Eyes wide shut (or are they open)

[Mark Fedeli]

I certainly don't think it makes me closed-minded if I dislike a course because I'm forced to take a cart. If a huge part of my love and appreciation of a golf course comes from walking the golf course and the harmony that arises from that, I think being forced to take a cart is as valid a reason as any to dislike the golf course. If not the emotional response and harmony we experience on the course, what else is there to judge it by?


Being completely pure and impartial in all of our judgments shouldn't be the goal here (because we all would fall short). Being completely honest about our preferences and biases should be.

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
I apologize for assuming the reason you didn’t care for The Plantation Course is because it is a very tough walk!  Bad assumption on my part.  You obviously have other issues with it.

Mark,
I love to walk as well and do so as often as I can (I will admit carrying my bag is hard on my back so I prefer a caddie or trolley if either are available or allowed) but unfortunately sometimes I have to ride but if I disliked every course where I had to use a cart I would hate a lot of great golf courses.  Does this mean when you get to the point (I hope you never do) where walking becomes a real challenge even on the most walkable designs you will no longer like them or give up the game?


A lot of the guys I play with regularly would never be able to walk a course like Augusta National even with a caddie carrying their bag.  It’s not a bad track 


I agree with you we all have preferences.  But we should also all be open minded to consider different things.  Bobby Jones walked off The Old Course the first time he played it.  Thought it was a cow pasture.  Ended up being his favorite golf course and believe  it or not inspired him to build Augusta National. 


My first links course was Royal Liverpool. As an American who was fairly new to the game and had only ever played on a handful of American style parkland courses I thought it looked like moonscape and couldn’t believe it was considered one of the best golf courses in the world.  Boy did I have a lot to learn.  I ended up getting to play it often and it helped me fall in love with links golf and golf course architecture in general. 

[Tom_Doak]

if I disliked every course where I had to use a cart I would hate a lot of great golf courses. 

Which great courses require you to use a cart?  I honestly can't think of one.

[David Ober]

if I disliked every course where I had to use a cart I would hate a lot of great golf courses. 

Which great courses require you to use a cart?  I honestly can't think of one.

Requires? How about, "It's probably prudent..."?


Does Forest Highlands "require" a cart? To me, it's a truly great golf course.


Just played every course at Bandon, and Forest Highlands is right there with those courses, to me. Totally different, but great – in a different way.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Mark,


Just because somebody is pre-determined to like one kind of golf course more than another does not mean that they do not have an open mind to architecture and variety.


My love of links golf has little to do with architecture. It has all to do with my enjoyment of the game and the sense of liberation I feel going for a walk by the sea.


My curiosity (professional mainly) about architecture has me wanting to see various types of courses - good bad or indifferent - where I can learn....


...But on a personal level, I get tired of always thinking about the architecture. It can detract from my enjoyment of the game. Added to a lack of time, this means I’d rather just play what I like. And that is links golf.


Clearly, I’m happy to venture elsewhere to see and play excellent courses. But I’ve run out of energy to re-play run of the mill average courses or ones where the architecture annoys me.

[Mark Fedeli]

Mark, your reply to me about the cart is a good one. Thanks to some random health issues I have recently had to ponder a future where walking might not be a given for me at all times. That said, the difference is between courses that force me to take a cart because their design makes them virtually unwalkable, and walkable courses that my ruined back might force me to take a cart on. Both scenarios suck, but at least one is my fault and not the course’s.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I can’t think of many great courses either that “require“ you to take a cart.  My point to Mark Fedeli was if I do have to use one (no caddies available or trollies not allowed) and I need to ride, I won’t discount the quality of the golf course because of that.  There are some great designs that would not be an easy walk carrying your own bag, at least for me, but you can still walk them if you’d like. Obviously The Plantation Course is one we discussed.


Ally,
I am not trying to force anyone to like something they don’t.  I was more trying to get the thought out that different settings and landscapes and locations lead to all kinds of very different golf courses and we should learn to embrace (at least respect) each one for what it is.


Take Mauna Kea for example.  What RTJones Sr. did there is simply amazing.  He took a lava field and figured out a way to make great golf happen in a seemingly hostile unplayable environment.  He ground up the lava to use for the golf course and it lead the way for many other courses to be built when few thought possible.  Just one example. 

[Ira Fishman]

Ira,
I apologize for assuming the reason you didn’t care for The Plantation Course is because it is a very tough walk!  Bad assumption on my part.  You obviously have other issues with it.

Mark,
I love to walk as well and do so as often as I can (I will admit carrying my bag is hard on my back so I prefer a caddie or trolley if either are available or allowed) but unfortunately sometimes I have to ride but if I disliked every course where I had to use a cart I would hate a lot of great golf courses.  Does this mean when you get to the point (I hope you never do) where walking becomes a real challenge even on the most walkable designs you will no longer like them or give up the game?


A lot of the guys I play with regularly would never be able to walk a course like Augusta National even with a caddie carrying their bag.  It’s not a bad track 


I agree with you we all have preferences.  But we should also all be open minded to consider different things.  Bobby Jones walked off The Old Course the first time he played it.  Thought it was a cow pasture.  Ended up being his favorite golf course and believe  it or not inspired him to build Augusta National. 


My first links course was Royal Liverpool. As an American who was fairly new to the game and had only ever played on a handful of American style parkland courses I thought it looked like moonscape and couldn’t believe it was considered one of the best golf courses in the world.  Boy did I have a lot to learn.  I ended up getting to play it often and it helped me fall in love with links golf and golf course architecture in general.

Mark,


I appreciate the apology. My view of Plantation is that the very good holes (1, 5, 12, and 17 and probably 6) do not make up for the slog up the hill. And although not architecture strictly, a 5 hour round did not help. I understand that it is a very difficult site, but appreciating that fact is not enough to put it high on my list. I also know that I am largely in the minority in my views, but that is what having a variety of views about variety is all about.


Ira

[Ally Mcintosh]

No disagreement from me, Mark.


The technical solutions that many architects come up with are very impressive. In fact, many of the least favoured architects on GCA are the strongest when it comes to big-answer technical solutions when dealing with a difficult site / brief. That is definitely under appreciated. A completely different set of challenges.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,


Just because somebody is pre-determined to like one kind of golf course more than another does not mean that they do not have an open mind to architecture and variety.


My love of links golf has little to do with architecture. It has all to do with my enjoyment of the game and the sense of liberation I feel going for a walk by the sea.


My curiosity (professional mainly) about architecture has me wanting to see various types of courses - good bad or indifferent - where I can learn....


...But on a personal level, I get tired of always thinking about the architecture. It can detract from my enjoyment of the game. Added to a lack of time, this means I’d rather just play what I like. And that is links golf.


Clearly, I’m happy to venture elsewhere to see and play excellent courses. But I’ve run out of energy to re-play run of the mill average courses or ones where the architecture annoys me.

Same here.  People are generally surprised when I say I try not to think about architecture too hard when I play.  Most gca's I know, and I think TD made this even more common/famous, are happy to tour a course when they want to study or even just quickly see it's architectural features.  In a way, playing might even distract or negatively influence an architect's survey and assessment of a course's design, as in, we are just as prone to like a course where we shoot a career best, and hate one where we have one of our highest scores.


And, I wonder how many gca's can avoid assessing a course in terms of "what they would have done"?  Perhaps another topic for Mr. Fine to frame and present!

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
Valid points though we may disagree on the number of quality golf holes.  You don’t notice the uphill slogs as much when you are in a cart 


At least you get the point of this thread. It really was to get people thinking.  What is ironic is that most of us here love links golf but for many Americans it is the least understood and takes the longest time (for many) to appreciate.  I have been fortunate to play a ton of links golf all over Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales and taken many friends with me.  It is very interesting to see their reactions.  For most it takes time to realize how different the game can be from what they are used to.  Some just don’t like it but they might if they played it more often and kept an open mind. 


Ally,
Great point about some of the other often lesser known architects doing great things on more challenging less ideal sites.  That is in part because they have to because they don’t get the amazing sites like a Sand Hills or a Bandon Dunes or a Streamsong that others do.  I heard one guy say, you could have put a circle of artificial turf and a tin can in the middle on some of these sites and golfers would still love it.
Obviously an exaggeration but you couldn’t say the same when you are looking at garbage dump for example like Hurdzan did up in MA and was asked to build a really good golf course 

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
What are you setting me up for now 
I am trying to offer a few thought provoking maybe controversial threads to churn things up a bit and you want me to start yet another one 


It is always a challenge to look at a golf course in an unbiased way.  Some are good at that and some are not.  I have often joked with a colleague of mine when we are studying/playing a course that we might end up working on to restore or renovate and said, “John for goodness sake I hope you don’t birdie this hole because if you do you will never want to change it” 


We all do have to be open to see and appreciate all the different kinds of playing fields this game has to offer.  I am guilty myself of being partial to my favorites. I remember on one trip to Scotland that a good friend of mine had set up where he added Loch Lomand to our rotation and I said to him, I can play an over manicured American style course anytime I want.  Why did you have to add that one!  I was only partly joking at the time but I loved the golf course and glad we played it.  Off the record I still would have had no problem with an extra round at Western Gales 

[Ira Fishman]

Ira,
Valid points though we may disagree on the number of quality golf holes.  You don’t notice the uphill slogs as much when you are in a cart 


At least you get the point of this thread. It really was to get people thinking.  What is ironic is that most of us here love links golf but for many Americans it is the least understood and takes the longest time (for many) to appreciate.  I have been fortunate to play a ton of links golf all over Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales and taken many friends with me.  It is very interesting to see their reactions.  For most it takes time to realize how different the game can be from what they are used to.  Some just don’t like it but they might if they played it more often and kept an open mind. 


Ally,
Great point about some of the other often lesser known architects doing great things on more challenging less ideal sites.  That is in part because they have to because they don’t get the amazing sites like a Sand Hills or a Bandon Dunes or a Streamsong that others do.  I heard one guy say, you could have put a circle of artificial turf and a tin can in the middle on some of these sites and golfers would still love it.
Obviously an exaggeration but you couldn’t say the same when you are looking at garbage dump for example like Hurdzan did up in MA and was asked to build a really good golf course 

Mark,


I actually do not get the point of this thread as I stated in earlier posts, but I am not going to belabor the point by repeating my comments.


Ira

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,
What are you setting me up for now 


......I have often joked with a colleague of mine when we are studying/playing a course that we might end up working on to restore or renovate and said, “John for goodness sake I hope you don’t birdie this hole because if you do you will never want to change it” 

Mark,


I have told the story, but when Damian and I were renovating La Costa, we played it the day after our walking tour to bring up preliminary ideas.  During the round, he reached a par 5 in 2 shots, found he had a reasonably level eagle putt, which he just missed for birdie, and left the green elated, high fives all around.  A few minutes later, he realized that we had given the more "standard advice" of adding contour to that green to add challenge, and balance out the easiness of the short par 5.


We certainly had the lightbulb moment on that one.  As golfers, we love the birdie.  As architects, we so often design to prevent it with all but perfect shots, as if Damian's two long shots and long putt within an inch of the hole weren't all great shots, and I guess any missed putt is never perfect.


And yes, I am setting you up to make a more philosophical post on similar subject matter.  I certainly like the idea behind this thread, more generically talking gca theory, than most other threads debating any specific hole, course, or worst of all, access to thereof.....

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
I don’t think you get the point of this thread because you think everyone is accepting of variety.  You said that in one of your posts and that is where we disagree but so be it. 


By the way, I now know you don’t like slogs.  No problem.  My guess is you probably don’t like the course we are going to see on TV in a few weeks because it has some of the best slogs in all of golf 

[Peter Pallotta]

Gents -
My writing / communications skills are getting even worse than I feared, and the rhetorical flourishes don’t help. So let me try simply to be clear:
1. I agree that variety is a good thing in golf courses, and that we should have open minds and not pre-judge when it comes to different kinds of golf course architecture.
2. And I certainly do notice if a course has trees or if it’s in the mountains or by the water and whether it’s flat like a farmer’s field or instead on a wonderfully rolling site.
3. But I’ve played so many mediocre golf courses in my life that now I feel like I only want to play really good-excellent ones — and
4. IMO seeing & appreciating excellence has little to do with having an open mind and even less to do with focusing on a course’s ‘peripherals’ (eg trees/no trees, flatter or rolling), but instead is about discerning the fundamental principles and strategies of quality golf course architecture

[Mark Fedeli]

I have told the story, but when Damian and I were renovating La Costa, we played it the day after our walking tour to bring up preliminary ideas.  During the round, he reached a par 5 in 2 shots, found he had a reasonably level eagle putt, which he just missed for birdie, and left the green elated, high fives all around.  A few minutes later, he realized that we had given the more "standard advice" of adding contour to that green to add challenge, and balance out the easiness of the short par 5.


We certainly had the lightbulb moment on that one.  As golfers, we love the birdie.  As architects, we so often design to prevent it with all but perfect shots, as if Damian's two long shots and long putt within an inch of the hole weren't all great shots, and I guess any missed putt is never perfect.

Jeff, not to threadjack, but just want to say that I absolutely love the work you guys did at La Costa. I've had tons of fun on that course. Well done.

[Mark_Fine]

Peter,
You stated:

"IMO seeing & appreciating excellence has little to do with having an open mind and even less to do with focusing on a course’s ‘peripherals’ (eg trees/no trees, flatter or rolling), but instead is about discerning the fundamental principles and strategies of quality golf course architecture “

Are you saying for example that features like trees and rolling terrain are NOT part of the golf course architecture and don’t play a fundamental role in the strategy of a design? 
REALLY?  You know better than that.  Wasn’t it you that talked about the wonderful rumpled fairway on the 8th hole at Crystal Downs?  I guess that didn’t really matter if the fairway was flat or rolling because you don’t feel that kind of thing is fundamental to the strategies and principles of the golf hole ??  I presume you don’t think Pete Dye gave any thought to the strategic role of the trees at Harbour Town Golf Links?  Apparently you think Neville & Grant hardly noticed the ocean when they sited/designed the 7th at Pebble Beach?  I guess Mackenzie didn’t worry about the carry over the water on the 16th at Cypress Point (especially since it didn’t bother Marion Hollins) or that cluster of Cypress trees on the 17th smack in the middle of the fairway?  He just worked around all that “peripheral” stuff.  When Flynn routed Cherry Hills do you think it was coincidence that he sited several of his greens with certain snow capped mountains in the backdrop?  Maybe you missed that if you played there because some of those views got obstructed by committees who missed that as well and planted Cottonwood trees that blocked the long range vistas   But you weren’t looking at the trees anyway

Peter,
I mean this is a polite way because I know you take GCA serious but please open your eyes, there is a lot more to a golf course than just the "fundamental principles".  Most architects work VERY hard to present a great golf experience and the best ones beautifully tie it all together using a whole host of natural and artificial elements, features, hazards, vistas,... from their architectural toolbox.  Do you really still feel the same way about your quote or are your writing/communication skills even worse than you stated 

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark - I read your original post and tried to get as deep into it as I could, ie in terms of what you were actually saying/proposing. And I concluded that your were suggesting that many of us might be unduly preferencing one type of course/style of architecture over all others, and then calling such courses ‘great’ while not having our eyes fully open to other types/styles of golf course architecture and other kinds of great courses. And my main point/theory then, and now, is this: 
That if you’re right and that’s true, ie that many have their eyes shut to anything but, say, a tree-less seaside links style course and only see greatness there, it’s precisely *because* they are focusing way too much on such ‘peripherals’ as trees (or lack of trees) and the seaside location and the linksy terrain. If they *didn’t* focus so much on such superficialities then they’d actually — and only then — be able to really ‘see’ other types of greatness.
And that’s about as clearly as I can state my view; but whether that view is true or false or right or wrong is another matter entirely.

[Mark_Fine]

Peter,
Thanks for that statement.  Now we are closer to the same page   


Bottomline - we should all, myself included, broaden our views about all the different kinds of golf courses/experiences that are out there. 

[Kalen Braley]

Mark,

I think this is a fine topic and there is certainly a lot of middle ground here for the various points of view.

I don't think its necessarily fair to implicate that most on here are blind to different styles.  Given the amount of both well-traveled and well-heeled members, they no doubt have sampled a lot of different styles like you as noted in your first post. And with that sampling comes experience in establishing well measured and reasoned opinions in forming preferences. Its a bit like particular Beer styles or Country Music for me...I've sampled enough Pilsners and Country songs to know that with a few rare exceptions it just isn't for me.  So you may course style preferences is snobbery at play, and in some cases you might be right, but I suspect its far and few in between.  Life is short and when you know what you like, and have an insatiable quench for it, why mess around with stuff you already KNOW you don't care for?

That being said, I certainly enjoy stumbling on unexpected gems, by obscure designers or in far-away places and always enjoy seeing something new. I certainly deviate from most of the treehouse when it comes to Jim Engh's courses.  Yes they repeat templates and themes, but I find courses like Black Rock and Lakota Canyon super fun and enjoyable and would play em' again in a heartbeat.  I also had a blast playing Forest Richardson's Hideout in super remote Monticello and was pleasantly surprised by the quality of holes found there.

In my experience at GCA events I've attended, which have been limited to KP events, I've also found that GCA'ers have just as much fun and show just as much architectural interest for a course like Pajaro Valley as they do at MPCC Shore.

P.S.  Peter P - I understand your intent regarding periphery-like components, but at places like Pebble or a Harbour Town, it seems an improbable task to unravel their intertwinement with the environment, views, or vegetation in assessing the golf experience.

[Ira Fishman]

Ira,
I don’t think you get the point of this thread because you think everyone is accepting of variety.  You said that in one of your posts and that is where we disagree but so be it. 


By the way, I now know you don’t like slogs.  No problem.  My guess is you probably don’t like the course we are going to see on TV in a few weeks because it has some of the best slogs in all of golf 

Mark,


I don't get it because by far the predominant evidence on this site is that people embrace variety. Take the time to look at the lists of favorite courses played. Variety prevails. Does embrace of mediocrity prevail? No. Once again, it is easy to set up a straw man for the sake of doing so.


As it relates to your point about slogs and me, I was quite precise in saying that the very good holes at Plantation did not make up for the slog up the hill. Pasatiempo was not a slog (and we walked) up the hill because of the brilliance of so many holes and the genius of the routing.


Your reference to ANGC with emojis added little to your thesis. I have never pursued relatively easy access for lots of reasons, but if you are a Member, I will reconsider.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

Like many of Mark's threads, this topic confuses me.


One should have an open mind to different styles, but I think it is fair to decide that some examples of those styles might be too subtle, or too over the top.  That doesn't mean another guy won't like the course I think is over the top, but when I make that determination for myself, it is not an indictment of the style but of the substance.


Likewise, I might like a certain style in one location, but think that it's totally inappropriate for another location.  You can call that "closed minded" if you want, but I thought the point of the thread was to appreciate when architects have shown an open mind, instead of celebrating them doing their same thing on adverse ground.  If I built a minimalist course on the side of a hill where the ball wouldn't stay in the fairways, everyone would be right to call that a poor choice.


In general, I can appreciate "simple" designs more in foreign lands, where they are the mother of necessity, than here in the U.S.  I am not so jaded that I think there isn't anything to learn from such courses, but there are so many good courses to see in the U.S. that I don't understand why you'd look lower down the list except when you are around home.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom and any others who are confused,
This thread was not directed at architects.  If you read my initial post it doesn’t point a finger at them.  It is meant for all golfers to keep an open mind about all different kinds of designs no matter who designed them.  The biases I sometimes see on this site at times having participated for nearly 20 years (Jeff pointed it out as well) are that every course by XYZ architect is God’s gift to golf and those by ABC architect are blah and not worth talking about.  This goes for modern courses as well as classic ones.  I was simply starting a thread that would maybe get some to think a little more openly about all the different kinds of architecture out there. 


By the way if you don’t think we see biases in for example the lists that get published then I am confused too 

Tom,
Also as far as looking lower down the list (as you pointed out), there is a lot of great work that will not get recognized or discussed on this site because it is not in that elite circle.  Some of the best work out there is on courses that will never make any lists but bring far greater pleasure and enjoyment to a much larger percentage of the golfing population.  We should all keep our eyes wide open about this as well.   
 

[MCirba]

We'll see how open minded everyone is to different types of golf courses if I decide to spend way too much time again this winter doing another "Year In Review" with my associated "Doak Scale" scores.