[Melvyn Morrow]

Ken

Because some designers are giving developers the course they want does not necessary say that those designers fully comprehends GCA either.

Perhaps the quest may have been aimed at the business i.e.’ Does this site really understand or comprehend the business of Golf course architecture’ then 95% may have been correct.

The problem may be as simple as trying to distinguish between players and golfers.

Melvyn

[Adrian_Stiff]

Architecture is the whole thing, its the design and construction process and the reason of the design in order to assist the construction in order to meet budget control versus get the best from the land. I spoke to a GCA'err he said.
" I like this hole Adrian, why not make another part of fairway right of that bunker, that way those bunkers are centerline bunkers, gives great options for the hole "
My reply was... it takes the tee shot down this side too near the road.
His reply was  " Move the Road"
It would cost say $300,000 to move the road.
This site often views only one part of that really, they often only look at the 'how it plays angle' the architecture is the whole thing. I think the ODG got to work much more within an implied budget, they simply did not have the tools we had. If they had you might see different results of course. They improvised and made the best they could, often its their compromises that many on here see greatness in, but we call that quirk on here. We talk of width on here when the major heads do all they can do make things narrow. Great golf courses are actually narrow rather than wide, though you can have wide thats uneasy to score from the wrong half of course. So I reckon only 5% understand and comprehend the whole thing "the architecture". Most on here can see what they like though and undestand parts.

[Ken Fry]

Ken

Because some designers are giving developers the course they want does not necessary say that those designers fully comprehends GCA either.

Perhaps the quest may have been aimed at the business i.e.’ Does this site really understand or comprehend the business of Golf course architecture’ then 95% may have been correct.

The problem may be as simple as trying to distinguish between players and golfers.

Melvyn

Melvyn,

An excellent point.  This was my reason for commenting earlier that many participants here not in the industry don't know the restrictions placed on a gca for every project.

When Coore and Crenshaw did the Warren GC for the University of Notre Dame, they had a laundry list of restrictions placed on them.  Given those restrictions, I believe the final product turned out very good.  Given free run of the property for routing alone, the course could have been even better in my opinion.

Ken

[Ken Fry]

Architecture is the whole thing, its the design and construction process and the reason of the design in order to assist the construction in order to meet budget control versus get the best from the land. I spoke to a GCA'err he said.
" I like this hole Adrian, why not make another part of fairway right of that bunker, that way those bunkers are centerline bunkers, gives great options for the hole "
My reply was... it takes the tee shot down this side too near the road.
His reply was  " Move the Road"
It would cost say $300,000 to move the road.
This site often views only one part of that really, they often only look at the 'how it plays angle' the architecture is the whole thing. I think the ODG got to work much more within an implied budget, they simply did not have the tools we had. If they had you might see different results of course. They improvised and made the best they could, often its their compromises that many on here see greatness in, but we call that quirk on here. We talk of width on here when the major heads do all they can do make things narrow. Great golf courses are actually narrow rather than wide, though you can have wide thats uneasy to score from the wrong half of course. So I reckon only 5% understand and comprehend the whole thing "the architecture". Most on here can see what they like though and undestand parts.

Adrian,

Thanks for the reply.  Critics in all disciplines tend to evaluate the final product with very little regard for the path it took to complete it, no?

While my experience of being on site during construction is limited, it certainly was an extreme in restrictions placed on the architects from all fronts.  As you mentioned, the ODG's faced challenges with equipment but nothing approaching the demands placed on current generation architects.

All the best.

Ken

[Garland Bayley]

95% of these posts have shown me its a BIG NO.

Perhaps you will give a bit on that and agree that the members of this site comprehend golf course architecture better than the typical green chairman (or greens chairman as they prefer to call themselves) at a US club does.

Case in point. The green chairman at my club is proposing to fix a drainage problem by moving a stream. Currently the stream flows through the lowest part of the property, crossing the fairway as it does. On one side, the property drops significantly sharper than the other which levels out quite considerably. The side with the minimal slope collects water and would almost suck your shoes off your feet if you needed to walk through it (most tee balls easily carry the area so seldom would one need to walk there). His logic is that moving the creek to the other side would collect the water and dry out the area. I think a very high percentage of this site could find design and architectural reasons why his thinking is wrong.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I don't think the criticism of Rees Jones or Tom Fazio or any other living architect is largely based on the outside restrictions that were placed on them by governments, developers, or owners. The architects who have been plying their trade for a reasonable amount of time have a body of work, and if that body of work consistently uses containment mounding or tons of eye candy, etc., then it's pretty fair to say that it's not outside influences that are driving their creations, it's the limited space between their ears.

[Ben Sims]

Mike,

It's an interesting question.  I was with a guy in the business yesterday and he read me the post in his office before we played.  His mentorship and way of doing business continues to evolve my line of thinking.  I think we have a lot of passionate people that want to know more and "get it", but it's impossible to know what it takes to put a successful or "great" course in ground without first hand knowledge.   I was in the "herd" when I first joined here and I still lean away from certain styles and architects.  My idea now is that good work will theoretically rise among its peers.

I am also less apt to criticize architect X's golf courses without having seen a cross section.  Evolution is stagnate in the business right now.  No one knows who will be the progeny of the minimalist movement like the minimalists were of the "excessive 80's".    Will it be more minimalist and natural?  Will the required driving down of costs eventually drive the style and aesthetics of the new generation of architecture?   No one knows.  Even still, passionate folks will latch onto what they like best and tout it as knowledge.  The chore on GCA.com will be to continue this website and the ideas contained here without becoming a parody of itself.

[Sean_A]

Adrian

I think you are saying the architecture of a course and why that architecture was implemented are one and the same.  If so, I don't think so.  Its not hard to be unimpressed with a final product even if the archie did all he could (assuming there were serious constraints) to make the course just mediocre.  That is why I am very hesitant to stomp on an archie, but I have no problem stomping on a course.  The course either is or isn't good based on what was built, not on what the constraints were.  As I say, the quality of a course isn't always a reflection of the quality of an archie.  That is something impossible to judge unless one knows the project well. 

Style is a hard one to call if it should reflect on what we think of as good VS bad.  This is how we get serious discrepencies in the relative value of course components and thus the relative merits of courses.  For instance, some, like me, see a comfortable walk with the house as the central point as part and parcel of a good routing.  There are times when good courses can stray from this formula, but I contend that most of the time these courses are good despite that choice and not because of it.   

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

Sean - The thread question was.... does this site really understand and comprehend golf course architecture? I said No (obviously some do). Golf course architecture is the whole process not the end result. A golf course architect is someone that understands and comprehends the whole. The process is construction as well. Some on this site could critic something about a course  and it could be a construction, or agronomic reason why it had to be that way. To understand golf course architecture you have to understand the build process, perhaps even the permitting because that can heavily influence the design process. An architect can often be the intermediate between the client and the constructor. He is there to see its built as planned.

Looking at the golf course end product and evaluating it the way it plays, looks, sits, fits is another entirely different thing.

[Sean_A]

Adrian

I probably didn't explain myself well.  I agree with you, but differ in evaluating a course.  It doesn't matter much if a guy knows architecture up and down if he doesn't know the project details.  That is the only way someone can reasonably evaluate how well an archie did given all his the constraints.  However, one can still evaluate the finished product and for that one doesn't need to be an expert or anything close to it.  Someone may criticize a particular aspect of a a design and the archie may have an excellent reason for his solution to cope with an issue, but that doesn't mean the end user has to take that on board.  If he thinks its a poor aspect of the design then fair enough.  Archies may not like this, but its no different with any product.  Users evaluate the product/service in front of them based on what is delivered with the one exception that most will take cost into account, but as we all know, golf raters are meant to be pure as the driven snow and don't care about cost (tee hee) so they only look at the end product.  They don't evaluate a product in planning stages nor evaluate what works financially (which is really just another constraint).  So yes, I think many do understand architecture as it relates to how they use it.  Thats the point of being the customer.  They don't need to know the inner workings of the design just as they don't need to know the inner workings of a car or surgery.   

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think this thread question can be read differently by each person.

I think and agree with you that the evaluation of a golf course, good or bad does not lets say need qualified eyes. Some like and some don't and basically the course gets served up and its there to be judged, the bits that went in to it and the hurdles dont actually matter for that analysis at all.

What can irk a bit is when (as an architect) you read some forum post that says something like.. they should have moved the green further on, when there was perhaps a good reason why the architect could not.

[Steve Goodwin]

Adrian,  I agree that it's an education to go through the construction process.  I've never done it as an architect but as a close and frequent observer have seen two courses take shape, and I see them differently as result of knowing the many constraints (budget, soils, owner's wishes, endangered species, local regs, etc etc).

Yet it doesn't follow that the architect who has had to factor in all of those things has come to the right conclusion and designed the best course possible.   The best course he could design, yes.   But IMHO architects, with all the resources they can bring to bear, can get carried away, and they easily get to a place where they over-design their work.  They build where they don't need to, put in a nest of bunkers where one well-placed bunker would do, get too clever with their green designs, and on and on.   

Maybe I'm guilty of "group-think," but I believe that Bill Coore said a mouthful when he said, "If I tried to imitate nature, it would only showcase my futility."   Architects are famous for their desire to control everything, but I think CC try to practice humility in their work -- they acknowledge their limits.   They know when to leave well enough alone.   About certain things they are absolute perfectionists, as I know from having watched the building of Bandon Trails.  About others, they are hands off.  Instead of flattening a ridge, they figure out how to build the hole around it.   

In any case, I think many contemporary architects can be faulted for practicing over-design.  They come to their work with many assumptions about design and impose these assumptions on the courses they build.   The result is often a golf course that feels contrived, and that dates quickly.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Steve - I dont disagree but. A lot and by that I mean majority of sites have bits that are bland and sometimes you have to make things. Lesser architects get lesser budgets or not such good property. I think I speak for pretty much every golf course architect when I say the first thing is "the perusal and identification of the land and the outling of some key holes that are 'there' ".

We all do the best we think we can do, at the end of the day its an opinion, some will see good some will see bad.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()