[Ben Sims]

This thread now has a significant number of posts passively calling for the death of criticism. Didn’t see that coming.

[Jason Topp]

Love the thread. Not sure if this relates but here it goes:

I have played a number of Pete Dye courses lately and am struck by how formulaic and artificial his courses are.   He just seemed to dial the difficulty up and back depending on the purpose of the course.

Par 3’s carry similarities to the Raynor templates.   Early in each nine is a short par 4.   Middle of each nine are draw/fade or vice versa long par 4s.  Last 3 holes have a 3, 4, 5.   Severe artificial slopes are favored hazards for bailout shots.   Par 5s tend to entice. 

The formula makes for terrific golf so I discount the repition from one site to another. Most people feel they have a chance on each hole and temptation to bite off more than they can chew.

As a long time rater,  I have concluded my ratings are less about insight and more about understanding the likely consensus view on any particular course.   I decided to drop my card.  I am not sure I am adding anything useful. 

[Phil Carlucci]

I keep trying to find a spot to interject, but everyone else is doing a better job articulating their thoughts than I can.  Personally I'd love to see more serious criticism or analysis, but in terms of golf courses, I just don't see what's in it for the critic.  Often it seems any criticism of a widely known or highly regarded golf course (or, on the flip side, hype of a lesser known golf course) is more likely to be met with derision than debate, and any criticism or analysis of a lesser known or regarded golf course will likely be met simply with indifference.  Either way, I'm not sure it's worth the time.
The question reminds me of a now ancient thread about Tallgrass (RIP) that probably would qualify as the type of serious analysis that's part of this current discussion.  It stood out to me at the time because I had recently stumbled upon Tallgrass, was immediately impressed, and as a newcomer to critical thought on golf courses, here was a real analysis that put many of my observations into words.

Needless to say, the thread quickly devolved into an internet food fight complete with rating scales, a showdown of courses played and a contrived Tale of the Tape against a golf course thousands of miles away.  I would refer back to it in following years to pull out some of the relevant nuggets and would always read through it again hoping for a different ending, the way some people rewatch horror movies.
Some here might recall that thread; most should recall the more recent debate about the merits of Bethpage Black that included so much name-calling and aggression that I kept waiting for someone to drop a "You wanna step outside?"

[Ben Hollerbach]

If Pebble and Pinehurst didn't host PGA events (more importantly US Opens) do you think they'd be able to charge $500/round?

Similarly if Sweetens didn't have youtube/@twitter/#instagram stars making videos or posting photos at the course does anyone think they would be sold out through November?

Which is more important for financial success, good architecture or good marketing?  Both is obviously ideal.

Pebble and Pinehurst being on TV is a huge reason why they can charge that type of money, but not all high cost courses are regular tour venues and some long standing high cost venues have not been able to sustain the price premium.

For the longest time Pebble seemed to be the gold standard in very expensive greens fee with a booked tee sheet. For Pinehust, I can't recall how much they were charging back before the 1999 US Open. it would be interesting to compare those two courses at that time to see how much Pinehurst has used the US Open to boost their price.

Doral was near the $500 club just 5 years ago and now you can get a round for $275. How much of that is because of the course losing the WGC and how much of that is for other reasons? It's hard to say.

Being on TV, even every 10 years, may be the best marketing avenue for a course, but it can be very hard to recoup the costs. Social Media on the other hand is dirt cheap and can develop a greater grassroots following that may be more sticky to the golf community.

For the masses, good architecture is measured against good conditioning and good service, all day of experience factors that are drivers for repeat business. But you have to get the to show up first. To get them in the door you need good marketing and good press. We're the only group in golf that will go out of our way to play an unknown course with good bones. We're also the only group that would rep a hat for some super obscure club over a social media darling such as Goat Hill.

[Tim Gavrich]

To a certain extent, the environment in which "serious criticism" may have flourished in the past is gone/obsolete. The paradigm has shifted. The monoculture is pretty much dead at this point, and the orthodoxy that criticism used to serve has been traded away for a choose-your-own-adventure approach to media consumption.


Today, if you don't agree with what someone writes about something, it is pretty easy to attach yourself to one of the other voices out there - some from traditional sources (in which public trust has never been lower, for reasons we don't need to debate here), some from new-media channels. This applies to subjects far beyond golf course architecture.


I wonder if the current climate calls for a "new criticism," or a new approach to doing the sorts of helpful things that we believe criticism has traditionally done.


Even when I've played courses I've found underwhelming or uninspiring, I note that there are always people around who are nevertheless having an authentically good time. I may be a bit more learned about course design than they are, but still, who am I to tell them their pleasure is fraudulent?


Although this site and its participants have had a tangible, positive effect on the recent history of golf course design, it is still the case that golfers have a range of different tastes. Not everyone is into architecture the way we are, so there will always be golfers who enjoy courses we may regard as inferior for reasons we may find ridiculous. C'est la guerre.


When I am writing about a course or place, I find description to be a more important project than critique or judgment. The question I am most interested in answering about a particular course is not Is it any good? Instead, it's things like Who is this for? What is it like? What is noteworthy/interesting here? I'm confident that I can communicate my preferences without explicit negativity. When I do criticize, I try and make it constructive. It's easy to bash something; it takes more consideration to suggest an alternative, and I feel like doing that is a form of respect for the subject matter.

In the end, I've found that lifting up the positive elements of even middling golf courses is a way to do the same work as probing the negative elements. Maybe that's the new criticism we can work toward.

[Ira Fishman]

Tim,


A very thought provoking and considerate post. The reality is that with exceptions in the GB&I and Australia most of the courses that we discuss/dissect/disseminate here are either private or expensive.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

To a certain extent, the environment in which "serious criticism" may have flourished in the past is gone/obsolete. The paradigm has shifted. The monoculture is pretty much dead at this point, and the orthodoxy that criticism used to serve has been traded away for a choose-your-own-adventure approach to media consumption.


Today, if you don't agree with what someone writes about something, it is pretty easy to attach yourself to one of the other voices out there - some from traditional sources (in which public trust has never been lower, for reasons we don't need to debate here), some from new-media channels. This applies to subjects far beyond golf course architecture.


I wonder if the current climate calls for a "new criticism," or a new approach to doing the sorts of helpful things that we believe criticism has traditionally done.


Even when I've played courses I've found underwhelming or uninspiring, I note that there are always people around who are nevertheless having an authentically good time. I may be a bit more learned about course design than they are, but still, who am I to tell them their pleasure is fraudulent?


Although this site and its participants have had a tangible, positive effect on the recent history of golf course design, it is still the case that golfers have a range of different tastes. Not everyone is into architecture the way we are, so there will always be golfers who enjoy courses we may regard as inferior for reasons we may find ridiculous. C'est la guerre.


When I am writing about a course or place, I find description to be a more important project than critique or judgment. The question I am most interested in answering about a particular course is not Is it any good? Instead, it's things like Who is this for? What is it like? What is noteworthy/interesting here? I'm confident that I can communicate my preferences without explicit negativity. When I do criticize, I try and make it constructive. It's easy to bash something; it takes more consideration to suggest an alternative, and I feel like doing that is a form of respect for the subject matter.

In the end, I've found that lifting up the positive elements of even middling golf courses is a way to do the same work as probing the negative elements. Maybe that's the new criticism we can work toward.

Tim:


Your first point is interesting and probably spot on, that there is no mainstream anymore.  Everything is a niche.




Your last point, I agree with.  When I would write up courses that fall in the middle of the Doak scale, the biggest question I was trying to answer was, what about this course would make someone want to play it?  Whereas I saved most of the critiques for the higher-rated courses and the hyped ones.  For example, here's a random entry from The Confidential Guide, Montrose GC:


"This solid but somewhat plain links is in the next town north from Carnoustie.  Thirty years later, I can still recall the short 3rd, with its green up in the dunes, and the long par-3 16th, with a big hump inside the green."  [4]


The point of that entry was never to denigrate Montrose GC or the people who enjoy it; it was to help someone going to Scotland decide if it was worth a stop.  And the "4" is simply a shorthand for "I liked Panmure [5] better, and Monifieth [3] not as much."  But, since those numbers are 4's and 5's and anything short of an 8 is an insult to people nowadays, I'm controversial.

[Tim Gavrich]

Tim,


A very thought provoking and considerate post. The reality is that with exceptions in the GB&I and Australia most of the courses that we discuss/dissect/disseminate here are either private or expensive.


Ira

Ira--


I agree, which is why I have tried whenever possible to loop in lesser-known courses to my travels, because as you and others are probably well aware, the places that tend to be able to bring writers to come see them tend to be a bit higher-end. I have been fortunate to visit several of those sorts of places, but I have also really enjoyed tacking on some visits to more under-the-radar spots onto such visits.


A perfect example: my visit to Spokane, Washington in May 2019, which I added onto a media visit to Coeur d'Alene. Spokane is not at the top of anyone's list of golf destinations, but between Indian Canyon, the Creek at Qualchan, Kalispel G&CC and the three delightful Spokane County courses - Hangman Valley, MeadowWood, Liberty Lake - it kind of blew me away as far as solid, affordable golf goes. Are the courses I mentioned on the same level of architectural sophistication as, say, Gamble Sands or the courses in/around Bend, Oregon? No, but they were pleasurable places to play in a city I found very enjoyable overall, as someone from Connecticut who now lives in Florida. I think an approach more loaded with "serious criticism" might have yielded a more dour take than Spokane seems to deserve. (If you want to read what I wrote about it, here it is.)


--Tim

[Tim_Weiman]

The original Confidential guide was written by Tom Doak with the bulk of the critiques based on a one time play. It is purported that some courses were not seen in their entirety while others were seen “over the fence”.

There were maybe 10-20 courses in the original book where I stopped short of walking all 18 holes for some reason -- usually because they were quite busy and I would be getting in the way.  It's possible I missed a cool hole on one or two of those.  But if I hadn't seen it all I would have been much more general in my critique.


There were zero courses that I posted a review of that I only saw "over the fence" -- there were a few that I drove up, took one look, skipped and did not review -- so whoever "purported" that is a liar.

I have no idea who Tim Martin was alluding to, but on the subject of criticism, I have noted in the past that my copy of the "Confidential Guide" had a rating for the Scarlet course at Ohio State based on what a credible source described as an "over the fence" look.  Specifically, "purportedly", the evaluation was made from information garnered around the mostly fenced-in pro shop area overlooking the 10th tee and fairway, the 18th green and approach, and the 9th green from below grade.  My memory is now less exact on the rest of that communication and what was said about a number of other courses, but the site visit may have included a walk to the starter's shack which would have provided views of #1 tee and a better look at #9 green.


I am not courting controversy here, but if it is me being purported to be a "liar", I suppose that I can reveal my source of that information.  Not being of the kiss & tell type, I'd rather not, but most would deem it to be unimpeachable.


The subject matter does bring to mind the old joke: "You can drink a man's whiskey, have relations with his wife, but never, ever criticize his golf course".  I think that most people believe that they are open-minded and have thick skin.  That has not been my experience.  I've seen previously warm relationships cooled beyond repair due to comments meant in friendly, "open and frank" discussions.  The fact is that we like the +1s a lot.  We have much more affinity for the sycophants than for those willing to offer opinions which counter our "canon".  Even constructive criticism sandwiched between slices of effusive or benign praise is at times met with hostility.


I do like the notion that the malaise is attributed to Covid.  Why not.  Every other excess is.

Lou,


Regarding the question of whether Tom Doak’s rating of the Ohio State Scarlet course was based on just looking over the fence, that seems unlikely to me. From my one visit and experience playing the course (circa early 1980s), I don’t recall it being a gated community. One could just drive up and, at a minimum, have a look around. Knowing Tom, it seems well out of character for him to just look over the fence, especially given his well known respect and love for Alister MacKenzie.


That aside, one thing stands out from playing the Scarlet: though I lived in Cleveland and had a former neighbor that worked in the pro shop, I never really had a desire to return. That was my feeling before ever hearing about and reading Tom’s review in the Confidential Guide (which I just re-read). In short, I think Tom got it right. It is a “5”, a course to play if you are in town, but not one worth driving very far to get to and far from being a Mackenzie course worth seeing and studying.


I think the genius of Tom’s Confidential Guide is not the ratings. Rather, it was his ability to summarize and objectively state what is noteworthy about the course being reviewed. Again, IMO, Tom got it right with the Scarlet.

[Tim_Weiman]

Chris Mavros,


Let me state again my affection for Wilmington Municipal. If given the opportunity to re-visit Wilmington or the Bethpage Black course, I would much prefer Wilmington. Sure, Bethpage Black is a “championship” course and certainly worth experiencing, but Wilmington just makes sense for more and a greater variety of golfers.


Go see and play Wilmington if you are anywhere near it. It is worth the drive from, say, Pinehurst.

[Ira Fishman]

I’m with The Judge. We have lost sight of analysis and examination in favor of just jumping straight to rating and ranking.


It’s not a new trend. I’ve had some great discussions of the intricacies of different holes and courses over the years, but it feels like I wade through 100 threads like those Terry points to on the way to each of those nuanced ones.


We far too often confuse “understanding architecture” with “knowing how to parrot the favored lists and Doak Scale ratings of courses.” I once asked a GCAer playing partner what he thought of a course he had played earlier that morning. He replied “It’s a 6.” I can’t imagine a more boring answer. I’d never get such lack of insight from a retail golfer.


Bloom identifies 6 levels of understanding. Traditionally, it goes Knowledge > Comprehension > Application > Analysis > Synthesis > Evaluation. We have a collective bad habit of jumping straight to Evaluation, while skipping the really interesting bits (Application, Analysis, and Synthesis, for me).

Jason,


I quite agree. Yet Bloom was perhaps the last and most ardent defender of the canon.


Ira

[Peter Pallotta]

Also:
We're not designing courses here, at gca.com. We're not building them, or shaping them. We're certainly not financing them. While we're here at gca.com via our computers or phones, we're not even playing them. All that we're doing is reading, and sometimes thinking, and often writing. That's what we're doing here; that's our 'job' as it were. So when yet another thread is a ranking thread, or when yet another post consists mainly of a number from the Doak Scale, the reading is boring, the writing is banal, and the thinking is non existent. In short, we're doing a lousy job of the one 'job' we actually have -- especially when someone not in the industry assumes/tries to project the air of authority and expertise by posting only very short or pithy comments, or a 'It's a 6', as if every one of their words was like manna from on high and worth its weight in gold and needed no further explanation/defence. Which is to say: trying to engage in 'serious criticism' -- here, on gca.com -- is a sign that we honour & respect each-other, and are trying to do our 'jobs' as well possible for the sake of the collective. Taking a little bit of time to read and think and write really is the least we can do, no?
 

[Steve Lang]

   So Peter, would you advocate for the removal of the "last post" button, i.e., folks really should read the developed thread before posting, to soak in all the comments, before opining?


... and then who are the canonical architects now, just the usual suspects discussed around gca.com threads?  Perhaps the modern gca.com period of 1986 - 2021 should be closed and a new present gca period begun?

[Tom_Doak]

1986?

[Jason Thurman]

I’m with The Judge. We have lost sight of analysis and examination in favor of just jumping straight to rating and ranking.


It’s not a new trend. I’ve had some great discussions of the intricacies of different holes and courses over the years, but it feels like I wade through 100 threads like those Terry points to on the way to each of those nuanced ones.


We far too often confuse “understanding architecture” with “knowing how to parrot the favored lists and Doak Scale ratings of courses.” I once asked a GCAer playing partner what he thought of a course he had played earlier that morning. He replied “It’s a 6.” I can’t imagine a more boring answer. I’d never get such lack of insight from a retail golfer.


Bloom identifies 6 levels of understanding. Traditionally, it goes Knowledge > Comprehension > Application > Analysis > Synthesis > Evaluation. We have a collective bad habit of jumping straight to Evaluation, while skipping the really interesting bits (Application, Analysis, and Synthesis, for me).

Jason,


I quite agree. Yet Bloom was perhaps the last and most ardent defender of the canon.


Ira

In the words of Alpa Chino... that's a whole different dude altogether.

[Steve Lang]

1986?

Tom D,


1986??  Just thinking that the periods outlined by GOLFCLUBATLAS.COM, need to be extended... its time.  With minor license I paraphrase the 4 periods first described by Ran:   


Pre-1899: Naturalism

1900-1937: Movers and Shapers

1949-1985: The Dark Ages

Present: Manufactured Impact and Profiles in Courage

I don't know the beginnings of your Renaissance Golf Design (as much as 8th St. in TC), but its ethos has been much appreciated helping to lead things out of the Dark Ages...   So you pick a date

[V_Halyard]

Wow...
I've been juggling multiple 2am remote productions atop other shoots so missed all of this fantastic mayhem!
Couple of opinions.

As a media type, I would pose that this group sometimes fails to recognize that for better or worse,"gca" is now part of popular media. (good thing). And, as a media type that also chaired what began as a contentious architectural restoration, I have first hand experience of the vicious, brutally opinionated and personal attack side of a "gca" restoration. Some fellow members were so horrible to a number of us, some of those wounds will never heal. All because we wanted to cut some damn trees so the greens would stop rotting. One tried to say hi to me just last year and I had to restrain myself from telling him to go *** himself... 5 years later.
Then with the golf media side of our little shop we absolutely worked to raise the value of the investment we made in our course.The best way to accomplish that was to make sure our guys to got recognition for taking a ton of s**t, busting ass, turning out a great golf architectural product, and hopefully get more folks to join. It was part of a business.
Period. No apologies.  I had blood all over my person after that restoration so had zero compunction about getting our team recognition for excellent work and the ratings were the logical pathway.
Would do it again 
... And will likely have to after a storm from last year.

IMO, Social media is an outstanding tool for growing the appreciation of "gca".
Just like music and film, where I have also had buckets of blood spilled upon my person, you may not like the song or the movie, but that is a matter of taste.  The art form and the distribution still benefit the artform.
Just like in music and film, the most important opinion whether a movie review is accurate is that of the consumer.
I would not argue if someone wanted to buy a house next the course we restored and turn it into an AirBnB to play the course.

Ratings? Again, big fan. Sure some are trash and no subjective list is perfect.
We went after them and appreciate them. They give a baseline of opinion to folks that are not here on "The GCA". No apologies. No Remorse. Just like in the media arts, The Grammys (Have two) always deliver a bucketload of garbage victories.
The Oscars will as well, and the Golden Globes are voted on by fewer than 100 people so what does that tell you?
Some benefit from the pop media side of GCA, other club could care less. Folks pick their lane.

Like it or not, the combo of ratings and social media have consumers interested in the "gca" side of golf now more than ever. I am fully and enthusiastically part of the noise floor and hope to spread more golf propaganda in ways that get more folks to play any and all types of courses. Golf Porn is good for all of us.
There was an interesting quote from Judge Potter Steward regarding obscenity and Porn.
To paraphrase: He couldn't necessarily define the components but said: "I know it when I see it."
That's where consumers are today. They look at the social media, play a variety of courses and may not know why the like them but the know that they do.

I would not begrudge any opinion on this fantastic thread.
I would however hope that we all step back, take a look at the subject of these arguments, and focus a bit on the parts of these arguments that have resulted in the growth of the game. The fact that some of the "gca" work is reviled for its popularity in the consumer market is an indication of opportunity.

We have our cameras in some of the most GCA of high end places, as well as some of the most broken-down-gone-to-seed- munys in the nation!  Love them all. They should all be celebrated, supported and most importantly, deliver excellent GCA powered play. As the Wakanda version of Switzerland, we look forward to sharing more stories on all media platforms about work done by all of the folks in here, including the ones that piss each other off, because it is all growing the game.


Regarding serious criticism? All for it and hang out with the likes of Adam Lawrence for that very reason. That said, I am equally proud to celebrate the pop culture/crossover side of gca. The more folks that can experience excellent golf course architecture, the more they will hopefully celebrate and enjoy the game. Once you move from a neglected muny with grass from the football field and circular greens, to a properly architected and maintained golf course, you appreciate the difference.

Hey, a party with a roomful of us is Brandel Chamblee's nightmare scenario so there's that!
Carry on.
V


"Controversy is Press."    - Prince

[Jason Thurman]

I keep thinking... I doubt we're all using the same definition of "serious criticism."

I just think of "serious criticism" as being real discussion, centered on "the text." In this case, the text is the course, and its holes, and the features of how they play. A critical essay outlines a thesis and then supports it. We shouldn't always strive to produce "critical essays" around here - I'm one of many of us who probably drifts in that "essay" direction a little too often - but I do think we should strive for "criticism" in the sense of exploring the themes and details that give a course that sense of character and appeal that we either feel or don't feel when we play somewhere.

As Vaughn calls out, golfers are aware of architecture. They're interested in it, at least in the sense of wanting to play certain places. TPC Sawgrass generates buzz every year. It's not because people don't pay attention to architecture.

I also don't buy that Tim's Spokane travel article would've been better if it was more into beard-pulling and lambasting weaknesses of courses. I read it. It made me want to plan a trip, based on how he illuminated the golf character of the city.


I don't buy that golf needs a "canon." As Vaughn also points out, there's already a wealth of "best-of" lists that serve any purpose a "golf canon" ever would. There are "GCA Best Of" lists all over the history of this forum. I never found any of them more worthy of reference than a mag list.

As far as I'm concerned, the lamest thing we do around here is seeking to reinforce our own notions of taste. "RTJ bad!" "Ross good!" "Water bad!" "Width good!" That's what I hear in the urge to canonize: let's further formalize our tastes as the "right" ones.

If there's value in our geekdom, it's that we might be just a little more willing to dig into what actually creates architectural appeal. The traveling retail golfer sees it, and consumes it. He sees it at Augusta, Sawgrass, Tobacco Road, and even locally at a place like Henry County CC that every golfer in Kentucky this side of Mayhugh loves, even though it's a $30 course that just looks like a rolling bit of farm land with a Doak 2 slapped down on it. There's SOMETHING that makes it different from the rest of the $30 farmland courses scattered around the state, and I don't totally understand it, but it's clearly there when I talk to golfers, or register months in advance to ensure I get a spot in their fast-filling 144-person Invitational.

Serious criticism, to me, is seeking to understand that appeal. We spend too much time prescribing what should be appealing, and then complaining that the average player just doesn't get it. I think that more often means that WE aren't getting it.

[John Kirk]

• As a guy with two English Lit degrees, I can appreciate a canon's ability to provide a little conversational direction when you meet someone else who appreciates literature. But it's not really necessary in a field as narrow as golf course architecture. There are more books at my local library than there are golf courses in the world.
• I love Bob Dylan more than most, which is why it's hilarious to me when old guys try to use him as a trump card to prove that nobody's any good at writing songs anymore, or whatever they think their point is. "Pop music today is a joke!" yells the Boomer as the hook implores him to "Sit down... be humble." Anybody who really thinks Bringing it all Back Home is objectively better than Folklore has frogs inside their socks. Isn't there a Dylan song about times changing or something?

Jason,

Me and my buddy Ben are all over this post.  In a good way.  We think you're one of the cool kids.  It elicited 30 minutes of conversation, a flurry of texts and a bit of research.  Evaluating popular music from different eras is completely fascinating.  And I am actually a dreaded boomer, sneaking it at the tail end before the 1960 cutoff.  My apologies to everybody else.

Furthermore, if I frame my art discussions in terms of music, nobody here is going to punish me for having opinions about golf courses.

[Tom_Doak]

1986?

Tom D,


1986??  Just thinking that the periods outlined by GOLFCLUBATLAS.COM, need to be extended... its time.  With minor license I paraphrase the 4 periods first described by Ran:   


Pre-1899: Naturalism

1900-1937: Movers and Shapers

1949-1985: The Dark Ages

Present: Manufactured Impact and Profiles in Courage

I don't know the beginnings of your Renaissance Golf Design (as much as 8th St. in TC), but its ethos has been much appreciated helping to lead things out of the Dark Ages...   So you pick a date

Steve:


I'm not going to pick a date if you insist on putting "2021" as the close of it   

[Tom_Doak]

Ratings? Again, big fan. Sure some are trash and no subjective list is perfect.
We went after them and appreciate them. They give a baseline of opinion to folks that are not here on "The GCA". No apologies. No Remorse. Just like in the media arts, The Grammys (Have two) always deliver a bucketload of garbage victories.
The Oscars will as well, and the Golden Globes are voted on by fewer than 100 people so what does that tell you?

Thank you for admitting as much.  The Best New renovations, in particular, were always heavily influenced by politicking the voters, because it was the green chairmen and the members spearheading it.  [Architects get accused of this, too, but for the most part, those attempts were more transparent, and the busy architects really do not have much time to do it!]


Luckily the point of a restoration is not to win an award, but for the members to enjoy it afterward.

[Tom_Doak]

If there's value in our geekdom, it's that we might be just a little more willing to dig into what actually creates architectural appeal. The traveling retail golfer sees it, and consumes it. He sees it at Augusta, Sawgrass, Tobacco Road, and even locally at a place like Henry County CC that every golfer in Kentucky this side of Mayhugh loves, even though it's a $30 course that just looks like a rolling bit of farm land with a Doak 2 slapped down on it. There's SOMETHING that makes it different from the rest of the $30 farmland courses scattered around the state, and I don't totally understand it, but it's clearly there when I talk to golfers, or register months in advance to ensure I get a spot in their fast-filling 144-person Invitational.

Serious criticism, to me, is seeking to understand that appeal. We spend too much time prescribing what should be appealing, and then complaining that the average player just doesn't get it. I think that more often means that WE aren't getting it.

Very well stated.  Unfortunately, the Pinehurst #4 thread did not really get to those heights, but maybe others will.


By the same token, there is a huge gulf between searching for the Truth and trying to be popular.  If we are just going to look for the latter here, it will be time for me to get back to the former.

[Tim Martin]

I keep thinking... I doubt we're all using the same definition of "serious criticism."

I just think of "serious criticism" as being real discussion, centered on "the text." In this case, the text is the course, and its holes, and the features of how they play. A critical essay outlines a thesis and then supports it. We shouldn't always strive to produce "critical essays" around here - I'm one of many of us who probably drifts in that "essay" direction a little too often - but I do think we should strive for "criticism" in the sense of exploring the themes and details that give a course that sense of character and appeal that we either feel or don't feel when we play somewhere.

As Vaughn calls out, golfers are aware of architecture. They're interested in it, at least in the sense of wanting to play certain places. TPC Sawgrass generates buzz every year. It's not because people don't pay attention to architecture.

I also don't buy that Tim's Spokane travel article would've been better if it was more into beard-pulling and lambasting weaknesses of courses. I read it. It made me want to plan a trip, based on how he illuminated the golf character of the city.


I don't buy that golf needs a "canon." As Vaughn also points out, there's already a wealth of "best-of" lists that serve any purpose a "golf canon" ever would. There are "GCA Best Of" lists all over the history of this forum. I never found any of them more worthy of reference than a mag list.

As far as I'm concerned, the lamest thing we do around here is seeking to reinforce our own notions of taste. "RTJ bad!" "Ross good!" "Water bad!" "Width good!" That's what I hear in the urge to canonize: let's further formalize our tastes as the "right" ones.

If there's value in our geekdom, it's that we might be just a little more willing to dig into what actually creates architectural appeal. The traveling retail golfer sees it, and consumes it. He sees it at Augusta, Sawgrass, Tobacco Road, and even locally at a place like Henry County CC that every golfer in Kentucky this side of Mayhugh loves, even though it's a $30 course that just looks like a rolling bit of farm land with a Doak 2 slapped down on it. There's SOMETHING that makes it different from the rest of the $30 farmland courses scattered around the state, and I don't totally understand it, but it's clearly there when I talk to golfers, or register months in advance to ensure I get a spot in their fast-filling 144-person Invitational.

Serious criticism, to me, is seeking to understand that appeal. We spend too much time prescribing what should be appealing, and then complaining that the average player just doesn't get it. I think that more often means that WE aren't getting it.

Jason-For my money an incredibly insightful post. I always pause when someone says “he gets it.” Recently a friend screen grabbed a post off of Twitter and sent it to me with those exact words and for purposes of this post it’s not necessary to drill down on the specifics. Along with the screen grab the sender added and I quote “Here’s someone who doesn’t get it himself weighing in on someone who does”. So like any medium you need some due diligence to determine whose opinions you respect whose take isn’t clouded by an agenda.
 

[Tom_Doak]

Jason-For my money an incredibly insightful post. I always pause when someone says “he gets it.” Recently a friend screen grabbed a post off of Twitter and sent it to me with those exact words and for purposes of this post it’s not necessary to drill down on the specifics. Along with the screen grab the sender added and I quote “Here’s someone who doesn’t get it himself weighing in on someone who does”. So like any medium you need some due diligence to determine whose opinions you respect and to determine whose take isn’t clouded by an agenda.

I agree with most of that, but in an internet forum, "whose take isn't clouded by an agenda" is sort of like "who is the sucker at this table"?  Everyone has bias, some are just more well known than others.

[Tim Martin]

Jason-For my money an incredibly insightful post. I always pause when someone says “he gets it.” Recently a friend screen grabbed a post off of Twitter and sent it to me with those exact words and for purposes of this post it’s not necessary to drill down on the specifics. Along with the screen grab the sender added and I quote “Here’s someone who doesn’t get it himself weighing in on someone who does”. So like any medium you need some due diligence to determine whose opinions you respect and to determine whose take isn’t clouded by an agenda.

I agree with most of that, but in an internet forum, "whose take isn't clouded by an agenda" is sort of like "who is the sucker at this table"?  Everyone has bias, some are just more well known than others.

An avid player with no industry connections whatsoever can come to the site without an agenda in my opinion. That person with no course to hype, architect to promote or magazine to boost is possibly the purest voice of all. Biases take time to form for a variety of reasons.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()