Eyes wide shut (or are they open)

[Mark_Fine]

To variety in designs? 


My favorite course if I had to choose one would be a firm and fast links layout with a good breeze blowing, one like you will often find for example at Royal Cinque Ports.  However, I also love a course that is all about the trees like Sahalee, and also one that is in the middle of the desert like Troon or Talking Stick, and one where the views are breathtaking like The Plantation Course, and one that is rugged and traverses through the mountains like Forest Highlands, and one that sits on an ocean bluff like Bandon or Pacific Dunes, and one that is completely fabricated like Shadow Creek or Whistling Straits, and one that is almost all natural like Sand Hills, and one that is a throw back turn of the century design like Kebo Valley Club, and one that is played in and around swamps/low country like Collenton River, and one that is brutally penal and difficult like Oakmont, and one that is a fun and mostly a pleasant walk like Chechessee Creek, and one that few have heard of but is exceptional like Shelter Harbor, and one that is a par three on a speck of land in the middle of the Atlantic and is surreal to play with drop dead scenery like Turtle Hill. 


One of if not the greatest aspect of golf is how dramatically different the places are where we can play this game.  My recommendation is keep your eyes (and opinions about what is great) wide open.

[Tom_Doak]

And that's only the tip of the iceberg.  The courses I have seen in Iceland and Nepal and India require a much more open mind.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark -
It’s interesting: on the one hand, who would argue against the value of variety and of having an open mind? But on the other, that they are such givens and so universally agreed upon may be the very reason to question them — not to argue for argument’s sake, but to better understand what we might be missing / misjudging / misunderstanding by accepting those values/beliefs as ‘true’ and at face value.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m glad for your sake that you have (or are trying to cultivate) broad tastes in golf course architecture, and that you can much enjoy (or at least are advocating for) many different kinds of courses.

But aren’t you putting the cart before the horse? What I mean is: if over the years you have played and return to play again and again the very finest (and award winning and great) examples of Desert Golf and Parkland Golf and Heathland Golf and Links Golf and Mountain Golf and Lowland Golf and Sandbelt/Sandhills Golf, are you sure it’s the “variety” that you love and not the “finest examples of great golf course architecture”?

What I’m suggesting is that your ‘measuring stick’ and ‘value system’ isn’t all that different than mine, even though I *don’t* have a particularly open mind or broad tastes, nor do I value variety all that much — because in my (much more limited and much less ‘impressive’ playing experience) the valuing of variety is simply masking/justifying a necessary acceptance of mediocrity.

What you and I actually have in common and why we’re both here on gca.com is that we love thinking and reading about (and in your case very often playing and dedicating your professional like to creating) great golf courses and truly exemplary golf course architecture — ie the principles that drive and define it, the myriad of decisions (re routing and hazards and green contours and strategies etc etc) that create it, and the ethos and intention and creative spirit that are necessary to bring it to life. Compared to such fundamental considerations as those, whether a course has lots of trees or no trees, or whether it’s by the sea or in the middle of the prairies, are just surface stuff — merely superficial and quite unimportant/insignificant differences.

What I’m suggesting is that perhaps, far from having broad tastes and an open mind, you have just the opposite — ie a very closed and narrow mind: you like one thing and one thing only, *excellence in design*.  And I happen to think that’s just great!!

A story from yesterday: at my local club talking to a very good and well travelled golfer I’ve gotten to know a little bit. From what I can tell he’s not a gca nerd, but he was wearing a Bandon toque and said he’d been there and was so excited to be going back this coming February. It was my first chance to ever ask someone actually in person, face to face, what he thought of the place, and so I did. You know what he said? “It’s the best golf I’ve ever played in my life and the greatest courses. You just have to play so many different kinds of shots depending on the conditions and the contours, and while they don’t punish you and they give you room to miss it a bit, they reward the smart golfer”.

Do you see what he did there? He defined so briefly but so beautifully what makes the game so challenging and fun, and the kind of great golf courses that make it so. No ‘open mind’, no ‘variety’, just an absolute, ie ‘the best golf I’ve ever played in my life’. The clarity and simplicity of it was very refreshing.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I was in Iceland last year - what an amazing country with some unique golf courses as you obviously know.  Wish I had more time there.

Peter,
Well thought out post.  Yes I love excellence in design (we all do) and yes I am spoiled with what I have seen and where I have gotten to play.  However, I spend much of my time working on golf courses that aren't on Top 100 lists.  They generally aren't the courses that the big name architects are seeking out to leave their mark on (though some still do    )   But these courses are just as special as any of those Top 100 courses to the golfers who get to play them.  Those courses need someone who feels the same way they do and wants to help make those designs as good as they possibly can be.  Helping make what might be a Doak 3 become a Doak 5 can be an amazing transformation and seeing what I have played and studied can often be quite valuable in the process. 

So if the golfer you mentioned is as well traveled as you say, then he must get to experience many of the different types of courses I described above.  My hope with that person would be that they feel the same way about a wide variety of designs and not just love only those at Bandon Dunes.  That was the point of this post - to appreciate and embrace variety of all kinds.

[John Kavanaugh]

The difference between an adult and a child is the ability to declare your love for something specific. A child loves everything.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I like variety and love to see different golf courses...


...yet I could just as easily spend my whole year on the links (and have on one or two years previously) playing on great, good and indifferent courses.


Golf on the links is an elevated game. It is “more” than golf anywhere else.

[Mark_Fine]

John,
Interesting analogy though not all kids love everything.  Some are fussy and won’t try anything new.  Take ice cream for example.  If all they ever try is vanilla and chocolate, they may never realize how good ice cream can get.  At the same time isn’t it also true that most children learn more by the time they are five than they do the entire rest of their lives?  I hope I stay like a child.  (Sometimes my wife says that act like one) 


Ally,
As I said, my “favorite” course is a true links.  I tried to pick one (Deal) that is a bit under the radar and not as obvious as the more well known courses.  But as you say, any links style course, even an indifferent one will do.  However, I still love to play all kinds of different venues and appreciate the varied landscapes and unique aspects of each one.

[Thomas Dai]

Comparison points are needed.
And sometimes what you prefer isn’t what you like it’s just what you dislike the least.
Atb

[Tommy Williamsen]

Mark, the different playing fields that golf offers is one of the best things about the game. I have played most of the courses you mentioned and agree that each different site and setting offers something different. That said, I do have strong preferences. I like the Impressionist paintings of Monet but prefer the 15th century High Renaissance painting of Florence best. My first love, like you, is links. I love the bouncy tightly mown turf and the smell of the sea. I'm not crazy about flat sites but much prefer sites with a bunch of elevation changes. I guess that's why I love CO mountain golf and my beloved Ballyhack. I used to like tree-lined parkland courses but enjoy them less than I used to. I don't mind playing in the desert but after a few days I miss the green landscape surrounding the courses.


Plop me down at the European Club and tell me not to leave and I will be a happy camper.

[Dan_Callahan]

There are a number of courses in New England that I love. I've played a decent amount of golf in Colorado and have always enjoyed it. Same with the West Coast. However, given a choice, I would take a great links in Ireland or Scotland 10 times out of 10.

[Mark Fedeli]

On a similar note, when I talk to people who have zero interest in GCA, I try to talk about how you can find great golf course architecture anywhere, at a variety of different types of golf courses. Despite how the magazine rankings and PGA Tour venues have largely made it appear, great architecture is not the sole domain of the most famous, most expensive, most exclusive, most well-maintained courses with the biggest budgets and most impressive club houses.


So in that conversation, it becomes less about keeping an open mind to the variety of settings and landscapes, and more about keeping an open mind to the variety of price points and popularity and pedigrees and maintenance practices that can be home to great golf course features.


For the purposes of this conversation, I do agree that variety is hugely important to experience, but that there's also nothing wrong with sticking to what works for you. I've heard an appreciation of variety used as a way to excuse things that I would consider bad architecture: narrow, tree-lined fairways, super penal, unforgiving, etc.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Just to be a bit contrarian, when I started on this site over 20 years ago, one of the laments was about how so many golfers went and played a Faz or Nicklaus or Dye because of the signature name, and how a "new breed" of architects should be recognized.  Now, for the most part, this board is dedicated to glorifying those few favorites without any real criticisms of their work, because they are now the gca deities.


For that matter, how many threads here discuss architecture, rather than architects or even specific courses? Specific course discussion isn't bad, of course, but how many go play with the attitude that there is something to be learned about architecture from playing nearly any course?  I think there is, if only to learn something negative and "what I don't like."


So, while I freely admit and think I understand my personal biases, both as a golfer and gca, that attitude of "there is something always to be learned" gives me a different opinion from Peter who seems to think looking for different architecture styles is just "acceptance of mediocrity" defined, I suppose, as something different than what you have already made your mind up about.


Short version, I think participation on this board should be viewed with an open mind and eyes, but rarely is.  Such is human nature, I guess.

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
You might have nailed it 


You don't have to understand GCA to appreciate all kinds of different golf courses.  But it helps to approach playing different kinds of layouts with an open mind and not a pre-determined disposition that this particular course is going to be great or is going to not be great for whatever reason before you even experience it.  Where Peter went off the rails was with his comment below:


"Compared to such fundamental considerations as those, whether a course has lots of trees or no trees, or whether it’s by the sea or in the middle of the prairies, are just surface stuff — merely superficial and quite unimportant/insignificant differences."

He couldn't be more wrong   Maybe his eyes are wide shut 

[Jason Thurman]

You don't have to understand GCA to appreciate all kinds of different golf courses.  But it helps to approach playing different kinds of layouts with an open mind and not a pre-determined disposition that this particular course is going to be great or is going to not be great for whatever reason before you even experience it.

+1, but we're in the minority.


When I have a tee time planned anywhere, and especially on courses with a reputation for "architectural significance," I try my damndest to limit what I know going in. I avoid course reviews, photos, reading Ran's profiles on this site, etc. I'm more fastidious the closer I get to the round - I may read some reviews when I'm trip planning to decide where to try to go, but as the trip gets closer, I'm trying to close down incoming information to limit my preconceived biases, and also to keep the joy of discovering a new place.


But I'm decidedly in the minority on that one around here, at least based on the conversations I've had. When it comes to acclaimed courses, I know a lot of guys on this site who can reasonably describe almost every hole before they've hit their first tee shot. There's upside to that - you go in with some knowledge of stuff you want to pay special attention to. But you lose the ability to be open-minded.


I've always thought The Old Course would be the exception to the rule for me - a course that I'd want to study as much as possible before playing so that I have some chance of understanding it if/when I get to tackle it for the first time. But taking that approach probably makes it impossible to understand it as well as Bobby Jones famously did.

[Peter Pallotta]

Where Peter went off the rails was with his comment below:

"Compared to such fundamental considerations as those, whether a course has lots of trees or no trees, or whether it’s by the sea or in the middle of the prairies, are just surface stuff — merely superficial and quite unimportant/insignificant differences."

He couldn't be more wrong   Maybe his eyes are wide shut 

Mark -
A commandment that says "You shalt have no commandments" is both tyrannical and self-defeating; and a demand that we keep our eyes open and yet refuse to see what's actually there fails to recognize that others may in fact be 'seeing' not only differently but perhaps more/better than you. I could say, re: the above, that it's actually me and not you who has his eyes open, precisely because I *don't* pay much attention to whether a course is treed or not -- and certainly don't pre-judge a course based on it. [And I assume we agree that a 'preference' is not necessarily a 'prejudice'.] But if don't pay much attention to what I described as superficial and insignificant differences and instead focus on (or at least try to focus on and see and appreciate) the fundamental principles that shape & define quality golf course architecture, how can I reasonably be faulted for that?
But perhaps I’ve been misunderstanding your original post, or we’re talking about different things/in different ways. Maybe *both* our eyes are wide open, or wide shut!

[Mark_Fine]

Peter,
Your comment implied a lot more than just trees that you are NOT looking at    You said you don't care about the surrounds or what kind of terrain the course is located on such as whether it is by the sea or not or whether it is in the middle of a prairie,...   My goodness, have you ever heard the phrase "location location location" in real estate.  Guess what, it can and does apply to most golf courses as well.  Do you think C&C might have been jumping for joy when the saw the site for Sand Hills or if Tom Doak blessed himself and when to church when he got the call to build Pacific Dunes?  Do you think part of the appeal of The Old Course is because it is right next to the town and literally plays across a public street on the first and last holes?  Golf architecture is much more than just getting your green slopes right and your tees pitched properly so they drain well.  And regarding not looking at the trees; if you don't notice the trees when you play a course like Sahalee or Eugene CC or Valderamma or,..., then my goodness I am not sure what you are looking at.  Trees on some courses happen to play a critical role in "the architecture" and the design of the golf course.  So do oceans and streams and mountains and prairies and parkland and sand dunes, .... I will finish here and let you think about your earlier statement
Mark

[Ira Fishman]

Mark,


I have found this thread to feel like you are making a point just to make a point. I do not think any of the posters on GCA do not appreciate variety. Various of us may have a strong preference for a particular type of course (I am with Ally re links), but I have never read a post or favorites list that limited appreciation to only one type  of course. There may be examples of individual courses that people do not like, but that is not the same as condemning all but one variety of course. I like lots of genres of music, but even within my favorite--Jazz--I do not like avant garde. And in golf, I like courses built on mountains, but unlike you, did not think particularly care for Kapalua Plantation.


Ira


Ira

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
Of course I am making a point to make a point.  But I am also hoping it leads to some thoughtful discussion which I think it has.  As Jeff points out there is a lot of herd mentality on this site and sometimes not a lot of open minded thinking.  I sure hope Peter for example reconsiders the statement he made.  Yes everyone is entitled to their opinion just like you are about The Plantation Course.  But there are also some things that don’t deserve debate like not considering trees for example on a golf course.  I guess if someone planted trees all over The Old Course, Peter wouldn’t see those either 😉.  And if the 7th hole at Pebble Beach was somewhere in Kansas in a cornfield it would get the same awe and recognition as it does now     

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,


Again, perhaps over generalizing the "group think" around here over the decades.....


Tom Fazio wrote in his book that "the first rule is there are no rules" but most here noted that his golf courses followed too much formula for their tastes.  Tom Doak got famous for being the iconoclast that broke several rules, design and otherwise, but sticking with design, let's say bringing back the idea that blind holes, reverse slope greens, big contours, just to suggest a few are okay and had been washed away by too many rules, specifically embracing "no commandments."

Now, apparently, such outside the box thinking is, at least in your mind, both tyrannical and self-defeating.  Frankly, I don't follow, nor do I think having a preference for links courses should in theory make you less inclined to play golf when in the mountains or desert.  Being on any golf course is, as they say, better than a day at the office.


Of course, at age 65, I find myself embracing all those old comedian jokes about not needing to try anything new.  I hate camping, for instance, and you can't make me go, dammit!  I went back and re-read your posts, and frankly, agree, as so often happens around here, we are discussing some pretty fine distinctions in widely varying language, or as on long ago poster loved to comment, making distinctions without a difference."  So, cheers.

[Ira Fishman]

Ira,
Of course I am making a point to make a point.  But I am also hoping it leads to some thoughtful discussion which I think it has.  As Jeff points out there is a lot of herd mentality on this site and sometimes not a lot of open minded thinking.  I sure hope Peter for example reconsiders the statement he made.  Yes everyone is entitled to their opinion just like you are about The Plantation Course.  But there are also some things that don’t deserve debate like not considering trees for example on a golf course.  I guess if someone planted trees all over The Old Course, Peter wouldn’t see those either 😉.  And if the 7th hole at Pebble Beach was somewhere in Kansas in a cornfield it would get the same awe and recognition as it does now 

Mark,


To be precise, I said you were making a point just to make a point. But the point is just a straw man.  Yes, there is a preference on GCA against certain types of courses, but it is solely a preference (one with which I generally but not universally share). However, no one that I can remember does not appreciate variety.


And Peter does not need me to defend him, but I agree that setting and scenery are not particularly relevant unless they affect strategy. Your hypotheticals to the contrary generally are misplaced although a short Par 3 with strong variable winds in Kansas could be an awesome hole.


Ira

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
I tried (but failed) to say the same thing.  My favorite courses are links courses (we are all allowed to have favorites  ) but I still love all kinds of designs by all kinds of different designers.  My point about "trees" is that when I am on a course/design that is dependent on trees like Sahalee (just one example) I am not thinking, geez I wish all these trees could be taken down so it would be more like my favorite links courses.  I take in and try to appreciate what is there and how the architect used that particular site and what it contained and/or was around it to the best advantage. That was the purpose of all the different types of courses on different kinds of terrain and locations. 

Ira brings up a good example in The Plantation Course.  If you hate cartball, you will hate this golf course.  I know Ran and I love it (talked a lot about it in the past) and I don't think either of us love carts but our minds are open to different situations that sometimes require compromise.  Maybe neither of us would want to play it every day but every once in a while it is awesome and heaven on earth


I think Peter knows a lot about GCA but I was shocked by his comment.
Mark

[Mark_Fine]

Come on Ira, the location is what makes the 7th hole at Pebble Beach one of the greatest holes on the planet.  Yes it could be a fun little hole in Kansas but not what it is where is sits right now.  This is a good example of debating for the sake of debating. 


Note:  According to Peter's quote, he doesn't even see the ocean or care that it is there 


And Ira, I do actually think that some are very biased about what they like and don't like and as such are not open to different kinds of design/architecture. 

[David Ober]

To variety in designs? 


My favorite course if I had to choose one would be a firm and fast links layout with a good breeze blowing, one like you will often find for example at Royal Cinque Ports.  However, I also love a course that is all about the trees like Sahalee, and also one that is in the middle of the desert like Troon or Talking Stick, and one where the views are breathtaking like The Plantation Course, and one that is rugged and traverses through the mountains like Forest Highlands, and one that sits on an ocean bluff like Bandon or Pacific Dunes, and one that is completely fabricated like Shadow Creek or Whistling Straits, and one that is almost all natural like Sand Hills, and one that is a throw back turn of the century design like Kebo Valley Club, and one that is played in and around swamps/low country like Collenton River, and one that is brutally penal and difficult like Oakmont, and one that is a fun and mostly a pleasant walk like Chechessee Creek, and one that few have heard of but is exceptional like Shelter Harbor, and one that is a par three on a speck of land in the middle of the Atlantic and is surreal to play with drop dead scenery like Turtle Hill. 


One of if not the greatest aspect of golf is how dramatically different the places are where we can play this game.  My recommendation is keep your eyes (and opinions about what is great) wide open.

Your eyes are wide open, my friend.


Forest Highlands? Yes, please!

[Ira Fishman]

Jeff,
I tried (but failed) to say the same thing.  My favorite courses are links courses (we are all allowed to have favorites  ) but I still love all kinds of designs by all kinds of different designers.  My point about "trees" is that when I am on a course/design that is dependent on trees like Sahalee (just one example) I am not thinking, geez I wish all these trees could be taken down so it would be more like my favorite links courses.  I take in and try to appreciate what is there and how the architect used that particular site and what it contained and/or was around it to the best advantage. That was the purpose of all the different types of courses on different kinds of terrain and locations. 

Ira brings up a good example in The Plantation Course.  If you hate cartball, you will hate this golf course.  I know Ran and I love it (talked a lot about it in the past) and I don't think either of us love carts but our minds are open to different situations that sometimes require compromise.  Maybe neither of us would want to play it every day but every once in a while it is awesome and heaven on earth


I think Peter knows a lot about GCA but I was shocked by his comment.
Mark

Mark,


You need to read other people’s posts more carefully. I said that I like courses built in the mountains, nearly all of which require taking carts. One of my favorite courses is Primland which would be a brutal walk. My relative dislike of Plantation had nothing to do with it being cartball. So please do not make assumptions that would lump me into the biases that you seem bent on exposing even if they really do not exist here for the most part.


As to the point about scenery, I appreciate it as much as the next guy. But I do think it can over influence the analysis of a course. I stand by my comment for example that I would play Woking 9-1 over Castle Stuart.


Ira

[Sean_A]

Setting and scenery not relevant is a baffling take. If architecture is partly artistic and one of its highest forms is naturalism, setting and scenery must have some degree of importance. To me it's allText you copy will automatically show here wrapped together. To ignore the setting and scenery is to ignore truth. 

Ciao