The common thread in greatness

[Jeff_Brauer]

Time for me to bow out, too, when everyone starts agreeing that there is a "formula" or "secret sauce" to building a great course.

Hey, Tom, would you say the secret sauce might be okay, as long as special orders don't upset us?

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul, 

You obviously have strong feelings about what you think happened early in the history of golf course design in America, and it is certainly a topic worth pursuing.   But instead of repeatedly intimating how you think it all went down, why don't you write a IMO on the issue, and back up your feelings with some actual facts and analysis?   That way we could all figure out whether what you think happened actually did happen.

Either way, this is probably not the thread to have such a discussion for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it is way off topic.     

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

So which are you asking for?  Actual Facts or Analysis?  Around here, those are rarely the same thing.......

[DMoriarty]

David,

So which are you asking for?  Actual Facts or Analysis?  Around here, those are rarely the same thing.......

Facts and analysis are never the same thing, anywhere.   The former exists independently, but the latter is totally dependent upon the former.  In other words, analysis is worthless without facts to back it up. Yet around here people tend to err toward analysis without facts (or despite facts.) This is really no analysis at all.  Just story telling.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Bingo.  I think its even worse here in the fact that both sides of many arguments find facts and don't analyze them - they twist them to fit into a predisposed theory they arleady have....it is just story telling on both sides.

If anyone on this site thinks they are a great researcher or historian because of what they post here, I am of the opinion that they are sadly mistaken.  The standards that exist for "real world" publication just don't exist here.

[TEPaul]

Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses

Nine months ago Mac Plumart started a thread entitled "Ground-breaking and revolutionary courses." In his initial post he said:



« on: November 20, 2009, 05:22:42 AM »   
 
"I've been studying golf courses and I am trying to get my arms around which courses truly brought something new to the table and were groundbreaking in some manner.  Please review what I've got so far and add in any comments you might have.  If I am wrong on a point, please let me know.  If I've missed something or overlooked a course, let me know.  

St. Andrews Old Course---first great golf course

Sunningdale (old)---first great heathlands course and first great non-links course for that matter

Myopia Hunt, Garden City, NGLA---first great American courses.........”





In Post #19 of that thread David Moriarty responded with:


   Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #19 on: November 21, 2009, 03:39:13 AM »   
 
"It is all pretty subjective . . .

1. I don't think Garden City, Myopia, and NGLA should be lumped together.   Garden City and Myopia were built pre-1900, and while they both reportedly morphed into very good courses, I am not so sure they started out this way.   Plus, they were both very different types of courses.   Even the changes and improvements at Garden City and Myopia focused on difficulty, whereas NGLA was the wholesale application of the fundamental links golf principles in America, and its impact was truly revolutionary (arguably, even on the two other courses you group with it.)

I would say that the first three good 18 hole course in America were Chicago Golf Club, Myopia, and Garden City.  I think Chicago, Myopia, and Garden City were considered the best in America but they were not considered great on an international scale.  In contrast, NGLA was considered World Class, America's first truly great golf course, and one on equal footing with great courses abroad.  

If you want to avoid the good/great discussion, then I think it would be reasonable to say that NGLA was the first course in America wholely based on the underlying strategic principles of the great holes abroad.”

[TEPaul]

In the post above which refers to ground breaking and revolutionary architecture one could and probably should consider that those courses listed contributed to a common thread of greatness in architecture somehow; in the example above to a common thread of greatness in golf architecture in America.

In considering this question and subject is one necessarily in the realm of analysis? Of course they are. Is one also in the realm of fact? Not unless one considers opinion to be synonymous with fact.

David Moriarty seems to want to limit analysis and discussion of subjects on here to those that are supported by fact, apparently as in something akin to a case in a court of law. This website's DG is not a court of law, it's a discussion group not constrained by the same process and procedures as a court of law.

Is an opinion considered to be a fact? Not in a court of law it isn't! Opinion is just opinion and even in a court of law it is admissable in certain circumstances, even if not rising to the level of fact. Should an opinion on here be considered a fact? Obviously not. If someone such as Macdonald or Hutchinson expressed their opinion that NGLA was the first great architecture in America or the best architecture in America when it was opened should that be considered more of a fact than the opinion of say a Willie Dunne who earlier expressed his opinion that Myopia might be the best golf course in the world?

We deal in opinion and the analysis of opinion on this website, the opinions of contemporaneous people to our subjects and in the opinions and analysis of those here and today on this website. We do not need to have our opinions and our discussions and anaylses quashed or even limited by someone who tries to use the prospect of fact to limit and quash them.

And we do not need a Moriarty on here to suggest to us that if we want to offer an opinion or analysis of some subject that we must be shunted off to the IMO section of this website to do it. It looks to me like he must think that is the place where "Facts" MUST be presented. If he actually thinks that I would seriously question his opinion and suggestion on that be citing his own IMO piece on here entitled "The Missing Faces of Merion." He may think he presented what passes for fact in that essay but in reality he only offered his own opinions and analyses of certain people and events------which apparently he thinks rises to the level of fact.

That is just not the case and we should all realize it.

[DMoriarty]

Merion again?   Give it a rest Tom.    Like I said, if you want to discuss any of this stuff with me, put it in an IMO.  I'll be glad to respond.  But until then please quit ruining threads with your petty and pointless efforts to get a fight going.

[TEPaul]

"Merion again?   Give it a rest Tom.    Like I said, if you want to discuss any of this stuff with me, put it in an IMO.  I'll be glad to respond.  But until then please quit ruining threads with your petty and pointless efforts to get a fight going."


And like I said perhaps a dozen times heretofore, I'm not going to put anything into an IMO piece just because you ask for it. This website and its DG is a forum for the dissemination of opinion and analysis and the discussion of it, whether you agree with that process or not.

I think whenever you mention or suggest IMO pieces on this DG, no matter which thread, it is more than appropriate to remind you and everyone else on here of the occasional inadequacy of IMO pieces, and particularly the only one you put on here ("The Missing Faces of Merion") which is almost universally considered to be a transparent agenda-driven disaster, including in the realm of facts and analysis.

If an IMO piece from me is the only way you want to discuss any subject with me, including this one, that's your problem and certainly not mine.

[DMoriarty]

Yawn.

[TEPaul]

Typical.

[Mac Plumart]

Bump...

I had a thought on the way home from golfing today concerning this thread.

I believe a common thread of greatness in a golf course is leadership.

Whether it is leadership of the owner/developer, manager, membership, or the committees of the club doesn't matter.  In fact, maybe all need to be of the highest quality on the same sheet of music and committed to the course and seeing it flourish.

I believe this leadership needs to have competence in golf course architecture principals, but also adequately funded and with the power to get done what needs to be done.

Take any course that is great and has been great for years and years and years.  Does it have effective and committed leadership?  Everyone I am familiar with does.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mac

Put away your books, take away all the quotes and look at what is left. If you see commitment to the game, a desire to reproduce golf course and not real estate playgrounds then you are looking in the right direction. Then take into account the region, climate and what Nature has to offer, then you have a chance of producing a natural golf course.

Cleaver words have little meaning when you see so many template or signature holes are being incorporated into the modern designs. It’s not down to coping great holes but the total lack of clarity as to what the client let alone the designer is after or seeking to achieve. Because the hole works well at its original site does not say it will work at the new intended site.

Nature still is able to outperform Man on all things on this Earth, but we seek to change the very nature of what attracted us to the site in the first place. Terra Forming golf courses is not feasible, certainly not financially nor do we need to rape every section of the land for drainage or water, again we need to understand and monitor Nature, learning while we do. By working with the land we start to see opportunities that with little work will give us land fit for the purpose.

Over complicated, over engineering is not the definition of good let alone great courses, we need to let the land help in the process as it will sustain the course for years to come.

Use your books but do not sway to their apparent collective wisdom, but as the basics to your own approach to course design. The secret of golf is not making it easy for the golfer but to test his resolve, his skill and his/her determination to finish.  Add aids and you water down that commitment – ask yourself why courses like Machrie and Askernish which are very basic in modern terms of course construction, yet offer the opportunity for great golf.

The answers Mac do not always rest within a book, because not all put pen to paper, so don’t get bogged down.   
 
Melvyn

[Patrick_Mucci]

Out of those courses, only Pine Valley has a water hazard without flowing water.

Which is why Pine Valley doesn't belong on a list of great courses.  

How about Shinnecock?


Maybe I just don't understand what "a water hazard without flowing water" is...

Where's the "flowing" water at NGLA ?

[JC Urbina]

Mac,

I didn't think this topic had one right answer until today.  I watched a few sporting events on TV this weekend and I came to a forgone conclusion and that is the Common greatness to all golf courses are the Team of people who created them.

If you look at the list provided I can say without hesitation that each had a core group of people creating these golf courses. 

I agree it took some leadership, Dick Youngscap at Sand Hills, Mike Keiser at Bandon Dunes, Herb Kohler at Whistling Straits to name  a few of the new modern creations,  But I am sure you could say the same for Samuel Morse, Marion Hollins or George A Crump  on each of the clubs they founded. 

If you ever consider a golf course to be great it will usually have three things in Common.

  Good owner, Good land, Good people.

[Sean_A]

JC  - thanks for starting this thread. I can't think of many subjects more relevant than this on a site dedicated to discussing great architecture.  I have only played one Top 100 course, and it was a top 10 course. I liked the Par 3s on that course a lot - where/when the came in the routing, what they looked like, what they asked of me.  Later I learned fom a much more experienced player (who is very familiar with that course) that folks rarely mention the Par 3s there.  My point being that it was the whole of the course that made those Par 3s and the rest of the holes enjoyable. I do really believe that trying to deny any potential 'flaws' when talking about greatness is a mistake - in that those 'flaws' are part and parcel of the whole.  Someone once told me that the word "art" comes from the German word for "trick" -- and I think the flaws on any great courses are part of what makes the trick/art work.  Ever play a modern course that moves indistinguishably from one non-flawed hole to the next? Not that I want to criticize that - it takes a look of skill to create a good course; but a focus on something higher than just avoiding flaw to make a great one.

Peter

Pietro

I have heard this argument before and can see how it can stand and also how it can't stand.  Could you please explain/show/demonstrate how the flaws of a course are a reason why it is great?  To me, the question is not one of flaws, but more if the supposed flaw adds anything to the design - and I mean anything of a great course.  It could be a break among a few very testing holes.  It could be for the framed view or to gain some sort of special spot on the property.  It could be to add an element of controversy - anything.

Ciao

[JC Jones]

Thanks for the bump, Mac.  I still am seeking answers to these questions.

I wonder, what are the similarities among NGLA, Shinnecock, Pine Valley, Crystal Downs, Merion, Cypress Point, St. Andrews and Sand Hills?

(Note, this list is NOT exhaustive of the great courses, only illustrative.) 

[JESII]

JC,

Why would there need to be similarities?

[JC Jones]

JC,

Why would there need to be similarities?

I didn't say there would need to be.  It seems, however, that if they are all considered great (by the collective), that there would be. 

[JC Jones]

JC:  If you had read the foreword to The Confidential Guide more carefully, you would know the answer to your question. 

I actually haven't read it at all.  The blasted thing is too expensive for a teacher's salary

Shame on you Jason. Haven't you heard of inter-library loan?
Now get serious and do some reading.

Garland,

You'll be pleased to know my inter-library loan of the Confidential Guide showed up today.  I am reading now.

[Mac Plumart]

From the words of Dr. Mackenzie circa 1930...

"It is impossible to lay too much stress on the importance of finality. 

Every golfer knows examples of courses which have been constructed and re-arranged over and over again, and the fact that all over the country thousands of pounds are frittered away in doing bad work which will ultimately have to be scrapped...

In discussing the question of finality, it is well to inquire if there really are any really first-class courses in existence which have been unaltered for a considerable number of years, and still remain, not only a good test of golf, but a source of pleasure to all classes of players.  Is there any existing course which not even the rubber cored ball has spoilt?"

This seems to add to the classic definition of a challenge for the scratch golfer and fun for the high handicapper with the concept of finality in the short and long term.

[George Smith]

If I am repeating a prior post, please forgive me but this thread, while rewarding, is so very long.

I have played a limited number of courses that show up on "great course" lists. In thinking about the great courses that I have played, the one common thread that links them is quite simple, really. I felt that I was a better, more complete golfer for having played them.

[Mac Plumart]

George...

I read this post of yours awhile back and have been thinking about it ever since.

Can you think of a few aspects of the courses you are refering to that made you feel like a better more complete golfer after playing them?

[George Smith]

Sorry that I have been "offline" for a week or more. Life gets in the way of golf from time to time.

Give me a day or so and I will do my best to come up with a good answer to a thoughtful question.

[JESII]

For me this means that the great courses provide more frequent opportunities to succeed...even if we fail in most of those opportunities we all typically remember our successes best.

It could be hitting a drive that provides a real advantage on the next shot.

It could be properly positioning a lay up on a par 4 out of the rough and then getting it up and down.

For me it's usually making the difficult, breaking 6 or 8 foot putt when I've missed several already.


Failure at any of these are not catastrophic, but succeeding sure makes you feel better about your game and the game.