The transition from what "should be" to what "is"

[Peter Pallotta]

Anyone find that, as they get older, their approach to people, places and things (i.e. golf courses) softens a little -- moves away from the self-centred and judgemental/critical and self-assured "what should be" to a more expansive and accepting sense of "what is"?

If your answer is yes, and focusing on golf course architecture only, is there something of value in this transition, this change in approach? Might we be able to actually "see" the golf architecture that exists more clearly/accurately when we are able to focus on what "is" there instead of what's "not" there and/or what "should be" there?

Especially in the game of golf (with its ethos of playing the ball as it lies, and accepting the bounces good and bad) and with golf's fields of play (where everyone plays the same golf course, and fair/unfair don't apply), isn't a focus on "what is" somehow more fitting?

Peter

PS I can't remember who it was that commented on the hero-slaying-the-dragon myth, but in his re-telling the dragon that is slayed by the hero is covered in scales, and on each scale is written a different "thou shalt".   

[Kalen Braley]

Peter,


That's a resounding yes.  And this reasonable/caring/non-judgemental guy agrees with you too...

[Sean_A]

Pietro


I definitely have preferences in what I want to play, but I always try to see a course for what the archie intended.  All courses can't be this, that or the other.  I guess a way to explain it is that I try to see what is there rather than look for what is there. 


Ciao

[George Pazin]

Pietro


I definitely have preferences in what I want to play, but I always try to see a course for what the archie intended.  All courses can't be this, that or the other.  I guess a way to explain it is that I try to see what is there rather than look for what is there. 


Ciao

How do you know what the archie intended?

[Sean_A]

Pietro


I definitely have preferences in what I want to play, but I always try to see a course for what the archie intended.  All courses can't be this, that or the other.  I guess a way to explain it is that I try to see what is there rather than look for what is there. 


Ciao

How do you know what the archie intended?

George


Just in a general sense of what style/difficulty the archie wanted....thats usually not hard to figure out. For instance, its rough to be too hard on a championship course which is intended to be as such even if I have some issues with it.  Bottom line, I try to change the specs to suit the course.  Although, I must say the concept of tournament/championship course has been done to death and usually, the tournament side of the design is rarely utilized.  I also don't come down hard on courses which are obviously not suited for flat bellies.  If you are going to judge, and I think we all do judge courses, its best to keep the design in perspective if at all possible. 


There is the rare course which disappoints me greatly, but still give it high marks because the design is to a brief.  Trump Aberdeen is a case in point.  Its meant to be tv tournament venue, hence the degree of difficulty in terms of aerial golf, space between holes/nines etc. I think its a huge opportunity lost, but I get where Trump is coming from..it helps grasp why things were done as they were. 


Ciao

[Mark Pavy]

Anyone find that, as they get older, their approach to people, places and things (i.e. golf courses) softens a little -- moves away from the self-centred and judgemental/critical and self-assured "what should be" to a more expansive and accepting sense of "what is"?

If your answer is yes, and focusing on golf course architecture only, is there something of value in this transition, this change in approach? Might we be able to actually "see" the golf architecture that exists more clearly/accurately when we are able to focus on what "is" there instead of what's "not" there and/or what "should be" there?

Especially in the game of golf (with its ethos of playing the ball as it lies, and accepting the bounces good and bad) and with golf's fields of play (where everyone plays the same golf course, and fair/unfair don't apply), isn't a focus on "what is" somehow more fitting?

Peter

PS I can't remember who it was that commented on the hero-slaying-the-dragon myth, but in his re-telling the dragon that is slayed by the hero is covered in scales, and on each scale is written a different "thou shalt".   

The "what is" extends far beyond the architecture. Comprehension of the "why what is" is more interesting. "What should be" can only be asked when you understand "why". Once you understand "why", throw it out the window and forget everything you learned.

You have 140 acres and you have how many courses........

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark - you may be right, and in any event yours is certainly a reasonable and valid perspective. But to me it seems that an important part of transitioning to embracing "what is" is having the discipline of mind and the willingness of spirit to forego speculations about the "why" of it. Appreciating the beauty and uniqueness of a dandelion instead of criticizing it for not being a rose doesn't require a degree in botany, or an understanding of why the dandelion isn't in fact a rose.

Peter 

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:


Thinking about "what is" instead of "what should be" is an even harder step for those of us in the business.  It is very easy to think that the way we would have done it, is the same as the way it should be done.


A story from my Pete Dye days that I think I've mentioned here once or twice concerns the 18th hole at the TPC of Connecticut [now the TPC at River Highlands, where they play the Hartford event].  It was a renovation of a public course into a tournament venue, and Mr. Dye had recommended the site to the tournament sponsors because the hills provided natural amphitheaters for large galleries.


The 18th hole comes up the biggest natural amphitheater, and the only problem, which arose during construction, was that there was no good place to put a cart path for the non-tournament golfers.  There were steep hills on both sides of the fairway, and only one good place to get down to fairway level with the path and then back out up on the side of the hill -- and that one place was where it might be in play for the longer-hitting pros.


Mr. Dye struggled with the decision, but there had to be a path, and ultimately there was only one place to put it. What bothered him was knowing that the players would find fault with the design.  "If I was playing for half a million dollars, and there was a chance my drive would hit that path and bounce into trouble and it would cost me the tournament, I would think twice about hitting a driver on the hole," he told me.  "But those players will swing away with driver and if they hit the path, they will say it's all my fault."


Or, in other words, the players would not accept what is, as long as they could explain it away.

[Don Mahaffey]

So easy to educate the creativity out

[Peter Pallotta]

So easy to educate the creativity out

I think at the highest levels and with the very best work (but what do I really know of either), this is very true.

In the couple of arts-crafts I know best, I am almost certain I can sense when the should (or anti-shoulds) have taken permanent hold, as if (to use these phrases badly) the work is more at a meta-level than a true one, when it is more like a puzzle that has to be reassembled for the tenth or hundredth time than a present expression of what the creativity wants to express in the present.

Then it is magic - the mind gets its, the heart feels it, the spirit it enriched by it.

Peter

Peter