Why all the hate?

[Matthew Rose]

I think this site tends to dwell on the negative rather than focus on the positive. There's a lot of threads and discussions within threads that are all about what people dislike about a course, and less about what they like.

[Tom_Doak]

Sucking up to architects is off the charts on this site and the suckees benefit tremendously.  Heck,  I followed Doak around Dismal like a lap dog. 

You were sucking up to me because you participated in a tour of my course?  I had no idea. 

How has it benefited you, exactly?

[Tom_Doak]

I like to think that I am straight up with people not just use them for personal gain. That's what I really hate. I have always hated the fact that people on this site disparage architects until they want access or work from one of their courses.

Don't forget the other side of the same coin -- there are a lot of architects who have passed through here over the years, trying to curry favor for their projects.  A lot of them think that's what I'm doing, and that I'm succeeding.  But if that really was what I was doing, it wouldn't succeed.

[Joe Sponcia]

Okay, maybe hate is not the right word, but why is there such complete and utter dislike and disgust expressed when discussing certain architects around here? 

Sure, I understand that around here it is all about the natural lay, walkability, and minimalism.  These items are important to me to an extent as well. I don't get why every time someone like Fazio is mentioned there is always a backhanded comment following it.  Why RTJ is such a bad person for going out and designing what we might now consider a boring golf course.  Why Pete Dye's name is often said with huff and a puff.  Why Nicklaus gets our panties in a wad (knickers in a twist!). There are a multitude of others I'm sure, but those come to mind directly. 

I'd say its pretty easy to love the guys that are relevant and popular right now like Doak, C&C, etc.   Also pretty easy to love the Ross, Raynor, L&M, etc of the old days and they are now talked about on television (to my knowledge this is a fairly recent occurrence). 

I'm not as well played as most here.  I have gotten around here and there are guys I like and dislike I suppose.  Every guy has a style and that style fits someone.  I think it might be forbidden on this board for some to mention they might enjoy a course from one of the aforementioned.  Just curious.  These guys made it for a reason.  Apparently they were not awful or they wouldn't have a ton of cash in their pockets (Nicklaus excluded) and their names be plastered all over the world.  Thoughts....

Adam,

If your preference is wide fairways, interesting greens with special thought given to the proper angles/proper iron approach, walkable, trees in the foreground, etc (as it seems most on GCA do)...than most Nicklaus and Robert Trent Jones courses would automatically be culled by default. 

It gives one cache to like and appreciate a guy like Edward Burns (actor) or even the more well-known method actor Edward Norton over Bruce Willis or the Rock.  I am not saying people like Ross or Raynor because it is cool to like them per se, but to your point...I think new GCA'ers learn quick the pecking order.

I can tell you...if I were above a 12, Fazio would be at the top of my (favorite) list, and for good reason.  He is quite adept at putting hazards in view but not in play (mostly).  He generally designs larger greens...and for most, if they can hit the green more times than not, they have a good experience.  I am confounded by people that can hardly break 90 that like Seth Raynor courses?  In truth, I have no idea what the handicap spread is on this site, how much people actually play, or if they can actually take advantage of a slingshot draw played to the low side of a fairway with a fade green? 

[Chris Shaida]

If only the people that said "I don't think hate is the right word" had read my original post....

If only Adam had read the TITLE that HE WROTE for the whole thread and thought just a bit harder before he thought he could erase that with well maybe hate isn't the right word [?!] but maybe the words are 'such complete and utter dislike and disgust' are somehow better than 'hate'...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Are we really saying JN doesn't understand strategic design?  Perhaps the most renowned player at using strategy to win?  Granted, JN doesn't like particularly wide fairways, knowing that accuracy is also a part of the game, but I sincerely doubt he doesn't understand it, or doesn't implement it and will give him credit for what his take on how to provide it is.

[Joe Sponcia]

Jeff,

There is no real strategy in a sub 30 yard fairway, even for the low handicap amateur.  He is just trying to hit the middle, in the same way a bogey golfer would for a 50 yard one.

Mike Strantz really did a masterful job of blending wide fairways with interesting greens...all with an artists touch.

[Tom_Doak]

Are we really saying JN doesn't understand strategic design?  Perhaps the most renowned player at using strategy to win?  Granted, JN doesn't like particularly wide fairways, knowing that accuracy is also a part of the game, but I sincerely doubt he doesn't understand it, or doesn't implement it and will give him credit for what his take on how to provide it is.

I certainly wouldn't agree with Joe Sponcia's characterization, at all.  My friend Brian Morgan always said that Jack understood the need to make courses wide for the average player, and he usually does.  He does sometimes expect them to be able to carry hazards more than most can, and puts in so many hazards for "strategy" that it all adds up against the average player ... but to say he doesn't build wide fairways or interesting greens that favor certain angles of approach is just completely wrong.

[Jason Thurman]

Joe, if someone doesn't have enough game to favor one side of a 30 yard fairway, why would we think they have enough game to hug a fairway bunker on one side of a 50 yard fairway that guards the ideal angle into a green? And if they don't have the game to hit a 30 yard fairway consistently, what's the point of even playing for an advantageous angle that they likely won't be able to capitalize on?

If strategic design is really as simple as just bunkering a driving zone on the side the green opens from, then there's no real genius in incorporating it. Nicklaus courses have plenty of strategy at work even if the tee shots are dictated more often than what you see on courses from architects who prefer more width. More than anything, Nicklaus designs they ask a player to evaluate his own skill and use bailouts and safe options accordingly, particularly on approaches. This is every bit as strategic as what Doak or C&C concoct, even if it's less fun sometimes. After all, it can be a bit of a bummer to play a course where trying the boldest and most fun shot leads to frequent scrambling to avoid double-bogeys. But when there's a fine line between birdie and double-bogey with an option to bail out for a chance at a par and virtually guaranteed bogey, there's strategy at work.

[Sean_A]

I find it strange that a golfer would continue to seek out an archie's work if he wasn't impressed with the first 3, 4 or 8 courses.  There are very few archies whose work I have enough experience with to declare a hatred.  I mean really, a guy plays 10 Jacks and doesn't think much of them so he plays 10 more?  How many Jacks does one need to play before he pronounce a hatred for is work?  I have played two Jacks, one which  I thought was stupidly difficult and therefore not very interesting and the other surprisingly good.  Is 50% hit rate good or bad?  Lets just say from what I saw and given limited time and money, I won't seek to play Jacks.  I wouldn't necessarily avoid Jacks either, but I don't think the styles of courses I like fit very well with what Jack tends to build.  I could be wrong, but it isn't likely I will ever discover the truth first hand.    

Luckily (or not!), the few archies whose courses I have sought out were done so because I tend to enjoy their work.  Why else would I play 10 or 20 courses from the same guy?  

To answer the question, for me it isn't anything close to hate.  The word I would use is indifference.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

I find it strange that a golfer would continue to seek out an archie's work if he wasn't impressed with the first 3, 4 or 8 courses.  There are very few archies whose work I have enough experience with to declare a hatred.  I mean really, a guy plays 10 Jacks and doesn't think much of them so he plays 10 more?  How many Jacks does one need to play before he pronounce a hatred for is work?

This was the argument I used to have with Matt Ward about two or three different architects' work.  He was always saying their latest and greatest was different than the others, and indeed they could be -- but how much time do I have to make for that possibility?  It's not like I'm getting paid to go around and see others' work ... I am trying to figure out how to spend my time and money wisely, and past experience has got to help inform those choices.

[Joe Sponcia]

Are we really saying JN doesn't understand strategic design?  Perhaps the most renowned player at using strategy to win?  Granted, JN doesn't like particularly wide fairways, knowing that accuracy is also a part of the game, but I sincerely doubt he doesn't understand it, or doesn't implement it and will give him credit for what his take on how to provide it is.

I certainly wouldn't agree with Joe Sponcia's characterization, at all.  My friend Brian Morgan always said that Jack understood the need to make courses wide for the average player, and he usually does.  He does sometimes expect them to be able to carry hazards more than most can, and puts in so many hazards for "strategy" that it all adds up against the average player ... but to say he doesn't build wide fairways or interesting greens that favor certain angles of approach is just completely wrong.

Tom,

I'll give you the 'interesting/strategic greens' for Nicklaus...but wide fairways, walkable, +15 handicap friendly?  At least among GCA'ers, I don't think he cracks many people's top 10 list?  You are right, he does have more forced carries than most.  Peculiar trees (Pawleys Plantation immediately comes to mind).  So it begs the question...are many people (especially GCA'ers) flat wrong when they throw a blanket over Nicklaus designs as 'too hard'?  I know you can't (in public)....and really I don't want you to answer that question honestly.

It is interesting, at least according to this article, you thought Sebonack was still too hard?  I mean, you of all people have probably seen as many golf courses as anyone in the business, and as far as I can tell, you do agree with the design philosophy of your pre-1940...yet you still were asking out loud:  "This looks too tough for my eyes"?

http://www.newsday.com/sports/golf/us-open/tom-doak-had-to-please-many-factions-in-designing-sebonack-golf-club-1.5556679

Taking away the commentary you wrote in your confidential guide, I understood that some believed your 'styles' would clash at Sebonack?  Why in the world would they think that if what you say is universally understood (or should be) about his designs? 

I can only give you anecdotal evidence of the many trips I have taken with friends and customers where we mix in Nicklaus courses.  The high handicaps never want to go back, and the low ones rarely seem to enjoy themselves as much as they thought they would.

[Adam Warren]

If only the people that said "I don't think hate is the right word" had read my original post....

If only Adam had read the TITLE that HE WROTE for the whole thread and thought just a bit harder before he thought he could erase that with well maybe hate isn't the right word [?!] but maybe the words are 'such complete and utter dislike and disgust' are somehow better than 'hate'...

Did the title grab your attention? Exactly...

[Adam Warren]

I think some are hitting the point.  Should there only be a minimalist type style in golf architecture.  I think the obvious answer is no. How would we know what we like if other styles didn't exist. I am sure there are many that enjoy the "other guys" courses.  Otherwise would they still be working? I haven't played a lot of anyone's courses except Dye, so no real bias here, but a fairly unbiased observation.

[Peter Pallotta]

I was browsing through an old copy of Curt Sampson's book on Augusta-The Making of the Masters the other night, and he has a few quotes from JN. (This was from 1997). Sampson asks him if his love of Mackenzie's design influenced his own designs, particularly Muirfield Village. And JN says, "Not really. I liked Mackenzie's courses for the width he provided off the tee, but I've never built greens as severely sloped as his". And I thought again, as I've often thought, that over the years JN has known exactly what he was doing design-wise and has consciously chosen to design the way he does. He has a market/clientele that he aims to serve (the businessman in him) but he also let his own tastes and instincts and experiences (the top flight golfer and architect who wants to challenge good golfers in him) shape what he does. As he gets older (and works with others, including with TD), his clientele changes and his own experiences change and so his approach/designs have changed. And this is an icon, who is in his 70s, and who is still at it, and who is still changing and evolving even aftyer 40 years, both for commercial and creative reasons -- and I don't know how we reasonably criticize someone like that. Sure, we can prefer another style/approach/designer, and  we can defend our preferences (on aesthetic or philosophic or stylistic grounds), but to suggest that someone who is as professional as JN and who has surrounded himself with top flight professionals/associates for most of his career doesn't understand or appreciate the basic strategic and shot making options and choices and challenges inherent in the game of golf and in gca seems plain silly.

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

I think some are hitting the point.  Should there only be a minimalist type style in golf architecture.  I think the obvious answer is no. How would we know what we like if other styles didn't exist.

I am sure there are many that enjoy the "other guys" courses.  Otherwise would they still be working? I haven't played a lot of anyone's courses except Dye, so no real bias here, but a fairly unbiased observation.

To the first point, I agree, that's obvious.

To the second, what is your point?  If you are going to let the "market" tell you whose work is good, when it basically says everyone who has built a course has an audience of some kind, why even bother expressing an opinion of your own on architecture?

[DMoriarty]

Adam. According to the homepage, "GolfClubAtlas.com is presented to promote frank commentary on golf course architecture."  Sometimes that involves criticism of golf courses.  I don't view it as anything personal or insulting, just the nature of frank commentary and a necessary byproduct of critical thinking.

You rhetorically ask, how would we know what we like if other styles didn't exist?  Perhaps the criticism might help us better understand what we like and why we like it.

[BCowan]

Adam

   I don't understand your point with minimalism.  Pete Dye is liked on here and he wasn't minimalist.  Mike Strantz wasn't minimalist and he is liked on here.  

[Adam Warren]

Tom, it is not just that opinions are expressed, obviously that is the purpose.  It is that some would immediately discount and criticize others work without having the slightest idea of what they have done on a particular course.  It's almost giving the vibe that said architect is a novice with the inability to even sniff at producing quality work.  Maybe it is a vocal minority but I don't get that type of short sighted view.

DM, to your point golf course criticism is one thing and criticism of particular work of an archie is that same thing, but as I just said the view that just the association of a name would not be worthy is another thing.

BC, that is true but I think "liked" is relative. Perhaps they are not torn to bits at the mention of their name.  Strantz comes up more often and positively than Dye, but I don't know that likes is necessarily the right term either.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Of all the JN courses I have played or toured, very few have 30 yards wide fairways, maybe on a few holes, and IMHO, what is wrong with a few penal tee shots just to test driver accuracy over length?

Maybe hate was the wrong initial word, but "positive/negative generalization" would be appropriate.  As in Joe's example above, a casual reader might think all JN courses sport narrow fairways, when they don't. Or be too hard.  Jack has said his first dozen or so commissions were to create tour event courses and are too tough.  I think he has softened a few, and his new work (Cimmaron in Austin comes to mind) is downright playable and more natural than say, Loxahatchie (sp)

So, for any archie who has a long career, or more than a few courses on his record, it is probably hard to summarize their work as "too hard" or whatever.

It probably cannot be changed in this format, which is opinion based, and open to quickly (and for a few posters....drunkenly) posted observations.  Quick, knee jerk opinions are obviously a bit less considered than others in most cases.   However, even in threads there are always gems, so we accept the good and the bad in this format.  

In this one, the gem for me is Jason Thurman's comment, " Joe, if someone doesn't have enough game to favor one side of a 30 yard fairway, why would we think they have enough game to hug a fairway bunker on one side of a 50 yard fairway that guards the ideal angle into a green? And if they don't have the game to hit a 30 yard fairway consistently, what's the point of even playing for an advantageous angle that they likely won't be able to capitalize on?"


One of the most common  "positive/negative generalizations" around here is that "wide fairways are good." (Or for movie buffs, "Mongo like wide fairway!"  In reality, they have benefits and weaknesses.  Jason's comment is worth its own thread as an architecture (vs an architect) discussion.  I tried to poll once as to what a "wide fairway" is to people, and no one really wanted to be pinned down, preferring, I supposed, to remain strong in their conviction, facts be damned.

I tend to think that Post WWII architects saw the combined benefits of wide, narrow and medium fairways, and consciously decided (maybe not for all pure golf strategy reasons) made them narrower, and that golfers liked them that way to a certain degree.  The universal call for wide fw on golf club atlas is, IMHO, a combination of nostalgia (sometimes for romantic images of the past that may or may not be accurate) and perhaps muck raking, in the fact that it is very easy to point out the things that are wrong with narrower fairways and feel quite superior to others for being so smart.  Rarely do muck rakers feel the need for nuanced discussion........

[BCowan]

Jeff

    Can a course be a championship track and play well for the 18 handicap?  JN Dismal (from photos) looks way better than MV imho, so you do have a point that an archie can change for the better.  Only thing is JN is still copying Augusta at MV.  

[Joe Sponcia]

Of all the JN courses I have played or toured, very few have 30 yards wide fairways, maybe on a few holes, and IMHO, what is wrong with a few penal tee shots just to test driver accuracy over length?

Maybe hate was the wrong initial word, but "positive/negative generalization" would be appropriate.  As in Joe's example above, a casual reader might think all JN courses sport narrow fairways, when they don't. Or be too hard.  Jack has said his first dozen or so commissions were to create tour event courses and are too tough.  I think he has softened a few, and his new work (Cimmaron in Austin comes to mind) is downright playable and more natural than say, Loxahatchie (sp)

So, for any archie who has a long career, or more than a few courses on his record, it is probably hard to summarize their work as "too hard" or whatever.

It probably cannot be changed in this format, which is opinion based, and open to quickly (and for a few posters....drunkenly) posted observations.  Quick, knee jerk opinions are obviously a bit less considered than others in most cases.   However, even in threads there are always gems, so we accept the good and the bad in this format.  

In this one, the gem for me is Jason Thurman's comment, " Joe, if someone doesn't have enough game to favor one side of a 30 yard fairway, why would we think they have enough game to hug a fairway bunker on one side of a 50 yard fairway that guards the ideal angle into a green? And if they don't have the game to hit a 30 yard fairway consistently, what's the point of even playing for an advantageous angle that they likely won't be able to capitalize on?"


One of the most common  "positive/negative generalizations" around here is that "wide fairways are good." (Or for movie buffs, "Mongo like wide fairway!"  In reality, they have benefits and weaknesses.  Jason's comment is worth its own thread as an architecture (vs an architect) discussion.  I tried to poll once as to what a "wide fairway" is to people, and no one really wanted to be pinned down, preferring, I supposed, to remain strong in their conviction, facts be damned.

I tend to think that Post WWII architects saw the combined benefits of wide, narrow and medium fairways, and consciously decided (maybe not for all pure golf strategy reasons) made them narrower, and that golfers liked them that way to a certain degree.  The universal call for wide fw on golf club atlas is, IMHO, a combination of nostalgia (sometimes for romantic images of the past that may or may not be accurate) and perhaps muck raking, in the fact that it is very easy to point out the things that are wrong with narrower fairways and feel quite superior to others for being so smart.  Rarely do muck rakers feel the need for nuanced discussion........
[/quote]


Jeff,
I hope you’ll forgive me for posting ‘knee-jerk’ and without 6 edits as I have just read yours.  

In truth, I have played nine out of over 350 (best I can tell) Nicklaus designs.  As someone said earlier...I have played enough to know, even as a better player, he isn’t my favorite.  Does that mean his designs are terrible?  Of course not.  

There is a reason why Nicklaus isn’t getting a love-fest now or in most threads, and those reasons are obviously based on ignorance or heresay as you have so eloquently stated it.  

No one dares criticize a Ross or Tillinghast...because they fit the ‘template’ that most on here like.  My guess is, most haven’t played 50 + like you, but if they would just play a smattering from other decades, they would probably see the light?

Wide fairways, from your poll question, to me would be 50+.  When I have time tonight, I am happy to discuss the nuances...but will have to go ‘general‘ now for work reasons:)    

Jason did pose an excellent question!  I rarely think in terms of the top 5% even when I play myself, I think in terms of my friends and customers that struggle to break 90.  When I say “low handicap amateur”, I am thinking of guys I play invitationals with:  30-40 year old, married, 2.5 kids, large mortgage, job they tolerate, practice 2 days, play 1.5 days per week...not the guys playing Walker cup.  My club has multiple fairways that resemble a bowling alley.  3-4 fairways are sub-25 paces.  On those, I literally, with driver in hand, just try to hit them middle left or right.  Does that mean I or anyone else that can’t call his shot and hit the left or right side on command from 270 out have no business talking strategy?  I don’t know?  

I have no idea what ‘muck raking’ means, but it looks derogatory?  There is a reason why the same 50 people post out of 1500.  

[jim_lewis]

Joe Sponcia:

The thing I appreciate most about your posts is your stance against the use of the work "golf" as a verb. Until recently the term "golfing" was generally used by non-golfers. I now see and hear it used by people in the golf business and even some on this site. Drives me crazy! I play golf. I never go golfing. However, I must admit that I have been know to "golf my ball".

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joe,

Muck raking probably isn't the term I was really looking for either, but sort of comparing to newspaper reporters that point out everything wrong without really offering a viable solution.  Easy to point out flaws, harder to jump in the ring and produce something. Or, offer a solution (i.e. wider fairways) that may provide one thing better, while causing all sorts of other problems that the poster doesn't consider.  (I use DDT as a non golf example - We need to stop Malaria, so we kill the bugs. We invent DDT which does the job, but harms the environment.  We reformulate other bug sprays that are less harmful, but we don't kill the bugs quite as well......) Of course, on the internet, it doesn't really matter if the solution really works.

As to Ross and Tillie, my response on another thread may hold - would we love a Ross course as much without 70 years of design tweaks and the modern maintenance?  I sure didn't care much for Overhills, other than the historical curiosity.

On the other hand, I get folks not liking JN courses, for both difficulty (on his earlier courses) and the overall effect he had on raising maintenance standards to tour levels on more and more "everyday courses."  I think even he regrets that one to a degree, even if he wasn't the prime driver.

Thanks for a real fw width number.  I do get the impression that some who argue for wide fairways come from old line clubs that have had that grow in of trees, limiting fairways to 25-30 yards.  Not all courses are like that!

Most forget that the Golden Age courses were 60 yards of turf (no fairway/rough differentiation) solely because early sprinklers threw about 180 foot (90 ft. radius)  Is that just by chance the perfect width for play corridors?  Forgetting maintenance cost differences for fw and rough, should we be all 60 yard wide corridors?  (research suggests they need to be much wider to contain average play)  With new drivers, should fairways be narrower to compensate for the increased accuracy? (or perceived increases)

Like I say, I tend to think that the decisions made in the last 50 years do reflect how golf has been played, and the trend towards Golden Age design principles is good, but should be tempered with a dose of modern reality.  And, I think the leading practitioners of minimalism actually do this quite well, but don't think its the only design style out there, as some here would suggest.

BTW, I tend to design for the low handicap am you describe rather than pros.  The differences might be leaving enough room so they can hit the shots 66% of the time, vs. pros at 66% or less percent of the time.  Its a bigger area, for sure and you have to leave the angles a little softer than you might if doing a purely strategic design, if nothing else, to leave a bit of room for error at the expense of what some would call a "true test of golf."

A good example of the latter for me is TD's  8th hole at Texas Tech. Perfect Golden Age strategy, hit near the right FW bunker, and you have an opening to the green.  But, you have to be right next to the bunker, unless its a front pin.  Moving the greenside bunker back a little and widening the opening would make a less exacting hole with similar strategy, but reduce the obvious strategic choice on the tee at the same time.  TD creates that "do I or don't I" decision as well as any archie out there.  The dilemma is perfectly set up, but I just don't have the game to execute it, so I aim more middle of the fw.  For my level of game, the strategy is gone, as you suggest.

So, is that better design, or is a hole with more latitude and therefore less strategy really better in reality, even if less strategically?  When other archies soften the challenge, is it really (and perhaps lamentably) really the best answer at most courses?  (Rawls obviously designed with college tournaments in mind, so it is probably correct there)

There is no right answer of course, but that is the kind of architectural discussion I enjoy here, and at ASGCA meetings with other architects who face the same problems.

[Tom_Doak]

A good example of the latter for me is TD's  8th hole at Texas Tech. Perfect Golden Age strategy, hit near the right FW bunker, and you have an opening to the green.  But, you have to be right next to the bunker, unless its a front pin.  Moving the greenside bunker back a little and widening the opening would make a less exacting hole with similar strategy, but reduce the obvious strategic choice on the tee at the same time.  TD creates that "do I or don't I" decision as well as any archie out there.  The dilemma is perfectly set up, but I just don't have the game to execute it, so I aim more middle of the fw.  For my level of game, the strategy is gone, as you suggest.

So, is that better design, or is a hole with more latitude and therefore less strategy really better in reality, even if less strategically?  When other archies soften the challenge, is it really (and perhaps lamentably) really the best answer at most courses?  (Rawls obviously designed with college tournaments in mind, so it is probably correct there)

Jeff:

Thanks for the compliment.

By my view, the strategy is simply that the closer you can be to the bunker, the better the angle for your second shot.  The "latitude" on that hole is provided on the second shot -- you can play safely to the right front of the green, or to all the fairway out to the right of it.

Isn't what you and Joe are saying about the tee shot also applicable to the second?  If you don't have the game to aim close to the bunker, what possesses you to think you can fire at the flag?