[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

In the past we've had discussions how there are relatively few people who have seen enough courses and have domain expertise to be in a position to cast a vote for a legit top 100 World Rankings list.  Can we also then postulate that if these handful of people are the only ones qualified to rank them, are they also the only ones who can offer a valid critique too?

P.S.  I tend to agree with Sean in that if we took the top 100 list from any of the major publications don't the vast majority of those courses actually belong there, and are there any that are truly egregious in being included on those lists?  Those lists seem to be a bit like the 68 team field for March Madness, no matter who they pick there will always be disagreement on the last few teams in vs those who didn't make it.

[Tom_Doak]

I keep reading this thread, and thinking about the posts. Sean's post brought this to mind:

That the only reason to attempt 'serious criticism' about gca is because you believe what you're saying is *true*.

If you don't believe in 'truth' or that anything 'true' can be said about golf course architecture, why bother?

Without that goal in mind, you're either marketing yourself, acting as a shill for others, or trying to get a tee time.

Peter:


When I was 26 and wrote The Confidential Guide, I absolutely believed that I was trying to get at the Truth.  And most of my readers seemed to agree with me enough that I felt like I was at least getting close.


It seems so much harder to do that today!  The truth that we hear on the news nowadays is just another competing Narrative.  Plus, I have traveled the world enough more to understand that what might be Truth to you and me, does not work the same in some other places. 


So, these days, I tend to look to prove things in my own designs, rather than looking for it in others' work.  But by far the most interesting things I have seen lately were simple attempts to make golf work in unique situations, rather than a young designer trying to set the world on fire.

[Joe Hancock]

I keep reading this thread, and thinking about the posts. Sean's post brought this to mind:

That the only reason to attempt 'serious criticism' about gca is because you believe what you're saying is *true*.

If you don't believe in 'truth' or that anything 'true' can be said about golf course architecture, why bother?

Without that goal in mind, you're either marketing yourself, acting as a shill for others, or trying to get a tee time.

I was golfing with another golf industry guy this morning, at a 9 holer that gets snubbed by those who came to play its bigger brother at the same resort; we wondered why it doesn’t get more love.....it certainly fits our preferences. Then we got into the whole “art” aspect, which then gets you to “subjectivity”, which then gets you to “right and wrong”, which gets you to.....this. How can anyone criticize/ rate/ judge/ otherwise, when it’s all so subjective? Our takeaway was this: If your preferences, pertaining to golf course design and presentation, aren’t constantly being tweaked and fluctuating, you may have a fairly narrow mindset that you don’t want to be set free of.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

In the past we've had discussions how there are relatively few people who have seen enough courses and have domain expertise to be in a position to cast a vote for a legit top 100 World Rankings list.  Can we also then postulate that if these handful of people are the only ones qualified to rank them, are they also the only ones who can offer a valid critique too?

You can postulate that, but I think you've got things entirely backwards!


To contribute to a world ranking requires that you have a good sense of how many great courses there are in the world.  If you hadn't been to the UK and just dismissed all of the courses there as too old or poorly kept, you would be no real help.


But you would certainly be able to offer valid critiques of Sweetens Cove or Wolf Point or Ballyneal, without having been to Scotland.

[Tom_Doak]

I was golfing with another golf industry guy this morning, at a 9 holer that gets snubbed by those who came to play its bigger brother at the same resort; we wondered why it doesn’t get more love.....it certainly fits our preferences. Then we got into the whole “art” aspect, which then gets you to “subjectivity”, which then gets you to “right and wrong”, which gets you to.....this. How can anyone criticize/ rate/ judge/ otherwise, when it’s all so subjective? Our takeaway was this: If your preferences, pertaining to golf course design and presentation, aren’t constantly being tweaked and fluctuating, you may have a fairly narrow mindset that you don’t want to be set free of.

There is a large difference between "snubbed" [I saw it, but dismissed it as inferior from the start] and "ignored" [I just didn't know it was worth having a look at].  Which was the case at the course in question has a lot of bearing on your argument.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - when I was 26 and 36 and 46 all that interested me in any area of my life and work and study was 'the truth'. It seemed then the only thing worth striving for and understanding. You're right that it's 'much harder to do that today'. But the question I have for myself and haven't yet answered is: Is it harder now because I've grown wiser, or simply because I've gotten tired? (Yours seems to me a very sensible 'answer', i.e. proving it in your own work instead of looking for it in the work of others)

Joe: Similarly, I wonder all the time whether my fixed opinions/preferences and goals reflect a still burning desire for truth, or instead a narrow mind set that I'm unwilling and unable to be free of.

[Sean_A]

I keep reading this thread, and thinking about the posts. Sean's post brought this to mind:

That the only reason to attempt 'serious criticism' about gca is because you believe what you're saying is *true*.

If you don't believe in 'truth' or that anything 'true' can be said about golf course architecture, why bother?

Without that goal in mind, you're either marketing yourself, acting as a shill for others, or trying to get a tee time.

Pietro

I am old enough (and tired) to know that if I am pursuing a truth it is my own. My truth is essentially the simple beauty in golf courses. I will let you know when I can explain beauty.

Ciao

[Mike_Young]

As it relates to Gca rankings, they should be taken with a grain of salt. However, I think it is fair to say that the “top” several hundred or so are far better than the thousands in the middle.


Ira

Ira,I think it is fair except I think there are around 2000 courses with architectural merit in the US.

[Mike_Young]

Sweetens, Winters Park, Goat Hill, Schoolhouse Nine, and other properties represent a new model for golf. And as such presents a different value proposition to the consumer. Among this group of courses Sweetens may be the most architecturally examined, but the main drivers of these courses are as community and entertainment centers. A serious critique of these facilities should not solely focus on the architecture, in actuality grading these course should focus the most on how the community embraces them and less on the actual design features of the course.

What you say above is very spot on.  The model of my generation is not a sustainable model for many.  And sadly, most of the golfers of my generation base quality via maintenance level which is way out of hand.  What intrigues me about these places is the way they are embraced.  It is sustainable in communities and while there will always be superbly maintained destinations etc, these types of places can be enjoyed by more people and allow golf to continue.   GOOD POST   JMO

[Edward Glidewell]

Sweetens, Winters Park, Goat Hill, Schoolhouse Nine, and other properties represent a new model for golf. And as such presents a different value proposition to the consumer. Among this group of courses Sweetens may be the most architecturally examined, but the main drivers of these courses are as community and entertainment centers. A serious critique of these facilities should not solely focus on the architecture, in actuality grading these course should focus the most on how the community embraces them and less on the actual design features of the course.

Is that really true for Sweetens? It's in the middle of nowhere and my understanding is that a significant amount of their play comes from non-locals (people driving from places like Atlanta and Nashville, not to mention players stopping by on longer trips to other places).


I could be wrong about that, but if it's true, I think it would be hard to argue it's any kind of community center.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,

In this day and age, even in real world news, it seems like there are no facts, no truth, just opinions.  News morphed from infotainment to opiniotainment. Can there really be truth in golf course criticism, or it is just one outlet or person trying to force his opinion down throats by being louder or more outrageous than the last?

Jeff -- but if I believed that, why would I listen and try to learn from anyone? And if you believed that, what would it say about all your years of study and apprenticeship and hard work and dedication to mastering your craft? An archer can only be great/successful if there's an actual *target* he is trying to hit. The very process (and theory behind) serious criticism presupposes that there is a goal-ideal we're trying to reach.

There are those of us who learn just for the sake of learning, but we just have to filter out more volume and noise.  In the end, I think the critique of ratings is too many follow the groupthink of the rating system.  I have learned a lot (and am only slowing down now) in gca with the intent to incorporate it into my work.  Just thinking about it, I tend to incorporate ideas or designs of single holes in locations where they seem similar to the green site or whatever I am working on.  I probably haven't tried to incorporate what I learned over an entire course, nor am I quite sure I could.  I guess I view a course as a collection of 18 good to better than good holes (hopefully) and use the site and design style to try to craft those best ideas for each site into a somewhat cohesive whole.....or not.  Nothing wrong with a bit of eclecticism in design, eh?


In the end, we all have to make up our own minds.  And, the critique of art forms isn't really a ranking, or a thumbs up or down type thing.  You may value the art of gca over a guy like JN, who probably values the shot values.  No right answer!

[John Kirk]

I'm a bit late to post, but I wrote this slowly while watching the golf today.

 
 1.  Is there really much "serious criticism" of golf architecture?

 2.  What are the other "cult courses" Don left out?

 3.  The importance [or not] of rankings generally, because he did go there at the end of his post. 

It must be Festivus season.  Let the airing of the grievances begin!


To summarize, I have attempted to offer criticism of major golf projects several times in my fifteen years here, but my last few attempts were met with considerable resistance.  It became painful, so I don't feel much like trying anymore.  Some people can't stand it when their favorite courses are criticized, when their favorite architects are criticized, even when their friend's home courses are criticized.  Granted, I tended to choose prominent, outstanding designs to analyze and pick apart.  Some people seem to assume the analyst must have a secondary motive for offering criticism.  As if the intent of the criticism, on a golf course website whose mission statement is frank commentary of golf architecture, is to diminish work.  Frank commentary may ultimately do that, but that shouldn’t be my problem.  I participate here to evaluate golf courses, and I believe my analysis has been fair and compassionate.


A quick comment to Mike Young.  People in general can be fair judges knowing who the architect is.  I think most people understand their biases.  An unfamiliarity with a course or architect might prevent someone from fully appreciating the nuances and tendencies of that architect.  I also think maintenance is fair game for course evaluation, and cannot be separated completely from the design.  A great course with terrible playing surfaces is much less fun to play.


The architects have a superior understanding of golf course design and maintenance.  Still, I feel the domain of criticism belongs with the people who play the game.  They build them, and we tell them how much we like them.  Granted, much of what I’ve learned about golf architecture starts with the architects.  Over forty years of golf I’ve played something like four to five thousand rounds, including rounds at about a quarter of the two hundred or so best courses in the country.  My experience is probably about average among this esteemed group of analysts.  After playing so much golf, an experienced player can interpret how a golf course will play by simply looking at it.   As long as I offer simple observations based on that experience, while freely sharing my personal biases for certain types of shots, I can make thoughtful contributions to frank commentary.


A good argument can be made that Ballyneal is a “cult” course, with rather severe contours around the greens, and a devoted following.  The big question with Ballyneal is whether there are too many bowls and troughs in the greens which reject indifferent shots and reward good shots with short putts.  In general, the “cult” courses have greens with lots of bowls, humps and ridges which push or pull balls away or toward the hole.  I don’t like courses with too many of these features.  We all have a different complement of putts we’d like to see.  The gently curving long approach putt is a shot I like to encounter at least several times a round.
 
Golf is also a business, and criticism will inevitably be perceived as damaging to a club’s prestige and finances.  As a result, you have to be willing to take the heat for giving honest opinions about what you see.  For me, offering opinions stopped being fun.  People’s egos and pocketbooks started getting in the way.

 

[Adam Lawrence]

Tom - when I was 26 and 36 and 46 all that interested me in any area of my life and work and study was 'the truth'. It seemed then the only thing worth striving for and understanding. You're right that it's 'much harder to do that today'. But the question I have for myself and haven't yet answered is: Is it harder now because I've grown wiser, or simply because I've gotten tired? (Yours seems to me a very sensible 'answer', i.e. proving it in your own work instead of looking for it in the work of others)

Joe: Similarly, I wonder all the time whether my fixed opinions/preferences and goals reflect a still burning desire for truth, or instead a narrow mind set that I'm unwilling and unable to be free of.

Sometimes I think that Peter has too much time and too many brain cells for his own good, but I think he might have hit the nail on the head here. If everything is subjective, then what is the point of anything that, in any way, claims objectivity?

[Kalen Braley]

Tom - when I was 26 and 36 and 46 all that interested me in any area of my life and work and study was 'the truth'. It seemed then the only thing worth striving for and understanding. You're right that it's 'much harder to do that today'. But the question I have for myself and haven't yet answered is: Is it harder now because I've grown wiser, or simply because I've gotten tired? (Yours seems to me a very sensible 'answer', i.e. proving it in your own work instead of looking for it in the work of others)

Joe: Similarly, I wonder all the time whether my fixed opinions/preferences and goals reflect a still burning desire for truth, or instead a narrow mind set that I'm unwilling and unable to be free of.

Sometimes I think that Peter has too much time and too many brain cells for his own good, but I think he might have hit the nail on the head here. If everything is subjective, then what is the point of anything that, in any way, claims objectivity?

Adam,

This partially encapsulates my views of rankings lists. 

Ranking courses is a very subjective activity, akin to ranking the hottest woman, or the best musical groups.. yet we still seem to fall all over ourselves and at times have fits trying to "objectively" analyze why such and such course is either ranked too high, too low, or not at all.

This thread topic is a great one, but trying to find logic in course rankings at the micro-level is an exercise in futility...

[Adam Lawrence]

Tom - when I was 26 and 36 and 46 all that interested me in any area of my life and work and study was 'the truth'. It seemed then the only thing worth striving for and understanding. You're right that it's 'much harder to do that today'. But the question I have for myself and haven't yet answered is: Is it harder now because I've grown wiser, or simply because I've gotten tired? (Yours seems to me a very sensible 'answer', i.e. proving it in your own work instead of looking for it in the work of others)

Joe: Similarly, I wonder all the time whether my fixed opinions/preferences and goals reflect a still burning desire for truth, or instead a narrow mind set that I'm unwilling and unable to be free of.

Sometimes I think that Peter has too much time and too many brain cells for his own good, but I think he might have hit the nail on the head here. If everything is subjective, then what is the point of anything that, in any way, claims objectivity?

Adam,

This partially encapsulates my views of rankings lists. 

Ranking courses is a very subjective activity, akin to ranking the hottest woman, or the best musical groups.. yet we still seem to fall all over ourselves and at times have fits trying to "objectively" analyze why such and such course is either ranked too high, too low, or not at all.

This thread topic is a great one, but trying to find logic in course rankings at the micro-level is an exercise in futility...

The concept of objectivity is one of the most controversial in philosophy. If everything is a question of someone's opinion, then how can anything possibly be objective? And if something claims to be objective, what if you do not agree with the criteria on which that "objectivity" is based? This debate goes back a hundred years and more, to Wittgenstein among others.


Now, it is a long time since I studied philosophy at university, and if there are people on here who know more about this than I do (which is very probable) then they should feel free to correct me. But literature, for example, has evolved the concept of 'the canon' -- a group of works that are accepted, by a majority of qualified commentators, as being objectively superior to most others. The canon is not irrefutable -- works can, and are, added to or removed from it as the balance of critical opinion changes. Melville's 'Moby-Dick' is a very good example -- a novel that was ignored for a long period of time, but which critical opinion eventually coalesced into believing was a great work.


Cannot the concept of the canon apply to other spheres? It requires enough qualified critical assessment if it is to work, but theoretically there is no reason why it should not be deployed in any area of human activity.

[Mike_Young]

Pop music is pop music. Dylan's music was never pop music, even though it crossed over a bit here and there.


There is plenty of weighty, yet accessible music being made to day. You just have to find it.

I’m not comparing the categorical merits of their music directly. I’m comparing the criticisms of their music. When a few music critics decided in the early 80’s that Pop music deserved the same skeptical eye towards authenticity as rock historically had up to that point, they began a revolution in music criticism. But, to me, what it really did was normalize Pop music’s artfulness compared to rock. That’s just not right in my opinion.

Modern golf architecture criticism has accomplished much the same in my mind.

Ben,I think you my be right.  When you were younger and really into the GCA stuff there were still courses being designed and built at a much higher rate than today.  Using your music analogy...one of the best covers out there is Wilson and Phillips cover of Stairway to Heaven.  Great song by a great band and the cover was very good.  I'm not sure golf architecture critics today can appreciate the difference between a band and a cover band.  Music knows the difference.

[Tom_Doak]

Cannot the concept of the canon apply to other spheres? It requires enough qualified critical assessment if it is to work, but theoretically there is no reason why it should not be deployed in any area of human activity.

I suppose the magazine rankings are an attempt to establish "the canon" of golf architecture, but as has been noted, it would be much easier to agree upon if newish courses weren't allowed.  Instead, there is a concerted push to put new courses into the list to keep the debate raging.


Also none of the rankings do much in the way of qualified critical assessment.

[Adam Lawrence]

Cannot the concept of the canon apply to other spheres? It requires enough qualified critical assessment if it is to work, but theoretically there is no reason why it should not be deployed in any area of human activity.

I suppose the magazine rankings are an attempt to establish "the canon" of golf architecture, but as has been noted, it would be much easier to agree upon if newish courses weren't allowed.  Instead, there is a concerted push to put new courses into the list to keep the debate raging.


Also none of the rankings do much in the way of qualified critical assessment.

Correct. Which suggests that there is insufficient true critical assessment of golf architecture to evolve a canon. But it does not deny its theoretical possibility.

[Mike_Young]

I have posted on more than one occasion that PH4 is at best a nice resort course, and I explained why: over bunkered, several awkward and/or uninspired holes, a weakish finish, etc. But I also ticked Doak off when I posted that Pasatiempo is a better course than Pac Dunes. Perhaps Adam is correct in ducking my question: if you are in the business, you have to watch on which side your toast is buttered. Except Mike Young.
Ira

ira,It's not that I don't watch where my bread is buttered, I just feel we all get to an age where we don't tolerate BS as easliy.  It's funny you say this..just last week a president at a club where I am doing some work instagramed a photo or something like that.  Well the archie who had done their last master plan and work a few years ago sees it and comments " you hired Mike Young..are you kidding me?"  I have never seen a group of people take themselves as seriously as so many golf archies...I might now need therapy...

[Thomas Dai]

I have visions of Dylan the BBC TV hippy rabbit leaning zonked against the Magic Roundabout saying quietly to himself something like “Hey man, there’s some heavy stuff going down around here.”



As to ratings, rankings, comments, criticisms etc I tend to look at them as essentially indicative (and fluid too). Humorous sometimes as well.
atb
 
PS - as to the musical references mentioned above, would restorations, renovations, changes etc etc to existing golf courses be akin to ‘covers’ of songs?

[Blake Conant]

So, these days, I tend to look to prove things in my own designs, rather than looking for it in others' work.  But by far the most interesting things I have seen lately were simple attempts to make golf work in unique situations, rather than a young designer trying to set the world on fire.

Challenges like that appeal to me because A) opportunities are good and B) I'm confident in my problem solving skills to come up with something unique and cool. Curious if those opportunities appeal to more established architects, however? Does the challenge of solving a unique problem offset the limitations that come with taking on the work?


Makes me think of Frank Llyod Wright's Usonian homes. In 1937 Wright's friend Herbert Jacobs challenged him to build a home for $5,000. Wright hit on something cool and wound up building several dozen of these middle-income homes on unusual and inexpensive sites. I believe there's even a planned community of them somewhere in New York.

[Tim Martin]

I'm a bit late to post, but I wrote this slowly while watching the golf today.

 
 1.  Is there really much "serious criticism" of golf architecture?

 2.  What are the other "cult courses" Don left out?

 3.  The importance [or not] of rankings generally, because he did go there at the end of his post. 

The architects have a superior understanding of golf course design and maintenance.  Still, I feel the domain of criticism belongs with the people who play the game.  They build them, and we tell them how much we like them.  Granted, much of what I’ve learned about golf architecture starts with the architects.  Over forty years of golf I’ve played something like four to five thousand rounds, including rounds at about a quarter of the two hundred or so best courses in the country.  My experience is probably about average among this esteemed group of analysts.  After playing so much golf, an experienced player can interpret how a golf course will play by simply looking at it.   As long as I offer simple observations based on that experience, while freely sharing my personal biases for certain types of shots, I can make thoughtful contributions to frank commentary.

John-I appreciated the entire post but wanted to drill down on this paragraph and the first couple of sentences in particular. I sure think that golf architecture is an art form inasmuch as the pure pleasure and range of emotion that particular holes and courses evoke. You wrote and I quote “Still, I feel the domain of criticism belongs with the people who play the game”. Anyone that has spent any amount of time on this site has learned much from industry guys and most especially from Tom Doak’s participation. That said some “hobbyists” just might have played enough courses and seen enough different architectural styles to render a reasonable opinion. I don’t think it’s necessary to completely understand the design/build process to offer an informed judgement on the finished product. The rub is that opinions will sometimes run contrary to those who profess to know the most. Frank commentary is then in the offing.

[Kalen Braley]

Adam,

I like the concept of an established "canon" or best of list. Perhaps the publications would do better to say here is the list of great courses as we see it, and then list em in Alphabetical order.

However, my comments were more directed at the micro-level nitpicking of ordering said lists.  Could you imagine a panel trying to order a ranked Canon of Religious texts?  How would one even go about trying to rank the Bible, Quran, Dead Sea Scrolls, The Torah, Book of Mormon, etc.  Chaos would ensure and more thank likely heads would roll...literally. Its the attempt to apply objective analysis of a list compiled by very subjective means where the futility lies.

P.S.  John Kirk was correct from what I've seen, some nasty counter attacks for comments that were very well thought out and frank in nature.

[Kalen Braley]

Cannot the concept of the canon apply to other spheres? It requires enough qualified critical assessment if it is to work, but theoretically there is no reason why it should not be deployed in any area of human activity.

I suppose the magazine rankings are an attempt to establish "the canon" of golf architecture, but as has been noted, it would be much easier to agree upon if newish courses weren't allowed.  Instead, there is a concerted push to put new courses into the list to keep the debate raging.


Also none of the rankings do much in the way of qualified critical assessment.

Tom,

Would you have been fine if say a waiting period of 10 years was applied to all new course additions, including a course like Pac Dunes? 

[SL_Solow]

I want to give this a bit more thought but I have 2 quick observations.  First, regarding the music analogies I tend to think of the architect as being closer to a jazz musician than a rock musician or a classical musician. The jazz musician can write his own music or he can take the chord structure of a standard and improvise to make it his own.  Similarly, an architect can take themes that have been used by others and, depending on the property and his/her particular tastes and talents, improvise and make something that is uniquely theirs.  This ability to take something familiar and make it your own is a special talent both in jazz and in GCA.  It is distinct from playing a "cover".


Second, the great period for serious criticism was in the Golden Age when there were fewer "rules" and the architects were trying to figure out what made a course great.  Less history, fewer preconceptions, and a smaller industry made for greater freedom in analysis.  When the turn to "minimalism" came, it was a rejection of several decades of thought and an attempt to return to some of the Golden Age verities.  The problem is, just as in the Golden Age, there remains significant disagreement as to the validity/identity of the "verities".  I really don't think the ratings try to address this issue notwithstanding their criteria.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()