[Kalen Braley]

FWIW,

I've found pretty much every course I've played to be significantly different in person than from what I could see/gather in pictures.  I completely agree with Kirk on this one that seeing/playing a course is much different than just viewing pictures of it.  Because often pics don't do any justice to scale, slope, elevation differentials, surrounds beyond the course, views, undulation, etc, etc.

Some courses have totally far exceeed my expectations from what i had seen in pics, and others underwhelmed...for 99.9% of folks you really never know until you go see it.

[George Pazin]

All too often discussion of a course ends with "you don't like this guy, so forget it" or "you haven't played the course, so forget it," or even "you're obviously a shill for this architect, so forget it." It's the courses that matter, shouting down folks who disagree with you or walking away when someone questions your assertions doesn't take any thought, and doesn't help anyone.

Well said. I am all for not just making statements, but being pressed to defend them as well.

Kalen -

I think it depends hugely on the individual doing the critiquing. I'd guess most of the architects on here could derive more from a photo than most of the regular golfers who actually played the course, though this of course depends a lot on the photos as well.

When one poster tried to shout down questions and comments from people merely observing photos, I asked the following:

If playing trumps photographic analysis, does playing multiple times trump playing once? Does playing in different conditions trump playing multiple times on the same day? Where does designing the course fall into this trumping scheme? How about building, as opposed to designing?

I see merely the need to be honest and forthright with one's level of information, and then it is up to the reader's to assign value to the post - to judge it, if you will.

[Garland Bayley]

Kirk,

I am simply trying to point out that what you say is not true all of the time.
For example, in a Ran review a point would be made and demonstrated. On a separate thread about the course a person not having played the course reviewed might state that they would probably skip the course because of X where they state without attribution the thing demonstrated clearly to be true in Ran's review. This would be followed by a statement to the effect that another poster has played the course countless times and X is not true, and the first poster should withhold comment until that poster had played the course.

There simply are people in the world that let their prejudices over ride facts. We see it all the time in the political arena, and it happens here to.

[Kalen Braley]

All too often discussion of a course ends with "you don't like this guy, so forget it" or "you haven't played the course, so forget it," or even "you're obviously a shill for this architect, so forget it." It's the courses that matter, shouting down folks who disagree with you or walking away when someone questions your assertions doesn't take any thought, and doesn't help anyone.

Well said. I am all for not just making statements, but being pressed to defend them as well.

Kalen -

I think it depends hugely on the individual doing the critiquing. I'd guess most of the architects on here could derive more from a photo than most of the regular golfers who actually played the course, though this of course depends a lot on the photos as well.

When one poster tried to shout down questions and comments from people merely observing photos, I asked the following:

If playing trumps photographic analysis, does playing multiple times trump playing once? Does playing in different conditions trump playing multiple times on the same day? Where does designing the course fall into this trumping scheme? How about building, as opposed to designing?

I see merely the need to be honest and forthright with one's level of information, and then it is up to the reader's to assign value to the post - to judge it, if you will.

George,

I agree with your last post.

There is certainly context in all things.  I would guess a good architect could probably detect/see more things in one playing than an average joe who may have played a course dozens of times.  However I still stand by my comment that seeing something in person is usually a very different experience than seeing a photo.

To me, the worst type of analysis I see/have seen on this site is:

1) One who has not played the course in question.
2) Does not work in the industry.
3) Has never travelled to the region where the course exists.
4) Has played little or none of the architects work.

....and then summarily dismisses/becomes highly critical of said course based only on pictures.

[George Pazin]

To me, the worst type of analysis I see/have seen on this site is:

1) One who has not played the course in question.
2) Does not work in the industry.
3) Has never travelled to the region where the course exists.
4) Has played little or none of the architects work.

....and then summarily dismisses/becomes highly critical of said course based only on pictures.

Just out of curiosity, how often do you see this happen on this site? GOING STRICTLY BY MY (AMPLE YET SHRINKING) GUT, I would guess that it is far more common that posters ask pointed questions going from photos, and then the folks who have played the course attempt to shout down reasonable questions.

[JESII]

To me, the worst type of analysis I see/have seen on this site is:

1) One who has not played the course in question.
2) Does not work in the industry.
3) Has never travelled to the region where the course exists.
4) Has played little or none of the architects work.

....and then summarily dismisses/becomes highly critical of said course based only on pictures.

Just out of curiosity, how often do you see this happen on this site? GOING STRICTLY BY MY (AMPLE YET SHRINKING) GUT, I would guess that it is far more common that posters ask pointed questions going from photos, and then the folks who have played the course attempt to shout down reasonable questions.

For what it's worth, the discussion a couple weeks ago about a Jim Engh par 5 closer fit these two posts above to a T.

Kalen pronounced the hole brilliant and strategic and all sorts of great things and I asked him a few questions and it went downhill from there with Matt W and David M displaying their own unique forms of charm...

[Adam Clayman]

Fundamental principles can be written about and seen in photos, but, how a course makes one feel, during or after play, can not. So, I see no problem analyzing a course without having played it, but evaluations must be saved until one has.  

What George may be getting at is an ability to have a critical eye. Use it or lose it.

 Obviously differently by different people, are the methods of analyzing and evaluating golf courses. How both those are ultimately relayed, and, the style it is presented determines whether another person can relate, or not.  

 George, I'm not sure experience trumps anything, if all one takes away from the golf course is how they played it. Or, even worse, how the pros would play it.

[Kalen Braley]

Fundamental principles can be written about and seen in photos, but, how a course makes one feel, during or after play, can not. So, I see no problem analyzing a course without having played it, but evaluations must be saved until one has.  

I couldn't agree more with Adam here.  Analyzing a course and asking questions is great, but coming to conclusions and a formal opinion/take is beyond absurd.

[Garland Bayley]

To me, the worst type of analysis I see/have seen on this site is:

1) One who has not played the course in question.
2) Does not work in the industry.
3) Has never travelled to the region where the course exists.
4) Has played little or none of the architects work.

....and then summarily dismisses/becomes highly critical of said course based only on pictures.

Just out of curiosity, how often do you see this happen on this site? GOING STRICTLY BY MY (AMPLE YET SHRINKING) GUT, I would guess that it is far more common that posters ask pointed questions going from photos, and then the folks who have played the course attempt to shout down reasonable questions.

For what it's worth, the discussion a couple weeks ago about a Jim Engh par 5 closer fit these two posts above to a T.

Kalen pronounced the hole brilliant and strategic and all sorts of great things and I asked him a few questions and it went downhill from there with Matt W and David M displaying their own unique forms of charm...

Nope! Not true! Kalen said summrily dismiss the course. The course was not dismissed based on the par 5 closer.

If you want a closer example, there is the Red Sky Ranch Norman course. I and another poster of similar ilk looked at the pictures and called it ugly. I will note that I do play ugly courses, so I haven't summarily dismissed it, but it has a $250 green fee, and I don't play courses I perceive to be ugly that have a $250 green fee.

[George Pazin]

I couldn't agree more with Adam here.  Analyzing a course and asking questions is great, but coming to conclusions and a formal opinion/take is beyond absurd.

Again, the bigger problem I see on here is people shouting down questions and observations, rather than a rush to judgment based on photos.

In a roundabout way, this exchange perfectly illustrates my original point. I question the judgment of those who read questions and observations and then conclude the individual is evaluating the course. They are essentially creating a straw man equivalence that does not exist in any place other than their minds.

What's the bigger problem? People evaluating from photos or people shouting down questions/comments/observations? No question in my book.

Take posters at their word: Answer the questions and comment on the observations - if they're full of it, it will shine through.

Adam is also right about using one's critical eye, but that is a thread for another day.

[Garland Bayley]

Kalen,

If I went to some small town in the plains states and posted pictures of their hazardless, flat, smooth faiways and greens golf course, that was no more interesting to play than going to the driving range, would it be absurd for you to conclude from the pictures that it was not your cup of tea?

[Kalen Braley]

To me, the worst type of analysis I see/have seen on this site is:

1) One who has not played the course in question.
2) Does not work in the industry.
3) Has never travelled to the region where the course exists.
4) Has played little or none of the architects work.

....and then summarily dismisses/becomes highly critical of said course based only on pictures.

Just out of curiosity, how often do you see this happen on this site? GOING STRICTLY BY MY (AMPLE YET SHRINKING) GUT, I would guess that it is far more common that posters ask pointed questions going from photos, and then the folks who have played the course attempt to shout down reasonable questions.

George to answer your question, I have seen both scenarios occur.  I was merely explaining what I felt was the "worst case" scenario.

No doubt, many on GCA.com get very passionate about thier opinions and I get that.  But when someone has played a course and explains several times with words and pictures why a certain feature, hole, or course works...and they are continually dismissed by someone who has never played the course, nor seen it in person, then its hard to have respect for that persons limited opinion...plain and simple as that.

[Garland Bayley]

...Answer the questions and comment on the observations - if they're full of it, it will shine through.
...

Bingo, you nailed it George.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,

If I went to some small town in the plains states and posted pictures of their hazardless, flat, smooth faiways and greens golf course, that was no more interesting to play than going to the driving range, would it be absurd for you to conclude from the pictures that it was not your cup of tea?

Garland,

I never said people can't form initial opinions of a place based on pictures...I think everyone does that.  But there is a big difference between me forming an opinion and having my own private take, over me being critical and making conclusions about a place in a public way.

I'll use an example.  I've seen several pics and reviews of Wild Horse.  To me...and to me only... the course looks good and very much worth a visit if/when I find myself in the area.  But in the meantime I will not stand on a soap box and say the course sucks, or criticize it, or try to influence anyone that the course doesn't deserve a visit and/or is worthy of someones time to see it.  That would be disingenous and dishonest based on the fact that I've never been there to even form a valid opinion that anyone should give merit to.  Its really as simple as that.

[Garland Bayley]

Kalen,

If I went to some small town in the plains states and posted pictures of their hazardless, flat, smooth faiways and greens golf course, that was no more interesting to play than going to the driving range, would it be absurd for you to conclude from the pictures that it was not your cup of tea?

Garland,

I never said people can't form initial opinions of a place based on pictures...I think everyone does that.  But there is a big difference between me forming an opinion and having my own private take, over me being critical and making conclusions about a place in a public way.

I'll use an example.  I've seen several pics and reviews of Wild Horse.  To me...and to me only... the course looks good and very much worth a visit if/when I find myself in the area.  But in the meantime I will not stand on a soap box and say the course sucks, or criticize it, or try to influence anyone on whether said course deserves a visit and/or is worthy of someones time to see it.  That would be disingenous and dishonest based on the fact that I've never been there to even form a valid opinion that anyone should give merit to.  Its really as simple as that.

I was not specific enough on my question. For the course described, are you going to tell me that you would not say to someone "from what I know of the course and of you being a discerning architecture student, it probably is not worth your taking the time to play it"?

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,

If I went to some small town in the plains states and posted pictures of their hazardless, flat, smooth faiways and greens golf course, that was no more interesting to play than going to the driving range, would it be absurd for you to conclude from the pictures that it was not your cup of tea?

Garland,

I never said people can't form initial opinions of a place based on pictures...I think everyone does that.  But there is a big difference between me forming an opinion and having my own private take, over me being critical and making conclusions about a place in a public way.

I'll use an example.  I've seen several pics and reviews of Wild Horse.  To me...and to me only... the course looks good and very much worth a visit if/when I find myself in the area.  But in the meantime I will not stand on a soap box and say the course sucks, or criticize it, or try to influence anyone on whether said course deserves a visit and/or is worthy of someones time to see it.  That would be disingenous and dishonest based on the fact that I've never been there to even form a valid opinion that anyone should give merit to.  Its really as simple as that.

I was not specific enough on my question. For the course described, are you going to tell me that you would not say to someone "from what I know of the course and of you being a discerning architecture student, it probably is not worth your taking the time to play it"?

Yes Garland, you would be correct.

I've never discouraged anyone from seeing a course that I haven't played 1st myself. 

[Garland Bayley]

Kalen,

If I went to some small town in the plains states and posted pictures of their hazardless, flat, smooth faiways and greens golf course, that was no more interesting to play than going to the driving range, would it be absurd for you to conclude from the pictures that it was not your cup of tea?

Garland,

I never said people can't form initial opinions of a place based on pictures...I think everyone does that.  But there is a big difference between me forming an opinion and having my own private take, over me being critical and making conclusions about a place in a public way.

I'll use an example.  I've seen several pics and reviews of Wild Horse.  To me...and to me only... the course looks good and very much worth a visit if/when I find myself in the area.  But in the meantime I will not stand on a soap box and say the course sucks, or criticize it, or try to influence anyone on whether said course deserves a visit and/or is worthy of someones time to see it.  That would be disingenous and dishonest based on the fact that I've never been there to even form a valid opinion that anyone should give merit to.  Its really as simple as that.

I was not specific enough on my question. For the course described, are you going to tell me that you would not say to someone "from what I know of the course and of you being a discerning architecture student, it probably is not worth your taking the time to play it"?

Yes Garland, you would be correct.

I've never discouraged anyone from seeing a course that I haven't played 1st myself.  I have told others that such and such a course seems to be good but have always prefaced it with "I haven't played it, but it looks like it'd be worth a play"

And after they play it and come back and ask why you had not warned them?

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,

If I went to some small town in the plains states and posted pictures of their hazardless, flat, smooth faiways and greens golf course, that was no more interesting to play than going to the driving range, would it be absurd for you to conclude from the pictures that it was not your cup of tea?

Garland,

I never said people can't form initial opinions of a place based on pictures...I think everyone does that.  But there is a big difference between me forming an opinion and having my own private take, over me being critical and making conclusions about a place in a public way.

I'll use an example.  I've seen several pics and reviews of Wild Horse.  To me...and to me only... the course looks good and very much worth a visit if/when I find myself in the area.  But in the meantime I will not stand on a soap box and say the course sucks, or criticize it, or try to influence anyone on whether said course deserves a visit and/or is worthy of someones time to see it.  That would be disingenous and dishonest based on the fact that I've never been there to even form a valid opinion that anyone should give merit to.  Its really as simple as that.

I was not specific enough on my question. For the course described, are you going to tell me that you would not say to someone "from what I know of the course and of you being a discerning architecture student, it probably is not worth your taking the time to play it"?

Yes Garland, you would be correct.

I've never discouraged anyone from seeing a course that I haven't played 1st myself.  I have told others that such and such a course seems to be good but have always prefaced it with "I haven't played it, but it looks like it'd be worth a play"

And after they play it and come back and ask why you had not warned them?

Lol.

Well thats yet to happen, so I guess I consider myself lucky!!  Or it could just be that I keep my limited, partial opinions to myself!!    

[George Pazin]

George to answer your question, I have seen both scenarios occur.  I was merely explaining what I felt was the "worst case" scenario.

No doubt, many on GCA.com get very passionate about thier opinions and I get that.  But when someone has played a course and explains several times with words and pictures why a certain feature, hole, or course works...and they are continually dismissed by someone who has never played the course, nor seen it in person, then its hard to have respect for that persons limited opinion...plain and simple as that.

Again, I will ask, what is the bigger problem on here? People "evaluating" a course without playing it or people shouting down questions and comments from those who haven't played it?

On those rare occasions someone offers up an evaluation of a course not played, you simply ignore it.

When someone drives away a poster for asking questions or commenting on photos without addressing the questions or comments, we all lose.

It is that very type of equivalence that bothers me and prompted this thread. Thank you again for providing an excellent example!

 

[Kalen Braley]

George to answer your question, I have seen both scenarios occur.  I was merely explaining what I felt was the "worst case" scenario.

No doubt, many on GCA.com get very passionate about thier opinions and I get that.  But when someone has played a course and explains several times with words and pictures why a certain feature, hole, or course works...and they are continually dismissed by someone who has never played the course, nor seen it in person, then its hard to have respect for that persons limited opinion...plain and simple as that.

Again, I will ask, what is the bigger problem on here? People "evaluating" a course without playing it or people shouting down questions and comments from those who haven't played it?

On those rare occasions someone offers up an evaluation of a course not played, you simply ignore it.

When someone drives away a poster for asking questions or commenting on photos without addressing the questions or comments, we all lose.

It is that very type of equivalence that bothers me and prompted this thread. Thank you again for providing an excellent example!

 

George,

Perhaps you could provide specific examples of where one was shouted down for asking questions.  This is not to say this hasn't happened, but in my experience it usually follows this pattern or something related:

1)  Person A posts pics of something or makes a comments about a hole or course or whatever.
2)  Person B asks a question.
3)  Person A answers question.
4)  Person B asks a follow-up question and either directly or in-directly implies that the initial answer wasn't good enough.
5)  Person A then re-answers question and attempts to explain answer more completly.
6)  Person B once again is not satisified with answer and continues to Badger Person A for a "better answer".
7)  Person A then goes on the defensive and suggests person B needs to play the course or see it for themselves so they could better understand the answer.
8 ) Person B then accuses Person A of dodging the question and continues to berate Person A
9)  Person A then discontinues conversation.
10)  Person B continues the attack on Person A and accuses Person A of not wanting to have "real dialogue" or something similar.

IMO, in this particular scenario when someone gets shouted down, its often because Person B is not interested in a getting a real answer but they have an agenda and resort to using whatever trick they can to claim A is not "engaged in having real conversation".

[Chris Buie]

Is it really necessary to work in the golf industry to have extensive knowledge and the ability to articulate about GCA? 
By the way, I worked for several years at courses you've heard of (not just in the Pinehurst area).

[Adam Clayman]

Kalen,

If I went to some small town in the plains states and posted pictures of their hazardless, flat, smooth faiways and greens golf course, that was no more interesting to play than going to the driving range, would it be absurd for you to conclude from the pictures that it was not your cup of tea?

Recently I saw a hidden gem that impressed me staring on the very first tee shot. The ground movements were remarkable but as I stood over my approach from 116 yards, I was taken aback by the flat green. Much to my surprise and delight as I walk onto the green it had more movement than ex-lax has pills. So, if that green appeared flat from 116 yards how would it look in a photo.

BTW, I'm curious as to how that particular deception occurred. Any one want to try and guess?

 The green was elongated perpendicular to the line of play and had a saucer shaped bunker directly in front. Perhaps placed just slightly right of center.

[Peter Pallotta]

If the art and craft of golf course architecture is rooted in fundamental principles, there's at least the potential for an objective (and, if the architects are involved, instructive) discussion.  Anything less, though, and it's essentially a subjective free for all, one to be embraced (or not) independent of whether posters have played a course once or ten times, or not at all.  But to be honest, George, even then I'd much rather read Matt W than most others (including myself, of course), despite our starkly different sensibilities. IMHO

Peter

PS - any chance you are working your way to the Toronto area this weekend, George? If so, drop me a cell-phone number, I'd very much enjoy buying you a few drinks if our schedules allow.

[Garland Bayley]

... So, if that green appeared flat from 116 yards how would it look in a photo.
...

I guess that depends on whether the photo was taken from 116 yards or from 1 yard.
 

[Sean_A]

George

I am not really sure what this thread is about other than you would like folks to offer more opinions backed with substance.  Of course, substance could be anything depending on whos calling it substance.  Peter seems to think there is such a thing as grounded architectural principles which is difficult to argue with.  Only, we can't seem to quantify, qualify or codify these principles.  Well at least we can't figure out what the true basic elements are.  At the most basic level members of this site are still divided if a course can be considered proper, genuine golf if the site/routing isn't reasonably walkable.  To me, its a no brainer.  Getting the golfer around on foot is part and parcel of good design.  Some believe that getting the most spectacular golf out of the land is the most important thing.  Some believe its ok to sacrifice the good walk once or perhaps twice in a round if it means an exceptional hole can therefore be included.  On one level, all are correct and right.  One another level, if we truly do have a "set" of principles to design by, only one or perhaps two scenarios can be correct.  In reality, it doesn't work this way because the product is for golfers, not designers or their ideals of what should be.  It sounds like the wild west and in truth it pretty much is when we look at what has been built.  

My question would be, and remember, that I don't care how you play your golf, do the folks who encourage cart golf design by using carts often (assuming the course is not easily walkable) have any sense that the course they are playing lacks a critical element of design?  My guess is that in the main stream we are so far removed from this core principle that folks don't give it a second thought.

So far as the photo deal goes, I believe some can get much more out of them from a analytical PoV than others.  Just as some get more than others in a round.  That isn't meant to be snooty, just that some folks look at pix with an eye to perhaps visit one day and the info gleaned could be a big part of the decision-making process. 

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()