[BCrosby]

I am reading Adam Gopnik's piece on Mark Twain in the current New Yorker. (Recommended, btw.)

He has a wonderful line there that goes: "We judge an artist in his lifetime by his batting average; afterward only by his home runs."

Is the same true of golf architects? Do we tend to discount Donald Ross' mediocre courses in favor of his home runs, but do the opposite with living architects?  Do we hold the living more accountable for their lesser courses than we do the ODG's?

A corollary to the above would be that, ultimately, reputations are made with a few great courses, even if the same architect goes 'hitless' on a lot of his other courses.

Bob

[Bill_McBride]

There are more 1.000 hitters in GCA than baseball.

Fownes, Crump. 1 for 1.

[TEPaul]

Bob:

I remember reading in a good book on art that artists either are or should be judged by their peers and not the public. I guess golf course architecture fell through the proverbial artistic cracks on that one.

Damn those ignorant people for trying to play a game on our completed canvases! Why didn't they realize they were only supposed to look at them?

[Adam Clayman]

I just read the line to my in-house artist. Her response? " I don't know what that means"

When queried further, she gave an oft heard comment around here. Nothing is true 100% of the time. (site specific)

She added that most of the artists never get to display their art in public. And the ones who do, have to suffer the slings and arrows of a committee, which implies a watering down of the original vision.

My take on GCA is that there are few who view a course as art. And, their preferences usually fall directly in line with their own game, and to what purpose they play.

[John Kirk]

Tom Doak will primarily be remembered for his (prodigious) home runs.

Ozzie Smith will not.

Mark McGwire will be remembered for his home runs.

Tom Fazio will not.

[John Keenan]

I think the body of ones work is what one should be judged by.  A person may get lucky and hit the Home Run in their field once true greatness is based on I feel consistency and longevity.

As applied to golf the great home run courses are the high points to what in many cases are excellent bodies of work.

Interesting question I would note

My two cents

John

[Adam Clayman]

When an artist dies, even if they only have one home run, doesn't the remainder of their portfolio rise in value? 

[Phil_the_Author]

Every golf course architect that has designed more than a few courses has done at least one that is poor. The reasons vary from owner demands and input to poor sites to minimal budget; yet the fact remains the course is "less than inspiring" at the very least.

Ross had them, Tilly had them and so did the others. Still, we remember Ty Cobb and view his greatness because of his lifetime average which has yet to be even approached and he was a singles hitter now wasn't he?

[Richard Choi]

This just happens naturally due to time.

Only the very best works by artists or architects are preserved while their lesser works fade away (abandoned, lost, rebuilt, etc.) over time. Some time later, all people remember (and see) are those very best works so they get judged by them only, while contemporaries are judged by their very latest work (good or bad).

[Peter Pallotta]

Bob - with Richard, my first thought was that the percentage of (apparent) home runs by gifted artists goes up over time, as (inferior) books go out of print and (mediocre) courses get turned into housing. But then it struck me that I don't actually trust most publishers or owners to make wise  choices, so who knows if we're actually seeing more or less home runs?

Me - one day I judge by home runs (eg The Pieta) and other days by batting average (Sidney Lumet).

Peter

[Mike_Young]

Particular ball parks equate to more homeruns....
Batting averages evolve over all ball parks....

[TEPaul]

In my opinion, the most interesting reality in golf architecture are those few golf courses that could be classified as the architect's "special projects."

To me the most significant of them would be and in chronological order:

1. Myopia
2. GCGC
3. Oakmont
4. NGLA
5. Merion East
6. Pine Valley
7. Pinehurst #2 (perhaps should be earlier)

And to add to their interesting reality the majority of them were essentially the first architectural projects of their architects, not to mention their fame and signficance came early and it has continued to endure to this day and probably always will. And the majority of them were done by what is known as the "amateur/sportsman architect."

[Sean_A]

Yes, what Mike said.  Home runs typically take more than a special design - be it great terrain, views or history.  Not many courses have these attributes, but then I am talking the Babe Ruth era of home runs, not the drug enhanced era.

I really don't have an answer to the question because everybody really looks for different things in design and how/why design is honoured.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

There are more 1.000 hitters in GCA than baseball.

Fownes, Crump. 1 for 1.

Bill:  I looked it up, and you are wrong.  There are 28 major league players who hit 1.000 in their careers.  The vast majority of them went 1 for 1 like Fownes and Crump, but some guy named John Paciorek went 3 for 3.

As to Bob's original point, I think architects past and present are judged mostly on their successes, and failures rarely talked about.  But, just as in baseball, it is hard to become famous without hitting any home runs.  If you are going to be a singles hitter, you had better be one of the two or three best singles hitters of all time, or you are not going to be famous.

P.S. To Tom Paul:  Ty Cobb was hardly just a singles hitter.  He led the league in homers once, led in RBI's four times, and led in doubles and triples and stolen bases too many times to count.  And even with all of that, he is primarily famous for being a mean SOB.

[John Mayhugh]

Ozzie Smith will not.

Cardinal fans will remember him for at least one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHEtH5LbkBM

I'm guessing Dodger fans will too.

[Tom MacWood]

There are more 1.000 hitters in GCA than baseball.

Fownes, Crump. 1 for 1.

I'm sure Harry Colt (and CH Alison) would get good laugh out of that.

[Tom MacWood]

1. Myopia
2. GCGC
3. Oakmont
4. NGLA
5. Merion East
6. Pine Valley
7. Pinehurst #2 (perhaps should be earlier)

How do you define what is a 'special project' and what is not? Several of those courses were touched by multiple hands. The other thing that stands out with this list there is not single course outside the US. There were no special projects abroad?

[Bill_McBride]

There are more 1.000 hitters in GCA than baseball.

Fownes, Crump. 1 for 1.

I'm sure Harry Colt (and CH Alison) would get good laugh out of that.

Nobody's biting here!

Tom Doak, did any of those 1.000 hitters hit a home run in their only at bat to compare to Pine Valley or Oakmont?  I realize that changes the rules a bit......

[Doug Ralston]

OK, I will try this from my own point of view.

Mike Strantz may not have been knocking it completely out of the park [as in Sand Hills, Ballyneal etc in quality], but I would rate his as mostly clearing my fences.

Hurdzan/Fry have many in my area, hardly home runs, but good quality enjoyable courses most always .... high batting avg then.

I think I like this thread's premise.

Doug

[JMEvensky]

P.S. To Tom Paul:  Ty Cobb was hardly just a singles hitter.  He led the league in homers once, led in RBI's four times, and led in doubles and triples and stolen bases too many times to count.  And even with all of that, he is primarily famous for being a mean SOB.

Absolutely great call on Cobb.

Cobb may be the baseball equivalent of a Geoff Ogilvy in golf.Cobb thought hitting home runs was a side show to the "purity" of playing the game properly.He was the king of small ball when small ball was king.

There is a story,maybe apocryphal,about a sports writer chiding Cobb about being just a singles hitter who couldn't be considered as great as Ruth,whom Cobb referred to as "that big ape".The next day,Cobb homered 3 times just to prove the point that he could hit homers if that's all he wanted to do.

Cobb would be Mozart to Ruth's Beethoven.Cobb did just about everything in baseball better than anyone else--Ruth changed the rules of the game.

BTW--I don't think Cobb was just a mean SOB,he was certifiably insane.

[Tom_Doak]

Bill M,

Nope, no one in baseball history has a career slugging % of 4.000.  There were one or two guys who hit a triple in their only at bat, but if they had homered, they probably would've got another at bat somewhere in time.

[Mike_Young]

P.S. To Tom Paul:  Ty Cobb was hardly just a singles hitter.  He led the league in homers once, led in RBI's four times, and led in doubles and triples and stolen bases too many times to count.  And even with all of that, he is primarily famous for being a mean SOB.

Absolutely great call on Cobb.

Cobb may be the baseball equivalent of a Geoff Ogilvy in golf.Cobb thought hitting home runs was a side show to the "purity" of playing the game properly.He was the king of small ball when small ball was king.

There is a story,maybe apocryphal,about a sports writer chiding Cobb about being just a singles hitter who couldn't be considered as great as Ruth,whom Cobb referred to as "that big ape".The next day,Cobb homered 3 times just to prove the point that he could hit homers if that's all he wanted to do.

Cobb would be Mozart to Ruth's Beethoven.Cobb did just about everything in baseball better than anyone else--Ruth changed the rules of the game.

BTW--I don't think Cobb was just a mean SOB,he was certifiably insane.

He also ended up extremely wealthy ...mucho Coke stock....grew up not far from Athens...was considered grumpy but well liked....at least thats the way I hear it...

[JMEvensky]

Mike,I've never read that Cobb was well liked.There's the comparison with Hornsby,who was despised by even his own teammates.At least some of Cobb's teammates liked him.

It seems like Stump's book rehabilitated Cobb's image.Who knows what he was really like?

Old,dead,baseball players are almost as much fun to speculate about as golf ODG's.

Maybe TRC designed Tiger Stadium.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,I've never read that Cobb was well liked.There's the comparison with Hornsby,who was despised by even his own teammates.At least some of Cobb's teammates liked him.

It seems like Stump's book rehabilitated Cobb's image.Who knows what he was really like?

Old,dead,baseball players are almost as much fun to speculate about as golf ODG's.

Maybe TRC designed Tiger Stadium.

JM,
I was referring to the people in the town that knew him..he gave significant money to the town and did much good there....when we start talking about who likes who....you just never know...I think it was John Wooden who said ""Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are." I think that applies for anybody that is in a position like Cobb or coaches or even architects ....  Ex:For those of us that know Jim Harrick ..he is one of my favorite people....let the press portray him and a totally different story evolves....it will always be that way...even some of the guys considered to be the classiest , most upright of the PGA tour also have the best porn collections....so you just never know....

[Tom MacWood]

There are more 1.000 hitters in GCA than baseball.

Fownes, Crump. 1 for 1.

I'm sure Harry Colt (and CH Alison) would get good laugh out of that.

Nobody's biting here!

Tom Doak, did any of those 1.000 hitters hit a home run in their only at bat to compare to Pine Valley or Oakmont?  I realize that changes the rules a bit......

It has nothing to do with biting, it is about the ability to recognize what is myth and what is reality. I've always loved those romantic stories too, but by now I would have hoped we have a little bit better historical understanding and perspective.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()