[Mike Hendren]

"... for to learn golf architecture one must know golf itself, its companionships, its joys, its sorrows, its battles - one must play golf and love it."

As an aside, of the treehouse members I've been fortunate enough to play golf with, John Kavanaugh and Tom Doak seemed outwardly to love playing the game the most.  Interestingly I would label one as an athlete and the other as a thinker. 

Mike

[Tom_Doak]

Michael:

For the first part, obviously I know who wrote that, but I will leave the prize to someone else.

I agree with the sentiment entirely.  The people I've known who loved the game most have come from all sorts of backgrounds, but none of them ever had much difficulty in understanding what I was doing.  That doesn't mean they could all have become good architects themselves, as it takes a variety of skills.  But if you don't love golf I don't care how good you are at "design", you'd inevitably be missing the point of it all.

One of the things I've considered in recent years is what might happen if I get to the point where I physically can't play anymore, or my game deteriorates to the point that I don't enjoy playing anymore?  I have seen this happen to other architects and it strikes me that their work declines markedly once they lose touch with playing the game.  Perhaps they watch on TV and fall into the trap of thinking that golfers are much better nowadays -- that's how Mr. Jones appeared to be thinking in his last years.  I think at that point it is really time to retire, but I can't imagine how crushing it would be to have to give up BOTH the sport you love and your creative outlet.

So, I am working very hard at lowering my expectations for my golf, and remembering that the real appeal of the game is just to be out there on the golf course, no matter who you're with or what you shoot.

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,


I noticed you artfully dodged the burning question.  Are you the athlete or the thinker? 

[jeffwarne]

"... for to learn golf architecture one must know golf itself, its companionships, its joys, its sorrows, its battles - one must play golf and love it."

I would say that is true of anyone attempting to successfully earn a living at golf as well.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike - hope you don't mind a side-bar, as I think/hope it's relevant:

Late in his career, Teddy Wilson (famed jazz pianist) had a nightly gig with his trio at a New York city club. Whenever any of the top singers of the day were in town, they'd invariably come in to listen and then 'sit in' for a couple of songs. So over the years, he ended up playing with all the greats. A reporter once asked him: who was the best? Who was the best singer you played with? Wilson answered: "Frank Sinatra". And then (and for me this is the key point), when the reporter asked him why, Wilson answered "Because he *loved* to sing".

That has always struck me. Think of that: Wilson wasn't talking about run of the mill singers, let alone amateurs. He was talking about the most famous and popular *professionals* of his time. They were all good at their crafts and they all had long careers, and so you'd think (at least, I did) that they *all* loved to sing. But that wasn't the case. Wilson went on to say that all of them *liked* to sing, and that they all worked hard at it, and they all appreciated their careers and knew what it took to stay on top; but that didn't mean that they loved the art of signing. For the majority of them, it had long ago become a job -- a very pleasant and profitable job, but a job nonetheless. In this, Sinatra stood out; he actually just loved to sing. 

And you know, I think the casual listener and the untrained musician and the average fan (and I'm all of those) can *tell*. I'd never have thought of it unless Wilson said it, but I can tell that Sinatra loved singing, and that he knew and deeply appreciated the great songs themselves. (When you hear him in live recordings, he is always saying things like: "This is a very beautiful song, a very pretty song, written by the great Cole Porter and arranged by the best young arranger working today, Mr. Quincy Jones"). Whether it was a heart-breaking ballad that he sang unaccompanied or an up-tempo swing number with the Basie band, he threw himself completely into the song. Yes, he had "technique" and yes he had "trained" his voice -- but all that training and technique was in the service of something bigger, ie that love, that joy in singing a great song as well as he possibly could.

In the many courses (by many architects) you've played over the years, do you think you can similarly tell which of those professionals, even among the greats, actually *loved* golf and golf course architecture? 

Peter

[Jeff_Brauer]

That is an interesting exercise to figure out if and when older architects mail it in, so to speak, due to declining passion for the game and/or art.  It might be hard, because of current times. Given the relative drought in commissions post 2008, I find when I get one, I tend to design as if its the last course I will ever do.  Within any design commission, I tend to "throw the kitchen sink" at the last hole designed.  In fact, on my current project, I pulled my first "Pete Dye" ever and asked a client if I could get more land over a creek to improve a hole.  He approved and we are designing as we speak.


It might have been similar at the end of the Golden Age, with Maxwell perhaps outdoing himself at Southern Hills, perhaps? Mac and ANGC and/or Scarlet Course?  Or UM?  Just a supposition, but it would be interesting to study.


BTW, I have always loved golf courses more than the game of golf itself.....with whom I have always had a rocky relationship.


Once asked if I had to choose one, I have always said I would choose to design golf courses over playing them. Not sure what that says about me under this theory.  I have always thought that the actual messy playing of a round might taint my pure love of design, imagining that my theoretical good player is really thinking his way around the course.

[Billsteele]

Bogey-As one who has never been labelled an athlete or a thinker, I'll bite. The quote, I believe, is from George Thomas. I agree that to appreciate golf architecture one must love the game. But love is a big house with many rooms. Love can be an obsession, a hunt for trophies, a search for perfection,  a spiritual connection, a lifetime commitment, a fleeting fling or a destructive compulsion. In other words, love is a large enough concept to encompass all the differences that we see on this board. Love is a profoundly personal concept...just like opinions on golf course architecture. Of the many people I have met through this group, I doubt that I have met anyone who does not love the game on some level. However, the depth of that love and how that love manifests itself varies wildly. Such is life.  As for golf course architects, they must walk that dangerous line between love and commerce. Some manage that line better than others.  Michael, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and a terrific 2018.

[Garland Bayley]

"... for to learn golf architecture one must know golf itself, its companionships, its joys, its sorrows, its battles - one must play golf and love it."

As an aside, of the treehouse members I've been fortunate enough to play golf with, John Kavanaugh and Tom Doak seemed outwardly to love playing the game the most.  Interestingly I would label one as an athlete and the other as a thinker. 

Mike

Wow, that's the first time I've seen Barney labeled a thinker.

[PCCraig]

"... for to learn golf architecture one must know golf itself, its companionships, its joys, its sorrows, its battles - one must play golf and love it."

As an aside, of the treehouse members I've been fortunate enough to play golf with, John Kavanaugh and Tom Doak seemed outwardly to love playing the game the most.  Interestingly I would label one as an athlete and the other as a thinker. 

Mike

Wow, that's the first time I've seen Barney labeled a thinker.

Or an athlete.

[MCirba]

Bogey-As one who has never been labelled an athlete or a thinker, I'll bite. The quote, I believe, is from George Thomas. I agree that to appreciate golf architecture one must love the game. But love is a big house with many rooms. Love can be an obsession, a hunt for trophies, a search for perfection,  a spiritual connection, a lifetime commitment, a fleeting fling or a destructive compulsion. In other words, love is a large enough concept to encompass all the differences that we see on this board. Love is a profoundly personal concept...just like opinions on golf course architecture. Of the many people I have met through this group, I doubt that I have met anyone who does not love the game on some level. However, the depth of that love and how that love manifests itself varies wildly. Such is life.  As for golf course architects, they must walk that dangerous line between love and commerce. Some manage that line better than others.  Michael, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and a terrific 2018.

Bill,

Well stated.

Much of this could be a Mission Statement for this website as we move into 2018.

[BHoover]

"... for to learn golf architecture one must know golf itself, its companionships, its joys, its sorrows, its battles - one must play golf and love it."

As an aside, of the treehouse members I've been fortunate enough to play golf with, John Kavanaugh and Tom Doak seemed outwardly to love playing the game the most.  Interestingly I would label one as an athlete and the other as a thinker. 

Mike

Wow, that's the first time I've seen Barney labeled a thinker.

Or an athlete.

Wait, he said thinker? I assumed it was drinker. I should have read more closely.

[Eric Smith]

I'm sure you guys won more State High School Basketball Championships than John and his teams did. Link please?

[PCCraig]

I'm sure you guys won more State High School Basketball Championships than John and his teams did. Link please?

Ha - we're comparing high school athletic accomplishments now?

[Mike Hendren]

I interrupt this thread's hijack to congratulate Bill on his correct response - it is indeed a quote from George C. Thomas, Jr.  An excellent comment form Bill as well.

Bogey

[Peter Pallotta]

George Thomas: he could be a member at Pine Valley and know first hand the kind of course that Mr. Crump aspired to and achieved, and he could also move to the opposite coast and to a different climate and topography and design Riviera.
Yes, as Bill says, the word love encompasses multitudes; and such broad tastes and accepting attitude speaks well of Mr. T's love of the game

[Jim Nugent]

How does Raynor -- who as I understand it barely played golf at first and never got good at the game -- fit into this equation?

[Tom_Doak]

How does Raynor -- who as I understand it barely played golf at first and never got good at the game -- fit into this equation?

He really doesn't fit, and it's just possible that George Thomas, writing in 1926-27, was softly pointing that out.


I have never been comfortable with those who would call Seth Raynor a great golf architect, because I don't think he was very focused on the golf part of it.  He was, however, quite good at routing golf courses, which is a big part of design.

[Sven Nilsen]

How does Raynor -- who as I understand it barely played golf at first and never got good at the game -- fit into this equation?

He really doesn't fit, and it's just possible that George Thomas, writing in 1926-27, was softly pointing that out.


I have never been comfortable with those who would call Seth Raynor a great golf architect, because I don't think he was very focused on the golf part of it.  He was, however, quite good at routing golf courses, which is a big part of design.

Why would George Thomas be writing this about Raynor in 1926-27 when Raynor had just died?

[Sven Nilsen]

I'll play devil's advocate in this love fest.

The dumbest golfer will not make a good architect, no matter how much he loves the game. 

On the other hand, the intelligent non-golfer can figure out why golfers love the game, even if they themself do not.

I was reading an article earlier today written by Charles Banks on required acreage for a course.  These two short paragraphs seemed to perfectly sum up the mindset of the thoughtful "engineer."  We often say around here that course design is an art and a science.  I'd venture its easier to learn the art than the science, whether you are a golfer or not.

Feb. 1928 Golf Illustrated -

[Nigel Islam]

How does Raynor -- who as I understand it barely played golf at first and never got good at the game -- fit into this equation?

He really doesn't fit, and it's just possible that George Thomas, writing in 1926-27, was softly pointing that out.


I have never been comfortable with those who would call Seth Raynor a great golf architect, because I don't think he was very focused on the golf part of it.  He was, however, quite good at routing golf courses, which is a big part of design.

Tom, this is quite an interesting statement. I am going to try and respond to this because I have been known to think of Raynor as a great architect. Having said that I do not 100% disagree with what you have said.


I have three questions for you;


1. Is it possible that he was just so talented at the non-golf aspects of design that he excelled at architecture in spite of not focusing on the golf?


2. I think you must have some degree of appreciation for Raynor's work as you have spent a good chunk of your career doing outstanding work on his courses. Am I wrong here?


3. Do you think it is possible that Raynor liked golf, but was just too busy working to attempt to get better?

[George Pazin]

I haven't read St George Bahto's opus on Macdonald in forever. I gifted my copy to a friend and haven't (yet) purchased another, so forgive me for asking, but did anyone ever confirm that Raynor didn't really play and wasn't much of a golfer? Any chance that's an urban legend?


I play rarely, but when I do, I hit enough good shots to make me think I understand the game as most play it. I could be entirely wrong, certainly JK thinks so, but I don't think it takes much to love the game and understand the game.


Although I will say, I think most, players and architects alike, misunderstand how golfers actually play the game. It's just that the game is so expansive and flexible that it doesn't ultimately matter.


Merry Christmas everyone.

[Jim Nugent]

I haven't read St George Bahto's opus on Macdonald in forever. I gifted my copy to a friend and haven't (yet) purchased another, so forgive me for asking, but did anyone ever confirm that Raynor didn't really play and wasn't much of a golfer? Any chance that's an urban legend?

George, here's what CBM says about Raynor in Scotland's Gift: "He scarcely knew a golf-ball from a tennis ball when we first met, and although he never became much of an expert in playing golf, yet the facility with which he absorbed the feeling which animates old and enthusiastic golfers to the manner born was truly amazing, eventually qualifying him to discriminate between a really fine hole and an indifferent one."

I have never been comfortable with those who would call Seth Raynor a great golf architect, because I don't think he was very focused on the golf part of it.  He was, however, quite good at routing golf courses, which is a big part of design.

I haven't seen the CG, but I'm pretty sure you rank at least one Raynor course (Fishers) right near the best in the world, and a few others top 100 or so.  That's not enough for greatness? 

 

[Tom_Doak]

I haven't seen the CG, but I'm pretty sure you rank at least one Raynor course (Fishers) right near the best in the world, and a few others top 100 or so.  That's not enough for greatness?

Jim:


Ironically, I am the guy who has consistently for years avoided trying to rank architects as "great" or not, and insisted that it is only useful or possible to judge the product, and not the work.  So I don't especially want to get drawn into a debate about Raynor or anyone else.


For my own work, though, I aspire to do more than to repeat and fine-tune the same ideas at different locations.

[Tom_Doak]

1. Is it possible that he was just so talented at the non-golf aspects of design that he excelled at architecture in spite of not focusing on the golf?     Maybe.  And don't underestimate the value of having great pieces of land to work with, plus ample budgets.

2. I think you must have some degree of appreciation for Raynor's work as you have spent a good chunk of your career doing outstanding work on his courses. Am I wrong here?     No.

3. Do you think it is possible that Raynor liked golf, but was just too busy working to attempt to get better?     I have no idea if Raynor liked golf or not; there is nothing in the literature to suggest that he did, unlike many other architects.  Macdonald supposedly told him to stick to his work and not play more, because as a poor golfer, he would become too sympathetic and not keep his focus on challenging the better players; and Raynor is the one who told that story, so maybe he just accepted it as gospel.

Please, let's not turn this into another thread about Seth Raynor.  A thread about George Thomas would be much more interesting.

[Peter Pallotta]

From what I read:

Many great golf courses, and many different kinds of great golf courses, designed by many great architects each with different strengths and priorities -- yes, but were there many/any golf course architects more focused on and better at 'creating strategy' and a variety of strategies than Mr Thomas was, especially on a difficult site like Riviera? 

Maybe that's the aspect of golf course architecture that most comes to the fore if you love the game of golf, with all its joys, sorrows and challenges

To borrow my own analogy: there were many fine male singers in the golden age with tone, talent and technique - but if it was about putting all those qualities in the 'service of emotion', Sinatra was your man. And what else is a torch song meant for but to create emotion? 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()