[Jeff_Brauer]

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.

Tom,


I thought one of the "deepest" quotes ever on this site came from you, commenting that China was the first country to consciously model their golf biz after the US model over starting with the Scottish model.  Simplicity out of necessity is not a characteristic of Chinese, or maybe even most of at least modern Asian golf, and I tend to agree with you.  Something about starting with the premise of excess just turns me off to many of the newer courses over.


But, at least I say that after debating it with a totally open mind.  As someone once said, I like to keep an open mind, just not so open my brains fall out.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
I hope you do as I always enjoy your perspective whether we agree or don't agree. 


Be clear, I am not asking anyone to change their opinion of what they like or don't like with this thread.  We all know reviewing and assessing a golf course is VERY subjective.  But I am suggesting we all be more open to things we don't necessarily think we like or would like and at least appreciate the attributes of each one.  I never used to like brussel sprouts but now I do (a little bit) 


Last point - We sometimes talk about hole by hole "match play" on this site.  Some like it and some don't.  I have often heard the question of how do you do match play with such diverse courses as say one of the Bandon Dunes courses with Shadow Creek or with Bethpage Black?  Maybe you don't and maybe you just appreciate them for what they are. 

[Tom_Doak]

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.
 

I miss when Pat Mucci would call people out for statements like this.


Please name five (5) examples of what you are talking about:  great work that will "never make any lists" but brings "far greater pleasure" to more golfers.

[MCirba]

Mark,

I hope I do, as well, as I've played 67 different courses this year and only 5 of them (to date) have been repeats from last year so LOTS of variety, although without having formally given them Doak Scale scores yet I suspect my average score will be about a point or two lower as quite a few of them are modest affairs.   Given Covid, I've definitely played closer to home (re: eastern PA) more than I normally would, as well.    It really just comes  down to time with work and home balance, so we'll see.

I'm not a plan of match-play scoring for course to course comparisons.   I think it misses the forests for the trees, too often.   It's like comparing two songs by breaking them into 10 second snippets.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
That is an impressive number to have played especially this year.  I have maybe played half that number as travel has been really cutoff for me.  I had a two week trip to Ireland canceled which was really a bummer.  Probably won't reschedule at this point till 2022.


Tom,
You just called me out so you have Pat covered.  Sorry you don't agree with my statement but all those architects out there that aren't Tom Doak will agree with me 


As far as naming courses, some names are starting to come out on that "sleeper" thread.  I will leave it at that for now.  That topic probably deserves it's own thread (I won't start it because it will confuse you)     If Mike does his list, he will probably identify some good ones. 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
You just called me out so you have Pat covered.  Sorry you don't agree with my statement but all those architects out there that aren't Tom Doak will agree with me 

As far as naming courses, some names are starting to come out on that "sleeper" thread.  I will leave it at that for now. 

As I suspected, you didn't have anything to back up your statement.

There are lots and lots of worthwhile courses that don't make any lists.  [I must have identified a couple hundred of them in The Confidential Guide.]  I suppose you could argue that places like CommonGround or Memorial Park get more exposure than they would otherwise because of my name, but hardly anyone thinks they are "some of the best work out there," or "more enjoyable" than my more famous courses. 

I am happy to have had the chance to build those for the general public, and genuinely proud to be associated with the programs those clients have started. But I would not have been satisfied with my career if those courses were my primary achievements.  It's like the difference between getting to the major leagues -- a great achievement in its own right -- vs. hitting a home run in the World Series.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - not a discussion point for this thread, or likely for any thread (at least not one that I’d know how to start), but I find it very interesting in terms of how architects tend to think about their own work (and how that relates to the rest of us):
You mention courses like Common Ground and Memorial in ‘comparative terms’ that are quite natural and understandable coming from the architect himself — ie you speak of those courses relative to “the best work out there” and “my more famous courses”.
As I say, that seems to me a completely valid approach-analysis and ‘metric’ — coming from the architect responsible for the work. But I wonder if it’s a valid approach for *anyone else*. Or to put it a other way: why would — and even why *should* — any critic or rater interested in identifying and understanding top-quality golf course architecture think in such comparative-relative terms?
What does/can that approach-analysis coming from an ‘outsider’ (ie not the architect himself) tells us about the individual courses themselves, as themselves?
How can anyone ever really ‘see’ if they’re not looking at —and only at — the one specific golf course they’re actually playing at that moment?
Could it be that the ‘well-travelled golfer with vast playing experience on many of the world’s best courses’ is in fact seeing *less* than the neophyte, and less clearly, precisely because he can so easily (and in fact happily and proudly) engage in a comparative-relative analysis?

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
There are hundreds of courses I could mention (most architects are more modest than you and I don’t think will chime in here and tout their own work). 


One example is Wexford in Hilton Head.  While I have not always been the biggest fan of Palmer’s group, the work they did here is excellent.  They used a whole series of classic design concepts and ideas and made the layout unique and distinctive on the island.  It gets little press and few stop to play because they all want to see Long Cove and Harbour Town (which we all know are great) but Wexford is also worth the visit. 


My point, which you missed again, is that there is a lot of great work being done by lots of non celebrity architects that doesn’t get appreciated.  Just because it doesn’t show up on the cover of some magazine doesn’t mean it sucks. 


Oh and thanks for taking the time to step out of the "major leagues" to help the common folk with your work at the two muni courses 

[JESII]

Tom doesn't need any defending around here, he certainly speaks up for himself well but on this one, all he did was ask you to back up one of your vapid statements Mark. You took offense to that and initially passed on the opportunity to name "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".

You've since opened the door to a Wexford conversation. Do you truly feel Wexford is worth discussing?

[Ira Fishman]

Mark,


You keep shifting your point. First it was that people active on this site do not appreciate variety of design. I have stated that it is a demonstrably false point given the posts here in favor of a great variety of designs.


Next you asserted that there is a bias here against certain architects and in favor of certain architects. I agree but so what? Nor is it any revelation. It is not personal to the architects nor is it uniform across their work in either direction. More importantly, the biases are not prejudgments. It is based on people's actual experiences with different design philosophies. But the variety among positive views of designs is very wide.


Now you are asserting that people here do not appreciate designs by lesser known architects. That also is clearly false based on the postings here.


The underlying premise seems to be that the weight of people here are closed minded and lack the independent ability to evaluate courses because somehow we have fallen under a spell cast by Doak and C&C. If that is what you are saying, you should have the gumption to say so explicitly.


Ira

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
Wexford would be worth discussing. I wonder how many people here have played it?


Ira,
Re-read my initial post.  If it degenerated I am sorry but Jeff chimed in with his post and it went from there (and honestly he made good points). 


Lots of people besides the handful that actually post here look at these threads.  Again, if you read what I stated to start (unless you think it was written specifically for you) you should not take offense 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark: Jeff, meet bus!
Jeff: Whaaa?


Just kidding.  But going back to Peter's original post, here is a point he made:


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”?
[/size]
[/size]Anyway, it struck me that voting with your pocketbook probably matters more than weighing in on the all to easy to access internet discussion boards.  Even if we like variety and seek it every so often, eventually, whatever drives us (and it may be our gas guzzling car) leads us to play the course that, all things considered, i.e., price, architecture, experience, distance from house, etc., provides us the best overall day of golf.  Of course, that's within categories, i.e., what you pick locally is quite different from what you may pick for your annual buddies trip.
[/size]
[/size]

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
I didn't mean to toss you under the bus     I still think your first post to this thread was a good one.  I also stand by much of my back and forth with Peter (I think we finally got aligned as I expected we might).  All in all I think was an interesting thread even though some didn't understand it or took personal offense (maybe if they did it will make them think) 


I looked back over a number of my recent treads (I sometimes don't like to start them because if they are not mainstream or if the point is not obvious and universally agreed on they get trashed) and I think all of them were thought provoking for at least some people who are perusing this website.  We need threads that as you said in your one post "are architecture related" and are a little different from all the same ones we have seen here the last 20 years.  And that said, I sure don't expect everyone to agree with me but I do enjoy a civil debate. 


Candid discussion about things we all agree with is easy but it gets tricky when there are strong differences of opinion.  Some people take their ball and go home or just say nothing or just get nasty about it.

[David Ober]

I'll nominate a course that I love and get great enjoyment from that definitely gets some love here, but not enough due to its "cart ball" nature:


Ram's Hill in Borrego Springs, California. Fazio design, I believe -- or maybe some of his associates?


Have played it a handful of times now, and I love it. An absolute treat to play. 20 to 30 of us from my former club go there twice a year and to a man, everyone loves the place.


A big plus for me: Even as a short hitter, I can enjoy playing it at 7200. Fazio generally does a good job of making his longest holes accessible via the ground, and Borrego Springs is no exception. There's lots of movement in the fairways and the greens are a blast to putt.


I'm not ashamed to say it's up there with some of the most enjoyable, strategic, and fun courses I have ever played. It just has a) no history; b) it's in a very "out of the way" place; and c) It's not golden-age renaissance-y enough for many.


Curious what it is/would be on TD's scale....

[Mark_Fine]

David,
I know Ram’s Hill.  Wasn’t that a Ted Robinson design that got a complete makeover by Fazio?  The course is on my play list but would prefer not to talk about it because it is now a Fazio design and it is “cart ball” for goodness sakes.  I am not that open minded 😉

[Kalen Braley]

Mark,

I think its great to challenge the status quo, Lord knows I do my fair share of that in here too.  But its also OK to update your opinion based on new and relevant information. 

As for those who don't chime in on GCA and just peruse, we run in completely different circles I'm sure, but the ones I know couldn't be bothered with seeking out different courses even the next city over, much less travel the region or country.  So we can certainly agree that 99% of folks don't give a damn who built/designed what. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,


No problems.


I'm with you.  If I was going to start a thread, it would be about design theory, not courses.  I like that kind of thought.  They go over like lead balloons most times. 


I get it. Most might be afraid to post an opinion, especially because there are a half dozen, shall we say, "outspoken" architects here (and twice that amount or more that have really studied gca theory) and they might be afraid to be called out or just look less informed on the topic.  Or, its just hard to envision theory without specific examples, I don't know.


Actually, if I was going to start a design theory thread this week in particular, I would probably, even though somewhat self serving, post this:


https://www.amazon.com/Designs-Better-Golf-Course-Committees/dp/B08KH97LM6/ref=zg_bs_16381_12?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=4PDSW29RGXCCT2WMVHWR


BTW, proceeds go to ASGCA Foundation and I don't make any money on this, so it is not really self promotion.  That's been long since frowned upon on this site, with the exception of a select few, of which I am not.

[Rob Marshall]

David,
I know Ram’s Hill.  Wasn’t that a Ted Robinson design that got a complete makeover by Fazio?  The course is on my play list but would prefer not to talk about it because it is now a Fazio design and it is “cart ball” for goodness sakes.  I am not that open minded 😉

I’ll give you two in Florida. Copperhead and Hideout. Ton of fun and always a pleasure to play.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,

I think its great to challenge the status quo, Lord knows I do my fair share of that in here too.  But its also OK to update your opinion based on new and relevant information. 

Isn't that the definition of keeping an open mind? Or at least evolving.....like so many politicians who seem to have evolved away from past positions when they are found to be unpopular.  But, outside politics, evolving is generally a good thing.


Rob, Good Lord, I agree, Copperhead isn't a fave of the intelligentsia here probably.  But, hosted a tour event, and still a fun resort course. Not to mention, great artistry, even if still typical of the 1970's era, i.e., shapely bunkers, but no shaggy edges.  I would think Copperhead would be a great example of a course you could learn from, as an exemplar of an era that you could really learn something from.

[Ira Fishman]

Jim,
Wexford would be worth discussing. I wonder how many people here have played it?


Ira,
Re-read my initial post.  If it degenerated I am sorry but Jeff chimed in with his post and it went from there (and honestly he made good points). 


Lots of people besides the handful that actually post here look at these threads.  Again, if you read what I stated to start (unless you think it was written specifically for you) you should not take offense 

Mark,


The only time someone disagreeing with me bothers me is when it is my wife. What does bother me is that in a thread where you are asserting that too many people on or reading GCA have blinders on is that no amount of evidence to the contrary in hundreds if not thousands of posts prompts you to rethink your position. As the late Senator Moynihan used to say, "You are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts."


Ira

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
Do you think this is worth the time to argue?


Ira,
You are right, I am wrong.  Have a great day 

[David Ober]

David,
I know Ram’s Hill.  Wasn’t that a Ted Robinson design that got a complete makeover by Fazio?  The course is on my play list but would prefer not to talk about it because it is now a Fazio design and it is “cart ball” for goodness sakes.  I am not that open minded 😉

Definitely make time to play it. An absolute blast.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,
Do you think this is worth the time to argue?

Well, that is up for debate.  If you count my posts over the years, I think my average daily yield has gone way down, so more and more, NO!  I may have killed half my brain cells on those old Merion debates, though......


Why don't you start another thread, titled something like, "How many posts long before you abandon reading a thread?"  I know my abandonment number is getting lower and lower on most threads.  For that matter, after 20 years, when in the early years I read them all to start, even if not finishing or ever responding.  Now, to save time, I let the title guide whether I even open it up.


And, to be specific to your question, yes I did think it was a worthy thread, and some of the counterarguments were work making by others, so yes, I guess.  To a degree......

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff -
I miss Pat Mucci's contributions here, and I genuinely liked him as a person. But sometimes he started threads that drove me crazy, because they were so 'on the nose' and were based on premises that were so obvious/true and inarguable that there was nothing left to actually discuss! [Not an ideal quality on a discussion board.] A thread title might be something like "Fairways should be sufficiently wide.....as to allow golfers to engage with the architect's original strategic intent". Or, "Absent the presence of a steady wind....well-designed green contours are a key element to providing both challenge and fun". I mean, what can one do with subject lines like that except to say "Yes, you're right. It's true. I agree", and then maybe mention Seminole or Pine Valley (but only if you'd played them a dozen times). Which is to say: in truth, I think Mark's thread has proven a good one, but mostly because posters have chosen to make it so and to engage with/explore the subject more deeply. On its own, it did have more than a touch of the Mucci to it, i.e. what can one possibly discuss/argue about when the premise is "We should try to have open minds about different styles of golf course architecture and to enjoy a wide-variety of golf courses"?  I can't speak for anyone else, but if I thought that's all Mark was getting at I wouldn't and couldn't have even posted -- or if I did it would simply have been to say: "Yes, you're right. It's true. I agree." Instead, I assumed that I was missing something, and that Mark had another/different point to make and explore. But if he did he did not make it explicit, as far as I can tell.

[Kalen Braley]

Why don't you start another thread, titled something like, "How many posts long before you abandon reading a thread?"  I know my abandonment number is getting lower and lower on most threads.  For that matter, after 20 years, when in the early years I read them all to start, even if not finishing or ever responding.  Now, to save time, I let the title guide whether I even open it up.

Jeff,

In the context of this thread topic, I'm hoping/fingers crossed this was just dead pan-ish satire.    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()