[Kalen Braley]

Pat,

Just a few comments here as your posts have been questionable at best.

If a structure is just a structure, and they are equal eye-sores on a golf course then I suppose you see no difference between this:



and this...




As for exit polls...have you taken any?  By all means if you have, please share your results with us.  If not then your talking out of your ass just as much as you claim the next guy is, because in the end at best you only have your 1 single opinion to add to this discussion like anyone else.

And all of the opinions I've heard on GCA.com, from people who have actually been there, is that the structures add to the ambiance and vibe of the place, not take away.....well all of them except yours. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

If a structure is just a structure, and they are equal eye-sores on a golf course then I suppose you see no difference between this:

You're the one declaring them as equal in one breath and then stating that they're unequal in another ?

The issue, in case you've forgotten is about the golfers perspective in the context of TOC being photogenically beautiful.

As to the differences in your photos, one's an aerial photo, the other is a ground level photo.


As for exit polls...have you taken any?  By all means if you have, please share your results with us. 


If not then your talking out of your ass just as much as you claim the next guy is, because in the end at best you only have your 1 single opinion to add to this discussion like anyone else.

Not at all.
JKM has never set foot on TOC, I have.
Therefore his opinions on the presentation and golfer's views of/on TOC are invalid.
Surely you understand the difference even though I didn't include pictures.

Sean Arble conceded that the old buildings were "ugly", so we've established that point.
Do you now disagree with Sean Arble too ?

Even the ugly view off the tee of 17

And all of the opinions I've heard on GCA.com, from people who have actually been there, is that the structures add to the ambiance and vibe of the place, not take away.....well all of them except yours. 

So, are you telling us that you haven't been there either ?
And that you're rendering an opinion based on NO first hand experience ?
Sean Arble stated that the view was "UGLY" why do you choose to ignore his opinion, he's on GCA.com.

[John Moore II]

Pat--So I represent a totatlly uninformed view, or do I represent the opinion of the vast majority of golfers? Just an idea. Even uninformed opinions matter when they represent the majority.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat--So I represent a totatlly uninformed view,

YES,
You stated same when you provided your caveat, don't you remember ?

or do I represent the opinion of the vast majority of golfers?

Other than a few cretins on this site, I have seen no evidence that the vast majority of the golfers consider the view from 17 tee at TOC as beautiful.  Sean Arble himself declared it "UGLY"

Just an idea.
Even uninformed opinions matter when they represent the majority.

Like the majority of the jury that found O.J. not guilty of murder ?

Erroneous opinions don't miraculously become correct opinions just because 51 % or more support them.

The bottom line is that you didn't know what you were talking about because you NEVER set foot on TOC.
You admitted that with your caveat, and now you want to remove the caveat and declare your opinion valid.  Your opinion remains as a NON-FACT based personal opinion, one that happens to be seriously flawed, irrespective of how you now choose to re-justify it.

Fold your tent and in the future present opinions that have some basis in facts and personal experiences or both.

[John Moore II]

Pat--So I represent a totatlly uninformed view,

YES,
You stated same when you provided your caveat, don't you remember ?

or do I represent the opinion of the vast majority of golfers?

Other than a few cretins on this site, I have seen no evidence that the vast majority of the golfers consider the view from 17 tee at TOC as beautiful.  Sean Arble himself declared it "UGLY"

Certainly I remember saying that. And its true too. 17 tee was not the whole arguement. I was looking at the course in general having good views (yes, I said 17 tee). The entire course, not simply the 17th tee, as you want to try and say. The people on this site do not constitute nearly a majority of golfers. There are 1500 of us and millions of golfers worldwide. Even if all 1500 of us agree that something is good or bad, that does not mean all golfers in general think that is true. We are in a high minority here, both in numbers and in opinions. After all, many on this site think Augusta National and Pebble Beach as bollocks, while likely most of the United States think they are the shinning examples of what golf courses should be.

Just an idea.
Even uninformed opinions matter when they represent the majority.

Like the majority of the jury that found O.J. not guilty of murder ?

Actually, it wasn't a majority of the jury that found him not guilty. It was in fact the entire jury of 12 who found him not guilty with a reasonable doubt.

Erroneous opinions don't miraculously become correct opinions just because 51 % or more support them.

No, but some heed must be paid to a majority, wrong or right

The bottom line is that you didn't know what you were talking about because you NEVER set foot on TOC.
You admitted that with your caveat, and now you want to remove the caveat and declare your opinion valid.  Your opinion remains as a NON-FACT based personal opinion, one that happens to be seriously flawed, irrespective of how you now choose to re-justify it.

Fold your tent and in the future present opinions that have some basis in facts and personal experiences or both.

[Carl Rogers]

There are at the very least more than a few excellent examples out there of good work and that overwhelms all of the inferior work. 

The glass is way more than half full.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat--So I represent a totatlly uninformed view,

YES,
You stated same when you provided your caveat, don't you remember ?

or do I represent the opinion of the vast majority of golfers?

Other than a few cretins on this site, I have seen no evidence that the vast majority of the golfers consider the view from 17 tee at TOC as beautiful.  Sean Arble himself declared it "UGLY"

Certainly I remember saying that.  And its true too.

17 tee was not the whole arguement. I was looking at the course in general having good views (yes, I said 17 tee). The entire course, not simply the 17th tee, as you want to try and say. [/color]


How would you know about any views the golfer sees, you've never been to St Andrews.
Having NEVER set foot on the property, what qualifies you to offer ANY opinion on how the golf course looks from the golfer's eyes ?
You've NEVER been there, never seen the property and never played the golf course.
You're unqualified to make any assessment of how the golf course looks and plays from a golfer's perspective.

However, from a know-nothing perspective, you're fully qualified.


The people on this site do not constitute nearly a majority of golfers. There are 1500 of us and millions of golfers worldwide. Even if all 1500 of us agree that something is good or bad, that does not mean all golfers in general think that is true. We are in a high minority here, both in numbers and in opinions. After all, many on this site think Augusta National and Pebble Beach as bollocks, while likely most of the United States think they are the shinning examples of what golf courses should be.

Like yours, any comments from the golfer's perspective on ANGC and PB by individuals who have never set foot on either course are irrelevant and without any basis in fact.  They are worthless and no different than your opinion on how TOC looks from the golfer's eyes.

Just an idea.
Even uninformed opinions matter when they represent the majority.

Like the majority of the jury that found O.J. not guilty of murder ?[/color]

Actually, it wasn't a majority of the jury that found him not guilty. It was in fact the entire jury of 12 who found him not guilty with a reasonable doubt.[/color]

I think you'll find that 12 out of 12 represents more than 51 %, which constitutes a majority.


Erroneous opinions don't miraculously become correct opinions just because 51 % or more support them.
[/color]
No, but some heed must be paid to a majority, wrong or right[/color]


Stating that we should give some form of credence to an erroneous opinion because more than 51 % of those involved supported and/or espoused it, is one of the dumbest statements I've ever heard.


The bottom line is that you didn't know what you were talking about because you NEVER set foot on TOC.
You admitted that with your caveat, and now you want to remove the caveat and declare your opinion valid.  Your opinion remains as a NON-FACT based personal opinion, one that happens to be seriously flawed, irrespective of how you now choose to re-justify it.

Fold your tent and in the future present opinions that have some basis in facts and personal experiences or both.

[John Moore II]

Pat--So I represent a totatlly uninformed view,

YES,
You stated same when you provided your caveat, don't you remember ?

or do I represent the opinion of the vast majority of golfers?

Other than a few cretins on this site, I have seen no evidence that the vast majority of the golfers consider the view from 17 tee at TOC as beautiful.  Sean Arble himself declared it "UGLY"

Certainly I remember saying that.  And its true too.

17 tee was not the whole arguement. I was looking at the course in general having good views (yes, I said 17 tee). The entire course, not simply the 17th tee, as you want to try and say. [/color]


How would you know about any views the golfer sees, you've never been to St Andrews.
Having NEVER set foot on the property, what qualifies you to offer ANY opinion on how the golf course looks from the golfer's eyes ?
You've NEVER been there, never seen the property and never played the golf course.
You're unqualified to make any assessment of how the golf course looks and plays from a golfer's perspective.

However, from a know-nothing perspective, you're fully qualified.


The people on this site do not constitute nearly a majority of golfers. There are 1500 of us and millions of golfers worldwide. Even if all 1500 of us agree that something is good or bad, that does not mean all golfers in general think that is true. We are in a high minority here, both in numbers and in opinions. After all, many on this site think Augusta National and Pebble Beach as bollocks, while likely most of the United States think they are the shinning examples of what golf courses should be.

Like yours, any comments from the golfer's perspective on ANGC and PB by individuals who have never set foot on either course are irrelevant and without any basis in fact.  They are worthless and no different than your opinion on how TOC looks from the golfer's eyes.

Well, how many members of clubs want their club to look like Augusta or Pebble? And how many of them have ever been on property first hand? Likely not many outside the ultra-exclusive clubs. The average private or public club member has never seen either of those two beyond TV, yet they want their club to look the same. TOC is no different. I have never seen it beyond TV, but I have an opinion about it, uninformed or otherwise, just the same as many Americans (and Scots, Spaniards etc.) have about Augusta National.

Just an idea.
Even uninformed opinions matter when they represent the majority.

Like the majority of the jury that found O.J. not guilty of murder ?[/color]

Actually, it wasn't a majority of the jury that found him not guilty. It was in fact the entire jury of 12 who found him not guilty with a reasonable doubt.[/color]

I think you'll find that 12 out of 12 represents more than 51 %, which constitutes a majority.

Unanimity is always defined, legally or otherwise, as quite different from majority. Laws require majority votes to pass. Criminals require unaimous votes to convict. Far different.


Erroneous opinions don't miraculously become correct opinions just because 51 % or more support them.
[/color]
No, but some heed must be paid to a majority, wrong or right[/color]


Stating that we should give some form of credence to an erroneous opinion because more than 51 % of those involved supported and/or espoused it, is one of the dumbest statements I've ever heard.

Only dumb because you don't agree. And who said the majority opinion was in error? I think your opinion is erroneous, therefore, I give it no credence. Actually though, I thought majority opinion was one of the foundations of American civilization? Perhaps the school board should just tell parents to pound salt next time 51% of parents like something that the school board thinks is stupid. That will work well.



The bottom line is that you didn't know what you were talking about because you NEVER set foot on TOC.
You admitted that with your caveat, and now you want to remove the caveat and declare your opinion valid.  Your opinion remains as a NON-FACT based personal opinion, one that happens to be seriously flawed, irrespective of how you now choose to re-justify it.

Fold your tent and in the future present opinions that have some basis in facts and personal experiences or both.

But hey, how about we get back to talking about modern resort courses, not a course that was built 400 odd years ago or OJ Simpson who ended up with 20-25 years in jail anyway.

I'll say it again, as I said from the start, resorts don't set trends in architecture, they follow them. Its too risky financially to chance a cutting edge design not being commercially viable. Once a certain design model is proved viable and popular, you see it in the resorts. Why do you think many resorts tried to copy the Shadow Creek (which of course was somewhat copied out of the Tom Fazio generic course template, Rees Jones, etc.) look for so long? The manufactured, manicured, fluffed up look? It was proven they could get away with that and charge $400 a round in doing so.

Name one course that opened its doors as a resort and was considered truly groundbreaking and trend setting as far as architecture goes? I'd really like to talk about that as well. Not only talk about do modern resort courses create positive trend in architecture, but have any resort courses ever really created trends? Or is it that based on the nature of the for-profit resort business, they have always been forced to follow the trends to a certain degree?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'll say it again, as I said from the start, resorts don't set trends in architecture, they follow them.


Then it would be your position that Pete Dye's Casa De Campo, Steve Wynn's Shadow Creek and Mike Keiser's Bandon project had no impact on the golfing world ?

Its too risky financially to chance a cutting edge design not being commercially viable.

Yet, certain visionaries, Steve Wynn and Mike Keiser amongst them rolled the dice on those projects.

Once a certain design model is proved viable and popular, you see it in the resorts.

I don't see Kohler and Bandon as copies of popular trends as of the date of opening, do you ?

Why do you think many resorts tried to copy the Shadow Creek (which of course was somewhat copied out of the Tom Fazio generic course template, Rees Jones, etc.) look for so long?

Because it was a resort that set a trend !

The manufactured, manicured, fluffed up look?

I certainly didn't get the impression that Shadow Creek had a manufactured or a fluffed up look when I first played it about a dozen or so years ago.  The golf course represented a revolutionary approach to GCA.  So much so that Golf Digest, Tom Doak and others placed Shadow Creek in their top echelon.

It was proven they could get away with that and charge $400 a round in doing so.

Charging a green fee to play Shadow Creek had more to do with the IRS than the owner/developer.

Name one course that opened its doors as a resort and was considered truly groundbreaking and trend setting as far as architecture goes?

Shadow Creek.                   
Casa De Campo                   
Kiawah
Bandon
Kohler

I'd really like to talk about that as well. Not only talk about do modern resort courses create positive trend in architecture, but have any resort courses ever really created trends?

Lido

Or is it that based on the nature of the for-profit resort business, they have always been forced to follow the trends to a certain degree?

Following a trend does nothing to distiquish the architecture and the final product.
Those seeking the resort experience don't want what they can get at their home course.
A resort has to have a unique product.
Pinehurst, Greenbriar, Shawnee on the Deleware, Boca Raton H&C and other early resorts did that by having multiple golf courses and/or courses by prominent designers.

[John Moore II]

I'll say it again, as I said from the start, resorts don't set trends in architecture, they follow them.


Then it would be your position that Pete Dye's Casa De Campo, Steve Wynn's Shadow Creek and Mike Keiser's Bandon project had no impact on the golfing world ?

No, I am not saying that. But, did any of those courses CREATE a POSITIVE trend in golf course design? Casa, to me, is a one-of-a-kind course on a one-of-a-kind property. Shadow Creek I would say created a trend, but not necessarily a positive one. I think the trend that was created by Shadow Creek was along the lines of 'if you don't have a good site, thats fine, we'll just bring out the dozers and earthmovers to create you whatever you want, regardless of the cost.' I think Shadow Creek might have created the mega-millions trend, which I don't think we want to classify as a positive trend. And Bandon, as has been discussed in this thread before followed the trend of Sand Hills of a remote, elite golf destination course. It did not create the minimalist, destination idea we see today.

Its too risky financially to chance a cutting edge design not being commercially viable.

Yet, certain visionaries, Steve Wynn and Mike Keiser amongst them rolled the dice on those projects.

Once a certain design model is proved viable and popular, you see it in the resorts.

I don't see Kohler and Bandon as copies of popular trends as of the date of opening, do you ?

Not sure. They both have exceptional property, which has to be considered in the discussion. I don't see much difference in Kohler and other Pete Dye designs I have played, beyond the striking site. It may not be a carbon copy, but its not exactly revolutionary or trend setting either. See previous posts about Bandon.

Why do you think many resorts tried to copy the Shadow Creek (which of course was somewhat copied out of the Tom Fazio generic course template, Rees Jones, etc.) look for so long?

Because it was a resort that set a trend !

Again, how revolutionary was the design at Shadow Creek, from a purely architectural standpoint, getting past the revolutionary idea of completely manufacturing a golf coruse? Also, if Shadow Creek did create a trend, was it a good one? I was using Shadow Creek in a negative context.

The manufactured, manicured, fluffed up look?

I certainly didn't get the impression that Shadow Creek had a manufactured or a fluffed up look when I first played it about a dozen or so years ago.  The golf course represented a revolutionary approach to GCA.  So much so that Golf Digest, Tom Doak and others placed Shadow Creek in their top echelon.

I never said it wasn't a great course. But were any trends created by Shadow Creek positive?

It was proven they could get away with that and charge $400 a round in doing so.

Charging a green fee to play Shadow Creek had more to do with the IRS than the owner/developer.

Name one course that opened its doors as a resort and was considered truly groundbreaking and trend setting as far as architecture goes?

Shadow Creek.                   
Casa De Campo                   
Kiawah
Bandon
Kohler

Explain please. Here we have some Pete Dye golf courses that were built on one-of-a-kind sites within Mr. Dye's style. Of course each course is highly unique, but where did they create a lasting, positive trend in design? I would say Casa might have started a trend in business of proving it viable to have a high end resort in a Caribbean, but I should think the site is too unique to be a real trendsetter. And where was the architectural revolution in Kiawah and Kohler? Shadow Creek and Bandon have been discussed all ready.

I'd really like to talk about that as well. Not only talk about do modern resort courses create positive trend in architecture, but have any resort courses ever really created trends?

Lido

Or is it that based on the nature of the for-profit resort business, they have always been forced to follow the trends to a certain degree?

Following a trend does nothing to distiquish the architecture and the final product.
Those seeking the resort experience don't want what they can get at their home course.
A resort has to have a unique product.
Pinehurst, Greenbriar, Shawnee on the Deleware, Boca Raton H&C and other early resorts did that by having multiple golf courses and/or courses by prominent designers.

You can follow a trend and still be unique in your own way. Resorts can make themselves unique in the other things they offer. Hiring a prominent designer does not represent something groundbreaking. Unique, maybe, but not trendsetting or revolutionary. Lets look at PGA National, the whole resort. It is unique, but does it have any design on property that could be considered revolutionary?

[Patrick_Mucci]

JKM,

I'll get back to the long reply tomorrow, but, in the interim, Hilton Head was revolutionary, architecturally.

The incorporation of railroad ties, pot bunkers and mounds was a radical departure from American Golf in general.

It set the trend for decades.

[John Moore II]

JKM,

I'll get back to the long reply tomorrow, but, in the interim, Hilton Head was revolutionary, architecturally.

The incorporation of railroad ties, pot bunkers and mounds was a radical departure from American Golf in general.

It set the trend for decades.

Fair enough, but, again, do we consider this trend of railroad ties, etc. to be a positive trend?

[Patrick_Mucci]

JKM,

I think Tom Doak might answer that question with a definite "YES"

He's employed them spectacularly at Old Macdonald.

I think Dye's work created a positive trend.
But, that doesn't mean that they weren't misused on specific occassions.

You're also forgetting about Pete's reintroduction of pot bunkers and mounds at HH. 

[John Moore II]

JKM,

I think Tom Doak might answer that question with a definite "YES"

He's employed them spectacularly at Old Macdonald.

I think Dye's work created a positive trend.
But, that doesn't mean that they weren't misused on specific occassions.

You're also forgetting about Pete's reintroduction of pot bunkers and mounds at HH. 

Well, having not played Harbor Towne, I am unsure what kind of mounds we are talking about, which was why I did not say anything about them. I would assume we are looking at a form of fairway mounding to add variety to the lies and such rather than containment mounding, which I know most here are against.

I am not sure what I think about pot bunkers though. I think they have become overused in many cases. I know I would consider them overused by Tom Fazio at Pinehurst #4 and even to a certain degree by Mr. Dye himself at PGA Golf Club.

I think when these things have been used right, they turn out very well, but that the 'trend' created by them, same as the 'trend' of island greens, may have turned negative because of overuse and poor use.

And I think that may be the whole problem with trends, either positive or negative, is that they many times even the best original trends become bad once everyone, including the designers with far less skill than the originator, begins to follow them. Then they turn poor.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JKM,

I think Tom Doak might answer that question with a definite "YES"

He's employed them spectacularly at Old Macdonald.

I think Dye's work created a positive trend.
But, that doesn't mean that they weren't misused on specific occassions.

You're also forgetting about Pete's reintroduction of pot bunkers and mounds at HH. 

Well, having not played Harbor Towne, I am unsure what kind of mounds we are talking about, which was why I did not say anything about them. I would assume we are looking at a form of fairway mounding to add variety to the lies and such rather than containment mounding, which I know most here are against.

It wasn't containment mounding.
And, just because some on GCA.com have voiced disapproval doesn't mean that they inherently represent bad architecture.

I am not sure what I think about pot bunkers though. I think they have become overused in many cases.


That's a reaffirmation that he set a trend when he introduced them

I know I would consider them overused by Tom Fazio at Pinehurst #4 and even to a certain degree by Mr. Dye himself at PGA Golf Club.

"Overuse" is a subjective assesment on your part and not germane to the topic.
It's the "trend" that's the issue.  Clearly Pete initiated several trends at HH.

Would you consider the use of pot bunkers at Pine Valley "overuse" ?

I think when these things have been used right, they turn out very well, but that the 'trend' created by them, same as the 'trend' of island greens, may have turned negative because of overuse and poor use.

Again, the outcome of the use years removed from initiation isn't the issue.
The issue is, did elements of the GCA at resort courses create positivie trends in GCA.

Upon examining some of the design elements initiated at HH by Pete Dye, I'd have to say "Yes"

And I think that may be the whole problem with trends, either positive or negative, is that they many times even the best original trends become bad once everyone, including the designers with far less skill than the originator, begins to follow them. Then they turn poor.

I don't think they turn bad, rather, they just go out of style.
The trend is diluted and/or diminishes as the trends life span elongates and/or expands.
The word "trend" implies a limited shelf life.
In addition, "trends" often evolve or morph to SOP or normal conditions as they become more readily adopted.
 

[John Moore II]

JKM,

I think Tom Doak might answer that question with a definite "YES"

He's employed them spectacularly at Old Macdonald.

I think Dye's work created a positive trend.
But, that doesn't mean that they weren't misused on specific occassions.

You're also forgetting about Pete's reintroduction of pot bunkers and mounds at HH. 

Well, having not played Harbor Towne, I am unsure what kind of mounds we are talking about, which was why I did not say anything about them. I would assume we are looking at a form of fairway mounding to add variety to the lies and such rather than containment mounding, which I know most here are against.

It wasn't containment mounding.
And, just because some on GCA.com have voiced disapproval doesn't mean that they inherently represent bad architecture.

I don't think containment mounding is always bad. I have seen times where a course was built on dead flat ground with a low water table that did not allow for large scale earthmoving such as seen in other places. Containment mounding was used well in this case to allow for highly uneven lies in the rough and other places. I was merely saying this figureing you wouldn't be speaking praises of a course that made extensive use of containment mounding and especially made a trend of it.

I am not sure what I think about pot bunkers though. I think they have become overused in many cases.


That's a reaffirmation that he set a trend when he introduced them

I know I would consider them overused by Tom Fazio at Pinehurst #4 and even to a certain degree by Mr. Dye himself at PGA Golf Club.

"Overuse" is a subjective assesment on your part and not germane to the topic.
It's the "trend" that's the issue.  Clearly Pete initiated several trends at HH.

Would you consider the use of pot bunkers at Pine Valley "overuse" ?

But would overuse not take a positive trend and make it negative? As far as Pine Valley, I can't comment on overuse. However, I do make 2 points in regards to PV. 1) Given that it is typically said to be one of the 2 or 3 best courses in the world, I would say they are not overused. 2) I see no point in bringing up PV in this case as we are speaking of a trend that would have started in 1969-70 while PV was opened for play around 1920.

I think when these things have been used right, they turn out very well, but that the 'trend' created by them, same as the 'trend' of island greens, may have turned negative because of overuse and poor use.

Again, the outcome of the use years removed from initiation isn't the issue.
The issue is, did elements of the GCA at resort courses create positivie trends in GCA.

Upon examining some of the design elements initiated at HH by Pete Dye, I'd have to say "Yes"

And I think that may be the whole problem with trends, either positive or negative, is that they many times even the best original trends become bad once everyone, including the designers with far less skill than the originator, begins to follow them. Then they turn poor.

I don't think they turn bad, rather, they just go out of style.
The trend is diluted and/or diminishes as the trends life span elongates and/or expands.
The word "trend" implies a limited shelf life.
In addition, "trends" often evolve or morph to SOP or normal conditions as they become more readily adopted.
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

JKM,

I think Tom Doak might answer that question with a definite "YES"

He's employed them spectacularly at Old Macdonald.

I think Dye's work created a positive trend.
But, that doesn't mean that they weren't misused on specific occassions.

You're also forgetting about Pete's reintroduction of pot bunkers and mounds at HH. 

Well, having not played Harbor Towne, I am unsure what kind of mounds we are talking about, which was why I did not say anything about them. I would assume we are looking at a form of fairway mounding to add variety to the lies and such rather than containment mounding, which I know most here are against.

It wasn't containment mounding.
And, just because some on GCA.com have voiced disapproval doesn't mean that they inherently represent bad architecture.

I don't think containment mounding is always bad. I have seen times where a course was built on dead flat ground with a low water table that did not allow for large scale earthmoving such as seen in other places. Containment mounding was used well in this case to allow for highly uneven lies in the rough and other places. I was merely saying this figureing you wouldn't be speaking praises of a course that made extensive use of containment mounding and especially made a trend of it.

Containment mounding should be examined in terms of function.
Containment mounding can provide a great visual and acoustical barrier blocking elements beyond the golf course's boundary line.

They can function as debris mounds.
And, they can function as repositories for excess dirt, where the dirt was excavated to form lakes/ponds or substantive depressions.

I am not sure what I think about pot bunkers though. I think they have become overused in many cases.


That's a reaffirmation that he set a trend when he introduced them

I know I would consider them overused by Tom Fazio at Pinehurst #4 and even to a certain degree by Mr. Dye himself at PGA Golf Club.

"Overuse" is a subjective assesment on your part and not germane to the topic.
It's the "trend" that's the issue.  Clearly Pete initiated several trends at HH.

Would you consider the use of pot bunkers at Pine Valley "overuse" ?

But would overuse not take a positive trend and make it negative? [/color]

NO.
And, "overuse" is a subjective term.
If a new trend is adopted and used extensively, wouldn't that confer legitimacy or merit upon the trend ?
Wouldn't increased usage indicate broad acceptance to the degree that the trend becomes an accepted norm ?


As far as Pine Valley, I can't comment on overuse. However, I do make 2 points in regards to PV. 1) Given that it is typically said to be one of the 2 or 3 best courses in the world, I would say they are not overused. [/color]

How can you say that when they probably populate every hole ?


2) I see no point in bringing up PV in this case as we are speaking of a trend that would have started in 1969-70 while PV was opened for play around 1920.

That's where this thread may have started, but, when the focus shifted to "trends" and "overuse", PV becomes a pertinent example.  If a golf course can have pot bunkers on almost every hole, and the golf course is rated # 1, # 2 or # 3, then, that feature, "pot bunkers" can't be deemed to be overused.
And neither can the trend in pot bunker use be considered to have morphed into a "negative" as you stated 

I think when these things have been used right, they turn out very well, but that the 'trend' created by them, same as the 'trend' of island greens, may have turned negative because of overuse and poor use.

Again, the outcome of the use years removed from initiation isn't the issue.
The issue is, did elements of the GCA at resort courses create positivie trends in GCA.

Upon examining some of the design elements initiated at HH by Pete Dye, I'd have to say "Yes"

And I think that may be the whole problem with trends, either positive or negative, is that they many times even the best original trends become bad once everyone, including the designers with far less skill than the originator, begins to follow them. Then they turn poor.

I don't think they turn bad, rather, they just go out of style.
The trend is diluted and/or diminishes as the trends life span elongates and/or expands.
The word "trend" implies a limited shelf life.
In addition, "trends" often evolve or morph to SOP or normal conditions as they become more readily adopted.
 

[John Moore II]

JKM,

I think Tom Doak might answer that question with a definite "YES"

He's employed them spectacularly at Old Macdonald.

I think Dye's work created a positive trend.
But, that doesn't mean that they weren't misused on specific occassions.

You're also forgetting about Pete's reintroduction of pot bunkers and mounds at HH. 

Well, having not played Harbor Towne, I am unsure what kind of mounds we are talking about, which was why I did not say anything about them. I would assume we are looking at a form of fairway mounding to add variety to the lies and such rather than containment mounding, which I know most here are against.

It wasn't containment mounding.
And, just because some on GCA.com have voiced disapproval doesn't mean that they inherently represent bad architecture.

I don't think containment mounding is always bad. I have seen times where a course was built on dead flat ground with a low water table that did not allow for large scale earthmoving such as seen in other places. Containment mounding was used well in this case to allow for highly uneven lies in the rough and other places. I was merely saying this figureing you wouldn't be speaking praises of a course that made extensive use of containment mounding and especially made a trend of it.

Containment mounding should be examined in terms of function.
Containment mounding can provide a great visual and acoustical barrier blocking elements beyond the golf course's boundary line.

They can function as debris mounds.
And, they can function as repositories for excess dirt, where the dirt was excavated to form lakes/ponds or substantive depressions.

Those are functional mounds, I was thinking more along the lines of the 'chocolate chip' mounds seen along side many fairways on modern courses that serve no more purpose than to not allow the golf ball to roll far off the fairway.

I am not sure what I think about pot bunkers though. I think they have become overused in many cases.


That's a reaffirmation that he set a trend when he introduced them

I know I would consider them overused by Tom Fazio at Pinehurst #4 and even to a certain degree by Mr. Dye himself at PGA Golf Club.

"Overuse" is a subjective assesment on your part and not germane to the topic.
It's the "trend" that's the issue.  Clearly Pete initiated several trends at HH.

Would you consider the use of pot bunkers at Pine Valley "overuse" ?

But would overuse not take a positive trend and make it negative? [/color]

NO.
And, "overuse" is a subjective term.
If a new trend is adopted and used extensively, wouldn't that confer legitimacy or merit upon the trend ?
Wouldn't increased usage indicate broad acceptance to the degree that the trend becomes an accepted norm ?


As far as Pine Valley, I can't comment on overuse. However, I do make 2 points in regards to PV. 1) Given that it is typically said to be one of the 2 or 3 best courses in the world, I would say they are not overused. [/color]

How can you say that when they probably populate every hole ?

Being on every hole does not necessarily mean overused. Yes, overused is a subjective term. In some cases, a feature can be overused but only seen on one hole and in others be seen on every hole but not be overused. Its a case by case examination. Like I said, I have not played PV, but I should say the pot bunkers on every hole are used effectively and not 'overused,' meaning, they each serve a purpose and aren't just put somewhere simply for sake of visuals or entertainment. Thats the key, are the features all effective and strategic or are they in place simply as visual stimulation?


2) I see no point in bringing up PV in this case as we are speaking of a trend that would have started in 1969-70 while PV was opened for play around 1920.

That's where this thread may have started, but, when the focus shifted to "trends" and "overuse", PV becomes a pertinent example.  If a golf course can have pot bunkers on almost every hole, and the golf course is rated # 1, # 2 or # 3, then, that feature, "pot bunkers" can't be deemed to be overused.
And neither can the trend in pot bunker use be considered to have morphed into a "negative" as you stated 

I think when these things have been used right, they turn out very well, but that the 'trend' created by them, same as the 'trend' of island greens, may have turned negative because of overuse and poor use.

Again, the outcome of the use years removed from initiation isn't the issue.
The issue is, did elements of the GCA at resort courses create positivie trends in GCA.

Upon examining some of the design elements initiated at HH by Pete Dye, I'd have to say "Yes"

And I think that may be the whole problem with trends, either positive or negative, is that they many times even the best original trends become bad once everyone, including the designers with far less skill than the originator, begins to follow them. Then they turn poor.

I don't think they turn bad, rather, they just go out of style.
The trend is diluted and/or diminishes as the trends life span elongates and/or expands.
The word "trend" implies a limited shelf life.
In addition, "trends" often evolve or morph to SOP or normal conditions as they become more readily adopted.
 

I think the key here is that trends are fine until they start becoming too 'trendy' and then being overused in a specific context.

So what have we determined here anyway? That some resort courses built recently have contributed positively to GCA, but that in many cases the resorts have followed trends set by the private clubs? Is that a fair assessment?

(I'm trying to possibly bring this to an end with some sense of conclusion since its getting a bit boring just you and I, my dear Mr. Mucci.)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Being on every hole does not necessarily mean overused. Yes, overused is a subjective term.

In some cases, a feature can be overused but only seen on one hole and in others be seen on every hole but not be overused. Its a case by case examination. [/color]

Could you cite some examples of the two above references ?


Like I said, I have not played PV, but I should say the pot bunkers on every hole are used effectively and not 'overused,' meaning, they each serve a purpose and aren't just put somewhere simply for sake of visuals or entertainment. [/color]

How would you know that ?

How would you know whether the pot bunkers were put somewhere simply for the sake of visuals or entertainment ?

The pot bunkers are all over the place, many far removed from the normal playing corridors.


Thats the key, are the features all effective and strategic or are they in place simply as visual stimulation? [/color]

Many, many are hardly strategic.
Many are removed to far removed from normal play.

How can you defend their repetitive use ?

[John Moore II]

I'm bored. We've degenerated into talking about 80 year old courses and ignoring modern ones. Any conclusion we would come to has long since been reached, I think. I'm bored. Have a nice day.

[Patrick_Mucci]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()