[Mike Hendren]

Elsewhere Sean Arble states that "Reddish Vale is plenty good enough for me."  In that vein I recall Gib many years ago describing a course as being "as good as it needs to be."  Finally, in response to the inevitable complaints about conditioning on the 9-hole course I grew up on my Dad's standard reply was "it's a better golf course than I am golfer."

In fairness I should be expected to offer an example, but I can't yet answer this question:  Which course fits that bill and has that bar moved due to your participation in this site?

Maybe I'll have my answer Friday when I take a quick tour around the 3,000 yards Rolling Hills CC in Ripley, Tennessee for the first time in 25 years.  I want that to be my answer.

What's yours?

Bogey

[Joe Hancock]

Boges,

The very first thought that came to my mind was-

"If the company is good, then all else is good enough."

I honestly can play on any course as long as I'm in good company.

You'll be just fine on 3000 yards of Ripley terrain, I'm sure.

Joe

[Tom_Doak]

This would also be a great question for architects, if they were honest enough to answer.  We all have to stop somewhere.

[Peter Pallotta]

This would also be a great question for architects, if they were honest enough to answer.  We all have to stop somewhere.

Tom - there's an interesting difference, one that might make for an interesting discussion.

As golfers, it seems clear to me that we'd all maximize our enjoyment of the game if we could only achieve a state of mind (state of grace?) where any course we were playing at that moment was "good enough". For us, the course, the companion, the weather - they all exist independently of us, and so we are left with a simple choice, i.e. either gratefully accept the moment/experience just the way it is, or instead take ourselves out of the moment (and lose it) as we grumpily wish for another/a different one (some far-away course, some richer and better looking companions).

But for architects, it's a lot harder it seems to me to know what state of mind (state of grace) is worth striving for. The course doesn't exist already or independently of you, as you yourself are creating it; and what for golfers is the moment/experience is for architects the course itself. And so an architect's attitude of grateful acceptance of the course/site/budget (as opposed to wishing for a different course/site/budget) is actually an acceptance of him/herself  -- of the architect's own strengths, talents, weaknesses, and tendencies.

I think that kind of acceptance is what (in other crafts, like writing) creates the sense of "authority" and "mastery" that many strive for but few achieve. I might even say that knowing when to stop, knowing when a particular course is good enough, is not merely one of the marks of genuine talent/mastery but the mark of talent/mastery. 

Peter

[Dan Kelly]

We all have to stop somewhere.

I draw this line every single day.

Here's where I draw it:

I stop when I can improve my work in such a way that almost no one else would notice.

Or when it's deadline time.

[Sean_A]

Elsewhere Sean Arble states that "Reddish Vale is plenty good enough for me."  In that vein I recall Gib many years ago describing a course as being "as good as it needs to be."  Finally, in response to the inevitable complaints about conditioning on the 9-hole course I grew up on my Dad's standard reply was "it's a better golf course than I am golfer."

In fairness I should be expected to offer an example, but I can't yet answer this question:  Which course fits that bill and has that bar moved due to your participation in this site?

Maybe I'll have my answer Friday when I take a quick tour around the 3,000 yards Rolling Hills CC in Ripley, Tennessee for the first time in 25 years.  I want that to be my answer.

What's yours?

Bogey

Bogey

I wasn't thinking about when is a singular course good enough.  I was thinking of when a good course amonst other goods/greats is good enough.  I don't crave playing a top notch course all the time...well not nearly as much as I do a good course in great nick, but thats rare no matter the quality of the course. 

Brian asked me about Sunny Old on the Whip It Out thread.  Of course its wonderful to play Sunny Old, but at what point does cost just seem silly when I look at the added quality (or enjoyment if you prefer) - especially when its so weather dependent - especially in the UK?  There are many reasonably priced courses which can turn my head... but not all that many.  I get a kick out of knowing some unheralded supers and clubs can provide an incredibly enjoyable experience.  I have always felt that the best conditioned courses really shine in the off season, when even the best courses can be in great nick, but its great nick for winter.  Its surprising how many wee courses can crank out a great product when the weather cooperates.   

Besides, I have never been one to believe that the best courses are all that much better than very good courses.  Much of the time it comes down to a hole or two, or some aspect of conditioning/presentation. 

Ciao

[Rees Milikin]

Reading & learning from GCA has made me appreciate more of the architectural values & strengths, than the conditioning.  I would say my standards are lowered from a non-GCA point of view, but have grown in a GCA point of view. 

There are a few courses that I have played that I would have looked down upon due to their conditioning, but after realizing the shot potentials and thought process to play them, they have risen to be good enough: Aiken, Palatka, Lake Lure, Ocala, Shelby Park are the ones that come to mind.  Then, there are some that I have played that were not good enough condition wise.  The reason being is that it prevented/hindered me from playing the course how it was meant to played and thus did not allow me to see/play what they could really offer from a GCA point of view: Keystone Heights, Lekarica, Deltona

I think I tend to place the good enough label on muni's & other low cost courses b/c I know going in that they are working with a lower budget.

[Tom_Doak]

We all have to stop somewhere.

I draw this line every single day.

Here's where I draw it:

I stop when I can improve my work in such a way that almost no one else would notice.

Or when it's deadline time.

Deadlines are certainly a part of the process in golf architecture, too.  We have to get all 18 holes planted by the end of summer, so there is a schedule, and we need to seed that 5th hole by, say, July 15th.  You can delay things further if you're not happy with the product, but that costs real money if you miss the planting window for the year.

I was thinking more of how much tinkering is worthwhile.  Certainly, some architects don't do enough, but others keep tinkering until the point of overkill ... too many bunkers, too many cool little features.  I've probably been guilty of that sometimes myself, the result of over-staffing projects with a bunch of eager young architects who want to add something to the project every day.  It's a fine line to walk.

One of the reasons I leaned toward what is now called minimalism was that I could see how hard it was for architects to control expectations in the modern era where anything is possible and some clients were willing to keep moving earth to try and make the course even "better".  I prefer to let the land and the routing place some limit on the outcome, though of course we still follow Tillinghast's maxim that if a hole is not up to the rest, it has got to have quality knocked into it until it can hold its head up in polite society.

[Mark Fedeli]

One of the reasons I leaned toward what is now called minimalism was that I could see how hard it was for architects to control expectations in the modern era where anything is possible and some clients were willing to keep moving earth to try and make the course even "better".  I prefer to let the land and the routing place some limit on the outcome, though of course we still follow Tillinghast's maxim that if a hole is not up to the rest, it has got to have quality knocked into it until it can hold its head up in polite society.

I need to get this on a bumper sticker.

[Jud_T]

I equate this with the theory of women which states that the ideal women is the one who is just good looking enough to attract you, anything beyond that is often more trouble than it's worth. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()