[John Kirk]

1A.  The course and greens shall have a wide variety of contour and undulation.  (Nothing wrong with a dead flat green or fairway in there somewhere).

1B.  The course shall provide golf holes with a variety of lengths and strategic challenges.

2.  The course shall be reasonably walkable for an able bodied man aged 65 and under.  Refute that.

3.  There shall be no artificial water hazards.  

There go Pine Valley, ANGC, GCGC, NGLA, SHGC, Sebonack, Yale, Seminole, # 2 and others

4.  The course shall provide a comprehensive test of the player's golfing ability.

5.  The course shall provide enjoyment for players of all abilities.  Hey, it's an ideal.  Realistically, it should be enjoyable for experts and advanced beginners alike.

Oh man, there are lots of ideals.

Maybe I'll have to modify ideal #3 to allow irrigation ponds, or else I don't get to have Shinnecock Hills.

But let's eliminate Merion and possibly Oakmont with another ideal.

6.  The course shall not rely on excessively deep rough as a defense against scoring.

Just because you can identify a non-ideal characteristic in each of the top ten classic courses, does not mean these aren't reasonable goals.

Please note that Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes, Ballyneal, Dismal River (Red), Friar's Head, Old Macdonald and Rock Creek Cattle Company meet these criteria so far.

[Peter Pallotta]

Bob - Tom Eliot: a man ahead of his times! No wonder the purists around here have a hard time with him. (Why? After all, he could've been speaking for all golfers in the northeast when he recognized that "April is the cruelest month, breeding slivers of green amongst the snow-patched tees".)

Peter

[BCrosby]

Yes, wet and cold Aprils for golfers are especially cruel: "I grow old … I grow old, I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled."

Bob

[Mark Bourgeois]

Chris:

I'm not sure I understand your question.

Variety, to me, is the one ideal.  Variety at the hole-to-hole level, and at the course-to-course level.

The only way that architecture grows is by trial and error -- not by theories and ideals.   However, one essential of trial and error is that someone is there to sort out the errors, because there will be lots of errors, and save the few new bits that are really compelling.

What about variety within the hole, ie:

An ideal hole should provide an infinite variety of shots according to the varying positions of the tee, the situation of the flag, the direction and strength of the wind, etc.

Anyway, it sounds like your argument is based on a definition of "ideal" in which the word is synonymous with principle or rule, something I am all for as I think it goes to show why many magazines' ratings systems boil down to, "Do you still beat your wife? Yes or no."

If you believe variety is ideal then it sounds like you define the ideal in more general terms. Of course, principles and rules fall from our poor power to make something in the image of the ideal. It's like the difference between the USA's Declaration of Independence and its constitution. The latter has a section for fixing screwups and making changes. 

Regarding your ideal of variety, then, what is the application to routing? So that golfers face the wind from all points during a round?

Continuing with that line of thought and trying to work at that more difficult and "lower" level, what ideal(s) are evidenced by these thoughts -- uh, or are they ideals?

*The real object of a hazard should not be to punish a bad shot but to make the game more interesting.
*One of the objects in placing hazards is to give the players as much pleasurable excitement as possible.
*Features should appear as natural as possible. (I'd be interested to hear you argue against this given the pride you rightfully take in our inability to see where you've moved earth on your courses.)


Lastly, regarding your comments on Pine Valley, challenge this:

Pine Valley is a striking example of where it would be so easy to give alternative routes which the weaker player might take for the loss of a stroke or proportion of a stroke, and at the same time make the course even more difficult and interesting for the player.

[Sean_A]

Mark

I don't really buy the last two ideals.  Pleasurable excitement; what does that mean?  Features appear natural; why?  Don't we all know loads of examples of obvious man-made features which are very attractive?  I am a big fan of earthworks that are obviously man-made, what is teh issue with this?

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

May as well start with the good doctors 13 principles - from someone who was an expert and from someone who has actually designed some near ideal golf courses........

The course should have beautiful surroundings.

The course, where possible, should be arranged in two loops of nine holes.

There should be a large proportion of good two-shot holes, and at least four one-shot holes.

There should be little walking between the greens and tees.

Every hole should be different in character.

There should be a minimum of blindness for the approach shots.

There should be infinite variety in the strokes required to play the various holes... (with every club utilized).

There should be a complete absence of the annoyance and irritation caused by the necessity of searching for lost balls.

The course should be so interesting that even the scratch player is constantly stimulated to improve his game.

The course should be so arranged that (all levels of players can) enjoy the round in spite of ... piling up a big score.

The course should be equally good during winter and summer, the texture of the greens and fairways should be perfect and the approaches should have the same consistency as the greens.

There should be a sufficient number of heroic carries.

The greens and fairways should be sufficiently undulating.


Some of those overlap a bit, but probably enough difference to distinguish them.  In the modern world, the emphasis on heroic carries as lessened, via experience of making it harder on average golfers, and things like "environmental sustainability" may have been added.  Most would argue that the "minimum of blindness" has been extended to tee shots, and minimum has gone to "none."

It is, of course, so like TD to go out of his way to point out that there are exceptions to every rule.  I am in the camp that says they are still worthwhile rules.  As my old mentor used to say, "you can break the rules once in a while, if you know when.  If you break them too often, pretty soon you just have a bad golf course."  Or, as someone intimated, it really is shades of gray, while so many internet arguments go right to the black and white of "its great" or "it sucks."

The other thing about Mac's rules are they are just vague enough to allow variations - when you say greens should be "sufficiently undulating" he seems to understand that it does vary, with speed, with situation, and perhaps over time.  He obviously liked the occasional "freak green" which he also writes he heard complaints about, but how often did he actually make them?  And, his greens probably had an average of 6% roll, but what would he do today?

A bit OT, but I would love to be able to ask him about the need for "at least 4 par 3's" in light of a recent thread here.  Obviously, that idea had been ingrained as good even back in the 1920's, maybe before. 

Lastly, as TD points out, setting any rule "risks" standardization, but obviously, its been ongoing and since CBM, Mac and others penned similar standard rules, they must have accepted that risk as worthwhile. 

[Tom_Doak]

The course, where possible, should be arranged in two loops of nine holes.


It is, of course, so like TD to go out of his way to point out that there are exceptions to every rule.  I am in the camp that says they are still worthwhile rules.  

It is, of course, so like JB to be in the camp that follows worthwhile rules. 

I highlighted the second rule because Dr. MacKenzie, himself, lamented that he had ever proposed it, writing in THE SPIRIT OF ST. ANDREWS.  I'm sorry I don't have it in front of me, but paraphrasing, he said that it had caused him considerable grief over the years, as so many clients saw it as an ideal that they wanted, oblivious to the reality that a much better routing could be obtained by NOT returning at the ninth hole.  That's the sort of thing I'm arguing against here. 

The original post asks if there are consensus ideals by which to MEASURE Golf Course Architecture [my change of emphasis].  I don't think we should be trying to reduce golf course architecture to something that can be easily "measured" by someone who doesn't have a real feel for it.  Maybe that will produce more consistently "good" golf architecture, if that's what you're after, but it would act as another restriction on "great" golf architecture, which is the only reason I spend so much time participating here, and doing my day job.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

So, you are saying this is just another GD ratings thread?     I hadn't actually considered the actual wording of measuring, vs. designing by, and you make a nice point.  Both Mac and us probably only considered it in terms of designing, but it sure reads as a goal in terms of results desired.

Your comments bring up a few other discussion worthy topics, such as whether we all have unwritten rules we follow, based on experience, whether we write them down or not?  I have always maintained that humans (designers included) are creatures of habit more than we know (a la, shave before shower, or whatever)  Dick Nugent always made us aware of that as well, and it is something we always have to very consciously guard against, the habit of designing a certain way without question.  On the other hand, experience does teach us there are certain possibilities we can usually readily dismiss... such as gravy on ice cream.

When you think about it, we have had a few of those threads lately - better golf hole or shorter walks? That is one of the similar threads that discuss the tradeoffs designers make that put most courses on the continuum somewhere between goofy and great.

Also, hadn't really thought about it until I reread these after posting, but......

For all the vagueness in some areas, Mac calls for the "texture of the greens and fairways should be PERFECT".  A future prediction of conditioning at his ANGC?  Most here would probably assume he didn't care for the best maintenance possible.

"the approaches should have the same consistency as the greens."
 
I can only read the second as a reaction to the common practice of irrigation on just the greens back then, probably encouraging the aerial approach, while a consistent approach would allow a better run up shot?  Thoughts?

[Tom_Doak]

Regarding your ideal of variety, then, what is the application to routing? So that golfers face the wind from all points during a round?

Continuing with that line of thought and trying to work at that more difficult and "lower" level, what ideal(s) are evidenced by these thoughts -- uh, or are they ideals?

*The real object of a hazard should not be to punish a bad shot but to make the game more interesting.
*One of the objects in placing hazards is to give the players as much pleasurable excitement as possible.
*Features should appear as natural as possible. (I'd be interested to hear you argue against this given the pride you rightfully take in our inability to see where you've moved earth on your courses.)


Lastly, regarding your comments on Pine Valley, challenge this:

Pine Valley is a striking example of where it would be so easy to give alternative routes which the weaker player might take for the loss of a stroke or proportion of a stroke, and at the same time make the course even more difficult and interesting for the player.

Mark:

I am not sure why you were talking about beating your wife, so I left that part out, and will stick to answering your questions.

1.  Your interpretation of "variety" in regard to routing is exactly what I worry about.  Like Dr. MacKenzie's concern about returning to the clubhouse at the 9th hole, I believe the idea that holes should be routed in different compass directions has always been overemphasized, to my view.  When one is routing a course, it is more important to be looking for the next great hole, than to think that you need to turn east at some point for the sake of "variety", and when you are judging a course, that's what I want you to be looking for.  If there is a stretch of dull holes, then I guess it's better that they play in different directions, but if there's a stretch of great holes, only an idiot would point out that they are not "ideal" because they play in the same direction.  
     There are many, many great courses that play mostly north-and-south, or mostly east-and-west, and this seems to be especially true in windy climates ... because the formation of dunes in a strong prevailing wind leaves a narrow strip of good land, and because average golfers are absolutely hopeless playing crosswind in high winds.

2 & 3.  I have no problem with these as general ideals, because they are not something that can be used to measure a course.

4.  On beautiful land, features should be made to look as natural as possible -- that's my style and I'm sticking to it.  But many courses are not made on natural land, and I have no problem with courses with unnatural features.  Huntercombe and Garden City Golf Club have unnatural mounding and bunkering because that's all they could muster.  Hoylake has its "cops" and they make the course unique.  

5.  As to your quote about Pine Valley, I don't agree.  My proof is that nobody has been able to produce the course you envision, in almost 100 years since Pine Valley's first holes opened for play.  If you take that course and attempt to make it more playable, you get World Woods, and World Woods is not Pine Valley.  The emphasis on "playability" would require changing the nature of the hazards [like the tiny pot bunkers lining the 2nd fairway, or the terraced bunkering on #6, or the Devil's Asshole at #10] that make Pine Valley what it is.  I am sorry to hear Mike Keiser making comparisons between his new project in Wisconsin and Pine Valley, because I am sure he won't let his architects build the sort of features that made Pine Valley famous.

[Tom_Doak]

TD,

So, you are saying this is just another GD ratings thread?     I hadn't actually considered the actual wording of measuring, vs. designing by, and you make a nice point.  Both Mac and us probably only considered it in terms of designing, but it sure reads as a goal in terms of results desired.

Your comments bring up a few other discussion worthy topics, such as whether we all have unwritten rules we follow, based on experience, whether we write them down or not?  I have always maintained that humans (designers included) are creatures of habit more than we know (a la, shave before shower, or whatever)  Dick Nugent always made us aware of that as well, and it is something we always have to very consciously guard against, the habit of designing a certain way without question.  On the other hand, experience does teach us there are certain possibilities we can usually readily dismiss... such as gravy on ice cream.

When you think about it, we have had a few of those threads lately - better golf hole or shorter walks? That is one of the similar threads that discuss the tradeoffs designers make that put most courses on the continuum somewhere between goofy and great.

Also, hadn't really thought about it until I reread these after posting, but......

For all the vagueness in some areas, Mac calls for the "texture of the greens and fairways should be PERFECT".  A future prediction of conditioning at his ANGC?  Most here would probably assume he didn't care for the best maintenance possible.

"the approaches should have the same consistency as the greens."
 
I can only read the second as a reaction to the common practice of irrigation on just the greens back then, probably encouraging the aerial approach, while a consistent approach would allow a better run up shot?  Thoughts?

Jeff:

Yes that's exactly what I'm afraid of, ratings by number. 

I have always been afraid of having "ideals" because when I worked for Mr. Dye, I thought that it hampered his creativity.  I had read a very long article by Mark Mulvoy about Pete's ideals during the construction of John's Island, in the early 1970's, and when we were doing the planning for PGA West, Pete sat me down and explained those same ideals ... which were also emphatically the ideals behind the TPC at Sawgrass.  I started to think that working toward the exact same ideals, with big budgets, was not going to produce his best work.  He seemed to do better work when the land presented problems that he had to overcome; that's when he was most inventive.

As for MacKenzie's comments on greens, they have to be taken in context, as you say.  "Perfect" in 1920 was a bit different than it is today ... I don't think MacKenzie was advocating for approaches that rolled at 12 on the Stimpmeter.  [In the U.K. in 1920, I doubt he was talking about irrigation, either ... more likely he just wanted the approaches to be topdressed so the rabbit holes would not deflect bouncing approach shots!]

By the same token, that quote reminds me of something that MacKenzie's mentor said, reported by Bernard Darwin I believe, when Colt was still the secretary at Sunningdale.  Responding to someone complimenting the condition of the course, he said that he thought the fairway conditions were becoming too uniformly good, so that the player who could deal with a poor lie was not rewarded for his skill.  I can't recall exactly where this was, so I wonder whether MacKenzie or Colt was responding to the other's comment, in a way.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

It does seem to be true that Dye got a bit repetitive in his manufactured courses, as does Faz, etc.  What is lacking in some cases, and strictly IMHO, is what my Intro to Landscape Architecture professor called "a sense of place." No doubt, some of the big houses have eliminated the sense of place by putting the same holes in different locations. And, Toro, et al have eliminated Macs ideals concerning playing well in different seasons, at least to a degree.

You are afraid of setting ideals for fear of standardization, but must have some deep in there somewhere.  I am not afraid to start there with a view to breaking the rules from time to time.  In the end, we both probably break the rules on occasion, coming from opposite directions.

All that said, when you try to make a course different from the last one, and your incomparable run of special sites has ended, how do you do it?  Do you start designing more, say blind holes (which you have stated here, you are against).  Or do you change stuff on the periphery, such as the grading at Texas Tech, but maintain the same core principles of "ideal design?"  Maybe try a PD strip bunker at some point in the future, or some other style (go ahead, try some Maxwell clamshell bunkers, I double dog dare ya!)

I am not criticizing you at all, but am amazed at how much iconoclastic mileage you have gotten out of merely doing a set of back to back par 3 holes at PD, or not using par 72 on many courses, etc.  The press and your fans go nuts at "how different" you are.  To me, that is not what stood out about your early work, where it was clear you were trying to do stuff very differently.  But, that is what it seemingly got simplified to (adding in jagged edge bunkers and a nice name tag for your style)

But only a few of those fall inside the realm of what I would consider design ideals.  I mean, so called "Perfect Par Rotation" is more formula than ideal, and you note Mac doesn't mention that.  Not that either one of you has more than a few examples of back to back 3's and 5's, which suggests that somewhere deep down, you basically believe mixing it up is better, although I am sure you would portray it as "I never consider it, the holes fall where they may." 

Probably some mixture of both, as Mac admitted that he was influenced by the "two loops of nine" that others considered a good idea.  Of course, deviations from any ideal are as site specific as the design itself.   I would bet that on most gently rolling sites, you could come up with two basically equal routings, one returning and one not.  It would take a real unusual set of circumstances to really lament returning to the clubhouse, at least IMHO.

Of course, an interesting question again (I like discussing this type of thing) is whether having each course in your portfolio different is an ideal?  I understand why it is, but not at the expense of breaking good design to do it.  So, again same conclusion (probably) arrived at leaving from different stations.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

I have a lot to disagree with in your last post, not sure where to start.

I'll start with the idea that I'll run out of different things to do.  I don't see that happening.  I intend to keep working with different associates, and utilizing their different natures to add to the course.  If I've got a site that doesn't suggest good things on its own, there are a lot of different styles I would love to try a course in someday.  I'd like to do a course in the style of Garden City Golf Club, or Pine Valley, or one like Bill Langford or Perry Maxwell -- just like we did for Old Macdonald, not a template of their style, but a combination of their style with my own.  [And don't worry, by the time I do my Maxwell homage, Bill Coore and the boys will have gussied up all the clamshells.]

But, as you know, there are business reasons that argue against doing this -- most people who call me liked my previous work, and would be more comfortable with me saying I'll build them a course "just like Pacific Dunes" than "I'm going to do something I've never done before."  It takes a special kind of client to be comfortable with the latter, and that limits opportunities to pursue all the different avenues I might otherwise take on.

I think if there is an essence to my style it would be fair to say it's much looser than most other architects' styles.  Looser in terms of play -- it allows you to get away with all kinds of bad shots, if you follow them up with a really good one -- but also looser in terms of rules and similarities.  I will go with the flow, especially out on the construction site, where I'm likely to have been thinking about the hole for six months with bunkers in certain spots, but build them in entirely different spots when the time comes.

So, for example, I'm not looking to build back-to-back par-3's or par-5's, but I'm more open to the possibility.  I was discussing somewhere just recently how I thought my one rule would be to NEVER design back-to-back par-3 holes, because it's so rare to find a good example of them ... but ten minutes after I saw them in Bandon I knew I was going to have to do it.  I have only done it twice and do not look forward to doing it again, because it's something you always have to explain and defend, which is why I do not like rules.  I'm certain a good number of courses would have been better if their designer had been open to the possibility.

I disagree with you about the routing of two loops of nine holes ... restricting yourself to that configuration on a site eliminates 75% of the potential solutions, and if each of them has an equal chance of being the best one, your math is out the window.  Both courses at Stonewall were considerably improved when I gave up on it, and settled for having the course come back to the clubhouse at the 8th green, with a par-3 for the 9th hole [and it was really spooky how the second course worked out the same, when I was not trying to make it do so!]. 

Now, if the land is featureless [and perhaps "gently rolling" is a synonym for "almost featureless"], then I'd agree with you, the routing doesn't matter much, but the better the land, the more it can matter.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.  I just tallied up my courses to date and here's what I've got for you, by the numbers:

34 courses in all [not counting the nine-hole Aetna Springs, and The Sheep Ranch which has no formal routing].
20 that return at the ninth hole, including High Pointe, Cape Kidnappers, Barnbougle, Ballyneal, and Sebonack.
 4 that don't return to the clubhouse / starting point at all [Black Forest, St. Andrews Beach, Old Macdonald, and St. Emilion].
10 that return but not at the 9th hole, including Pacific Dunes, both courses at Stonewall, Stone Eagle, Rock Creek, Streamsong, and Dismal River.  [A couple of these would have been impossible to make two loops of nine based on the location of the starting point, because of the balance of areas.]

[Frank Giordano]

Another thread about the validity or invalidity of ideals in golf course architecture, but this one has illuminated, for me at least, the crucial matters that our idealists/fundamentalists as well as our heretics/iconoclasts only rarely consider consciously.  Again, it's very enlightening to have a debate between Doak and Brauer and other generous-spirited pros, where they agreeably disagree with one another, while essentially acknowledging that each has a viewpoint  that guaranteed advances, albeit along different paths, in their common field.

That such threads keep arising is testimony to the enduring human quest for best practices.  But while the fundamentalists are unhappy with the refusal of the heretics to embrace their wisdom, the heretics are chiefly responsible for the leaps forward because of their few successful trials -- forget their far more unsatisfactory errors -- after the latest best practices are practiced nearly to death, and the art requires some healthy deviations from too-long established and tired norms.  What both groups acknowledge only tacitly, and often grudgingly,  is their need for one another.  William Blake's axiom about art is also true about most other worthwhile human endeavors:  Without contraries is no progression.

Back to the crucial business the extremists in both camps miss: the golf course architect is not a free agent, able to decide what is the best he can possibly do.  Each golf course design must be implemented on someone else's piece of land, according to, more or less, someone else's vision.  The quality of the land and the quality of an owner cannot be ignored when judging or measuring an architect's work  The land rarely, if ever, permits total freedom for designing and building and growing in and maintaining a golf course.  And owners/developers are rarely able to isolate their investments of ego and money so as to allow the designer to work to the best of his abilities on the site provided, regardless of the owners' biases and budgets.  Still, the designer's name is viewed by both fundamentalist and iconoclastic critics as the sole standard by which a course should be judged, regardless of how long ago the design was done or how faithful (or not) the course owners and maintenance personnel were to the design.

What we should take away from the debated topics in this thread is how complicated the process is, how invaluable are the differing, even contrary approaches, and how much very good golf comes through to us because of the necessary tension between the contrary types of artists.  All quests for absolutist standards, or for none at all, are both futile and pathetic, if such quests keep anyone from enjoying the game of golf in its own-imperfect-self.

[Bart Bradley]

Tom

When you see a course and deem that it has drawbacks, what are you using to make that judgement?  It is a drawback compared to what?

This is not about ratings.  This is about analyzing, evaluating and discussing golf course architecture:  something that we claim to do here everyday.

Bart

[Bart Bradley]

Sorry duplicate post

[John Kirk]

Back to the crucial business the extremists in both camps miss: the golf course architect is not a free agent, able to decide what is the best he can possibly do.  Each golf course design must be implemented on someone else's piece of land, according to, more or less, someone else's vision.  The quality of the land and the quality of an owner cannot be ignored when judging or measuring an architect's work  The land rarely, if ever, permits total freedom for designing and building and growing in and maintaining a golf course.  And owners/developers are rarely able to isolate their investments of ego and money so as to allow the designer to work to the best of his abilities on the site provided, regardless of the owners' biases and budgets.  Still, the designer's name is viewed by both fundamentalist and iconoclastic critics as the sole standard by which a course should be judged, regardless of how long ago the design was done or how faithful (or not) the course owners and maintenance personnel were to the design.

What we should take away from the debated topics in this thread is how complicated the process is, how invaluable are the differing, even contrary approaches, and how much very good golf comes through to us because of the necessary tension between the contrary types of artists.  All quests for absolutist standards, or for none at all, are both futile and pathetic, if such quests keep anyone from enjoying the game of golf in its own-imperfect-self.

Hi Frank,

When you say "extremists in both camps", are you trying to distinguish between architects who try to satisfy a preconceived set of rules, with those who don't?  Or are you talking about guys like me and Bart Bradley, who think there's a reasonable set of ideals to try and satisfy?  Perhaps Bart and I are trying to apply some variant of scientific rigor to course evaluation.  If a significant number of ideal characteristics go unmet, it may lower my opinion of the golf course in question.  But if I have a great time playing the course, and find it fun and interesting over and over again, then that is more important.  However, those two methods of evaluation have a fair amount in common.

I read Tom Doak saying he doesn't like rules and ideals, except that he wishes to provide variety.  It reminds me of a jazz musician with years of experience, who freely improvises his solos, but within the constraints provided by the song structure.   Through years of experience he's improvising and not consciously thinking about the structure anymore, but it is there.

Tom, I've said before that your courses are impeccably logical; if there's a carry bunker or a dangerous line of attack off the tee, succeeding on that line will yield the best line of approach every time.  I can't think of a single hole in which that is not the case.  That's an ideal you always abide by.

[Garland Bayley]

Alright--I haven't posted in awhile but I like this question.

There are no ideals. All subjective. What makes a course fun for me might make someone else dislike it. Many times we (myself included) like to project our own tastes as being universally desirable, but in the end people play the game for different reasons and that makes consensus impossible.

As an example I will pick on Bart--I don't think substantial contour is an ideal at all. My take on contour is that done right it can be great fun, but not always. Just in general, greens and green complexes are less important to my enjoyment of the game than for many of you.

I like variety and enjoy that courses don't all fit the same mold.

There is an ideal. Contour. Given a flat course with flat greens and no hazards on the flat plains of the plains state, you would have no contour, and the course would recognized as less likeable than almost all other courses. Another course that would be the opposite of ideal would be a swampland course in Florida chocked full of island fairways and greens. So another ideal would be a limit to target golf surrounded by water hazards. I guess Sawgrass gets a pass with only one island green.

[Sean_A]

Tom

When you see a course and deem that it has drawbacks, what are you using to make that judgement?  It is a drawback compared to what?

This is not about ratings.  This is about analyzing, evaluating and discussing golf course architecture:  something that we claim to do here everyday.

Bart

Bart, this is a good question.  Tom, just for the sake of making the discussion more directed, many have wondered about your take of the quality difference between Deal and Rye.  I realize you have since revised your opinion, but I assume there is still quite a discrepency in how you see both courses.  I have always put some of your favoruing Rye down to the routing taking a bit more to figure out compared to Deal's which is fairly straight forward because of the limiting factor of the land.  Can you try to explain your thoughts on why Rye is superior to Deal? 

Ciao 

[Eric Smith]

There is an ideal. Contour.

A wise man once wrote that undulation is the soul of the game.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Would it be impolite of me to point out that TD once numerically ranked every golf course he had ever seen?  And, is publishing more books with more ratings soon? (I think, maybe he has changed his method) 

Back to the more polite, I can see the differences between Tom's writings on the subject and mine as a difference in experience and background. We agree that the more spectacular the site, the less concerned anyone ought to be on returning nines. It's just that I rarely get spectacular sites!  And, while he has the ghost of MacKenzie in the back of his mind, I recall Robert Deadman (founder of ClubCorp) telling me that non-returning nines cost him 3500 rounds a year, and that it was hard enough to make money without the design itself costing him rounds. 

So, for me, its returning nines without a compelling reason not to do so.  Most of my clients wouldn't want to lose those rounds, either.  My quick count is 2 out of 50 courses with non-returning nines,(Cowboys and Wild Wing)  with a third hopefully on the way.  In each case (much like TD's best courses) they are resorts and I figure no one is going to play nine holes, so why base a design around it?

John Kirk, you summed up my thoughts with the jazz reference.  Somehow, deep down, we all have some structure and some ideals.  Things we rarely question at the start.  I do believe TD is probably more open to changing it than other architects might be.  If refusing to articulate them helps him with his main goal of variety, all I can say is the obvious - it works for him!

[Peter Pallotta]

Eric - I don't know if you just typed that wrong, but that's not the original quote. It isn't contours are the soul of the game, it's cointreau is the soul of the game. And it was Tom Simpson who first said that, just after he and Wethered came back from a bachelor party in Saint Barthélemy-d'Anjou at which golf and food and drink featured prominently. He was also a big fan of stroganoff, not strategy, and after a visit to a Parisan bordello famously declared: "I like my golf courses like I do the women in France: fashionable, forgiving, and au natural".

Peter

P.S. Just trying to make sure to set the record straight, in case any golf journalists are mining this site for material/research. Did I tell you that BC Macdonald was actually born in Hoboken New jersey and dated Frank Sinatra's mother?

[Michael Whitaker]

The "ideal" of a course being walkable by a reasonably fit golfer is important to me, however, I know that the motorized cart has forever altered that notion for most golfers. But, closely related to walkability is an ideal that has become important to my appreciation of a course, whether I walk or ride: I prefer courses to NOT have a majority of holes which play predominately uphill. Likewise, I'm not a fan of courses that have a exorbitant number of downhill holes. 

It can be argued that courses which start and stop at the house are a zero sum gain on elevation change, but as any hiker will tell you there are easy and difficult ways to traverse the same piece of property. There is a reason Bill Coore sometimes looks for animal trails when evaluating a piece of property... animals don't arbitrarily punish themselves as humans do! Courses that do not return to their starting point can be prime candidates for too many uphill or downhill holes.

[Eric Smith]

Eric - I don't know if you just typed that wrong, but that's not the original quote. It isn't contours are the soul of the game, it's cointreau is the soul of the game. And it was Tom Simpson who first said that, just after he and Wethered came back from a bachelor party in Saint Barthélemy-d'Anjou at which golf and food and drink featured prominently.

PJP,
I think you've misremembered the quote as well. What he said was that cointreau is the spirit of the game.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ah, crap, you're right. I hate being wrong about this stuff....

[Frank Giordano]

It is, of course, so like TD to go out of his way to point out that there are exceptions to every rule.  I am in the camp that says they are still worthwhile rules. 

It is, of course, so like JB to be in the camp that follows worthwhile rules.

With a wink and a nod, our two protagonists agree that both their approaches are eminently acceptable.  As, of course, they should.  While Dr. Mac's Blessed 13 are, for some, equivalent to Moses' !0 Commandments, even Dr. Mac understood that reality requires a little flexibility in applying rules or ideals.  Absolutists -- both the Moses types and the anarchistic types who pretend there are NO RULES -- must come to grips with the facts on the course grounds: no rule is so sacrosanct that an artist must never break it.  The greatest artists have always known that some rules must be broken for the important breakthroughs in art to occur.  So go ahead, Jeff, and honor the worthwhile rules; and go ahead Tom, and break the rules when you find a better way to proceed.  Ultimately, the sensible ones among us, and the judgment of history, will see the wisdom in both your approaches.  It should never be a case of "my way or the highway," for artists or for critics.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()