[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

.........isn't it?

This site is devoted to “talking” about golf.  While sometimes this talk relates to actual experience, more often than not it relates to predilections, theories, readings and conjectures.  This is natural as we all have far too little time to spend actually playing golf, and when we do play, most of us do not have the opportunity to do so on the elite courses that tend to be of most interest to this site.  As a result, many of us seek solace in the written words of the old masters, or of the new masters, or of aficionados like ourselves who interpret the writings of the old and new masters, or aficionados who interpret the interpretations of other aficionados, etc. etc. ad infinitum…….

While I understand the need of some to “research” golf course architecture, I personally believe that any such research is inferior to actual experience, in terms of understanding the subtleties of any “great” golf course.  This is assuming, of course, that the person with the experience is a highly competent and interested observer and golfer.  I, for one, will listen more closely to the words of, say, Joel Stewart on Olympic than I will to all of the collected writers and wannabie writers on this site (excepting the mad Armenian, of course…. ).

Thus, I find it laughable and sad that, on a another thread, some are suggesting to Pat Mucci that he, in effect, go back to the library before he comments more on the Tucker course that he has been playing and observing for over 50 years—all with a very high degree of competence and interest, I can presume.  You could get 500 non-Mucci DG participants and give them 500 typewriters, 10 years, an unlimited travel budget and all the library cards they ever dreamed of and I would be surprised if they were to reach anything close to the understanding that he probably has of that course and of Tucker, much less a conclusion .  Even more laughable, people who have probably only played NGLA once or twice in their life seem to want to dictate to the members and owners of the club what they should do with their property, all the while ignoring that these same members and owners are the ones that had the vision to hire Karl Olsen in the first place and make significant changes to a course which was threatened with falling into the dustbin of history (or so I am told)!  To me, this is like telling the current residents of “Falling Waters” (the famous Frank Lloyd Wright house that famously leaks) that they cannot fix the roof because it would be contrary to FLW’s design intent, or the perquisites of “history” or whatever…….

I played 4 rounds of golf last weekend over 3 courses that I know quite well and I learned more in those 2 days about those courses and architecture than I would have reading all of Dan King’s or Michael Thomas’s library.  However, the fact that I lurk and sometimes participate on this site helped me significantly in this experiential learning.  I see all of those courses in a different light and learn more when I play them  than I did 3 years ago.  This is good.  But……..

…..reading and pontificating is only a very weak substitute for experience, at least as I see it.

[Steve Wilson]

Oh yes, reading about golf is poor solace for playing it, and playing where I do, places no one here has ever heard of, is infinitely better than reading about places I will never play.  

For instance, Sunday I played at my favorite course for the first time in a year with old friends I hadn't seen since Sept of last year.  I drove the ball like a well oiled machine and hit my irons like a man doing an impression of a backhoe.  But my one errant drive put me in the woods on a hole where the preferred approach is something high and soft to an elevated green.  I was forced to manufacture a low cut 7 iron from 120 in the hopes of running it up a small ramp onto the green.  Now I had always thought that shot was available just from looking at the course, but now I know it is. True, I barely reached the green, but the thrill of executing what I visualized was better than all my theorizing. It was, by God, fun.  And isn't that what this game is supposed to be about.

Maybe that's the question all clubs should ask.  Is our course fun.  And will any proposed changes increase the fun or decrease it.

Knowledge has its own rewards, but perhaps we would be better off gleaning the knowledge from books and this DG in those long winter months when the member of golf played and the hope of golf to come are equally faint and distant.  

Not exactly on topic perhaps, but I specialize in that.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Rich,
If you now believe that playing is much more important than research in our understanding of GCA architecture than how come you said the following to Tom Doak on another thread:

      "Finally, as a highly accomplished practicing architect, what additional value would you get from having Myopia, for example, kept as it is now, vs. being able to see what it is now from photographs and descriptions of talented writers.  Do aspiring aritsts have to visit the Louvre to understand and learn from the qualities of the Mona Lisa, or more properly, what additional vlaue do they get from standing in the queue and then getting a minute of so to view her smile under glass"?

In this quote you seem to be implying that by researching the "photographs and descriptions of talented writers" a person could get as much knowledge as could be had from actually being there  

You cannot have it both ways, sir. Pick a side and make a stand or understand the value that either element brings to the discussions held here.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Jim

The two threads you refer to had different topics and so it is not at all surprising that my thoughts differed on each.

The Doak one was about the need for preservation.  All I was saying is that we have lost a lot of great golf courses and golf holes over time and this has not seriously impeded our "art."  Just this past weekend I saw a really cool picturce of the old 6th hole at Dornoch, which is now the 11th green, played from a completely different angle.  Would it be great to have hads that green preserved?  Yes, all other things being equal.  Would it have been a loss to us if the "new" (1946) 11th green (which is world class) had not been built due to that preservation?  Yes, also.  Sure, it would have been great to have preserved the old 12 hole Prestwick, say.  Would it have been greater, however, than the 18 superb holes we have now?  Life goes on.

My thread (this one) asks a very different set of questions, most simply, in terms of commenting on GCA--does not experience count for more than scholarship in a field of "art" where the primary purpose is to create a field of play? I think I said both are important, but that I give much more credence to) opinions that are based on actual play, particularly play of those who do so at a high level of skill.  That is all.

PS--I have no fears that Myopia will ever change in my lifetime--when I last played it in 1972, the pro said "How's your father? (my father had last played it in 1938!)--but if it does, it will not be the end of the world, even the GCA world!

[allysmith]

Rich,

As usual, despite my short time with the discussion group,I find your views are articulate and well put.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with the sentiment that the playing of a course regularily can augment an architectural view but there is no doubt that those with a basic architectural knowlege can have their opinion/knowlege augmented by regular play.

May I suggest that  in order to have an 'informed' opinion one needs to have understood the various writings of the old masters and the reasons for their architectural choices. If one has failed to grasp the basics then any opinion is in danger of becoming ill informed.

I cite for example those 'home boys' who play their own club week in week out and rarely venture further affield. I would suggest that this myopic view of golf should be less readily accepted than those of us who have strived to learn through a variety of experiences on courses of diverse design

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

Thanks.

All too often paralysis through analysis takes hold.

Research can be beneficial, provided the data base isn't flawed.

Would one gain any indication of Tucker's work if they visited my club and studied it.  The myriad of changes to the golf course over the last fifty years would confuse them, and I would challenge anyone on this site to identify all of the changes, especially the bunkers that have been removed, and altered.

How would they evaluate entire holes that have been completely redesigned ?

How would they understand the order, the evolution of the changes ?

Talk is cheap, there is no substitute for experience.

Thanks again.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Rich and Patrick,
There is no substitute for research in a person's understanding of GCA. As Patrick states, if you go to his club you will not see what Tucker wrought. Where might one find what Tucker hath wrought???, perhaps by reading a scholarly tome, if one exists, of his work.
When I became aware of Raynor, after playing for a number of years on a course that he built, I thought I had a good understanding of much of what he did, then I met George Bahto. What can I say-- return to square one.

Let's use George for an example(George, hope you don't mind. If I say anything that is untrue please beat me over the head with your book).
He researched CB, Raynor, Banks, and Barton. This was a scholarly pursuit. He spent time in the archives of Hotchkiss as well as at many other locations digging up the true visions of these boys. He spent many hours on the courses he researched seeing what was left and what remained of their works. His experience is a combination of both schools, research and field work.

If you want to amend this post to say that a combination of research and field experience is needed to make cogent arguments about GCA then I will agree with you 100%.  

[Andy Hodson]

Rich

I was going to reply with a lone word.

Excellent!

But I felt compelled to expand, if ever so slightly. You have near perfectly put into words a benign frustration I feel from time to time on this DG. It is so very hard to separate the discussion of architecture from the experience of playing. And maybe that's another of the beauties of the totality of this great game...its a subject big enough for scholarship and one that  can't be separated from the experential.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Jim

I agree that both experience and reading/research is better than just one or the other.  I admire the work that George B. and others have done to give us a better understanding of the archaeology of golf.

However......

...if Willie Dunn happened to become flavor of the decade for GCA mavens at some time in the future, would you recommend that Shinnecock tear up Flynn's improvements and go back to what was there in the 1890's?

I think that restoring GCA on a certain piece of land just because some icon once had a different idea as to what to do with that land than people who came later is not, in itself, a wise decision.  What is of paramount importance, to me at least, is how the architecture plays.  Not just how it looks.  Not how "faithful" it is to the designer's intent, whatever that means.  Not what others may have thought of it many years ago.  Those things are interesting, but secondary. I think that is all I am trying to say.

Hod

Thanks.

Rich

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Kennedy,

Some courses are fortunate enough to have been designed by an architect of note, one who has an abundance of reference or research information available.

Where information and surviving original works are available research can certainly be beneficial.

But, in this case, the politics, forces or dynamics in play, will determine the result, not research.  Elements within the club and elements within power structure want to modernize.

Sadly, many draw upon the work done at their Florida clubs, which in many cases, amounts to keeping up with the Jones's.

What I find interesting, is that I am deeply involved in this project, have been on the green committee and board for over thirty years, yet individuals who have never layed eyes on the property, have no idea of the politics, and no historical perspective, are contradicting me on what to do, especially in areas where they don't have the facts, and don't understand the particular circumstances unique to this club.

Each club has its own unique dynamic, and one must be exposed to it, to understand it.

I guess, anybody can be an armchair quarterback, especially monday morning.

THIS GROUP WOULD RECOMMEND RESEARCHING THE ART OF SELF DEFENSE WHEN YOU'VE JUST BEEN PUNCHED IN THE FACE AND ARE IN THE PROCESS OF BEING MUGGED.

[George Pazin]

While I understand the need of some to “research” golf course architecture, I personally believe that any such research is inferior to actual experience, in terms of understanding the subtleties of any “great” golf course.

This attitude has destroyed more great golf courses than any other.

This is assuming, of course, that the person with the experience is a highly competent and interested observer and golfer.  I, for one, will listen more closely to the words of, say, Joel Stewart on Olympic than I will to all of the collected writers and wannabie (sic) writers on this site (excepting the mad Armenian, of course…. ).

HUGE assumption. Many great golfers & observers are clueless when it comes to altering golf courses. Listen to Johnny Miller any weekend.

Even more laughable, people who have probably only played NGLA once or twice in their life seem to want to dictate to the members and owners of the club what they should do with their property, all the while ignoring that these same members and owners are the ones that had the vision to hire Karl Olsen in the first place and make significant changes to a course which was threatened with falling into the dustbin of history (or so I am told)!

Everyone has his own read on that thread. Mine is not that anyone here was trying to "dictate" to NGLA what they should do with their property, but, rather, that they have seen what can happen when issues are not addressed up front and thus showed justifiable concern. Heck, if NGLA was my club, I'd be flattered that so many care so much about my course.

I played 4 rounds of golf last weekend over 3 courses that I know quite well and I learned more in those 2 days about those courses and architecture than I would have reading all of Dan King’s or Michael Thomas’s library.

Maybe you did & maybe you wouldn't - only you can judge that. Maybe the conclusions you drew are completely wrong, who knows.

However, the fact that I lurk and sometimes participate on this site helped me significantly in this experiential learning.  I see all of those courses in a different light and learn more when I play them  than I did 3 years ago.  This is good.  But……..

…..reading and pontificating is only a very weak substitute for experience, at least as I see it.

You got the first part right - that's a big part of the motivation for the site, as I see it. The second part, well, again, I can't speak for you.

The danger with this attitude is that it is 100 percent predicated on the theory that the individual in question is capable of asking the right questions, drawing the proper conclusions & making the right decision. Most fail in at least one of these areas, many fail in all three.

When one starts thinking he's smarter and knows better than everyone else, bad things usually happen.There's always someone smarter who's gonna disagree with you and make his own changes. Always.

Hod -

Guess we're gonna have to simply agree to disagree with everything posted on this site.

----
Sorry about the bold thing - don't know where it came from, don't know how to get rid of it.

[Lou_Duran]

I am so glad that Rich is back with us on this site, though he is now geographically "removed".  He is the relatively rare individual who is not only articulate, curious, and insightful, but also a very good golfer.  In my opinion, Rich definitely sees the trees from the forest.

Six months or so ago, I had a similar thought, i.e. that we get so caught up in the literature and theoretical discussions that we often forget that golf is a game to experience physically, viscerally, and on a very personal level.  I opined that perhaps I needed to play more and post less.  To some extent I have tried to do this, and have had one of the best years ever in terms of seeing new courses, learning about golf and architecture, and meeting some extraordinary people.  From the standpoint of scoring, I am playing some of the worst golf in my life, but believe it or not, my interest in the game is being rekindled.

Not that I am opposed to "scholarship", but there may be a small amount of truth to the generality that those that can do, and those that can't teach (or talk about it).  I have nothing but the utmost respect for teaching professionals who have a vocational calling, but I tend to give more weight to those folks who not only talk the talk, but walk the walk.  My best professors were those that were immersed in practice in the disciplines that they taught.  That is one of the reasons why when I read something by the likes of Tom Doak, Mike Young, Pete Galea or Don Mahaffey it has immediate credibility with me (not that I necessarily agree with everything they say).

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Pazin,

Generalizations and specifics are sometimes at odds.

[Dan Kelly]

Rich Goodale writes (belatedly):

"I think that restoring GCA on a certain piece of land just because some icon once had a different idea as to what to do with that land than people who came later is not, in itself, a wise decision.  What is of paramount importance, to me at least, is how the architecture plays.  Not just how it looks.  Not how 'faithful' it is to the designer's intent, whatever that means.  Not what others may have thought of it many years ago.  Those things are interesting, but secondary. I think that is all I am trying to say."

Let's imagine that that were, in fact, all that Rich said. What do you guys think of THAT?

I can find nothing to fault there.

PS, to Rich: Great Fallingwater analogy!

[THuckaby2]

If that were indeed all Rich said, I would say:

BRAVO!  Right on, and thanks for phrasing it that way... I never thought of the whole restoration thing in that light.  Who really is to say what time is "right" for a course to be restored to?

Bravo Rich and yes, welcome back.  Of course, someone said you'd eventually return here...  

TH

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
It is not an either or proposition. I would never trade my experiences at Cypress Point or Cape Breton or Casa de Campo or Shinnecock or Pinehurst or Sand Hills or Riviera or Oyster Harbors or Chicago or Cascades or Crystal Downs or Victoria National or Ohio State. And thankfully I don’t have to. Experience inspired my initial interest in research that has in turn intensified my desire to experience.

It has been my observation that those who have a burning desire to master a given subject, become totally engrossed in that subject. Be it wine or drama or art or religion or history or whatever. Because of the strong desire to learn they enhance their experiences with research, which involves reading. Experience is vital, but limiting yourself only to experiences is like playing the game with one hand tied behind your back. If you have an overwhelming interest in haute cuisine, would you limit yourself only to dining experiences or would you pick up Escoffier?  If your goal is to gain an expertise in a particular art form or subject matter, I believe you must tap additional sources, experience is not sufficient. You will pick the brains of respected individuals who have greater or different experiences than you own – I’ve never been to Australia, Japan or the UK, but that doesn’t dampen my interest. You will study the thoughts and theories of the greatest golf minds – past and present. To ignore them or claim they are irrelevant displays certain arrogance. You will delve into the past, who is not moved by the old images that Paul Turner posts – many of which are extinct or altered? And you will attempt to learn what inspired these great men to create what they created.

If you only have casual interest in the subject, I imagine this behavior might appear excessive or extreme. I also know through personal experience it can frustrating or humbling to debate someone who has a deeper or more scholarly understanding of a particular subject.  

Aficionado is a term that has been thrown around lately, its definition: a person who likes, knows about, and appreciates a usually fervently pursued interest or activity. The great thing about golf and golf architecture is that it is both an activity and an interest. And it’s a never-ending pursuit of knowledge – through both experience and research. On the other hand a fervent pursuit is not for everyone. There are very few aficionados, but it seems to me that this site was designed as a haven for such people.

By the way I played golf four times last week

[George Pazin]

Who decides whose experience matters more or most?

In the case of your specific club, Patrick, wouldn't research in support of your position make it easier to convince others?

I missed the posts where others said research was the only thing, that golf experience does not matter. I wonder how Raynor would've felt about your ideas, Rich.

[George Pazin]

Furthermore, if you guys can read Tom MacWood's latest post & find anything objectionable, then the bias question is settled for me once & for all.

[Andy Hodson]

George

I don't think the question is whose experience matters most. But whether experience matters more than research. And to state that the conclusions Rich draws from his experience may be wrong (who knows) is trying to force the objective (actually your subjective I feel) on the subjective. Thats the height of critical snobbery cloaked in the guise of scholarly research. How could Rich's conclusions be wrong...they are HIS and his alone.

Tom
Although it sounds like you are taking a counterpoint to Rich's position, I agree with the both of you. Complimentary point well taken and articulated. Experience does drive research. Research does enhance experience.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Rich,
You remind me of a great Oscar Wilde line,

"I’ve given up reading, it takes my mind off myself."

It's all about your Rich! Don't ever forget that...Oh, and nice you are back to read all of these theories and predilictions. Seems kind of contradictory doesn't it? If it's all about experience and the self, then why waste Ran's server space with posts and hits? Why are any of us here at all?

Geoff

[George Pazin]

Let me ask a question:

Does anyone feel that the poor changes that have been made in the desire of improving golf courses were not born of experience but rather some malicious intent to damage a course?

Hod -

Anyone can draw improper conclusions & just because they are the conclusions of said person does not mean that they are right, even to that person. The logical extension of your idea would seem to be that every conclusion drawn by an individual is right to that person. I did not say that Rich was wrong, I said he could be wrong - only he knows his thoughts. I've read enough of Rich's posts to know that he is likely right in his observations, but my point is that this type of thinking is entirely reliant on the person making the observation. If I were to hire Tom Doak to build a course, play it, draw some conclusion from my playing experience that he made a mistake somewhere, make a change & butcher it, would you say that my conclusion was right, even to me? Intellectual snobbery is not questioning others' thoughts & conclusions - intellectual snobbery is feeling your thoughts are always right & above others' questions. Intellectual snobbery is feeling one's own experiences & thoughts supercede everyone elses experiences & thoughts.

[Charles Roberts]

Geoff:

Do I detect a sense of animus in your snippy comment to Goodale? It is unlike you.

[Charles Roberts]

Geoff:

Do I detect a sense of animus in your snippy comment to Goodale? It is unlike you.

[Andy Hodson]

George

Agree with your logic. But...if Tom Doak builds a course, and you and only you play it, and find a change somewhere needs to be made to improve it (in YOUR opinion) and said change is made...then in YOUR opinion (and in this case it is the only one that matters since only you are playing the course), your experience not only mattered, but was RIGHT.

It is only when someone else experienced the golf course (and subsequent changes) that your opinion could be construed as incorrect. That is, someone else's subjective view would judge your subjective view as incorrect. That would not mean your view was in violation of some objective criterion. Instead it would mean both views were correct relative to each person, and incorrect relative to the other person.

Which raises the question: Are there non-experiential absolutes of GCA? Of course there are (300 yd carries with no bail out comes to mind) but maybe they are way fewer than we would like to believe. And shouldn't the voice of the one playing a course count as much as the voice of the "expert".

[Dan Kelly]

Mr. Goodale is, as you all know, well-equipped to defend himself -- but I just can't stand it!

He did not say, as some of you are saying or implying, that research is useless.

He did not say that IT (golf, or GCA, or life, or anything) is, in Geoff Shackelford's words, "all about your [sic] Rich!"

What he said -- and pretty carefully, too -- was: "I personally believe that any such research is inferior to actual experience, in terms of understanding the subtleties of any 'great' golf course. This is assuming, of course, that the person with the experience is a highly competent and interested observer and golfer."

Read that carefully, Geoff S, and it should answer your question: "Why are any of us here at all?" Unless, of course, you meant your question in a considerably more existential way!

As for Tom MacWood's latest: I can't speak for Rich, but I doubt if he finds anything more objectionable in it than I do (I find nothing objectionable). Points well taken. (Potential aficionados welcome here in this haven, too, I trust.)

The only things I find disturbing are: (1) that Mr. MacWood has played Cypress Point and Casa de Campo and Shinnecock and Pinehurst and Riviera and Oyster Harbors and Chicago and Cascades and Crystal Downs and Victoria National and Ohio State -- and I have not; and (2) he played four times last week -- and I didn't play at all!

(Row of obligatory smileys, in various conformations.)
 



  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()