Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Patrick_Mucci on October 21, 2002, 03:18:55 PM
-
Many have lamented at what has happened to classic courses, and classic values.
There appears to be a desire on the part of some, to return to the past. How can this be accomplished.
I can't speak to the equipment issue, that's in the hands of the governing bodies. But, I do think I can speak to the values issue.
How do you accomplish a cultural change ?
how do you convince golfers to revert to a time in the past ?
How do you convince clubs to eliminate red, white and blue plastic circles in the fairway, indicating yardage ?
how do you convince them to eliminate different colored flags on the green, indicating pin locations ?
how do you rid these clubs of 150 yard bird houses, colored posts, sprinkler head yardage to the front, middle and back of the greens ?
I think you do it by creating a golf environment that is unique and special, one that eliminates all the clutter, all the vestiges of too much television viewing.
You do it by creating a golf course that everyone wants to play...... and play again, that doesn't contain these features, and thus you begin to change the desires of the golfer,
which begins to change the culture of golf,
back to what was a truer form of the game.
I think Friar's Head is the first step in changing the culture of golf.
A golf course of interest, challenge, beauty and tradition.
A golf course swept with the wind, and the winds of change.
It is pristine, it is golf in a purer form.
Is it radically different ? I think so. I also think that if it wasn't radically different, it wouldn't have as great an impact in changing the culture of golf.
I think golfers, having played Friar's Head, will return to their home course with a different perspective on golf and golf courses. And, I believe that experience will be the springboard of change.
If other clubs begin to emulate what exists at Friar's Head, the momentum for change will have taken hold and golf will be the better for it.
Friar's Head can turn back the clock by becoming an example and a destination.
How else can you do it ?
-
Its moving in that direction but would say it began more with Sand Hills, then Pacific and Bandon Dunes. There are others that I'm sure I'm not mentioning which serve to educate the masses.
Its still a matter of preference. Many of the masses still prefer to watch the Masters then the British Open and play Fazios courses then older classics.
-
Patrick,
You're going to have to redesign two thirds of the courses in the U.S. before certain changes you mention will ever occur.
;D
-
Jim,
I was referencing non-design items, and changing the way the game is perceived.
Most of the courses could easily eliminate all of the fancy tee monuments, yardage indicators, colored flags, etc., etc., overnight, without touching the course architecturally.
Joel,
I haven't been to Mullen or Bandon so my experience with a golf course without all the clutter is in the context of Friar's Head, a course I've seen and played.
Are the courses you reference similar or identical in what they present to the golfer ?
-
Pat:
After hundreds of your posts accusing some on here of favoring architects like Doak, Hanse and Coore and Crenshaw it seems to me you are FINALLY beginning to figure out why we might do that!
Congratulations!
-
TEPaul,
I knew that you'd insert bias into this discussion. ;D
My thread has nothing to do with architecture.
Nothing to do with C&C, rather the changes in culture that Ken is trying to promote for the good of the game.
-
Patrick,
How do you turn back the clock? You drive to Lakeville, CT. Yesterday I had the pleasure of playing at Hotchkiss Golf Course with my 7 year old son on the way back from a Boston College football game/weekend. On a beautiful fall day in The Berkshires, I had the pleasure of playing a 9 hole Seth Raynor design that Jim Kennedy my host calls a "baby Yale." Maybe there were twenty people on the course. The clubhouse is probably 250 square feet and the locker room consisted of a bench on the front porch and the commercialism consisted of a few hats with Hotchkiss Golf Course on them. Even my son noticed the Raynor greens when he noted "cool green" on number 4 which has two skinny diagonal swales which breaks the green into three sections.
Since I had my son with me, I did have to take a cart due to the hills, but the course gives you a real feeling for 1920's design. Three years ago (pre-GCA) I would have never played this course, now I can't think of a better spot to be on a Sunday in the fall. However, let's not kid ourselves, we are in the severe minority on this site. There will always be demand for cart paths, beer carts and bad design, which is a good thing because I prefer to have Hotchkiss all to myself and my son.
-
Pat:
Ken is trying to promote changes in culture for the good of the game and that has nothing at all to do with Friar's Head, it's architecture and Coore and Crenshaw?
I see! Hmmmm!
You really do have a very interesting way of compartmentalizing things!
-
Mike,
There is no doubt that we are in the minority.
But, I think word will spread about FH and how things are done there, and I think, over time, other clubs will emulate what those who play there, see and experience, in the way of customs.
As an example, I've been in an ongoing disagreement with a few board members at my club regarding several issues.
After taking them to GCGC, and letting them see and experience how things are done there, they now agree with my position. I would imagine that the same learning experience will occur to those that visit and play Friar's Head.
TEPaul,
You must be reading without your glasses again.
You missed the word "culture", which is not to be confused with the word "architecture"
Please put your glasses back on and reread the initial post.
-
Patrick,
"How do you convince clubs to eliminate red, white and blue plastic circles in the fairway, indicating yardage ?
How do you convince them to eliminate different colored flags on the green, indicating pin locations ?
How do you rid these clubs of 150 yard bird houses, colored posts, sprinkler head yardage to the front, middle and back of the greens ?"
Those trappings are a direct consequence of aerial bombardment, a type of play that many courses built after 1960 require players to adhere to by dint of their design. My earlier and succinct response was aimed at this phenomenon. You may enlighten some of your members when taking them to GCGC but I wouldn't think there is a need for all those modern accoutrements at a course where shot making is still practiced.
The culture is directly impacted by the fields of play. That is all I was trying to say.
-
"You missed the word culture which is not to be confused with architecture."
Patrick:
Oh really??
I didn't miss the word culture at all.
I'm glad you said that though and I'm glad you said I should put my reading glasses on to understand what you're trying to say!
It appears what you're saying is the best evidence yet how much you tend to "compartmentalize" so many things about golf courses, golf, architecture, and probably now "culture" etc etc!
It may be the reason you tend towards the "formulaic". It may be the reason you still fail to understand that if you tell ANY architect EXACTLY what to do you WILL NOT get the same product, although for some reason you think you will!
You apparently don't think that the architecture of Coore and Crenshaw has anything to do with the culture of Friar's Head!
I think you should ask Ken Bakst about that! I think you might find that Ken Bakst likely thinks that the entire creation of Friar's Head, including the architecture and Coore and Crenshaw very much ties in to the culture being created at that club.
You might begin to understand how much Ken Bakst and Coore and Crenshaw feel that the creation of that product is very much a symbiotic one between them! It also explains why it sometimes takes Coore & Crenshaw a good deal of time to sign a contract to do a golf course (something they tend to wait on AFTER spending a good deal of time in preliminary work).
The simple reason for that is they want to be sure that they and the client are on the same page in almost everyway! And that kind of assurance is very much a two way street. They want to be sure that the client thinks the way they do about the project and very much vice versa!
The architecture of Friar's Head very much has to do with the culture Ken Bakst is trying to create at that club!
But by all means don't take my word for it! Ask Ken Bakst and take his word for it unless of course you aren't able to believe him either. Are you going to tell him he needs to put on his reading glasses too to understand and agree with your point?
-
I feel that to accomplish what I believe is our point is to take the emphasis off of scoring and place it into just playing the game. I caught part of Bagger Vance yesterday and I keep thinking about the line "It's a game that can't be won, only played." Am I missing your point?
Architecturally speaking we can create a course that demands a certain type of shot or strategy or to be cliche' provide a challenge to the scratch golfer as well as the double digit handicapper. Or we can create a place that just allows it to happen. I prefer the latter. Here's the course, play it as you will and by all means, have fun.
Rick
-
Rick:
With that idea in mind, wasn't it C&C who conceived of the Notre Dame course without any real attachment to par?
-
Pat:
It will take more than a golf course that very few will be welcomed to see much less play. which by the way, I can not imagine it has been played enough by knowledgeable people to say that strategically it is a great course. Must it not past that test before it becomes the turning point in the history of mankind? It takes a book that sets down the basic tenets that you and the classical bishops hope to set in canon law. You have to spell it out, give a manuel to the troops. I think the game needs to be saved first. The game is being sold out by serious golfers who are making serious money off the business side of the game. FH may be the turning point but you need documentation, a bible for the faithful.
Otherwise, you keep moving backwards, and I'll keep moving forward and hopefully we will meet up someday.
By the way, Sweeny's story of playing golf with his son says a lot about the game. More of the faithful should spend more time on the course with their children. I got to tell you, with that nut down in Washington shooting up people things like a simple game of golf with friends or family which before many people thought trivial in the grand scheme of things actually seems like one of the most important activities in the world.
-
Why, and how far do you want to turn it back? Just to the time you emulate? Caveman? Medici's, Old Tom, Young Tom, when?
Why not go forward building on the positives of past cultures. Hell, In the world today the return to past cultures is what the enemy wants. Fanatical Segregationists and separtists who have learned, from our universities, how to destroy the entire planet.
-
A Clayman,
Personally, that's easy, the day before the STYMIE was banned. Which also preceeds massive irrigation systems.
Jim Kennedy,
I'm not sure that the quest for information is solely related to the aerial game, as opposed to the emergent general needs of our society, which thirsts for abundant amounts of data.
Sadly, I know of very few courses where conditions permit the ground game.
TEPaul,
How do you reconcile the cultural differences at the nine hole addition at Southern Hills designed by C&C to those at FH, also designed by C&C ?
Do you really believe that architecture alone dictates policy, or that those in charge dictate policy ?
Doesn't Merion have yardage markers on their sprinkler heads?
How about Gulph Mills, your home course ?
Kelly Blake Moran,
I view the attempt to change the culture of golf at FH as a good first step.
Whether it takes hold and spreads remains to be seen.
If I recall correctly, Pine Valley doesn't have yardages on sprinkler heads and neither does NGLA, although NGLA has a pocket booklet that provides hole schematics complete with yardages from varioius points. PV may even have the same thing. Certainly, there are no colored flags or hideous markers in or adjacent to the fairways. The tee markers are low key and no broken tee recepticals are placed next to them. These courses are essentially free of clutter.
At almost every Board meeting at a club I'm familiar with in NJ someone wants the red, white and blue balls in the fairway, or pipes in the rough indicating 100-150-200 yards. colored flags on our small greens to indicate pin positions, despite the fact that all but one green is visible to the golfer before he plays that hole. Cones next to the tee markers for broken tees, boxes of seed mix for divots, garbage can recepticals, and fancy tee markers.
I think Ken's efforts are admirable, I hope that he's successful, and I hope others follow his lead.
Time will tell
-
no yardage on Merion's heads.
-
SPDB,
I believe they were there when I last played Merion, about two months ago. But, double check it, like TEPaul, I may have been seeing things.
-
played there just last week - no markers.
-
SPDB,
I'm foolish to the point that I'm willing to bet a dozen golf balls that there were yardage indicators in the fairway.
Are we on ?
-
Pat,
What kind of golf balls do you use?
-
let's make it interesting. how about an all-expenses paid trip to Bandon? ;D
if not, then i will accept your wager for a dozen gutta- perchas (we wouldn't want to compromise our position that the ball has gotten out of control). ;)
-
Pat,
What kind of golf balls do you use?
-
AG Crockett,
Anything that's round.
Nothing rolls like a ball.
SPDB,
I remember pacing off from markers, and had the distances to the yard. Perhaps it was TEPaul's landmarks.
I'm prepared to go to two dozen.
-
Pat - I played 31 holes (darkness closed us out after 13)
The caddies know the markers, and may have told you that such-and-such head was 147, and you paced it off yourself.
The second go around was sans caddies, and we had a book which instructed us on the yardage from each head.
Last week's round only confirmed what I had already remembered from past rounds.
why not a gross? :D
Chip - can you confirm for me?
-
Patrick, if you win the bet, and get to pick the ball (cost aside) what is your favorite of the balls currently on the market? Feel free to be honest about this!
-
Patrick, if you win the bet, and get to pick the ball (cost aside) what is your favorite of the balls currently on the market? Feel free to be honest about this!
-
AG Crockett,
I went from the Titleist Professional to the ProVI and am now hitting Calloway Reds that were given to me at a member guest. When I run out of them, I'll go back to the ProVI until I get another offer.
-
Pat, another throw back item at Friar's Head is that there are no rakes. You must play the ball where it lies. Also, given how much sand there is on the course, one might spend a considerable time raking.
-
Patrick:
Eliminate committees and put a benevolent dictator in charge
(e.g. Bakst, Brown, Ransome, Roberts/Harden/Stephens/Johnson, and a couple others you know). Until then, change comes glacially and a camel is a horse that was designed by committee.
This is also why there are so many Stupid Trees on older golf courses.
-
Chip - what about the little matter of the bet Pat and I have. care to resolve it for us?
-
America is the land of competing brands, and it seems to me that there's plenty of room for golf courses of at least two types -- those with yardages on sprinkler heads and colored flags, and those without. I like yardages on sprinkler heads and colored flags (I believe they save me a bit of indecision in club selection) but I also believe I would very much enjoy a quality course that had neither (or rakes, for that matter.)
Seems to me we can achieve what we want in less than a decade if our ideal of a totally natural, undecorated golf experience is presented by a couple of prestigious courses -- Friar's Head is a good start, but there ought to be some public courses in the mix, as well. If it's good, it will catch on. Look at beer sales in America; 20 years ago, who would have thought a Sam Adams could succeed, or that microbreweries and imports would make any significant dent in our nation's supposed taste for watery domestic suds?
A few highly-praised natural courses could have the same impact. They won't change golf as we know it (Budweiser still does pretty well), but they certainly could provide a popular alternative.
-
Tom G,
Thanks, I overlooked that.
I like the fact that bunkers will be more of a hazard and not a prefered lie.
Chipoat,
I agree, but I don't see a movement toward dictators once membership governance takes hold.
-
Patrick:
Why bring up Southern Hills? I've never seen the place. You're the one who brought up Friar's Head not me, and I just pointed out to you that you're wrong when you later stated that the culture of Friar's Head has nothing whatsoever to do with the architecture and with C&C! The culture may not have everything to do with the architecture certainly but it has enough to do with it!
But Ken Bakst would be the one to answer that unless you feel you know more about the culture of Friar's Head (and the architecture and C&C) than he does!
-
TEPaul,
If Ken Bakst sold FH tomorrow and the new owner put yardage on sprinklers, colored flags on the pins, and hole diagrams on the tees, tell me how the architecture of the golf course would prevent that.
It's the will of the owner/membership, not the architecture.
Southern Hills new nine is a C&C golf course.
Why aren't cultural things identical if the architectural style is similar ?
-
Patrick,
Who makes the call on these matters? The Greens Committees? If so, isn't it a matter of convincing a majority of that committee that it's in the best interest of the club to do so? If you're asking how you convince the Greens Committee, then I'd say it has a lot to do with who's on the Committee. Pack that sucker with aficionados and away you go... ;)
Seriously, isn't it the same issue one faces in looking at a restoration but on a smaller scale? Education, politics, education and a lot more politics.
All The Best,
-
Sometimes I wonder just how duplicitous we all can be in our notions about turning back the clock. We get all worked up about a remote and non-public golf course's throwback to traditional practices like Pat mentions, i.e., no yardage markers in fairway or on sprinkler heads, no colored flag pin placement system, and various olden age course set-up styles. Then we lament about the disappearance of good caddie programs where the caddie just tells you the information you would seek on the yardage markers or books, and tells you how a putt breaks, etc. Then we go on to lament about the pace of play being too slow, yet would have people that never played a high profile showpiece course as is the only offerings Rees and Faz design, wandering around a fairway wondering how far out they are, where the pin is, where to park the cart, yada yada yada. These things don't jive. You can't have it both ways and support the kind of design styles of these new high profile big concept architects.
Now, we are singing the praises of C&C intimating that they call the shots in how Friar's Head is set up with no playing aids. Yet, their other masterpiece in the Sand Hills has yardage markers... (Jeez I am not 100% sure of that even though I was there twice this year, and have given good ammunition to those who are going to jump all over me to say I don't know what the heck I'm taking about) :-X :-/ :-[
Finally Pat, it is sort of upper class arrogant to suggest that we need folks to see what a great set-up it is out there at Friar's Head so they can spread the word. Rick Shefchik hits on this above. Just how many people do you think are ever going to get in to look at FH or SH to experience the culture you are hoping will get reinstituted in golf, let alone become apostles for these concepts?
We would do better to have the high profile courses everyone is clammering to play, adopt some of these ideas, that I think are basically good and more in line with the "spirit of the game" we talked about in another thread, even though I don't know what, where, or whose spirit... ::)
But, an example that demonstrates this is all pie-in-the-sky thinking is Whistling Straits. They have caddies to tell you yardages, and how the putts break and where to try to hit it to, yet we normally see 5 hour+ rounds there. If these high spender trophy course players didn't at least have the caddies shepherding them around with no yardage indicators, it would be 6+ hours! :o
The only venues where these concepts work is at private clubs or home courses where you play them all the time and know all this stuff, and can then beat up on the outside guest or new player... ;D
-
Patrick and Sean:
Did not have time to read all posts earlier - home now and getting caught up.
Patrick, if there's yardage markers on the East Course's sprinkler heads, they put them in after 7/2/2002. I'll call the golf shop if you like but I believe you're out 24 1.68" spheroids.
This, by the way, is one issue where the FACTS do matter.
I don't see benevolent dictators emerging from by-laws that preclude same, either.
-
"If Ken Bakst sold Friar's Head tomorrow and the new owner put in.....blah, blah, blah."
Pat Mucci
Pat:
You might know as well as I do the potential of any owner/membership to SCREW UP any golf course or its culture no matter how good the culture or the architecture may have been!!
I certainly think we've seen enough evidence of that over the years--or haven't you noticed?
-
Doug Wright,
When you have someone who is the green committee, board and President, life is easier.
RJDaley,
The slow pace of play that we dislike didn't happen over night.
It took years and years to change the way golfers obtained information on which they based their club selection and executed their shot.
It probably started with Gene Andrews, gained approval with Jack Nicklaus and was spread to the masses by television over a 25 year period.
In the old days, before yardage markers, you learned to play by feel. That skill has become extinct in all but a minute number of players. Medal play may have been an accomplice in the extinction of feel.
The advent of golf carts and the demise of caddies probably contributed as well.
Golfers thirst to play Pine Valley, NGLA, GCGC and so they will thirst for Friar's Head. While the number of golfers who are exposed to FH may be small, it doesn't mean that its influence can't be significant. It certainly seems to be a positive first step that no one else has taken, and I applaud Ken on his initiative.
I think you're correct, in that private clubs would be the first to adopt some or all of the FH culture, but that doesn't mean that resort and public facilities can't fall into line at a later date.
I grew up playing public courses with my golfing friends, the Cestone brothers, in the fifties, and if a round of golf took four hours, something was wrong. And there were NO CARTS, there were no yardage markers, no colored flags, no diagrams of holes, no pin sheets. No halfway houses or cart girls.
There was Nothing but you and the golf course, and you were taught from the very begining to play at a crisp pace.
It seems to me that the length of play is not golf or architecture related, it's cultural, and any attempt to change that culture in an effort to return to........the fifties,
seems highly admirable to me.
But, that's just my opinion, TEPaul is still wrong.
-
Unbelievable!
Did you all see what Pat Mucci said in that last post about Gene Andrews and Jack Nicklaus?
As amazing as it is to conceive of Pat Mucci is actually completely correct about that!!
He's not often right but that just shows it's still possible that he can be!
Actually, Pat does know exactly what he speaks of on the subject of pace of play. He plays at a very crisp pace himself!
If only his pace on this bias issue was as crisp!
-
Pat
What do you make of The Golf Club - it was created in 1967? Does it fit your ideal?
-
"How do you turn back the clock?"
The way I was always told to do it is to stop the clock first! Then turn the hands forward (clockwise) to that point or time you want to be at! If you don't stop the clock or you turn the hands backward (counter clockwise) you might injure the clock!
Of course, as you all know, with these modern clocks you can turn the hands anyway you want to and it won't hurt them. But that's not true with some of the older and classic clocks!
Could that apply to how we should look at golf and it's architecture too?
How might that all apply to Merion's new restoration buzzword--"backward into the future"?
Should it have been--"Forward into the past"?
-
Hey Pat are you on the payroll at Friars Head ? Next we will hear some sort of Donald Trumpism that it is "The Greatest Course in New York, better than Shinnecock or National".
-
Sal:
Better than whatever doesn't matter! What's good, what's interesting about the place does!
I don't think we want to get back into something like that "Bridge" thread when someone stated "The Bridge" is unquestionably in the top five in New York!
But it would be pretty funny if Pat Mucci started to act the Donald Trump for Ken Bakst's Friar's Head!
Would that be the same Pat Mucci who howled for about two years that some of us were giving Coore & Crenshaw the "most favored son status"? And that that constituted some kind of "bias" towards other architects? All we were doing is mentioning our opinions about what we were seeing coming into being!
That apparently upset Pat no end and he said in no uncertain terms that no one had the right to say things like that. But now that Pat has apparenty played the golf course he acts like he discovered it!
Pretty funny really!
But if Pat has gotten that high on Friar's Head, it's culture, Coore & Crenshaw, whatever, by his own rules it sounds to me as if he's getting dangerously close to being "biased" against Rees and TomF!
-
Hey maybe there's hope yet. I was driving in to work today and on the local sports talk radio there's a 3 minute prerecorded spot "Butch Harmon on Golf" that I think is carried nationally. Well, Butch says something like "Do you ever get frustrated when you see people looking for sprinkler heads or stepping off yardage at your course, slowing down play? You don't have to do that! Just look at trees and other features between you and the green and figure, 'well I can hit a wedge to that tree' and then look closer to the green for another feature and figure out how much club it would take to hit to that feature. Pretty soon you'll know what club to hit to the green, you'll play faster and enjoy the game more!"
It ain't much, but it's a start. Running a marathon starts with a single step.
All The Best,
-
America is the land of competing brands, and it seems to me that there's plenty of room for golf courses of at least two types -- those with yardages on sprinkler heads and colored flags, and those without. I like yardages on sprinkler heads and colored flags (I believe they save me a bit of indecision in club selection) but I also believe I would very much enjoy a quality course that had neither (or rakes, for that matter.)
Seems to me we can achieve what we want in less than a decade if our ideal of a totally natural, undecorated golf experience is presented by a couple of prestigious courses -- Friar's Head is a good start, but there ought to be some public courses in the mix, as well. If it's good, it will catch on. Look at beer sales in America; 20 years ago, who would have thought a Sam Adams could succeed, or that microbreweries and imports would make any significant dent in our nation's supposed taste for watery domestic suds?
A few highly-praised natural courses could have the same impact. They won't change golf as we know it (Budweiser still does pretty well), but they certainly could provide a popular alternative.
Rick --
As usual, friend, you've hit the nail square on the head, with economy and precision -- and have been, as usual (?), largely ignored as the thread proceeded (except by Dick Daley, who -- not just coincidentally, I think -- is, like us, [a] Midwestern, and not rich).
Too bad you don't belong to some fancy club (even one with yardage markers), so this flattery could get me somewhere!
****************
All --
Let's talk about money. Are we allowed to talk about money, in this country (and on this Web site), or do we have to dance all around it, pretending it isn't right there in the center of everything?
Maybe the following (somewhat echoing Dave Schmidt's "entrance test" post, above) hits the nail square on the head, too (though without Rick's economy) -- spoken by a man who, like Mr. Shefchik, loves everything pure and true about this game, and who, like Mr. Shefchik, can't afford to join most of the clubs where the architecture is worth worrying about (and who, yes, I admit it -- can't speak for Rick in this -- envies, occasionally dyspeptically, those with better access to those clubs):
(1) The values many here hold dear have no chance of taking root in any private golf club where the bottom-line requirement for membership is affluence, rather than the love of everything pure and true about the game.
So long as those with more taste than money need not apply, most clubs will be dominated by those who have more money than taste. Let's call that sort of person, in the tradition of Joe Sixpack, Joe McMansion. (Of course, it is entirely possible to have both money and taste, as some of this site's contributors daily demonstrate. But out in the big world, beyond the rarefied confines of gca.com, money is far more common than taste -- and far more persuasive and impressive to Joe McMansion. Look around! Expensive bad taste is everywhere!)
Joe McMansion has no interest in anyone's views about what is pure and true in golf -- not mine, certainly, but not Tom Paul's or Patrick Mucci's, either. Joe McMansion wants his golf course to have all the grace and style of his hulking suburban McMansion with the Lincoln Navigator out on the brick driveway!
Here's what I think: A club that wants to honor golf's classic values, permanently, must admit its members on the basis of their portfolios of values, not the values of their portfolios. (Almost Jesse Jacksonish, eh?) Let me daydream a bit:
In a perfect world (i.e., the world designed by me!), people like Mr. Shefchik and me (and many others like us) would be on the Greens Committee at Interlachen, fighting to preserve (or reinstate) the best traditions of the game, rather than blathering on about it at www.golfclubatlas.com.
The best universities pay no attention to applicants' ability to pay the freight. They admit the most interesting, most promising applicants -- and then figure out some way (scholarships, grants, jobs) to get those applicants on campus. They know that a diverse student body (read: not just rich Preppies -- no offense intended; I was one, before I applied to become a member of the Evil Media ... and they let me in, the bastards!) is, in the immortal words of that rich Preppy Martha Stewart, a Good Thing. Perhaps it's time for the best golf clubs to think the same way.
From each according to his (or, of course, her) ability? To each according to his (or, of course, her) needs? Heresy, you say? Maybe so. But there's certainly something to be said for that view, if what you want is a fraternity of values, rather than a fraternity of money.
(2) The values many here hold dear have no chance of spreading across the country, the way Sam Adams has (available for public consumption! imagine that!), without a group of daring, clear-headed entrepreneurs (or possibly even a single daring, clear-headed entrepreneur -- an entrepreneur with the energy of Johnny Appleseed and the bankroll of John Jacob Astor) who love everything pure and true about the game and are willing to risk their fortunes on that Field of Dreams proposition: If you build it, they (enough of them, at any rate) will come.
Where are those guys? Out playing Friar's Head? I hope so -- and getting some ideas.
-
To pick up on Dan's train of thought, I find it very uncomfortable to tell other people what to do with - or how to spend their money. But, I've felt uncomfortable many times before, and got through it, so here goes again ;D ::)
Golf needs big money people. Guys like Keiser, Bakst, Kohler, and you all know many other suspects in this league that fit the description. In the case of Bakst, and Youngscapp, we might be able to say that they are the visonaries who have given the same great golf architects the job of designing something very meaningful and influential in the modern arena, and they are promoting golf club culture (in so far as the golf course is concerned) in what many of us would agree are the higher ideals of the game.
But, they have chosen to go the exclusive private route. Not only their prerogative, but probably a good organizational decision for the type of course and club they envisioned (I'm not sure if they are 501(c) "not for profits" or not. But, assuming they are, even if they wanted to open it up to more general public, they can't seem to get around the tightening noose of the IRS rules. Sand Hills used to take requests and judge if they thought the requesting party was sincere to enjoy the game at that unique venue. But, not anymore. Probably due to the IRS thing. So, first I blame that IRS rule. There are (as a number of us GCAers know) certain members of those clubs that have been very generous to invite whom they have judged to be true golf design afficianados, I think because they really want to see the culture of the game and course they love spread around. But again, understandably by that system, a very few will ever get to experience what are those unique experiences.
If the IRS rule thing could be revised, I think we would see some of these important golf clubs (in an architectural and pure golf culture sense) open their doors in off peak times. And, if they could do so, I think it would help them in augmenting the maintenance and club dues assesments when they have bad operating years due to dwindling memberships in bad economies or unusual weather damage costs, etc. It could be a win-win if that rule was relaxed.
Perhaps ANGC would never offer these off-peak season deals to a select public, but Crystal Downs did so, and Sand Hills was doing so. I don't think that just because the memberships at those places like CD and SH are generally very wealthy entered into the decisions not to share the joys of their course at some of those clubs. I think they were forced to abide by the IRS laws. Yet, the wealth and exclusivity thing seems obvious and inbred cultural at ANGC. So, like anything else, it is case by case dependent.
As for the Keiser and Kohler models of upscale and open to the public, they both do run off-season specials. And again, that allows not only the very wealthy or corporate perk player to experience them, but the less affluent folk that will put up with a little harsh off-season weather. (Kohler isn't all that cheap even off-peak by most peoples standards, however) ;)
Here is the part about being so audacious as to suggest what other folks do with their money or invested membership interests. Realise that if they want to have a real impact on the golf culture, and if your particular club is doing it the "right" way, lobby to change the IRS laws, and also encourage the managment/membership to participate in programs that will have a future impact, like first tee, or just getting some high school teams out there or whatever can be done to share with the future golfers who will be most likely to change the culture back to the way you would like to see it, by letting them share in your example.
-
Dan Kelly (tm):
You said you and some others you mentioned are:
(1) Midwesterners
and,
(2) not rich
My God man, I had no idea! I'm so sorry! How can you bear it? What can we do to help?
-
Dan Kelly (tm):
You said you and some others you mentioned are:
(1) Midwesterners
and,
(2) not rich
My God man, I had no idea! I'm so sorry! How can you bear it? What can we do to help?
Tom I --
Just allow us to stay here in this Discussion Group (known around my house -- a humble, straight-talking Midwestern household -- as "Golf Chat"), and allow us to rub cyber-elbows with you.
That'll be more than enough to make our lives complete!
Dan
-
DanK:
Really? That's all? Well, OK then--that's cool!
How much cyber elbow rubbing do you want to do? Daily, weekly, monthly, or shall I just wait for you to offer your cyber elbow so we can rub?
-
Sal from South Shore,
Despite what TEPaul says, my comments weren't about the architecture at FH. They were about an attempt to change the culture of golf at a club. A return to what some think was a better game, and it has nothing to do with C&C, routing, hole design, bunkers, tees and greens.
It's about how the game is played.
I enjoyed playing Friar's Head, which, to me, is a critical test when I'm assessing the merits of a golf course.
What do you think of Friar's Head ?
-
pat - there is still the matter of our wager. i thought you had disappeared forever in order to welch on it.
-
Pat:
I think we realize when you made your comments about "culture" that you intended it to not include architecture at all!
But that's nothing more than more evidence of your "tunnel vision" and inclination to "compartmentalize" things!
Golf's "culture" may not be synonymous with golf architecture but it sure is included in it!
But I'm not at all concerned about your inability to recognize the truth about that!
Matter of fact, in your desire to always appear right I fully expect you to shift the subject to some other word to prove your point!
Perhaps you might even pick some word like golf's "ethos"!
Your inclination to always appear right reminds me of some stock analyst meetings I used to go to decades ago when I lived in NY!
The meetings were all generated by a really bright Jewish broker (of mine) who would collect some of the great old Wall St Jewish analysts as well as some of the younger whipper snappers during the Go-Go years at his apartement.
I'll never forget one of the old Jewish analysts asking one of the young whippersnappers how many "mistakes" he'd made in his career!
That whippersnapper proudly and rather arrogantly told the room he'd never made a "mistake".
All the old Jewish analysts roared with laughter and said in unision; "Kid, you really have a lot to learn!"
Not more than two years later that young whippersnapper was out of the business!
-
SPDB:
Is it "welch" or "welsh"?
I think it's "welsh"!
It depends whether Pat was trying to sneak away from his bet with you or whether he's been somewhere in the last few days imbibing too much grape juice!
But we can let the great inhouse wordsmith, Dan Kelly (tm) be the judge of this!
-
Tom - you're probably right. i'm young, and don't have a solid grasp on those type of hackneyed expressions.
Also, you managed to stay in securities analysis two years after a comment like that?
;D
-
SPDB, Tom I --
It's "welsh."
"Welch" loses the word's essential ethnic-slur element.
Which reminds me:
Last night, one of my regular correspondents e-mailed me an item from a Welsh newspaper. You'll find the story at http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/page.cfm?objectid=12291305&method=full&siteid=89488
, under the headline "TINY PENIS MAN FREED."
-
SPDB,
A bet is a bet, and if there are no yardage makers, you've got yourself a dozen balls or dinner, or both.
TEPaul,
Thanks for the lecture and story, I'm sure someone found it interesting and germaine. I don't know who, but I'm sure someone out there, probably Jewish, found it interesting.
I'm sorry that you resent that I tend to support a fact based position. I realize that theories and assumptions can be so much more interesting, inconsistent and incorrect.
But, we each make choices.
So, at Atlantic, where there are no tee monuments, no colored flags, no red, white and blue markers, no pin sheets, where caddies and walking are strongly encouraged, it's about the architecture ? Rees Jones's architecture ?
Interesting theory.
If you would take off your C&C blinders, you'll discover that it's about Lowell Schulman's early influence, just like FH is about Ken's influence.
Architecture has absolutely nothing to do with accessories on a golf course. NGLA has directional markers on # 3 and # 16.
GCGC has warning directional markers on # 4, # 10 and # 17.
GCGC sprinkler caps have yardages on them. Are these items about the architecture, or the will of the owner/membership ?
Didn't I read a post of yours that said C&C also developed a cure for cancer, heart and liver disease, and the aging process ? ;D
-
SPDB:
Nice zinger but I never was in securities analysis! Frankly, I have no idea why I even went to those meetings!
But as far as me being "right", if I haven't already, I'm admitting here and now that I've been wrong more in my life than I've been right!
But both being aware of that fact and also admitting it is one of the reasons I so enjoy the on-going dialogue with Pat Mucci!
You see, another thing I learned in those analyst meetings those decades ago is the value of the "theory of contrary opinion!"
And as everyone here knows if you can find a person like Pat Mucci who is undeniably wrong almost all the time all you really have to do to be right is to disagree with him almost all the time! One of those old Jewish stock analysts might call this unusual but delicious condition a "no brainer!"
So it might appear when I discuss things on here with Pat that I think I'm right or even insist I'm right almost all the time but in reality all I'm doing is just going with the undeniable odds that Pat is undeniably wrong just about 98% of the time!
If Pat was a stock analyst, with my undeniable "contrary opinion" application with him I'd be a damn rich man after two years on here discussing things with him!
-
Pat;
No, I definitely never said anything remotely close to C&C having a cure for cancer, liver or heart disease or the aging process but at this point I can certainly understand how and why you might have assumed you read such a thing!
-
Patrick --
I'm curious what you have to say (if anything) to what Rick Shefchik, Dick Daley and I had to say on this thread.
Dan
PS: That goes for the rest of you, too! I'm not trying to show any BIAS for or against Patrick!
-
TEPaul,
Would you reread a post you made on an Aronomink thread.
Something about agreeing with me, about membership responsibility.
Seems that you're agreeing with me and saying this more and more.
Are you feeling okay ?
Could you take a drive on Ardmore road today and look at the greenside bunkers at # 10 and the right fairway bunker on # 1
Then you can agree with me even more.
Once you're in the tractor beam of truth, there is no escape.
-
Pat:
You're just going to have to stop taking credit for my original thoughts and the things I write about them!
It's usually called plagarism!
-
TEPaul,
I have to hand it to you.
You coined the term "maintainance meld"
You coined the term " greens within greens'
And now...... you've coined a new term.
Could you tell us what the term "plagarism' means ?
-
TEPaul,
I have to hand it to you.
You coined the term "maintainance meld"
You coined the term " greens within greens'
And now...... you've coined a new term.
Could you tell us what the term "plagarism' means ?
I know what it means.
It means "maintenance."
-
Dan:
Come again?
I coin the terms and it's your responsiblity to deal with mundane things like spelling and occasionally meaning!
Things like spelling and meaning are virtually bagatelles to me because I'm aware that meaning is validly not much more than what anyone wants it to be!
Except of course for Pat Mucci, because whatever he wants something to mean is inherently wrong anyway!
-
TEPaul,
I mean, I'd like you to be right for a change,
Is that inherently wrong ?
-
Pat:
Of course it's inherently wrong! That's simply because you think it's right!
Listen, Pat, on that other thread about your suggestion for NGLA's clubhouse, I certainly can imagine that it was NOT supposed to be leaked but someone leaked it and it sure wasn't me! I think they know I know you over there but I've never actually admitted that!
But if you want me to, I'll be glad to fix that outrageous rumor to make it look like the suggestion came from some guy like Rich Goodale who escaped to Scotland in embarrasment!
-
After reading Patrick Mucci's original post, I flashed back to the final scene in Field Of Dreams that shows a steady progression of headlights snaking their way to a baseball diamond carved in a cornfield. Thank goodness IT'S OPEN TO THE PUBLIC!
Don't get me wrong, I belong to a private club. Friar's Head might indeed be a great example, but it will likely be a destination only for those who already regularly golf their ball over the handiwork of Messrs. Ross, Tillinghast, Flynn, Raynor and MacDonald, to name a few. 99.9% of the nation's golfers will never have the opportunity to experience the epiphany Patrick predicts. Accordingly, I predict Friar's Head will have no impact on the game whatsoever.
Why should it? The game is bigger than the architecture over which it traverses. If I want to roll back the clock, I'll keep walking and carrying my bag, even though I'm fifty pounds overweight. If I want to roll back the clock, I'll continue to play out of a nasty divot even when I'm already twelve over par and playing by myself. If I want to roll back the clock, I'll finish in three hours. If I want to roll back the clock, I'll tackle a false front from eighty yards out with a knock-down 8-iron.
It's not the responsibility of a golf course, its architect or its management to preserve the integrity of the game. It's up to you and me.
Besides, if you want to roll back the clock, look beyond Friar's Head to Brora, Shiskine, Crail, Lunden and Leven. You don't even have to go back that far - maybe only to 1971 when somebody had the nerve to build a little 3,000 yard nine hole golf course in a cotton field in the rural West Tennessee town I grew up in. That was as pure as it gets.
Regards,
Mike
-
Mike,
Has another private club, ANGC influenced golf in America ?
I think, like Sand Hills and Bandon/Pacific dunes, golfers will seek Friar's Head through whatever means is at their disposal.
And, I think those that are attracted to, and make the journey to Friar's Head will extract and take back to their club, those things they find attractive or admirable.
Perhaps this is how trends begin.
Even if nothing changes, those who golf at Friar's Head will have had a unique experience and the game is certainly none the worse for it.
Rather than be negative or critical, one would think that Ken's efforts should be appreciated and applauded.
But, that's just my opinion, TEPaul is still wrong ;D
-
Pat:
I don't think Mike Hendren was negative or critical at all! Matter of fact his was a wonderful post to read!
I do agree though that Friar's Head will definitely have a real impact in some circles and probably on some important people who may follow the trend set there with courses they may do in the future or others may do!
I'm a little sorry to see this thread appear to devolve to a private vs public discussion because I don't think Friar's Head and what Ken Bakst has tried to do there deserves that categorizing!
Some courses are just private and others public but history has certainly shown us that no matter which they are eventually either their architecture or some "culture" about them, if it's significant, will get noticed by all interested golfers.
-
Patrick,
I had no intent to be negative or critital. I am a great admirer of the work of C&C though I have yet to experience it first-hand. I'm looking forward to Talking Stick in February.
As for Augusta National, you are correct in its impact on golf course design and maintenance practices. What would that impact have been, however, without television? Without color television? Minimal, I suspect.
As for exhausting any means to get anywhere, do you think Friar's Head will rate ahead of my current wish list of CP, TOC, NGLA, PV, Cruden Bay and Dornoch? As great as these courses are, how influential are they TODAY?
Kindest regards,
Mike
-
Patrick -
Just out of curiosity, do you use a caddy on these courses with no info &, if so, do you allow him to provide you with the info?
[Poster's note: I ask these questions merely out of curiosity & a desire to further flesh out someone's points. Please do not read in any malicious intent.]
-
George,
I usually don't like a caddy to volunteer information to me, mainly because I've found that the information is usually transmitted in negative rather than positive form.
ie. Don't hit it left, there's trouble there, as opposed to hit it right and short of the pin.
I also dislike it when a caddy hands me a club, as I may have different thoughts on my intended shot
I also prefer to read my own putts for two reasons,
1. it sharpens my skills
2 I know the pace at which I hit my putts.
However, I will read a putt starting on the first green and then ask the caddy what he thinks. Over the first few holes I develop a feel for his knowledge of the greens and will sometimes ask for a confirm on a read I'm doubtful on.
I also find that in most cases the architect has sent ample signals to my brain with respect to the shot at hand.
With poor vision, especially on cloudy or dark days, my ability to assess yardage and break is not very good.
Determining yardage is a key element for my game.
My abilities to determine yardage have diminished due to lack of practice and poor vision, hence determining yardage, vis a vis my own recollection, yardage markers, books, observing my playing partners or caddy information is data I will seek.
The data from the caddy is upon request only, and I assess his accuracy after a few holes to determine if I'm getting reliable information.
Hope that answers your question.
-
So Patrick, I gotta ask ya, after saying the following.....
I think Friar's Head is the first step in changing the culture of golf.
A golf course of interest, challenge, beauty and tradition.
A golf course swept with the wind, and the winds of change.
It is pristine, it is golf in a purer form.
Is it radically different ? I think so. I also think that if it wasn't radically different, it wouldn't have as great an impact in changing the culture of golf.
...... how can you not consider the architecture as being relevant to the issue? If it was mediocre no one would give a hoot about what went on there because no one would even hear about it. As soon as you spoke about the course itself you led others into including it as part of the remedy which you seek. The men who have created the courses that may have a positive influence on the direction of golf's future have all chosen to build places that reflect solid golfing values as the basis to present their respective philosophies on this culture.
If you wished to stay on a narrow focus, i.e., removing the the plastic crap on golf courses and identifying FH as an example of this cultural change then why didn't you just say that?
-
Jim Kennedy,
You're free to express your thoughts as you please,
I expressed my thoughts as they came to me.
I thought that the phrase, "..... swept by the winds, and the winds of change..." was the key to the post.
Implying that a different era may be dawning on the play of the game.
If Fazio had designed a Shadow Creek on this site, but Steve Wynn, adopted and implemented Ken Bakst's thinking on how golf should be played on the course, I would give him the same accolades.
It's not about the architecture, it's about the will of the owner/membership. It's not about what's in the ground, it's about what's in the mindset.
-
Pat:
A bit off the subject of this thread but did you know, at one point, Tom Fazio was considered for Friar's Head?
Also, remember to turn back ALL your clocks today! Do I have to remind you of everything?
-
TEPaul,
YES
YES
-
Actually, there were three points there Pat and the last one should have been the biggest YES of all!
-
Bumping this forward in light of Ran's outstanding profile of Friar's Head. I recalled challenging Doyen Mucci's assertion that "Friar's Head is the first step in changing the culture of golf." Fortunately, Doyen Paul had my back!
How influential will Friar's Head be?
Regards,
Mike
-
I predict Friar's Head will have no impact on the game whatsoever.
Are you sure Tom Paul backed you up ?
Ran's summary and the pictures seem to confirm what Pat Mucci indicated.
-
Guest,
How so?
Regards,
Mike
-
Mike - thanks for bringing this thread back up.
Pat Mucci - I had forgotten about our little wager re: yardage on sprinkler caps at Merion. What will it be - dinner or two dozen?
-
Mike Hendren,
You predicted that Friar's Head will have no impact on the game, whatsoever.
Based on what I've seen and played, I disagree.
No need to debate the issue, the test of time will determine who is correct.
SPDB,
I too had forgotten, but.... I haven't yet conceded.
In the event the snow melts before June, let's have an independent party make an inspection and the call.
I've thought about payment and have decided that dinner is more in keeping with the GCA spirit. In fact, dinner after golf would be even better. We can discuss architecture in general, courses and architects in particular, and how incredibly wrong TEPaul is on almost any subject matter.
In fact, let's invite him along for golf and dinner, on me.
How about dinner after a round at Merion, when I can verify the results of that independent judge, who by the way, cannot be related to, or even know TEPaul, in order to be eligible. Maybe, Gil Hanse and his wife will join us, as I owe them for their hospitality. Just don't let TE sit next to Gil. Also let Gil tell you about the time he told TEPaul about the revocation of the STYMIE being responsible for the decline in chipping in America.
As the credit card ad says, the look on TE's face was......
PRICELESS.
-
Now look who's a member of Merion.
-
Guest,
We thought you were.
-
Patrick,
Count me among those blown away by Ran's outstanding profile of Friar's Head and those who would embrace and eternally appreciate the opportunity to play there. There is no greater fan of classical architecture, only many who are more literate and articulate!
However, I continue to question the apostolic impact of Friar's Head, and any other course for that matter. An effective apostle must not only have a strong message, well communicated, but also must be willing to take the message to the audience. Friar's Head is not the better mouse-trap to which the masses will flock. It appears to be an amazing site-specific golf course benefitting from the rare combination of skilled architects and craftsmen, financial clout and a visionary who understands the heart of the game.
Using a thin analogy, Camden Yards might have spawned a rebirth of classical baseball parks, but it has had "no impact on the game whatsoever."
By the way, since our previous debate, I played Talking Stick North and South earlier this month - my first exposure to C & C. I had a blast and liked both courses immensely, but alas, experienced no epiphany. Perhaps I just don't "get it." Funny though, I pretty darned sure I "get" Donald Ross.
You are correct that time will tell. Regardless, kudos to Messrs. Coore, Crenshaw and Bakst, and thank you for your insight. I apologize for the rambling, but it's late and the forecast calls for rain all dad gummed weekend.
Regards,
Mike
-
I hope I'm not being presumptuous, but if I'm reading into the wager correctly ;) perhaps I can help...
Merion doesn't have yardages marked on their sprinkler heads - caddies have to memorize the yardages (there are cheat sheets) in order to move up the A-B-C chain. (I caddied while in college and those little quizzes were as tough as the blue book kind :)
-
Mike Hendren,
Did NGLA impact golf in America ?
Friar's Head has a unique number of factors, which, in combination might have an impact on golf in America.
Central to that impact is the culture Ken is trying to establish.
A culture that I feel many are yearning for.
A culture that celebrates the game.
A culture that is the home for those tired of the journey.
Friar's Head offers a REFRESHING departure from most other golf courses and golfing experiences, and the impact upon the golfer playing there is positively, contageous.
And, just as the longest journey begins with one step, so can cultural changes begin with one club.
Catalysts for the change in culture could be the following.
Friar's Head isn't as remote for immense golfing populations as Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes.
Friar's Head isn't far from one of the most populous cities and metro areas in the world.
Friar's Head sits amongst a group of golf courses that people come from around the world to visit and play.
Friar's Head will benefit from those who make the pilgrimage to other courses as well as Friar's Head.
If Ken maintains, with minor fine tuning and adjustments, the standards he has established, I think that the club will have an impact on the culture of golf in America.
As I said, time will tell.
But, that's just my opinion. TEPaul is still wrong ! ;D
-
I don't think that a private, fairly "exclusive" club will have any impact on the culture of golf in America. The culture of golf needs to be made affordable, to allow lower and middle income kids the opportunity to play decent courses and learn the game. And to appreciate the game the way most in this DG do.
The truly affordable courses are overrun in most places, and often not worthy of great appreciation. It's tougher today to engage in the game for lower/middle income people.
Everything everyone says about every great course is true. But the true "culture" of golf is in the masses who play weekends on C- marginally kept public courses. Kudos to designers who bring sophisticated design at a reasonable price. Kudos to golf course operators who offer deep Junior discounts at ALL TIMES OF THE DAY. And still, Kudos to the brilliance of todays designers for creating great places for golf, whether public or private - their efforts have yielded herioc results.
To conclude this ramble.... What I read about Rustic Canyon & Apache Stronghold are better shapers of the "culture" of golf IMO than an exclusive private club in a super exclusive Long Island neighborhood (regardless of how impressive it is).
-
MDupre,
Do you know TEPaul ?
Have you ever read one of his posts ?
If Yes to either question, you're disqualified ! ;D
Steve L,
You're confusing affordability with golfing culture.
Having no yardage markers has nothing to do with the cost of green's fees, initiation charges or dues.
Having no rakes in or around bunkers has nothing to do with the cost of green's fees, intitiation charges or dues.
Pace of play, caddies and playing on a golf course with firm and fast conditions has nothing to do with the cost of green's fees, initiation charges or dues.
If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I suspect that other courses will attempt to adopt some of the "cultural" qualities that Friar's Head possesses, and it has nothing to do with money.
You may be forgetting an important factor.
If a well intended individual wants to create affordable golf, how can he do so in an area where the cost of land is high, if not prohibitive ?
As an example, do you know what the purchase of the land at BAYBERRY cost ?
Tell me, and tell the others, how can that individual possibly recoup his investment, while at the same time, provide "affordable" golf ?
On the other hand, Friar's Head just might become a model for other private and public courses to emulate, culturally and architecturally.
-
Pat...
Fair observations all... But, a few things...
Lack of yardage markers or whether bunkers have rakes don't make a golf course good or bad... They affect the "experience" - and some players find yardage on sprinkler heads helpful. I'd take sprinkler yardage all day long before i'd advocate the damn golf cart GPS!
The best thing about any golf course IMO is that it makes the best of the land on which it was built. Friars Head, Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes are obvious examples... The good news is that this criteria is being paid more attention today thanks to the good work of many fine GCArchitects than it's been in years past...
Developing a golf course isn't a philanthropic excercise - no doubt. But for the "culture of golf" as you describe it, the fine affordable public facilities touch a greater number and offer many the experience of positive golf. To that end - I appreciate the efforts of GCArchitects making the best of lower priced, often inferior sites and construction budgets to deliver very good golf at affordable rates... Hopefully the efforts of the courses we've discussed inspires creativity for more constrained projects.
-
Pat -
Your plan sounds like the right idea. Merion might be the place to do it, also. Recall that it was you and I who stood alone against the tide in holding that Berkshire's bunker bore a stunning resemblance to the new Merion versions. Perhaps a closer examination, with TEPaul, our opponent in that thread, is in order. But be advised, when you overcook your fairway wood or long iron into the bunker on 8, you will have only your caddy as your guide, and not the yardage cap on a sprinkler head. ;D
Count me in agreement that certain nuances of a club, its philosophies, or its policies can all be infectious. How else could the first tee habits of a Winged Foot golfer become standard operating procedure for every golfer who has blocked his opening drive OB? Or the betting tendencies of a couple of a Nassau CC gentleman become the game of choice for a majority of golfers? These are cute examples, but they are indicative of how emulation finds its way into practice.
-
Just what am I so wrong about on this thread? Why am I some kind of opponent on this thread? And what's this bet about?
The supreme irony I find on this thread, and I do mean supreme, is here's Pat Mucci now singing the praises of Friar's Head to the high heavens, the efforts of Bakst and Coore and Crenshaw too.
These are the exact same people, particularly Coore and Crenshaw as architects that Pat Mucci has been accusing me for years of practicing architecture "FAVORITISM" with by praising them so much and what great stuff they can do, particularly at Friar's Head before Pat Mucci even knew how to get there.
Obviously Pat Mucci was struggling to understand great archtiecture and what these architects do. The fact was back then he'd never laid eyes on anything they'd done--none of it!
Now Pat Mucci is acting like he discovered them. What a joke! It's almost noon right now as I type this and Pat Mucci is so bizarre he might try to say I'm claiming it's midnight.
Pat Mucci probably still thinks Coore and Crenshaw have nothing whatsoever to do with Friar's Head. He probably still thinks Wynn could have done exactly the same thing at Friar's Head with Fazio. A bigger joke still. In his mind the architect has nothing to do with it--give any architect the same marching orders and they're going to produce the exact same thing if you just ask them! The biggest joke of all.
Pat Mucci's opinions on Friar's Head, now all glowing apparently, are nothing more than common plagiarism of opinion!
Not only does Pat Mucci steal opinions he formerly challenged but when he finally sees the light he not only acts like his opinions are original but he even claims the very same person that taught it all to him in the first place thinks the opposite.
It's positively bizarre--but that's just Pat Mucci.
-
Steve L,
I think "culture" and "architecture" are distinctly different.
Some of my comments were directed toward "cultural" changes, not architectural results or precedents.
In addition to producing an exceptional golf course and facility, Ken is going a step further, attempting to change the way golf is played at Friar's Head, and I applaud him.
I feel that some of this will rub off on other clubs over time, that other courses will emulate and adopt the "Friar's Head" way of playing golf, and I think that's a step in the right direction and good for the game of golf. I know that I'll certainly encourage and endorse a movement in that direction.
Steve, how many sites are there like the Friar's Head site ? and how rare is the situation where the land owner becomes a partner rather than a seller, which invariably drives up the cost of golf ? There are several factors which lined up, like the planets, to make this a unique opportunity and a unique golf course and golf facility. Let's not discount those factors, and their rarity.
SPDB,
You may recall that TE conceded that the Merion-Berkshire similarity of the bunker faces and tops was striking after he rode by and stopped and examined same. So there is hope for him yet.
I would like to include Gil and his wife as they were very gracious when we visited with them. Gil may also want to update TE on why the STYMIE should be returned.
TEPaul,
I had played a Coore & Crenshaw golf course before you even heard of them, back when you thought they were brands of beer and melon at your local grocery store.
And, just because they designed and built a wonderful golf course at Friar's Head doesn't mean that you haven't exhibited favoritism on their behalf.
Ask yourself, how many people have their home wallpapered with likenesses of Ben & Bill ?? How many guys, when looking through the racks of Playboy and Penthouse, ask the store clerk if they have any magazines featuring Ben & Bill ?
How many guys wrote to the Governor of the State of Vermont, The Executor of the Estate of Jerry Garcia and the President and Chairman of a Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream in an attempt to force them to change their name to Ben & Bills Ice Cream ? How many guys name their dog and cat, Ben & Bill ?
And you still claim that you don't indulge in favoritism ?
How come the answering machine at your house says,
Ben & Bill aren't here right now, but If you'll leave a message for them, I'll see that they get it ?
How come your Pennslyvania License plate reads
"C&C#1FAN" ?
And lastly, and I didn't want to reveal this, how come your Doctor Denton pajamas have a picture of Ben & Bill on the front, and on the back, the words, "President for life
Ben & Bill fan club" ?
I have no doubt, that if Ken had retained Fazio, that the property would have yielded a superb golf course.
With respect to my opinions on Friar's Head, I believe I offered them before anyone else, thus making plagiarism impossible, and your use of the english language....attrocious.
You may even recall, long before the golf course was grassed, that others were singing the praises of the dune and bluff holes, while I felt that the flat holes may be the best of all.
I've never been critical of C&C's work, only the deity status granted to them, to the exclusion of all others.
But, you're still invited to dinner, but..... PLEASE
Don't wear those Doctor Dentons out in public ;D
-
Pat you made the distintion at Friars Head that seperate from the Architecture it has the potential to change the culture of golf. Fine.
you also said that if Ken Bakst had chosen Fazio the property would have yielded a superb course. Fine.
Do you believe a Fazio led project could change the culture of golf?
It seems to me that part of the "culture" at a modern club starts with the selection of the architect.
-
Pat, while I believe Tom Fazio might have built a fine golf course on the Friar's Head site, he does build fine new courses, he would not have built the masterpiece that is Friar's Head today. Mr Fazio may be golf architecture's ultimate businessman but he is far from golf architectures current greatest artist. 4-5 site visits with 2 being cocktail parties for prospective members isn't the way to "finding" great golf holes and a routing for the ages.
I would bet you that a Fazio and/or Jones routing would have had many more tee and green views of the water but not to the benifit of great golf. Wasn't the site of the Preserve considered by many to be world class, what is the result? A good solid fine golf course, but not a masterpiece for the ages, just another sacrifice fly, how about a home run.
-
Corey Miller,
It doesn't matter who the architect is.
It is Ken Bakst that is attempting to change the culture.
Is there a culture change at Notre Dame, Hidden Creek, and others, or is it unique to Friar's Head, where one man with a vision resides ?
Brad Miller,
I don't think Ken Bakst would have permitted absentee architecture.
Have you seen the short course at Pine Valley ?
-
It is one man with a vision. My point is if the vision is to turn back the clock and change the culture the one man with a vision would not choose Fazio IMHO.
-
Pat, time spent on site is "just one" of the many reasons why C&C, Doak, Hanse...... are different from TF. IMHO TF really thinks he is golf all-time best archie, the new golden agers hold out to much respect for the greats of yesteryear to even think such a thought.
Yes I have seen TF's work at PV but don't you think Fazio being a member there with Mr. Ransome looking over his shoulder had something to do with that work product, most holes are copies anyway, this is not a comparable to finding, routing etc of a brand new project.
-
Corey Miller,
I think you need to re-read the entire thread, as you have mixed the two seperate concepts, the original and the recent.
How can you and others know what Fazio and Bakst would have collaborated to produce ?
How do you know what the routing and holes would be like.
Stop taking ridiculous cheap shots at everybody and just appreciate Friar's Head for the way it's designed, built and run.
Brad Miller,
Fazio found the routing at the 10 hole course and duplicated portions of other holes. While I'm more of a fan of the real deal 18 hole course, I think he did a pretty amazing job.
Wouldn't you agree that Ken Bakst would have the same role as Ernie Ransome, and then some ?
-
Please let me know where I took a cheap shot. Because i do not think that Fazio could have produced a course as good as is at FH? Becuase I do not think that Fazio could produce a course that could change the "culture" of golf?
You did say cheap shots at everbody so i am not sure who else I may have offended. Fazio is a fine archtect who builds good courses but I think he is a much better businessman than architect.
and in my opinion Bakst-cc turned out better than Bakst-fazio and if my opinion is offensive to you or Tom I am sorry.
-
Corey Miller,
Question,
How do you compare an actual course to a hypothetical one ?
Answer,
Only through the bias ;D of the mind !
-
Now Mucci is hallucinating! He's confused critical praise with favoritism. This is the work of a mind that has let bias paranoia get totally out of control.
For God sakes man, get with Dr. Katz real quick or soon even he won't be able to help you back to semi-reality.
I already told you I'll pick up the first dozen visits and I'll make good on that but you need to see him fast or even he will be spinning his wheels with you.
While you sit and wait for your appointments at his office I'll even supply you with a good dictionary to read with various words earmarked--it appears you're in desperate need of that too.
-
PATRICK
WHY DO YOU HAVE TO DRAG ME INTO THIS DISCUSION? I COLABORATED ON A FREAKEN PRACTICE RANGE, NOT A GOLF COURSE. WE EXHIBITED NO CREATIVITY AND SIMPLY COPIED WHAT MORE TALENTED MEN HAD DESIGNED DECADES AGO. DON'T INSULT KENNY AND COORE WITH SUCH LAME COMPARISONS, WE COULDN'T HAVE CREATED A FRIAR'S HEAD IN A MILLION YEARS.
GOOD DAY.
-
"stop taking ridiculous cheap shots at everybody" maybe the author should apologize and remove the comment. But then again he is never wrong. what is the definition of "cheap shot?"
-
I don't believe that FH will have much impact on the game at large-it's too private and GOLF is too big today.
But if Timber Point was restored to Alison's vision, then maybe.
Wasn't aware Tom Paul had visited Berkshire recently!
-
"Wasn't aware Tom Paul had visited Berkshire recently!"
Paul:
Of course I haven't. I've never been there. Pat Mucci has always been remarkably confused about all kinds of things, and is getting more so every day. You know that!
This was the only time, in fact, that Patrick has even remotely conceded that an architectural photograph was useful for any reason and the only reason he did that on this Berkshire/Merion point it that it suited his bizarre argument.
-
"This was the only time, in fact, that Patrick has even remotely conceded that an architectural photograph was useful for any reason and the only reason he did that on this Berkshire/Merion point it that it suited his bizarre argument."
Yeah, and wasn't that the thread where Patrick deleted all his posts? Perhaps covering his tracks :D
-
Ernie Ransome, aka ?
You're losing your reading comprehension skills.
Go back and reread the post, then tell me who dragged your name into this. Hint, it wasn't me.
Billy C, aka ?
Hint, use a dictionary in conjunction with a thesaurus and the answer should come to you within a few days.
TEPaul,
The argument was so bizarre that you agreed with it.
I should have known something was amiss.
Paul Turner,
Have you seen the new Merion bunkers in the last year ?
I can assure and guarantee you that the eradication had nothing to do with covering tracks, but keep guessing and I'll tell you if you hit the mark.
-
"TEPaul,
The argument was so bizarre that you agreed with it.
I should have known something was amiss."
Patrick:
Yes, yes, I vaguely recall now. The truth is I don't do very well with large amounts of bizzareness. It tends to confuse me. I only do well with the logical, the pure, the truth and the light. Those latter concepts might all be grouped into what could be called FACTS!
-
"How do you turn back the Clock?"
Good hypothetical question Pat. It is a question of course with "no definitive answer". It is open to speculation. But I am glad you asked it for the sake of rounding out discussion here. I would just ask that you remember that you ask these kinds of questions the next time you decide to try to "turn back" others asking their own questions. Thanks.
Oh, and I know you might believe that your answer is "definitive" but that doesn't make it so.
-
Pat-Without going to a dictionary to parse every word I do admit I am biased. I have played two C&C courses which are "best in world" class and I have played ~10 Fazio courses which range from average to very good. My opinion is that C&C are better architects and it would seem perhaps that Fazio may be a little more profit oriented.
I stand by "my opinion" that a developer who had an interest in positively changing the culture of golf would not hire Fazio. Again this opinion is derived from the two C&C clubs i have seen contrasted with the many Fazio's I have seen and that are already in the ground , and which may in fact may have taken us farther from the culture you are speaking about.
I will remember also never to compare a hypothetical project with an actual one as per your suggestion.
You may not understand this but saying someone took a "ridiculous cheap shot" is not what a gentleman does. I do not believe I did this and if I did I will publicly apologize to whoever I offended.
This is as polite as I can be or I really will be taking a "shot" though I am not sure if it would be deemed "cheap".
-
Corey Miller,
Put aside the "look" for a second.
How did the strategy, the shot values and the playability of the courses compare ?
-
Mr. Mucci, put aside just another one of your many questions and respond to Corey Miller about calling him a cheap shot artist, maybe you can turn back the clock by apologizing and removing your comment from that post.
-
"Have you seen the new Merion bunkers in the last year ?
I can assure and guarantee you that the eradication had nothing to do with covering tracks, but keep guessing and I'll tell you if you hit the mark. "
No I haven't seen them, but what has that got to do with your claims about TEP? I don't think anyone on this DG has seen both sets of bunkers.
My guesses:
A fit of pique?
Realising you'd hijacked Tommy's thread?
-
Guest,
With a limited data base it may be difficult if not impossible for one to divine an architects design philosophy, let alone compare the philosophy of one of the members of a co-design team, to that of another architect's design philosophy.
Don't you first have to seperate and identify the design philosophy of each one of the co-designers in order to begin the comparison with another individuals design philosophy.
Is anyone on this site capable of such an extraction ?
And, if not, doesn't the exercise become futile ?
-
Pat
Are you suggesting that the look of a golf course on the one hand and its strategy, shot values and playability on the other are mutually independent concepts and that they are not inextricably linked? Does the look of a golf course and its hazards not affect your psychology as a golfer? If the bunkers and waste areas at Pine Valley were replaced with modern looking and maintained contrivances without changing their locations or even depths, do you think that your psychology as a golfer would remain unaffected?
-
Paul Turner,
You're now 0 for 3, but keep guessing.
With respect to The Berkshire bunker pictured,
TEPaul and I had just played Merion and I was struck by the remarkable similarity in the bunker tops.
Tommy Naccarato had posted the picture of The Berkshire bunker to illustrate a point. Having just played Merion a day or two earlier, the image of Merion's bunkers was fresh in my mind, and they were amazingly, strikingly similar to the bunker posted by Tommy. I indicated same, and TEPaul upon further inspection agreed, as does SPDB.
I concluded that the picture of The Berkshire bunker had an uncanny resemblance to the bunkers I just saw at Merion.
Why do the police show the victim of a mugging photos of possible perpetrators if not to draw reasonable conclusions on the likeness of the photos to the actual perpetrator ?
Or do you feel that the victim must be subjected to additional on site muggings by the potential perpetrators, in full view of the police, in order to obtain a positive ID ?
When TEPaul agrees with me, you know the architecture police have approved the process and the conclusion.
-
KenB:
That's exactly what he's saying. Have mercy on the man--or at least humor him, as I do. He's not figured out after all these years and all this wailing and gnashing of teeth that various things in architecture are actually related and interconnected.
Psychology in golf architecture? Oh that's way too depthy for him. He can't actually touch that with his L-wedge and get the proper amount of spin on it to recognize it exists.
Patrick's mind lives in a universe of constant concern over little bits and pieces of some kind of data. He can never connect things, he can never open his mind--everthing must have formulae attached to it like 2+2=4 for him to fathom anything.
-
Ken Bakst,
I think that strategy can be viewed in the absolute,
that it can be isolated from its surroundings.
Would the 10th hole play any different, would the strategy be altered if condo's instead of woods bordered the right side of the hole ?
In your Pine Valley example, the strategy wouldn't change, it is constant or static as long as the features retain their location, configuration and relativity to one another.
Psychology is my behavior, and in the context of playing the hole, my strategy, my tactics, my play will be unaltered by form, as opposed to substance, which is at the core of my decision making process.
Having won many tournaments, including the USGA Mid-Amateur, I'd be curious with respect to your mind set when faced with a hazard fronting a green. Does the tactical signal your eye receives and sends to the brain for processing differ
based upon your evaluation of the aesthetics ? And, is your shot selection changed or altered because of the aesthetics ?
If you asked me which one I liked better, or which one I enjoyed playing more, my answer would be different, but the play of the hole would remain unaltered, strategically or tactically.
-
TEPaul,
AHA, No wonder my mind is off kilter, and that we don't think alike.
I never knew that: 2 = 2 = 4
My failing is, that I thought 2 + 2 = 4
This opens up a whole new world for me. Thanks ;D
-
Patrick:
Thank you very much for that last post. In the recent spirit on this thread of fostering undulterated opinion no matter how diverse or apparently in disagreement it may be with others, any opinion should be considered a good thing.
So congratulations, again, on that last post--it's a most eloquent expression of a compartmentalized mind.
-
Patrick
I went back and had a look at that old thread, quoting you:
"As to deleted posts, I did so on several threads, because I wanted to. There was no motive other than that I was a little annoyed. Don't overread into it."
Wasn't I correct with my second guess??
The puffy heather growing out of the top lip on the Berkshire bunkers is natural; so other than superficially, I still see little resemblance between the two sets. You won't have any difficulty climbing out of the bunkers at The Berkshire!
-
Patrick:
Thank you for the reminder of my 2=2=4 typo. You'll note however, I fixed the typo two minutes before you felt the need to remind me. God help me please if it was mental telepathy.
-
Paul Turner,
Having been in the bunkers at Merion, I believe I pointed out the bathtub nature, but that was not the focus of the discussion, it was on the bunker faces and tops, the wraparound feature, which is remarkably similar to the wraparound features at Merion.
The bunker faces and tops are similar, if not congruent.
One could easily look at the photo of The Berkshire bunker and think it was a photo of a Merion bunker.
-
"The bunker faces and tops are similar, if not congruent."
Nice one! ;)
"One could easily look at the photo of The Berkshire bunker and think it was a photo of a Merion bunker."
Does Merion have purple grass? I've heard of balls getting lost, buried under those bunker lips at Merion, you couldn't do the same at Berkshire Blue.
-
Paul Turner,
What time of year ?
How old are the bunkers at The Berkshire ?
How old are the bunkers at Merion ?
As time passes, I wonder if they'll look even more alike, or begin to have their looks diverge from one another ?
Time will tell, but for now, they could pass for twins.
-
"Having been in the bunkers at Merion, I believe I pointed out the bathtub nature, but that was not the focus of the discussion, it was on the bunker faces and tops, the wraparound feature, which is remarkably similar to the wraparound features at Merion."
Patrick:
My God, I whole heartedly agree with your statement. Of course they were similar--as both appear to be Merion! Or did you mean you were in the bunkers at Berkshire? Or Merion? Or perhaps, in your mind you were in the bunkers at Berkshire? Or perhaps you were looking at a photograph of Berkshire? I'm confused, was the unique purple grass at Merion or Berkshire or both?
-
If a question comparing design philosophies on this website is, as you say, "futile", then so is this very thread (as well as the whole website in general). For none of us can ever "turn back the clock" or put the genie back in the bottle. Nor can any of us, even the best historians, do anything more than speculate about a lot of what went on in the past in terms of motivation and forces at work shaping the golf world. Yes, there is some real historical "data" out there and that is why asking your question is a fine idea. But there is not enough for any conclusions here to be "definitive". The question asked by this thread is "futile". And so, I suggest that you may want to take your own advice and stop posting on this thread. Maybe on just about every thread here.
Alternatively, you could try to be more open-minded and not such a dark cloud and ultimately more consistent in the stance you take regarding the validity of someone's questions.
-
Guest,
Don't true or sympathetic restorations turn back the clock ?
Don't you feel that the culture of play at Friar's Head is turning back the clock ?
You post what you want, ANONYMOUSLY,
And, I'll post what I want under my OWN name.
-
Okay Pat. Sounds good. And while you're at it, why not let kclarke and others post what they want without being such a dark cloud? I am just saying, as you have said so many times before, "you can't have it both ways." Either everything that cannot be answered "definitively" is "futile" or none of it is. I hate to use your words and phrases against you, but you yourself call for consistency and now so do I call for it from you.
-
Who cares about turning back the clock, will someone just turn off...............the broken record.
-
Guest,
Here's the dilema.
A question was posed which asked for an assessment of the design Philosophies on the courses designed by Tom Doak and Bill Coore. But, of the 13 courses designed by Bill Coore, they were designed as a team effort with Ben Crenshaw.
Before one can compare the design philosophies as evidenced in the golf courses produced by the parties you first have to determine what part of the philosophy and design done by Coore & Crenshaw is Coore's and Coore's alone.
If you can't establish that definitively, the exercise is futile.
Now, you may not like to hear that, for some reason you feel it's stifling, but it's the reality of the situation and the exercise.
You can't compare Coore to Doak until you can identify what is Coore's.
That's not a dark cloud, its the light of reality.
Sorry you feel otherwise.
Guest 2,
Have you started any interesting thread lately ?
-
Pat, Fine, it is a futile exercise and so is trying to "turn back the clock." We agree. Both threads end in futility. So now you have held up the light of reason on your own thread and it turns out to be an exercise in futility. On to the next non-futile thread.
-
Patrick
I don't think the Merion bunker grass would turn purple at any time of the year! The heather on the Berkshire bunkers is rust brown, when not in bloom.
Bunkers at Berkshire are approx 70 years old, I don't believe they have been redesigned: the pics we viewed in that thread, showed that the current bunker was very similar to its 1970s appearance other than the depth of the heather.
English clubs don't spend money unnecessarily.
I believe the Merion bunkers are brand new.
-
Patrick:
For Christ's sake--now you want to know exactly what Bill Coore does and exactly what Ben Crenshaw does. Forgetaboutit--they're the most symbiotic combo YOU'VE ever heard of. Bill Coore spends a good deal more time on site than Ben Crenshaw does obviously. What do you want now---a complete breakdown of everything Coore did at Friar's Head or any other golf course? All you need to know is Bill Coore, Ben Crenshaw and Ken Bakst stood on the hill facing in different directions and simulaneously waved their arms and "WHOOSH" this incredible magic happened before them.
You're incorrigible!
-
Pat
You said,"I think that strategy can be viewed in the absolute,
that it can be isolated from its surroundings."
Ken was not referring to a course's surroundings, he specifically mentioned the look of hazards effecting the pyscology (thought process) of the golfer. Hazards are internal not external.
I think this quote explains a lot about your architectural views: "Psychology is my behavior, and in the context of playing the hole, my strategy, my tactics, my play will be unaltered by form, as opposed to substance, which is at the core of my decision making process.'
How do you seperate form from substance? Don't the scrub filled bunkers of PVGV and the wild bunkers of Royal Melbourne and County Down effect your pyscology (strategy), don't they play an intensified strategic role because of their look, a link between aesthetics and strategy? Not all bunkers are created equally, there is a process of evaluation while golfing which involves looking at hazards and based on past experience make a conscious evaluation based on what you see. Wild-looking naturalistic bunkers like the ones at Friar's Head, Cypress Point and Sand Hills demand your attention for good reason.
-
Tom MacW:
Don't ask Pat about that. Pat is the type that compartmentalizes things, psychologic effects of courses from the playing of the game.
Mind you, that's not a bad thing. It's just a different way of approaching the game (and its architecture). Good players tend to compartmentalize the game more than others--and they can do it much better than others. Experienced tournament players are best at it. They do it for obvious reasons--it helps them--it allows them to control better the extraneous, the external, the rugged or scary looking and overcome it in their play.
But it's the job a good architect to challenge and even rattle that compartmentalization on the part of good players. There's all kinds of way they can do that in architecture--less than obvious targets and lines, multiplicity of choices and nuances of same, ruggedness and dangerous looking things to unsettle them. All these things can obviously have an effect on even the strongest mental golfer to some extent although he may not want to recognize that and he will do his best to compartmentalize it from the execution of his game. It looks to me like Friar's Head works on that type of compartmenalization well!
-
Tom MacW
Sorry, but the "look" of bunkers has virtually nothing to do with their "strategic intensity" perceived or otherwise. The very first time you play a hole like, say 4 or 5 at Cypress, there is some visual intimidation from the tee, but once you play either of those holes you realize what pussycats (dare I say "eye candy"?) those bunkers are. Alternatively, unassuming as it may look from the fairway, and unaestheic as it currently may or may not be (haven't been there in over a year), the back left bunker on 12 at Merion will surely rivet your strategic attention in future rounds once you have found yourself to be there during actual play of the hole.
Perhaps you should re-read your well-dog-eared pyscology (sic) textbooks........
-
"Alternatively, unassuming as it may look from the fairway, and unaestheic as it currently may or may not be (haven't been there in over a year), the back left bunker on 12 at Merion will surely rivet your strategic attention in future rounds once you have found yourself to be there during actual play of the hole.
Perhaps you should re-read your well-dog-eared pyscology (sic) textbooks........"
Rich:
It doesn't surprise me but in my opinion I think you basically contradicted yourself or else you simply aren't aware of the impact on you of pyschologic effects of some very good architecture.
But in the second part of your post you do seem to become aware of it after those times it's influenced your play.
That's sort of the point of well placed, rugged, strategic architecture isn't it?
I was talking to the man of Friar's not long ago about that very thing. Golfers take various risks with very good strategic risk/reward architecture probably coming closer and closer to the fire until they get burned and then starts the process of giving that fire a very wide berth until they have played the hole successfully (or avoided that fire) for enough time that they begin the cycle of playing ever closer to it again until they get burned again and start the reverse cycle all over again.
I'm sure, like me, you've run across holes that you play well for a time and then something bad happens somewhere on it--or many places-- and then you might begin the cycle of playing it badly for a time until you learn to cycle away from things and eventually back to playing it well again for a time until "whoops" again and then the reverse strategic cycling begins again.
That's all part of the pychology of really good strategic architecture and it can be anywhere and everywhere on any good strategic golf hole just waiting for the time it does its thing to you or any golfer and administers the actual and the cycling psychological effect begins again.
You did get the second part of your post right, though, in my book. But you should delete the first part because one of these days those pussycat bunkers you spoke of will get you and you'll have to look at them in the context of the second part of your post.
It's all pyschology and that works best and most effectively when the time comes when it becomes actual. Real eye candy bunkers are probably those that you may never be in but even those in a course that looks like Friar's do tie the rest of the arrangement in in an overall aesthetic and psychological way.
-
Rich
No need to apologize. Obviously you are the exception. Your powers of reasoning and intellect are generally conceded as being far being superior to the rest of us. But let me try to express my primitive point of view.
It seems to me you are arguing that the bunkers on #4 and #5 are not in play (eye candy)…..at least for your game. That is a different issue than comparing the strategic merits of bunkers that are located where you might place your shot, for example the driving zone, greenside, etc. How did you approach #5 the second time around?
Do the hazards in these two images register the same psycological message?
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/Blackwol%20Run%20R%2010th.jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/cypress13.jpg)
-
"Your powers of reasoning and intellect are generally conceded as being far being superior to the rest of us."
Tom MacW:
I can't tell if you're being slightly sardonic there or not, but if you're not you can speak for yourself. I'm not willing to concede that man anything. I wouldn't concede him a six inch putt on logic. He's almost as bizarre as Pat Mucci. There are certain fundamental truths in this universe of golf and architecture (all of them spelled out by Max Behr) and Rich Goodale is not only not able to read them or grasp them he violently and disrespectfully disagrees with them.
That will never do. Whatever intellect he may have is either short circuiting into total contrarianism or it resides in some other self created universe or both.
-
Tom MacW
On #5 CPC the first time I played it I pull hooked my drive left of the fairway bunkers into the forest and hit an heroic 9-iron over the trees to in front of the 2nd shot foozle bunkers, from which I hit a lob wedge to about 15-feet. The second time around I slightly cut a driver and then tried to kill a 3-wood over the foozle bunkers to the green but thankfully topped it to about exactly the same place as I had hit the 9-iron last time around, and then hit my lob wedge even closer. I played with 6 other good players in those 2 rounds and nobody came close to hitting that green in two. Next time I play it I'll hit 5-iron, 5-iron, lob wedge and hope that I don't 3-putt his time from 10-15 feet......
-
Tom M
I should comment on your photos/pictures. A master class on how one can or cannot evaluate some place they haven't (or even have) seen only in two dimenstions. I'm guessing that #2 is a rendition of a very odd angle of #13-14 (or even 15) Cypress done by someone from the Hunter Thompson or Timothy Leary school of painting. If it is it has virtually no relation to what the hole(s) actually looks like, to most golfers. If it is some reasonable depiction of some other reality, it is not a hole that I, for one, would really want to play, from that angle at least--but I might if I saw how that hole really looked. As for #1, having played many holes on many courses with similar backdrops, I am almost certain that if I were to play that hole it would look very different than what the photographer has managed to convey. It might even be very "strategic." Given the severe limitations of photography, I just do not know.
-
Rich
Painting #2 is Michael Miller’s work based on a photo taken shortly after CPC opened, it is the 13th hole. The reason you are unable to recognize it is due to ice plant over taking the exposed sand. It looks like the same hole I played, but that is beside the point, the issue is the dissimilar visual character (aesthetics) of the two types of hazards and the psychological effect/message their 'look' might have on strategy. I didn’t ask you if you wanted to play either hole or which hole you prefered--although that opinion is interesting--I asked if the aesthetics or 'look' of these hazards sends the same psychological message.
-
Tom
I assumed it was Miller and noted properly that it was the 13-14 vista (after a mulligan assuming it was the 15th, which I deleted).
As to Miller's picture, nothing personal, Tom, but if that is an accurate depiction of what #13 CPC looks like to you psycholgically, please book in IMMEDIATELY with Dr. Katz, or at least Butch Harmon or your local optometrist.
As to your question, I just do not think that there is sufficient information to answer it. Given that Miller's picture of #13 CPC significantly distorts how the hole really looks (IMO), I must assume that the photo in #1 must do the same, so how can I respond to what I think of each image? Show me #1 in reality and I can compare it to my impressions of #2 (which I have seen in reality), maybe.....
Whether you meant to or not, Tom, this exercise of yours is really only confirming the Muccian view that it is impossible to comment on holes that one has only seen remotely in two dimensions. IMHO.
-
Rich;
If I'm not mistaken, Miller's painting of the 13th is not meant to depict how the hole looks now, but rather how it looked at course opening. Tom MacWood points out that many of vast sandy areas have been lost to iceplant and other vegetation.
Miller's paintings are all based on historical photographs. If that is indeed how CP's 13th looked as Mackenzie envisioned it, what psychological message do you think Mac hoped to send the golfer?
If the mind's eye does not react to what is seen, then why is pictorial and other visual advertising a multi-billion dollar industry?
-
Mike
I understand what Miller was trying to do, but my question is not with the details but the perspective.
His image shows a long carry to a small fairway, over sand dunes. Today, you have the same carry, but it is over iceplant, scrub, etc.
In both cases, I would argue, the golfer (at least this golfer) really just looks at the fairway and its relationship to the green, and doesn't really care whether or not he is hitting his 220 or so carry drive over sand, iceplant, a junkyard of buried Buicks or the Pacific Ocean. Maybe that's why you (and I) negotiated Merion #18 so effortlessly from the new tips.......
Cheers
Rich
-
Rich
No matter--you've long held the Muccian view that aesthetics play little are no part in architectural matters. I take it you both married girls with nice personalities.
-
Tom
You misread me yet again, but that is your problem, not mine,
-
Rich;
Your logic defies my understanding. :o ;)
Let's use your 18th at Merion example. Yes, we both overcame the intense, VISUALLY daunting demands of the tee shot and escaped unscathed. It was probably also the most solid drive I hit all day.
And you say that it makes no difference to you what it looks like? So, just for discussion purposes, let's say that instead of the rock-strewn, craggy quarry wall and other vegetation, a misguided attempt at "fairness" left that stretch as just smooth turf with light rough to the top of the hill...pretty, green, and consistent.
The carry to the fairway would be the same distance. Since that area is deemed to be "within the quarry", it would still be played as a "hazard" under the rules of golf, meaning that if you find your ball you can play it but not ground your club.
Same shot? Same psychological demands? If so, please tell me your thinking?
-
Tom MacWood said:
"Rich
No matter--you've long held the Muccian view that aesthetics play little are no part in architectural matters."
And Rich Goodale responded:
"Tom
You misread me yet again, but that is your problem, not mine,"
How many times have we heard that on here? Are Pat Mucci and Rich Goodale the same person? Is it possible that everyone out there in the Internet World can't read?
-
Mike:
I've been following this thread with great amusement as you guys try to figure out Rich's thinking. I used to try this myself... I mean, the man did once say that #16 at Cypress was "no big deal, just a solid driver, right side of the green" ho hum... Thinking like that was as mind-boggling to me then as you are seeming to find it today.
Then I realized this really IS how he thinks, and it's unique among amateur players, but at least logical - he's plain and simple TARGET-oriented to an extreme beyond any golfer I've met. That is, the target is all that matters... what's in between, no matter how spectacular or daunting, really doesn't matter a lick. It takes a very confident golfer to think this way - that is, to not let the negative thoughts intrude when what's in the way is 220 yards worth of ocean - but Rich is such. Given the target on 16 Cypress is pretty big and flat, you can see how he'd call it a ho-hum hole, can't you?
Now watch him come on and tell me how wrong I am... if so, don't listen, that's just his contrarian nature and uneasiness at being "figured out" talking!
TH
-
Mike
You are assuming from your last post that the consequences of landing within a hazard are different for the two examples used. While this might be the case it is certainly not necessarily so. While something might look intimidating and rough as the CP #13 picture portrays the actual playability of each example (the two photos) might be very similar. Any golfer with reasonable skills will quickly learn what to really avoid because of the consequences and what is simply an attempt at visable intimidation and/or artistic beauty of the surroundings. I hesitate to bring up this example but my approach to the 15th at Bethpage Black today is no less imposing then it was 30 years ago.
-
Mike
I didn't really see the quarry on 18, or even 16. No more than I saw the scrub on 13 or 2 or 8 CPC, or even the Pacific Ocean at 16 on the latter. In all those cases, I just saw a tee shot, with a pretty long carry that I assumed was possible for the simple reason that I knew that many golfers, of both greater and lesser ability had been in those places before and made the carry.
I'm being honest here, and actually I think it does really bring up a significant difference in perception and perspective. Some people get absolutely flummoxed or orgasmic by the aethetics and possibilities that artistic expressions by people like Mike Miller conjure up in their minds. Others just see the hole for what it is, in golfing terms, and just play the shot. For better or for worse, I'm one of the latter.
All the best
Rich
-
Mike
I also meant to include the point that I think you are really saying something like - Lets let hazards really play like hazards - oh and it would certainly be a great bonus if they fit in with the landscape and added esthetics to the enjoyment of a round of golf.
-
Well whaddya know. I believe I summed up Rich's thinking correctly. Of course I got the benefit of our posts crossing in space... I somewhat evilly think he didn't see mine before he posted his... ;)
In any case though, it seems to me there is nothing wrong with the way Rich approaches the game - I'd venture to say that the vast majority of pros think this way also.
This is a big beautiful game indeed. ;)
TH
-
Huckster
Looks like you got me right this time!
-
"he's plain and simple TARGET-oriented to an extreme beyond any golfer I've met. That is, the target is all that matters... what's in between, no matter how spectacular or daunting, really doesn't matter a lick"
Really? I don't think even Tiger Woods thinks like that. But maybe Rich is better than he is or at least mentally stronger.
Frankly, I believe I remember Rich saying if he's playing a tournament or whatever, he plays much differently than that. Certainly it can't be his handicap that would give him concern about things like what's between the tee and the target at Cypress's #16 because he only needs to post three scores per year for handicap purposes.
Maybe if I didn't care what I shot, maybe if it didn't really mean much of anything at all, maybe then I wouldn't care at all what''s between the tee and the target on Cypress's #16 either.
What risk? What am I risking? If my ball goes in the Pacific, so what? Who cares?
Let's put something on the line and see if Rich sees what's between the tee and the target at Cypress's #16. Or maybe he didn't really mean he plays very differently if it happens to be a tournament or when something is on the line.
-
We keep crossing... very cool, no hassles. I am just having a bit of fun with this.
TH
-
Tom P
See Tom H's post to really undertand where I am coming form. Disregard Tom M who doesn't know me.
By the way (BTW) what were you thinking on the 18th at Merion that day with me and Cirba and Dow? I really do want to know as your perspective and relative ability is very diffeent to mine (and Mike's and Willie's) and we had 4 very different approaches to and results from the shot on that hole on that day.
All the best
Rich
-
TEP - you'll notice I didn't get into WHY Rich thinks this way, but I believe you are getting that... in "bounce rounds", it doesn't matter at all what score on records, so yep, no risk, no care, no nothing. The venue doesn't change this for Rich also.
COMPETITION does change things. If he was playing in a tourney he cared about at CPC, heck yes he'd notice the carry required on 16, and if competitive circumstances dictated it, heck yes he'd lay up left.
Rich is also very unique in how "binary" this is to him... competive golf and bounce games being two totally different things. I'd say most of us think that way, but we also do care about our scores even in bounce games... or at least care about the outcome on famous golf holes! To Rich it's a lot more black and white - if it's not competition, it doesn't matter, no matter what golf hole he's on. Then given his strong target-oriented nature, if the target is large, then ho-hum, fire away... in a bounce game... and in competition, also disregard what's in the way once the decision to fire at the target has been made, but also take a look at what's in the way just in terms of strategic choices.
It's a damn strong way of thinking, really.
Or maybe I should have quit whilst breaking even? ;)
TH
-
Tom P
I'm off to do a bit of babysitting, so whilst the rest of you psycoanlayze (sic) me and my game, you should know that under CONGU I must post scores from EVERY competition I enter (usually 30 or so/year, but a minimum of 3). Many times more than you normally post under the GHIN system, but I'm not really counting..........
-
"Many times more than you normally post under the GHIN system, but I'm not really counting.........."
Rich:
So you see, the GHIN system really isn't as mindlessly quantity based as you thought is it? I wish I had posted 30 times last year but I didn't play 30 rounds.
-
Rich - please do realize that the way smart people and good golfers think about the game is very interesting to me and I learn from it - thus my participation here.
I also remain damn impressed that with your obligations family and otherwise, you get in 30 competitive golf results to post. I gather normal club events count for that?
TH
-
Rich;
Thanks for your answer. I admire your focus and it probably helps your game but I wonder if you aren't missing something valuable...or at least enjoyable.
Geoffrey;
Yes, in my example, not only has the intimidating "look" of the hazard changed, but the "playability" as well. My contention is that in most cases there is a direct relationship between how a hazard, such as a bunker, looks, and how it plays. Generally, if it looks nasty, rugged, naturally irregular, steep, daunting, fearsome, uncertain, and penalizing, it is.
And THAT is precisely what I wanted to understand about Rich's answer. As you know, Pine Valley is one of the most visually intimidating courses in the world, simply because on most every shot you can see in clear and gory detail what is the probable outcome(s) for the misplayed shot. Even with the recent "conditioning" of the bunker and sandy areas at PV, for the most part virtually anything can happen. This type of score-wrecking visually-influenced uncertainty is what makes the course so unrelenting and intimidating.
In a way, a recoverable hazard such as a bunker or quarry should be a lot more fun and interesting than a water hazard, where the outcome is always known (even the Pacific Ocean) and the next shot is just a boring drop.
It's one thing to see what I have to challenge or carry and know the worst that can happen is a stroke penalty. It's another to see a fearsome bunker and realize that I'll have to find it and then play it from THERE!!
That's when the real fun begins! ;D
-
Mike
Well put or should I say spot on :)
I knew that we were in complete agreement and I only wanted to point out that players of reasonable skill quickly learn at least a bit of Rich's approach to scoring on a golf course (no pun intended). There still has to be some bite to go along with all the barking.
-
Tom MacWood,
The answer to your question to me, is NO.
It makes no difference in the play of the hole.
If we have a green, with a bunker right up to the front of the green, it makes no difference if the bunker is circular, rectangular, square, triangular, has frilly plants around it or in it, or has three guys hiding in it who assault unwary golfers.
The bunker must be avoided, irrespective of its form.
My eye receives the signal presented by the bunker and targets, and my brain evaluates the intended shot that best suits the situation, which may or may not be pin directed, and which may be offensive in nature or defensive in nature.
The look of the bunker has absolutely nothing to do with the decision making process, shot and club selection.
It is the bunkers relative position to the intended TARGETS, and the bunker's configuration, not the style of the bunker that affects my play.
It's really quite simple.
Does a bunker with Merion's wraparound send a different signal and result in altering your play, versus that same bunker, scalped of it's wraparound grass at the top ?
To me it doesn't, it's just window dressing with respect to strategy, tactics and the PLAY of the hole.
-
Patrick;
I find your comments interesting.
Let me ask a followup, if I might. Let's use your example of the front right bunker and consider two scenarios to a pin tucked front right.
A) A relatively flat, shallow bunker with consistent, low cropped surrounds, proceeding uphill along the greens surface from the bunker. It appears to be relatively benign, and in fact plays that way.
B) A deep, irregularly shaped pit with a steep face, and inconsistent surrounds where you might have a tight lie against packed sand or be in high fescue. From the bunker surrounds, the green sweeps away from the golfer to the pin. The bunker looks intimidating, and there is generally good reason for that fear in terms of playability.
Are you saying that those differences would play absolutely no consideration in your determination to fire at the pin or to the middle of the green?
Isn't potential for recovery (low risk vs high risk) part of the assessment you make in determining how much you're willing to "take on" any particular hazard?
Thanks for your answer.
-
This has been one of the more illustrative threads to date. I knew there was a reason why Rich did not appreciate interesting architecture, he never sees it. He blocks everything out except for his target, tunnel vision form point A to point B. Like I said before Rich is the exception, not only are his powers of reason and intellect superior, he has super human focus.
-
Tom MacWood,
One of the greatest par 4's in the world, one of the greatest strategic holes in the world, is probably amongst the worst aesthetically.
And, the aesthetics, good and bad, don't affect the strategy and play of the hole one iota.
The Road Hole, the 17th at TOC.
If you've played it, over buildings, next to buildings, next to paths and man made walls, you'll understand what I'm saying about the strategy being independent of the aethetics.
-
Patrick:
Interesting choice of example.... one man's trash is another man's gold... I find the "aesthetics" on The Road Hole absolutely wonderful! Somehow I enjoy the blind shot over the hotel, the hotel on the right, the way the green sets against the road and wall behind, the wonderful view of the hotels/town/R&A clubhouse off to the left... all of that is part of what makes that hole great for me without a doubt.
I'm trying to think of a better example... but I'm at a loss. Is there a truly great golf hole with nothing going for it in the way of aesthetics? There must be... I'd love to hear other examples. Road Hole doesn't work, not for me anyway...
TH
-
Yes, Patrick...I'd agree with Huckaby here.
I think when some of us talk about aesthetic factors, we're more likely to frown on obviously man-made, unnatural looking, poorly integrated golfing features, surely much more than the walls, buildings, and pathways of the ole grey toon.
I can't think of one ugly, man-made golfing feature on that hole, surely.
Speaking of which, how would the strategy of that hole change if the road hole bunker was flattish, less steep, and about 2-3 feet in depth? ;)
-
Mike Cirba,
You're confusing aethetics with dimensions and configuration.
The moment you present one bunker as deep and another as shallow, it has nothing to do with the aethetics, only the relative physical properties of the bunker.
As I posted above, for me, relativity and configuration are the determining factors in strategy, and shot selection. not aethetics. Physical properties, depth, width, and length have meaning, especially in relation to the intended targets,
grass and flowers don't.
But, let me try to convince you, Ken, Tom and others that strategy can be in the absolute, isolated from aethetics.
Take OUT-OF-BOUNDS, those small little white stakes in the ground. Are you going to tell me that you will play a hole lined with out-of-bounds stakes, differently, depending on what's on the out-of-bounds side of the stakes ?
Or is the strategy on the shot determined by the absolute, the demarcation of out-of-bounds, not the aethetics ?
Let's take a perfectly square green, with water three feet from the front of the green. Does it matter if the water starts with a bulkhead, a steep grass slope, or just water at the three foot mark ? Do those variables change the strategy on the hole, your decisions and shot selections ? Or, is the water an absolute, and as such, dealt with strategically, irrespective of the aesthetics ?
Let's go to the 6th at NGLA and the 17th at TPC.
Would you tell me how strategy is altered by aethetics ?
There is but one basic strategy, HIT THE GREEN.
-
"But, let me try to convince you, Ken, Tom and others that strategy can be in the absolute, isolated from aethetics."
Not sure it I'm the Tom you're talking to, but if so, I never said otherwise.
I just didn't think The Road Hole was a good choice of lack of aesthetics, that's all.
Oh yes, OBVIOUSLY strategy can exist on the ugliest of golf holes... hell, there are a few at my local urban executive course that have very nice strategic elements. That wasn't my issue at all.
TH
-
Tom Huckaby,
I was referencing the Tom's, Paul, and MacWood, sorry.
-
I kinda thought that - no hassles!
I need to change my name. I feel so common as yet another "Tom". "Your Majesty" sounds good, but self-coronation is not my style. Oh well... the rest of the world just calls me Huckaby anyway (or something that rhymes with it), so that ought to work here.
Not all that many of those around, so I rarely get confused! ;)
TH
-
Mike C (and Tom MacW)
I don't think I miss anything more on any course I play than any of us on this board. I just (maybe) am able to block out the extraneous stuff (i.e. what sort of grunge lies between me and the Elysian Fields) better than others. Whatever my powers of observations might be, I've been brave and honest about expressing them on this site, and I think they stand up OK in this august company.
Of course, as Tom H rightly points out, I do (sometimes) find it difficult to block out hazards, particularly in competitive rounds, but that's no different, I would think, than for any of us who play competitively, at whatever level. And, Tom H, I do (now) play 30+ competitive rounds a year. Each of my clubs has 30-40 stroke play competitions during the season and if one wishes to there are also numerous Open competitions at nearby clubs (many of which are 36-hole events) each week, as well as midweek Senior Events, now that I am of that certain age......If Tom Paul played over here, his handicap would get down to +2 where it belongs as soon sa you could say "Bob's your uncle!"
Well, enough about me.....
As for the topic. I think Ken B is doing something very worthwhile at Friar's Head, and I am sure (and hope) he will succeed and prosper. I do not, however, think it will "turn back the clock." Outside of science fiction, this is not possible.
-
Rich - I never doubted you played 30 competitive tourneys per year, I just find that so cool that I wanted to know more how it happened!
Just to make me even more jealous, I'm gonna assume you also play at least 50+ rounds outside of these. Respond only if this is outrageously wrong.
Damn the grass is always greener....
TH
ps - the Goodale topic is much more interesting to me than the Friar's Head one, to which all I could add is "wow, that's a cool looking place." So please do bear with me!
-
Pat
These hazards send the same signal?
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/Blackwol%20Run%20R%2010th.jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/00000280.jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/Sandhills17.jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/rusticcanyon1.html)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/RCD%2013th.jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/FH10c.jpg)
Out of bounds is out of bounds, the stake sends the same signal because the pentalty is the same--OB is absolute. Bunkers are different, they possess different aesthetics, different characteristics, different penalities, and based on their aesthetics each send a unique message. The message the bunkers of above send me, with the exception of one, is golfer beware your fortune is uncertain. If you decide to take a risk and find me, you could draw a relatively straight-foward bunker lie or you might be totally screwed, most likely screwed.
My staretegy is effected by the nature of the hazards, water and OB's penalty is absolute there is no recovery, bunkers penalties vary and because of that your startegic thought process is effected--at least for me that is true.
Demension and configuration are elements of a bunkers aesthetics. They are linked, just as aesthetics is linked to strategy and playability, and they are all linked to the total golfing experience. Isn't that what seperates great golf architecture or a great golf course from a good or mediocre one. Interesting, unusual, striking features in conjunction with thought provoking strategy. Isn't that why many were salivating at the sight of the Friar's Head photos?
-
Tom H. - When I think of so-called "great" golf courses with little or nothing going for them by way of aesthetic appeal, the first name that comes to mind is Carnoustie. Bleak, stark, depressing...whatever you wish to call it, few will find its looks appealing. If you like Carnoustie, I'm inclined to say that you fall on the Rich Goodale side of this equation, at least in some sense. I've never been a fan of Carnoustie; I can identify it as an excellent test of golf with a number of nice strategic elements to it, but it doesn't appeal to me in the slightest. (There are other factors at play than the sheer architecture vs. aesthetics, of course - its terrific difficulty being among them - but I'm highlighting this particular contrast to make a point.) So perhaps that's a better example than the Road Hole...
Cheers,
Darren
-
Tom, where is the 2nd from last from? And is pic #2 from Pac Dunes?
-
Strategy doesn't simply disappear once you're in a bunker. How a bunker looks, also determines how it plays.
I found myself with some weird stances in the bunkers at Pacific Dunes and varying lies too: from very hard packed sand to loose floury stuff.
-
Brad
Yes #2 is Pacific Dunes and the other is from Royal Co. Down.
-
Tom, thank you
-
Rich:
What was I thinking that day I played Merion's #18 from the tips with you. I don't know that I can exactly remember what I was thinking that day but I should explain something to you first about that tee shot to me.
I've played that course a lot over the years in things likes State Amateurs, Philly Opens, maybe a couple of Hugh Wilsons, Bailey Cups, all kinds of tournament situations and that tee shot is one of those that really concern me.
The reasons are simple. I know exactly what I'm capable of doing and one thing I've never done is hit the tee ball far. I'm short off the tee and always have been. Maybe 240 max unless there's roll involved. My irons aren't the same though--more normal distance. So Merion's #18's tee shot has been sort of near my limit in some conditions with that tee shot. When I played tournament golf all the time I was straight and I was very consistent but I did know my limits and never tried to force things. If I did I was very inconsistent.
I've had a disaster or two or three on #18's tee shot and one never forgets those things but mostly I've played it OK. On that hole I'll take 5 gladly if I'm pretty sure I'm not risking something much higher.
So given all that when I stepped back 30 yards on that tee for the first time with you (that tip tee is new), and I'm older and not the same player, I guess I must have thought there's very little possiblity of getting my tee ball out to that fairway and I was right. I sort of recall I hit that tee shot pretty good for me and was still short of the fairway.
But that kind of thing doesn't really bother me--never did--as it wasn't a disaster to me as hitting it in the quarry would have been. My ball was in the rough, with not much problem in front of the fairway and I would have just taken something and played the hole like a par 5. Sometimes I made a 4 like that but rarely worse than a 5.
But does that tee shot get to me psychologically? It sure does, always has because I'm definitely not oblivous to the danger of a real mistake--it's happened before but even if it hadn't I'd feel the same. I've been good at blocking out all kinds of situations over the years and such on all kinds of courses but certainly some are much different than others. The toughest courses that way I call the "high intensity level" courses and they're harder to score on day in and day out then others that don't have that. I'm not alone in feeling that way about those courses--everyone I know does.
But I'm not sure what you and Pat are trying to say about the relative danger on a golf course--whether dangerous bunkering, dangerous carries, whatever.
If you're trying to say that if you were playing a course like Pine Valley in something meaningful like a tournament and that the dangers of that place compared to some other course doesn't occur to you, doesn't effect you at all--then frankly I'm not buying that for a New York second.
When Pat Mucci says things like:
"The bunker must be avoided, irrespective of its form."
or,
"The look of the bunker has absolutely nothing to do with the decision making process, shot and club selection."
We all know we want to avoid bunkers but on some courses we want to avoid them more than other courses and that can effect any golfer psychologically. And on the second remark maybe all those things don't influence Pat's or your strategic considerations differently on a really dangerous course compared to a more forgiving one but if they don't at all and you treat all courses the same that way then in my opinion those more dangerous courses will inevitably and eventually take their toll on you disproportionately.
I think anyone has to adjust their course management on a course such as Pine Valley compared to something simpler and give all those more dangerous slim margin for error areas a wider bearth. If you don't they'll eventually get you and you'll be into the so-called "others".
But you and Pat are probably just talking about "compartmentalizing" something that a lot of successful tournament players are good at for obvious reasons.
But would any of them say they're completely oblivious to the psychological dangers of the features and such of a course like a Pine Valley? That they don't try to adjust to it or think about it or even have it effect their execution on various shots sometimes? Not a one of them I've ever met and that was some pretty good national players.
Maybe a player like Jamie Slonis if he sees this should jump in here--he sure is a better tournament player than I ever was.
-
Tom MacWood,
We're talking about strategy and the play of "A" hole, not comparing the play of different holes, with different configurations, and different relationships between the hazard/s and the target/s.
DIFFERENT holes, with DIFFERENT physical properties, with DIFFERENT HAZARDS require different assessments.
Perhaps the play of your game is distracted by the aethetics, preventing you from focusing on the strategy required.
-
DIFFERENT aesthetic...DIFFFERENT messages...DIFFERENT strategic considerations
Perhaps my game is distracted by the aesthetics..and I love it! I look foward to more distractions in the future. Remember now: aesthetics, playing characteristics and strategy are linked.
-
"......If Tom Paul played over here, his handicap would get down to +2 where it belongs as soon sa you could say "Bob's your uncle!"
Rich:
A guy who can't break 80 can have a +2 handicap over there? What kind of handicap system are you people running over there? I'll stay over here and when I start playing and posting again it'll be about a 10, thank you very much.
-
You guys on the aesthetics side need to stop focusing on bunker grass and start focusing on fairway lines. Fairway lines send signals to the golfer's body about the shape of the next shot, though they may be false signals in some cases. Focus on the way certain ocular signals make it easier for the body to follow through with a given swing plane.
-
After reading much of the last couple of pages, it seems to me like nobody can understand what the other person is trying to say.
I think Merion is the perfect example for this discussion. Much has been made of their restoration and primarily their bunker work. Many people loved the older look of Merion bunkers, but over the decades, many bunkers had lost some of their original playability. Now redone, the bunkers are aesthetically different, but I think the playability and difficulty has improved.
For me, at least under tournament conditions, aesthetics and the actual severity of a hazard are two totally different things. During non-tournament rounds I appreciate and love a great looking bunker complex as much as the next GCA'er, but when my score really counts, I could care less what a bunker looks like. I care how severe it is and how it can effect my score. For instance in a tourney somewhere if I make a mistake and hit it into a "great" looking but horribly penal bunker, I'm not going to be less upset that I just made double bogey from a bunker that was aesthetically pleasing.
I think aesthetics can effect strategy maybe the first couple times you play a course, because you don't actually know the difficulty of the hazard. Some bunkers from a distance can appear more difficult or benign based on there appearance, but how they effect your decision making and strategy would change after you got to know the course better.
TE Paul,
Thanks for the complement, but I've seen you in action on the course, with your comments on this website about the state of your game you must be sandbagging some of these guys for high stakes matches.
To echo your example above about playing a tournament at a course such as Pine Valley, I think I posted something similar about strategy after playing in the GAP Open at PVGC last July. That was the first competitive event I have played at Pine Valley. I had played there about 5-6 times prior, but all under social situations. As you know the pins were set very difficult that day, and it was a very humbling experience. Suddenly pars were fantastic, and the avoidance of the "others" became very real. I learned quickly that it's one thing to make a big number when your playing a $10 nassau, it's a whole different ballgame when someone is carrying a damn sign around with your name and score on it for all to view. Regardless of aesthetics, which at PVGC are world class, there is just such a smaller and more severe margin for error than so many other courses. Because of this factor, I think I played too conservative at times, which probably cost me a few shots...but...not as many shots if I would have played too aggressively.
I think the bottom line is that "look/aethetics" and "severity/playabilty" are two very different factors that when brought together and designed correctly make certain golf courses as great as they are. The perfect melding of these factors is what make us protective of the Golden Age courses and excited about the new designs by guys like C&C, Doak, and Hanse to name a few.
-
Jamie
Great post. I fully agree with part of your statement:
"I think the bottom line is that "look/aethetics" and "severity/playabilty" are two very different factors....."
I'm not yet sure about the second half of the statement:
".......that when brought together and designed correctly make certain golf courses as great as they are."
As I read it, you are also saying that the same hole/course can be looked at very differently by the golfer depending on the situation (i.e. Friendly Nassaau vs. tournament). Fully agree.
Tom P
Thanks for the excellent post regarding your feelings on the tee of #18 Merion which shows us very clearly that different golfers, with different capabilities and histories can look at the same hole even under the same circumstances very differently.
Darren K
Your post regarding Carnoustie was very interesting too. What I think you are saying is that, from a "severity/playabilty" aspect the course is world-class, but that its "look/aethetics" values make the course a "lesser" one in your mind. This maybe gets to the heart of the disagreement we had as to whether of not Carnoustie was over-rated or under-rated. What are we really "rating" anyway. Is it just the "cold" on-the-ground architecture (i.e. the "function" of the course) or do we also care about the "form" too--to use the classical architectural nomenclature?
My personal feeling is that the "function" should be pre-eminent. Part of the reason I feel this way is that I see golf courses as not only a field of play (95%+ of most of our games) but also one of competition. This is why I think that Jamie's post is so important. From him we see how a course like Pine Valley can look so very different when played for fun than it does when played for some sort of prize. From my much less golf-competent point of view I have seen this many times at my "home" course. The same hole with a card in my hand and a public scoreboard awaiting me at the clubhouse plays so very differently than the same hole when played with friends and with only a pint or 22 awaiting us at the clubhouse.
Tom MacK
Your pictures only continue to reinforce my belief that "form" is highly overrated when discussing GCA. I think of some of the holes that I know really well and have played many times under all sorts of conditions and I know that the postcard pictures of them have virtually no relationship to what the hole means to the golfer. What pictures of golf holes are is "virtual reality." They are works of "art" photographically but not in terms of the "art" or lack therof which is on the ground. That can only be understood if you have been on the ground, under many circumstances, as Jamie S has been at Pine Valley, and Tom P has been at Merion.
Archibald Macleish's poem "Ars Poetica" concludes (I think)with the line:
"A poem should not mean, but be."
To me this means that deconstructive analysis of any art (i.e. the search for "meaning" or the need for "rating") is less satisfying than the personal experiencing of that art. I feel the same way about golf courses.
-
Rich:
It seems like we're all getting on the same page here. But I think this remark by Jamie Slonis is still true;
"After reading much of the last couple of pages, it seems to me like nobody can understand what the other person is trying to say."
I think that's always true to an extent on here generally but more so when trying to explain some of the more nuancy things about golf and its architecture particularly when it gets into the psychological side of golf.
I think the thing that most of this thread is getting hung up on which creates misunderstandings is basically just what the exact meaning of a word or two is to anyone or everyone.
What does "aesthetics" really mean to anyone or everyone? That's probably the central problem on this thead with undertanding if that really is the word that's being used here and the subject being discussed. Does it mean something that just LOOKS aesthetically pleasing or beautiful in a ruggedly dangerous sense (but maybe isn't really) or is "aesthetics totally synonymous with real danger to scoring and such? There certainly is a difference between the two thoughts although how it's peceived psyhologically can change from player to player.
But even in that very mysterious area of golf called "psycholigical effect" I do think there're some remarkable "truisms" about the game in that area and for everyone. And frankly, that mysterious truism of "psychological effect" does not spare any golfer--not Rich Goodale or Pat Mucci--not anyone!
Certainly it can effect some differently than others-more or less than others, but no one can completely escape it and become totally oblivious to it. And if they think they can escape it and do become oblivious to it and don't need to adjust to the fact of it, the truism is a golf course will eventually get them, get everyone and evenually make them pay in lost strokes.
That's perhaps the single factor that makes golf so fascinating and so eternally maddening at the same time!
Athough what's actually on the ground may be quanitifable and exactly explainable and definable to any golfer it's really what he thinks the consequences of it may be to him in all kinds of ways that's more meaningful--most meaningful.
What anyone thinks the consequences are might effect differently things like club selection and the planning of a shot, strategy, whatnot, but mostly and more often the perceived consequences of particularly mistakes or failure is what effects the execution of the shot once all the planning is past and done!
I agree with Jamie that a bunker that just has some ruggedly aesthetic grass on it's surrounds isn't going to scare a good player much if the bunker isn't hard to escape from. But the grass might concern him if it's hard to escape from!
But if Rich is claiming that the Pacific Ocean on Cypress's #16 and the consequences of going into it neither effects nor even remotely occurs to him psychologically--I'm sorry but I'll have to take exception to believing that.
It probably just gets down to what's already been said before on here--if he's playing for nothing of consequence the consequences of a mistake or failure aren't a big deal but if he is playing for something those consequences of a mistake or failure into the Pacific will occur to him just like any of the rest of us. What he does about it and how he handles it is another matter--just like all of us.
A lot of the understanding of this kind of thing I think probably does get down to very varied feelings about consequences and to get the best impression and the best real understanding of it, it's probaby necessary to try real tournament golf--whatever level anyone wishes to use.
Bobby Jones said a lot of things that ring with eternal truism but the one he said that does most to me is this one;
"There is golf and then there is tournament golf and they are definitely not the same."
-
JSlonis
The Merion bunkers lost some of their playability, how so?
"...but when my score really counts, I could care less what a bunker looks like. I care how severe it is and how it can effect my score." It doesn't sound like you would be in the optimum state of mind to judge the complete architectural merits of a golf course. Although not caring, and not noticing what the golf course looks like are two different things. Obvioulsy you have to see what the hazard looks like (to make the proper judgement as a focused technician) - you see the severety of the hazard to the left of the 13th green at PVGC - you just don't care. Again this reminds of what TE Paul said his attitude was prior to his interest golf architecture, he was focused pretty much on outcome, I suspect that Pat Mucci has had similar experiences.
'I think the bottom line is that "look/aethetics" and "severity/playabilty" are two very different factors that when brought together and designed correctly make certain golf courses as great as they are. The perfect melding of these factors is what make us protective of the Golden Age courses and excited about the new designs by guys like C&C, Doak, and Hanse to name a few.' I agree with you and I think that is what GCA is all about, the pursuit of great golf architecture.
Rich
Thanks for your advice, but I've been on the ground plenty of times: The Golf Club, Sand Hills, Cypress Point, Crystal Down,
Shoreacres, Shinnecock, Eastward Ho!, Oyster Harbors, Pinehurst #2, Chicago, Pepper Pike, Riviera, Bel-Air, Cape Breton, Cascades, Camargo, Kirtland, Oakmont, Burning Tree, Oakland Hills, Pebble Beach, and Casa de Campo to name but a few. But I am certainly not complete in my "field work".
One of the advantages I might have is that I actually look at/study the features of the given golf course, in an attempt to better understand the architectural whole--including aesthetics, playing characteristics and the melding of the two. It doesn't do much good walking though an art museum with blinders on. I liken your your extraordinary tunnel vision to a visit to Mackintosh's Hill House or Wright's Fallingwater for the expressed purpose of going to the can, you might accomplish your goal, but you will miss a lot.
-
Tom MacW:
The changed "playability" of the Merion bunkers pre and post restoration went sort of like this;
Pre-restoration the bunkers had real sanding and drainage problems and were pretty hard packed. That condition for balls lying in the sand in Merion's pre-restoration bunkers was harder for everyone to play out of but much harder for less good players than better ones. Better players just know how to play out of those conditions better. But those old bunkers were not as deep as the post-restortion bunkers which makes it harder to play out of for everyone but obviously harder for less good players than better ones.
So Merion sort of went from difficulty of lie pre-restoration to not so much so with lie post-restoration. But they went the other way with the architecture (structure=depth) of them from much easier pre-restoration to much harder post-restoration.
The net effect is the Merion bunkers post-restoration are harder to play out of for everyone. And the additional net effect is strategically they have more effect and function than they used to. Of course the way anyone might look at this change would probably be influenced by the way they look at the value of recovery in golf and at Merion.
-
Tom P
You are right about Merion's bunkers, from my limited observations. As I think I said over a year ago, "Look ugly, play great." This gets to the heart of this thread, does it not?
-
TE
Sounds like a mechanical issue: Hard packed sand vs. soft sand; deep bunkers vs. deeper bunkers.
I wonder if the Valentine's could have addressed the mechanical issues, and if so what the results would have been.
-
Ok...let me try to sum up what I think I've learned....
1) A hole can be strategic without being aesthetically pleasing or very natural looking (i.e. 18th at TPC Sawgrass, bunkers at Merion)
2) A hole can be aesthetically pleasing and even look very natural while offering zippo strategy (Tom Fazio gets faulted for this often)
3) The best architecture recognizes that both are fundamentally important, are ideally complementary, and inevitably offers both.
Would anyone agree or disagree with these conclusions?
-
"As I think I said over a year ago, "Look ugly, play great." This gets to the heart of this thread, does it not?"
Rich;
Asssuming by "looks ugly" you mean poor looking architecture---after all this time--yes, I guess it does get down to the heart of this thread--and the outcome is that to some people poor looking architecture never makes for completely good architecture and for others it doesn't matter. If what architecure looks like doesn't matter to you as long as it plays great, you and I will just have to continue to disgree about that. To me it can and should play great and look great too.
-
I think everyone can the river in the photo, and no doubt part of the function of that bunker is to prevent balls from going in the water.
But river or no river that bunkers sends an aesthetic message that is clear (and there are numerous other bunkers around that look and play just like it, unfortunately, or fortunately, you won't find them on this site, so I used that one. I'm sorry you found it misleading).
The point was to illustrate the different signals a hazard emmits based on aesthetics and that obviously the aesthetics and play of a bunker are related.
-
two words - ECONOMIC DEPRESSION
nothing will create the attitude adjustment required better than when everything goes into the crapper and the real things - the original things - become important again
today not even the potato chip is made from potato anymore but from a chemical with side effects a mile long
someday - if history is any guide - maybe sooner rather than later - well - IMHO - the industry shall change due to economic reality - just look at purses stalled since advertisers and tour sponsors and presenters are reducing budgets as the first sign of things to come - how this filters down i don't have an answer however filter down it will and courses will be filing bankruptcy and resort courses will become "loss leaders" to attract guests and state and local governments to cover budget shortfalls will raise significantly property taxes on golf courses public and private in their juristications squeazing the course managements budgets which only the best run can pass through or absorb - what goes UP can come DOWN - and olde fashion golf environments can eventually come back in some form or another
-
Mike Cirba;
Of course some would disagree. They've essentially been saying for years that all that really matters to them is the architecture plays great. What it looks like doesn't seem to matter to them much if at all. Some of them might not even notice the difference if they wanted to.
-
Mike
I concur.
-
Tom MacW:
I don't know what you mean by mechanical issues and the Valentine's.
-
TE
The mechanical issues that you said effected play pre-renovation.
-
Sorry for butting in with my periodic and semi-random observations - I'm not sure if I'm getting in the way of someone else's discussion - but to answer Rich...
Darren K
Your post regarding Carnoustie was very interesting too. What I think you are saying is that, from a "severity/playabilty" aspect the course is world-class, but that its "look/aethetics" values make the course a "lesser" one in your mind. This maybe gets to the heart of the disagreement we had as to whether of not Carnoustie was over-rated or under-rated. What are we really "rating" anyway. Is it just the "cold" on-the-ground architecture (i.e. the "function" of the course) or do we also care about the "form" too--to use the classical architectural nomenclature?
My personal feeling is that the "function" should be pre-eminent. Part of the reason I feel this way is that I see golf courses as not only a field of play (95%+ of most of our games) but also one of competition. This is why I think that Jamie's post is so important. From him we see how a course like Pine Valley can look so very different when played for fun than it does when played for some sort of prize. From my much less golf-competent point of view I have seen this many times at my "home" course. The same hole with a card in my hand and a public scoreboard awaiting me at the clubhouse plays so very differently than the same hole when played with friends and with only a pint or 22 awaiting us at the clubhouse.
I believe form and function to be inextricably linked, but that is just my opinion. When one talks about rating, overrating or underrating, one is usually talking about the full package of form and function together (unless qualifying disclaimers are attached). In the case of Carnoustie, the people who think it is overrated are usually the people who prioritize form at least as much as function; those who think it to be underrated are those whose primary emphasis is upon function. I would suspect that as the main magazine ratings panels are largely comprised of ex-pros and tournament players who are primarily interested in the "function" side of the equation (for the reasons you have elaborated), people like me will always find courses like Carnoustie to be overrated - and quirkier courses like Pennard or Cruden Bay underrated - in such panels.
I must confessed to being surprised that you consider yourself a pure "function" man, given how highly you regard Dornoch - a course where the function is matched by such wonderful form. I guess you must hold its function in VERY high regard indeed! :)
On the competitive side of the equation, I can understand where you and Jamie are coming from. But even then, when I'm playing a competition, my eye and brain do not disassociate form and function. Much of the joy I get from playing competitive golf is related to the sort of course I get to play it on. A few years back, when I still harbored fantasy-illusions of being good enough to qualify for the US Amateur or even the US Open, those fantasies included an element of timing - I'd much rather have been lucky enough to qualify for a US Open at Shinnecock than at Baltusrol! :) Don't get me wrong, I love competition for competition's sake - but I guess I've never been single-minded enough to experience competition in a vacuum.
Cheers,
Darren
-
Tom H. - When I think of so-called "great" golf courses with little or nothing going for them by way of aesthetic appeal, the first name that comes to mind is Carnoustie. Bleak, stark, depressing...whatever you wish to call it, few will find its looks appealing. If you like Carnoustie, I'm inclined to say that you fall on the Rich Goodale side of this equation, at least in some sense. I've never been a fan of Carnoustie; I can identify it as an excellent test of golf with a number of nice strategic elements to it, but it doesn't appeal to me in the slightest. (There are other factors at play than the sheer architecture vs. aesthetics, of course - its terrific difficulty being among them - but I'm highlighting this particular contrast to make a point.) So perhaps that's a better example than the Road Hole...
Cheers,
Darren
Darren - not that it matters much now, but I just don't like to leave misconceptions. You have me wrong re this - I don't fall on the Rich Goodale side of this equation AT ALL - hell, I was weak at the knees standing on 16 tee at Cypress! I was just trying to understand his way of thinking, which I do find very logical, and strong in a competitive sense - thus I admire it. But hell no, I notice everything and a lot of the joy of golf for me is the aesthetics. Thus you likely won't be surprised that I've also never been a big fan of Carnoustie... for me it wasn't the starkness, it was really the overkill severity coupled with the appearance of some trees/bushes there that looked like they had been uprooted from my yard in San Jose, CA and thus seemed very out of place. I'm never going to say it's a bad golf course - hell, it is one fantastic test of golf - it's just not my cup of tea.
I also don't look at this as completely black and white... I absolutely loved Royal Birkdale, for example, and I didn't find much aesthetic beauty there... so maybe a hole from there, like #6, would be a better example in the "lacking aesthetics but great hole anyway" category. Of course I fully expect also that someone will find aesthetic beauty on that hole that I missed!
TH
-
Jamie-
Great post- that was just what I was trying to say to Mike on the previous page.
-
Darren
I agree they are linked, the numerous aspects of great golf architecture and there linkage is why IMO golf design is so interesting . Afterall it is called golf architecture. Architecture is an art form where aesthetics plays a primary role, obviously along with function and other important considerations.
There is a reason the early practioners of the art didn't call themselves golf engineers.
-
Tom MacWood,
I think TEPaul answered your question to me regarding Merion's bunkers. Prior to the restoration there were maintenance as well as playbility issues that the club wanted to address. Only time will tell how the bunkers will evolve aesthetically. The playablity and the difficulty of the newer bunkers has definitely improved.
____________________________________________________
You posted what I had said... "but when my score really counts, I could care less about what a bunker looks like, I care how severe it is and how it can effect my score" Your reply was "It doesn't sound like you would be in the optimum state of mind to judge the complete architectural merits of a golf course."
____________________________________________________
Your statement is correct. Although I didn't say I was judging the architectural merits. During a tournament round I really don't care about architectural merits and how good I think a certain feature looks, but I do care about how the general architecture and design and how it lends itself to strategy and most importantly scoring. I can fully appreciate and evaluate architectural merits and aesthetics during social rounds and even during practice rounds, but that "stuff" doesn't matter as much when a score needs to be posted.
____________________________________________________
You stated: "Obviously you have to see the severity of the hazard to the left of the 13th green at Pine Valley- you just don't care"
____________________________________________________
That statement is NOT correct. Of course I would care, and I would try my best to avoid that area. Again, there are two separate distinctions, aesthetics and the severity of a hazard. I sure don't aim farther right than I'd like to on the 13th at PV because of the aesthetics, I'm cautious because regardless of the LOOK...it's HELL down there!
-
If I may, I would like to just make 2 points that may help to bring these different perspectives together, although something tells me that’s just not possible! :)
Look/Aesthetics v. Playability/Strategy
In my opinion, “look” and “aesthetics” are not mutually independent from “playability and strategy” because there is a definite overlap between the two. They are inextricably linked. Hazards that appeal to your senses do not just hang as pictures framed on the wall, they are an integral part of the golf course that must be played from when you find yourself in them, which you will from time to time no matter how hard you try to avoid them. So when you “look” at those rough and rugged bunkers, you don’t just see a pretty picture on the wall, you see a hazard that is more likely to produce inconsistent lies and positions than those in the cleaner, perfectly maintained, perfectly edged, flat floored looking bunker. These hazards don’t just “look” different, they are likely to play different as well. They “look” different because they are made different and, therefore, will play different and, alternatively, they “play” different because they are made different and, therefore, “look” different. [Note: You can substitute another description for “rough and rugged” as that was only one example. By way of example, think of two similarly situated greenside bunkers with the same depth, but one is a pot where you can’t see the bunker floor and the other is open so you can see the flat floor of the bunker. Same basic strategy? Yes. Same visuals? No.]
It is difficult for me to understand how the same people who advocate the return of more irregular and un-maintained bunkers can argue that there is no difference in playability/strategy between these different bunker forms. Yes, "the bunker must be avoided, irrespective of its form," but I think you have to ask yourself to what degree. When bunkers are perfectly edged and the sand is perfectly consistent and perfectly maintained, the degree to which you are trying to avoid that hazard might be less than the degree to which you are trying to avoid the rough and rugged looking bunker which is more likely to play rough and rugged. So all other things being equal, those pictures that Tom MacWood posted are quite illustrative, at least for me, because that BWR bunker (‘I’m looking at it as a general example, not as it relates to that hole in particular) is just not going to send the same visual signals, and not just because it “looks” cleaner and more uniform but, perhaps more important, because it “looks” like it will “play” more consistent and uniform and that I will be less likely to get screwed! Consequently, is it really true that "the look of the bunker has absolutely nothing to do with the decision making process, shot and club selection?"
Psychology
Pre-shot psychology: If it looks different but will not play different, then the “look” obviously has little to do with pre-shot strategy. But if it looks different and will play different, then the “look” definitely has far more to do with pre-shot strategy.
In-shot psychology: Even if it “looks” different but will “play” the same, there can be different visual signals that might distract you to a greater degree and prevent you from staying committed to your pre-shot strategy. Just think about why it is that golfers find themselves deviating from their pre-shot strategy once the club starts moving. Anything that affects your ability to remain focused on the target and brings doubt and fear into the equation by distracting your attention from that target, thereby affecting the shot/result, is definitely part of the architecture as far as I am concerned.
By the way, Bobby Jones was absolutely correct when he stated that "there is golf and then there is tournament golf and they are definitely not the same." What else could explain club players with 0-5 handicaps regularly shooting 85-95 in the medal play portion of their club championships! ;D
However, the “architecture” doesn’t change between golf and tournament golf, just the golfer’s state of mind and the degree to which he/she cares about his/her performance and results. So to say that one doesn’t see or isn’t affected by the Pacific Ocean on the 16th at Cypress Point during even a casual round seems a little far-fetched. The only place any golfer is truly unaffected by architecture and the surrounds is at the driving range, where there is no responsibility to find your shot and hit it again. Almost every golfer I know, even in the most casual of rounds, wants to hit quality golf shots. The challenge is always present, and the architecture is fundamental to that challenge.
-
Ken
Very well put. Couldn't agree more. Since when did the psychological factor become unimportant?
Long live rugged, irregular shaped bunkers....those that truly are to be avoided.
Down with cookie-cutter crap....even if they are located in a strategic spot.
-
How come it is so difficult to put into words what I'm actually trying to say?
Maybe it's just this...that "look/aesthetics"and "playability/ strategy" are different factors that are all part of the entire puzzle, whether it be a bunker complex, a green complex, etc.
mdugger,
I don't think anyone is really saying that the psychological factor is not important, because it is. For the most part, if a rugged, well designed bunker looks difficult, it usually is. I was trying to say that under certain circumstances I'm less apt to be concerned with how it looks and more concerned with how it plays. That is the type of separation I was referring to.
For my own taste, I don't like the perfectly manicured, cookie cutter designs. The best bunker work I have seen lately is at C&C's-Hidden Creek, and Hanse's-Applebrook. The hazards at these courses are both visually intimidating, visually appealing and have a great variety of difficulty. It sure looks from the pictures on this site as if you'll find the same outstanding work at Friar's Head.
-
Ken;
Thanks for very eloquently stating some points I've been somewhat frustrated in trying to make in my earlier posts on this thread.
I have a tough time buying the logic that a bunker is a bunker is a bunker as some here have contended, whether they are able to "focus" on the target or not. I asked Patrick similar questions a few pages back and he seems to have avoided responding. Perhaps he just missed my queries on this lengthy thread, so I'll repeat it below because I think it's the unavoidable crux of the matter here; Rich and other dissenters are welcome to respond, as well. ;)
Patrick;
I find your comments interesting.
Let me ask a followup, if I might. Let's use your example of the front right bunker and consider two scenarios to a pin tucked front right.
A) A relatively flat, shallow bunker with consistent, low cropped surrounds, proceeding uphill along the greens surface from the bunker. It appears to be relatively benign, and in fact plays that way.
B) A deep, irregularly shaped pit with a steep face, and inconsistent surrounds where you might have a tight lie against packed sand or be in high fescue. From the bunker surrounds, the green sweeps away from the golfer to the pin. The bunker looks intimidating, and there is generally good reason for that fear in terms of playability.
Are you saying that those differences would play absolutely no consideration in your determination to fire at the pin or to the middle of the green?
Isn't potential for recovery (low risk vs high risk) part of the assessment you make in determining how much you're willing to "take on" any particular hazard?
Thanks for your answer.
-
Mike
My problem with your (and others) point of view on this thread is that you assume that a bunker (for example) must look gnarly to play gnarly. Most of the gnarly looking MacKenzie bunkers that I know are in fact pussycats, whilst some of the gnarliest bunkers (playability wise) that you would ever want to know look like pussycats (particularly if you are looking at photographs of them and have never walked that particular piece of ground). You just do not know what gnarly is until you have played it, and played it many times, IMO. The visual clues you get from your first image or from photgraphs are just Platonic imitations of reality.
-
I must say this whole discussion has been throwing me. I think most people are just using some misleading words and misunderstanding each other--particularly a word like aesthetic.
Aesthetic connotes to me beauty. But what does an aesthetic and beautiful bunker mean to me? Basically it means the type of bunker I see in all those photos of Friar's Head (I like other types too but Friar's is a good example of a aesthetic bunkering to me) because I think that rugged probably iffy type bunkering to play from is beautiful, it's natural, it's aesthetically pleasing. But it also happens to be much more rugged and consequently hard to get out of successfully.
But maybe when you say aesthetic bunkering to Rich of Pat they don't think of a bunker like Friar's, maybe they think of something like ANGC which looks super clean, extremely consistent and basically the type bunkering that doesn't look too hard to escape from so not so much of a psychological concern.
So is Pat and Rich thinking of rugged probably iffy bunkering like Friar's? And if they are and they still say there's no psychologicaly difference to them between ANGC's and Friar's bunkering, I've got to really question that remark and opinion.
-
Tom P
When I say "aesthetic" I do exactly mean Friar's Head, or Barona or Pacific Dunes or Applebrook or Cypress Point, etc. etc. Or, maybe, Merion, pre-Macdonald Bros.... I am contrasting that not with ANGC (which I do not know) but with Muirfield, Lytham, Dornoch, all of which have a much less gnarly ("aesthetic?") look.
Please tell me, Sir, where the most troublesome bunkers you have seen over the past 5 years have been? Any of those courses mentioned in the first sentence above? How about those unaesthetic, simplistic beauties that Colt put in at Muirfield? I'd bet that C&C would give their right nuts to learn (as they will, or won't over time-nobody knows now for sure) that some of their bunkers at Friar's Head play as well as some of those ugly little pots at Muirfield.......
-
Rich:
Great question. As I said in the last post I think different types of bunkering can be aesthetic for various reasons, not only the type such as Friar's Head, although I must admit that type is my absolute favorite, no question. As for a type like the Scottish courses you just mentioned, as you know I've never been there but I have lots of books here so let me go check them out. But if there are some little interesting pots and some greenside bunkering that's pretty severe (architecturally) one way or another I like that too and think it can be aesthetic too--even if it is clean or revetted perhaps.
I'll get back to you. And when I give you an answer and explanation I'll even refer to some I think are not aesthetic and also mundane in strategy creation and tell you why.
-
Rich
Can you give an example of a gnarly MacKenzie bunker that played like pussy cat? Are there any gnarly MacKenzie bunkers remaining in California?
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/Pasa16.jpg)
This an example of a gnarly MacKenzie bunker, unfortunately it is no more. (Melbourne has a number of fine examples the retain plenty of gnarl.) Are there shots out of this bunker that might be relatively simple--sure. Are there shots out of this bunker that might be hard as hell--affirmative. This bunker demands your attention from an aesthetic and golfing point of view. An it blends beautifully into its natural evironment. A homerun in my eyes when judging great architecture, some may not judge it the same, perhaps you have tunnel vision or you're tone deaf.....
The Colt bunkers at Muirfield had a different appearance in the 20's than what you see today. Deep yes; simplistic and unaesthetic no.
At some point, it seems like every links course in Britain decided that bunkers should be rivetted. Anyone know when this happened and why? I do not believe it was positive development.
-
Tom MacW
That bunker you show (16 Pasa n'est-ce pas?) is so much more a pussycat than the front of that green (with the normal back pin) it is not silly. Of course, because that bunker was completely unmaintanable in that lacy frilly Victoria's Secret style of architecture, it not longer exists in that form. Not a serious detriment to the stategic interest of that hole or that course, of course. I can't think of a single bunker on Pasa which was particulary noteworrthy in terms of strategy nor any at Pitreavie nor Lahinch nor Macrihanish nor CPC nor any other MacKenzie course I have played (they blur into one in my mind....), but with my tunnel vision, that should be of no surprise to you..........
-
Tom M
"Rivetting" bunkers would be costly both in terms of labour and liability insurance--just think of what might happen if you hit a rivet trying to extricate yourself from one of those!. What they do is "revetting" which started in earnest only in the last 20-25 years (I was there) and serves the very real purpose of creating bunkers that can be maintained. They are great, regardless what you might infer from their photographs.
-
For this discussion, here's another example of "visual look" vs. "strategy/playablity" ...how about the newly restored bunkers at Aronimink. Ron Pritchard restored these bunkers to original plans of Donald Ross. For those that have seen the finished product, I hope you understand my point.
Their construction from a visual standpoint is "clean lined" compared to bunkers done by C&C or Hanse, but from a strategic point of view, they are extremely difficult. As a result, at first they don't look all that difficult, but after a couple errant shots into them, you quickly learn to avoid them at all costs.
Maybe we have started a new Theorem:
"Aesthetically Mild/ Strategically Severe" Imagine the possibilities with vice versas, anti-theorems, etc ;D
-
Well said, yet again, Jamie.
-
"...because that bunker was completely unmaintanable in that lacy frilly Victoria's Secret style of architecture."
I don't know what would be more interesting, your guessing why the bunker is no more or your personal undergarment preferences. Lets start with your guess.
MacKenzie designed Machrahanish?
If you can't think of a single gnarly MacKenzie you've played, your previous statement about the his graly bunkers being pussycats seems pretty meaningless.
Last 20 to 25 years you say. What was wrong with the maintenance practices of the previous 100 years? Would Royal County Down be better off with rivetting?
-
Are all the bunkers at Muirfield revetted? Even the really moulded ones?
If so, how do they get that moulded shape, rather than sharp edge seen one other bunkers e.g. The Spectacles at Carnoustie?
-
Tom MacWood,
JSlonis
The Merion bunkers lost some of their playability, how so?
"...but when my score really counts, I could care less what a bunker looks like. I care how severe it is and how it can effect my score." It doesn't sound like you would be in the optimum state of mind to judge the complete architectural merits of a golf course. Although not caring, and not noticing what the golf course looks like are two different things. Obvioulsy you have to see what the hazard looks like (to make the proper judgement as a focused technician) - you see the severety of the hazard to the left of the 13th green at PVGC - you just don't care. Again this reminds of what TE Paul said his attitude was prior to his interest golf architecture, he was focused pretty much on outcome, I suspect that Pat Mucci has had similar experiences.
You're confused again, TEPaul's admitted attitude and focus was not on architecture, mine always has been, it's not something I became interested in, only recently.
Suspecting and speculating on my behalf only leads you to inaccurate assumptions and incorrect conclusions.
There are people who can actually chew gum and walk at the same time, likewise, people can play golf and distinguish and seperate aethetics from strategy.
Perhaps revisiting the dictionary will help. Aesthetic
Strategic
I find Jamie Slonis's perspective realistic.
I find perspective's other than Jamie's unrealistic.
But, that's just my opinion.
-
Mike Cirba,
How many times must I answer the same question ? ;D
I answered your question on the top of page 8.
Again, you're confusing physical properties with aesthetics..
Ken Bakst,
One could view bunkers as one views snakes.
Some are more lethal than others, but all should be treated with respect, especially if you can't accurately identify them from a cursory look.
An open bunker and a pot bunker present different physical properties, and those different physical properties present different if not unique playing charactaristics. It is not their look that so much seperates them as the learned experience of one's more severe nature, and the greater possibility of having an impaired lie, preventing extracation.
In the golfing world of the last 40 years, bunkers have been well maintained. One would certainly have to look upon an unmaintained bunker as being more venomous than a maintained bunker, adding emphasis to the strategic importance of avoiding it, but, that assessment is not depedent on the bunker lines, rather the conditions of the floors of the bunkers, another physical property.
Be it the Pacific Ocean, Lilly's pond or out-of-bounds, the strategy remains the same, if scoring is a consideration when the golfer is playing the golf course. I agree with you that score counts, and attempting to perform at your best adds pressure, which manifests itself in many ways, especially those scores in the club championship.
I recall that the object of the game is to get the ball into the hole in the least number of strokes, and those that don't have that goal as an objective, aren't seriously playing golf. If one is playing the game under this concept, I would imagine that strategy becomes paramount and aesthetics, casual.
The view to the right on #'s 8, 9, and 10 at Pebble Beach may be more pleasing than the view to the right of #'s 11, 12, and 13, but the strategy is absolutely the same,
don't go far right.
I tend to think that some engaged in discussion on this topic, are adding an enhanced or expanded definition to the word,
Aesthetic, and perhaps that's where the confusion or debate lies.
Lastly, when that pin is tucked behind the front center bunkers at # 18 at GCGC, and your match is all even, don't tell me that you're admiring the flowers on the lake bank and the color of the rough next to the green as you prepare for your shot. ;D ;D ;D And, if you are, I'll try it this spring ;D
-
I've already asked a few times but now I think I'd like to move that it be defined what's meant by the word "aesthetic" with bunkering on this thread so we're all on the same page when we discuss it or just stop using the word. Because if it isn't defined I'm sure having trouble understanding what some are talking about.
To me aesthetic means beautiful. But what's aesthetically beautiful to me in bunkering? A number of things are. Bunkering such as Friar's Head has all kinds of what look to me like random naturally occuring lines and they have what look to me like naturally occuring grassing on them too--all edgy, and rugged looking just like actually is naturally occuring on the site. For obvious reasons that is really aesthetically beautiful to me.
So that's one look. What about the playability. Well, Ken Bakst has said there are no bunker rakes on the golf course so I suppose if you're in the sand you sort of take your changes with the lie and recoverability for that reason. Is that strategically functional? Yes it is
But what about the actual architecture of them? By that I mean the randomness of the depths, lips, floors, angles of them whatever. Is that consistent throughout the course? Well, hardly, just look at those photos again.
So how does that play strategically? I think you can all guess that's pretty random, pretty iffy, and pretty functionally strategic, since just like bunkering such as Pine Valley you never really know what you'll get. To me that's bunkering that looks naturally aesthetically beautiful and functions strategically too. Can that be psychologically intimidating to play? Definitely
But what about bunkering like Aronimink, that Jamie Slonis just mentioned? What about bunkering like Muirfield, Carnoustie or Dornoch all of which Rich asked me about earlier.
Does any of that bunkering have that rugged, randomly edgy grass lines of PVGC, Pac Dunes or Friar's bunkers? No it doesn't. In most cases the grass surrounds are close cropped and maybe very maintained grass/sand lines.
Is that aesthetically beautiful? It sure can be to me. Why? Because even the super clean lines of the revetted bunkers is fascinating to me. It fits well with the overall lines of those sites to me, just study that aspect of it alone. And I think the shadowy sunkenness of much of it is aesthetically beautiful too. The lines of the bunkering, grass/sand lines and the overall lines of the profiles of the surrounds flow well into the overall lines and look of those natural sites. They don't look as naturally occuring as the super natural looking bunkers of Friar's but they're aesthetically beautiful to me anyhow.
But with the short grass surrounds can they be strategically functional? Definitely because they can be completely iffy as to where you end up in them and what you can recover with. This type I'd call randomly strategic due to the architecture of them. It's not the lies in them, it's where you end up in them. Can this be psychologically intimidating? It sure can be.
The best example of the latter would definitely be some of the Raynor courses--very straight architectural lines but generally short maintained grass. Can they be strategically functional? Definitely depending on where your ball ends up in them and the iffy angles of clearing lips and such.
Are these aesthetically beautiful to me? Not really because they look so engineered and man-made in their architectural lines but I'm getting to like them more and more--they're sort of facsinating due to the look of a distinct architectural era and very distinct and unusual style which to me is becoming more and more fascinating.
How about ANGC's bunkers are they aesthetically beautiful to me? Not at all. Boring round immaculately clean architectural lines with no natural character of any kind that I can see and which don't seem to naturally match the lines of the overall site. Are they strategically functional? I don't think so. It looks like every lie is totally consistent and every single spot in them is not particularly architecturally challenging to get out of either like some areas of some of those restored Aronimink bunkers are.
How about some of those Rees Jones bunkers that were posted on here about a year ago with exactly matching architectural lines everywhere and short well maintained clean grass lines? Is that natural and aesthetically beautiful to me? Not at all. Are they strategically functional? I don't know.
That's sort of the way I look at bunkering for aesthetics and strategic function and psychological effect too.
End of story.
-
TEPaul,
You're semi correct.
And isn't beauty subjective........ in the eye of the beholder ?
And, isn't strategy, absolute ?
-
Oh boy...here we go again!!
Pat,
I don't think "all" strategies are absolute.
There is one strategy that is an absolute- to finish 18 holes in as few strokes as possible....BUT...
The strategies that players employ to accomplish the same task are so widely varied we couldn't possibly think of them all.
Just look at the strategies taken by Weir and Howell on the 10th at Riviera.
Is strategy the same as course management?
-
"And isn't beauty subjective........ in the eye of the beholder?"
Sure it is Pat. That's probably why some on here don't think others have much of an eye.
"And, isn't strategy, absolute?"
By that do you mean everyone should try to play a golf course the same way? I sure hope not. That would be pretty boring, don't you think?
Next time you see one of those little handbooks where the architect explains exactly how the golfer should play the golf course in absolute terms, then I guess you'd know that architect must think strategy is absolute if he actually thinks he can call that strategy. I guess you do too if you asked that question. Maybe Tom Fazio does too on his restored Riviera #8 where every single pro every day played the right fairway and not the great Thomas left fairway. That's about as absolute as it can get--something GeoffShac called the "option free" hole. How can that be denied with those stats to prove it. Don't think--just robotically aim and fire.
Have you ever seen a course by Doak, Hanse or Coore and Crenshaw where they explain to the golfer EXACTLY how to play their golf course in absolute terms? I gaurantee you haven't and I don't think you ever will.
-
The bunkers on The Old Course, until recently, used to look very much like those at Muirfield.
The recent redo of the bunkers on TOC however, changed them to have hard edges and flat bottoms; these are less aesthetically pleasing than the previous bunkers and they play differently. Just remember Enie Els's great bunker shot at Muirfield's 13th last year with the ball well below his feet. It would have been a much less challenging shot with a flat bottomed bunker.
-
TEPaul,
How do you feel about CBM's paths of play at NGLA ?
For the scratch golfer isn't the absolute to hit the fairway with the tee shot, avoiding all hazards and rough, and then hit the green with the approach shot avoiding all hazards and rough ?
-
JSlonis
"For this discussion, here's another example of "visual look" vs. "strategy/playablity" ...how about the newly restored bunkers at Aronimink. Ron Pritchard restored these bunkers to original plans of Donald Ross.
In my opinion if you have a complete appreciation for golf architecture, you must have a respect for the outstanding architects and their work. Each architect has their own style, from strategic preferences to an aesthetic fingerprint. Many times these characteristics change, slightly or significantly, through out their career or change based on the nature of the site--seaside or inland, California or Japan, or wherever. I understand there are plans for Aronimink that the present version of the course is based upon, but that isn't the course that Ross built for whatever reason. Out of respect for a master designer I would have restored what he actually built (if possible). One of the interesting aspects of golf architecture is the variety from architect to architect, and the variety exhibited within the career of single designer. That variety, which includes the aesthetic as major component, IMO needs to be preserved.
Picasso's aesthetic is worth preserving, Greene and Greene's aesthetic is worth preserving and Ross's aesthetic is worth preserving. The aesthetic is not the only aspect that elevates these men into the upper echelon of their art, but is a very important aspect.
-
Tom MacW
Interesting theory, but I do really wonder if any of us (you maybe, but very few others) could actually recognise a "Ross" course if we played it completely "blind" (in the scientific sense). You may remember the year-old thread where someone actually asked that question--in effect "How do you recognize a Ross course"--and nobody could give a good answer (even the Rossophiles that actively participate on this site). Did I miss something in that last discussion?
PS--Just to show that this problem is nearly universal, even such a renowned expert on art and architecture adn golf as myself was recently fooled by a deteriorating memory into thinking that Machrihanish was designed by MacKenzie. It should have been, but that is another matter........
-
Pat
No, I do not believe that strategy is absolute, regardless of form, as I do not believe that form is devoid of function. Remember, I said there is an overlap and it’s a matter of degree. That was the only point that I was trying to make. If you don’t see any truth in that, then there’s nothing you can do or say to sway my opinion, so I would suggest not wasting any more of your time trying as this will be my last attempt as well. :)
Of course, if you think that strategy is nothing more than hitting the fairways, missing the hazards, getting on the greens and getting the ball into the holes, then that would certainly explain why we are unable to come to terms on this. ;D
I think one of the problems with this point I’m trying to make, and I was guilty of this myself when I made the suggestion of visualizing PV with sanitized bunkers, is that you can’t assume that you can just change the bunker style without changing its physical characteristics and, therefore, its function. This is not possible. Just think about converting the deep sod-walled greenside road hole bunker to a rough and rugged edged bunker; to achieve the same depth, the bunker would have to be made much larger, whereas to achieve the same diameter, the bunker would have to be much shallower, and in either case the flashed-sand face would change the function as well. So two identically located bunkers with different styles may have identical functions from your perspective, but from my perspective and in reality they can and will have different functions to some degree, with a direct relationship between the degree of change in form and the degree of change in function. I am not advocating a particular style of bunker, as I personally find a number of different styles appealing. I am merely addressing the issue of whether strategy is absolute, or whether form has an impact thereon. From my perspective, form and function are very much intertwined and, therefore, form and strategy are obviously as well. Perhaps it would be correct to state that the location of the bunker warrants more weight than its form when assessing strategy, but to say that its form bears no weight at all in assessing strategy makes no sense at all from my perspective.
So I post the following example in support of that proposition:
(http://home.earthlink.net/~tommy_n/RCDComp.JPG)
A special note of thanks to Tommy Naccarato for making this example possible!
The function of the form in the altered 2nd photo is not identical to the function of the form in the unaltered 1st photo and, therefore, they have different impacts on strategy (i.e., I am much more likely to attack a pin tucked right behind the bunker in the 2nd photo (pre-shot psychology/strategy), and I am much more likely to be affected psychologically by the bunker in the 1st photo (in-shot psychology/strategy). Of course there are some differences between the two bunkers from a physical perspective, but isn’t that critical to achieve the “look”? Even if the surrounds were identical, to achieve the “look” of the 1st bunker you have to flash the face and grass the surrounds differently, not just rough up the edge of the sand, all of which changes the function!
BTW#1: With respect to your snake analogy, since some snakes (bunkers) are more lethal than others, wouldn’t an expert in snakes (bunkers) treat a poisonous snake (bunker) with a greater degree of respect? ;D
BTW#2: I hate snakes, regardless of whether or not they are poisonous. I don’t like to get anywhere near them. In fact, I don’t even like to look at them from afar. Consequently, I personally abhor your analogy of bunkers to snakes, given my high regard for the art form of the bunker hazard and my belief that its strategic purpose in the architectural presentation is not just to be avoided at all costs, but to be skirted, sometimes quite closely, in order to place your ball in a more advantageous position for the remaining play of the hole. Sounds like the difference between the penal and strategic schools of golf course architecture! :)
BTW#3: Yes, I do divert my attention to the pond, flowers and grass from time to time as a way to stay relaxed, thereby increasing my ability to perform to my mind’s eye. Perhaps you should try it some time. :D
BTW#4: It’s time to walk my dog! ;D
-
Pat
I am Ken’s 10-year old son and I just woke up and came into his office.
Upon seeing the pictures in his previous post, I immediately made the following observations:
1. The 1st photo looks far more natural.
2. The bunker in the 2nd photo looks like it would be much easier to recover from because it doesn’t have the big ledge that juts out of the 1st one.
3. Even if you don’t get into the bunker in the 1st photo, you could still get into the native grasses which would also be much more challenging to play.
If I can get the point my dad is making, certainly you can as well! ;D
-
Ken and JB:
Many of us have been trying to make the very same point that you did, but none of us have managed to do it half so well. Any further post on this thread should be referred back to your two--they're really excellent--and the comparitive photos complete the explanation.
If Pat Mucci does not concede whatever his points and arguments are to you at this point, I move all of us just ignore him henceforth. There're better things to do on an architectural discussion group than to continually attempt to educate Pat Mucci.
-
TEP (and Bakst impersonator(s))
What would you think if you reversed the doctoring of the two photos? Make the first one an all white sand dune backdrop (a la CPC or FH) with the bunker in photo #2 (more stlylishly done, of course). Make the second one the all white sand dune back drop with the hairy and brown bunker from photo #1. That bunker would then look just as out of place as the white one does in the "Baksts"'s submission. No?
-
Rich
Why do you care....you're focused on the flagstick.
Hell there could be naked woman between you and the green, and you'd still be locked on to the flag.
-
Great idea, Tom!
When it is my shot to remodel ANGC, I'll do just that--naked women at every 100 yards or so (and even some naked men in case Martha Burk gets in, or just for those members who putt both ways....). With my Stahaknovite focus on the task at hand, I'll still shoot mid-high 70's on that course, but I bet that none of the young bucks on the PGA Tour (tm) will be able to break 90! I can just see myself in the green jacket......
-
Tom MacWood,
I don't understand the point of your post regarding the bunkers at Aronimink. Where did I say they were NOT restored to the original design and aesthetics of Ross?
I think Tom Paul can back me up on this...Pritchard did restore the bunkers to Ross' original plans. He in fact had drawings, photos, etc. to work from. I believe the only change he made regarding their construction was to move their position further down the fairway to account for today's equipment. I don't see the problem here. Pritchard, in all estimations did as true a restoration as possible.
-
Tom MacW
That bunker you show (16 Pasa n'est-ce pas?) is so much more a pussycat than the front of that green (with the normal back pin) it is not silly. Of course, because that bunker was completely unmaintanable in that lacy frilly Victoria's Secret style of architecture, it not longer exists in that form. Not a serious detriment to the stategic interest of that hole or that course, of course. I can't think of a single bunker on Pasa which was particulary noteworrthy in terms of strategy nor any at Pitreavie nor Lahinch nor Macrihanish nor CPC nor any other MacKenzie course I have played (they blur into one in my mind....), but with my tunnel vision, that should be of no surprise to you..........
Not sure how serious you are about this, Rich, but I can't let you get away with it in any case. As a MacKenzie fan, them's fightin' words... ;)
1. Re Pasa 16 - with a normal back pin, assuming you get greens slow enough that gravity will allow the ball to stop on the front of the green, I defy you to get down in less strokes from the bunker than the front of the green, more often. Even Gary Player himself would average 3 from the bunker, 2.2 or so from the front of the green. That bunker might be a pussycat to you, and it is certainly a "saving" bunker (that is, it saves balls from worse fate in the hazard), but even today minus the "frilly" edges, it is very deep, and given the large elevation change from bottom of green to top, any ball in there means a long blind shot from way below the top level, which has to be hit perfectly long enough and with enough spin to hold the top level - a fraction too hard, and it's over the back, leaving a bitchly chip, and a fraction too soft or too left, and the ball tumbles down the green levels all the way to the bottom. It is one damn hard shot. You really think front of the green is harder? That's a long putt up a bunch of levels. Tough to two-putt every time, but certainly easier than the shot from the bunker.
2. As for no bunkers of strategic merit on MacKenzie courses, I'll stick the the two courses I know best out of the ones you mentioned. Thus I submit to you, one from each course (though there are a lot more, I don't have time to do a complete Paulian summary):
a. #1 Pasa - bunker app. 30 yards short of green - effects strategy trememdously, as unless one plays way up or hits a VERY long drive, one is left with somewhere around 200 yards, from a hanging downhill lie, on one's first hole. Maybe you're strong enough that you blast it over that bunker with that lie and in that first hole situation, but you'd be pretty damn unique. For us mortals, missing that bunker is a strategic decision most definitely... playing short, left, or if we're feeling good, trying to get over. I'll tell you this - laying up left gives a perfect angle in for a third shot, making for a pretty easy pitch... tough to make onesself do on what truly is a two shot hole, but dammit, more 6's are made trying to hit that green than people care for....
b. Cypress #4 - fairway bunkers. I know you've called these eye candy or something to that effect before, but you are patently full of it, with all due respect. You're also dead wrong about #5 (no way you can get there 5I-5I-LW as you maintained in another thread), but I don't have time to cover that now... In any case, on the par 4 #4, the better angle into the green is from the left, but you have a longer carry over bunkers that way... it's pretty standard stuff, staggered bunkers, shorter on right, longer on left, but in any case they do cause most definite strategic choices to be made. I simply do not believe anyone in this dg hits it long enough for them to be eye candy, not from the back tee anyway. Even for the longest hitters, it's going to be a tough carry over the left... and is it worth even trying? That's called a strategic choice.
That's enough for now....
TH
-
Tom Paul
The beauty of golfclubatlas.com and the internet medium is that thoughts and ideas can be expressed and communicated around the world in an instant. The problem, however, arises when people like Pat communicate their thoughts and people around the world actually believe them! ;D So this certainly isn’t about educating Pat Mucci. He’s entitled to his opinion, although I wish he wouldn’t always just play the devils advocate because those people around the world don’t understand that he doesn’t really believe what he’s writing! ;D
Rich
I’m not sure what you mean by Impersonator, but if it relates to Tommy, he created the picture at my request. I told him exactly what I wanted, which is what you see. He had nothing to do with the text. You will note, however, that I didn’t say anything about one photo looking more natural than the other, as that was not the point that was being made. That was just an observation that my son made all by himself. The point of the photos was to focus solely on the form versus function issue, no more, no less, so forget about whether the bunker fits in with the rest of the landscape because I certainly don’t believe that it does. Taken in that context, without focusing on anything other than the bunker itself, did the playability/shot value/strategy change to any degree with the change in form of that bunker or did it remain constant and absolute?
By the way, I stated previously that I like many different bunker styles and I would be the first to admit that a rough and rugged bunker style would not be appropriate for every site, so this is not about a particular style. Also, I happen to find those “unaesthetic, simplistic beauties” and “ugly little pots at Muirfield” quite appealing, but we are both in agreement on their functional value. :)
-
JS
Your post got me thinking, there is more than one aspect to aesthetics in the context of golf architecture. The aspect we have been discussing, the psychological impact of aesthetics.
Another aspect is the historical preservation of the aesthetics of a particular design or designer. Protecting or restoring the aesthetic intent of a Ross or a MacKenzie or a Thompson. Not unlike a historical preservation organization preserves/protects a Nantucket or the work of Frank Lloyd Wright or CR Mackintosh. Mackintosh’s home designs were all white-washed, preservationists would not allow someone to come along paint these homes red. They protect Mackintosh’s aesthetic intent.
We’ve already discussed Aronomink and I do not want to send this thread careening off the road, but yes the current version is evidently based on a set of Ross plans, plans that were never executed for whatever reason. The course that was actually built was one of the most extreme of Ross’s career and did not have the style of bunkers that you now find.
-
Rich:
I couldn't agree with your 9:44 post more. Of course it would be prudent, be best if the bunker photo resembled the sandy naturally dunsy look of say early CPC or present Friar's. Of course the bunkering and the color of the sand of them would be best by far if it matched and melded into that very same site naturalness and color (the natural dunes and their sand color). A site that had the color of the County Down bunker looks best in the natural environment that matches the color and look of that bunker. Similarly the color and the look of the bunkers at Cusgowilla which are reddish and ruggedly random matches the color and look of the red Georgia earth and Cusgowilla's natural environment. Blinding super white sand at Cusgowilla would look out of place and unnatural there.
To me the color of the sand is only part of it though. The thing that made MacKenzie so good and also makes C&C at Friar's, Doak at Pac Dunes and Gil Hanse at say Rustic Canyon so good is their architectural artistry was able to match the entire look of the bunkering itself (other than just the color of the sand) with the natural site itself. And by this I'm talking about architecturally matching and melding all the "lines" of their architecture (bunkers, greens, fairways, mounds, hollows, whatever), large and small, as best as they can with all the raw natural "lines" both large and small of the site itself (preconstruction).
If an architect can do that and also have those features placed well and functioning well for golf he really needs to do no more.
-
Ken
I knew the bunker morphing was Tommy's, but your son's post was so sensible and thoughtful that I thought that if it was true that it was he my 10-year old would have to raise her game to get one of those legacy spots at Stanford for the class of 2011, and I panicked, so I assumed impostors......
Sorry.
As to the point, of course the hole plays exactly the same, assuming the outlines of the bunkers are the same, but either one of the morphed alternatives would jar one enough aesthetically to probably have some sort of a psychological effect. Couldn't be sure, however, until I played them.
-
"The problem, however, arises when people like Pat communicate their thoughts and people around the world actually believe them!"
KenB;
It's so true! And that's why I've recommended many times in the past (though you may have missed it) that if we could all get together and buy a Hannibal Lecter mask, I would be more than happy to put it on him. Patrick Mucci is an extremely dangerous man and the entire world of quality golf architecture needs to be protected from him!
-
Tom MacWood,
I fully agree with your point regarding the preservation of aesthetics. As I've said before aesthetics and function are just different parts of the same puzzle. To me, preserving the intended look of the original designer is very important.
-
Tom MacW said;
"We’ve already discussed Aronomink and I do not want to send this thread careening off the road, but yes the current version is evidently based on a set of Ross plans, plans that were never executed for whatever reason. The course that was actually built was one of the most extreme of Ross’s career and did not have the style of bunkers that you now find."
Tom;
I wouldn't worry at all about careening this thread off course. This is an interesting subject indeed regarding the bunkering at Aronimink from the recent restoration.
We did go over all the ramifications of it and the decision making too but it does relate to this thread in some ways and it also relates most definitely to some of your own thinking, one aspect in particular it seems, so I should go over it again. That aspect of yours I refer to is that you have said a number of times you have no real interest in memberships only to what's purest to original in restorations.
First of all, Aronimink should be commended for deciding to restore back to their Ross heritage as comprehensively as they decided to. The course was an example of some real modern age architectural tampering by Dick Wilson, George and Tom Fazio and Robert Trent Jones. Luckily, the routing was not tampered with and also luckily the really wonderful original Ross greens were not really either. But the bunkering sure was.
Apparently much of the bunkering was altered, but particularly the fairway bunkering and I believe almost all the original fairway bunkering was altered or lost.
So in the restoration of the bunkering, particularly fairway bunkering there was nothing left on the ground of it to restore to. That left an aerial that was taken maybe 3-5 years after the course opened as the photographic blueprint to restore back to. However, the club and Ron Prichard found one of the finest and most comprehensively detailed sets of drawing plans Ron had ever seen from Donald Ross himself (something that Walter Erving Johnson was generally more likely to translate from Ross's notes onto drawings at other courses). But in this case the drawing plans were Ross's hand.
So Ron and the club had a dilemma on their hands. Had the bunkers been built as they appeared on that later aerial? Had the bunkers been built to Ross's plans and redesigned since the course opened? Why was the bunkering on the aerial different than Ross's detailed drawings? There was no real way to determine what had happened.
Since I live so close to Aronimink and since I know the green chairman and some of the others at Aronimink and I know Ron too Ron called me one day before the bunker restoration began and asked me why I thought the bunkering on the aerial was different from Ross's very detailed plans and drawings.
The difference, by the way, was primarily where Ross had called for a single bunker, sets of 2-3s smaller bunkers appeared in their places.
I said I had no idea but it seemed illogical to me that a club would redesign the original bunkers of Donald Ross (certainly famous in 1929) so soon after the course opened and even more illogical since it was in the depression (as it turns out, though, there was a lot of redesigning going on in Philadelphia in the depression--including my own club a number of times).
Ron said he'd not seen small bunker sets like that anywhere else from Ross except at Jeffersonville (a low budget Ross course) where apparently J.B. McGovern had been the foreman. J.B. McGovern had also been the foreman at Aronimink. So obviously you can see what the assumption was there--that McGovern may have done some interpreting of Ross's plans on his own.
Did he do it on his own or did Ross tell him to or approve of his alterations from Ross's own detailed plans? That was unanswerable and probably always will be.
Aronimink and Ron Prichard very much wanted to do as pure a Ross restoration as possible so they decided to go with what they did know which was Ross himself actually had drawn those very detailed original plans.
When they started to go with that reasonable and logical thought there were some practical decisions that went along with it such as it would be less expensive to both rebuild and also maintain one bunker placements rather than sets of 2-3s in the place of one bunker.
You may think there's added interest to an original Ross course that a foreman like McGovern or Hatch or whomever may have done some of their own things on but neither Aronomink, nor Ron agree with that, particularly when they had detailed Ross drawings in their hand that at least they knew were Ross's (something most of those "Ross/Hatch courses probably ever had!).
Aronimink was really dedicated to a true Ross restoration and not necessarily a possible Ross/McGovern amalgamation. They did as much research as possible and I can tell you that even Ross's odd remark at Aronimink's opening was even mentioned in the context of what had happened with those bunkers. Personally I believe that remark really does indicate something.
I should also say, since this discussion group compares architects, that J.B. McGovern has never been very well respected around here. He only did a few solo courses and the redesign work he did at my course in the 1940s was totally forgettable, to say the least--and it also altered Donald Ross--and we're going to remove as much of it as possible and restore to Ross.
This is all after the fact, of course, but Wayne and I were interviewing Flynn's daughter again the other day and we happened to ask her who Flynn's good friends in the business were and also if there was anyone in particular he did not admire. We'd previously heard from her that Dick Wilson was a real pain in the ass, and a problem on projects to Flynn (confirmed by David Gordon from his father) but she surprised us by saying the only architect she heard him speak ill of was J.B. McGovern!
If I'd know that during those 4-5 times I spent time at Aronimink during the bunker decision-making and restoration I would have told them that too.
Again, they truly wanted to do what they believed was real Ross and those plans are real Ross. That's better to them than guessing on who may or may not have approved those 2-3 set bunkers.
A lot went into it in research and consideration and I should tell you that had you been out their as part of the decision making it would be my belief that you'd have been outvoted. Ron Prichard as an architect also may be the most in depth classic era historian around too.
In any case, the bunkering is restored to Ross's actual plans and it's well received it seems by most everyone and it has the added value I think that at least the design of it had been Donald Ross himself although it is true it may have been that odd and probably unique case where for whatever reason it was originally not built to his plans.
I realize that most aren't interested in reading all this detail but I know you are Tom. I am too. Ron Prichard is and so are some of those at Aronimink.
-
Rich
If you truly believe that the hole would play “exactly the same” in those two pictures, then that pretty much tells me all I really need to know. However, if you played the hole as depicted in the 1st photo and you either plugged your ball in the face of the bunker or had to hack your way out of those native grassed surrounds, is it perhaps possible based on that experience that you might just give that poisonous little bunker a bit more respect the next time around? ;D
BTW, if I ever find myself standing on the 16th tee at Cypress Point, even during a casual round, without an elevated heartbeat and a sense of both fear and excitement about the shot that I’m about to hit, I will hang up my clubs! ;)
-
You see that Rich?
There's a guy who can play a little who's heartbeat increases just standing there on the tee of Cypress's #16, a hole you think is just a ho-hum long par 3 with---what is it in between? Oh no much! KenB is the premier player in NY in my book with a US national championship under his belt who get's psychologically effected to an extent from the look of various architetcure. He'd be the premier amateur in NY right now if he hadn't gotten a bit consumed building a course in Long Island and he let two old guy amateurs slip ahead of him last year.
-
QUOTE"I realize that most aren't interested in reading all this detail but I know you are Tom. I am too. Ron Prichard is and so are some of those at Aronimink."
I'm very disappointed that you, of all people have to make this statement. IF there are those that have no interest in it, then they are at the WRONG website! They need to go to golfchannel.com and participate in one of their discussion groups.
I'll post this website's manifesto in case there are those that don't UNDERSTAND what I'm screaming about!
GolfClubAtlas.com is presented to promote the frank commentary on the world's finest golf courses. Within this site, the subject of golf course architecture is discussed in several different sections, including:
course profiles that highlight the finer virtues of golf architecture found in over 130 courses world-wide. Please post any meaningful analysis you may have regarding each course at the end of its profile.
monthly Feature Interviews with a well known golf figure with past interviews archived for your perusal as well.
a free access Discussion Group. Please register and share your opinions by posting under your own name but remember: this is an architecture centric web site with non-architecture posts deleted.
an 'In My Opinion' column for you to submit detailed articles relating to the subject of golf architecture.
a 'My Home Course' section, where you may profile your home course and explain why it is enjoyable to play on a day to day basis.
an 'Art & Architecture' section in which many of the great courses are explored based on how they appeared at their inception through the paintings of California based artist Mike Miller. There is an ongoing Question and Answer session with Miller with paintings added on a continual basis.
-
Ken Bakst,
So, I would imagine that Lee Trevino would have won his playoff with you at Merion, as well. ;D
The example of strategy I presented was an oversimplification, I didn't want to tax the group's ability to comprehend more detailed examples. Risk/reward, prefered angles of attack, etc., etc..
But, strategy is the formation of a plan to play the hole, the avoiding of peril/hazards, and positioning oneself to take maximum advantage of the lay of the land.
I referenced the treatment of snakes that are more dangerous than other snakes in the context of bunkers, acknowledging that some are more lethal than others.
The problem with the attempt to illustrate your point through the esteemed Tommy Naccarato is that the second bunker does not contain the same physical properties of the first bunker. The slope is flatter, the height lower, etc., etc.. Given the same physical dimensions, with white or blue sand, the bunker presents the same strategic value. Once you alter the physical properties you alter the assessment process and strategy.
I don't think that we're that far apart on our thinking, I just think this group tends to think in extreme terms to validate a point. Woud the road hole bunker be much different if its face was constructed with sleepers instead of brick sod.
The look would be different, but would the playability and the strategy ?
I've got to go read a bedtime story, so I have to go.
Given the temperature, let the dog walk himself ;D
-
Pat
"Given the same physical dimensions, with white or blue sand, the bunker presents the same strategic value."
This explains a lot about your very interesting architectural tastes. I take it the rough grass and local gunch growing around the perimeter (and in) does not alter the hazards physical property. You either need you eyes checked or you speak with forked tongue. Or perhaps you're wired differently. To each his own.
I've given up trying to convince Pat, its like trying to convince a homosexual the pleasures of woman.
-
Question for Patrick and Rich:
MacKenzie purposefully shaped and placed bunkers in a manner which made the golf hole appear harder than it actually was (very visible, masking ample landing area, blending into bunkers hundreds of yards away). The fifth at CPC is a good example. Are such bunkers strategic or aesthetic?
-
Another question for Rich:
Does your ability to block out "aesthetics" and focus on the hole give you a competitve advantage over golfers who are unable to do the same?
-
So many questions of me, so little time.....
KenB
I assumed in my hyopthetical that the shape of the two bunkers would be exactly the same, i.e. the chance of burying in the upslope would be equal. Of course, the fact that the 1st one has a wilder and woolier look would have some impact on how I would view any shot over it, but I think that if I played the hole a number of times, under a number of conditions (weather and competetiveness) the effect of the eye candy would diminish to near nullity. Don't know about you, but I cannot remember EVER being caught in bunker surrounds like those in picture one, and I've played a lot of holes that look like that at a much more likely to hit an imperfect shot level of ability than you. That's why I call them "eye candy."
Dave M/Tom H
I think that both 4 and 5 at CPC are stunningly beautiful golf holes. To me, more "beautiful" than 16 and 17. As I said after my first round there, it was the quality and beauty of the inland holes that blew me away. Maybe it's becuase I wasn;t expecting it. Maybe it's becaue I have spent most of my life near the sea and I've seen far too many great ocean views to be overimpressed by a simple set of cliffs......
As for the 4th, once you have played it you realise that the bunkers that seem in you face off the tee are in fact unreachable from the tips (maybe not to KenB). So, they just do not matter, except aethestically. As for the 5th, once you have played it you realize that the bunkers which clutter up the last 50-100 yards to the green, beautiful as they are, dictate that the hole plays only two ways:
1. Hit a great tee shot curving around the left bunker and then try to go for the green
2. Hit a not so great tee shot and then lay up short of the cluster of bunkers and then hit lob wedge
TomH, 5-iron/5-iron/LW was maybe a bit cheeky, but 4/4/LW would be not. Becuase of the contours of the land on the second shot landing area (i.e. downhill into a gully and then up hill sharply), it does not take a lot of club(S) to get into lob wedge distance on your third (which is at the beginning of hte upslope from the gully), IMO
Anybody I''ve forgotten? If so, I'm sure you'll let me know.....
-
Patrick said;
"I just think this group tends to think in extreme terms to validate a point."
I've heard the old cliche, "the pot calling the kettle black" but this remark from Pat has got to take the alltime cake!
-
Patrick said;
"I just think this group tends to think in extreme terms to validate a point."
I've heard the old cliche, "the pot calling the kettle black" but this remark from Pat has got to take the alltime cake!
I'll second that!
-
Rich,
Thanks for taking the time to try to answer the many questions. Unfortunately, in the clutter, I am afraid that one of my questions was misunderstood and the other left unanswered. I probably wasn't clear with my questions, so please let me try again.
1. My first question regarded MacKenzie's intentional shaping and placement of bunkers in a manner which made golf holes look harder than they really were. Setting aside your views on how you feel you should play the fifth at CPC, perhaps you could address this more general issue: Is the intentional distortion of the golfer's perception an aesthetic characteristic or a strategic characteristic?
2. Returning to your understanding or your particular game: Does your ability to block out "aesthetics" and focus on the hole give you a competitve advantage over golfers who are unable to do the same?
-
David
With respect to your 2nd question, there is a very simple answer.
Yes, but only if he's able to block out the features AFTER he has assessed their functional value in determining how he chooses to play the hole! ;D
-
If a golfer is blocking something out, then it goes without saying that that something is in fact something. Pat and Rich may have the ability to block those somethings out but golf designers have long attempted to include visual signals that make the golfer unsteady. All, blind golfers notwithstanding, are subject to this to a greater or lesser degree. Funny thing is, until this thread, I have never heard of any disagreement about this concept. The golfer's perceptive abilities has always been used for and against the golfer by the golf designer. It is intimately bound up in the game itself. How do we turn back the clock to the time when this concept was simply taken for granted, like the effect of gravity on the golf ball, as it should be?
By the way, the focus here on "aesthetics" has really muddied the waters and used up a lot of bandwidth. You should be focusing on the term "visual signals" such as fairway lines and tee box orientation. You will get where you want to go without the muck and mire of purple grasses majesty. Or at least you should get there. Maybe it is too late to turn back the clock to the point of any kind of agreement here. Although, if TEPaul did happen to agree with me it would be nice. :)
-
Yes, but only if he's able to block out the features AFTER he has assessed their functional value in determining how he chooses to play the hole! ;D
Now if this is his answer that will raise a whole host of questions, don't you think?
But let's not get ahead of ourselves . . . I am really interested to hear Rich's answers. He has seen me play CPC 16, so he knows that I need all the help I can get when it comes to learning how to ignore the superfluous on the golf course.
-
Dave
Thanks for the bold type. We geezers need these visual aids from time to time....
As to question #1, I am on record many times in my belief that neither a golf hole nor a course nor an architect can be considered "strategic." A golf course is just a venue within which strategy can (or cannot) be planned and executed by the golfer. An architect (MacKenzie or MacGonigal) can create a venue which is more or less interesting strategically, but he or she does not create strategy. (Sorry for the rant, but I have spent most of my life studying and teaching strategy, so I like to set things straight in these areas....).
As for your specific question, IMO any attempt to distort the golfer's perception by the architect is neither aesthetic nor strategic, per se. It can be either or both or neither, depending on the skill of the architect and/or the perception of the golfer. Is that a great non-answer or what! I shoulda been a lawyer.......
2. My "blocking out" abilities are highly exaggerated, particularly from those like yourself who saw me play my "A" game at an A+ venue. Many on this site have seen my B, C, D and unmentionable games.......I do tend to play better in Open competitions at unfamiliar venues than the average player, but that may just be because I am such an all around good person.......
-
Yes it does, shivas. Hard to believe, but I am not perfcet.......
-
"2. Returning to your understanding or your particular game: Does your ability to block out "aesthetics" and focus on the hole give you a competitve advantage over golfers who are unable to do the same?"
DMoriarty:
That question of yours to Rich will be interesting and whatever answer Rich gives will be interesting to see too.
Personally, I feel that question and the true answer to it amongst golfers generally is a most fundamental one. I think it's a global and most interesting subject and one worth exploring beyond this thread which in my opinon will never go very far or be well understood using a word such as "aesthetics" only.
Probably a better context to put this subject in would be what all influences the effects of psychology (or specifically concern and fear) in golf and architecture amongst golfers generally?
My personal feeling having seen reams of all types of golfers in my life is that probably never or at least rarely ever is any golfer immune from the psychological effects of courses and aspects of their architecture and particularly relating to concern and fear. A good deal of the latter obviously would fall into the category of how any player views "consequences" at any particular time.
It's obviously how they deal with important feelings of concern and fear which generally relate to the subject of failure that's of most interest. The question and subject of failure and fear of it I believe is a fundamental that no golfer is immune to and very much resides in the realm of "consequence" relating to what he thinks, decides to do and does do on a golf course at any time but which also should be looked at in a kind of continuum, never being static or absolute at any time.
Max Behr has said that good architecture "makes a call upon intelligence". And he goes on to say that to answer the call upon intelligence is really nothing more than a rational application of experience.
I think those things are a given basically to all golfers, no matter who they are and how well they deal with those concerns and fears. I believe everyone has them and the process they use to deal with them can be called "compartmentalization". How well any golfer answers that call to intelligence, to use experience, to compartmentalize concern and consequence is what makes any golfer better or less good at the game.
"Compartmentalization" in good golfers is not really a means of becoming completely oblivious to areas of danger in golf architecture, only to deal with it intelligently--and generally that takes experience, or better said, requires experience--which is understanding the actual consequences of it filtered through one's ability to understand realistically one's limitations (and the degree or percentage effect of one's limitations).
But if someone like Rich Goodale says to me that he just happens to be one of those people who is completely oblivious to the actual dangers of architecture and golf courses and has not ever had any negative psychological impact from those dangers and concerns I would not really believe him. And secondly I would say that attitude or condition if actually possible would ultimately hurt his ability to do well or score well in golf generally, not help him.
And I also think that Ken Bakst's post above explained so well in detail various actual architecture and why that can prove that psychological effects from architecture and its ability to create various degrees of fear and concern and failure and the consequences of that is never absolute. Matter of fact, given how it actually effects any golfer at any partiucular time can prove that it works in a continuum of ever changing degrees of psychological effect always relating to ever changing experiences.
That to me is a given and a known commodity almost that all good architects understand and apply well in what they create.
-
Rich Goodale said this;
".......I do tend to play better in Open competitions at unfamiliar venues than the average player, but that may just be because I am such an all around good person....... "
I feel this is a real truism with me and in my experience in competitions and significant ones to me it's undeniably true. But clearly not with everyone--perhaps just the opposite.
But the key word here is "unfamiliar venues". Why would Rich or I play better at unfamiliar venues? I'm not sure why Rich thinks he does but I know why I do and I would be most shocked if they weren't exactly the same. And that would be that at unfamiliar venues we both may tend to be more cautious--to pay more heed to psychologically effecting features and such, in other words.
The reason I know I play better at unfamilar venues is because instinctively I'm a conservative golfer (interestingly possibly the opposite of Rich) and I instinctively became used to identifying well what's safe and what isn't--what's dangerous and what's less so.
But I believe the real reasons beyond that I was always able to play better at unfamiliar venues is because I had NO NEGATIVE EXPERIENCES at those venus! No real negatives to psychologically effect me, concern me, scare me--no bad memories to psychologically influence me.
It's interesting that some of the best scores I ever shot at various courses is the first time I ever saw them. I can't imagine what could make Ken Bakst's point better about the collective impact of architecture over time through any golfer's collective experiences or those negative experiences ability to create psychological effects on any player. And always in an ever changing way and in a continuum of degree, in fact.
I do see, though, other golfers who unlike me don't have the natural inclination to be conservative on unfamiliar venues and go out and attack an unfamiliar venue aggressively and get killed by those unfamiliar venues time and again.
Those are the golfers who will play a course better and better generally the more they get to know it. I hate to say, but my own experiences are generally just the opposite. Over time the negative experiences of a golf course as I become more familiar with it weigh on me more and I never seem to play so well. It's stupid really and probably just means I should go back to my natural conservatism always.
But I think this kind of remark, particularly coming from Rich Goodale (he plays unfamiliar venues in competition better) only confirms Ken Bakst's point just how much architecture does have a visual, perhaps an aesthetic and psychological impact on golfers although they may not be willing to admit it. Rich Goodale should admit it because I think he's just about in line with what Ken said although Rich may not yet have gotten around to saying that yet.
And I think Rich's admission that he does play unfamiliar venues better in competition bascially proves the architectural point Ken Bakst has been making. And of course that point is the aesthetics of architecture does have a psychologic effect.
Pat Mucci should do the same. He should reread that post of Ken Bakst (and his son) and agree with it--but of course he never will. To Pat acknowledging that an opinion is someone else's and admitting he agrees with it is mutually exclusive.
-
"But let's not get ahead of ourselves . . . I am really interested to hear Rich's answers. He has seen me play CPC 16, so he knows that I need all the help I can get when it comes to learning how to ignore the superfluous on the golf course."
DMoriarty:
The best help you'll ever have for that kind of thing is experience and learning how to use it to your advantage.
Rich Goodale will scream and disagree but Max Behr was right about this. Golf architecture and good golf architecture most of all will make a "call upon intelligence". A golfer will always do best if he answers that call by using his experiences as intelligently as he can.
-
I am experiencing quite a lot of Internet Communication Frustration ("IFC") caused by the difficulty of getting into any kind of conversational ebb and flow. It seems that every time I ask a question I fail to get an answer. If I try to simplify the question, I get an evasive answer, at best. Probably a problem with the way I am asking my questions, but frustrating none the less. As opposed to abandoning the line of questioning altogether (as I have done in the past) I will presumptuously provide the answer I think would have been given had the question been answered, and continue on. I am positive I will be corrected if my presumptions are incorrect.
Whether I am correct or incorrect, I have a feeling that by posting as I do below I will at least gat an open and direct response.
Rich
I asked "Is the intentional distortion of the golfer's perception an aesthetic characteristic or a strategic characteristic?" You answered: "As for your specific question, IMO any attempt to distort the golfer's perception by the architect is neither aesthetic nor strategic, per se. It can be either or both or neither, depending on the skill of the architect and/or the perception of the golfer. Is that a great non-answer or what! I shoulda been a lawyer......."
I agree . . . this is a great non-answer, and you should have been a lawyer-- I didn't realize my question was so ambiguous. Let me try to read between the lines and see if I can find an decipher an actual answer. I assume when you say "it can be either or both or neither depending on the skill of the architect and/or the perception of the golfer" you are acknowledging that, at least sometimes:
A skillful architect's intentional distortion of the golfer's perspective can be somewhat strategic.
I also asked "Does your ability to block out 'aesthetics' and focus on the hole give you a competitve advantage over golfers who are unable to do the same?" You answeredMy "blocking out" abilities are highly exaggerated, particularly from those like yourself who saw me play my "A" game at an A+ venue. Many on this site have seen my B, C, D and unmentionable games.......I do tend to play better in Open competitions at unfamiliar venues than the average player, but that may just be because I am such an all around good person.......
This is perhaps a better non-answer than the first. Again, reading between the lines, and ignoring the additional variables you brought into the question/answer (my perception of your game, others' perceptions of your game, your ability in Open competitions at unfamiliar venues, and your undisputable goodness as a person) I conclude that, while you may not always be successful at blocking out aesthetics (you say your "abilities . . . are highly exaggerated"):
When you are able to block out "aesthetics," you have a competitive advantage over those who cannot do the same.
Here is my problem, if I have accurately transformed your non-answers into answers, then I really don't understand where you are coming from on this thread, and others, when you characterize certain features (such as the bunkers on CPC 5) as "eye candy" with no strategic merit. If they alter the choices different golfers make, then they have strategic merit. Just because you ignore or block out a feature doesnt mean that everyone does.
In fact, that you are able have more success than others by mentally blocking out the architect's slight-of-hand is not only a testament to your ability to concentrate, it is also a testament to the strategic merits of the hole in question. Two groups of somewhat equally situated golfers (in this case you vs. your opponents) view the same hole and see multiple paths to success, and therefore adopt different "plans of action." (Yes, I am treating state of mind as a path to success.) What else could a "strategic golf hole" accomplish?
The only way I can reconcile all this is to assume that your understanding of strategy in golf is very different than the views of many others on this board-- Ken Bakst, TEPaul, and me, to name a few. Moreover, now that I know you are some sort of an expert in the field of strategy, I will go even go further-- I think your view of strategy in golf is egocentric, narcissistic, and so narrow so as to be meaningless to anyone but you and your own view of your own game.
Take your "rant" at the beginning of your post:As to question #1, I am on record many times in my belief that neither a golf hole nor a course nor an architect can be considered "strategic." A golf course is just a venue within which strategy can (or cannot) be planned and executed by the golfer. An architect (MacKenzie or MacGonigal) can create a venue which is more or less interesting strategically, but he or she does not create strategy. (Sorry for the rant, but I have spent most of my life studying and teaching strategy, so I like to set things straight in these areas....).
Pardon my ignorance on the subject (I've neither studied nor taught strategy), but I think of "strategy" as a "plan of action." Because this is a thread on architecture, I was focusing on the architect's "plan of action," not the golfer's. Now, the measure of the success of the architect's "plan of action re the golfer's strategic challenges" may well be the extent to which the golfer must come up with his own "plan of action" to get around (or over) the architect's strategic placements. But to discount architect's contribution to the strategic nature of the golf hole is overly simplistic.
Think of MacKenzie's wartime example which he used to explain what he called "a strategic system of golf course bunkering." According to MacKenzie, the British commander didnt realize that the Boer leader was master of camouflage, so the Brits bombarded then advanced on Boer earthworks which appeared to shelter the opposition. When the Brits advanced they found that they were attacking a decoy and that Boer's were actually hiding in low-profile, camouflaged trenches away from the more obvious earthworks. The British were trapped.
So MacKenzie views golf as having two strategies, that of the architect (the attacked) and that of the golfer (the attacker). Like the Boer's, the architect sets the field of play by strategically positioning, utilizing, and creating features, and by creating certain perspectives. It is then up to the golfer to navigate these strategic placements and perspectives. Like the Brits in Tugela, the golfer risks peril if he plans his attack without understanding and planning around (or over, or through) these strategic placements and perspectives.
On the other hand, you seem to view strategy only through your own eyes. After seeing a hole once or twice, you understand enough about it to avoid the aesthetic features (like the bunkers on CPC 4 or 5, or the ocean carry on 16) and those features are rendered "eye candy" and non-strategic. It is only rightly called "strategy" if it forces you to question your plan of action. What about the rest of us who don't fully grasp the hole the first time we see it. Or, even if we do grasp the hole, what if we are unable to escape our previous faulty perceptions and still make an erroneous plan of attack or are unable to follow a correct one? Is the hole strategic to us, at least?
Take your very interesting "This Could be the Last Time" posts. You correctly note that first timers have a harder time understanding "the tricks of the architect" than old timers. You also state that "hazards that look gnarly to the newbie are just eye candy" to members and that "places that may look peaceful to the newcomer are places we avoid like the plague." By the sound of it, and by your definition of strategy it would seem that members' courses are only strategic to guests and never strategic to seasoned members. Do you really believe this or am I misunderstanding you? Please explain?
-
Tom MacWood,
Pat
"Given the same physical dimensions, with white or blue sand, the bunker presents the same strategic value."
This explains a lot about your very interesting architectural tastes. I take it the rough grass and local gunch growing around the perimeter (and in) does not alter the hazards physical property. You either need you eyes checked or you speak with forked tongue. Or perhaps you're wired differently. To each his own.
I've given up trying to convince Pat, its like trying to convince a homosexual the pleasures of woman.
Now you're confusing the color of the sand within the confines of a bunker to the surroundings outside of the bunker.
If you can stay focused, tell me how the color of the sand alters the strategy of the bunker ?
DMoriarty,
I would say that the bunkers are primarily strategic.
That they were constructed in a manner such that they blended in with more distant bunkers has nothing to do with aesthetics, although it may be visually pleasing, it has more to do with camoflaging and deceiving the first time player with deceptive signals to the eye.
Once the blindness of the fairway becomes apparent, subsequent play discards the deceptive signal.
But, don't all blind shots do that, irrespective of the intervening form/feature causing the blindness ?
Do you think that Hogan, Snead, Player, Nicklaus, Watson and Woods focus/ed on aesthetics when they play/ed.
TEPaul & George Pazin,
I never excluded myself from the statement when I referenced "this group" and extremes. Wouldn't you call Tommy Naccarato's bunker example "extreme" ?
Eye Doctor,
I think the process is one of focusing on the order of priorities, the play of the hole, the strategy.
One's powers of observation aren't shut down, making one oblivious to one's surroundings, but, if the object is to get the ball into the hole in the least amount of strokes, the mind should not be distracted or dwell on non-strategic features.
I would agree with you. Visual signals are provided by the physical properties of what one faces in the play of a hole. Aesthetics are those frilly things with the "proper" colors that the aristocrats like.
-
Dave
Please remind me to get you on my side if I ever have any litigation in SoCal. You ask more and harder quesitons than even that Austrian policeman who gives Steve Martin a "drunk test" in "The Man with Two Brains."
To me a golf course is a strategic venue, i.e. a tapestry over which golfers develop and try to execute golfing strategies. The design of the course influences both the choice of strategies and the likelihood that they will be executed properly, which influences the choice, etc. ad infinitum. Choice and execcution are also strongly influenced by intrinsic and extrinsic factors such as weather, the psychological state of the golfer, the knowledge of the golfer (genral and specific), the maintenance of the course, well, just about everything we talk about on this site.
I fully admit to the charge of being narcissisistic. The way I look at any hole, from 16 CPC to #1 at my local track is compeletely unique. But, so is yours, counsel. We are all individuals, who look at all things, particularly golf holes, very differently, depending on all the factors I have listed above. Based on this look, which varies every time we play each hole, or even each shot, we choose, implicitly or explicitly, a "strategy" for that hole or that shot. Then we try to execute that strategy.
It's really not any different than what the Marketing Manager at Coke trys to do each Thursday when planning his advertising and promotional strategy for Von's vis a vis what he thinks Pepsi is going to do, or what Tommy Franks is trying to do right now vis a vis what is on the ground in Iraq and which way the international politicians (i.e. the "weather") are blowing.
However, a golf course is no more "strategic" than is a map coordinate in Iraq or a supermarket in Southern California. They are just places where strategy can be practised, by individuals, like you and me, who are, by definition, unique.......
-
I would say that the bunkers are primarily strategic.
That they were constructed in a manner such that they blended in with more distant bunkers has nothing to do with aesthetics, although it may be visually pleasing, it has more to do with camoflaging and deceiving the first time player with deceptive signals to the eye.
I agree that the described bunkers are strategic, but would decline to call them primarily strategic, because I see no reason to quarantine strategy from aesthetics, or to rank strategic merit vs. aesthetic merit.
As for the blending of non-adjacent bunkers having "nothing to do with aesthetics" I would disagree. MacKenzie disagreed also; beautiful, natural looking features were one of MacKenzie's primary goals:
Properly designed bunkers should grip the golfer's imagination, impart a challenge, but they should look natural; seemingly part of the surrounding scenery. The greatest compliment that can be paid a golf architect is to have players think his artificial work is natural."
(quote from Bob Davis excerpt from p. 29 of Alister MacKenzie's Cypress Point Club (Geoff Shackelford.))
So MacKenzie, at least, wasn't willing to discard aesthetic in the critique of architecture, and neither am I.
Once the blindness of the fairway becomes apparent, subsequent play discards the deceptive signal.
But, don't all blind shots do that, irrespective of the intervening form/feature causing the blindness ?
I understand what you are saying, but don't entirely agree. Sometimes there is a world of difference between what should be readily apparent and what the golfer actually perceives. For example, I get a sensation of entering the unknown whenever I hit a blind shot, even if I know what is on the other side. It isnt rational, but the sensation is there nonetheless.
Do you think that Hogan, Snead, Player, Nicklaus, Watson and Woods focus/ed on aesthetics when they play/ed.
Good question. Yes, I think that Hogan, Snead, Player Nicklaus, Watson, and Woods all focus(ed) on aesthetics when they play(ed). While they probably didnt give any consideration to flower beds adjacent to tees, I would think that they all shared the good sense to strategically consider aesthetics whereever those aesthetics could even remotely influence play. And since most aesthetic features have some strategic consequence, they should be considered.
Take, for example, the seemingly silly example of the color of sand in bunkers, mentioned by you above. In addition to influencing the golfer's perception of the beauty and verisimilitude of a hole (see TEPaul's post well above), the color of sand might also alter the golfer's strategic perception of the hole, and the golfer would do well to be aware of this. [It may be worth noting that in the same "camouflage" story recounted above, MacKenzie also discussed "protective coloration." Apparently, MacKenzie thought that the use of color was an important element in deception.]
Highly visible, bright white bunkers might mess with the golfer's depth perception, or might draw attention to themselves and appear larger and more in play than they actually are. In contrast, more subtly colored bunkers might be less noticable and appear to be less of a potential pitfall than they actually are. Or, bunkers that blend seamlessly into their surrounds (adjacent dunes, for example) might create the illusion that the surrounds are more in play than they actually are. Such bunkers might also create an ambiguity as to just where the hole ends and surrounds begin. On the other hand, bunkers that sharply contrast with the surrounds might provide the golfer with a definite visual cue of what is in play and what is not.
Further, different types of sand have vastly different playability characteristics, and to the experienced eye, the color of sand may well indicate the type and playability of sand. For example, if Nicklaus is playing the red clayish sands of his Lanai course, he would do well to notice and remember that particular sands playing characteristics. The same goes for different types (and colors) of sand at any course.
At Old Work's in Montana Nicklaus (or his people) created black bunkers consisting of neutralized, ground slag-- almost pure carbon. I would assume he did this to create a unique visual effect and to blend some of the colorful history of the site into the course. Whatever his intentions, he created bunkers that play differently than most bunkers (I find it incredibly easy to hit out of these bunkers and I am a terrible bunker player.) Taking this into consideration might alter a player's strategy of attacking the course.
Moving out of sand and onto grass . . . Most people see an overwatered fairway and they see a beautiful, green course. I see plugged balls, no bounce, and a loss of strategic options. Or take firm, fast, and a little brown-- many see an ugly, dying golf course. I see options opening up all over the place. So is grass color aesthetic or strategic? Like most other golf course features, it is both.
-
Patrick, I am the dm above.
I reread a few of your past posts and I think I may have put my finger on our fundamental disagreement. Our differences may come down to a disagreement about the nature of strategy. You repeatedly characterize strategy as an absolute. I must disagree with this assessment.
First, I dont really understand what you mean-- strategy is an absolute? Absolute what? Absolute as opposed to subjective? Absolute as in complete? Are you talking Platonic forms here, and suggesting that somewhere out there their exists the Platonic Ideal of a Redan hole?
Second, "strategy" loses all meaning once it is removed from the context of the course. How do you describe a Redan without reference to golf course features and context?
Take replica courses, for example. If I understand your view of strategy correctly, we ought to be able to take a particular strategy template, and exactly duplicate the strategy on another course. Yet, although I have never played any of these courses, I would guess that most of these copycat courses fall flat when it comes to duplicating strategy.
If strategy is absolute, why can't I successfully build Saint Andrews or CPC in the middle of Arizona?
-
Rich
Well now we are getting somewhere! I think we have identified our disagreement:
You discuss strategy purely from the golfer's perspective, more specifically, your perspective.
I like to think the discussion should also take the architect's perspective into consideration. The architect made choices, charted a course, had a plan of action, and then executed (or tried to execute) that plan. Through the choices the architect makes, architecture has consequences.
Moreover, the architect's "strategy" constrains our choices, influences our decisions, and plays with our perspectives. When it comes to golfing on a particular course, saying (to paraphrase) that 'we are all unique individuals practicing our own unique strategy' greatly overstates our indivuduality and our freedom of choice on the golf course. Whether the golfer is aware or not, it is the architect who is the puppeteer pulling our strings, or at least the author setting out the plot points before we even have a chance to act. Wasnt it Fazio who said something like golf is unique in that it is the only instance where an architect gets total control over the subject's (the golfer's) perspective?
Is a golf course "strategic?" Well, the architect's strategy and its execution is preserved and displayed in the golf course, and in how golfers navigate the course. The architect has written his strategy down in the ground for us to try to read for years and years.
-
Dvae
We may not (yet....) be as close as you think.
I do not think that architects "write down their strategy in the ground." Rather, they find or create features that do or do not influence our strategy, depending on our own predilections and capabilities. Are courtrooms "strategic" in themselves, or does their design just influence your legal strategy, in a very case dependent way? Think of the OJ trial.......
-
David Moriarty:
This is your paragraph from your previous post;
"Moreover, the architect's "strategy" constrains our choices, influences our decisions, and plays with our perspectives. When it comes to golfing on a particular course, saying (to paraphrase) that 'we are all unique individuals practicing our own unique strategy' greatly overstates our indivuduality and our freedom of choice on the golf course. Whether the golfer is aware or not, it is the architect who is the puppeteer pulling our strings, or at least the author setting out the plot points before we even have a chance to act. Wasnt it Fazio who said something like golf is unique in that it is the only instance where an architect gets total control over the subject's (the golfer's) perspective?"
David:
Yours is a most interesting paragraph. It touches directly on some of the most basic and fundamental principles of golf course architecture and it also probably puts in as stark a comparison as possible the fundamental architectural principles of someone such as Tom Fazio compared to an architect and architectural thinker such as Max Behr (MacKenzie et al).
Behr is unusual, to say the least, but particularly because he theorized on what it is that can most ideally make golf a joy and inspiration to a golfer generally. In his words, that was to make the playing of the game (he preferred to call it a sport as opposed to a game) an individual’s expression and sense of ‘freedom’.
Certainly much as been said about Behr on this website, both critically and admiringly, and even jokingly. But for now I really do want to be serious about some of the things he said that relate directly to this paragraph of yours. And I should also say that the more I’ve come to understand some of Max Behr’s principles relating to architecture and golf the more I subscribe to them. They make fundamental sense to me.
Firstly, when you say in your paragraph, "Moreover, the architect's "strategy" constrains our choices, influences our decisions”, you are essentially saying everything that Tom Fazio probably does believe in fundamentally about architecture and also the very things that Max Behr fundamentally resisted and felt was not ideal about architecture and for the ideal enjoyment of the game.
Here’s why. Behr did not believe the architect should have what APPEARED to the golfer to be a “strategy”, certainly not as it related to any golfer. If an architect had a strategy (in Behr’s mind) it may only be when that architect was playing golf himself (even on his own golf course). Behr truly did believe that the strategy of any golfer should appear to be uniquely a golfer’s own! The reasons for that are very interesting, very fundamental and really quite simple.
It was that Behr felt any golfer would likely face a golf course less critically if it appeared to him to be, even if subliminally, nature unadorned by the hand of man. And certainly, it should be said, including natural obstacles (nature’s golf features!?) unadorned by the hand of man!
Conversely, Behr felt any golfer would face a golf course more critically (in this case obviously negatively) if it appeared to him to be, even if subliminally, obstacles put before him by another man (another golfer--an architect) instead of nature unadorned by man.
The reason he felt this way is so fascinating. Clearly he believed that “Man’s” fundamental relationship to Nature was different than man’s fundamental relationship to man! To see why those such as Behr felt that way obviously gets back to the beginnings of the original sport of golf and how it was played in actual Nature preceding man-made architecture, the hand of man and man’s influence on the creation of courses. Others would probably say this basic idea may even have had to do with the innate feeling of the Scots and their acceptance of all things natural (land and sea) simply because it was too great, too glorious, too powerful for man to even think about influencing. So they just accepted it and everything about it (including luck) without even a thought of criticism to all that it was (obviously including the weather and the wind!).
Behr felt that since man (the golfer) did feel differently about unadorned Nature vs what was put before him by another man that he would accept its challenges less critically, more willingly, more inspirationally, more freely! And clearly he felt also that Nature itself neither would nor could have created some formulaic prearranged “strategies” with the intention of playing the opponent to a game of man’s making!
So you can see what some of the reasons were to Behr (MacKenzie et al) to make architecture (that which is man-made on a golf course) appear to look as if it was not architecture at all.
This is where something like MacKenzie’s ideas on camouflage come into it. MacKenzie was using applications of camouflage not so much to trick or deceive a golfer’s decision making and golf shots (although clearly it had that effect) but he was using camouflage to hide from the golfer the fact he’d made anything at all!
So that’s much of what the “look” of it was supposed to be about and how it was believed to inherently affect man (the golfer).
But then the next part—the strategies a golfer used, the decisions that occurred to him, and the consequences of those decisions—and when you said, “the architect's "strategy" constrains our choices, influences our decisions, and plays with our perspectives.” Again, if it can be seen that an architect believes, as does Fazio, that there actually is or can be an “architect’s strategy” that any golfer should conform to, then in that case an architect really does appear to be dictating something to any golfer (a strategy) and does appear to be constraining his choices and influencing his decisions.
That’s the very thing, the very perception on the part of the golfer (and architect) that Behr (and MacKenzie et al) were trying so hard to avoid and to disguise. Again, they felt if the golfer perceived the challenges to be just nature unadorned by man that golfers would inherently feel they were finding and creating their very own strategies since one might assume that Nature itself was not interested in the “formulaics” of the game of golf; that Nature was nothing more than randomness anyway, and that frankly Nature probably had better things to do with her time and efforts than to play the “formulaic” architect to some game of man!
And then Behr went even further, and theorized if these things were true and if they were valid that even things such as “penalty” and “risk and reward” would also be looked at differently by a golfer if he perceived them to be unadorned Nature instead of some obstacle put before him by another man (another golfer—an architect!).
It may seem a stretch to some (but not me) that Behr then theorized sort of a “glass half empty/ glass half full” or an optimist/pessimist comparison that if a golfer felt, even subliminally, that if the obstacles before him were Nature’s, not man’s, that he would then look at their challenges more as an inspiration to overcome.
Behr believed that if a golfer felt, even subliminally, that the obstacles that challenged him were perceived to be man-made that he would perceive them as more a mirror image of his own faults or possibly even that another man may not have the same kind of right to challenge him so powerfully as Nature could! Again, fundamental evidence of the interesting distinctions between Man's feeling about his relationship to Nature vs his relationship to Man! And so he was apt to face man-made challenges more critically and with less natural inspiration and enthusiasm or freedom of his own individual expression!
And so finally, it may be that an architect such as Tom Fazio, at least in the eyes of a Max Behr or perhaps MacKenzie (et al), as he attempts and even admits to being the ultimate "puppeteer" (as you say) who controls the choices and destinies of golfers may be seen to be far more arrogant than any architect needs to be.
Fazio admits to rearranging nature in such a way that he doesn't even see the necessity or the point of hiding his architectural hand. Some may say, though, that Fazio is extremely good at creating architecture that looks pretty, that's picturesque, that mimics nature in that way somehow, but again, if he actually does admit to attempting to be the one who appears to control the choices and destinies of golfers instead of Nature itself, then one might say he feels comfortable putting himself in a league with Nature itself. Anyone might see a real arrogance in that attitude, or perhaps even a stupidity.
Some do believe and do say that the work of an architect such as Fazio with what he has done and how it's been received can be described as extremely pretty and picturesque.
But, for what it's worth Behr even had something to say about that in 1927 before an architect like Tom Fazio was born.
Max Behr said;
"We are too apt to mistake that which is pretty, or picturesque, for the beautiful. Prettiness, although pleasing, is a transient thing incident to the fancies of the moment; but beauty rests upon the fundamental---it's lineaments are the surface revelation of a a perfection that lies beneath. Where beauty is lacking there must likewise be a lack of intelligence. Indeed beauty may well prove to be the economic solvent to that continual evolution in the way of innovations and alterations to which most all golf courses are subject. If the holes have been advantageously routed in the beginning, beauty should then be the ideal to be striven for in construction, for beauty practically always accompanies economy of structure. When we perceive it we first become aware of truth; and only in the presence of truth do we recognize stability and permanence."
Max Behr 1927
To be continued…
-
shivs
To quote one of my heroes:
"I yam what I yam and that's all that I yam........"
And as I've said to many people who have written to me privately on this world-shattering issue, I am fully prepared to admit that I might react differently next time I play 16 CPC (if I haven't already blown those chances by moving 6000 miles away as well as being an incomrehensible purist on this issue.......
Keep butting in, BTW, nice concise posts are a welcome relief from time to time on this thread.......
-
Rich:
I just feel compelled to but in and say I love the term "incomprehensible purist". Well self-summarized, my friend!
TH
-
Rich,
I do not think that architects "write down their strategy in the ground." Rather, they find or create features that do or do not influence our strategy, depending on our own predilections and capabilities.
Do architects do anything "strategic" when designing golf courses? If they do, is it possible that evidence of their "strategy" might be found in the golf course itself?
Have you ever heard of a "strategic point" in a battleground, such as high ground, a bridge, a water supply, etc., the control of which gives one side an advantage over the other? (see Websters defn.)
In your opinion, is referring to such a place as a "strategic point" a correct use of the term "strategic?" If not, why not?
Are courtrooms "strategic" in themselves, or does their design just influence your legal strategy, in a very case dependent way? Think of the OJ trial.......
Almost all courtrooms have certain architectural features that influence the decisions and behavior of those "before the bench" (itself a loaded and powerful term.) Did you ever stop to think why almost all courtrooms (including some of the shoebox LA County courtrooms) have the same general architectural scheme?
Some of these architectural characteristics influence behavior and strategy in a way that is not case dependent at all. For example, there is something very intimidating and influential about the formality of court and the actual architecture of a courtroom. Standing in a courtroom looking up at a judge who is wearing a black robe and sitting behind a large desk on a raised platform in front of an large and ornate official seal and adorned on each sides by flags is quite an experience, especially for one (like a criminal defendant) who might not be that comfortable with authority. Arrogant litigants who mouth off under oath in depositions (some of which take place with actual judges presiding as referees) in conference rooms oftentimes swallow their attitude and their tongues when they finally have to appear and speak before the court.
So I would say, yes, courtrooms do have certain strategic features, many of which are not case dependent.
-
DMoriarty,
I think, that once you go inland, bunkers cease being natural or natural looking.
In the context of CP sand was everywhere, so the insertion of a bunker, or a series of bunkers could be viewed in a natural perspective.
Based on MacKenzie's decree, should all of the hidden bunkers at GCGC and NGLA be deemed improper or inferior ?
Many of those bunkers are highly unnatural. Should they to be deemed improper of inferior ?
Yet, they serve a fundamental function, a critical function in defending the golf course and placing an emphasis on the need for a well thought out strategy in the play of the hole.
I think most of us get that anxious feeling when we've hit a blind shot that disappears behind the blocking feature.
The uncertainty of knowing where the pin is, and not knowing if our shot is too short, too long, left or right, or in trouble.
I think one of the neat parts of a blind shot is the suspense the golfer feels as he walks toward the green after he's hit his shot, wondering if luck and execution have served him well.
And, when the results are revealed, joy or dismay is your companion.
I think that size, not color, conveys the message of distance.
Large bunkers seem closer, in many cases tempting one to try to fly them. Smaller bunkers appear more distant.
You're correct, different bunker sands have different qualities, colors and aspects of playability. One must avoid them, but, if one enters their domain, the rules permit, and smart play dictates, that the golfer take their stance, and in digging in, they can TEST the condition of the sand, and extrapolate same, in order to play the best shot possible. If one lands in serveral bunkers, their learning curve is tested and measured.
In your grass color example, I view it as a measuring device, an indicator of moisture and playing surface quality.
I'm not so sure that brown grass conotes ideal playing conditions. I've always been partial to that tightly mowed greenish/yellowish/brownish tinge.
I think you could build TOC in Arizona.
I think it would be prohibitively expensive,
and I don't think you could maintain it properly due to the climate, which in turn would impact its playability.
I can't speak for replica courses as I've never played them.
I feel that architects forge a tactical or strategic challenge for various levels of golfers for the play of a hole, and that the evaluative strategy involved in playing those holes is within a narrow spectrum of absolute, whereas the evaluation of aesthetics is randomly and wildly diverse.
If a bright, gorgeous, personable, sensual, charming woman with a wonderful sense of humor was to meet you, as you got to know her better and better, would it matter how she dressed ? How stylish she was, or would her core values be the most important facets of her being, and your interaction with her ?
-
"If a bright, gorgeous, personable, sensual, charming woman with a wonderful sense of humor was to meet you, as you got to know her better and better, would it matter how she dressed?"
These are aesthetic judgements. My interaction with her? It would depend on her level of brightness, personability (?), charm and humor combined with her aesthetic qualities, and based on all these factors I would form a strategy.
-
Tom MacWood,
If you believe that personality, charm, sensuality and a sense of humor are aesthetic qualities, I think I see the problem ;D
-
Pat 8)
If you can't see the two words in bold perhaps you might want sit out a thread dealing with aesthetics.
-
Dave
I think we are picking nits, but this particularly lexocogical nit is one which interests me, so I'll keep on pickin'
The military analogy you use is absolutely correct, and (hopefully......) will persuade you that there is a difference between a human being's identification of an object (i.e. a hill) which may or may not have strategic significance and the inherent "strategy" of that object. I grant you that when Mackenzie (say) places a bunker somewhere and gives it a particularly look, he is trying, implicitly or explicitly, to influence how a golfer thinks about and plays various shots that may involve that feature (,.e. the golfer's strategy). However, that just says that he has knoweldge (hopefully) of how the strategist (the golfer) thinks and is trying to influence that thinking.
"Strategy" means, from its Greek root, "generalship"--i.e. the act of being a general commander of forces in a war. I suppose you could argue (hey, you're a trial lawyer, aren't you.....) that the GCA is commanding the forces of the "opposition" when you or I play the course that they have designed. That is one point of view. I personally see myself "battling" with "nature" when I play, of which the GCA is only a small part, and far less important than my own state of play, the physical conditions of the day, etc. (which are also a part of nature) at the time...........