Aspects of golf courses that can be criticized w/o playing the “opinion” card

[Joe Hancock]

We’ve been bantering on about serious criticism on several threads for a couple weeks now. I’m struggling with separating anything about ones’ opinion on anything that doesn’t fall into the category of opinion. The first thing I can kind of say is a fair thing to criticize, without it being an opinion, would be a routing that creates a logjam in play. What else is fair game?


Maybe once we have a list of flaws that are outside the judgement of opinion, we can start to identify courses with such flaws as examples.


I expect this to be a short list, but you guys are way smarter and well traveled than I.

[Niall C]

Joe


That does rather sound as though you are looking to turn criticism into a tick box affair. Reminiscent of those that judge a course largely on whether the par 3's play in different directions and such like. You wonder why anyone bothers to even leave the parking lot with that approach when they can critique a course using google earth.


I'd much rather you went free-style as it were, giving your own honest opinion based on your own values and judgements and in doing so explaining what they were. I think that would be more valid and more interesting for others to read.


Niall

[Tim Martin]

I would think drainage issues could fall into this category. Either it drains well or not and this could be drilled down to include specific holes, approaches etc.

[Steve Lang]

Grandpa Joe,


I don't think that can be done very easily...  e.g., certainly criticism like the SS-Red halfway house's tacos didnot set well or the hot sauce needed more green chiles are opinions just like player experiences or not liking where their balls end up


Living with a handfull of "building" architects in college always reinforced that the exercise is a continuum of form and function decisions within budget and hopefully the folks like the feel, they can interact and get things done within its envelope, and the place doesn't fall down on them.  Seem the latter is pretty much the only one, like drainage, that is a yes/no fact, without opinion...


Trust you and Ms Trixie are well.

[Tom_Doak]

I would think drainage issues could fall into this category. Either it drains well or not and this could be drilled down to include specific holes, approaches etc.

Mike Hendren and I both gingerly mentioned the drainage issues at Sweetens Cove, with disclaimers, but even that was not well received.


To the broader point, if you reduce criticism to "facts", you're not going to be left with much.  If for sci-fi film critique you stick to the breaches of the laws of physics, you come across poorly as if you missed the point.  If you rail on ts eliot for his capitalization, same thing.  Artistic criticism is not the same thing as a practical exam -- nor should it be.


By the same token, the opinions expressed are themselves subject to opinion.  If Steve Lapper had told me that the bunker on the far right of #9 at Streamsong was misleading to the eye, that might have been a better observation than to say that Steve Scott hit a drive down the right and it got a bad bounce, implying that a 90-yard-wide fairway was somehow unfair or not wide enough.


In the end, the architect's opinion and the client's opinion are what count.  If your critique doesn't change our opinion, that doesn't mean you are wrong, or right -- it just means we aren't going to make a change for your benefit.


Several people privately expressed reservations about me subjecting myself to the inquisition, but I got to sit in on the master class of Pete Dye doing it at Sawgrass in 1982 and 1983, and this was nothing by comparison.  I still remember Commissioner Beman deciding to poll the Tour players in writing and let them opine on the design, with the words, "They will probably be all over the map, but there won't be many places where three guys agree on anything," and that proved to be correct.  Only one hole was changed significantly as a result of that exercise -- the 16th approach and green were redone, probably as the result of a bad bounce that Bruce Lietzke got off the bunker bank and into the water in the final round in '82.  And everybody thinks it's a great hole now, so all the pain was worth it.  But there was a lot of other stuff where Pete and the Commissioner just had to smile, and nod, and move on.

[Jim_Coleman]

My one criticism of La Romana Country Club at Casa de Campo (which I think is a wonderful course) is that all 4 par threes are essentially the same length: 190- 200 yards from the blue tees (6600 yards).  I guess that’s not an opinion.

[Niall C]

My one criticism of La Romana Country Club at Casa de Campo (which I think is a wonderful course) is that all 4 par threes are essentially the same length: 190- 200 yards from the blue tees (6600 yards).  I guess that’s not an opinion.

Now Jim, you're just tweaking my nose ! 


Niall

[Mike_Young]

IMHO the strategy the archie puts in a hole is pretty cut and dried.





 

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Your comment about an architect’s strategy being cut and dried is interesting.  Do you equate strategy to design intent?  I thought you have said many times figuring out or assessing an architect’s design intent for a hole is BS?  Can you explain? 

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
Your comment about an architect’s strategy being cut and dried is interesting.  Do you equate strategy to design intent?  I thought you have said many times figuring out or assessing an architect’s design intent for a hole is BS?  Can you explain?

Strategy has always been my main focus beginning with routing.  If I ever said anything about architect's intent for a hole being BS, I'm sure I had a reason.  I have said that a lot of BS is thrown around by "cover bands" explaining what the original architect had in mind.  And often they may have "out thought" the original dude when expressing their "expertise" to unknowing boards. 

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Thanks for the response.  I was interpreting your comment of “cut and dried” being that you felt the design intent architect’s have for holes is obvious.  I happen to think that sometimes it is or it at least can be figured out so I would agree with you.
Given that very few golfers (or many committees) understand or care much about golf architecture, I do think it is helpful as part of an education process to explain this kind of thing.  Do you disagree?  Who do you think should talk to course owners/decision makers especially of classic courses (where the architect is no longer around) about their golf course and it’s origins and evolution?

[Tom_Doak]

There is a big difference between being an EMT and an ambulance chaser, even though both have professional opinions.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I agree with you.  So who you think should talk to course owners/decision makers especially of classic courses (where the architect is no longer around) about their golf course and it’s origins and evolution?

[Mike_Young]

There is a big difference between being an EMT and an ambulance chaser, even though both have professional opinions.

TD,That says so much....gotta let it sink in....lot of money in chasing ambulances....

[Mark_Fine]

So Tom and Mike, if someone called you about trying to understand more about the evolution of their old Donald Ross course and what they should do with it, who would you guys recommend they speak with?  Would Tom Fazio be high on your list? 

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
Given that very few golfers (or many committees) understand or care much about golf architecture, I do think it is helpful as part of an education process to explain this kind of thing.  Do you disagree?  Who do you think should talk to course owners/decision makers especially of classic courses (where the architect is no longer around) about their golf course and it’s origins and evolution?

First, education process is a loosely used word when dealing with committees.  I had to meet with a committee that wanted to walk some holes and go over what was going to be done two weeks ago.  My first question that morning was "ok..what is your attention span for this?"  All but one said they had an hour..That one had two hours.   What does that tell you? You can't educate them.   I had an architect friend the other day who had flown in for an interview with a club and it had started with 14 candidates.  They flew 7 in and then flew three back in.  He didn't get it and I asked him..why do you subject yourself to this stuff?  You spend a lot of money for presentations, your stomach is in a knot from trying to figure the best way to get the upper hand and most of the time they had their mind made up before they decided to vet 14 others.  I am member at a club that is a basic frat boy club.  The board has no clue and thinks they are on the verge of being a US Open course tomorrow...anything that is improved is done for sake of the member guest....you get the picture... Old classic that was "renovated" using a Fazio "contractor" who impressed the "design committee" as much as the architect who does as they wish...All these guys wanted was  someone who could do what they wanted him to do...I wouldn't waste my time or money unless I was 95% sure I had it before I went for first interview.  Working for individuals is much ,much better than "educating" some guys who don't care to be educated.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
I hear you.  It is not easy and some guys just pass.  But for me, I don’t have much choice (not many new courses being built anymore) and I find the process challenging and usually fun.  You certainly can’t educate everyone and at the end of the day it is the client’s course but you can try to recommend what you think is right.  It is rewarding when people start to understand and embrace the learning process.  Some really do want to learn. 

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
I hear you.  It is not easy and some guys just pass.  But for me, I don’t have much choice (not many new courses being built anymore) and I find the process challenging and usually fun.  You certainly can’t educate everyone and at the end of the day it is the client’s course but you can try to recommend what you think is right.  It is rewarding when people start to understand and embrace the learning process.  Some really do want to learn.

Very very small percentage want to learn.  Few things I have learned about private clubs.  The average committee guy just wants to be sure he can still be welcome at the club once he is off the committee.  The good club managers know that the goal is to get to the next president.  People who are really qualified for the board want no part of it.  Complacency sneaks up on clubs when they least expect it.  All boards think they can get by with their mistakes and pay for them until they can't.  And they all want to make sure they spent more for their project than the club down the street.  Boards are only functional when they don't have debt.  They are dysfunctional once they decide to use debt.  They could give a damn about a learning process. 

[Peter Pallotta]

A good topic, Joe.

Reading these threads, it seems clear that there is no consensus about what constitutes a 'critique' or about what it means to offer 'serious criticism'. We can probably agree that the latter isn't necessarily a laundry list of flaws/mistakes. I'm not sure we can agree on the ratio of 'facts' to 'opinions' in gca; I tend to think there are quite a number of facts a serious critic could point to as part of a critique, but that his/her opinions are not always going to be logical & well-grounded extrapolations from those facts. Luckily, a work of serious criticism doesn't automatically have to be rife with opinion (or expressions of personal tastes).

By way of analogy: that Pavarotti had remarkable breath control, a warm open voice, and excellent phrasing & articulations are facts; that these qualities made him the greatest opera singer of all time is an opinion, i.e. even for a music expert with a broad knowledge of opera's entire history, the latter would be an example of a subjective preference/personal taste. BUT: that critic could legitimately-objectively point out, in reference to a specific performance by Pavarotti, instances when that well-established breath control failed him, or how the phrasing & articulation of this particular rendition of a popular aria differed from earlier versions.

In the same way, a knowledgeable, experienced and well-travelled expert on gca could point out many 'facts' about a given golf course by a given architect, e.g. that all the doglegs bend right to left, and on a straight line 'run out of room' at 220-230 yards; that the fairways average 75 yards in width (or 30 yards, or vary dramatically from 25 yards to 90 yards); that none of the four Par 5s (or all of them) are reachable in two by the average golfer -- as per average golfer distance stats; that there is not a single fairway bunker (or instead, many many of them); that the greens are very large, averaging over 10,000 sq ft, or very small, less than 5000 sq ft, and compared to the architect's other work are noticeably flatter and without contours, etc etc.

Those are all 'facts' about a given golf course. The trouble isn't seeing/having/sharing the facts; the trouble is that not many seem to have the insight or expertise to transmute those facts into a cogent and encompassing 'critique' of the experience that this specific golf course provides the golfer, or into 'serious criticism' about the quality of the architecture relative to other course by this same architect or by other architects past and present.

I think in order to do that the honest critic has to be able & willing to put aside any other consideration & agenda and simply analyze how-how well *this* golf course works as a golf architecture, and how-how well *this* course succeeds as a field of play. And that kind of "serious criticism" doesn't emerge if/when we're e.g.: focusing on how the golf course fits our own particular game; trying to access a tee time; positioning ourselves for our next gig/job; dismissing 4 decades of golf course architecture as the "Dark Ages" or advocating solely for its opposite; coming to the review process by prejudging (or with fixed ideas about) water features, or total Par, or maximum/minimum hole lengths; or even promoting and popularizing the quality work of our friends, etc.

All of which is to say: the serious critic trying to write a meaningful critique has to know a heck of lot, but also has to think deeply and to work hard, IMO. It's hard work to be able to 'see' things clearly, at least it is for me  -- to 'see' things as they really are in-and-of-themselves, instead of what we want/need them to be. You know, the old line about removing the mote from your own eye before trying to pluck the speck from your brother's eye.

[Mark_Fine]

Peter,
Good post.  You are correct that some don’t process all those facts correctly (some don’t even bother to try or collect them in the first place).  But it is possible (though not everyone thinks so), to fairly accurately assess what an architect has/had in mind with their hole designs.  Many architects in the past wrote about this in detail, published articles, even wrote their own books on the topic.  A combination of detailed research and careful study of many of their designs you would hope one might gain some clue what they were thinking.  GCA is clever stuff no question, but having worked in the semiconductor industry for a good part of my career I can tell you it is a little less complicated.  Want me to explain to you how the chip in your computer that is processing all this information to allow us to have this discussion is designed and manufactured     Now that is complicated (at least to some it is)   It is possible to learn about anything if you are passionate about it and put in the time. 

[Don Mahaffey]

Function is not opinion.
You want to build something “mind blowing” but underestimate the impacts of shade, drainage, and traffic,  (the three most common “oh it’ll be all right” mistakes by designers) and it is not good design.
Good design, good golf design art, must function. 


Giving courses a pass because the site was hard to drain is complete BS.  To me it’s the difference between an architect and a designer.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Function is not opinion.
You want to build something “mind blowing” but underestimate the impacts of shade, drainage, and traffic,  (the three most common “oh it’ll be all right” mistakes by designers) and it is not good design.
Good design, good golf design art, must function. 


Giving courses a pass because the site was hard to drain is complete BS.  To me it’s the difference between an architect and a designer.

This.


It's as close as you can get to no opinion.  That said, we can assess whether our new $150 golf shoes get wet before we reach the first green.  There is no try, there is just do or die.   Around here, how that is done could still generate a debate.  I might use catch basins, and know 110% that it was the best and maybe the only way to achieve drainage.


Someone here would say I shouldn't have used them.....but still insist the hole should be perfectly drained.  And, ideally with no grading to preserve those highly valued natural contours (even if that is what doesn't allow drainage in the first place.)  For others not here, they might gripe about removing trees, even if that allows in the sunshine to dry soil and grow grass. Not sure how, but somehow, a million in sand capping, or what. 


In short, people will find something to have a negative opinion about.  An opinionless fact based statement is as common as unicorns these days.  LOL.

[Tom_Doak]

In the same way, a knowledgeable, experienced and well-travelled expert on gca could point out many 'facts' about a given golf course by a given architect, e.g. that all the doglegs bend right to left, and on a straight line 'run out of room' at 220-230 yards; that the fairways average 75 yards in width (or 30 yards, or vary dramatically from 25 yards to 90 yards); that none of the four Par 5s (or all of them) are reachable in two by the average golfer -- as per average golfer distance stats; that there is not a single fairway bunker (or instead, many many of them); that the greens are very large, averaging over 10,000 sq ft, or very small, less than 5000 sq ft, and compared to the architect's other work are noticeably flatter and without contours, etc etc.

Those are all 'facts' about a given golf course. The trouble isn't seeing/having/sharing the facts; the trouble is that not many seem to have the insight or expertise to transmute those facts into a cogent and encompassing 'critique' of the experience that this specific golf course provides the golfer, or into 'serious criticism' about the quality of the architecture relative to other course by this same architect or by other architects past and present.

Peter:


These paragraphs get to the heart of my concern about trying to "objectify" critique.


After seeing most of the great courses in my early twenties, I took a bit of time to try and establish what were the verities of design, as I'd seen them on the ground.


We all know the "rules" of design that codify fairness:  that there is a balance of doglegs L-R and R-L, that the par-3's point in different compass directions and have different lengths, that you've got the same number of big water hazards on the right as the left, etc.  But what I discovered pretty quickly was that many of my favorite courses smashed these rules to bits.  Take Ballybunion:  the ocean is always on the right, and nearly all of the doglegs are right to left. 


So does that make it not a great course?  Only to a prig.  It is the way it is because when you're in big dunes, you've gotta go with the flow, and you can't just make a hole go left to right because it's time for one.  Maybe it's not PERFECT, but nothing is, and it is clearly way better than most of the plain courses where the doglegs all balance.


So that's my concern:  that trying to codify critique will just fall back on those same stupid rules that I learned years ago not to worry about.  I'd rather have emotion!  I want people to love the golf course, not just respect it.  I'd even rather have people hate two of my holes, because that means I'm getting inside their heads, and Mr. Dye taught me that is a good thing.  Maybe then you'll tear up the scorecard in frustration, and then you can start to see that the game can be fun, instead of a constant grind.  Or maybe not.  But at least I tried.

[Michael Goldstein]

Great thread, thanks for all your contributions.

Tom you got in my head with 13 at Barnbougle. I thought it was nuts. I may have been irrationally emotional about it.  And what did I know about Sitwell Park or life beyond scorecards. Can't wait to return to play it when the borders open up.

[Ira Fishman]

Peter,
Good post.  You are correct that some don’t process all those facts correctly (some don’t even bother to try or collect them in the first place).  But it is possible (though not everyone thinks so), to fairly accurately assess what an architect has/had in mind with their hole designs.  Many architects in the past wrote about this in detail, published articles, even wrote their own books on the topic.  A combination of detailed research and careful study of many of their designs you would hope one might gain some clue what they were thinking.  GCA is clever stuff no question, but having worked in the semiconductor industry for a good part of my career I can tell you it is a little less complicated.  Want me to explain to you how the chip in your computer that is processing all this information to allow us to have this discussion is designed and manufactured     Now that is complicated (at least to some it is)   It is possible to learn about anything if you are passionate about it and put in the time.

Mark,


Actually understanding how a semiconductor chip is designed and manufactured is quite a bit less nuanced or difficult than Peter’s point about criticism of Gca or any other architectural/art form. And it is way more straightforward than analyzing the intent of a golf course architect, composer, writer, sculptor, and so forth. I greatly respect terrific chip designers, AI scientists, and even more importantly the mathematicians and physicists who have identified the theoretical foundations. But soul is soul and artistry is artistry. Einstein was correct about the physical world, but I doubt Charlie Parker or Toni Morrison or Banksy based their work or intent on the physics that led to semiconductor chips.


Ira