[Anthony Gray]

   Without the golfer/player, do we have golf architecture?

   Aren't the great modern courses designed for the golfer that wants to have fun golfing?


  How can you focus  every topic on only architecture without consider that there are real life humane beings that actualy look to a golf course as aplace of escape and recreational fun.


   At the KP I heard more talk about family and and life experiences thanbunker placement. My God how many times have I ever golfed with someone that has won three national championships in NCAA basketball.  Was my first round at the KP about architecture or fellowship? If we do not play then does the architecture matter?


   Which came first ? The chicken or the egg?       Mac Calvin!!!


   Anthony

[TEPaul]

Which came first, the wilderness or civilization?

[PGertner]

It's the golf course....in a landslide. 

With apologies to any of my members I may have offended....

Patrick Gertner
GC Supt
Potowomut GC
East Greenwich, RI

[Melvyn Morrow]

What is most important? The player or the course.

The course, because if it is of the old blood and it is older than man or golf.
Without the Links (Machairland) there would be no Golf, as we know it today.

After Centuries of self-design and movement by the machinery of the Earth Wind and Sea these magnificent wastelands attracted the attention of Man.

Golf is Links, the Links is Golf.  Man followed the original natural course, once he started to understand the real meaning of the game, he developed his own courses but always in the shadow and format of the Links.

Anthony, that’s my humble opinion and for once Man was not the creator of the original courses although some may want to suggest otherwise.
 
What is most important? The player or the course. Can we call the modern player who ride carts and use electronic aids a Golfer – well we can leave that for another topic.

Melvyn

PS  Thanks for the IM

[Tom Huckaby]

Melvyn:  welcome back.  And yes, let's do leave that last part for another topic.   

Anthony:  I have always quite steadfastly maintained that it's very much more about the players than the course.  I have said some version of this at least 100 times in here:

I could have fun playing this game on a parking lot... if the friends are good and the beer is cold.

And I quite firmly believe that.

The games venues certainly can add to one's enjoyment.  But in the end, it's all about hitting the ball and being with friends.

Or at least I think so.

And we exhibited that last Sunday.  Yes we got ass-whupped, but man it was fun.  Sure the wonderful venue had something to do with that.  But I've played that course before... I sure as heck have never played it with YOU and the two Davids.

TH

[Anthony Gray]

What is most important? The player or the course.

The course, because if it is of the old blood and it is older than man or golf.
Without the Links (Machairland) there would be no Golf, as we know it today.

After Centuries of self-design and movement by the machinery of the Earth Wind and Sea these magnificent wastelands attracted the attention of Man.

Golf is Links, the Links is Golf.  Man followed the original natural course, once he started to understand the real meaning of the game, he developed his own courses but always in the shadow and format of the Links.

Anthony, that’s my humble opinion and for once Man was not the creator of the original courses although some may want to suggest otherwise.
 
What is most important? The player or the course. Can we call the modern player who ride carts and use electronic aids a Golfer – well we can leave that for another topic.

Melvyn

PS  Thanks for the IM

  Melvyn and Tom,

  It is great to see you two on the same thread again.


  I must admit that my views on several topics have changed since joining this group. Like carts. Tom, after my nose caught on fire on the 13th hole at Rustic Canyon I am now a little more in favor of cart golf when the temps get up to 100. Melvyn, the risk of epidermal inferno is quite less across the pond.

  Your Friend,

  Anthony

[Jeff_Brauer]

Anthony,

Its not only the great modern courses designed for players, its all the rest of them designed for their intended users, whether club play, muni, senior communities, beginners courses, etc.

I have long contended that we design for golfers first, while some seem to think we should preserve the land as is.  There is already a name for preserving the land as is - Nature Parks.  For human use you need to modify it, which most gca's do to the minimum necessary for a host of reasons, but still make the modifications  for the human game of golf, like leveling tee sites, leveling greens (or building them) flat enough to putt, etc.  A natural green that had everyone putting off it or not holding it wouldn't be great architecture at all.

The only debate is the degree to which it should be modified and the degree to which various golfers needs should be accomodated.  I understand Melvyns POV, but times do change so its not unreasoable to think designs should change a bit as the game does.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Anthony,
To paraphrase: Nae players, nae golf. There wouldn't be an "Old Course" if it was not for the invention of the game.

I agree with Huckaby and Seve, the game would be fun if played on/from the parking lot.

[Jim_Coleman]

I think it's much like the practice of law - it would be much more enjoyable if there were no clients.

[Michael Warren]

I would have to say that the player is more important than the course.  The course is designed to the players likings so playing a good course is just a bonus.

[Sean_A]

You can't have one without the other so both are important.  If I was banned to playing some hack course the rest of my days I would probably give the game up.  If I could only play wonderful courses, but never with my mates I would probably give the game up.  Give me a little of both and something in between and all is well.

Ciao

[Eric Smith]

You can't have one without the other so both are important.  If I was banned to playing some hack course the rest of my days I would probably give the game up.  If I could only play wonderful courses, but never with my mates I would probably give the game up.  Give me a little of both and something in between and all is well.

Ciao

I'll second that.

[Tom Huckaby]

You can't have one without the other so both are important.  If I was banned to playing some hack course the rest of my days I would probably give the game up.  If I could only play wonderful courses, but never with my mates I would probably give the game up.  Give me a little of both and something in between and all is well.

Ciao

Disagree.

I love the game enough such that I cannot fathom a reason I'd give it up so long as I am healthy enough to play.

Yes the game is BETTER with fine mates and/or fine courses... but neither is a requirement, not to me.

In any case thankfully it's all theoretical.  I doubt any of us soon gets banned to a hack course for life, with no friends.

 

[PCCraig]

Like the chicken and the egg...you can't have one without the other.

However if all the golf courses in the world blew up tomorrow or I moved to Tokyo I would frequent any range I could as I enjoy hitting a golf ball, regardless of where it is going.

[Rob Rigg]

The player - because a passionate golfer can make a course out of anything.

How many of us played across fields or chipped around backyards turning it into a golf course.

I appreciate Melvyn's view on the links and its natural creation, but the shepherds came up with the game that make places like St Andrews what they are today.

If Mike Keiser was not a passionate player then Bandon would not exist.

Men (and women) will play games, it is in our nature. The optimal venue will follow (along with many many suboptimal venues unfortunately).

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jeff

With all due respect to Anthony, perhaps the question should be
‘What is most important? The game or technology’.

Looking at the Golfing Authorities the game is coming in second best.

Jeff you say that the “designs should change a bit as the game does”. I ask why is the game changing. If it is because no one is willing to actually control the technology, to use it within the current structure and rules of the game or are we always going to allow more and more technology to pour in without proper consultation. Is it the promise of money or sponsorship that is now controlling the game rather that our Governing Bodies.

I have no problem if the game is going to keep on increasing the length of the courses, due to the absurd distance carting will become the only option as walking might take up to 12 hours a round. What actually scares me is the initial cost of the project (courses) then the unbelievable maintenance costs to keep in all in good order. Who is going to be able to afford the built and how many of us will be able to pay for a round.  Yes, fine design should change a bit as the game does, but who is looking after THE GAME?

Is in not time that we the golfers, architects, designers, and perhaps even the developers insisted that our Governing Bodies DO SOMETHING to protect the game.

Clearly, with the current financial and climatic constraints, golf is going to have to change. I say why not back to what it was, affordable courses in sensible locations for minimum on going maintenance costs allowing for good fair cost for a round. The equipment market should follow the Game not lead it. Standards need to be set and agreed, after all, we are no longer living in the age of a feathery ball – or has the feathery now replaced the brains of those now sitting on the committees within our Governing Bodies. 

As for the Course or player option, is not the car park a course, is not a range a course if used for that purpose, so the course always seems to come first, after all we can’t keep the ball in the air all the time, can we? 

Good topic Anthony, we need to consider all options.

Melvyn
 

[JESII]

But Melvyn...the car park is not a course to anyone but the imaginative golfer...that's the point.

[Ronald Montesano]

Damned Arble...it IS a symbiotic relationship.

[Steve Salmen]

On my way to a fine golf course, I drove by a semi abandoned baseball field.  In the field were two black kids hitting golf balls.  It made me think of Anthony's question.

The equipment does not mean a thing.  The venue does not mean a thing.  The desire to project a stationary object to a hole in the distance is what it's all about.  The ability to use graphite shafts, Pro V1s, play on immaculate green grass, putting greens that run 11 at member only clubs are things easy to take for granted.

I was humbled in 2 ways: Being invited to play at a great course in the first place was a great privilege.  Second, realizing how lucky I am that through accident of birth, I may not have been lucky enough to be hitting old balls in an abandoned baseball field.

[Anthony Gray]

On my way to a fine golf course, I drove by a semi abandoned baseball field.  In the field were two black kids hitting golf balls.  It made me think of Anthony's question.

The equipment does not mean a thing.  The venue does not mean a thing.  The desire to project a stationary object to a hole in the distance is what it's all about.  The ability to use graphite shafts, Pro V1s, play on immaculate green grass, putting greens that run 11 at member only clubs are things easy to take for granted.

I was humbled in 2 ways: Being invited to play at a great course in the first place was a great privilege.  Second, realizing how lucky I am that through accident of birth, I may not have been lucky enough to be hitting old balls in an abandoned baseball field.

  This thread resulted from a statement Steve said to me on the phone the other day. So I stoled it from him. The greatness of golf centers around the people that play it first and then its arena secound. As Steve told me "without golfers we would not have GCA.com"

  Anthony

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()