[Mike Hendren]

Mike:

 If you want to understand golf course architecture, you are nowhere without understanding how a course is routed, and you're not going to get anywhere looking at it one shot at a time.  You have to see what the other possibilities might have been.

Tom, I suspect this is precisely where amateur pundits  such as myself fall woefully short.  Excellent point, particularly your last sentence.

Mike

[JC Jones]

If you want to understand golf course architecture, you are nowhere without understanding how a course is routed, and you're not going to get anywhere looking at it one shot at a time.  You have to see what the other possibilities might have been.

I think it's foolish for most people to even try to understand what the other possibilities for a course might have been.  They just don't have the experience to be able to understand all the consequences of a change here or there.

So we should just resign ourselves to the fact that we'll never understand golf course architecture?

[JESII]

Melvyn

I think you've missed the plot here...and I think Adam has misinterpreted it.



"This whole notion of basing the enjoyment of this sport on score, is a fundamental flaw, and is likely a carry over from how our society has devolved since the halcyon days."

Nobody does this, at least nobody on here.

As with life, it's the journey, the effort to save those few strokes that matters. It's not as much whether you actually do it so long as you tried and enjoyed the effort and learned a little bit.



Melvyn,

When you have a three foot putt what do you do?

There are only a few options; you can try to make it, you can not try to make it or you can pick it up. Assuming it's not conceded, what do you typically do?

[Jeff_Brauer]

JC,

Frankly, when it comes to some of you on this site, I think they need to resign themselves to the fact that there isn't all that much to understand!

[JC Jones]

JC,

Frankly, when it comes to some of you on this site, I think they need to resign themselves to the fact that there isn't all that much to understand!

Don't sell yourself short, Jeff.

[Tom_Doak]

JC:

I don't think most people will ever really understand golf course architecture.  They can understand it at one level -- the hole-by-hole, tactical level -- but I do not think many will ever understand it at the next level if they haven't tried to do it a few times to appreciate how everything is inter-related. 

It did help me [a fair bit] in getting good at doing routings that I had walked so darned many unfamiliar courses over the span of a few years, and tried to put them together in my head ... you start to get a sense of how things fit together, and that there are lots of ways they CAN'T fit together.  [i.e., that can't be the seventh hole, or it will be impossible to get back to the clubhouse through this narrow stretch ... it must be the 15th or 16th.]  But I was still a long way from getting good at what I do then.  I really didn't know much about my ability to route a golf course until I walked around the property at High Pointe for several weeks, with topo maps in my hand, having the responsibility of coming up with the best solution.

I don't mean to imply that it's much more complicated than any other profession; I'm sure most of them have their own nuances.  How about being a doctor or a lawyer?  We've all watched lots of TV dramas about doctors and lawyers -- do you for one minute think the average citizen could diagnose and treat a patient, or represent a client in court?  How about the next level up -- performing arthroscopic surgery?

Golf course architecture seems more accessible because people who play golf think architecture is just another dimension of it -- and it is, if you just stick to placing the bunkers.  The illusion is greater because so many players have cashed in on their fame to be paid as a golf course architect, even though hardly any of them have ever really done the routing for a course, or have a clue how to do that.  I am sure that every football player thinks he could coach, too.  Even the fans seem to think they are smarter than the coaches.  But do you really think the average guy who watches football -- or for that matter the average defensive back -- could go in and analyze the tapes and formulate a game plan and get the team to play as a cohesive unit and lead them to victory?  

Nope.  But when the game's over, they can tell you the coach was stupid for not punting the ball out of bounds on the last play.

[Carl Rogers]

Tom,

Specific example:  Riverfront hole no. 4, I postulate that it was the lynchpin for the routing the front nine.  So when yu found that hole, the length, character and sequencing before and after could be developed.  Good guess or off track?

The more obvious of course is Riverfront holes 13, 14 & 15 which is why the course can call itself Riverfront ...

[JC Jones]

Tom,

I agree with you with respect to the facet of golf course architecture you discuss: the actual design and building of a golf course.  I think you analogies are apt in that it is hard for someone to perform surgery, represent a client in court, design/build a website, construct a house, etc. without the necessary training and education (whether formal or otherwise).  I think you've been pretty consistent on this and I think you are right.  

Where I will disagree with you, however, will be on the notion that golf course architecture is one dimensional.  I think there is a lot more to golf course architecture (and I'm probably wrong, or as Jeff Brauer indicates, over estimating what it is) than just the physical design/build aspect.  I think there are theoretical, historical, philosophical, strategic and other dimensions to golf course architecture.  So in that sense, I think some of those dimensions are accessible to those who devote the requisite time and energy to reading and to seeing lots of golf courses (particularly the great ones).

I'll agree that if the definition and the concept of golf course architecture is limited to the physical design/build then very few will understand it.  I've had the process of building a green explained to me more than a handful of times and I still don't get it (not that I should be used as a barometer for understanding).  But, I'll continue to think there is more to it than that.  If nothing else, than to justify my own time spent reading books like The Anatomy of a Golf Course

[Brett_Morrissy]

If I could further and expand on Tom's use of the analogies:

Housing or building construction & restaurants and cooking

Qualifications & experience required in both of these realms are sometimes taken for granted, as they along with course design and construction require creativity combined with technical skills and experience, but are very accessable to the lay person.

Many have tried, attempted and a few have pulled off building their own home. Or learning to cook or even opening a cafe or Restuarant - but to do it well, for it not to 'break' or have severe faults, for it to last the true test of time and achieve critical success and appreciation from the lay person is truly difficult and that is where the skills and knowledge come to the fore.

Now to many on this DG and across the world who freely and openly discuss, criticize, applaud and dissect these great fields of play, perhaps to do this well, one does not need to be trained as a GCA, just as a restaurant critic does not need to be trained as a chef, or a wine critic trained as a vigneron or a building design critique or commentator need be a qualified architect. But they must have a vast knowledge and experience to draw upon, to compare, to allow them the ability to rate or even list! (i.e. For them to be good at the critique in their own right!)

Hence the high esteem the Confidential Guide is held, without having to visit all the courses, the reader can use it as reference, and every field of creative and technical excellence has these volumes of experience, lists of ingredients/components  and reference material.

So, I believe that many of us (?!) can one day become good critics of GCA (many already are), but that does not qualify us or provide us the necessary skills to design and construct a great golf course, perhaps one golf hole, but not a project, particularly one that is successful, standing the full test of time.

Bm

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom, JC - really good posts and exchange, really good.  In one important sense, Tom Huckaby has been right all these years: what most of us can do (at best) is talk about the golf course, not the architecture. But in another sense (and what JC is I think highlighting), that golf course and its architecture can't be separated from its place in history, its philosophical underpinnings, its aesthetic ideals (and the factors that shape those ideals) etc -- and those things we can tak about....over and over again....

Best
Peter

[Tom_Doak]

 
Where I will disagree with you, however, will be on the notion that golf course architecture is one dimensional.  I think there is a lot more to golf course architecture (and I'm probably wrong, or as Jeff Brauer indicates, over estimating what it is) than just the physical design/build aspect.  I think there are theoretical, historical, philosophical, strategic and other dimensions to golf course architecture.  So in that sense, I think some of those dimensions are accessible to those who devote the requisite time and energy to reading and to seeing lots of golf courses (particularly the great ones).

JC:  We don't disagree on that very much at all.  I agree with you that golf course architecture is multi-dimensional ... so much, in fact, that only a few if any of the professionals in the field have managed to master all the dimensions at once.  You can throw out historical, since for me it is not a criteria worth including (obviously, I can't do anything to build it into my courses); but I'll agree with theoretical, philosophical and strategic, and throw in aesthetic, emotional, agronomic, natural, and practical (and probably others that you have lumped together as "physical").

The thing is, all of these dimensions intersect at the same place -- in the routing of the golf course.  If you do it right, you solve most everything at once.  Your tee positions leave topographic features at certain distances from the tee, so that even a Tour pro with a 75 I.Q. could figure out where to place fairway bunkers [because you've already figured it out for him].  Your landing areas drain naturally, the grass grows easily, and the holes line up the best views to evoke an emotional response.  If it's done right, the course seems like it was always there.  

So, someone who only looks at one feature or one hole at a time, and cannot see the bigger picture, will never really be able to appreciate what for us is the whole point of the exercise, which is to get as much golf out of the land as we can.  As Brett says, one can become a critic without understanding how all of this intersects, but the criticism is hollow, because it only reflects what the critic wants to see, not what actually might have been.

[Mac Plumart]

Just really, really good stuff guys.  Really good!

[JC Jones]

Tom,

I agree with you that the intersection of, and the dividing line between, the intangible and the tangible is the actual routing of the golf course.  That is, in my opinion, the first time where the rubber meets the road.  I think there is a difference, however, in understanding how to route a golf course and being capable of putting together a great routing.  In the same vein, I think that Butch Harmon, Hank Haney, Sean Foley, etc. all understand the golf swing as well as anyone yet they certainly can't perform the golf swing as well as Tiger Woods.  I think the analogies of Robert Parker understanding wine yet not being the best vintner or perhaps a great restaurant critic not being a Michelin rated chef are also apt.

In fact, I think that in some instances those who can perform the tangible the best often don't understand the intangibles that go behind it. But that is corollary not relevant to our discussion.

Understanding what to do and being able to do it are two completely different skill sets and I don't think the ability for someone to understand golf architecture is limited to whether they can piece together a routing as well as a great architect can.  Moreover, I think you'll find that while some people focus on a golf course hole by hole, some people recognize that the greatness of a golf course ultimately begins and ends with the entire package.  Usually words and phrases like "flow" and "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" are used to help communicate this point.

I think Robert Parker understands what it takes to make a great bottle of wine, I think a great food critic understands what it takes to make a great meal and I think Butch Harmon understands what it takes to make a good golf swing.  I don't think their criticism/discussion/understanding of their particular areas is limited by their ability to physically perform the task they understand.  An even better example might be the partnership of Coore & Crenshaw.  It is no secret who routes the golf courses and who spends the time "putting the whole package together" in that partnership, yet, I don't think anyone would say that Ben Crenshaw doesn't understand golf course architecture.

But this tension you address is a valid one and has always been present in all areas, not just golf course architecture - just think, who is a great editor or a great english teacher but someone who can't write themselves?

[Tom_Doak]

JC:  Spoken like a true editor! 

No point in arguing this any further, really.  If you are happy to substitute "the course has a nice flow" for all of the things which make it work that way, that's fine.  I guess my only point is that critics often fail to realize that all those other considerations sometimes trump the notion of moving a hole or adding a bunker so that a particular hole would be more to their liking.

As to your next-to-last paragraph, I think it's safe to say that Ben Crenshaw understands golf architecture a lot better than he did 30 years ago after working with Bill Coore.  Bill does most of the groundwork for the routing, but he does seek Ben's input when he's trying to decide which potential solution would be the best overall -- precisely the problem that most other people never really look at.  Jack Nicklaus and Tom Weiskopf would be among the other pros [of those I know personally] who participate in that part of the design, though not quite in the same fashion.  Still, many of the rest just accept the routing as done by their "associate" and consider themselves the designer of the course just because they played around with the locations of tees and bunkers.

[JC Jones]

Tom,

I don't view this as an argument, just a discussion, thanks for your participation and indulgence.

I don't think that "the course has a nice flow" is a substitute for all of the things that make it work, I said that it was a shorthand way of communicating that point without going into the details.

With regards to your last paragraph, I see that as entirely separate from our discussion.  I don't think it is necessarily appropriate to mix people who try and understand/discuss/critique golf course architecture with the people that you speak of who don't participate in the routing but call themselves a designer because they were involved in the locations of the tees and bunkers.  Perhaps the former are capable of understanding golf course architecture while the latter don't understand what it means to be a golf course architect....

[Adam Clayman]

Sully, Melvyn, I'm of the opinion that the majority of courses that have built since WWII ended, are the reasons participation is stagnant if not declining. People who have tried, give up because they think they are no good. They think they are no good because they can't score better. They can't score better because the courses are built to penalize their less than straight shot, usually without the ability to hit a heroic recovery.

Those are the fundamentals and people I was referring to, not, as you say, most on this board. But, don't kid yourself, these proponents of crap architecture are here. For without them we'd have little to discuss.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Perhaps the problem is not best served by  ‘trying to figure out how to squeeze a few extra strokes out of one's score’ but to fully embrace ‘the study of a golf course’s architecture’ to produce courses that reward the golfer for his efforts.

Perhaps the 20th Century approach of being unable to honour a single architect for the complete design of the Golf course has watered the project into 18 attempts to get one hole right. Do I detect fear in the air, are the latter day designers utilising the word strategic in the hope of wall papering over the cracks, nay chasm  knowing that the skill qualities of the modern golfers lies not from within but via their modern equipment.

Penal designs which test the golfers, from his/her orienteering abilities to navigate (read and understand) the course, yet it’s not just the course but also includes the positioning and location of the hazards as well.  Strategic has become the modern word for ‘being easy’ of seeking the lazy option, strategic has lost its bearings and is in desperate need of some GPS to try and relocate itself. The problem is that architects that follow strategic have themselves  been lost to the market place and still believing that there is some skill let alone golfing merit in Island Greens or Greens pebble dashed with bunkers. More to the rear than to the front – why, could it be to save the player a shot if he misjudges his shot even though his Range Finders gave him the correct details, just his lack of skill his equipment or aids could not hide, but have no fear the Strategic designer is at hand to save you a stroke or two. After all Golf is these days all about the lowers score.

IMHO multi design teams do not work, they like most things modern are the product of compromise and one place that compromise must not be allowed to surface is in design. It like Christ and the anti Christ, Anti Matter vs. matter all very explosive and ultimately serves no useful purpose for the business in hand.

Free the designers, high light the real designer as being the guy who routed the course, name the designers of the Greens construction team and shapers, ditto the fairways and hazards but define the course designers who IMHO is the guy who is routing the course as he set the line which all others have to follow from shaping to adding hazards.

Put pride back into announcing the designer and perhaps we will see more flare coming from that Design House as more way want to be known at the Designer.  Share the honour over the Team and you reduce competition,  cream will not rise to the surface but may well leave for companies who see the merit of acknowledging the Designer.

Many seem happy to utilise Templates but scared to mimic the guys who originally designed them for fear that the original were to penal, but Hell guys this is Golf, each golfer will find his own level and will be more than happy with his lot.

Pamper to the privilege few and you get what we have today inherited, which IMHO has lost more than half the real enjoyment of Golf. Do not believe me then fine but look to TOC between Allan Robertson and Old Tom Morris the modern course dating back some 500-600 years owes more to these two than to anyone else it its long history Examples 1, 17 &18 Holes new, Double Greens, saving double greens on the Eden Estuary, wide fairways new Tees result of land retrieved from the sea, the list goes on but all done between 1830-1880. Radical and challenging changes in their time, yet today they add to the magic and mystery of TOC’

It’s not as if we do not have the talent, we do – many have shown what is possible, the problem IMHO is the direction some of you are going. But then it is only my opinion,

Melvyn

PS. Penal like Castor Oil is actually good for you, but no one likes the tatse. But then, easy will never be found in The Real Golfers Dictionary.

[Mac Plumart]

Melvyn...

Thanks.  Good post! 

I really like this part...

"Many seem happy to utilise Templates but scared to mimic the guys who originally designed them for fear that the original were to penal, but Hell guys this is Golf..."

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()