Are we evangelists?

[Jerry Kluger]

I live in North Carolina and I was speaking with one of my regular golf buddies and he told me how much he hated Dormie which just took me back and I just wanted to scream at him but I kept my cool.  I have realized that you cannot explain good gca at a particular course unless you are actually playing the course as most players, including me, don't remember the holes that well unless they have played the course a few times.  (I have played Dormie a number of times and now remember the holes quite well.) I pestered the superintendent at my home course for at least 3 years to clear out some trees between two holes which was finally done and the response has been nothing but positive and I have emphasized that tree removal can be great for architecture and conditioning - most members I play with still don't want to remove trees. 

[Sean_A]

Maybe Ran should 'nail' a new tab to the top of the page,  'The 95 Theses'. It might settle this Princes-Deal debate, or at least make a strong case against the use of indulgences excessive width.

Pietro

Nail away, but both courses would be better with more width and/or better controlled rough.

Ciao

[Tim Gallant]

I live in North Carolina and I was speaking with one of my regular golf buddies and he told me how much he hated Dormie which just took me back and I just wanted to scream at him but I kept my cool.  I have realized that you cannot explain good gca at a particular course unless you are actually playing the course as most players, including me, don't remember the holes that well unless they have played the course a few times.  (I have played Dormie a number of times and now remember the holes quite well.) I pestered the superintendent at my home course for at least 3 years to clear out some trees between two holes which was finally done and the response has been nothing but positive and I have emphasized that tree removal can be great for architecture and conditioning - most members I play with still don't want to remove trees.

Jerry,


I know what you mean. Part of this topic came from something that happened this weekend. I was at a distillery with my wife, and while we were waiting to go on a tour, I struck up a conversation with a gentleman who worked there, but used to be a Head Pro at a golf course. He proceeded to tell me that Machrihanish was not a very good golf course, and that the only good shot on the entire property was the tee shot at the 1st. What do you say to that? Machrihanish is not only one of my favourite course, but I could argue, has better and more interesting shots across the front 9 alone than just about every golf course in the entire world has on 18 (excepting some of the truly great courses). But this was just a random conversation, and without looking like a total jerk, I couldn't tell him directly to his face that he was wrong.


Maybe I should carry around copies of Anatomy of Golf Courses in my backpack and in those moments, ask if they had considered the word of Doak to take them out of the dark?

[Ira Fishman]

I live in North Carolina and I was speaking with one of my regular golf buddies and he told me how much he hated Dormie which just took me back and I just wanted to scream at him but I kept my cool.  I have realized that you cannot explain good gca at a particular course unless you are actually playing the course as most players, including me, don't remember the holes that well unless they have played the course a few times.  (I have played Dormie a number of times and now remember the holes quite well.) I pestered the superintendent at my home course for at least 3 years to clear out some trees between two holes which was finally done and the response has been nothing but positive and I have emphasized that tree removal can be great for architecture and conditioning - most members I play with still don't want to remove trees.

The best, if imperfect, analogy that I can offer is my wife and arts and crafts.  She enjoys and appreciates both, but generally will only go to see them if it is a gallery or fair where we can purchase something.  She is not all that motivated to go to a Museum.  For most golfers, same idea: they want to play golf and not study/admire architecture.  Fortunately, my wife loves golf and does appreciate a well-designed course.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

Evangelists is a good term because it brings to mind the way many people's eyes glaze over if you try to inject religion into a conversation 😉


You are never going to get anywhere with anyone by telling them their opinion is wrong.  It's all opinion after all.  The only effective strategy is to explain why you like something in a way that's easy to understand and remember, and hope they remember your logic to apply it themselves.

[Kalen Braley]

I see a lot of truth in Tom's comment...which also very much applies to politics, especially in the States.


In a way, we almost need to be GCA shrinks, where we try to enlighten by asking pointed questions, and letting them figure it out on their own...

[Mike Hendren]

Maybe Ran should 'nail' a new tab to the top of the page,  'The 95 Theses'. It might settle this Princes-Deal debate, or at least make a strong case against the use of indulgences excessive width.

Perhaps Huldrych Zwingli's "sausage fest" would be more appropriate for this group.

Bogey

[Rick Lane]

Evangelists is a good term because it brings to mind the way many people's eyes glaze over if you try to inject religion into a conversation 😉


You are never going to get anywhere with anyone by telling them their opinion is wrong.  It's all opinion after all.  The only effective strategy is to explain why you like something in a way that's easy to understand and remember, and hope they remember your logic to apply it themselves.

I find that approach to work.  Example: We have a dogleg hole where in 1948, someone planted a stand of oak trees inside the corner.  Instead of telling my friends I think the trees need to be cut down and they are wrong for liking them, I tell them I read an article that said that such trees really limit the options of the hole, and force you to play it one way, which kind of defeats the purpose of the dog leg.  ....I let that sink in.   Lately, I have heard some of them telling others the same concept!

[Jerry Kluger]

Part of my point was that you can't tell them their opinion is wrong but you can show them but how often do you get the opportunity to do that?  I was basically a dope with respect to gca when I went to Nebraska to play Wild Horse, Sand Hills, Dismal River (Nicklaus) and Ballyneal.  I had read a great deal about the subject and was active on this website and been to some GCA get togethers but still was limited in my knowledge of gca.  The revelation came when we played Wild Horse and I realized how much fun the game can be.  It certainly got better with 3 rounds at Sand Hills.  Dismal River had just opened and was not that much fun because of a couple of funky holes and a need to modify some of the maintenance issues.  Then we went to Ballyneal and the whole world of gca opened up to me - I had seen really good architecture so when I saw Ballyneal I had a stupid grin on my face as we picked up our bags and walked 9 holes when we arrived late in the afternoon. It gives me great satisfaction when I play a course like Dormie and show someone on his first visit how many options you have in playing many of the holes. That is why I was really pissed at my friend when he said he hated Dormie.  You cannot easily tell a potential believer why his mind must be open to something new but you can show him.  I often chuckle at guys who come back from playing TOC, etc. and say how great it was and then admire courses in the US that are bright green and full of eye candy.

[Peter Pallotta]

The humbling truth: the problem isn't the message I'm preaching, it's that *I'm* the one preaching it!
With no wealth, status, fame, expertise or stellar golf game on display, my listeners no doubt walk away wondering if my love of quality golf course architecture has actually brought me *any* benefit whatsoever!
'If Peter's selling that', I can imagine them thinking, 'then we're definitely not buying!'

I suppose the best service I could in fact render my fellow golfers is to go around preaching the joys of 7400 yard tree-lined golf courses with awkward routings and mandatory carts!   

[Sean_A]

Evangelists is a good term because it brings to mind the way many people's eyes glaze over if you try to inject religion into a conversation

You are never going to get anywhere with anyone by telling them their opinion is wrong.  It's all opinion after all.  The only effective strategy is to explain why you like something in a way that's easy to understand and remember, and hope they remember your logic to apply it themselves.

I usually don't bother with a reply when someone cracks a doozy other than to perhaps reply "you can't talk that way about so and so" in a slightly disengenious tone and with a bit of a smile.  I just said it to my early 20s something neighbour last Friday when he slammed Thelonious Monk....I know...just imagine.  Its a recurring theme with music 

Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

Peter,


I see it a little differently.  You can't force someone to like, appreciate, or otherwise be interested in something.  You don't really choose to like something, it more or less picks you.


And this applies to everything in life, especially something as fringe as golf course architecture.

[Peter Pallotta]

Yes, you're probably right K.
And so is Tom D about our eyes glazing over when the talk turns to religion; but at the risk of that, I'll toss in a lovely little quote from the circa 14th century mystical tract "The Cloud of Unknowing".

"I encourage you, then, to make experience, not knowledge, your aim.
Knowledge often leads to arrogance, but this humble feeling [of one's own subjective experience of Nature] never lies to you."

Which is to say, yes, best to stop the evangelizing and sit contently with my own 'experience', and let others enjoys theirs too without focusing on and foisting upon them some new 'knowledge'. 

[Ira Fishman]

Peter, I am not sure that I agree with the full retreat.  Part of the fulfillment of living is to bring knowledge to others when they are open to it so that they can broaden their own experiences.  No, preaching and holier than thou does not work, but conversation and encouraging experimentation can.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

Yes, you're probably right K.
And so is Tom D about our eyes glazing over when the talk turns to religion; but at the risk of that, I'll toss in a lovely little quote from the circa 14th century mystical tract "The Cloud of Unknowing".

"I encourage you, then, to make experience, not knowledge, your aim.
Knowledge often leads to arrogance, but this humble feeling [of one's own subjective experience of Nature] never lies to you."
 

That's a lovely quote.  Thank you for posting it.

[Garland Bayley]

Yes, you're probably right K.
And so is Tom D about our eyes glazing over when the talk turns to religion; but at the risk of that, I'll toss in a lovely little quote from the circa 14th century mystical tract "The Cloud of Unknowing".

"I encourage you, then, to make experience, not knowledge, your aim.
Knowledge often leads to arrogance, but this humble feeling [of one's own subjective experience of Nature] never lies to you."

Which is to say, yes, best to stop the evangelizing and sit contently with my own 'experience', and let others enjoys theirs too without focusing on and foisting upon them some new 'knowledge'. 

Unfortunately your quote doesn't mesh with reality. My understanding is that the study of psychology has shown ignorance to more likely result in arrogance.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I consider myself to be one. I talk with friends about the courses they "like" and then ask them why. Quite often they either shot a good score there, the conditions are good, the price is cheap enough… or something like that. I talk about how those are important, and then try to segue into a conversation about what makes courses interesting, which is the type of course I "like."

It doesn't always work, but often they can begin to see the differences, and appreciate courses that require more thought.

[Tom_Doak]

Why do you keep traveling around visiting courses? What demons are driving you? I mean having seen possibly thousands of courses I can't imagine you are searching for that one new idea or anything. Your legacy is secure IMO so why continue all the travel and those random course visits?

I feel like I've got more to learn - and also some responsibility to pass on what I have learned, to other places and other people.

Lou Duran suggested I post this response from another thread onto this thread, so here it is.

For this next volume of The Confidential Guide, I did a lot of exploring of golf courses in Asia.  Honestly, I didn't expect to find very many courses I liked, some of the travel was just to make the book feel complete.  And if all you are interested in is top-100 lists, there wouldn't be too many courses I would put on your must-see list.

Yet, I probably learned more from these trips than from anything I've seen in the U.S.A. in the past 10-20 years.  Sure, there are lots of unsustainable Americanized designs in Asia, but seeing places like Royal Colombo and Ootacamund and [of course] the Himalayan GC taught me a lot about getting back to basics.  Here's a hint:  none of them have pretty bunkers. 


The other nice thing about these visits has been meeting the local designers and golf course operators and comparing notes.  The only way I was able to see as much as I did is because I had lots of volunteers to show me around, who wanted to learn more about how we build our courses.  I've spent time traveling and playing golf with designers from India, China, South Korea, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand, and I've learned as much from them as they've learned from me. 


Even in Australia and New Zealand, superintendents are convinced that they have a long way to go to get to American standards, but as far as I can see, they're presenting great conditions with far less water and inputs than most American courses do.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom, a question: when you use the word 'unsustainable' (as in 'unsustainable Americanized designs'), how do you mean that? Is it a bit of rhetorical flourish (based as much on feelings & personal preferences as on facts & likely scenarios), or in your view will such courses actually prove to be unsustainable, in one way/for one reason or another?
Peter

[Tim Gallant]

Why do you keep traveling around visiting courses? What demons are driving you? I mean having seen possibly thousands of courses I can't imagine you are searching for that one new idea or anything. Your legacy is secure IMO so why continue all the travel and those random course visits?

I feel like I've got more to learn - and also some responsibility to pass on what I have learned, to other places and other people.

Lou Duran suggested I post this response from another thread onto this thread, so here it is.

For this next volume of The Confidential Guide, I did a lot of exploring of golf courses in Asia.  Honestly, I didn't expect to find very many courses I liked, some of the travel was just to make the book feel complete.  And if all you are interested in is top-100 lists, there wouldn't be too many courses I would put on your must-see list.

Yet, I probably learned more from these trips than from anything I've seen in the U.S.A. in the past 10-20 years.  Sure, there are lots of unsustainable Americanized designs in Asia, but seeing places like Royal Colombo and Ootacamund and [of course] the Himalayan GC taught me a lot about getting back to basics.  Here's a hint:  none of them have pretty bunkers. 


The other nice thing about these visits has been meeting the local designers and golf course operators and comparing notes.  The only way I was able to see as much as I did is because I had lots of volunteers to show me around, who wanted to learn more about how we build our courses.  I've spent time traveling and playing golf with designers from India, China, South Korea, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand, and I've learned as much from them as they've learned from me. 


Even in Australia and New Zealand, superintendents are convinced that they have a long way to go to get to American standards, but as far as I can see, they're presenting great conditions with far less water and inputs than most American courses do.

Tom,


A really nice post, and thank you for continuing to see/learn so that others may know. I am looking forward to seeing the latest Vol 5 and all the courses that aren't necessarily world-beaters, but have something to teach.

[Tim Gallant]

I'm slightly skipping between this and the other evangelist thread, but do we think asking to play more foursomes / alternate shot golf would help evangelise? It frees the mind from worrying about score, and allows half the time to be spent chatting / taking in the scenery. Maybe not instead of our regular games, but maybe as an addition?

[Rich Goodale]

I play a lot of foursomes (relative to most of the people on this site), and it is a very different game than "golf."  It's more of a walking and getting as soon as possible to the bar experience punctuated by occasional pulling clubs out of your bag (or of you and your partners bag, which is allowed).  My first time was at Rye in 1981, and it was a great experience, but (to me) it was not golf.

[Kalen Braley]

I had a hard enough time convincing my regular playing partners to play match play, much less alternate shot. 


They were so focused on playing every shot and posting a score, I never even though to bring up alt. shot...


P.S.  And even I will admit if i'm playing a course, on a one time only deal, I wouldn't want to play alternate shot either...

[Thomas Dai]

I play a lot of foursomes (relative to most of the people on this site), and it is a very different game than "golf."  It's more of a walking and getting as soon as possible to the bar experience punctuated by occasional pulling clubs out of your bag (or of you and your partners bag, which is allowed).  My first time was at Rye in 1981, and it was a great experience, but (to me) it was not golf.

I avoid foursomes/alternate-shot like the plague. Walk all the way around the course and play only half the shots? No thanks. As to being more social, no. way. If foursomes is played correctly, ie where 2 walk ahead down the fairway while the others drive etc, well you're only really chatting with one person.
Greensomes though, where both partners drive and then select which one ball to play into the hole, now that's a different matter. More tactics, course management and thought in greensomes.
atb

[Kalen Braley]

Thomas,

I think 4 somes is a great format when playing your home club, with your regular group of buddies.  You all know the course, you all know each others games, you've all played it countless times.  You can mix and match teams and create different teeing off strategies, etc.

But for pretty much any other format, ie, playing a new course, golf trips, playing with people you don't know, etc...agreed it doesn't work very well.