[Mark Bourgeois]

If you were seeking an education in architecture only, which list would provide the best syllabus:

1.   GD top 30 US
2.   GD top 30 non-US
3.   GM top 30 US
4.   GM top 30 World
5.   Doak Gourmet’s Choice -- (EDIT) OR: your own list of ONE course per designer, up to 30
6.   1939 Top 30 (of those still in existence) from “World’s Finest Tests” (MacWood)
7.   The first 30 designs of architect X (or, if less than 30, his life's work)
8.   Top 30 Courses of the British Isles (www.top100golfcourses.co.uk)
9.   Peugeot’s Top 30 in Europe (includes GB&I)
10.   Your choice of 30 links courses around the world
11.   Play every course in London / Home Counties

(FYI -- and for Rich n.b. -- I chose 30 to provide an apples-to-apples comparison: Doak is only 31 so wouldn’t be fair to compare, say, GM Top 100 to his list.)

If you want to go overboard, you could even rank the list!

BUT: please explain your logic – what would you learn from the chosen list that you wouldn’t learn from the others?  What criteria did you use to select the list? What should we try to “learn” as far as architecture goes, anyway?

If anyone needs to know what’s on these lists, perhaps I could get a little help, at least on the published lists. I can fill in as necessary.

Mark

[Jeff_Brauer]

For all the hoopla around here about which list is better, the majors are pretty consistent, IMHO. I guess the biggest learning points might be the ones that make one list and not the others.  And if you frequent this place, I would avoid the Doak list, because basically, we probably talk about it one way or the other nearly every day.  What else could you learn?  You might fall prey to the "groupthink" mentality rather than making your own informed decisions.

Other than that, I guess it would depend on where you are on the learning curve.  Start with the major lists, but somewhere along the line, I think MacWoods old list of the best courses then would provide the most interesting insights for a real gca nut who had seen everything else. 

[Rich Goodale]

Very good concept, Mark

I sort of stumbled onto the "top 30" idea on the other thread, but I think your elaboration concentrates our mind vis a vis golf course architecture (is this not the focus of this site....?).

Let's start to put these top 30's together and then eventually integrate them to see what evolves.  I'm happy to start with my very rough idea as to the 30 most hyped courses:

Lido
Sunningdale
Shadow Creek
Sebonack
Doonbeg
Nantucket
Pacific Dunes
Castle Course
K Club
Whistling Straits
Nine Bridges
Skibo
NGLA
Merion
Augusta National
Waterville
Sand Hills
Friars Head
TPC Sawgrass
Erin Hills
Chambers Bay
Spyglass

have I reached 30 yet....?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Okay, Jeff, a "real GCA nut who had seen anything else": what exactly would they learn from playing the MacWood list.

Also, regarding the Doak list, it sounds like someone would learn little or nothing through a physical visit and an armchair visit, via GCA.com, is just as good.

I do take your point regarding the Doak list though and have amended my original post.

Mark

[Mark Bourgeois]

Rich, I thought about adding a #12: a list of 30 courses from which you would learn the most (and tell us what you learned), but two issues arose:
1. People don't follow directions and the thread would spiral downwards into another stupid list of the "best"
2. Removing all the constraints requires that we actually come up with a list (the "build" solution), instead of just going with what's out there ("buy").

Re #2, you aren't saying the list I put up offers a random / minimal architectural education, are you?

Mark

PS Happy to accept your guidance (build vs. buy) on this one!

[Mark Bourgeois]

Good call on 9 Bridges BTW.

If we are going w build, I must insist on rationale. A list without explanation is idiotic.

You don't have to do all, although you strike me as the type who has the time-how bout 5-10?

A good starting phrase for your synopsis might be, "Course X: Teaches us how to..."

Mark

[Mark Bourgeois]

Here is the Peugeot 30.

20/20

I love this!

19/20
Ballybunion Old
Les Bordes
Carnoustie
Ganton (as far as I am concerned, any list without Ganton is lacking, totally, in credibility - its enough to make one consider buying a Peugeot)
Kingsbarns
Muirfield
Nairn
Portmarnock
Royal Birkdale
Royal County Down
Royal Dornoch
Royal Porthcawl
Royal Portrush Dunluce
Royal St Georges
Royal Troon
Turnberry
Valderrama
Woodhall Spa

18 / 20

There are 72 courses here, so I will pick 12 that I either have learned from or would like to see.

Alwoodley
Chantilly
Cruden Bay
Loch Lomond
Morfontaine
N Berwick
Prestwick
Rye
TOC
St Georges Hill
Sunningdale Old
Sunningdale New

Now, I submit to you, fellow posters, this list will take some beating. Links, heather and parkland, a variety of designers, many old but a few new.

(It should be noted Peugeot uses anonymous inspectors, plus the scores above are explicitly are for the course. Inspectors are asked for separate scores on club amenities, an idea I like very much for its formal separation of the course from the "experience." all rankings should add a category for amenities to make a clear separation.)

On a personal note, trying choose 12 from the list of 18s shows how entrenched this notion of "best" can be.
One must do his best to discard personal preferences and think in terms of what can be learned in a neutral sense, ie the acquisition of knowledge rather than seeing notorious courses.

Mark

[Rich Goodale]

Mark

My trophy hunting wife hated it, but the Peugeot 405 I bought in 1999 was one of the finest value for money cars I ever bought.  I wouldn't call it a "Ganton," but it surely was a solid "Lundin Links."

Rich

PS--This is a potentially very constructive thread which has "legs," as they say in wine tasting.

rfg

[Mark Bourgeois]

Ganton - how to accomplish rhythym in a routing and how to route for the wind. Also: how to build a minimalist course inland.

On the "parts" side, a nice mini-library of half-par holes, how to use bunkering to influence strategy (particularly with respect to angles such as doglegs), how to put together bunkers, greens (size, shape, and relation to terrain and to bunkers) to make a dogleg.

Rich, yes, legs in the sense of dribbling down the side of an empty glass. I have been sorely disappointed in the quality of many threads lately. It could be time again for Ran to launch a few threads, as he did a while back.

Although his latest course profile may be his best ever!

Mark

[JC Jones]

If I understand your question, its which 30 courses would provide the best syllabus for an education in ARCHITECTURE ONLY.

Therefore, I find Rich's list of 30 most hyped to be irrelevant.  The point isnt to list the 30 best courses to play or which are ranked in the top 30, the point is to come up with a list of courses that would provide the best EDUCATION in architecture (assume generally).

For that reason, I think the list cant be just those courses in the GB&I b/c that would only give a lesson on a limited number of philosophies (i.e. Links/natural architecture, heathland/parkland, etc.).

Much to the dismay of many of us in the tree house, an education in architecture must include those courses that we may dislike but nonetheless would be necessary to review to provide a complete education in architecture.

I think the list must be comprised of some GB&I links classics, GB&I Heathland courses, US classics (i.e. National, Shinne, PV, CPC, etc.), UC Parkland (i.e. Garden City), courses from classic US designers (i.e Ross, Tilly, etc.), courses by US "Modern" (i.e. Dye, Fazio, Nicklaus, Palmer) and courses by US neo-classical (i.e. Doak, C&C, etc).

So while this list might not be the 30 "best" courses, it would be a complete cross section of courses out there and thus provide the best "education in architecture."

JMO

[Adam Clayman]

I'll do my best to deconstruct.

Who needs a list to learn about gca? Access whores and wanna be snobs?

If one has a memory, all one has to do is think back on what one has experienced so far. The kicker is to not think about your score, but about how the gca made you feel. What was it about the features, their visual and playable aspects, that made you, the golfer, feel the best, feel the most ill at ease, feel the most peaceful. etc.

These are the viscera that pique the golfing soul and therefore should be the measure of what one finds compelling in gca.

[Rich Goodale]

JC

I agree that this thread should focus on architecture.  This is why I submitted my "most hyped" list.  Far too often on this DG we substitute conventional wisdom for thoughtful analysis, based on hype (or lack thereof). One glaring example that I forgot to include in my list is the Old Course.  Most of us love it, but when asked why, the far too often "reason" is "just because," or "Bob Jones liked it."

We can and should do better.

Rich

[Tom Huckaby]

Rich:

Is the question most hyped in this forum, or out in the real world?

My real world friends won't have heard of quite a few of the courses in your most hyped list... but you nailed it, and rightly so, re how it goes in here.

That being said, my aim in golf is enjoy myself at its venues, not learn about architecture.  So I shall otherwise bow out of this thread.  You guys let me know what you come up with, and if that jives with anywhere I've played or will play, that's cool, I may also learn something.  It's fun when that happens.

TH

[Rich Goodale]

I'll do my best to deconstruct.

Who needs a list to learn about gca? Access whores and wanna be snobs?

If one has a memory, all one has to do is think back on what one has experienced so far. The kicker is to not think about your score, but about how the gca made you feel. What was it about the features, their visual and playable aspects, that made you, the golfer, feel the best, feel the most ill at ease, feel the most peaceful. etc.

These are the viscera that pique the golfing soul and therefore should be the measure of what one finds compelling in gca.

Adam

You are on the peyote again.......

[Adam Clayman]

Oh rihcy rihc... you have so much to learn.

[Mark Bourgeois]

JC

What do you mean by "education in architecture"? You provide the makings of a list but no rationale.  What would I learn, architecturally, by playing The National?  How to copy somebody else?  Would I learn anything by playing Garden City that I wouldn't learn, and better, by playing Ganton?

Rich

A good point re TOC. If the list is a build, TOC is rejected.

Tom Doak wrote that many just don't get it unless they've played it umpteen a hundred times, Bobby Jones thought it was execrable the first few times, and Ian Andrew wrote that if you don't get it the first time, go around again.

Inaccessible architecture is a barrier to learning.  As most or even all we have been told will learn little to nothing by playing it 3 or so times (which should be the minimum), it would be a waste to allocate TOC a valued space on the list.

The alternative is a "list" comprised solely of TOC, to be played 100 times.  But: going by George Peper's comments in his book on St Andrews, one will learn to play a certain type of game to interface with / conquer the architecture.  Additionally, having observed the play of a Fife native and current U.S. university player, I conclude TOC's lessons are insufficient for matriculation.

A TOC-only list presents an incomplete, mono-dimensional education.

Double rejected.

Mark

[Rich Goodale]

Yo Mark

Thanks to your last post I just read the first one.  Sorry for the delay--those magic mushrooms that Adam sent me were awesome, even though I just smelled them before throwing them in the bin..........

For me, at least the answer is clearly #5, although I'd modify it in terms of both the architects involved and making it their most instructive rather than best courses (i.e. maybe Pasatiempo rather than Cypress for Mackenzie, The Old Course rather than Dornoch for Morris, Winchester rather than Pinehurst #2 for Ross, or Rawls rather than Pacific Dunes for Doak).  This would be a cool exercise.  Could you begin?

Rich

[Mark Bourgeois]

Portmarnock: " Portmarnock is not only Ireland's finest course but one of the four best tests of golf in the British Isles. The majority of Portmarnock's holes are tucked in the folds between the dunes or separated by sharp ridges of rough. What makes the course fearsome, aside from its length (7,093 yards), is the combination of heavy swirling winds and the formidable rough—a thick growth of seaside grass, creeping willow, ferns, yarrow and countless wild rosebushes." -- Herbert Warren Wind.

I haven't played Portmarnock but when HWW calls it one of the four best tests in GB&I, you sit up.  The description he offers isn't particularly compelling, though, architecturally.

Is it possible for a "great test" not to be compelling architecturally, and if not, what am I missing on Portmarnock?

I guess one solution is to visit for a personal assessment...

Rich, Adam actually makes a very good point (which you echo in one of your posts): a list without a rationale, an explanation, is a substitute for thought and shuid be utterly cryit doon!

Mark

[Phil McDade]

JC

What do you mean by "education in architecture"? You provide the makings of a list but no rationale.  What would I learn, architecturally, by playing The National?  How to copy somebody else?  Would I learn anything by playing Garden City that I wouldn't learn, and better, by playing Ganton?

Rich

A good point re TOC. If the list is a build, TOC is rejected.

Tom Doak wrote that many just don't get it unless they've played it umpteen a hundred times, Bobby Jones thought it was execrable the first few times, and Ian Andrew wrote that if you don't get it the first time, go around again.

Inaccessible architecture is a barrier to learning.  As most or even all we have been told will learn little to nothing by playing it 3 or so times (which should be the minimum), it would be a waste to allocate TOC a valued space on the list.

The alternative is a "list" comprised solely of TOC, to be played 100 times.  But: going by George Peper's comments in his book on St Andrews, one will learn to play a certain type of game to interface with / conquer the architecture.  Additionally, having observed the play of a Fife native and current U.S. university player, I conclude TOC's lessons are insufficient for matriculation.

A TOC-only list presents an incomplete, mono-dimensional education.

Double rejected.

Mark

Mark:

For me, Doak's most interesting observation about TOC -- either made here or in the CG, I forget -- is that everything in golf architecture either mimics or is a direct reaction against what is found at TOC.

Among other things, TOC: established 18 holes as the conventional number of holes to play in a round; utilized an out-and-back routing driven largely by geography (narrow spit of land); features seven double greens; and has hazards both incredibly predictable (OB right for most holes) and utterly arbitrary (bunkers placed directly on the line of play).

I'm not sure which 30 courses I'd put on my list, but a list that doesn't start with TOC strikes me as so incomplete as to be nearly worthless.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Yo Mark

Thanks to your last post I just read the first one.  Sorry for the delay--those magic mushrooms that Adam sent me were awesome, even though I just smelled them before throwing them in the bin..........

For me, at least the answer is clearly #5, although I'd modify it in terms of both the architects involved and making it their most instructive rather than best courses (i.e. maybe Pasatiempo rather than Cypress for Mackenzie, The Old Course rather than Dornoch for Morris, Winchester rather than Pinehurst #2 for Ross, or Rawls rather than Pacific Dunes for Doak).  This would be a cool exercise.  Could you begin?

Rich

What does it matter who designed the courses? Or is your syllabus for golf architecture history?

MaRK

[Rich Goodale]

Yes, Mark, Adam often has points, but too often they are pointless.  Sorry, Adam, but you have to try harder, or get a less user-fiendly blackberry......

Sentence one of this thread speaks of lists as possible syllabi for education.  That is how I'm trying to respond.

As for Portmarnock, I last saw it racing around the front 9 in a cart in May whilst trying to confirm what I had written about it for the new World Atlas of Golf.  That brief tour did not bring me to emulate Wind's enthusiasm, even though I have always thought (and continue to think) it undervalued relative to its Irrsh and British peers.

That being said, relative to this thread, it certainly would by my choice for the optimal Pickeman course that we should study.

Rich

[JC Jones]

JC

What do you mean by "education in architecture"? You provide the makings of a list but no rationale.  What would I learn, architecturally, by playing The National?  How to copy somebody else?  Would I learn anything by playing Garden City that I wouldn't learn, and better, by playing Ganton?

Mark

What do I mean by "education in architecture?"  What did you mean when you asked the question?  I interpret it as learning the history, various schools of thought/philosophies, styles of holes, etc.

The rationale for my list was, I thought self-evident b/c of the question and my general idea of what an "education" means; which generally means history, philosophies and manifestations of those philosophies, etc.  Therefore, I would think it necessary for an education to include learning the various manifestations of each philosophy (i.e. classical, modern, neo-classical, natural, etc.) and some historical reference for those philosophies (i.e. TOC and other links, heathland, US parkland, etc.).

As to your last question, I dont know.  The point of my list was to be illustrative not specific.  Clearly we can debate whether Garden City provides a better manifestation of Parkland than Ganton but that wasnt the point of my post.  (and I certainly dont want this to devolve into a US courses v GB&I courses and which are better for an education) My post was to show how I thought an education in architecture could be had. 

I think once you decide "how" the education should be had, then you can debate which courses would be best to exemplify the history and philosophies to be learned.

 

[Mark Bourgeois]

See, that's my point, Rich.  Is the constraint 30 designers or 1 course per designer? If the former, picking the "best 30 designers" first and then one course for each is backwards.  We learn from the product not the producer.  If the latter, that's the wrong constraint: in Wardian speak, it should be the 30 that offer the most architecture bang for your golfing buck.

But if you insist...

1. CB Macdonald: Merion (East).

Mark

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark -

I'd be intrigued by list-type #7 - a chronology of an architect's first 30 courses or his/her body of work.

If it's an education we want, it's not a lesson in aesthetics, still less yet another re-hash of subjective judgements passed off as objective rankings.

No, instead it's a history lesson on the practical realities of the art, craft and business that is golf course design.

What better way to provide that lesson -- at least for those with some willingness to read between the lines --  than to chronicle the on-the-ground manifestations of the artistic and business decisions (and opportunites) that a given architect made or was offered over time.

The portrait of an artist as a young man....and then as slightly older but more successful man...and then as the veteran at the top of his game (or not)

Peter   

[Mark Bourgeois]

Peter you assume a career is an evolution not a disconnected string, much less a devolution.  What Zelig would you choose and why? Mark

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()