[Mike Hendren]

John Wesley, the early leader of Methodism postulated that reason, experience, tradition and Scripture should be considered in reaching a theological conclusion, with Scripture being given the most weight. 

Substituting early writings on golf course architecture for Scripture, how would you rank the relevance of these four approaches and why?

Mike

[Rich Goodale]

1.  Experience   3***
2.  Reason         2**
3.  "Scripture"    "bib gourmand"
4.  Tradition       no stars

[Jeff_Brauer]

Wow, I like theory threads and this is perhaps the most theoretical I have ever seen here! So, hear, hear! (or hip hip hooray)

My ranking as a gca would be:

1.  Experience   
2.  Reason         
T3.  Early Writings and Tradition.  In a way, aren't they the same thing? 

I cite the first two based on the old Groucho Marx line - "Who are you gonna believe - me or your own eyes?"  I also use reason because design really is like the scientific process - figure out the problem, test some theories, design something that fits.

With early writings, I would want confirmation on the ground that the gca's in question really put their theories out there.  I know that some of that writing was as much for then current marketing as much as it was for posterity as well as guidance to future gca's.  As such, it may be somewhat misleading - trying to make it sound just complicated enough that greens committees didn't want to try architecture themselves!  

That, combined with the fact that their writings really weren't all that detailed - did they ever say how theory might change if designing a public course vs. a private one? - and my design situation might be different - say designing a public course vs. a private one - puts their written advice to me in a lower - but not excluded position.

[Sean_A]

John Wesley, the early leader of Methodism postulated that reason, experience, tradition and Scripture should be considered in reaching a theological conclusion, with Scripture being given the most weight. 

Substituting early writings on golf course architecture for Scripture, how would you rank the relevance of these four approaches and why?

Mike

Experience

Tradition (so much of golf is rooted in tradition whether we like it or not - sort of like the influence of the bible on culture)
Reason (I don't think reason really stands out that tall in a field whose playing theories are subjective)
Scripture (how accurate is it and who determines its accuracy? - again, not unlike the bible)

Ciao 

[George Pazin]

Reason (I don't think reason really stands out that tall in a field whose playing theories are subjective)
Scripture (how accurate is it and who determines its accuracy? - again, not unlike the bible) 

Wow, Sean, I guess you haven't been paying attention on the site - Matt Ward decides all of these things, there's no subjectivity involved and no need to consult any bible other than Jersey Golfer.

 

[Garland Bayley]

I think I would substiture the reverred golf courses and holes for scripture. The writings are simply man's attempt to describe and classify such.

I would put it at the top of the list.
I would put experience at the bottom. Face it, there are people with lots of experience but their products do not necessarily measure up.

Obviously every new opportunity is different than the past great works, so I would put reason as second, because the designer needs to be able to see the analogs to the great. Experience doesn't give you that.

Tradition can be good and it can be bad. I would put it down near experience.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike -

I think of tradition as existing before the scriptures, as the principles and forms that were present in the ground itself from the very beginning and that Old Tom recognized and worked with long before The Gospel According to Charlie Mac was written.  To paraphrase an old saying, tradition is like the sun - it does us no good if we just stare at it, but at our backs it can light the way for the journey ahead.  I'd put reason second, because any reason worthy of the name takes the light of tradition to new situations and circumstances, understanding that the principles can remain the same while the forms can change with the times, and recognizing that reason best decides when change is required and what form it needs to take.  Experience I'd put third - to again paraphrase an old saying, in matters of excellence and in the striving for greatness, experience can be a vice.  And I'd put the old writings last - wonderful and important, yes, and almost everything I know or think I know about golf course architecture has come from reading that writing, but architecture's main lessons are learned (and shared) in the doing, on the ground -- just as the main import of coming to a theological conclusion is that it can then inform our actions/decisions in the moral sphere. 

Peter

[RJ_Daley]

So then, substituting that process of coming to a theological conclusion, one uses these qualities of reason, tradition, and experience to reach a conclusion of becoming a better player and getting more out of the game in a personally satisfying sense, or to become a better architect?  If the subject of understanding golf course architecture can be a substitute for scripture, then I guess Mike is saying that understanding architecture or scripture is an interpretive process.  But, since most of us are not golf course architects, we don't use reason, experience and tradition to become better architects, just better golfers, and interpret the golf course architecture we encounter. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Well, since no one has done it yet, I guess I have to float this gca.com religious theory:

Tom Doak Studies Traditional Golf Courses
Tom Doak wrote the Scripture (ie Confidential Guide)
Tom Doak designs with experience and reason

Therefore, Tom Doak is God.

Is that about how it goes around here?

[Mike Hendren]

For me:

1.  Tradition.  I'm not sure the end product has improved significantly over the past 80 years.

2.  Experience.  What a fun, challenging, or unique shot - let's adapt it to another site.   These shots/holes are firmly engrained in the golfer's psyche.

3.  Reason.  The foundation for the strategic school of design.

4.  Scripture.  ?

Bogey

[Garland Bayley]

Bogey,

It might be useful if you define experience and tradition for this exercise. It is clear to me that you are using playing experience as opposed to golf design experience as I used.

I don't know what your definition of tradition is from your post above.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

I hate to disagree with such an excellent thesis, but ...

How you define "scripture" and "experience" and "tradition" count for nearly everything here.  Whichever of them means looking at the great courses of old, I would have to rank that pretty high as being what has stood the test of time.  In my first reading of the question, I would have described that as "experience", but it's possible that experience should be confined to personal experience of design and construction.

Personally, I would rank "reason" very highly, because I think it's great to try and create something a bit different than what you've seen before ... and if I think it works, then it ought to work.  But that confidence is based on experience, or scripture, or tradition, or something.

[Bob_Huntley]

Scripture would have to come dead last. Will we resurrect the various canons and gospels that were left out of the New Testament, to get to an altogether different version of the present day Bible?

I opt for experience and reason.

Bob

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I admit I counted the experience as personal experience and the tradition as seeing older courses.  For those who say tradition is tops, in my mind it says don't design anything new. Perhaps a spinoff.

But, I imagine the best chance for original design is a reasonable assessment of the situation at hand and a reasoned, well thought out combination of design elements that solve the problems present.  I suspect that happened a lot in the old days, too.

[George Pazin]

I place reason significantly higher than experience. If there's one observation I would make of the world today, it's that a whole lot of people are capable of clearly seeing problems - and even more find the incorrect "solution".

Here's a quick example: There is a relatively new course here in western PA that is to be a Scottish links-style course. Apparently, their idea of a Scottish links style course is a course that has randomly placed thick hay-like rough. Now, I haven't had the pleasure of teeing it up in the UK, but I get the feeling that isn't the defining characteristic of a true links...

[Garland Bayley]

George,

Don't ever confuse marketing with reason. They are two completely different animals.

[George Pazin]

Good point, but I think they really believed what they were marketing.

Anyway, that's just one quick and clear example. You see this phenomenon every day in all facets of life. Heck, most punk rockers are amazingly insightful at pointing out problems; they're just usually 180 degrees wrong on the fix.

[Mike Hendren]

Bogey,

It might be useful if you define experience and tradition for this exercise. It is clear to me that you are using playing experience as opposed to golf design experience as I used.

I don't know what your definition of tradition is from your post above.

Garland, I was indeed thinking of playing experience:  1) how did the architecture actually impact shot planning and shot making; and 2) how did the architecture react to various shots.

As for tradition, what are fundamental architecture elements that are generally accepted of rejected.

I would guess most architects have a primarily influence - as a Cornell man I am not at all surprised that Tom Doak, for example would site reason. 

Mike

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()