

This discussion group would die if only the "archies" discussed between themselves.

And of course that is not at all what I am suggesting!

They discuss "architecture" - which they know and can adequately comment on  - we discuss how fun (or not) a course is to play - which of course any of us can comment on.

Allow me to quote the great Ran Morrissett:

"GolfClubAtlas.com is presented to promote the frank commentary on the world's finest golf courses."

Seems like my suggestion fits under that.

 

Yes Tom but to put Ran's quote into proper context Ran does use the "a" word, saying:

"GolfClubAtlas.com is presented to promote the frank commentary on the world's finest golf courses. Within this site, the subject of golf course architecture is discussed in several different sections, including:

course profiles that highlight the finer virtues of golf architecture found in over 150 courses world-wide.

monthly Feature Interviews with a well known golf figure with past interviews archived for your perusal as well.

a Discussion Group limited to 1,500 people from around the world...."

[Tom Huckaby]

Darn you Doug, disallowing me from quoting out of context.

 

My answer is this:  the foundation of the site is to discuss golf courses.  "Architecture" remains a subset... especially so if one defines it correctly.

TH

[Adrian_Stiff]

The initial thread used the word 'Judge'. in the respect to judge great or bad golf course architecture you need to know the things Tom mentioned.
To look at the finished architecture, ie the product, the golf course is a different thing. Its subjective what one thinks is good and another does not, the criteria involved by each individual to get to that opinion is not questionable, because you cant argue with an opinion and there is no exact science in ranking good or bad golf courses.

[mike_malone]

 Adrian,

   That's why I changed the word to "evaluate". I totally agree that we all bring something different to the evaluation. My desire is find out what other people think are their prime values.

[Tom Huckaby]

Evaluate, judge, assess... it's all the same.

Those in the business or with full knowledge of the project can do so regarding "architecture", us golfers can and should do so regarding "golf courses."

You changed the wrong word, Michael.

 

[SL_Solow]

Tom;  Cheating is a pretty strong word but I'll accept it in the spirit offered.  However I think your analysis is more than a bit off.  As articulated by you, one evaluates architecture by ignoring the effectiveness if the finished product.  If the course is downright awful it remains good architecture if the site was difficult, the course has 18 holes and it drains.  You ignore the objective of the process, building great golf courses.  If that is not the objective, then we are talking about different topics   Yes that involves evaluating the course, but since that is the objective the 2 can't be entirely separated as you seem to want to do.  Similarly, if an architect builds a house on a difficult site which contains the requisite number of rooms but is for all practical purposes unliveable, is it great architecture?  It may be wonderful engineering.  One might call it skillful.  But if form follows function at all, then it must achieve its goal or it isn't great.

To use a different  (lame) analogy, the golfer who hits the ball great but doesn't score didn't have a great round since the objective is to score, not merely to swing.  The objective is not merely to create a course (or a building).  We are trying to find greatness and technical skill is not enough.  But if you want to judge architects and their work on the basis of technical skill feel free to do so.  I submit that is only a part of the evaluation process.  Little things such as vision count too.

[mike_malone]

 Tom,

   There is a difference between the architecture and the course and this site is a refuge for those who want to discuss their opinions on the architecture of courses. As one does so on this site it requires you to get educated about gca.

   I think that any evaluation would be more valuable if it included what you want , but the reality is that the great majority of opinions come from playing the course, some from walking and studying it, and, of course, some even from just looking at pictures.

   I think playing the course is a minimum to be able to discuss the architecture because you are engaged with it.

[John Shimp]

1. The quality of the geography for golf.  Generally more hills humps and bumps are better along with tight sandy ground and a propensity for wind.  A Shinnecock for instance has a huge natural advantage over say a great manufactured couse like the Honors in TN.
2.  The variety in the golf holes.  I like no 2 holes alike including holes playing in all 4 compass directions, variety in length of the 4-5 par 3's, green sizes within the course, uphill/downhill/sidehill, etc.
3.  Challenge and the ability to differentiate golfer's skills on and around the greens -- self explanatory.  A trait of every strong course I know even if they don't measure up on #1 or #2 above.

[mike_malone]

 John,

   That sounds like a trio you can carry from course to course and better "quantify" your feelings about the architecture.

[SL_Solow]

Tom;  An additional point which might cause you to think about your definition.  It seems to me that under your definition an effort that might be deemed minimalist can never be great architecture because the degree of difficulty in establishing the course (never mind routing, shaping, artistic vision and the like) is missing.  Thus a less than great architectural effort can produce a great golf course.  However in your prior example you suggested a great architectural effort can produce an horrendous course.   It seems to me what your saying is that the "architecture" has little to do with the greatness of a course.  Not only does is that counterintuitive, it is belied by the evidence on the ground.  The great architects produced and produce consistently fine work regardless of the site.  Others do less well.  Hence there is something beyond degree of difficulty to evaluate.  The job is really much more than civil engineering.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom,

   There is a difference between the architecture and the course and this site is a refuge for those who want to discuss their opinions on the architecture of courses. As one does so on this site it requires you to get educated about gca.

   I think that any evaluation would be more valuable if it included what you want , but the reality is that the great majority of opinions come from playing the course, some from walking and studying it, and, of course, some even from just looking at pictures.

   I think playing the course is a minimum to be able to discuss the architecture because you are engaged with it.

Fair enough, so long as you understand that the worth of any evaluation/assessment/judgment of "architecture" is pretty negligible if you don't have the answers to my three questions.

If you find it has value, that's great.

I truly do believe that of far more value is either a fully-informed assessment of the "architecture", or an assessment of the golf course by one who's played it.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom;  An additional point which might cause you to think about your definition.  It seems to me that under your definition an effort that might be deemed minimalist can never be great architecture because the degree of difficulty in establishing the course (never mind routing, shaping, artistic vision and the like) is missing.  Thus a less than great architectural effort can produce a great golf course.  However in your prior example you suggested a great architectural effort can produce an horrendous course.   It seems to me what your saying is that the "architecture" has little to do with the greatness of a course.  Not only does is that counterintuitive, it is belied by the evidence on the ground.  The great architects produced and produce consistently fine work regardless of the site.  Others do less well.  Hence there is something beyond degree of difficulty to evaluate.  The job is really much more than civil engineering.

Shel, that's not true at all.  Under my definition Sand Hills remains great - the challenge there was to NOT disturb the great land - and that can be even a greater challenge than any engineering feat as you call it.  

Conversely, yes, a great architectural effort can produce a lousy golf course.

That's why one doesn't limit his assessment of golf courses to only the "architecture"....

In any event, the main thing remains that the three things I listed simply must be considered if one is to evaluate architecture.  To leave it out leaves out the very crux of the matter.

But again, if you, like Michael, find value in half-hearted evaluations, then fire away.

I just fail to see the value myself, and prefer to try to evaluate a subject fully... and if I can't, I don't bother to try.  It remains odd to me that some people want to do this half-hearted effort.

But there is a lot of room in this great big world of golf for one and all....

TH

[Doug Wright]

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.
TH

TH,

I think Sand Hills is a very good test for your three canons of golf course architecture. You commented on item 1 above (the challenge NOT to disturb the land--was this really a "challenge to overcome"?) Would you expand on how the analysis of your canons 2 and 3 lead one to conclude that Sand Hills is or isn't great architecture? If I'm correct that the answers are (2) Mr. Youngscap was highly accommodating and not cheap and (3) there weren't any regulatory issues at all on that expansive land, is Sand Hills still great golf course architecture?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Kingsbarns gets a lot of thumbs up because of its 'known past' ie a sloping field overlooking the sea. What the architect has done to that site is instantly measureable and all credit to the team that created the pseudo-linksland. In that respect its 10/10.

[Tom Huckaby]

Doug:

Of course Sand Hills is great architecture... because you all keep assuming I mean these three to be the ONLY criteria to be evaluated; and that's far far far from my intent.  Remember when I posted that the question was which are the three "most important" criteria for judging golf course architecture.

These three "canons" (love the term) are where one starts.  Only after that do you move to the more fun things like routing, strategic interest given, etc.

And of course Sand Hills wins on those accounts in spades.  It's also a hell of an achievement in canon 1.  Canons 2 and 3 were apparently no big deal, so we call them neutral.  Then we move on to the other things....

TH

[Lester George]

Tom Paul,

I hope one day when you develop your golf course I could be fortunate to get on the interview list.  So many things you say make sense and sound good to me, especially your resonse here.

Lester

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

Tom,

In YOUR evaluative process, how would you know about any of the three (3) items you listed ?

Absent that information, and armed with only the information gained from playing/studying the golf course, how would you judge the GCA ?[/color]

Patrick:

That's the point - we golfers DON'T know the answers to those questions.  But I do firmly believe that if one is to evaluate "architecture", those issues are rather paramount.  

Do you disagree with that?

Yes, I disagree, because in 99.9 % of the cases that detailed information is simply not available to the golfer.

Hence, establishing criteria that can never be met, for the purpose of evaluation, is a futile exercise.

When you think of a project, with all of its components, that takes months, if not years to complete, how would a golfer, as he completes his journey from the 1st tee to the 18th green, come to be infused with "total consciousness, knowledge and awareness" with respect to every aspect of the project ?  

One would have to be omniscient, and that ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

So, I think you have to discard your premise as impractical, and undertake the evaluative process on what your senses detect, accepting any additional, reliable information as a bonus.[/color]

And therefore the answer to me is it's silly for us golfers to even try to evaluate "architecture", and thus we should stick to evaluating "golf courses" - for which we have all the information we need, when we play them.

I think they're really one in the same.
One is the structure of the presentation, the other is the effect of the presentation, but, it's one presentation that the golfer interfaces with.[/color]

It's really very simple.

I don't think it is.

A golfer may enjoy a hole, but, he may have no idea as to why he enjoys the hole.  He may not understand what the architect crafted that makes the presentation so palatable to him.

That's a distinction that seperates those with a reasonably astute architectural eye.

That's why TEPaul needs his guide dog Coorshaw.[/color]

[John Kirk]

1.  Is it fun to play?
2.  Is it pretty?
3.  Is it an enjoyable walk?

[mike_malone]

 John,

   Thanks for your list. I certainly value walking as critical to enjoying the architecture. That means cartball courses can't compete .

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()