Wind-Shmind...

[A_Clay_Man]

Huck- You're right that there is alot of good and great places to enjoy the game for the more sophisticated. But, to acquiesce to medeocrity or inferior principles, is no way to get anything constructive done, in a big world way. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and the acquiescor gets what? A vice-presidency?

Thank god the market is thining out these mistakes of the recent past, and newer bolder courses are being conceived, and older more thoughtful courses are returning their grounds to golfable venues.

While screaming from roof tops may not stop some ignorant person with more money than sense, from following failed or questionable models, it can stop someone who is listening with better ears which is likely unclouded with the thought of 90% occupancy rates.

[THuckaby2]

Adam:

Ok, gotcha.
I just continue to wonder why any of that is my concern.  I'm a pretty happy golfer, in a big beautiful golf world that has never been better.  If others want to build crap - and build crap they do, all the time - what the hell do I care?  

I just think there's a bit of a Chicken Little thing going on here.

But that's just me, one of the more optomistic cheery people you will ever meet, or at least let's hope so.  

Polly Anna Huckaby

[Lou_Duran]

Shivas,

You are either pulling our leg, or one strange duck.  God grant me my remaining days in a constant 65 -75*, 5-10 mph winds, on a certain seaside course, and I will die a most happy man.  Come to Texas in July - August and based on your comments, I guaranty a great time.  Me, I'll derive my treasured variety from the well-designed golf course and whatever random number generator is dialing up my swings on any given day.

aclayman,

You say "Huck- You're right that there is alot of good and great places to enjoy the game for the more sophisticated. But, to acquiesce to medeocrity or inferior principles, is no way to get anything constructive done, in a big world way. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and the acquiescor gets what? A vice-presidency?"

Getting a little elitist, are we?  I find that in my limited experience, opinions are like --------, and you know the rest of it.  Many of those "squeaky wheels" are often just seeking attention and personal validation (my "I am special/significant theory") with a propensity to tell as opposed to doing (no knock on academia intended here).  That's not to say that new ideas shouldn't be explored.  I see great stuff out there nearly every month, some new, some old.

Dick,

I have friends who won't play golf if the wind is blowing much over 15 mph.  They just don't enjoy it, which defeats their reasons for playing.

A friend of mine who grew-up playing competitive golf in El Paso (moderate winds I am told), moved to Amarillo (high, gusting wind) with his job, then to Dallas (pretty windy), and finally to Houston (relatively calm), is now playing the best golf of his life.  He claims that playing in Amarillo and constantly adjusting his swing for the extreme winds nearly ruined his game.  I can attest to that as I used to beat him like a drum when he lived here in Dallas, and since moving to Houston he won the club championship at Northgate seven  
years in a row.

Bottom line:  I agree with your premise that high winds may take away from the ability to enjoy the course to its fullest, and appreciate its architecture.  A possible indicator of great design is that the golf course is challenging and fun regardless how much and which way the wind is blowing within the relevant range.  Of those in windy places, Texas Tech's Rawls course is one that comes to mind; Wild Horse is another.

[A_Clay_Man]

Lou- Elitest ? How about Objective? I am not in the "industry". I have no axe to grind on some grand scale. My experiences turnout to be quite diverse and I must becoming very comfortable with my own analysis because I am use to waffeling in a fickle breeze until all the facts are in.  

During a discussion, when I ask someone, "why they think something?", and they have no comeback other than a subjectively natured response, what can one conclude? Especially when they try to comeback at you, and ask you, "why you think what you think?" and the answer has nothing to do with "my" game, it has to with everyones. Now, thats a huge difference.

[Lou_Duran]

Adam,

I am one who is about as fascinated with how one comes to their beliefs as what those beliefs are.  And it is because golf is such a "big world/big tent" thing and so highly subjective, that I get a kick at how narrow some of us try to make it.

I've been criticized before for drawing tangents between golf and politics.  One could add religion to this mix, but seldom have I seen such passion (including so much vitriol) in discussing other subjects (do admirers of Monet accuse El Greco enthusiasts of being a bunch of tasteless, know-nothings manic-depressives?).  You may prefer a Shelby Mustang of certain vintage.   Does this mean that I am the anti-Christ because I like the touring characteristics of a 450SL or SL500 better?  Do I need to apologize or does it show a lack of sophistication on my part for having gained a better first impression of Paa-Ko Ridge than I did of Black Mesa?  I hope not.    

To the extent that there is considerable diversity in golfers, their reasons for playing the game, their expectations, and the amount of resources that they are willing and able to provide in pursuing the sport, we should expect a wide range of course offerings.  While the CCFADs seem to have been overbuilt in the 1990s, the market will undoubtedly convert some of these to the affordable category.  Wind or no wind, at least near most metropolitan areas, there is more choice today than at any time in my golfing lifetime.  And for that, I am extemely thankful.

[TEPaul]

Adam:

When you say things like this;

"During a discussion, when I ask someone, "why they think something?", and they have no comeback other than a subjectively natured response, what can one conclude?"

What can one conclude? What should you conclude from a response like that? You should conclude just what you did conclude which is that person probably thinks of golf and architecture only in the context of his own game. Your problem is you let it bother you. Why? If you look at the "Big World" theory of golf and golf architecture in the correct way, in a positive way, it'd do you better and you wouldn't worry about that guy, his response and the fact he looks at golf and golf architecture only through his own game.

Why should you really care if a golf course gets built somewhere that's nothing like what you like? Somebody's probably going to like it. You just need to be content that there're enough courses out there that you personally like. Forget about the rest.

The thing that disturbs me about some of the contributors to this site is they seem to be under the impression that everything that gets done should be what they like. And some of the ones who've managed to get beyond that have this quaint ideal that at least all golf courses should accomodate all golfers, all levels of golfers, to be ideal.

Although I think that's a nice principle in golf architecture generally, a principle like that should certainly not always be followed or we certainly wouldn't have as much real difference and diversity in golf architecture as is necessary for the best essence of it all. If that principle was strictly adhered to we probably wouldn't have Crump's Pine Valley, for instance.

Many golfers will always think about golf and golf architecture completely subjectively and often differently--so what? The "Big World" theory of golf architecture takes care of that.

A problem with the "Big World" theory sometimes, though, is  it's real hard to apply it sometimes to a single golf course amongst a single memberhip. That's when real education and diplomacy is needed. That's when a real understandable development and presentation of the course's "ideal maintenance meld" is needed.

Certainly not everyone in a club that has a membership of 200 or 300 or 400 or 500 is going to think alike. That's when education, diplomacy and consensus building is necessary and the good news is if that club through education, diplomacy and consensus building can get that course maintained the way it was designed to be played or restored and maintained the way it was designed to be played it doesn't take long for entire and diverse members with heretofore very differing opinions of golf and architecture to buy into it thereby building a consensus and general enjoyment throughout the membership.

That's been my experience and what I've seen happen out there with very few exceptions if things are done right which means restoring and maintaining the way any course was truly intended to play. That's the good news for a single club but for the rest of the world of golf and architecture there should be something for eveyone---that's the "Big World" theory. If you go to a course where you don't like the architecture or the way it's maintained then don't go there anymore--go to those ones you do like!

But telling any golfer or even those on here that you're upset with someone because he doesn't think like you or his answer to your question doesn't satisfy you---well, that's really no good for anyone.

[THuckaby2]

"Why should you really care if a golf course gets built somewhere that's nothing like what you like? Somebody's probably going to like it. You just need to be content that there're enough courses out there that you personally like. Forget about the rest."

Sage counsel from the Doyen of Doyens, capsulizing in a nutshell what I've been trying to get across.  Thanks, oh wise one.  

[A_Clay_Man]

Of course you are right and I do just let most of it slide off my back for the reasons you state, but, I suppose I irrationally fear the return(or continuation) of following the least common denominator factor. And since the IMM
 theory was invoked, I think most of my problems, with courses, are maintenance related. Stupid trees being second.

I just hold our sport in a little higher light than most other aspects of life and any continuation of what I consider to be bastardization, is heartbreaking.

Isn't that why Max couldn't let go, either?