Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Ronan_Branigan on December 07, 2002, 05:44:04 AM
-
George C. Thomas and Dr. Alister MacKenzie predicted that the future would yield greater advancement in design. They felt that greater improvement in construction techniques and a better educated golfing fraternity would allow for unprecedented developments in the design of golf courses. They believed that golfers would embrace the rugged beauty of nature in the future designs. They predicted greater subtlety and naturalness. Have recent courses such as Sand Hills reversed the table in architecture back to basics. Does golf architecture require a revolution?
-
Ronan Branigan (Nice Irish name you have!);
In my opinion there will never be a revolution in all golf architecture to that. But I think a renaissance has been happening for almost ten years and it's building. But at the most optimistic it will only ever capture a slice of architecture, I think.
I do believe the ones who are doing it now, are in a way going back to the philosophies of Thomas and MacKenzie (as you said) and trying to pick up in some ways where they left off and may be even trying to experiment with what those guys hoped and dreamed about when architecture progressed in the future.
The oddity was the hiatus though--maybe almost sixty years. But I think the hiatus is over now but only for a slice of golf architecture, at most.
"Golf and its architecture is a great big game and there's room in it for everyone."
-
Just by asking the question, it in someway is a given. Kind of like the newest regional slang I've heard: "If you have to ask, you are". In response to that age old slow play causing question, "Who's away?".
I wish our resident litigator could expouse on the facts of whether or not there is a change in trend taking place by using GW's "top 100" list as evidence. It is apparent to me, anyway, that a close examination of said modern list will show a surge in the courses that are at least returning to the characteristic of the "classics". Places like the aforementioned Sand Hills and it's south eastern sister, Wild Horse, along with Pacific dunes and friars head and rustic canyon etc etc etc. Will and have shown this trend change to be self evident.
Now, what are you going to do if you happen to be one of the venues built in the last sixty years or as I will call it the period of unenlightenment? IMO, There's only one thing that will save you from being on the wrong side of the mountain and that is a complete and total embraceing of the "MAINTENANCE MELD(tm)"
-
I agree with TP, hopefully a small but growing slice. Don't think the people that rate for Golf Digest feel that way though :), just look at their best of 2002 lists. Maybe when the Golf Week modern list contains more of the works such as Pac Dunes, Sand Hills, Friar's Head, Rustic Canyon and on and on more will take notice. Also since people like Tom Doak are doing much of their work overseas it's time for a best Modern non US list, must think that this can't but help the cause.
-
I agree with Brad and tom Paul too and feel this is real progress. Notwithstanding even as we pass a so called 10 year mark, the average golfer has yet to be able to quantify or in most cases even acknowledge what we are talking about. I do hope as more and more courses that are part of the slice are built where comparison and choices may be made that the slice will grow and grow to maybe the point of revolution but probably not.
-
No.
Golf architecture is at a point of divergence. There are two distinctly different almost diametrically opposed branches of "What constitutes Good".
This is not a good thing.
I always go back to my nouveau-riche Colorado friend who is a member of THE Estancia as well as THE Preserve at Carmel (And CPGC no "THE"). After spending 3 days at Sand Hills he proclaimed it the most boring course he had ever played as all the holes looked the same. The same guy loves the $1M (Now $2M) flower budget at THE Vintage Club.
For every Kenny Bakst, there are these guys, too.
Which faction will win out? ???
-
redanman:
I was buying your last post in toto until you included Pat Mucci in it on the wrong side--or should I say the right side? Maybe it should be rightly on the wrong side or wrongly on the right side.
Oh well, I'm sure you get the picture--you've got your FACTS wrong!
The man is a modern age sympathizer in our midst, a spy and a undercover terrorist against all that's pure in classic architecture--he's recommended redesigning even NGLA--he defends the most egregious of modern age architects from our merciless bashing of them. He believes in "fairness" in architecture (even if that only appears to mean towards architects), he believes in "formulaics" in design, he argues with Tom Doak all the time and occasionally says mean things about Coore and Crenshaw!
Get your facts straight redanman or you'll be hung from the Treehouse by your toes!
-
redanman:
blah, blah, blah, etc
Noted and so modified. I am too big to survive longitudinal traction via the toes! :o
-
BillV/Redanman,
Just who is this "nouveau-riche Colorado friend"? Lemme know, and me and my cousins Vinny and Guido'll go over and teach him a thing r two aboud reality and golf club architecture! ;D ;D
All The Best,
-
Douggie:
As for the I.D., no can do.
I have tried to educate him, though. That's all friends can do!
-
Just kiddin BillyV. Hence the ;D ;D
All The Best,
-
Watch this name in the next ten years. Ronan is studying with me in Scotland doing the M.Sc. in GCA. He is a gifted writer, a damn good golfer and his father is an architect in Ireland. he loves architecture and I think he could go onto be one of the best...if he dares leave his beloved Ireland to work!!
Good post, mate.
No, I don't think it needs a revolution. Possibly, the only problem with courses like Sand Hill, Pacific Dunes and the like are that they are so bloody far away from the major public. If the courses had been built in say Florida then everybody who plays golf not just us archie mad people would be talking about them. How many normal golfers have heard of Sand Hills or Pacific Dunes?
Is the reason Kingsbarns has done so well in the rankings so quickly because it is a well designed course (which it is in it's own special way) or has good marketing and being in the golfing mecca helped it's public status.
Cheers
Brian.
-
Brian Phillips:
Interesting point. Most people haven't heard of Sand Hills or even Pacific Dunes.
But, I don't mind a journey to get to a treasure. All the better!
Ronan Branigan:
Not sure golf architecture needs a revolution. Not even sure what that is. But, here in the States we do need more fun courses that don't require an arm and leg to play. That's why you see people praise Rustic Canyon so much. By contrast, if you look at something like The Old Head (and leave the disappointing architecture aside), how many locals can afford to play it?
-
Ronan, perhaps what was meant by the old master's notions of technical advancement in construction techniques and capabilities to produce better designs that embraced rugged beauty of nature through greater subtlety to interface with naturalness - was not what had eventually developed in the over use of the advananced contruction capabilities. In that I mean, once new architects were able to avail themselves to the high capacity equipment, they took it in the wrong direction. They started moving massive amounts of earth and constructing waterfalls and unnatural features that didn't harmonize with the natrural surrounds, just because they could and they could be marketed to folks that were led to believe more is better, most is best. They used these advances to create isolated versions of their ideas of Shang-ri-la in home and garden countrified golf, rather than how Mac and Thomas and others thought the advantages of such equipment would be to build effeicintly and in harmony with nature.
I think the old masters came to marvelous properties that gave them the ability to route a number of good holes, but hit the wall in ability to cope with too severe of natural features in parts of the properties, thus not having enough room to design a complete course. Perhaps they thought of the new massive capacity equipment to deal with the isolated features that required heavy duty yet efficient exacavation to augment the other rugged beauty they found on certain sites that without better equipment couldn't be used. They probably walked away from plenty of good potential sites because they could only find room for 10-15 holes and needed the big guns to pound throught the rest, and had confidence they could use the big stuff to interface and blend in with rugged yet good golf features they were able to deal with.
So I think golf design will continue to stay a divergent proposition. There will be those that use modern equipment efficiently, yet minimally to do great things like Rustic Canyon, and perhaps Barona Creek, sticking to the core design principles of design for firm and fast maintenance giving rise to optional ground involvelment, and thereby efficiently creating affordable golf; and there will be the mass excavated, totally artificial high capacity designs that are trophy showcases for mansion districts and will continue to cost plenty and are done just because they can be done, not because they made any economic or aesthetic sense.
Just guessing however...
PS: If you two (Phillips and Branigan) are on the ground there at ST Andrews, why aren't you fellows giving us the straight skinny on what is happening with the RHB?
-
My wife asked my why and when did French men quit wearing elaborate costumes like seen in period movies...I was able to craft a satisfactory answer before she burnt my grilled cheese samdwich...but after almost reading some of this thread I would be interested in how high fashion of 18th century French fashion came to fall and if those reasons have any similarities to what may be the current fall away from high architecture.
-
Ah oui, Monsieur JakaB!
As per usual you make tres sense yet again. By asking about the fall of 18th century haute couture in France you make a perfect parallel to the over-use of machinery used to make golf courses.
First, you must know this: Je pense; donc je suis francais (I think; therefore I am French). As such, the malapropism associated with the overuse of extreme garb such as that propagated by Louis III, Louis IV, etc. is a direct result of such thinking. It took a long and patient uprising by the bourgeoisie to take all the fabric back.
You see, the long years of the commoners seeing the brightly colored and flowing dress was the cause of their attitudes toward the ruling classes. A typical Bordelaise, for instance, thought of the kings apparel: Vous me rendez malade! (You make me sick!) and: Je t'emmerde espece de porc a la manque! (Kiss my ass, you type of worthless pig!).
Following through to the 1950's and beyond in golf construction, it has taken a like amount of time for the bourgeoisie to determine that it is now time to take all of the diesel back. No more D-8's, no more Cat scrapers runnin amok like so many bellowing little green Citroen's. You see, when one is exposed to more than one needs, it sometimes takes time to realize that.
C'est vrai. (It's true).
-
-2.5:
Don't you mean Louis XIII, XIV et. al.?
Not to be insensitive, but did you miss the day Roman numerals were taught?
-
Ronan
I don't recall MacKenzie and Thomas exactly saying that, but if there was a modern revolution it was no doubt the designs of RTJ and company. That lasted a couple of decades and resulted in the divergance that redanman mentioned and which still in effect today.
I think the designs of Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes and others are throw backs to the old philosophy of letting nature dominate the design. The problem is that those courses are built on extraordinary sites. It is easier to understand why an architect should embrace natural features when they are abundant. It is more difficult for the modern designer to accept nature on a less than extraordinary site (or even a good site), he would rather try to create something great. The result are these over crafted designs with their typical modern grading. They might test the long hitter, but they are boring, lacking interest, unless one is looking to land a small aircraft.
(http://www.crystalgolfresort.com/images/webstore/cells/C1_C135_BOsquare.jpg
)
Ballyowen - a delicious tarmac
-
Tom MacW:
It appears Ronan Branigan is recognizing the "revolution" of the Modern Age (RTJ et al) away from the direction of the likes of MacKenzie who strongly believed in greater naturalism in more of the aspects of architecture. His question seems to be does architecture need another revolution that might take architecture back closer to some of MacKenzie/Thomas's hopes for more and greater naturalism in architecture. That certainly seems to be happening gradually but not sure if it would be termed a revolution.
The question probably gets down to what would the likes of MacKenzie/Thomas et al have done with the facility of greater and more effecient machinery (that they could certainly see coming)? They probably would have used it (Doak surmises in his book that MacKenzie would have) but the more interesting issue is, would they have used it differently somehow to create more and greater naturalism in architecture than the Modern Age architects did and still do?
To me the "somehow" is the key question. It's quite clear to me that MacKenzie was extremely interested, probably more than anyone before him, in blending whatever it was he made into the look and feel, almost the "lines", if you will, of the overall natural sites he worked with.
A good hole on that particular theme, used by example by Doak in his book, might be Royal Adelaide's #14 right side where Alister moved an unusual amount of earth to create hollows (into which to place bunkering into a portion of them). But the key is very few could ever recognize that MacKenzie created those hollows as they look so natural in relation to the remainder of the course and site that was natural.
-
Personally, I'm beginning to feel the way the older architects seemed to create architecture that appeared more natural and naturally melding with their sites was very much a two step process.
The actual construction of man-mde architecture, and attempting to create site natural "lines" in their architectural construction was the first step but the clever and studied use of grasses and such to create a more natural and rugged look (particularly off the immediate playing surfaces) was the very necessary second and final step to them.
Often, in the Modern Age of architecture, the second step of natural and rugged grassing (particularly off the immediate playing areas) doesn't exist at all, or extremely minimally. And this too often gives entire sites (and courses) and overly immaculate (and man manicured) look and feel that's anything but natural looking or melding into a natural site which is generally random and slightly unkempt looking!
Doak, in his book on MacKenzie, gives one of the more interesting sideline analogies into this particular area I've ever seen in a golf architectural book.
It's clear that MacKenzie's thoughts and experimentations with natural camouflage was unique and potentially extremely effective, if used properly, in the era of military warfare in which he lived and participated.
MacKenzie's ideas on how to create camouflage in warfare not only required a certain process of construction (trenches and such) but also that the soldiers themselves build and create it and often necessarily very quickly!
It never ceased to annoy MacKenzie, apparently, that military leaders, on his side, could never seem to desist from forcing their soldiers to act and think extremely neat and look neat in almost everything they did, which very unfortunately for them included constructing trenches and such that exhibited man manufactured looking straight and squarish lines that was definitely recognizable as anything but blending and melding into the natural terrain! And as such it was completely recognizable by the enemy! This is the exact opposite of the methods and mentality that the Boers exhibited and so successfully in trenching and warfare!
To Mackenzie, it was absolutely necessary that the soldier, in both look and also in his trench constructing mentality, when creating camouflage, should think and act anything but NEAT! He should think, act and look just the opposite in fact--random and unkempt, just as nature was!!
It was never lost on MacKenzie, apparently, that no military leadership, on his side, he was aware of, could seem to make that all important connection as it related to effective camouflage!
He'd probably feel the same about some of the so-called "Modern Age" golf architecture today if he could see it. The specific "first step" construction of the architecture, in some cases today, may be passable to him but he'd also probably ask, (petulantly as usual), why the need for all this man-manicured immaculatness everywhere if you're trying to make a golf course look natural and blend and meld into the basic look of all that nature is?
-
And isn't it interesting that today in golf architecture those companies that appear to be spending so much more time on that "second step" of architecture, that final step of random handworking and natural and rugged (unkempt) grassing, with their "chunking" methods and such of bunker contruction, and their use of rugged fescues and such in those areas that are not immediately in play are the ones whose architecture seems to be most respected on here as a return to some of the ideas of the best of the past "Golden Age" thinking?
Certainly, again, the likes of Doak, Hanse/Kittleman, Coore & Crenshaw, DeVries, Echenrode and a few others seem to be the ones who are far ahead of the curve of "Modern" architecture in when, where and how, and how close to blend that rugged natural look into all their architecture is!
They're the ones who are the "renaissance" in my opinion, and I think a guy like MacKenzie, if he could come back and see it, would certainly approve!
-
Mr. Branigan et alia
At about the time that Thomas and Mackenzie were in their formative years (i.e. the turn of the previous centtury) the head of the US Patent Office famously said something to the effect of: "We should close ourselves down. There is nothing to invent anymore." He was wrong.
The original "Renaissance" was essentially a movement which tried to get European art back onto the track from which it had fallen off 10-15 centuries or so previously. Michaelangleo didn't really progress the art form from what it had been in Praxiteles' day, he just brought it back to that level.
Likewise, the "Renaissance" that we talk about in GCA is really doing nothing much more than bringing us back kicking and screaming to those days 100 years or so ago when people like MacKenzie and Thomas could practice their "art" in affluent peace.
While Pacific Dunes and Applebrook and Kingsbarns and Friars Head and Stevinson Ranch (and others I have not yet seen) are very fine golfing venues, there is really nothing particularly revolutionary about any of them. In fact, they are counter-revolutionary, if anything, trying to bring the "art" back away from the "Fazists" to where it was 100 years ago.
If there were to be a real GCA revolution in the future it might have some of the following characteristics:
1. Diversity. 30 yard and 900 yard "holes." 3 and 8 and 11 and 14 and 23 and 30 hole "courses." A variety of balls and implements--a very strictly defined set for those who play competitively and a "let a thousand flowers bloom" set for those who are just out there to whack the ball around and have some fun.
2. Creativity. More Muirhead than Muirfield. Angles and artificiality as well as curves and naturalness.
3. Accessibility. More Wild Horse than Sand Hills. More Omaha than Mullen or Gothenburg.
4. Maintainability. Courses that can largely maintain themselves, because of their design.
5. Mutability. Courses that are designed with the expressed intent and understanding of their changing over time.
6. Affordability.
And, Santa, I have been a very good little boy over 2002, so please leave at least one of these in my Christmas Stocking.
Yours Truly
ForkaB
-
Dear ForkaB
Maybe you are the man to carry the torch forward!
-
ForkaB:
The reasons you seem to say that what could be considered the architecture of Sand Hills, Pac Dunes, Stevinson Ranch, Rustic Canyon et al as not 'revolutionary' are the same reasons I do, it seems.
For those reasons, particularly since what we seem to be seeing from that architecture as a return to a former time (I would definitely say, though, that it began after WW1 and not so much at the turn of the 20th century), I think could more accurately be termed a "renaissance' (rebirth, revival etc) of naturalism in golf architecture.
But when we look at this entire evolution of golf architecture in the 20th century we should probably not forget the effect of the "hiatus" (the depression and WW2) and the extent of that effect on the continuity of both thought and practice in golf architecture, particularly in the specific area of naturalism.
The "hiatus" alone, in my opinion, could be one of the most important aspects of all of this even into and almost creating the so-called "revolution" in architecture that the "Modern Age" might be considered to be.
Basically, the "hiatus" created a situation where "the twain failed to meet", I believe. And the reasons why are interesting when one considers the architects of that transitional time.
I also feel that much of what preceded the post WW1 era in architecture (with certain notable exceptions) was as different from the best of the 1920s era regarding naturalism as the 1920s era was to the "Modern Age" (post WW2) regarding naturalism. And the reasons why are doubly fascinating, particularly when only considering the very specific area of "naturalism" in architecture!
-
TePaul- I like to think I try to think about things in a 360 degree style seeing more than just a couple of perspectives. Above you ask "why" did the manicured look come into favor the way frilly dress did in 18th century france. I have recently considered that the maintenance practices are the prime suspect. Now I'm not bashing I am looking at justifications for cause and effect. So, is the ease with which one can whip by with a mower, ridden by some hired manuel labor, the bottomline justification for the sterile esthetics? Juxtaposed to the high personal maintenance of the frillies in france,oui oui, no no?
-
TE
If it began after WWI -- how do you differentiate the pre-WWI work of Park, Colt, Fowler, MacKenzie, Simpson, Hutchinson, Abercromby, Leeds, JD Dunn, Travis, and Macdonald from their post-WWI work? What occured during WWI in your opinion that transformed their work from not naturalistic to naturalistic?
-
The need to create landing strips pronto! They built better dozers just like they built better tanks. Once the SeaBees returned from building the airfields, they only had the interstate to build and RTJ Sr to work for. ;D
-
ForkaB, might you also add one more to your brilliant list...
7. Variability -- courses that are created for games other than those we have come to rely on; e.g., traditional stroke play or match play. This may prove that golf can be more, less or off-center from the 3-4 hour trek it has evolved to now.
?
Your thoughts are right on.
-
Mr. Richardson
"Versatil" is a very intriguing "ity". What games are you thinking of? Cross country golfing treks from 1-18 without stopping at any green along the way? Skills challenges along the way (i.e. hit 3 shots to drop shot short holes and count the cumulative distance away)? Perhaps some lawn tennis or badminton to while the time away whilst waiting for greens to be cleared? Even my warped mind boggles.
-
Tom MacW:
In my last post I shouldn’t have used the word “began” referring to naturalism post WW1. That’s certainly not true as naturalism in man-made architecture definitely was applied far before that, and that’s not what I meant to say about MacKenzie et al. I believe, however, as I’ve mentioned on other threads, that his ideas on camouflage particularly, amongst other things, took the application of naturalism in the man-made and constructed areas of architecture to more comprehensive and sophisticated levels than ever before.
In my opinion, the vast difference in style and look of “naturalism” in the features and overall architecture between the likes of MacKenzie, Colt, Fowler, Alison, Abercrombie et al and MacDonald/Raynor, Banks, Strong et al is fairly vast and noticeable. I do think, though, MacKenzie took it to the most advanced level.
That doesn’t mean for a minute that I’m criticizing the latter group for their architecture or the play of it just that it has a far more engineered and man-made look to portions of it. The reasons for that are many and varied, in my opinion, and most interesting.
We had these discussions before on threads on NGLA and your ideas about a “dichotomy” (I think was the word—or was it conundrum or riddle?) about the engineering of NGLA and MacD/Raynor.
I think the engineered look and style of portions of the architecture of MacD/Raynor is fascinating, particularly juxtaposed to the naturalness of their sites but I sure don’t think it melds into and mimics the look of nature remotely to the extent MacKenzie’s architecture does.
You might insist that there’re straight lines in nature very much conforming to those that much of MacD/Raynor’s architecture exhibits, and I’m sure somewhere there probably are but I sure don’t think those lines match or mimic the natural lines of their sites remotely as well as MacKenzie’s architectural lines match the natural lines of his sites.
You asked what differences I think there was in the pre and post WW1 architecture of a number of architects and those can be discussed later but I think there was very little difference in the pre and post WW1 architecture of MacD/Raynor but Mackenzie’s seemed to continue to evolve ever closer to good imitation in almost all ways to the look of the natural lines and aspects of his sites. Some of MacKenzie’s bunkering, including Cypress, was “stylized”, in my opinion, but still more of a good imitation of the look of his sites than MacD/Raynor’s .
-
:D
Revolution is too much overused. Unless there's major blood and guts spilled of the leaders, and some innocents needlessly, let's not consider it necessary.
Some nice simple evolution is all that's needed.
-
Ronan,
Hunter, Thomas and MacKenzie all made the suggestion that courses in the future would eclipse their work or at least, take the art to another level. Meanwhile Max Behr clearly felt things were already lost beyond hope and wrote accordingly. I bet they all had some interesting discussions on this subject...you know those transplanted Californians!
I think Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes embody what they were hoping for in the closest sense, sporting grounds with created features carefully disguised and artfully built to give the golf a feel of being played in ultra natural settings, ala hunting or fishing (minus the blood and guts). Behr obsessed about this subject in his argument that golf must go back to being a sport (ala hunting) of limited rules, with a sense of mystery, and not become a game with boundaries (ala tennis or football) and outside agencies dictated the outcome of the golf. Basically, embody the qualities of old style links courses that exude the feeling of minimal interference from man.
I sense they also believed that courses could take on playing characteristics/aesthetics of a Sand Hills or the Old Course, even on sites that weren't so special, but where construction was creatively approached. Behr tried to import dunes to Studio City (Lakeside), while some early photos of Rancho Santa Fe show massively wide undulating fairways with native scrub areas left intact, to give that feeling of playing somewhere that they just decided to mow down the grass, but which over time revealed idiosyncracies and rewards for local knowledge and intelligence. Native golf.
Perhaps the Sheep Ranch at Bandon Dunes will be the closest thing yet to what they had in mind.
Geoff
-
Ronan,
You don't know me and it's been awhile since I've had any time to post here. I get to play quite a few different courses each year and for every one that I play that embodies that "greater subtlety and naturalness" you talk about, there are at least ten or more that don't. I think the design business has a long way to go if it were to ever get to the "revolution" stage.
On the positive side, however, I believe we will continue to see more of those "rugged beauty of nature designs" that you refer to, but they will be few and far between and you'll have to have the means and connections to travel and seek them out. The number of golfers that know of and have played Sand Hills for example, I'm sure is less than one tenth of one percent! How influencial can a course like that be? I hope it is but I guess only time will tell. I'd even be willing to bet that of all of us golf architecture nuts that participate on this site, only a small percentage have played there.
I recall the comment I received while visiting Talking Stick when I asked why their courses were kept so green and lush. They said simply, "because that is what the public wants".
It's going to be a long time coming before golfers here are willing to fork out $150 and play on some firm and fast less then perfect browned out layout even though most of us know that both courses would look and play much better if kept that way. Sad but true!
Mark
-
TE
I was always under the impression that MacKenzie developed his ideas on camouflage during the Boer War (1899-1901) and prior to embarking on his golf design career (around 1906). I'd say his work at Alwoodley and Moortown was stylized in similar vain to his latter designs.
I believe Strong is underappreciated in his use of very bold naturalistic features. I realy admire his creativity and think he may have been more influencial than he is given credit. I certainly would not put his design style in the same group as Raynor or Banks. Alison on the other hand leaned more toward the Macdonald/Raynor/Langford school, especially in the US. From what I've found I'd put Strong in the same class as a number of architects whose work was naturally sympathetic - Colt, MacKenzie, Thomas, Thompson, Simpson and Morrison.
Didn't Macdonald focus his latter efforts at NGLA into trying to make the features appear more natural? Do you think he succeeded?
-
Can't think of any Mac/Raynor courses that look natural or "blend in" to their site. Think about what their styles and what they would have done on sites like Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes? I love Fishers Island for example, but C&C and/or Doak would have designed something completely different and "more natural" if given that property.
We love Mac/Raynor courses more for their strategic interest than for their "natural" asthetics!
Mark
-
Tom MacW:
Maybe Herbert Strong and his style doesn't belong in that category with MacD/Raynor and Banks. I don't know much about Strong.
And I don't know if MacDonald spent time in the later years trying to make NGLA appear more natural to the site in it's man-made architecture--I've never heard that and I really can't imagine why he would want to do that.
All I've ever heard about MacDonald in that vein is he took advice from some about making the front approach slope of #7 less severe--but probably more for purposes of play than look.
I can't imagine though why MacDonald would try to blend the engineered look of the architecture of NGLA more naturally into the site of NGLA. I can't imagine why that sort of thing would concern him. The golf course played extremely well and it was exactly what he meant to achieve, in my opinion.
Much of the architecture he studied in Europe to prepare to build NGLA probably had portions of it that were anything but melded naturally into their sites. MacD's #7 green, as fascinating as it is, looks anything but naturally melded into the landscape in which it sits as great and interesting as it is to play. MacDonald may have been as interested in the rudimentary creations of early European architecture as apparently Pete Dye was seven or so decades later. Things such as early bunker supporting "sleepers" apparently fascinated him. "Sleepers" are anything but site natural looking! All they really are is rudimentary bunker supports.
It really doesn't matter, as different as it might be from the style and look of the architecture of a MacKenzie and the others that conform more to that style. Difference is often the essence of architecture and the fact that MacD and then Raynor continued on with their engineered but highly popular style is only another indication of the diversity in architecture.
Blending and mimicing nature was important to most of them but clearly far more important to some than to others.
-
Redanman asks "Which faction will win out?" Why does there have to be a winner and a loser? What's wrong with having courses like Sand Hills as well as courses that spend $2 million on flowers like your friend's (I'll bet ANGC spends more than that per year planting and maintaining theirs, so don't knock it) I don't have a problem with anything people want to try, from the weirdest stuff Muirhead did to Trump putting waterfalls on holes or some goofball who wants to make a full sized golf course like a putt-putt course complete with loop de loops and windmills.
Variety is the spice of life. The only thing we have to worry about is making sure they don't do anything goofy to existing treasures, waste prime land near existing treasures (no windmill holes with the city limits of St. Andrews, please) and that the USGA and R&A never host their championships on anything goofy. That's all we should care about, for our own personal definitions of goofy. But if instead of Kingsbarns they'd thrown up some course that looked like the one in that Caddyshack sequel (if you haven't see that one, you haven't missed anything, I promise!) what difference would it make to any of us, other than having one less option of where to play when in the area? Besides, that 9th green at Kingsbarns treads beyond the line of goofy for me anyway, so its all a matter of degree...
-
TE
In 'Scotlands Gift' (1928), after discussing how he had altered many of the holes through the years, Macdonald wrote that all he was concentrating on now was making the hazards as natural as possible.
-
Is the current change social or artistic...and in other periods of social change where did the intellectuals stand...it seems clear to me that the people who perceive naturalness and minimalism as great to be the intellectuals pitted against the ignorant big money of the F's and T's of the world...can an intellectual ever be a protectionist or do they always require change to prove they are smarter than the status quo...does history ever recognize the faction on the wrong side of revolution as part of the intellectual class...I think its interesting that what was simply an artistic trend in GCA is being molded into social change with first access to the masses through fair pricing and now an attempt to destroy private club status through the inclusion of people who choose to be identified by the genitalia they may or may not have...its now the ignorant rich who refuse to change against the pure intellectual who knows who has the big guns and where the blade must fall....a simple choice for those who study the history of past revolutions that was been written by the soft hands of observers comfortably behind the protected walls of the winning faction.
-
Mr. JakaB
Please do not get apoplectic. The revolution is not scheduled until long after your hands too get soft and can no longer do magic with the devil incarnate Ely's evil implements, or even an asphalt spreader, and you will be begging for members of the opposite genitalia to be members of your clubs because the guys you got old playing with are just that, old, and you will be lookingfor a little bit of strange. Please enlighten us with your version of history at that time.
Your pajo
-
Barney:
Keep all these personas coming--they're terrific! I particularly enjoyed the Robespierre-like social revolution post by JakaB above!
Tom MacW:
When MacDonald mentioned; "The only thing I do now is endeavor to make the hazards as natural as possible", who knows whether he was speaking about the architecture of his bunkers, the grassing of them, or both?
If you ask me there's not all that much that looks unnatural or "engineered" about NGLA's bunkers. Perhaps the rear bunker on #7 but technically that one is supposed to mimic the road on #17 TOC.
The areas of NGLA that look more manufacutered or engineered to me are a few of the greens such as #7, #8, #11, the tee area of #9, the berm behind #3 and very much the right side of that green.
But I would also say that NGLA never seemed anywhere near as "engineered" looking to me as some of Raynor's work, particularly parts of a course like Fox Chapel!
-
Boy, I may not be the dumbest man on GCA, but after reading what JakaB and Fork? wrote I know I'm certainly not the smartest. That's just about the finest piece of 'telling it like it is' that I've read here to date. Bravo Fellas,
Ran...that's it. Shut down the site!!!!!!!
-
MDugger:
You may not be the smartest on this site but I'm sure you certainly aren't the dumbest--I probably am--so would you mind telling me what that, "That's just about the finest piece of 'tell it like it is' that I've read here to date", actually means?
-
My comment is to be taken with a grain of salt-tongue in cheek. I'd explain what I mean but it would be in the same language those two spoke in. You know what I mean, ramble on with big words and words that you made up and in the end everyone is confused and so you won!!
I can understand making a distinction between an artistic revolution and a social one, but what jakab said about where the intellects stand and so on lost me. Sounds like Shakespeare, and I slept through that in college. What this means to golf course architecture...I'm not sure. Just trying to be funny. If I know you, TEPAul, you are not unfamiliar with witticisms. GCA's most witty Doyen.
-
A revolution suggests a complete change in thinking. I suppose we can change back to a distant time -- but would that constitute a revolution or just another retro direction?
-
On a relevant note...Revolution or no revolution, that is the question. It seems sort of a romantic notion to me to get all huffed up about this. Was there a digression in golf course architecture after the golden era? Hard to say. I'd like to think that there is a lot to be said for the great courses of the golden era being the way they are as a result of the fact that man could not manipulate the landscape to the degree we do today.
There is a lot to be said for those who believe that there is some virtue in letting the land dictate the golf course. But does this mean that all of those architects that build courses like Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes are revolutionary?
Does this a revolution make?
Some people simply have poor taste. Furthermore, some have the poor judgement of telling others that they have poor taste. I personally fall into the later category.
For my money it comes down to exposure. And even then it is all subjective. Only when the masses can play the truly wonderful and special places of golf will the 'others' realize how shitty their local tracts really are. If we can define 'good' and 'bad' then we can make a case for change. That would be, of course, if we lived in a rational world.
-
Tom MacWood:
Maybe you can help me out -- you posted a picture of Ballyowen -- the course you described as a "delicious tarmac."
Have you ever played the course or are you just basing the assessment of the course from a photo?
I also appreciate the courses you mentioned (i.e. Sand Hills, Pac Dunes, etc, etc.).
Help me to better understand how you came to the conclusion on Ballyowen. I've played the course countless times and believe it to be one of Roger Rulewich's finest designs. Thanks!
-
Matt,
I agree with you on Ballyowen and was going to say something as well. It's by no means perfect but it's a decent golf course, a 5+ on the Doak scale. For many golfers, this will be one of the better courses they will have easy access to.
Mark
-
Matt
You appreciate courses like Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes? Fantastic! I see no need for you to defend your tastes. And what does your appreciation of those courses have to do with the theme of this thread? :-/
I have not played Ballyowen and frankly don't have a burning desire to do so. I did however love the photo. It was a perfect illustration of the differences in design practices, a wonderful visual example of the over shaped hyper graded courses that are popular now a days. :o
I can imagine experiencing engine problems in my crop-duster, wondering where the hell I'm going to take her down and then low and behold seeing that fairway at Ballyowen. Praise Hadji! :)
-
Are you saying the fairways at Ballyowen are named "22-Right", etc.? Hardly. I've not seen it in person, but from what I can tell it is quite the interesting and intriguing course. The fact that we are discussing it makes this so. You cannot judge a course by one photo. Even three. I do believe you can judge a course by five photos. I will ask the Golf Gods next week when I see them about some bunkers up in Canada. Until then.
-
Re: Ballyowen
At first I was inclined to agree with both Matt and Mark as I think Ballyowen is a very good course, as well. It certainly has a good deal of strategic interest and many solid, varied par fours and some wild, roller-coaster par fives that can provide a wide range of scoring. A few holes have interesting gambling options, and there are even holes with center bunkering features that are not only interesting, but almost retro Golden Age design.
On the Doak Scale, it's probably a 6, and is certainly in the Top 3 public venues in NJ, which is hardly the wasteland of public golf that many believe.
I was going to say all of that and agree that Tom MacWood probably is being unfair in his somewhat humorous contention that it would make a good landing strip for a small plane.
Then, I started thinking about the site.
The fact is, I can't imagine anyone asking for a better piece of inland property on which to design a course. It's wildly rolling, while not being severe like some of its northern NJ counterparts (i.e. Crystal Springs, Wild Turkey) and has little in the way of protected wetlands or dense forests. I'm sure there was quite a bit of "rock" to deal with under the surface, but not so much that huge amounts of engineering had to take place. Water sources may have been an issue, which might explain the large pond/lakes that were created on a few holes, but one wonders if that couldn't have been handled in a different manner on a course trying to emulate the auld sod.
Still, in fairness, one has to wonder what might have been created on such a site. The fact that a very good golf course was created there is a positive, no doubt. I just wonder if something close to a Great course might have been feasible from an architect who was a bit more willing to work with the land and who was more willing to let the course be as wildly unpredictable and naturally beautiful as the site itself.
-
This talk of landing strips has me wishing to come clean about a project in texas that we are consulting on -- the course was actually built in 1966 ON TOP of an old airfield -- and all they did was break up the tarmac and add a few feet of soil. When they dig they often reach the tarmac layer. Sorry for the interruption, it was just on my mind.
-
Forrest:
There's probably room in the entire universe of golf architecture for the true "landing strip" course and architecure as well. I just hope there isn't all that much room for it! I admire you for going "site natural", though.
But after all, how many courses can there be built on old landing strips?
You don't have to answer that if you don't want to, since I hear United Airlines is thinking of filing for bankruptcy!
-
Forrest
Did I judge the merits of the golf course? I was judging a single photo for its purpose in making a point about a group of modern designs - it was useful in illustrating my point. If I was judging the merits of anything via a photo, I was judging that particular fairway's merits an airstrip - I think it would make a superb one. ;)
I'd being lying if I did not make judgements about golf courses through a photograph (or photographs), isn't that, along with our past experiences, an important method in computing what appeals to us? Afterall we are human beings not slugs. For example when you see a photo of Banff or Cypress Point, don't you make an immediate judgement. And does't that judgement effect if you desire to journey to that particualr destination? I see on you web site you have numerous photos of your work, don't you want people to draw a certain conclusion based on those photos? I know I did.
-
Tom -- Good point. I'm taking the photos off my website. At least any that do not total five for any given hole. Please allow four years for this as that's how long it took to get the site up and running.
-
There is a tendency here on GCA for people to wax on about the need for more Sand Hills and Pac Dunes, etc, etc. Gentlemen -- that's a wonderful dream, but that's like asking that every singer possesses the magical qualities of Frank Sinatra in his heyday.
Mike, you raise some good points about Ballyowen. It is clearly not an Irish links although the club attempts to replicate the "feel" of one it's mroe cosmetic than actual.
I still do believe Roger Rulewich did a first rate effort. Could others have done better? It's possible. It's also possible that others could have fared less so. All in all, Ballyowen is among the 3-4 finest public courses in the Garden State even if it does have such "delicious tarmac(s)." ;D
Tom MacWood:
I only responded when you posted the picture you did. I continually marvel at your "gift" in gleaning from just one photo the very character of an entire course and lumping it into a some broader category in proving some esoteric point. Amazing stuff indeed. You do have such a gift. ;)
Tom -- there's no context just take one item and FLASH some "insightful" point.
-
I am certainly the most unashamedly vocal basher of Roger Rulewich probably on this earth for his supposed "restoration" work, however, Ballyowen is a fine golf course.
The comments of my friends above are pretty much spot on with mine. I don't like the par 3's at Ballyowen as too many are the usual repetitive RTJ/Rulewich long carry over water.
From inside the playing area, the look of Ballyowen is not as artificial as is apparent from other modern architects. Its also been pretty firm with a good amount of roll along the undulating property when I have played there. Of course all this can't really be seen from a single photograph. Actually, a property like Winged Foot is much flatter and conducive to landing a small aircraft (especially after tree removal) :). I welcome Ballyowen as a fine addition to the public golf courses within the Met area. I wish prices were lower but they seem to have a steady flow of business.
-
Matt
Thanks for the kind words. Wouldn't it be great if we could glean the quality of a course so easily, just think about all the mediocre courses you could have avoided. Don't you think that picture does an excellent job of illustrating that modern school of design that produces machine-like regularity in fairway grading; with features that have very little relationship to their natural environment?
I think you may have missed Ronan's original point, I don't think anyone is "waxing" about the need for more Sand Hills per say, but a return to golf courses that don't obliterate interesting natural features.
-
Dave Schmidt:
In terms of who can bring real change I would put my money on those that believe in the mustard seed, those that live in obscurity, and those that walk through the woods at places like Walden Pond. If these are intellectuals then I think you are looking in the right spot.
-
Guys, thanks for all the food for thought. I am currently studying for a masters in GCA in Scotland. I have read many books on the subject but after experiencing the wealth of knowledge that the contributors to this site have I need to spend more hours in the library. I'm just about to post another topic which may yield some interesting replies. Try not to be too bias in your replies
-
Tom MacWood:
Just to fill you in a little secret -- I try to do my homework before leaving the house in playing ANY golf course. ;)
Second, Ballyowen was a diffciult site to work with as former quarry and I think Rulewich did a solid effort. I do, however, agree with Geoff regarding the par-3's because they lend themselves to a certain degree of predictability in terms of their lack of overall diversity.
Look, no one is holding up Ballyowen as the second coming of Ballybunion here in the States. It's desire to mimick an "Irish" links is more marketing / branding hype than course reality.
However, there is enough bends and twists in the fairways among a number of holes at Ballyowen that don't translate itself into a simple and broad brush "delicious tarmac." I'm sorry I don't have any pictures to show you, but if you should ever play the course I believe you will find a modern upscale daily fee layout that keeps your interest and leaves you wanting to return and try again. In my book -- any course that gives you the feeling of "wanting to come back" can't be that bad.
On your last point -- if you actually ever take a visit to Ballyowen you'll find that the natural features of the land have been woven into play on a number of holes and have not been "obliterate(d)." (i.e. 2nd, 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 14th, 15th and 18th holes).
-
in the quest for firm and fast, environmentalists could oddly enough be useful allies for GCA purists. the push for greater conservation of water might lead directly to more brown instead of green fairways. that and water pricing premiums for golf courses could do what trying to educate golfers can't do.
besides if you take global warming as proven, the various climate predictions base on a warming scenario posit drier than average conditions for much of the continental u.s. so in 100 years, golfers will know nothing but firm and fast.
There will not be a grass-roots, populist uprising for "firm and fast" without it. It is clear that the public wants waterfalls, flowers and forced carries. How to affect change without education? I honestly don't know.
-
Matt
There is no need to defend your homework, I was just empathizing with your predicament. And I’ll take your word for it (as well as those of Mike and Geoffrey) on Ballyowen. I have no desire to get into a discussion on the course’s merits or lack of merits. I liked the photo - it was useful in illustrating my point. I could have just as easily chosen another course, but that picture was handy. In hindsight, I probably shouldn’t have named the course, very few could have identified it, unfortunately it has sent the discussion off on a wild tangent.
Wax on!
-
One of the top public courses in NJ is described as a "a delicious tarmac". Either the person making this statement is clueless ??? or we can end this thread now by answering Ronan's initial question with a empathic NO!
Mark
-
Mark
Shake yourself - for the fourth time I described that fairway as a 'delicious tarmac'. I guess you can place me in your 99.8% of the general public that is clueless. I have feeling I'm in good company knowing who is the .2%. :)
I give your last post a 3.5 and your first post a 4+.
-
Tom,
You need to get away from the computer and play a few more golf courses. They look a lot different up close and personal ;)
-
Mark
That seems to be a common refrain for those who have difficulty expressing themselves and their ideas. I'll take it under advisement.
To be honest I'm very comfortable with the ballance I've reached with 'field work', research and theoretical study. I'm sure we all can be improved in some way, but the search for knowledge in all areas is never ending.
I've put my clubs in the closet for the winter, a sabatical is always healthy. At least for me.
-
Tom,
Having the time to sit at a computer and "express" one's self is not easy for most of us. While many people are here posting, some of us are out playing and studying the golf courses everyone on this site talks about. It would also help if I could type faster than 10 words a minute :)
-
Yes, I've read and enjoyed your studies.....4+.....6.....5.5.....5.....7.....fascinating.
-
I couldn't agree with Tom MacWood more. There're all kinds of ways of analyzing golf architecture and the great thing about Golfclubatlas is there are a number of people who are very good at it in a number of different ways!
Certainly, those who advocate the necessity of playing golf courses can't be that wrong about the efficacy of it but they too should certainly realize that there're also other ways of analyzing architecture, and very much in depth! They may not know how to do it, other than playing the course, but they shouldn't imply that others don't or can't.
I would always advocate playing any golf course that one might be interested in to understand in detail, because certainly golf courses are there to be played! But there're many other ways of going about it either before or after that.
These people on here who constantly imply that playing a golf course, and rating it, if that's what they're doing, is the ONLY way to understand and analyze golf architecture are just flat wrong, in my book. And I think that's a sort of narrow minded approach too. It may be the only way they can do it or know how to do it but that's just them.
For me, after playing a course there are other ways that are more benefical to understanding the architecture of a course, particularly in real detail, than just continuing to play it. Walking with people who are playing it works really well for me and after that just studying it carefully and slowly is even more edifying. Carrying a putter and a few balls around with you is unbelievably instructive!
For me anyway, sometimes actually playing a course and certainly playing it in competition can be very limiting to really analyzing the architecture of a course.
So to each his own--some do it better one way, others do it better in other ways.
And I also couldn't agree more with Tom MacWood about these numbers--3.5, a strong 6, 8.5, whatever! What kind of in-depth architectural analysis is that? It's just a damn number--big deal!
-
Tom Paul,
I have Never implied the only way to evaluate and/or study a golf course is by playing it. However, I do believe that to truly understand a golf course and comment strongly with some degree of credibility about it, you must at least have seen it in person. Your comment might still be worthless, but at least you've been there.
Tom MacWood's comment about Ballyowen is a perfect example. He has never been there or played the course yet he writes it off as another wasted opportunity. Too many times that happens here and all that does is turn people off.
My comments may be perceived as useless to some or too brief at times to add much value, and I appologize for that. I wish I had more time and could type faster to fully "express" myself. You get what you get from me but at least people know when I make a strong comment about a course, I have seen or played it. And furthermore, anyone who knows me or has played a round of golf with me, knows where my focus is when I make my assessments.
No question proper balance is important between actually seeing/playing courses and studying about architecture in books, etc. I have a vast collection golf architecture books and didn't buy them to collect dust. The latest book I'm just finishing up is titled, Best Golf Course Management Practices by L.B. McCarty. Parts of it are more complicated then some of my engineering texts I studied in college but I believe this kind of information will help me better assess what I'm looking at when I study a golf course. How many people take the time to read stuff like this? Far less than my 99% rule ;)
As you say there is no right or wrong way to study golf architecture. But there is No substitute for actual seeing and playing the golf courses you are studying. Until you've seen a Sand Hills or a Crystal Downs for example, you have no idea how good those courses really are. You can not for example appreciate links golf until you have actually experienced it, no matter how much you read about it in a book.
Tom Doak didn't travel to see what he's seen just for the fun of it. He knew if he was going to design the best, he better have seen and studied the best in person. It's no different than the architect who "designs in the field" vs. the guy who sits at his desk and draws up his golf holes on a CAD system while he looks at pictures of what he likes and dislikes.
Again, I'm sorry for not having the time to expand on my comments. But at least when I post my "Ballyowen is a 5+ comment" you know I've spent at least four or five hours on the property making such an assessment.
Mark
-
Mark -- I agree with much of your comments. However, you say "...there is no substitute for actual seeing and playing the golf courses you are studying." Is this really true? Or, do you mean: "...the best way to study a golf course is by actually seeing and playing it."
I have never seen or played most of the courses in the world, yet I study as many as I can. I try to learn from each. There are even courses which do not exist any longer, or those which have chnaged so significantly that studying what you can see or play would only teach us, well, what is there. Isn't a huge part of our studying about what was intended, what was original, and what nature and the hand of mankind might inflict in the future? Many of these you cannot see or play, yet they account for far greater percentage of any golf course that the present -- a snippit of time.
I guess I disagree with your notion in this particular point.
-
Mark;
I wasn't referring to you and I sure never said it's a good idea to try to analyze architecture in detail without ever having even seen a course in person.
I think an awful lot can be seen by people who are experienced with it from historic aerials and historic onground photos if you're interested in the history of courses but it sure is important to have seen the course first, in my opinion.
-
Aerials are a very useful tool for studying older courses and such but of course the topographic element of the course is almost completely lost to the student or analyzer--and that definitely loses a lot. Matching aerials with comprehensive on-ground photos fills that in some though, although that too takes some imagination which never can be anywhere near as exact as going there.
-
It is amazing to me the digressions and tangents that go on here sometimes. Who in their right mind is possibly going to argue that there IS a substitute for visiting a course in person? And, like TEPaul just said, who in their right mind thinks that unless you actually visit a course you don't know shit about it? To me it comes across as arrogance. I've been there and you haven't-thus I am right and you are wrong. As our world moves closer and closer to the hellish technological nightmare that has been depicted in books and cinema over the past twenty years, the day is not far off when we will VIRTUALLY set foot on all the golf courses we discuss here. What will the argument be then??
-
I believe I'm in my right mind. And I already have argued this point. There IS a substitute and we do it all the time. That's my point. There are two phrases that are suspect (among others): "Let me be honest with you..." and "Who in their right mind..." While I do not detest either, I have learned to appreciate their meaning.
-
mdugger:
For what it's worth -- there's a difference between a secondary experience (observations by aerial photos, reading about a particular place) and a primary one (actually being there). I place a greater weight on primary observations, but that doesn't mean that all primary observations are more accurate and meaningful.
-
MDugger:
Please don't be too fearful of that day when we can all experience and analyze golf architecture VIRTUALLY! As we speak, Dan King is working very hard on it and he may have it for us any day now. I'm almost completely confident that even Matt Ward wouldn't be more than .1 of a point off in rating a golf course VIRTUALLY!
And when Dan nails VIRTUALITY, his strong recommendation is the entire PGA Tour go to VIRTUAL competition! That way even the players themselves can stay home and enjoy watching themselves compete and maybe they can discuss the architecture with us at the same time.
-
Mark
Your Ballyowen melt down has to be one of the biggest overreactions in GCA history. I suggest you go back and read my comments so you might understand the context of the photo and caption. “Wasted opportunity”, I don’t recall ever saying that or even implying that. If you don’t think that particular photo looks similar to an airstrip, I give your vision a 3 on the Doak scale. I have no idea how good Ballyowen is and to be honest don’t really care. I doubt the golf world is dying to hear about it (especially on this thread/theme), but I could be dead wrong and soon Ran will give it a fine write up in the near future. Or better yet why don’t you start a new Ballyowen thread? Perhaps you can go back and “review your notes.”
No need to defend your reading list. I’m not aware of anyone lecturing you on your lack of study or accusing you (or 99% of all golfers in the world) of being clueless. There are very few on this site who have that much hutzpah. By the way I’ve seen both Crystal Downs and Sand Hills, ironically neither course was ranked when I played them. And I didn’t need the auspices of a golf magazine ranking to get me on or to either golf course. I wasn’t there to ‘rate’ the courses or to give either course a number -- just seeking out interesting golf architecture.
By the way you seem to be typing just fine. :D
Not only don't I type well, I can't spell either.
-
TEPaul
Oh good golly by no means am I afraid of the techonological revolution. Virtual reality is great, freaking crazy but great
Matt Ward
My comment was not necessarily directed at you. I agree, nothing will ever replace going there, smelling the salt and whacking divots. You do not get the whole picture, as you have pointed out numerous times, but on certain 'points', certain 'issues', we need no more than pictures to justify out positions.
-
TEPaul,
I think one of the two best ways to analyze a golf course is to dream about it.
You can experience the dream in the form of a deep sleep dream or a more casual day dream.
I find both are highly effective, much more so than actually seeing and playing the golf course.
And, probing questions relative to the strategic merits of the golf course are answered in the context of hallucination ;D
-
Patrick:
Hey, like, you know, like, whatever!
-
I should have been taking notes going through this thread but it turned from an interesting sashay into a gauntlet run.
Society is more visual in every aspect of our lives. Convenience has also become a highly regarded feature of the masses. "Paradise softens" Frank Herbert
Think how many people in our society could muster up the effort to read Bernard Darwin's 'Golf Courses of the British Isles' in its entirety. It's almost pure description. The method and style of writing back then is far removed from what we have now. H.V. Morton is a blessed genius of description in his books of In Search of Ireland/Scotland; pure magic. But reading it is arduous by today's limited attention spans. Magazines have pictures. Great, but there is something lost with that convenience. There is rarely deep involvement with understanding the wholeness of a natural golf course. Our brains have learned to process more with sight than thru a balance of the senses.
There is Robert Price who, through a lifetime of studying geology and golf courses gives us an important connection of the everpresent forces of nature and mankinds everlasting need to control everything on Earth. I really wish I could have met and thanked the venerable Eddie Hackett.
If we look at a snowcapped mountain, we can say that it is beautiful but isn't it more charming and enlightening to understand what that mountain is and how it was created and how the surrounding landscape interacts with it? Waterfalls are inspiring when eons of erosion and uplift and glaciation caused them but manufactured waterfalls on a golf course are an audacious bourgeois lie, to ourselves, and are a nullifier of the greatness of the world and the spirit of the game of golf. They are insulting.
There is a niche market for Revolution but, as wisely stated earlier, Evolution is more important. Revolution is a sort of coup for change but "When the Right becomes the wrong, the Left becomes the Right". Evolution implies more of a permanance of change. An education to a higher level of understanding. There is in me an ambivalent hope of the yin yang of evo/devo. Destroy to create. Create and destroy.
It is, as mentioned earlier, all dependant on the education of golfers, golf archies and owners!!!/investors.
If I may go into a small tangent about the Italian Renaissance. It was a glorious time for art but, the paintings and sculptures were almost completely commissioned by the powerful church or a few royal families. That's a sad state of artistic freedom when one is told what to paint or chisel.
-
Slag:
Terrific post! I was sort of hoping you'd keep going---! So why don't you?
It's very interesting to discuss golf and its architecture and the details of it, but now and then it's more interesting to try to look underneath it all, underneatth all the details--all its parts and imagine what the more basic motivations really are!
Like nature and man--man in nature-- even if, in the grand scheme of things, in an area as small as golf, and how he carries on and evolves with it, or always seemingly away from it (nature). But there must be a strong subliminal tie there somewhere--but probably the ultimate dichotomy!
It's sad really that probably the vast majority of golfers have no real idea what even the representations of nature are in golf and its architecture anymore. Just like too many people don't even know what things like Christmas are anymore--except a holiday and a time to get presents!
I don't think golf and its architecture, as man perceives it, will ever actually get away from its true roots in nature though--its too strong--even if subliminally--its just too strong! Because of that it will always revert back, or at least look back, from time to time, even if in little ways, and try to do something about it.
-
Mark,
I agree there is no substitute for being there, and playing the course. I won't speak for you but I can tell you that I am not the brightest bulb so I have to really spend a lot of time with something to fully appreciate it. And I know from experience that I have dismissed lots of things that upon becoming more familiar with them I now have greater respect for them. One local course I actually walked during a tournament and thought it a bad course. After playing it a couple of times I like the course very much. I know from my own experiences that I have to spend a lot of time on a site from planning all the way through opening and beyond, playing it as well, to fully appreciate it. So it may not be an absolute truth for everyone that they have to be there to know it, but I know I have to be there face to face with it to know it. I think Emerson quoted someone as saying that if you really want to know about a pine tree then go outdoors and find one. Of course, he was a bit of a dim bulb too.
Also, one other example, I went to the van Gogh show in Philly a couple of years ago. I bought the book, and just could not believe how diminished the pictures of the art work in the book were as compared to what I saw face to face. I can imagine an art studnet in some remote part of the world who was devoted to van Gogh, and finally after years of studying books and prints and then actually seeing the paintings in person, I bet it would bring them to their knees, that they would feel all that time wasted trying to know van Gogh through books and prints. Recently I have read of two artists that upon seeing Velaquez's work in person they knew they would never match his talent. One artist gave up painting after this experience and became a famous sculptor, I believe it ws Serra. The other changed direction in his art and founded modern art, Manet. Regardless, the personal experience has no substitutte, but certainly those that study from afar should not be discounted, their interpretations can be very insightful, possibly yielding some insight that might not occur to us lesser beings who beome too intoxicated by the personal experience.
-
Kelly:
What a really good analogy yours is with the mention of seeing Van Gogh's work in person vs books and pictures of it! Certainly it's a great analogy in that people looking at photos and particularly aerials can never really sense the topography of a course and its architecture and all that means!
I went to the same exhibit you did a few years ago and I'm also sort of a dim bulb and certainly no real student of art.
But Van Gogh's art, as you said, sure can floor you when you get close to it. Wasn't that area of about 5-10 feet fascinating where his art transforms back and forth from the parts to the whole like magic? Not to mention the extreme physicality of it and its application!
I would think the only thing that could be neater than seeing it in person and at those two ranges would be to have actually watched him do it!
-
Tom,
I am sure no else looking in cares to wade through our conversation, but yes I would have loved to be there. However, as I alluded to in an earlier posts, great things can happen in obscurity, and as much as we would like to rub shoulders with greatness, if you and I were there having a martini watching over his shoulder no know would ever have heard of him! After listening to us experts tell him how to do it he probably would have cut off both ears, no. That small seed, that obscure person toiling away, more concerned with creation rather than recognition, can someday grow into something so great, yet so under appreciated or even known at the time of its creation.
There was a portrait he did which was on exhibit that was so magnificent in its color and technique, and the book washed it out. I would give anything to see it in person everyday, just walk by and see it. You are right, that range of viewing distance is so much fun to experience and see how it changes things.
Anyway, we should probably continue this on the 11th and not take up such valuable space here. Thanks.
-
Kelly
As far as I can tell no one on this thread judged the merits of Ballyowen, or any other course, without seeing it. Commenting on a photo is not an assessment of an entire design. Your view that it is useful to experience art and golf in person is obvious, no one is questioning that idea. On the other hand I have no problem if someone looking at your website, concludes they want to seek out your work or concludes they don’t want to seek out your work. Everyone makes these judgements daily. Obviously you would have never gone to the van Gogh exhibition if you had not seen his work in a book or a magazine and been effected in someway.
I think the point that some are trying to make is there are numerous ways to study golf architecture – playing is important, but it is not the only way. For example how do you study courses that are gone – like Lido or courses that have been significantly altered – like Pebble Beach? You have to study old photos, written accounts, old plans, old eye-witnesses, etc. The same is true in studying the works old masters that are long gone. The other arts understand this.
There is a ton of information for individuals to absorb. If I were interested in seeking out information on Indian Creek, the first person I’d turn to is TomPaul. I don’t believe he has even played the course, but I feel confident that a Flynn scholar would have more insight than most GD panelists who had played the course. Perhaps he studied the original plans, seen old photos of the course, understood how it evolved, was intimately familiar with Flynn’s other work, spoken to many respected individuals who knew the course over the years. Likewise I would turn to van Gogh scholar before I’d ask a one-time visitor to a museum for his insight. The obvious reason is the scholar has gone much farther than just looking at his work on a wall. Usually the people who complain the most about these comments on posted photos or comments about the evolution of courses based on old photos and/or old plans, are those who really have no desire to delve deeply into the subject.
It still looks like a runway to me.
-
Kelly/Tom;
Please do continue your discussion here.
I saw the same exhibit and so much of what you are both discussing is very analagous to the art and appreciative study of golf course creation that you're hardly wasting space.
What struck me about Van Gogh's work is that his technique often led to a density of contour which almost make his paintings three-dimensional, which is something that is very difficult if not impossible to ascertain from photographs. In person, one can almost feel the passion he put into such bold and sometimes angered brushstrokes. It is impossible to view his works in person and not feel moved in some way, even if one knew absolutely nothing about the artist.
It makes me wonder how often golf courses give us that same emotional response, versus how often they just seem blank canvasses, even if they are filled with "features".
-
Tom,
I am sure no else looking in cares to wade through our conversation ....
Wrong.
Anyway, we should probably continue this on the 11th and not take up such valuable space here.
Wrong again!
I'm with Mike Cirba. Bring 'er on!
-
Mike C:
You hit on an important aspect -- when you analyze something from afar (i.e. pictures, second hand accounts) you are "removed" from the type of interaction and "feel" you get from the personal experience. I would just like to see those who post comments keep the context of their remarks in mind.
Yes, you may be able to "outline" some tendencies or outcomes when "removed," but feeling and breathing the land -- the holes -- the actual sights can only come from a direct involvement. I do concede that simply because someone experiences something firsthand does not always mean that person will be able to provide a cogent degree of analysis that one would like to see. On the flip side is the tendency by some to simply "fire" a base generality based on limited evidence and then going further to expound some broader conclusion. To me -- that's stretching it a good bit and really lacking in one's homework.
-
Kelly
I think that, as we say at home, you hit the nail on the head! The past masters did what they did by in large because they felt a need to express themselves. Did Van Gogh after finishing the sunflowers sit back, crack open a Bud and with a wry smile on his face think about the millions that it would earn him? There is some correlation with that analogy and present day architecture. In his Interview with GCA Gil Hanse was asked how he felt that golf architecture between 1985-1999 would be remembered and he replied “With all of the activity in the business during this period, one would hope that it could have been another Golden Age. Unfortunately, this did not occur, instead a production line mentality seems to have taken hold, with the ‘top’ designers cranking out course after course…considering their bank account above their legacy. I think that the focus on quantity rather than quality will ultimately cast this as an era of missed opportunities. There have certainly been some great sites to build golf courses on during this period. However, with a few notable exceptions (Sand Hills and High Pointe) the architect was not on site enough to take advantage of these great opportunities”. Maybe its time to take a leaf out of van Gogh's book and begin to express ourselves rather than trying to earn a paycheck so we can upgrade from an E class to an S class Mercedes! By the way I drive neither.
-
Matt/Ronan;
Those are two really good posts and if I can borrow from each of them, I'd say that there is no question that there is nothing quite like the "Feel" of being onsite on a special course, although that doesn't mean one can't get some of the taste from well-done photographs. Still, that visceral feeling is often somewhat diminished by less than a first-person experience.
Turning that over to the other side, however, one can also get some emotional and logical feedback from a picture of a poorly done course, as well, although those feelings and thoughts are rightfully from a negative standpoint. For instance, Ronan brings up a good point in quoting Gil Hanse and "missed opportunities" in the modern age by so many big name architects just designing "pro forma" courses that are forced over sites. It's clear that commerce triumphs over art in many of these courses.
If one is familiar with an architect's work, it isn't brain science to glean from pictures whether that architect has attempted to passionately utilize the natural, unique features of a site in a "CREATIVE" endeavor or whether they just created "Hole #247" on yet another site, as so many seem wont to do.
-
MikeC;
Kelly's analogy to some of Van Gogh's art is a very good one for golf architecture in some ways but certainly we can't take it too far.
There's no question that Van Gogh was an extremely physical painter and certainly with the unusual amount of paint he applied to canvas for an artist of that time. But it wasn't so much that he applied paint uniformly, he actually did it in a way that anyone would have to say was three dimensional. If someone could run their hand across one of his paintings they would feel more peaks and valleys and sort of more artistic topography of paint than anyone from his time or before, I think.
But the fascinating thing about his application is if you get close enough to it that topography of paint--very perceptible ridges and valleys of paint are ONLY observable parts and pieces--the whole becomes almost completely unobservable in such a fascinating way.
However, at that fascinating distance of maybe 5-10 feet and beyond even the three dimensionality of his massive paint application magically transforms into some unbelievable whole that may not appear remotely like a single one of the parts! And also at that point the actual three dimensionality of his paint application becomes another sort of visual dimensionality!
Somewhat like Rhorshach forms, I guess, but far more fascinating because of the foregoing as well as the power of his whole subjects and the moods of his subjects and the sensations they can create with people!
But even the analogy of Van Gogh's painting to golf architecture should logically stop at the point that he too was working only on blank canvases!
Maybe, in this way, all golf architects who are about to work on bland and flat sites (blank canvases) should study closely Vincent Van Gogh and his unusual techniques!
I can't remember who said it, but it's so true--that to the paint artist, the paint is his medium, but to the golf architect the land is his medium, or at least it should be!
Think about that! To the golf architect, the land is his MEDIUM, and not only his canvas! And I also don't think the canvas or the medium for the golf architect should only be the site he's given--it should be everything as far as the eye might ever see! I think this alone is most of what some of us call staying "site natural" with all of a course's golf architecture!
It may sound trite to say but I also don't believe that golf course architecture as a visual subject should ever be put in a frame, figuratively or literally! I don't think it should even be remotely attempted!
I think the only "frame" golf architecture should ever have is whatever any golfer's ability to take things in and comprehend them visually is! I think whatever visual "frame" there may be should only be any golfer's potential visual "frame" and not necessarily the architects!
On that particular point, I've never found a single living architect who agrees with me, apparently even including Bill Coore! And there may not even have been a single one of the great old guys who saw it that way either.
But it interests me very much! I suppose the only reason it does, would be the question; "Does nature itself offer any observer of it some architectural "visual frame" or does it ONLY break down into whatever any observer's visual reference is alone?"
I can't even imagine how the dream of some of the best of the old guys to take golf and its architecture somehow all the way back to nature, or the perception of it, while at the same time fully understanding those necessary but limiting factors and features of golf--tees, fairways and greens (and in some cases the odd vestige of the bunker feature) could ever come to be fully realized in their minds! But that's what a few of the ones I find most interesting thought to try to do somehow, someday.
Perhaps some of this might be a start!
-
Tom M.
I do not understand your first three paragraphs. As to the rest of your post, I trust the personal experience to tell me more than some expert. I like Thomas Friedman in the NY Times. He compiled his articles post 9/11 in a tremendous book. But, my point about him is that he writes much about the middle east, islam, etc. He doesn't just consult foreign policy experts at Harvard, the State Department or the White House, he goes to the middle east or India, or Pakistan. He goes there, he gets on the ground in the middle of the action, He doesn't call up experts from his home in Washington. And I think his writing, his understanding is heads and shoulders above any foreign policy expert, or Islam expert. The best way to know van Gogh is to go see the paintings, the best way to know Indian Creek is to go there, not call up some expert. I learned more from walking Pine Valley than I ever did from reading the experts, infinately more. Now, if someone would invite me to play it I know I would know that much more. Who can I call that could tell me more? Yes, maybe the history, but to really know the course you have to play it. This is a game, and it is all about playing, strategy.
Ronan,
Thanks for the quote from Gil. If anyone knows about hands-on craftsmanship he is the person. There are a handful of real architects and he is one. You make some excellent points about how money corrupts design.
TE and Mike,
I just read about art and go see it for enjoyment but you guys seem to really know something. I enjoyed this little thread and your take on it. There are some questions you posed that will require some thinking.
-
TE Paul
You have definitely given me alot of food for thought and it excites me that there are people out there who view the art of GCA in such a light. To be passionate about your choosen path in life is to attain self-actualization and I believe that it is only when we reach that point that we can be true to ourselves and hopefully create our best work. With people like you and the majority of the contributors to this sight GCA has a bright future. Whether we need a revolution or simply an evolution is in our hands. The only way to make something happen is to go after it yourself!
-
Kelly
Mark Fine said that to truly understand a golf course you have to play it. I agree. It doesn't mean you can't have an opinion based on what you have read or seen in photos or seen on TV. Just like the art lover draws an opinion of the French coutryside or an opinion of the artist's psyche by looking at van Gogh's paintings. I am convinced that Royal Melbourne is a magnificent golf course - I've read about it, I've studied new & old photos, I've seen it on TV, I've spoken to many who have played it, I've played other courses by the same architect. Do you agree that my opinion on Royal Melbourne is worthless? It might not be the same as someone who has played the course, but it is not worthless.
Mark also says that even after playing a course your opinion may be worthless, which ties into his theory that 99% of all golfers a clueless. I don't agree that the majority are clueless, but I guess I do agree playing a golf course is no guarantee that you will gain an extraordinary insight. For example you may be a moron or you may be a very poor/inexperienced golfer unable to appreciate the design or you may be a very good golfer fixated on your own game. Do you agree with Mark that 99% of all golfers are clueless? And based this is it possible that my opinion of Royal Melbourne could be more insightful than someone who has actually played it?
You seem to think that experiencing is the only true way and you give van Gogh and art as an example. Although I agree expereince is very important, I believe art actually illustrates why other factors are also worthy. I too am an admirer of art. My appreciation of art began when I was young and was due to a combination of experiences --- drawing and painting as a kid, observing paintings/prints on the walls at home and at my friend's homes. Being taken to art museums by my parents. Reading books and looking at pictures. You develop likes and dislikes and you are obviously drawn to your likes. I didn't have to see the works of van Gogh, Manet, Picasso, Calder, Turner, Homer, Whistler and Hiroshige in person to know I liked their art. Likewise I didn't need to see Rembrandt or Boticelli in person to conclude they didn't do much for me. I agree seeing these works in person enhances the experience, but the intitial appreciation was not a worthless. Who is not moved by photos of Cypress Point or Banff?
You say you trust personal experiences more than experts. I don't think it is an either or proposition, most experts have some degree of personal experience. Thomas Freidman is a well respected and influencial writer on Middle East politics -one of many. Do you think Freidman relies solely on personal experience? I'm sure his travels are useful, but that is only one of many factors that gives him insight. Obviously he is well read and relies on the opinions of numerous Mid-Eastern, religious, history, social experts/scholars. You have visited PVGC - are you an expert on the golf course?
I frankly think this has been blown way out of proportion and has been based a faulty premise - that people are renderring conclusive judgements on the merits of golf courses that they haven't seen. I have no problem with someone looking at that one photo of Ballyowen and concluding that the fairway looks like a runway. Does that mean the course is a bad one? No. Does that mean that the architect wasted the site and opportunity? No not necssarily. It means that fairway looks like a runway, I've seen enough runways and fairways to feel comfortable with that consclusion.
-
TEPaul,
I have been reading the posts here and finally have something to offer.
No art major here, but in the off season I build stretcher frames for an artist friend who paints in an abstract vein. He tacks big, and I mean big, blank canvas to the wall and paints on it this way for two reasons. The first is he doesn't like the brush to "bounce" off a sprung canvas but the second and more important reason relates to what you were saying about framing.
The method to this madness, used by others also, is to never get trapped by the edge of the canvas. Even though he has a definitive theme for the work he feels that having to work within the "borders" doesn't let him travel around the whole canvas as needed and can stifle what may appear.
One thing that occurs is that several of these large works reveal more than one painting and we sometimes create a diptych or triptych, which are two or three related panels shown together, from the same canvas.
Sounds like the above could all translate well into GCA so maybe some of those Architects should be listening! ;D
-
mdugger,
I do.
I wanted to emphasize the significance of first hand experience being the only truely valid method for analyzing a golf course and its architecture, and made that statement for all the world to see, on page 295 in my book, Scotland's Gift.
If you don't have my book, perhaps some of your esteemed comrades on GCA can quote the passage for you.
-
Ronan:
When you say; "I believe that it's only at that point when we can be true to ourselves that we can.......our best work"; I would think certainly so!
I've been doing a lot of reading lately, about MacKenzie, Tillinghast, Thomas, Crump, H Wilson, Fownes, Leeds, Behr, Hunter, McDonald and it would certainly seem almost every one of them had something in common--and that would be that they seemed to have a very strong belief in their thoughts and ideas, certainly about golf architecture! It seems that most, if not all of them, were almost incapable of doubt or totally unable to not believe in themselves in their vision with architecture.
Maybe it was arrogance--I don't know--but I see it more as just a very strong and clear vision of things. They may not have even been professionals, and it's ironic that a good half or more of those named never took a cent for what they did!
They probably had no real idea, at least in the beginning, how to do the technical things professional architects do but they at least knew where to find those that could help them put into effect their obviously clear, strong and probably very detailed vision of things! That would certainly classify as being true to yourself.
Golf architecture is a business and possibly the fact that it really wasn't to some of them must have given them tremendous freedom of expression to do what they wanted to and probably to believe so strongly in it too. Even Bernard Darwin mentioned most of those mentioned here as capable of very strong unfettered beliefs--for whatever reason!
-
Kelly:
When you said Mike Cirba and I must know something about art---I don't know what he knows about it but I don't know much at all except what I see and feel about it, like the Van Gogh paintings. I'm not sure I see why I'd need to know more at this point or even if that's possible. I have little idea about what others know or feel about it either. But I sure would like to have watched Van Gogh do what he did.
One great architect, probably MacDonald, said in his book that he thought it was fruitless to try to come up with something in architecture that's wholly original--and in a way Coore sure said the same thing.
To them it seemed just a matter of being more and more aware of the scope of possibilities that are out there (the pieces or notes) and how to arrange those possibilities in various ways.
And you're right, it's a game with some pretty clear dictates attached to it, so that has to be fairly limiting, for sure. As for Van Gogh--I doubt it was a game he was needing to conform to so his freedom of expression and ability to come up with the original was probably more unlimited--but only as limited as his paints and his ability to apply them however he wanted to, I guess.
-
JimK:
That's interesting what you say about your artist friend with the enormous canvas tacked to the wall and things like not wanted to get limited in a corner of a frame or whatever.
From a sort of construction standpoint (not necessarily the visual standpoint) I can sure see that, and an architect I worked with while analyzing a really beautiful stretch of ground that happened to be in a corner of the property said about the same thing--ie the ground was great but he felt in both a routing and design sense it could be hard to get in and out of--ie he felt he would get stuck in that corner.
But the "frame" remark I made in the other post is really mostly all "visuals" to me. And I mean it only in this sense:
Most architects, maybe even all of them, seem to like to direct the golfers eye somehow, they seem to think that's very necessary, maybe even essential, whether it be to a particular strategy, a general visual frame of reference to a whole hole, or a part of it, and/or certainly at a minimum, some indication of where a golfer could or should go--should think to play the ball first, next etc!
That one particular aspect of architecture I'm not sure I agree with and maybe not at all--although I can certainly see the potential drawbacks to what I'm saying, like all the requirements today of speed of play, danger, unfairness, whatever.
But I'm only trying to talk about this in a sort of "outside the box" architectural way as a form of appearing to revert architecture to nature better or the perception of it.
I think it's interesting in architecture and also for the golfer to have to look around and study the situation in front of him, even very carefully and figure out for himself, maybe with very little direction or even indication from the architect, how best to proceed! There're obviously a broad number of way to do this architecturally!
I'm not even saying hide things from the golfer or obfuscate the course, just give him a less than limited and defined frame of reference visually.
In other words, make him look around for himself instead of leading his eye or certainly holding his hand visually and making it patently obvious where to go! Don't always lead and direct his eye, make him move his eyes and his head too if need be!
Or put another way--there're a few "art principles" mentioned in the back of Cornish and Whitten's book to do with golf course design.
1. Harmony
2. Balance
3. Rhythm
4. Emphasis
I think I believe strongly in harmony and balance but rhythm and particularly emphasis I'm not sure I do! Emphasis, as defined in C&W is basically an architect leading the golfer's eye or attention, generally to the most important part of the arrangement!
If 'the most important part of the arrangement' is always to where the golfer should hit the ball, I definitely don't agree with emphasis in design that way. Sometimes maybe, but possibly only randomly or occasionally and other times maybe direct his eye to the wrong place, maybe most of the time don't direct his eye at all, let him pick up on anything that occurs to him if only to let him know that just maybe he's out in nature on his own and this time he'll need to really look around at all of it (no frame of reference) to figure things out for himself and find his own way to go.
-
Tom MacWood:
I would not consider comments from a person who has not played a course in question to be "worthless." I would, however, place them in some sort of meaningful context.
If someone has actually been to a particular site they have the huge advantage in taking in all the elements that are present and if they are capable in examining and explaining such a situation I would place greater value in that role than in one that comes from secondary sources.
It becomes a matter of context and keen analysis.
-
I think the mention of the fact that my (our--Wayne and I) never having played or even seen Flynn's Indian Creek but having a great deal in the way of Flynn's detailed plans as well as many historic aerial and on-ground photos of Indian Creek will be an interesting situation when Wayne and I get there, play it, analyze it, hopefully in real detail this winter.
That kind of thing should throw some light on this discussion between Matt and Tom.
I hadn't exactly thought much about this until now, but just think about what this means.
In almost all cases people who are looking at a golf course, see, play and get to know the course as it is today and then they get involved in the historic research and research material. I'll never forget how amazed I was when I first saw the historic old aerials of my course--it looked so different! I was of course looking at the situation from today backwards for the first time.
But Indian Creek, we've never seen but we have the original plans and all the old historic photos--aerial and on-ground.
In a way, for us, this might be a bit like William Flynn, who died in 1945 being able to see his course today after not having seen it in possibly 60-70 years. It would probably look very different to him than he remembered.
It will probably look very different to us than our image of it because all we know is what it looked like 50-70 years ago.
This will be great actually--a wonderful way to probably feel just how Flynn would have--maybe to even see it through his eyes. In a way we're going in there with an expectation and image of what it was in the 1930s, not 2002. In a way we might almost be able to wipe away the future from the 1930s on, but only for a brief time until we can see all that's changed from the 1930s to 2002!
It's always great to try to put yourself in the time of those your studying without the knowledge of what came after them. This might be the most useful way yet to do exactly that!
But when we come away from there this winter after having studied it then and now we sure as hell better have a better idea of the evolution of the golf course, and also the details and ramifications of what it was then and what its been restored back to than someone who just went down there and played the golf course now!
-
Matt
I think this fairway looks like a runway. I don't think a primary, secondary or trimary source would argue with that assessment.
(http://www.crystalgolfresort.com/images/webstore/cells/C1_C135_BOsquare.jpg
)
An example of modern uniform grading
-
TE
I agree, that will be a very interesting experiment. I know one thing because of your research and ability to analyze architecture, I can't think of anyone whose opinion of Indian Creek I would rather hear. Its the combination of research and analytical ability that seperates the opinions of you, Ran and few others for me.
-
Tom MacW:
I tell you what! I've never seen Ballygowen (except in that little photo), never played it, never nothing with it, can't really comment on the course's architecture at all, and that fairway maybe flat as a pancake, but if I'm gonna take off a runway in an airplane, I sure as hell hope the runway doesn't look like that fairway! I don't mind flyin' but I might have to whip out my rosary beads on that takeoff!
-
Oh sorry--you're supposed to play golf on that runway, right? Well, that's different! Judging from that photo though, I don't think I'd ever want to play that golf course. I like firm and fast but that fairway isn't even brown, it's tan, and the whole place looks hot as Hades anyway, look how red everything is!
-
TE
I give the runway a 4+.
-
I think this is a great thread in a lot of ways, touching on many of the points that I think are underlying what many of us seem to enjoy (and not) in golf course architecture. If this isn't a full-blown revolution, it's certainly something of a bloodless coup, this being a gentlemen's game and all.
Think about it. The game of golf has been played for a few hundred years, and about 120 in the United States. During that time, there has never really been a forum for critical discussion and widespread, worldwide participation of opinions related to golf course architecture until now. Yes, there were always magazines and periodicals, but with few exceptions, those always were more interested in promotion and advertising revenues than in any kind of serious study and dissection of the art. What's more, even those that attempted some degree of reflective thinking often suffered from being the brainchild of a single voice, such as Walter Travis or Tillinghast's early articles.
The Golden Age sprung up because a group of interested, well-connected, well-heeled gentlemen took it upon themselves to advance the state of the game in this country. Through their often collaborative efforts, and shared ideas and information, some of the greatest courses in the history of the game were built.
Then came the Depression and WWII, and that group was scattered to the wind, leaving little in the way of interconnected thought, direct legacies, means and modes of communicating ideas, or anyone to share it with. What proceeded next were individuals springing up in pockets of activity...first Dick Wilson & RT Jones, then others in various areas of the country. There was really nothing going on in the way of collaboration or sharing of ideas and philsophies, as each of these men largely staked out their own way. In a way, this time period was somewhat different from what proceeded it based on this individuality, leading to entreprenurial architects and "signature" designs.
The popularity of golf in our lifetimes, starting with Arnie, Jack, etc., probably did a great deal to interest others in courses and their architecture, as well as the writings of men like Herbert Warren Wind and William Davis. Still, I sense that many "laymen" not directly involved in the field just saw themselves as passionate lovers of golf course architecture, with no real way to express that love other than through playing courses and internalizing those feelings.
Without wanting to overstate the importance of a forum like GCA, I sense that it's bigger than most of us think. All of a sudden, here we have people passionate about architecture from around the globe, and from various fields within the industry, hanging out together to share information, opinions, in healthy and frank, valuable debate.
We're in our infancy here, if you think about it. The technologies that fuel this type of world-wide communication are going to be around for a long time, becoming more refined and important to our daily lives. But even at this early stage, there is no denying that something is happening out there. According to some of those entrenched in the game, we might really be a "bunch of f****** dilettantes, but this begs the question of why they are in here reading in the first place!
Can the result of this type of forum really help to usher in another "Golden Age", by becoming a meeting place for advancing things like professional discussion and collaboration, a melting pot of differing ideas and opinions, and an "acid test" for design ideas and methodologies that are being adopted in the field? I don't see why not.
I don't think we are necessarily going to be a "majority opinion", but I do think we can have considerable influence because one thing I've learned is that the course of history is largely determined by small groups of impassioned individuals with a shared idea whose time has come.
-
I remember studying everything I could get my hands on about Augusta National prior to my first visit. It was a great learning process to research the evolution of the course. Furthermore, after all the time studying coupled with watching the Masters for years, etc., I felt pretty confident of what I would see when I finally got there. But it wasn't until I set foot on that property and looked out over the course that I realized there was no substitute for actually being there and seeing it. And it didn't matter whether I liked the course or not. No pictures, written descriptions or TV coverage did justice compared to actually seeing for myself what was there now.
I've found similar experiences with courses like St. Andrews, Pine Valley, Pebble Beach, Cypress,... and really most any other noted golf course. There is a totally different learning experience being there, and on the greatest courses, the more times you go, the more you learn. You have no idea for example how flat or how undulating that Ballyowen fairway is from that picture. Go play the course, then post the picture and make your comment.
Moreover, I think the reseach part is great, especially on the older golf courses. But other then for personal interest or unless you're planning to restore in some manner the golf course your looking at, don't you study a golf course as you find it? It's pretty hard to evaluate architecture that is not there or that was once there but is now gone!
Finally, what research do you do on a course like Sand Hills or Pacific Dunes? I find it facinating to find out how courses like these were built, etc but if you want to research the architecture of a newer design, you go see them and play them!
It's like Tom Doak says in his book about courses that are 10's, "if you haven't seen all the courses in this category, you don't know how good golf architecture can get. Drop the book and call your travel agent - immediately!
I would have lost all respect for him if he concluded instead, "Cancel your travel plans and keep reading my book" ;)
Mark
-
Slag:
I was sort of hoping you'd keep going---! So why don't you?
Tommy, I have a short attention span.
www.juxtapoz.com This magazine/art site proclaims the future of art is there. (?)
I once saw a pictorial in their magazine of an artist that used common shlock sculptures as his canvas for painting. It was quite amazing the images that were chosen for say, a female Hummel figurine with a bloody-eyed skull*. It really worked well from the point of being fascinated by it for the ideas behind it. The whole struggle of innocence under the evil sacrilege placed upon it. One couldn't help but feel sympathy for the poor ceramic doll being transformed and vandalized. Yet, her form still defiantly smiled. It may not be marketable for whitebread America but they were very strong opposing images. (*My example is weak but I hope you get the idea.)
Sooooo, the canvas of land is there and, like Jim Kennedy's friend who avoids thinking with frames and limits, the land should not be disguised and distorted like a perceived ugliness.
Any revolution starts in the mind of the architect. He/she can't worry about the trend or x-player whoring his name around to make a buck. There must be, in my strong opinion, a high worth ethic for the land and final result. There will always remain the struggle of the owners monetary worth of the land and their egos.
Bottom line is, this land is more important than the architect and the architect should relinquish his stand...and stand taller.
-
Mike C, I was going to drag one of your quotes into here but the whole damn things so good I couldn't butcher it into cutlets. Anyway, I wish I'd said that.
On that other tangent that krept into here... Playing golf is more fun and valuable and inspiring than talking about it but...here we are.
-
Discussing art, GCA and primary vs. secondary experience and creativity, the thread only lacks CBMac's input for perspective and to come nearly full circle.
Old Charlie felt that until one played a course many times one could not know it fully, so perhaps not even playing the course is enough and is definitely not a guarantee that one will understand it.
A propos Ballyowen and the picture that seemed to spawn all of this, having played that particular course not a single hole really left me with the thought of a runway. I believe the hole as pictured plays uphill and the bulges in the fairway as seen are variously accessable by different golfers according to skill and angle chosen, but are actually not visible from the tee. The picture is deceiving in this regard.
So in this case, the photo is misleading, taken out of context and I believe not a regular view of the hole as played. (I am not 100% sure, I will find the course guide and double check.)
Ballyowen is a surprisingly satisfying golf course given its manufactured nature, its overuse of water (A more hidden reservoir would have been thematically more consistent) and its only glaring negative I can first recall is a doubling back to various tees which interferes with a good walk.
It is good to have all the facts and to be able to recognize and describe them accurately. A landing strip it is not.
-
TE Paul
Dare I say that I disagree with something that you have said because I have enjoyed all of your inputs so far but I can see the merits of emphasis in design to lead the player to the 'focal points'. However, I am also aware that to lead someone visually around a site can take away from the spontaneity of coming across a 'happy accident' in visual terms. The real art is to make those 'happy accidents' appear to be such as the real art of GCA is to make earthworks look natural. As according to our esteemed forefathers Wethered and Simpson in their book The Architectural Side of Golf " A course should merge pleasantly into the landscape; the folds of the greens and fairways should present agreeable curves against backgrounds of trees and hills; and where it is necessary to move earth to heighten levels or form depressions in new ground, the thing should be done with the delicacy of a sculptor modelling his clay".
Mike Cirba
Why didn't you just keep on writing, great post. If you are thinking of creating a 'splinter group' of GCA's let me put my name forward for the European Branch. It's true what you say about small passionate groups having a bigger impact than their numbers dictate. If one looks back through time this can be seen in the majority of wars, coups etc.... The man who has not learned from the past has learned nothing at all!
-
Mike,
When I first started discussing GCA on this site nearly two years ago I didn't think it had any impact on any course anywhere in the world.
A visit over the pond to visit a few people like Tom Paul and Jeff Brauer convinced me that this site is being read by more people than we know. There are people from Pine Valley and Merion reading that I know of.
If it hadn't been for this forum, I am not sure that I would have jumped in with two feet into design and may have just stayed in golf course construction. However architects like Tom Doak, Jeff Brauer and others encouraged me with e-mails to jump in especially Jeff. I learn most of my design work from books and my design partner Jeremy Turner. None of you know Jeremy but this man knows more about British golf than any other man I have ever met. You guys may think Tom Doak knows a lot about the British Isles but he knows just a pinch of salt compared to Jeremy. Jeremy makes at least one study trip to the British Isles every year. I don't know anyother architect that does that outside of Britain and Ireland.
Jeremy didn't really believe much about this forum until his little trip to America with me and met people like Tom Paul. He says it was like being in heaven to spend 12 days not only playing great courses but talking to peoplt that are passionate about GCA.
Without this forum none of the above would have taken place. I have discussed with Ronan in great lengths what we want in life and both of agree on many things. Some of the other students want to design many courses and earn lots of money and that is not a bad thing. One thing I think both and I Ronan agree on is that we would love to go to our graves with a happy family left behind and just one great course in the same mould as Pacific Dunes or Sand Hills.
If I can leave behind a course that stands the test of time and is fun for everyone to play then I will die a happy man. If my wife never leaves me and my kids are happy and I have that one course then I can't ask for more in life.
Without this forum I wouldn't be trying to achieve that with the same passion and commitment I have now. I will leave you with a quote we were given on our course which explains why we have to look back on the past:
'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it'
Charles Santyana, Spanish born philosopher and critic,1905
Brian.
-
redanman
The tarmac comment was for humorous effect. I have nothing against Ballyowen; I don't know anything about Ballyowen. The photo was useful in illustrating a type of modern course that favors the use of very regular grading, soft flowing curves and machine like precission. What I think this thread boils down to is this: is there a need to go in one direction or another. Toward the older method of relying more heavily on natural features or this method of creating a stylized man-made view of nature. I know you (and many others) are very fond of courses in both camps. And your post illustrates why we should have both types and why will continue to have both types - people like both. There is no need for a revolution.
-
Mr. Phillips
One thing I remember from the past is that Santaya's name was George.
The Ballyowen Debating Society
Please humour Mr. MacWood and call that hole a landing strip so we can get this thread back on its proper flight path.
-
ForkaB,
You are absolutely right. My lecturer will be receiving the cane. I looked up his name on my Encarta and his name is George.
Brian.
'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it'
George Santayana
(1863-1952)
-
Ronan:
As for what I said about not liking the sort of standard use of "emphasis" to lead a golfer visually (whether it looks natural or not), don't concern yourself at all about not agreeing with me. As I said in a earlier post, on that particular point, I don't think I've ever found a single architect past or present who agrees with me on that!
But nevertheless, I still can't say the idea does NOT interest me, and for the basic reason given---Where does nature itself really lead you visually if you're playing some game or sport within it? I would say it probably doesn't lead you visually--that's just something you have to figure out for yourself when in it! Unless or until golf architecture (the man-made medium and canvas) enters the equation to purposely supply you with visual keys!
Frankly, even both ends of the visual or "emphasis" (or lack of it) spectrum in architecture which I might say would be MacKenzie at one end of the spectrum and Ross at the other, interests me too.
I feel MacKenzie's basic theme of making a course's best line of play appear far harder than it really is (vestiges of his ideas on camouflage) satisfies some of what I'm driving at, as does Ross's theme of making a best line (particularly driving areas) often appear to be of no real choice or consequence at all (a false sense of security).
I've never laid eyes on TOC, but I have heard a million times that that course basically provides no golfer with much of anything in the way of understandable visual keys (emphasis) of how to proceed!
If that's so, and the course is considered the laboratory of golf architecture (in a stratetgic sense), golf's mecca to study, why are golf architects so concerned about "visual emphasis" all the time? Why did this so-called "art principle" of visual "emphasis" enter into golf design if TOC is truly the natural prototype to be adhered to in strategic design?
I think I know the answer. The answer lies in the undeniable dichotomy (at least to me) in the often told remark from even those such as Hunter, MacKenzie and Behr that TOC is the ideal but for some reason no one's really had the guts to copy it's true THEME, (which is, by the way, golf in nature, simply because no architect actually designed the course)! If TOC is anything, it's definitely random emphasis, if any emphasis at all of the way to proceed while playing golf!
So why was that natural theme never strictly adhered to, or very rarely so? I think we know why! Right out of the box of architectural creation (man-made features), even the initial thinkers in golf architecture got into a "can't do this, can't do that" frame of mind.
Why did even the best of them do that? I think because they could understand the realities of man's inclination to dominate nature, in small ways, large ways, any way he could! And they probably felt, and maybe rightly so, that they would be better off going with man's inclination rather than nature itself. How completely and fundamentally,though, this departed from the game that had been handed down to us by the Scots before man-made architecture ever existed. This was definitely not lost on C.B. MacDonald! But just maybe, even he was into the reality of offering golf to those other than Scots who might only accept it in some altered form!!
To me all this is very much wrapped up in the undeniable undelying ethos of man in how he looks at and perceives Nature, most and best exemplified by the American phenomenon of "Manifest Destiny" which in a very real way involves how man looks at Nature!
He loves it and hates it simultaneously! He really can see the majesty of it--the beauty of it but at the same time believes that to survive in its raw majesty he has to conquer it!
And hence the ultimate rationalization for this ingrained contradiction--"Manifest Destiny"--ie man's God given right to overcome Nature even if that might mean destroying it in the process (since clearly in many cases this actually hurts and offends his sensibilities in many ways!).
Maybe, this is a long way from the subject of supplying golfers with understandable visual keys (emphasis) throughout the entire playing of the game but I hope you can understand what I mean.
One can definitely see in Behr's most interesting articles on this overall subject how important it was to the essence of the original sport to accept nature just as it was in an unfettered and unaltered state.
But he was clever enough to admit that the basic necessities of the game, the tees, fairways and greens (and to some degree the odd vestige--the bunker feature) would have to be dealt with and made to appear like nature itself too. But certainly any one can understand who can put themselves in Behr's place and time, how difficult that seemed to be to him to do back then! And that's why he and some of his like minded thinkers were hoping somehow the advances in machinery would be able to do that for golf and its architecture in the future--to make it somehow appear to return to at least the perception of the wholly natural even those four necessities of the game!
He said that should be so simply because man is more inclined to accept what nature puts in front of him as an obstacle than he is to accept what some other man creates and puts in front of him as an obstacle!
But anyone can also see the contradiction of what Behr was saying and hoping to preserve, if one believes in the idea of "Manifest Destiny" as it applies to man and nature!
And just maybe that's why it stopped before it ever really began in golf architecture--even as Alan Robertson entered the scene! Maybe that's why as much as many golfers and certainly many architects love TOC, they never really dared to copy it's true theme--playing golf in nature unaltered by man!
-
redanman
The photo was useful in illustrating a type of modern course that favors the use of very regular grading, soft flowing curves and machine like precision.
What I think this thread boils down to is this: is there a need to go in one direction or another. Toward the older method of relying more heavily on natural features or this method of creating a stylized man-made view of nature. I know you (and many others) are very fond of courses in both camps. And your post illustrates why we should have both types and why will continue to have both types - people like both. There is no need for a revolution.
What is interesting is that
-there is no need for a revolution as htere is evolution
-vastly divergent styles currently lead to various degrees of reception
-the curently most commercially popular style is at odds with historic golf
Even though there is a modern movement to restore more traditional values to golf course manufacture, it is still a commercial curiosity. Education is at the forefront and the dollars are not there to support education of the masses.
The paid announcers (No knock on them, they are doing their jobs) push what they are paid to push. More money behind more projects=more exposure=good. Common (American, sadly being exported) culture dictates that what is common is good. What photographs well is what sells. Massive movement, dramatic visual features, framing (Perhaps the most horrid concept thrust upon us), Feng Shui, THE experience, these are all a detriment.
Creation of courses necessitates soft and green, inappropriate grasses being grown for the sake of "bent grass greens", fluff such as photogenic features all detract from the historic game as originally created.
Do we want to keep the old game? Can we? We are not using modern techniques to create the new wave, not build upon the original as Thomas and Mackenzie had hoped (Back to hte original post).
Is this a marketing problem? There is no media firepower in subtlety vs. drama. The fact is nearly all golf courses need to be sold to someone.
-
Tom Paul;
You're correct in stating the The Old Course does not yield visual cues purposefully or with design intent. It's really sort of amazing standing out there at times at how non-descript everything is...caddies pointing out lines at distant clouds, etc. I find it amazingly ironic that Jack Nicklaus loves TOC, yet has been one of the champions of the "total visibility" school of design.
That irony gets to the heart of what you're speaking about. Recent discussions of Rustic Canyon led to David Moriarty's really good descriptive essay that pretty much concluded that the genius of the course is simply the vague uncertainty one has out there, even after multiple playings, simply because the course itself is so "undefined".
On that thread, I wrote;
"Is the genius of RC simply the fact that it's so "undefined"?"
"After decades of modern courses that are "tough, yet fair", "visible", and "strategically obvious", Rustic Canyon seems to turn all of those philosophies on their head in a vague, unsettling, uncertain manner that seems to wear as well as any subtly complex puzzle."
I'm making this point not to pick on Nicklaus or once again laud Rustic, but simply to illustrate some of the almost diametrically opposing philsophies at play in modern design. I've attempted to outline those ideas on threads like "Architecture Splits in Two", at that time using C&C's "Hidden Creek" and Ron Fream's "Shore Gate", which are two relatively adjacent courses in south Jersey on similar land forms that couldn't be more different in approach.
So yes, to get back to your original point, TOC is indeed golf in the raw, without visual indicators, and I must confess a preference for that type of approach. However, I think you might be pushing TOC example too strenuously when you point out that even the earliest American stalwarts of design like Macdonald and others generally eschewed that model in favor of something more man-made and engineered.
I think the key thing to realize here is that TOC really was just always ideal land for golf, without trees, on sand, and as long as their was enough clearing between gorse bushes to whack a ball out to the river and back, pausing once in awhile to play to targets at regular intervals in the form of holes, not much more was needed. But, realistically, even that course became much more formalized with time, as it was widened considerably to accommodate busier incoming and outgoing play, and bunkers were dug, and tees and greens stabilized and formalized. Brand new holes like the 17th were created.
Such evolutionary design differs from the problems the American architects were confronted with. Even Macdonald's NGLA, which all would agree is a superb site, would almost assuredly not have been feasible as a site where one could "play golf in nature unaltered by man!", as you put it.
I would imagine that the site as found by Macdonald was probably covered in thick growths of bushes, with other areas of mature trees. It differed considerably from the natural linksland he saw abroad, yet as best as possible, and with the engineering he had at his disposal, he certainly did try to emulate not only the strategies found on great holes overseas, but also the naturalness, as well.
I just believe that there aren't many sites available that are so ideal that one can play in nature unaltered by man. (Interestingly, it seems that some of those places in this country might be found right smack dab in the center, but are far away from urban population centers).
I believe the first American architects understood this pretty quickly and decided to build variants of what they knew traditionally on new and different, largely inland terrain.
I also don't believe they were particularly interested in providing much of visual cues, as witnessed by holes like The Alps, or much of what you see (or don't ;)) at Yale, for instance.
-
Mike C:
I agree that many courses today are designed to provide the "Hagstrom map" style of architecture. Point out the particular way the hole goes and all the penalties if you fail to properly play the correct shot.
I thoroughly enjoy courses that are not "matter of fact" in their presentation. In other words, like a Sunday drive, you "discover" all the elements it presents.
Mike, think of the way America operates and how courses tie in with that style. We want "directions." We don't want to "guess." We want some sort of detailed roadmap that will take us to where we want to go with limited differentiation or problems.
Rustic Canyon is an example of a course that is undefined and the nature of its presentation can be vexing to many who want concrete clarity. I want to "discover" elements of a course that doesn't reveal itself so quickly the first time around. RC does that quite well and the analysis presented by David M certainly hit home with me.
I credit many of the classic architects from the past because visual certainty -- while helpful to many golfers -- can usually become nothing more than fast food style design. While it may meet immediate gratification it often lacks mystery and depth. Who knows -- maybe other new courses like RC can come forward?
-
So why was that natural theme never strictly adhered to, or very rarely so? I think we know why! Right out of the box of architectural creation (man-made features), even the initial thinkers in golf architecture got into a "can't do this, can't do that frame of mind".
TE Paul
Do you believe that the frame of mind of can't was flipped on its head post hiatus into a mindset of I can so I will? Is this basically what 'Manifest Destiny is all about? If so is that the main reason for the lack of 'notable' golf courses that were designed in that period?
I have been to TOC and understand your point on the contradiction in terms that it presents, in that it is meant to be the bible of strategic design but yet it doesn't present the player with visual cues. What a can of worms we could open up about that but I am not sure that I am brave enough to tackle it and be cast in the depths of GCA Hades!
Redanman
Unfortunately alot of what you say is true regarding consumer soceity but think of the challenge and the fun that we could have in trying to change it. Just the qualities that we all wish a good golf course should possess.
A final point of note regarding the consumer soceity is that by in large, in Ireland, we have resisted the aid of GPS etc...Golf is still seen as a way to while away a couple of hours in good company which I have just done with two elderly golfers in my own club. Unfortunately, golf is now a numbers game in regard to par, yardage, score and distance to the flag. Give me a game of matchplay anyday where you have to judge distance by eye!
-
redanman
Unfortunately alot of what you say is true regarding consumer soceity but think of the challenge and the fun that we could have in trying to change it. Just the qualities that we all wish a good golf course should possess.
Ronan,
Not to be misunderstood, I have by no means given up the evangelical fight to educate the uninformed. It is merely observation. They can be healed! One golfer at a time.
-
Tommy, great post. We have got to get you over to Scotland. Start a fund. Have a show to save the orphanage Mickey Rooney sort of thing.
Redanman, On Rocanante'
Ronan, The only GCA Hades is when you decide to leave.
Great thread; reminds me of GCA o' auld.
Oh, and Tom tarMacWood, I've landed on less smooth tundra in bush planes and lived to tell the tale (barely).
I try heartily when photographing to capture rolls and convolutions and subtleties but, even with the setting sun giving "Hero" or "Sweet" light, the results are never what I'd hoped. Sometimes I'm satisfied but using only my eyes to see is only a catalyst for my mind to take me back in imagination. Much like even a pro photographer could never capture Van Gogh or the mysterious folds in glass by Tiffany.
------------------------------------
Realizing that most golfers do not like confusion and TOC is a shining example of perplexity, could its philosophy work for a new course? Who would have the patience to play a course like that, over and over to discover the subtleties of the land and points of attack for scoring (before the houses get put up). Let's face it, most tourist golfers play TOC because of its history and so they can say they played the old thing and tell their friends. They don't go to study or discover the strategies.
Bandon and Pacific Dunes has some terrific stuff but it's too darned expensive to play all the time. I'm in Hades!
Carry on...
-
Ronan:
I'm not sure I understand your question about the "can't do this or that" frame of mind getting flipped on it's head post hiatus and becoming a "can do, so I will" mentality.
First of all what are you referring to with 'the hiatus'? Do you mean the Crash, the depression followed by WW2?
When I use a term like "Manifest Destiny", I use it in a very general sense as a representation of a peculiar American "attitude" or really almost "ethos", since the effects of the the original idea and application of "Manifest Destiny" became so widespread and general as to truly become part of the American nation's national pysche which is clearly with us today.
"Manifest Destiny" originally was a result of the enormous American expansionist effort following the Louisiana Purchase. The land of the Louisiana Purchase was so immense it was in fact undefined land-wise and The USA pushed west, south and north so rapidly and forcefully that basically nothing stood in its way!
In the process, there were constant and continous political and military disputes with Spain, England, Mexico and Canada. We were annexing everything in sight under a governemental policy that might be defined by the question/statement of that day--"We're going to do it eventually, so why not now?"
In this incredibly widespread expansionist era so many things were overrun and destroyed by the burgeoning American nation--literally hundreds of native Indian tribes, millions of buffalo, lands that others felt was theirs etc. As the settlers moved everywhere they opened up the country and settled it for themselves very much trampling across it and fighting whatever confronted them to secure lives and homes for themselves and defending themselves from anything that stood in their way--which very much included the raw majesty of the basically unadulerated entire American West (everything west of the Mississippi)
The extreme natural beauty of the American continent was certainly not lost on the expansionists but they felt they had to conquer it to survive and create permanency (and in some ways they obviously feared it too). The American expansionist settlers were not remotely the coexisters with nature the Indian tribes all were and ironically the French settlers were too before pulling out of this continent (and hence the Louisiana Purchase).
This era of expansionism and "Manifest Destiny" which was in large part a rationalizing term to assuage probably the guilt of destruction and subjugation eventually became a sort of "can do" attitude that became very much part of the national pysche, and particularly effective when it was cloaked with the belief the Nation had a "God given right" to do it.
Not that much later following the industrial revolution and great masses of wealth the nation became the Globetrotting power it still is today (and more "Manifest Destiny" and expansionism).
(Just as a brief aside, the nation is probably poised for another round of serious "Manifest Destiny" as it claims it will go it alone in Iraq if it has to because everyone knows it sure as Hell CAN DO IT. And being the good red-blooded American I am I wouldn't give one good damn if Bush "manifestly destines" Saddam Hussein's ass into that place in the sky where Saddam thinks about 75 vestal virgins are waiting for him but obviously aren't!).
Again, a long way from golf and golf architecture and Nature and the visuals of golf and architecture and such but I firmly believe this was the time and reason that man, particular Americans got used to dominating Nature and all it represented, eventually without much of a thought!
The willingness to dominate nature and change it was ingrained and this was the ultimate "can doism". When I say even some of the early architects (who may even have been naturalists) got into a "can't do this and can't do that" frame of mind, I only mean it in the sense that they too were probably more than recognizing that even golfers had become less than respecting and accepting of Nature in its rawest form so they couldn't offer it to them in unadorned or even unaltered form.
MikeC;
When I mention this kind of thing and certainly about TOC and why its respected theme of naturalism and randomness (and even low visual direction) was never really followed in architecture I only mean it in a general sense as it indicates a changing attitude toward nature.
Maybe not so much the architects but the architect's recognition of what golfers were coming to not accept. How otherwise could something like the blindness of Prestwick so quickly go from being considered a "creme de la Creme" element in golf (the blindness) to not accepted?
Kelly Blake Moran:
Your analogy to the art of Van Gogh was really good but if you could see the enormous body of art work that represents what's called "American Sublime" which was a sometimes dramatic artistic (painting) depiction of the raw beauty of the virgin American continent I know I'd have to pick you off the floor.
It's breathtakingly beautiful and was done mostly to attempt to protect the beauty of the natural continent just as it was coming under the onslaught and the full force of America's expansionist policy of "Manifest Destiny".
-
Manifest Destiny. A powerful phrase.
If I may shred a quote by the author Hector Chevigny, "So, America bought Alaska because they felt obligated to give thanks for the Russians helping in the Spanish American war, and the Russians, believing in America's "Manifest Destiny" thought they would lose it eventually anyway, decided to sell." So it was sort of the neighborly thing to do.
Tommy, Are you touching upon Andrew Wyeth? Remington?
-
tom paul -
extremely intriguing stuff this manifest destiny applied to golf architecture etc.
1) i think the same ideas of "the land belongs to us by divine right," so to speak, were present quite early in australia. are the same trends or tendencies in golf architecture that you refer to present in oz too?
2) quite early on the "hudson river school" of american painting was direct representation of the manifest destiny of america. yet, the works of that school gloried in nature and were championing its savage and untamed beauty. that's the best example i can think of where there seems to be a divergent theme within your idea of "Manifest Destiny" as a trend toward conquering nature.
3) alternatively, i think there has always been a great influence in golf architecture from landscaping and gardening. the idea being that if the natural surroundings did not suit one's taste, it was possible through planting and pruning and meticulous work to recreate the image of nature into something which suited you. this is my explanation for the "raynor paradox" tom macwood speaks of. simply the dichtomous nature of the angles and shapes in a raynor course don't jibe with nature, but they do fit nicely within an aesthetic of nature which has been formed from appreciating or creating landscape gardens.
-
Slag;
Sure, I guess the Wyeths would fit in their somewhere as latter day defenders of Nature (although a ton of damage was done before they were born).
Remington? Probably him too except his bucking bronco bronzes remind me more of a Teddy Roosevelt type than something Albert Bierstadt did.
But as for Bierstadt, if you could see his "Looking down Yosemite Valley" (1865) it would make you weep! I swear if you saw it you'd never take a leak outside again. (I think we could have built a really great and dramtic golf course there though!).
-
I too think the idea of Manifest Destiny in relation to golf architecture is very interesting. I wonder though, the first movements toward "manufactured" golf courses were in the UK, how does this theory jibe with that? Certainly, the degree to which dirt was moved increased as golf came to the US.
I'm no expert on art, but weren't the Hudson Valley School's landscapes of nature a glorification, a representation not necessarily of what was actually there, but rather what the painter thought best of the scene. As we destroyed it, we left these glorified representations of nature.
I've seen it argued that these paintings were essentially the travel brochures of their time.
My impression of MD with relation to art is that we believed we could build better than nature; we could enhance nature. Isn't that what the Golden Agers spoke about?
-
William Wang:
The "Hudson River Valley" school is a part of the entire work of what I referred to above as "American Sublime" 1820-1880. It too was certainly a reaction to the midstages of the effects of American "Manifest Destiny".
The entire evolution of landscaping in golf architecture is a very interesting one indeed, and Tom MacWood has some very good thoughts on that, touched on in his excellent five part article, the "Arts and Crafts Movement", on this website.
I'm fairly certain that Tom MacW feels that the art and philosophy of landscape architecture sometimes "sanitizes" Nature and sort of cleans up some of its rougher edges too much in the name of what that "art" thinks of as ideal forms.
-
Tommy,
@#$%^? ^&*?!! Criminy... Just go to Google "IMAGE" and put in "Bierstadt Looking Yosemite"
Beautiful. Nice framing. www.images.google.com
-
Thankfully, Tom Paul professes not to know very much about art. ::) ;) By contrast, I feel like I'm back in Art History 101 class! ;D
Tom Paul;
Do you really feel that the earliest architects like Macdonald believed that they would have to "manhandle" nature a bit in building courses for them to be "accepted" by the golfing public at that time?
I think that's an interesting theory, but let's remember that the earliest golfers in this country had very little by way of frame of reference to know any better at all. The very first courses prior to Macdonald's seminal work at NGLA were not only geometric in design, but also incorporated all sorts of odd man made features such as hedgerows, stone walls, race tracks, steeplechases, etc., and people played them simply because they didn't know any better and had no real preconceptions of what a golf course should or could be.
When Macdonald finally got totally disgusted enough to say "enough!", and started to build NGLA, I have a hard time imagining that he would have tried to "dumb it down" somewhat to gain critical and mass acceptance. I simply think he was working within different geological and environmental constraints than the works he admired in the old country. Let's also remember that by that time, there were many other courses in Scotland, England, etc., that were much more formal and visually directive than TOC, and he admired many of those, as well. Perhaps those courses whose holes were routed between tall dunes (those dunes providing some particular designated visual "alley" to aim between) were some of the first "framing", or visual aids to playing a particular hole.
So, although Macdonald admired and loved TOC, I'm sure he also took a great deal of his inspiration from other great courses in the British Isles, all of which would still fit his definition of "naturalness", while being somewhat more visually apparent and somewhat less random in featuring than TOC.
Throw in the fact that the land he built NGLA on, while highly suitable for golf, still was not as "prime" as those British courses built on natural sandy linksland with native fescues that he used as his models.
One other point...many of the first architects in America were emigrees who were each considered "experts" in everything about the game, including architecture. The general public of the time, with little or no knowledge or expectation of what a course should or could be, generally just accepted what they were told. Many of the courses these first architects built, even into the 20s, were simply rudimentary layouts where the "architects" set a stake in the ground as a tee area, located an appropriate green site, and moved on.
In many ways, I sense that our first courses were much more of "playing golf in nature unaltered by man" than we might even imagine.
-
eric - I think your understanding is correct within the framework of scholarship of the revisionist school of thinking in American environmental history. They attribute to Bierstadt, Cole, and others a romantic urge to find the sublime (as Tom Paul writes) and "the face of God" in nature. And if i remember correctly there was certainly a lot of twisting and pasting to create the scenes that were painted. (In fact i think some views that are depicted don't even exist in nature, but were compilations of various sketches done by the artist).
-
Eric:
I don't believe the best of the "Golden Agers", at least the ones that were real naturalists, necessarily believed they could 'enhance' nature, and certainly didn't believe they could do better than nature for golf if they happened to find what was natural that could be used well for golf. They felt the ground was there to be used by them and they should use it as it was given to them by nature if that worked well for golf. If nature didn't give them enough on a hole landform, or created some real complication, then they had to alter it and enhance it architecturally for golf.
Because of some necessities of the way the game is played, though, certainly they have to make concessions to only identifying and using what's natural for golf or on most sites they would be coming up with much.
Obviously, the only reason they had to make concessions to wholly natural and useable landforms for golf, if they could find them, was they understood that tees, fairways and greens etc just don't exist in nature to the degree necessary for play of the game of golf.
But again, the best example of what I'm trying to say would be something like Cypress's #9. You can see from before and after photos that on that hole MacKenzie used everything there without touching it and just layed down the fairway and green on what was there and built a tee. No better example of an architect respecting nature, identifying all of it that could be used for golf on a particular landform for a hole!
That natural landform that's now Cypress's #9 could probably be used as a test for any architect and how much he respected nature and had a talent for using it naturally. Would another architect have wiped away what was there and just come up with something out of his mind? Probably.
That particular landform could be a real test of what any architect thinks about nature and golf and its possibilities!
-
MikeC:
I don't think MacDonald 'dumbed down' anything architecturally that he did over here. Well, he did once, certainly at the front of #7 green NGLA and seemed content to report that fact almost as if to say he really might not be the single minded ogre that some thought he was. But so what?
Certainly, MaDonald adored TOC and clearly he took his conceptual inspiration from a lot of other courses in Europe too that had some fairly rudimentary man-made architecture to them. It's ironic that Pete Dye may have been the most fascinated by that particular aspect of the old sod some 65 years later (the rudimentary aspects of early man-made architecture).
I just don't think MacDonald cared that much about whether something appeared engineered. And I don't think he cared that much either if he offered any golfer something that was a real throwback in lack of visuals, which could have been as natural looking as you could possibly get in golf, probably because it was--or he would never have had holes like #2, 3 and 16 at NGLA.
MacDonald was into real quality holes that played great for golf--period--regardless of some specific look, new look, old look, whatever--and he planned on having 18 great holes at NGLA, no weak ones for golf---period--that was his mission at NGLA.
I think MacDonald was probably the first to recognize that by the time he got to St. Andrew's (1872) the course was already being altered with some fairly rudimentary man-made features--but they did work well for golf. And he even brought some of them home with him in his sketches--like the road hole green, which if it's anything is manufactured looking as hell. But it works so well. That's what Macdonald cared about, in my opinion.
The one that really seemed to believe some of the things I'm talking about on this thread who really took all this thought about golf in extreme nature, golf unrestrained by boundaries, golf as nature made it, or hopefully as architects could someday return it to, almost in a pure look or perception of nature, was Max Behr!
And Frankly, if you read "Scotland's Gift Golf" very carefully you'll come across a reference by MacDonald to a few in golf that he felt just thought too damn much about things it wasn't really that necessary to think about with golf and architecture.
If I can find the reference, I'll print it but there's no question at all MacDonald was referring to Behr.
But I find Behr, unbelievably fascinating in all kinds of ways, even if MacDonald may have felt he thought too much. Behr had some of the deepest thoughts on golf and architecture that were ever written, in my opinion. The fact that he happened to have a writing style that was like the most complex labyrinth ever known just made it all the more interesting. When you finally figure out exactly what he was saying the man was squarely on the bullseye!
-
Ronan,
You ask, Is Golf Architecture On the Verge of a Revolution? I say No, it isn't.
Hard to believe coming from me--a self-proclaimed optimist, but sadly, for every Pacific Dunes or Sand Hills built, we have 200 Sandpines', La Habra-Westridge's or Tiera Rejada's being built. That doesn't seem very revolutionary to me.
What about the Links Trust trying to restore one of the Old courses most famous features, and yet, what about the rest of the work that has altered the course unfavorably in the minds of purists. You have Tom Fazio & Associates who have completely altered the the look of some pretty famous and much admired courses under the guise of "Restoration" and that too is a "non-revolutionary" thing. It is unfortunate that it is a sign of the times. VERY UNFORTUNATE.
I think that a lot of this has to do with the fact that many people make absolutely no effort to school themselves in the history and arts, as well as the science of the subject. Many are quick to offer opinion and yet have little actual knowledge by using everything that has been given them in the forms of written works, drawings and images. Most simply DON'T READ at all.
Yet, they will give you the exact reason why things don't work or why it should be their way.
I have seen many in this discussion group that have made efforts, after seeing for themselves that they didn't have as much knowledge as they originally thought. They have made efforts to become STUDENTS of the Game. I applaude them, because there is nothing I like better then sharing with my fellow students and equally, them sharing with me.
We have an incredible tool here with Ran Morrisset's Golf Club Atlas, yet so many are so taken with golf course access as well as being part of the "I have played there" exclusiveness, they have failed to see what is best in the art and that is what is in the ground. But here are those that do want to learn and pride themselves as Students of the Game and in fact want to learn more. Many Professionals, and I'm talking of the ALL the architects that either participate or at least tune-in here, do it for some reason. I could only hope that it might be that it will make them better architects and designers, or perhaps even the chance they too, could even be better Students of the Game.
Simply put, we have so much to learn and the rest of our lives to do it, so lets make the most of it--learning even more.
It all reminds me so much of Ray Bradbury's book Farenheit 451 where despite all of the effort to remove knowledge and creativity occurs in the form of book burning, there are those that will fight to the death, to maintain their right to learn and create, even going so far to remove themselves from the techno-socialistic "happy" society that has been created for them and place themselves in a hidden society that will carry the torch for the future, in a society that will come to understnad the importance of the Arts.
A quote from the book where the autocratic "Fire Captain Beatty" says, "Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs.... Don't give them slippery stuff like philosophy or sociology to tie things up with. That way lies melancholy."
So is so much of our golf architecture today--vast commercial bits of past greatness that no longer exist because it is too complex to understand and doesn't work with modern thinking or lifestyle.
All my best.
(I can hardly wait to hear Rich...I mean ForkaB's reply!:))
-
Eric and William:
Yes, some of the so-called "American Sublime" paintings were super glorifications of nature and man's relationship to nature. A few of them were actually treated like shows. They would sell tickets, file everyone in to sit down in a theater like room with the painting behind an elaborate curtain, they'd open the curtain and everyone would stare at it for and hour or so until the curtain was drawn again. Among other things a few of them are some of the biggest canvases ever known!
TommyN:
Rich Goodale or ForkaB might try to respond to this thread but it's already drowned those guys in revolutionary thought. Anything they could possibly say on this thread would be no more than a slight whisper in the winds of change--the "Back to the Future" type change! OOps, Merion's already using that one.
-
Tommy
I don't know you yet but from what I have read of your inputs I know that you are the eternal optimist. I as well as some may want to learn so let us do so and not get caught up in the the banal! Let us all keep the faith! As much as I would like to stay on line I must go to bed as it is 3.47 in the morn but I will tune in tomorrow, so keep it rolling! Good night.
-
Tommy Naccarato,
I would agree with you, I don't see any revolution of substantial magnitude. I see a small group of aficianados, waging a losing battle against the rising tide of modernism and high tech.
As time effectively converts the philosophy responsible for creating the Golden Age courses to a fading memory for most, it is replaced by a need to have the newest in "in" designs.
While there are exceptions, they sure don't compare, numerically, to the bulk of the work being done.
If there was a revolution, true or sympathetic RESTORATIONS would be the norm, not the exception, and the current and future disfiguring of classic courses would cease.
It's the JEDI Knights against the Empire with a different ending.
But, it is still a noble pursuit.
-
Tommy N, With your Rustic Canyon packing in the Joe golfer by the busload, doesn't that give you some hope? We may not be reaching the high water mark of the Golden Age (or maybe we are) but at least we're not ebbing.
With all due respect to Dan Jenkins, I look at his Best 18 Golf Holes in America book, circa 1966, and some of what I see as his favorites, though he explains their strategies well, are rudimentary. What I've seen only recently is much more natural, with better educated and varied choices of grasses and inherently comforting by more exposure of the surrounding landscape with the courses. Like Mike Cirba said earlier in the thread, GCA is new and there is instant feedback on questionable articles/design/statements, etc. Before this forum thing the only experts were those that could write or self promote. Now, I'm not putting myself in their class. I love the works of Longhurst, Jenkins, Wind, Dobereiner, Whitaker and their ilk but there are a whole lot of voices here that make a lot of sense.
(Page 95 in the book shows the 12th at Augusta and there's a big broad-leafed weed in the foreground... it's beautiful man! :'( (Tears of joy)
Although I'll go where the lady takes me
She'll never tell me what's in her hand
I do not know what fate awaits me
Fare thee well ! dune and links land.
Mark Knopfler Fare Thee Well Northumberland (tweeked) from The Ragpickers Dream CD
-
Mr. Naccarato
If you will read post #21 on this thread you will see that you are just repeating my answer (i.e. "no") to Mr. Branigan's question. We also fully agree that there should be a "revolution." All we really differ about is the details. I desire a revolution which takes us forward and involves significant creativity and willingness to take risk. You wish one which consists of dragging the game kicking and screaming back into the Stone Age.
-
Patrick:
I really don't get your last post. What is this? "As time effectively converts the principles that created the golden age to a fading memory for most, it's replaced by the need to have the newest in "in" designs."
Or, "If true and sympathetic RESTORATIONS were the norm, instead of the exception,....."
Those sorts of remarks sound like they were written in the 1950s-1970s. They're are a tremendous amount of restorations going on all over the place--haven't you been paying attention? The architects who are doing restorations have been working their asses off in the last few years. Want me to list some of them? Some restorations are obviously better than others, but..... And who's turning the older classic courses into the newest "in" design right now?
Are you jumping the fence on this "Bias" campaign of yours as it pertains to some architects work on older courses, or, are you back on this "Move Charlie's Gate and add 60 yards to the 18th at NGLA again"?
-
Good morning, from slightly overcast but still mild for this time of year, Ireland. Maybe we should consider the topic of global warming. I have noticed that we have gorse bushes in flower at the moment! Slightly strange for the middle of December and if global warming and rising sea levels come to past maybe all our discussion will be in vain as our classic links will be simply eroded to the sea! Perish the thought or maybe there are some out there who would welcome this with open arms so that they say goodbye to the past masters and welcome the 'Jigsaw puzzle bunkers' advance. The ultimate conspiracy theory. Anyway, back to more pressing matters:
Pat
Don't give in. Maybe you should read some of the earlier posts regarding the disproportionate effects that small groups have waged all throughout history.
TE Paul
Once again I agree with your stoicism!
-
Ronan:
For God's sakes don't mention conspiracies or small groups to Pat Mucci--or large groups, or any kind of groups, for that matter. That will set him off on a real tear!
There's only one way to run a golf club as far as Pat's concerned and that's by a single dictator--not just any old dictator either--a dictator that agrees with him.
On second thought that's not a bad way to go at all. (As long as both of them agree with me!).
-
Ronan- Perhaps a new thread on the positive aspects of the topography of the future, Siberia. No joking, Areas that will be high enough in elevation and climatized for the continuing warming is a no brainer for future generations. Here in Farmington the daytime temps get up near fifty degrees (F) and golf is completly doable as long as there is no precip. Yesterday I was playing with a guy who made comment about the way winters use to be like here. Snow, snow and more snow. I have been here a year and the course has been closed a total of ten days, from less than an inch of white stuff.
I am saddened by the negative answers to your query from esteemed steamers like Tommy and Rich. Even the smallest of revolutions has to start somewhere and the fact that you did use the word VERGE, I still say YES.
Never give up especially in golf :-*
-
Guys,
Though it should be obvious, the small group of people who have found this site and spend anytime at all on it are already converted. They wouldn't bother logging in here if they weren't. Most all these posts are just like preaching to the choir! It's all those that don't participate that need conversion. Sitting here typing unfortunately won't reach them. We need to get out there where it is happening if we're going to have any measureable impact.
What are there, something like 25 million golfers in the U.S. I've always argued that 99% of them don't have a passion for golf course architecture nor do they really appreciate it. They are out there playing golf just for recreation, for business, for fun, or just to get away from it all for awhile,...etc. The other 1% (250,000) "might" have some interest in course design.
And if you think about it, my 99% number might be low. If I recall correctly, I think it was Brad Klein who at one time said, if you write a book on golf architecture, the market for it is maybe 1000 or so copies. Evidently the 250,000 don't like to read.
Becoming a "student of the game" as Tommy suggests is great, but if you want that to have any impact on the masses, you need to get your message beyond the people on this website.
Mark
-
Mark
I agree with you 100%. The vast majority of golfers have very little interest in GCA. The subtlety of design can be lost on them and they will merely judge a course depending on how they played on that given day. The only way to educate the masses is if by some way the golf courses that we all love such as Cypress Pt, Sand Hills etc.. host major tournaments and as a result the wider public see the intricacies and nuances of these courses and embrace that style of GCA. Oh! there is also the small point of converting pro's! It's a long shot but not unattainable.
Do you have an annual GCA conference in the States? If so have you every brought up the subject of classical design and its merits and if so how did it go down? What % of practicing architects in the states believe in a return to basics? There are ways of marketing a product to make it appealing to the general public. It's all about perception and what people believe is good, bad or indifferent! If we have the numbers and the clout let's start the ball rolling. If not let's give it a go anyway. I know that I might sound rather purist and possibly naive. I know that it is a big game and that there is room for many different styles. Tastes differ as with any art but if we can in some way show people the merits of the classical courses, both old and new, we have a chance of showing people how important they are to the game on a whole.
A Clay Man
Maybe Siberia is the way forward. It might be a little bit out of the way though
-
Mark:
There's no question in my mind that a number like 99% if that represents the percentage of golfers out there that're clueless about architecture or are never going to be candidates to become interested in the finer points of architecture, even if it's true, is virtually meaningless.
And also using an analogy to forecast the future direction of architecture by using a percentge relationship between the numbers of architectural books sold to the number of golfers out there is virtually meaningless too.
The more realistic and more effective way to influence the direction of architecture is to try to influence those select few who're interested in building golf courses or are about to.
There's no better example of this than the Bandon courses and Rustic Canyon. Did Rustic Canyon get conceived of and built by first educating, influencing and getting some kind of consensus opinion from potential golfers in its region? Of course not!
It's probably not beyond the realm of possibility that the number of people it took to get that course conceived of and eventually built could be counted on two hands. As for conceiving of it and getting the ball rolling--it may have only been one--Shackelford.
But look at it now. And look at the courses of Bandon now! The players (all those clueless 99%) are coming to play the courses in droves and are apparently not only having a ball doing it but actually stating same--which is of course doubly indicative.
Do you think this is going to be lost on Rustic's (or Bandon's) competition or potential competition? I'm sure not!
You build something that may be a departure from the norm, like Rustic Canyon or Bandons, and they come or they don't come. If they come and particularly in droves that begins to get the attention of many many more people and golfers, very much including that so-called clueless 99%!
That's how the direction of architecture begins to really be influenced and then begins to change direction. You don't have to first educate those 99% or influence them first at all. Frankly, you don't even have to attempt to talk to any of them first!
-
Ronan:
You started one helluva thread here--it's now become about ten different threads in one. If the number of posts hits 200 for evermore you will be admitted into the barroom brawl known as the Treehouse AKA Golfclubatlas.com at any hour and for any reason without first having to whisper the password or give the secret handshake!
But just so you know, the password and secret handshake has always been whatever anyone wants it to be.
-
Ronan,
In an earlier post(#125 ) you stated:
...."It{TOC} is meant to be the bible of strategic design but yet it doesn't present the player with visual cues".
The adage says that once one plays a hole it isn't blind any longer and it's been said that to really understand a course one must play it often and in all the elements. I accept these remarks and they lead me to think that golfers from past eras weren't expected to see or play as many courses as we do now. Visual cues were of less importance than knowing the course, which was achieved over a longer frame of time for these golfers.
The "cues" may have become more important or were felt to be necessary as the number and mobility of players grew.
-
JimK:
In the philosophy of "art design" and its concept of "emphasis" and how that applies to golf architecture and its "visuals", lack of "visual cues" and blindness are not synonymous or even similar, in my opinion.
How about yours?
-
I need to get me one of those hats with the open baseball mitt on top that'll keep some of these posts from going over my head.
-
If there is going to be a "revolution", it might be in "affordable" golf. Maybe that in itself will force more "natural" less contrived golf course designs. You can't charge $30 a round if you move a million cubic yards of dirt and do wall to wall landscaping with elaborate water features.
But at the same time, if you hit the right price points, golfers will come no matter what you build. That is a fact and unfortunately most architects know it.
Maybe Rustic Canyon winning Golf Digest's best new award will help the cause. This is one of the kinds of exposure that can have a significant impact. It's a shame people on this site don't recognize this :(
Think what you want about the rankings, etc., but you get more of those guys to think the way we do and you CAN have an impact. Unfortunately, half the people on this site think the rankings are a joke and the panelists are clueless and just out for free golf. I don't believe that and even if they are, then convert them! Who do you think these guys are playing with when they travel all over the country to see these courses. Many times it's the superintendents, the architects themselves, the chairman of the grounds committee and/or some influencial member. They have their ear for over four hours!
To bad this site scares most panelists off and only a few bother to stick around anymore as a result.
Missed opportunity in my opinion!
Mark
-
Mark
I couldn't agree more with your thread and of kind of touched on that very point in post#149. It is very easy to assume the moral highground and have a them and us situation which seldom yields results. Even though not always possible it is important to try and look at things from all angles. As already mentioned we are not the people that have to be converted and as such we have to explore all avenues in regard to educating the masses. If we can educate the influencial people and let them also carry the torch forward it will be a good day for GCA.
In that post I also asked a few questions if anyone would care to answer.Go raibh maith agaibh (Irish for thanks)
-
Maybe Rustic Canyon winning Golf Digest's best new award will help the cause. This is one of the kinds of exposure that can have a significant impact. It's a shame people on this site don't recognize this :(
half the people on this site think the rankings are a joke ... Who do you think these guys are playing with when they travel all over the country to see these courses. Many times it's the superintendents, the architects themselves, the chairman of the grounds committee and/or some influencial member.
Mark
Mark, perhaps it's been tainted by the rankings of the past. Once bitte, twice shy.
I remember playing Sandpines GC in Florence, Oregon BECAUSE it was voted best new in whenever. I didn't know much anything about golf architecture but I thought wow! gollygeewillickers "Best NEW in the Whole Country" ! Yippee ky aye! Funny thing was I enjoyed it but that night I drove further down the coast to some new course in Bandon that just opened that month that I'd read about in a small article in the local paper. That course was epiphanal for me. IT was what compelled me to go to Ireland and hook into this site and buy countless books on the subject we tirelessly discuss.
I have since gone back to Sandpines and am so disappointed at the lost opportunity that I really dropped rankings or Doak scale #'s from any meaning for me. That said, the general population does use those rankings so they are important for where golf architecture is headed. I am more relieved than happy that Rustic Canyon and Devils Thumb came in with defiant punches that may sink some battleships.
As matter-of-factly as I can ask this... How honest can one be in rating a course when playing with archies/supers/club pros etc? Is it difficult to suggest anything or does the friendliness get in the way of hard opinions?
So, though the rankings won't make me play a course, the shared knowledge and avid opinions of golfers here and ones I meet playing do make me want to experience more.
To Jim Finegan, thanks for the write-up and accolades for Carne GL in Ireland. Words made the difference.
-
TE,
I wasn't trying to relate the two, I was only using blind shots to illustrate "learned". At TOC, as Ronan sees it, the few visual clues are not part of the strategy bible. What I was trying to get at was the idea that fewer visual cues could mean more available options and that fewer visual cues were not looked on in the same light as today, which I think was the case in the less mobile era when strategy was king.
-
Mark Fine:
If I'm understanding Slag Bandoon correctly his experience is the golf course sells the golf course at least long term and not necessarily the magazine rankings.
I think the real 99% factor out there is all those golfers who put so much stock in the magazine rankings when most of the time all the magazine rankings are is a bunch of 1-100 numbers that makes no distinction for the reading or golfing public about what the differences in architecture really is from one course to another. So what's the educational value of the magazines in an architectural context for that 'clueless' golfing public?
Now, I would completely change my opinion, and I do, if that magazine also included the thoughtful article written by Ron Whitten about Rustic Canyon and why it was different, unique and so interesting in its architecture. If any of those magazines bothered to do articles like that for all the courses they rate and rank I'd be 100% behind those magazines, particularly if they had a thoughtful architectural writer like Whitten. But they don't do that--except apparently for the winner or whatever.
So to see any kind of credit for the success of Rustic Canyon claimed by the magazine that rated it is not really something I like to hear (reserving my argument, of course, for the effects of the thoughtful article by Whitten).
But again, if I'm understanding Slag correctly, Rustic Canyon and its architecture (obviously price etc) is responsible for Rustic Canyon's success, not any magazine--at least that's definitely the way it will play out long term.
So, again, I'd be all for the magazines if they bother to write thoughtful articles about the courses they rank, their architecture, why it's good, why it's better than other types of architecture. That would really be educational and of course that could reach millions more people and golfers than Golfcubatlas ever might.
So are they doing that--are they writing thoughtful articles or just listing a bunch of golf courses progressively by number. What's the architectural education in that?
-
Thank you Tommy for expounding so eloquently on my notion. Now, how can a grass roots group like GCAtlas put pressure on the editorial staffs of Golf Digest, Links, Golfweek, our local newspapers and golf publications, etc?
Lurking editors, trust the word. Avoid the dumbing illiterate direction of the number game. Use the 1st Amendment. Oops,I meant First.
-
Still don't get it do we! Ron Whitten would probably not have written about Rustic Canyon if it didn't win! The reason it won is because at least 10 panelists voted for it to win. If courses like that continue to get voted for, there will be more articles written about them! The panelists have the influence.
But don't kid yourself about who those articles are written for. Let's not forget how many golfers buy golf architecture books ;) There is a reason for that!
-
Ronan Branigan,
Not to worry,
"Giving in" is not in my nature, but being realistic is.
I continue the noble cause, despite the odds and aggravation.
TEPaul,
Could you name me just ten (10) TRUE and complete restorations that have taken place over the last ten years ?
I will repeat, as Father Time marches further away from the creation of the classic courses, the philosophy that created them becomes a faded memory. AND, most individuals taking up golf in the last ten years have no idea who those old dead guys were, what they stood for, and what they accomplished.
Ask yourself, if the great works of art were interactive and open season, for all to try their hand, how many of them would have survived in their original state ?
Golf courses are subject to a terrible and powerful force, the idea that a member can alter features on the golf course, resulting in a direct beneficial impact upon his game.
As long as that thinking continues, and the architecture is not considered sacrosanct, disfigurations, not restorations, will prevail.
-
Pat
All great works of architecture are interactive.
Mark
The public appreciates great golf architecture. They may not all be able to articulate their appreciation or give the course a numeric rating relative to other courses, but they will choose interesting and stimulating architecture over their current sad diet. What effect does the best new course have on the general public? I don't think it has much effect its hard to remember who last year much less ten years ago.
Do you think the GD ranking would have effected the designs of Macdonald, Colt, MacKenzie.....? One of the reasons golf architecture flourished in the first decades of the 20th C was not due to rankings, but the effect of thoughtful writing/analysis - not something you find in abundance in the major golf magazines.
-
To add to what Mr. MacWood and Mr. Paul (and possibly others; this is quite a thread to plow through, when you've been sick for a couple of days!) have been saying...
I hope you don't mind if I repeat myself -- from a thread called "Did vacations ruin golf?" (or something like that); it seems apropos to this discussion of the 99%:
This contempt for Joe Sixpack (a.k.a. "Doof") is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You (the developer You) imagine, loftily, that Doof (unlike You) has no taste, so you build garish, tasteless golf courses littered with waterfalls and cart girls.
And then You blame Doof!
After all: Doof showed up and played your course, and he even seemed to enjoy it -- proving that you were right about him all along!
What garbage.
Build a great golf course, and let Doof play it (shudder), and I'm telling you: Doof will love it.
Those of you who doubt that: Please name me a great public golf course that Joe Sixpack has shunned.
----------------
As Tom I said up above: The minds that need influencing are the minds of the guys who have the money to build golf courses. Simple as that. The public will follow -- and be grateful for it.
As for me: I'm hopeful that golf architecture is following the pattern of baseballl architecture. Remember, 30 years ago, when they were building all of those perfectly round, perfectly symmetrical, perfectly dreadful baseball/football stadiums: Busch in St. Louis, Three Rivers in Pittsburgh, Riverfront in Cincinnati, Veterans in Philly? Everyone thought those stadiums were just the cat's meow -- until, finally, people couldn't tell one of those parks from another, and they got sick of symmetry and perfectness, and the owners started to build old-timey, charming baseball ballparks again, each
a distinctive place.
And guess what: The public loves those ballparks -- even the 99 percent of the public who couldn't articulate why.
-
Tom MacWood,
Golf courses are physically interactive, while most works of art are not physically interactive. That is the major difference
And when golfers feel that they can alter the outcome of that physical interaction, they will attempt to do so.
Paintings, sculptures and other works of art have no such interaction.
-
Pat
Buildings and homes are physically interactive. Are you saying that architecture is not an art?
-
Tom M,
You miss my point about the best new award. The biggest influence might be on the architects and owners themselves. If they see courses like Rustic Canyon winning these accolades, they may build more like it. To win these awards, you need panelists to vote for them and not the Tiera Rejadas that Tommy talks about. If you alinate the panelists and you potentially lose an opportunity.
Ask Gil and Geoff if winning that award means anything to them? Bet I know the answer :)
Mark
-
Tom M. makes a nice point about golf courses being intercative. As this relates to the "revolution or not" question allow me to offer the following:
A golf course is not just the physical, as we all would agree I hope.) Accurately, a golf course is the history, lack of history, setting beyond its property limits, climate, winds, and indeed the sounds and smell of every nook and cranny. It also is the people who make up its core play. A golf course is defined by charm, allure and occasionally how accessible it may be. certainly these suggest why we can or cannot play there, or wht we would or would not pay the asking green fee.
I have many wonderful golf memories that would give me cause to suggest a course is remarkable. When I was eight it was a public course called Papago. Why? because it what what I knew at the time. My world was little, just like me and my fresh brain. Papago was everything a golf course should be -- to me. Now my world is bigger, and like so many adults and especially so many seasoned golf course architecture "experts", my tastes are tainted (influenced) by the knowledge I keep expanding upon.
All this new knowledge has a dangerous by-product: when we attain it we can begin to talk down to the 99% -- hell, we even begin to use percentages such as 99%, of which I am suspicious of right off the bat.
All golfers share a common love. Some love equipment. Some the "get away from reality" aspects. Some the habitual nature. Some just the challenge. Some the professional heros. Some the heritage of courses and golf figures. Some the courses. And some all of these. The "average golfer", which many of you might call a "hack" or perhaps even "Joe-Bag-of-Donuts", can teach us a lot about the art of golf, golf courses and experiences. They may not be up to our taste or standards, but they are real. As a great advertising giant once said, "Don't talk down to the consumer, she is your wife." (David Olgivy)
Those who have made a point of this interactive nature of courses, and the fact that courses are SUPPOSED to change and morf to the needs and wishes of their players, are on track. A revolution may be economic -- which I believe is a reality in golf. A revolution may also be part design -- which I point out is but one part of a golf course. And a revolution may be access related -- which is a combination of economics, physical attributes and policy.
A review of a majority of this thread will show how single track we are with the obsession on physical qualities -- the design. I like very much the discussion on affordability, building courses where they belong and are needed; and perhaps even the alternates to the tried and true 18-holes of "regulation" length.
-
Forrest
I agree with your thread in taht we should look at 'the Revolution' from many aspects and affordability is very important. What % of golfers play on less than $30-50 courses. Probably the majority. So if you can work with that market in regard to creating more 'natural' courses we could be on to a winner.
Regardly of why the article on RC was written in GD, think of the benefits. There is always an ulterior motive to things. Unfortunately that is the world we live in but let us try to see the benefits of such an award and article. It's all about converting the influencial few (small groups thread again)
Dan
Great analogy with Baseball. Unfortunately, I don't know much about it. The only game that I have ever seen is when I worked at East Lake in Atlanta and I went to see the Braves play. Those games go on for hours!
-
Tom MacWood,
Mark Fine and Matt Ward are correct,
You need to get out of the house and play more golf courses.
Buildings and homes are hardly interactive fields of play, where score is kept, other than perhaps in the bedroom.
You understand the issue, stop playing with yourself,
other than perhaps, in the bedroom. ;D
-
Does anyone out there know if there is a support group for the girlfriends of contributors to GCA? I'm starting to get a hardtime for being online so much! Ah! if only sheep could cook!!!!
-
Pat
Architecture is one of the most elemental of art forms. It was derived from man's need to seek shelter. It is a place to see and not be seen -- protection from the elements. It is both funtional and artistic - not unlike golf architecture.
Is there a more interactive space than the home? The home is broken into smaller functional areas. There is place for the activity of preparing food, there is a space for dining, there is a space for gathering near the hearth, there is a space for sleeping, there is a space for washing clothes, for bathing. I have kids playing games in play rooms, others playing musical instruments, some dancing, reading, watching TV, listening to music, writing, studying, etc. There are a number of activities that occur in the home everyday (I suspect you may have a dungeon). Plus you have the relationship between home and its environment - trees, shrubs, flowers, lawn. the effect of weather and age. Outdoor spaces: play areas, patios, pools, gardens, basketball court, driveway.
It is just as important that a building be functional (address the great number of activities; INTERACTIVE) as it is to be aesthetically pleasing. The greatest works of architecture and golf architecture grasp both. Perhaps you, Matt Ward and Mark Fine can reflect upon that in your travels.
-
Mark
I understand the bounce these architects get from winning these awards. But is that a positive for golf architecture? If you look at the courses that have won these awards over the years, I think if anything it has led to a very bad trend. More courses designed to get attention and win the award. Many of these courses who win are attention grabbing, immediately making the rankings and then fall off the face of the earth in short order. They are not interesting, thought-provoking designs, but they sure make a pretty picture.
-
;)
Design, Art, and Architecture. At my ol university, it was one college, but separate disciplines with fuzzy barriers. But the archies had to do one thing different, build it for use and abuse by the general public.
Note.. Riverfront Stadium in Cinti, is gone.. The AstroDome is about to go, and others will follow.
I still don't get the revolution thing, too much bluster/bs in that term's use..
p.s. ronan, sorry.. equating women to sheep who can cook gives you a failing grade in my book, that's really poor
-
This sure is an interesting thread, moving in and out of all kinds of subjects.
The "interacitivity" of golf courses and their architecture is interesting but I hope some aren't mentioning that fact to try to prevent architecture from evolving and being subject to maintenance practices and so forth that does change it over time. If this is a point being made to establish that classic archtecture must not be touched by man at all that's just plain unrealistic.
Pat:
I really find it hard to believe that you appear so doomish about the propects of restoration of classic architecture and have said on a thread above that even the principles of classic Golden Age architecture are receding from memory.
That's the farthest thing from the truth, in my opinion. I think restoration has almost hit a critical mass at this point. It's happening all over the country.
But you ask me to name 10 TRUE and complete examples of courses that have been restored in the last ten year. That, of course completely persupposes what you mean by "TRUE and complete".
I think it's ridiculous to establish some kind of test for a restoration to be "TRUE and complete" perhaps only in the eyes of what Pat Mucci thinks a restoration should be to even be consider a restoration.
The fact is about twenty years ago the thought of restoring these classic course was barely existed. They were still treeing them up, shrinking them down, softening them and wholesale redesigning them, even rerouting them.
That appears not to be happening much anymore and now the idea of restoration has really taken hold. Some restorations are very good, some moderately so, and others not very well done but at least courses are trying to restore and get back to what they should be.
Books are being written all the time explaining the classic courses and the priniciple and logic of those designs.
I don't know why you're so pessimistic about what's happening today. It's about 500 times more positive than it was just 15-20 years ago. Maybe they don't pass some extreme test of yours but, again, the direction is so much better than it used to be!
But to some of the purists on here, the idea that every single thing MUST be returned to the way it once was is both unrealistic and shortsighted, in my opinion. To understand the details of why some things logically must change with the ensuing decades takes time and work to understand that they actually can be made even better than they once were at even their best in the Golden Age itself.
There's no reason to be pessimistic--it's a time to be optimistic--there's a ton of good stuff happening in new construction, restoration, writing, you name it!
As for examples of 10 good restorations in the last ten years, my God, Ron Prichard alone has done more than that in the last five years! Not to mention the good work of Hanse, Doak, Forse, and probably a bunch of others I'm not that familiar with!
Things are moving in the right direction mostly now, not the complete wrong direction they were 20+ years ago and back!
-
"Still don't get it do we?"
Mark Fine
Guess I don’t get it Mark. What I keep getting from some of your posts on golfers and the utility of magazine ratings is sort of self satisfied arrogance. For couple of years now you keep throwing this 99% figure at us that sometimes you say you think is actually low. The 99%, fellow Golfclubatlasers, is the percentage of golfers who play golf who are clueless according to Mark Fine.
My take on a golf courses like Rustic Canyon and Pacific Dunes and Bandon Dunes that have been recognized by Golf Digest, is that’s nice they finally are but they and their popularity and appeal will be the result of what they are and not the recognition of Golf Digest! This is certainly true in the long term as others have suggested on this thread.
For Golf Digest and certainly their raters, all however many hundreds of them there are, or even that clever 10 who voted for Rustic to win, to think their “influence” is responsible for Rustic’s success is just plain funny to me. Some of those people who rate probably think they actually discovered those courses and are responsible for a new direction in architecture because of that---funnier still!
I’d definitely prefer that Ron Whitten himself just did the whole thing for Golf Digest and wrote about what he’s discovered, just as they did more of in the old days before these 1-100 lists which say virtually nothing about why courses are picked or what the assets and uniqueness of their architecture really is.
To me the ratings have very little educational value and are nothing more than a technique to sell golf magazines. Of course, it’s great for all the raters to go play those courses, I’m sure. I certainly enjoy Matt Ward’s in depth course analysis but hasn’t Golf Digest taken him off as a rater? If so, another stupid thing to do! What was he getting a bit blunt of honest about architectural analysis or the process used by the magazine.
If I had a course, I’d be happy to ask Ron Whitten to come and look at it and write about it if he thought that appropriate, but if he told me that a bunch of GD raters would have to come and tell him how good it was before he could do that, I’d definitely tell him to forget it!
But in the meantime, I guess all those trend setting GD raters will be keeping their ears to the ground to figure out where that 99% clueless crowd is playing golf so they can rate it and tell them what they’re too clueless to know!
-
Ronan Branigan,
Ahh, we all have our war camps to contend with.
Those that have been posting for some time have figured out how to appease all interested parties. Unfortunately, there is no magic formula, and each poster must enter into negotiations unique to their particular situation.
Part of my 475 page agreement, is that I will not get on the site as soon as I get home. Although, there are special occassional exemptions, I've tried to keep my end of the deal.
TEPaul,
My pessimism is in the context of democracy, and dealing with each and every faction within a club trying to put forth their agenda relative to the architecture.
Politically, it's difficult to get agreement to undue prior changes because the members that triggered them are still members and probably have a say in club policy.
I have a little personal experience with this at several clubs and based on my experience, I don't see the process being simplified.
Tom MacWood,
Most buildings are not altered to suit the whims of those factions who traverse, inhabit or visit them. Typically, most buildings are not owned by 300 + user/owners.
If you don't see the distinction, getting out of the house and playing more golf won't help.
-
Pat
I'll let you figure out if clubs are run by 300 or by a smaller influencial group - internal power struggles is your area of expertise, I prefer the architecure or artistic side. At least you now concede that other art forms are interactive -- that was very poor comparison.
-
Tom P,
Once again you are missing my point. There is a big difference between someone who is clueless and someone who just really doesn't care. You haven't figured out the difference :( and what I mean by 99%. This is not arrogance, this is just common sense!
You yourself said that for most of your golfing career, you never bothered or cared to look at the architecture of the courses you were playing. You said were just focused on your score and your golf game. It wasn't until recently that you became so infactuated with golf architecture that now you hardly even play anymore. How quickly we forget don't
we ;) Think about that for a while and maybe you will finally get my point!!
I can't continue to argue about the GD stuff because I don't have the time and you have your mind set on that and it's not worth the effort to get you to change. Missed opportunity I'm afraid. I think you are the one who is coming across as arrogant in that all panelists just wait for someone knowledgable to tell them where to play.
One thing you also don't appreciate is the confidentiality that GD panelists, and I presume other panelists as well, need to abide by. I can't provide a copy of my detailed review to the courses I review so I sure better not post it on the internet!
I say what I can say but I can't be as candid as I might like. Many panelists don't participate for this reason alone. Some said to much and are no longer on the panel :( and we unfortunately know one of them.
Better think back to where you were 5 or so years ago before you make some more of your comments ;)
By the way, I enjoy a good debate (at least some of the time).
Mark
-
Steve
Apologies if my comment offended you. In Ireland we call such a dastardly comment 'tongue in cheek'. Lighten up, after all it is Sunday!!!!!!!!!
-
Tom MacWood,
The VAST MAJORITY of club members don't view their golf courses as an art form, they view them as a field of play.
A field of play over which they can exert influence sufficient to alter its form.
If you think that those in power at clubs have a greater understanding or vision with respect to the golf course as an art form, you are out of touch with reality.
Most golfers are more concerned with the height of the rough than who the architect was, and what he originally intended architecturally.
I don't consider buildings and homes as art, I view them as functional, engineered structures, much like automobiles.
None of which are living, growing organisms.
-
TEPaul,
Another point.
While I agree that the individuals you mentioned are capable of excellent restoration work, I think that you will find that the clubs themselves won't let those fellows go the final mile to REALLY get it right.
Even the Plainfields, Ridgewoods and other clubs, put the brakes on, fearing that a TRUE RESTORATION IS TOO RADICAL
Can you imagine that, a TRUE RESTORATION, back to what the original architect intended, is TOO RADICAL.
Even at NGLA, didn't someone recently post that they didn't want to restore the 13th green out to the right side bunker for maintainance costs or some other dubious excuse ?
TE, as time removes current memberships further from their architectural roots, the integrity of the original design becomes more expendable, less valued in the eyes of the current memberships at all but a few clubs.
That's just the way I see it.
Others may see it differently.
-
Mark:
Maybe I am missing your point. It really doesn't matter though. You do seem to understand how I feel about magazine ratings like Golf Digest and you're right my opinion's probably not going to change until the educational value of GD's architectural output changes. I really can't see that happening though unless and until someone who has a good sense of the distinctions in architecture like Ron Whitten writes about that far more comprehensively in Golf Digest. In the meantime the 1-100 lists don't hold much meaning in the context of education as far as I'm concerned.
I guess I really don't understand your point about the 99%--the huge group you've said is clueless.
As for me before I got interested in architecture, well, I wouldn't look back on that and say I was clueless exactly about architecture. Maybe I didn't concern myself with the names of the architects and exactly how and why they did things and some of the principles they applied. However, you can't play golf at a pretty good level, score well and such and be completely clueless about architecture--if you were I doubt one would do very well. I'm fairly confident you can understand that.
As for an opportunity lost--I really don't know what you mean. But that's OK.
-
Patrick:
Do you seriously feel that interest and understanding of these classic courses is less today than it was twenty years ago? I find that amazing you'd think that. Why do you think all these restorations are taking place these days instead of twently years ago?
I'm more interested in the first mile in restoration than the last mile. There may be a lot of people on this website too who feel a restoration is a total failure unless every single thing is returned to the way it once was. That's far too much of a broadbrush approach in my book. That doesn't take into account that even the best of the architects made mistakes, that things just didn't work well for a memberhip over time.
There's no reason to overlook those facts and just plow ahead in the name of something like architectural purity alone. There're a number of things that have occured since those courses were built that effects classic architectural restoration in various ways--there's the whole question of "evolution" in any course, through play particularly, that needs to be taken into account, speed of greens as it relates to evolution etc, extreme advances in agronomy etc.
Anyone should understand that 25% is better than 0& and 50% is better than 25% and so on! The last mile is nice but you have to start somewhere and travel those miles in between first and that's what I think we're doing, certainly far more than 15-20 years ago.
Sorry you don't see it that way.
-
Pat
Better late than never. Six posts later you finally answered my simple question, do you consider architecure an art. Now I can to put all your opinions in the proper perspective. I think most architects would disagree with you. What is you definition of art?
-
Interesting opinions.
Like Tom Paul, I believe you don't have to study golf course architecture to appreciate it. A course that posesses quality will tend to be loved and last the test of time.
Mackenzie wrote about this, claiming that golfers often gave up the game because their local track was insipid and lifeless. And my man Colt pretty well summed it up when he wrote that a true test of a course was whether "it would live".
-
Revolution: 62
No Revolution: 62
I say we call this thread a draw and continue discussion about restoration separately. Then move on to one of the great sub-topics we ventured into. Except the sheep. By the way, I could find no reference to comparting sheep to women, which leads me to think...
-
Patrick:
Do you seriously feel that interest and understanding of these classic courses is less today than it was twenty years ago?
TEPaul,
That's not what I said.
I said that I don't see any revolution, which connotes a systemic movement. Perhaps a rebellion would be a more apt description.
And I do agree that some change is far better than none, no matter what the math.
Tom MacWood,
Golf course architecture is a business.
Isn't that one of the reasons why many on here were critical of Fazio, Jones and Dye and praised Coore & Crenshaw ?
Medicine is an art based on science, but it's sure practiced a lot differently today than 50 years ago. Just try getting a doctor to make a house call.
As to opinions, actions speak louder than words.
If you think that the majority or the ruling clubmembers look upon their golf course as a work of art, or art form, you're sadly mistaken.
-
Still don't get it do we!
Mark, I don't mean to discount the effort of golf course raters and their input, it's just that, for me, I'd rather read why something is special. Even if sometimes these articles turn into sales pitches and their motives are transparent. I enjoy Whitten reports more than the ranking of a subjective topic. What's better, the Mona Lisa or The Birth of Venus?... and where does it rank with Fragonard's 'Young Girl Reading'? It just has no value to me. I'd rather have whys and wherefors explained to me so that I may learn. The rankings don't educate me.
I do see the value of Best New in that it gets the attention for marketing and I can't deny its financial impact and that it may affect a direction.
Several months ago you told us that we should get off these darned computers and play more golf. I took your advice (I'm an easy sell) and did just that and have no regrets but if finding gems and cataloging them with Doak #'s or this is better than that, or checking a "Difficulty in Scoring" box, even in my own unshared 'Little Black Book of Golf', it still has little value to me.
I planned and went to Arizona and checked an AZ golf website and it had a Best 10 in state and neither Talking Stick or Apache Stronghold were on it. Where did I go? Those two places because of what I had read about them making the most of their sites, etc.
quote... "If I can do it, it aint art." Red Green of The New Red Green Show
-
Slag:
That's a very fine post of yours to Mark Fine. You explain things a lot better than I've been able to.
I have nothing against magazines like Golf Digest, per se, or what Mark Fine and the other raters are doing. I just feel, as apparently you do, that what they do and the magazine does (straight numerical rankings) has practically no education or even informational value to anyone.
Obviously the magazines do it the way they do because it's cheaper and easier to do it that way and using hundreds of raters probably appears to be consensus gathering when in fact it's extremely weak that way, in my opinion.
I'd prefer to see any magazine that wants to offer comparisons of courses and architecture to pay a few people like Whitten to get out there and play what they're interested in, analyze it and then write intelligently and informatively about it.
Mark will probably tell us that won't work because 99% of the golfing public are clueless anyway and would never read such things. Maybe that's true--maybe it isn't! But the way those magazines are doing it now is still of no educational or informational value to anyone, not even us--and anyone would have to consider we know a thing or two about architecture if we concern ourselves with it practically every day!
Mark might even tell us to get out there and play these courses ourselves and see for ourselves, but I would ask him what are they doing these lists for then?
It's obvious why they are--the lists sell magazines--and that's about all they do--but they aren't educating anyone about architecture.
Except Whitten's articles! And again, I think that's what they should be offering a ton more of!
But Mark tells us that it's the raters that have the influence and are the ones who basically tell Ron Whitten, or show Ron Whitten what to write about!
See, I really don't like that! I think Ron and a few other discriminating golf architectural writers should decide for themselves what they think is worthy to write about!
-
TE Paul
Is there a market out there for a GCA magazine that is edited by GC atlasers? That would be one way of getting a balanced view across!
Here is a quote that I came across from a book I am reading at the moment called 'Life of Pi' by Yann Martel
" If we, citizens, do not support our artists, then we sacrifice our imagination on the altar of crude reality and we end up believing in nothing and having worthless dreams".
-
I'm coming into this discussion a little late, but I've read many of your opinions, and I wanted to contribute some thoughts. Concerning the subject of the thread, "on the verge of a revolution": This has happened already, with Pete Dye at the helm. Following the dull design era of the fifties (I'll stir it up and say the Robert Trent Jones, Sr. is overrated and gets too much credit, mainly because he was the only prolific designer during this period). Although Pete Dye had/has just as many critics as disciples, he changed the way it is done. Along with Tom Fazio's coming out in the late 80's, Dye's designs pushed the limits of earthmoving and the fundamentals of naturalistic design in an effort to say that a great course can be built, hence opening up possibilities in the tomato field topography of Florida and the South Carolina lowcountry. Today's designers are attempting to go back to the basics, but the shortage of great land is making this effort increasingly difficult (hence the reason we keep referring to the same 3-4 courses as great modern tracks). The fact is, what Pete Dye and Tom Fazio did was open up a world of options for modern designers, and that is a revolution.
-
Tom P,
You state in your one post - " However, you can't play golf at a pretty good level, score well and such and be completely clueless about architecture--if you were I doubt one would do very well".
Are you suggesting that if you are good at golf you must understand something about architecture? Isn't that the false premise that many PGA Pros make and why they all jump into golf course design :(
Maybe I should re-define that 99% rule to be all golfers who think about golf courses like Tom Paul did five years ago :))
But why does this matter anyway? It matters because the reason we see the courses we do is because most architects design courses for golfers (and what they want or think they want), not for themselves. Why do you think thousands and thousands of golfers head to places like Myrtle Beach, Phoenix, Palm Springs,.. (not exactly the golf architecture meccas of the world) every year. They are there to do what you used to do five years ago. Who cares if Doak or Ross or some shoe salesman designed the course. You said you never used to care! Give them two shots a side, smooth rolling greens, no email for three days and they'll tee it up anywhere.
You should grab a copy of GD's Places You Can Play which has comments in it from thousands of everyday golfers about golf courses and why they are great. Maybe that will give you the reality check you need. Remember, these are the same people (the paying customers) who are helping determine the needs of what the golf architect has to satisfy. There is a difference between being clueless and just not caring.
Slag,
You've just made one of my points for me. Educate those panelists who missed putting A and TS in the top 10 so they get it right the next time! Trust me, your average golfer is not logging onto GCA to find out where they should be playing!
-
Mark:
I really don't know what to say to you on this subject of magazine rankings like GD. We obviously just see things very differently. Maybe about a lot of things to do with architecture.
If you're under the impression that touring pros have no clue about architecture, certainly as it relates to playing the game, you're sorely misinformed, in my opinion! That may be one of the biggest fallacies of all. Touring pros certainly can see architecture in the context of their own games far too much or they simply may not spend the necessary time on projects they do to do a very good job. Or else they just aren't particularly informed on the nuts and bolts of construction methods etc. But completely clueless on all aspects of architecture? I hardly think so! Like anybody else some are good at some aspects of things others aren't. Being a good and comprehensive architect because you're a tour pro probably has nothing much more to do with it than anyone else.
But they certainly have as refined a sense of it as you do or I do as it relates to playing the game--and I'm quite certain probably much more so!
I've no doubt that golfers will continue to go to the likes of the Myrtle Beach courses that you suggested but the difference between you and me very well might be that you think if they were given far more interesting and thoughtful and fun architecture, perhaps something like the architectural principles of a Rustic Canyon or Pacific Dunes that they wouldn't even know the difference or care about it.
I do not believe that for a second, although it certainly appears you do! And that's probably the fundamental difference between us on a lot of this stuff.
-
Tom P,
I enjoy the debates. They are all in good fun and you can hold your own!
Hey the sun is coming out here. Maybe this snow will all melt and dry up so some golf courses will open up. I don't care which ones, I need a golf fix as I haven't played in weeks ;)
Mark
-
Sorry, but I am piping in again without having followed the thread for some time. I spoke with a friend whom said she feels there has been a positive revival in other disciplines which may lend some support of a positive revival in golf design. She was referring to a classical revival in architecture. There is also a revival in art that is based upon the processes of the old masters. Somehow maybe this relates to what many on this site having been preaching, there may be greater cultural ties between all these disciplines that have help renew an interest and revival of classical principles in these respective disciplines. It might be interesting for you to check out a gallery that is a part of the classical revival in art. http://www.grenninggallery.com
-
Kelly
Interesting website and I believe that the movement of a return to basics in art has a correlation in GCA. This has been expressed many times in this post to date.
Carlos
I would love to know more about Fazio and Dye to argue the point with you. There are two regular contributors to this post, TE Paul And Mark Fine, and I am sure that they could answer your thread very well. On that note I am slightly disappointed that certain questions that have been put forward seem to have been 'ignored' and a pursuit in dialogue has taken place instead. Maybe someone can shed some light on this for me.
Thanks.
-
Ronan;
Which specific questions would you like to see answered?
Like yourself, I'd like to see this thread continue because it's one of the most interesting here in a long time.
-
Carlos,
There is not a lack of good land. I see great land all the time. People like Fazio or others that rout poorly in realtion to topography, and like moving dirt started that excuse to cover their absolute disregard for nature, and to defend their desire to show everyone what was within them to create on the land, rather than looking outside of themselves to what nature had to offer. Do not blame the lack of wonderful golf courses on the lack of good land, blame it on a lack of creativity and respect for natural features by the architect, among other defeciencies in the architect. If it is bad it is the architects's fault to a large degree. When an architect had to move dirt because the land forced it believe me it probably was because the routing plan was bad, or the residential home sites occupied so much land the course had to venture into bad terrain. In either case the routing plan was bad.
The world of options you described as moving lots of dirt is a dead end street. That may have been a revolution but not all revolutions are good. That was the bad side of a revolution. What you may see coming in the next several years could be a reaction to your revolution that will be more lasting, more right, more natural, more humanistic.
-
Hi Mike
thanks for the reply. I was talking about posts #149 and 192 in particular. If you have the time it would be great to hear your reply. I have to log out for a while but I'll check your post in an hour or so.
Thanks
-
Kelly;
Very well said, and I completely agree. There are TONS of great sites remaining, just take a drive on any highway across Pennsylvania where I live. These places are just further away from the major population centers than the older traditional courses for the most part. The nice part is that we can get there quicker than most could in the 20s.
Although I have the utmost respect for the genius of Pete Dye and much of his work, I have to say that in recent years he seems inclined to manufacture courses to some overdone version of his philosophy that is stylistically unsophisticated and seems to border on being a parody of his style. In either case, he seems much less inclined to work with existing features than he used to, and I'm not sure who the heck he thinks he's building 7,700 yard, overly-dramatic monstrosities for. He was always a leader and an innovator but I feel that he's stuck in a rut of his own making.
-
Ronan;
Hopefully, my previous post will give my feedback to Carlos's main points in post 192.
I would add that I think it's hardly been a "revolution" to move massive amounts of earth in an attempt to engineer courses, as he contends. One need only go back to consider the courses built at Lido and Yale to realize that with enough money and manpower, virtually any site could be manufactured for the playing of the game. It didn't just start with Shadow Creek and The Ocean Course.
I also don't think that "creating" a golf course on a lousy or indifferent site is a bad thing. Great courses have been "created" and will in the future on bad sites. I've lauded modern courses like Twisted Dune in NJ here on previous occassions, and that course is wholly manufactured.
However, I think that too many times modern architects just proceed with the "graders" irrespective of the natural benefits of the land, removing all of the unique and special features in the interest of creating stereotypical man-made features. I also agree with Kelly Moran that if more architects spent more time with routing, perhaps many of the awkward places they find themselves needing to "dig out of" could have been avoided in the first place.
As to your question about "GCA Conferences", I see that starting to grow in a grass-roots way from a variety of sources including some of the get-togethers done through or by members of this group.
However, there is an "official" architectural society in the US, which is the ASGCA (American Society of Golf Course Architects). I know little about it favoring any particular design style, or school of thought, so I won't comment except to say that quite a number of those building the type of minimalist courses generally enjoyed by this group are not members, for reasons of their own choosing.
-
Kelly Blake Moran:
Man, do I love the way you talk--just say it like you see it, undiluted--and coming from an architect too--great stuff!
Contributors are saying this is both a great thread and it's also starting to wander but you're right on the title subject, in my opinion.
You said that designers like a Fazio may be misusing, misdesigning perfectly good or adequate sites (natural topography for golf) due to relatively poor routings and moving tons of earth to cover that fact!
Those are great general points, but would you please get into some of the specifics, in your opinion? Do you see things like ultimate cart golf demands by clients that deal bad landuse hands to designers like Fazio and he doesn't defend the best land for golf design as a specific cause of this? How could he, or any other designer, defend his artistic turf in these cases?
Are you talking about bad routings in the sense of huge green to tee commutes or just the fact that architects are being given mundane landforms for their holes and are shaping the beejeesus out of the landforms to try to sort of "individualize" each hole?
One of the things that bothers me the most on some modern designs vs the old stuff, is some of today's designers seem to do so much more "mid-body" hole earth moving--berming, parallel mounding, shelving etc! And for what? Entire holes start to look like elongated bathtubs and bowling alleys and such and play boring too because of it.
Obviously they're trying to block out the view of the obnoxious but frankly I'd rather even see them route individual holes better off each other like twisting and turning and triangulating and maybe just sticking with clumps of tree blocks that're out of the way of shot angles to block out obnoxious views as some of the old guys did, who never seemed to move much earth on the mid-bodies of holes--probably because it was too much to do anyway.
What are some of other more specific and detailed indications of poor design you see, and the reasons you think it's happening?
-
TE Paul,
I should be doing more in the office today, but you are getting in my way. Which is good because these types of discussions are helpful, no. I can speak from experience on bad routing plans and earthmoving so I probably should do that first rather than whoop up on poor Tom. I will tell you that I listened in on a conversation between him and von Hagge and he said a bad routing plan can easily be overcome if you move enough dirt. Maybe he is right, but is that a principle to live by?
Anyway, moving dirt because of featureless land is not the issue of which I was thinking. I was thinking of bad routings in the sense that more time spent on the land and studying the topos could have yielded golf holes whose strategic design and visual interest come from the land. A bad routing plan ignores these landforms and creates situations where large-scale earthmoving must be employed to fit a hole onto steep land, or remove massive ridges to get from the tee to the fairway or fairway to the green, or for any other number of reasons. In my case, I have a project under construction where the housing dominated the land plan not the golf course. My first routing basically separated the two land uses and the golf course made good use of the topo. The client would have nothing to do with this philosophy. In fact I almost got fired because at the same time James McLoughlin, of TMG, Inc., was doing a feasibility study, and in the study he advised the client to fire me and hire a big name architect, Ron Garl, which is not the first time he has promoted big name architects and Ron Garl, to clients for whom he consulting. I know RJ Daley does not like it when I mention names but I think of it as the old days when you acted up in the neighborhood there were a dozen neighbors that called your parents, it is a good way to correct shameful behavior. So, Tom Paul, what do you do, walk away, or compromise and work through a plan that salvages some good holes and meets your client’s needs. At the time I decided to work it out, not walk away, I do not think walking away from a tough situation is good for your reputation, nor does it set a good example for those people around you. Since then I have been through two additional golf course community projects and I must tell you it is getting hard to stick it out when the housing component so dominates the golf course. Fortunately, I have found some client’s whom believe separating the two land uses makes a lot of sense, and I wrote about it in the second book that Paul Daley is publishing next year I think, and I put it on the table anytime a housing developer talks to me about doing a golf course for their residential community. Basically, I am a strong, vocal proponent for separating the two land uses, yes the housing can skirt the golf course, but not protrude into the golf course, keep the course a core course. But here we are, a residential plan that has compromised the routing, caused long journeys between holes, put holes in some difficult terrain. By my standards, a bad routing plan. There are some great holes, or I should say fun holes though.
Another difficult situation, which I regret, is that an irrigation pond and two holes were built on one side of a road. Rather than haul the dirt from the pond to the other side of the road I decided to place it between the two holes. Now had we moved it to the other side of the hard it would have to have been placed somewhere on the golf course and screwed it up there. It is not pretty. I remember looking at the land as it was naturally and it was magnificent to look out over the land where both holes were to be placed. Now a big ridge separates the holes and that was not the best thing for them. However, what do you do with 20,000 cubic yards of dirt. You build a big landform like you said, maybe at the juncture between doglegged holes. The reason we built the ridge between the two holes was because another 70,000 yards was supposed to come from the residential housing, so we would have to spread it over a big area to get rid of that much dirt. Again, the housing trumped the golf course. Somehow that dirt never materialized and we were left with a puny ridge that separates two holes which did not need separation. Why separate holes? I like looking out over several holes. So in this case the routing was good but the irrigation pond and the dirt from the housing that was supposed to come conspired to compromise the natural beauty of the land where the two holes are now, and I was an accomplice. I agree, the dirt moving at the midbody of holes is disruptive. I think that is a great observation on your part.
I do not think moving massive dirt is a good reason because some think the land is mundane. First, I have walked land that people have warned me was mundane, no topography, when in fact there was magnificent movement, just not exaggerated movement. One project I did I thought the land was interesting, inspiring, so the design just laid back and let the land show off and Matt Ward in a review called the course repetitious because the land was just subtle farmland. One other reviewer said the course was too natural. I guess I do not accept that land is mundane, particularly in the Northeast. Is Garden City Golf Club mundane? Does the water tower and shopping center that peek over the tree line beyond #9 make me think massive dirt should have been moved to distract my attention? No way.
I think a great routing plan is a part of the construction documents. If it is routed well to the land then you have gone a long way toward constructing the course. A routing plan is a construction document. Didn’t you see that at Stonewall II? I only saw it briefly but you could tell that it was well done, well routed, and if you noticed of the six holes I saw constructed there was still quite a bit of vegetation in the fairways because they did not have to strip the topsoil in order to move massive amounts of dirt to correct a bad routing plan. But, if you gave that same routing plan to some we have mentioned here they still would have moved massive amounts of dirt in order to show off their great skills at imposing manmade beauty on the land. It is not enough that nature could have presented something remarkable, they have to show that man has moved beyond nature, that man has advanced the art form of golf architecture and it lies in the highly developed skills and sensibilities of our great shapers being orchestrated by the hand of the genius architect. Whew. I need to get back to work Tom, I am getting a little over dramatic. Anyway I hope I answered your question and keep your midbody thought out there so other people can absorb it.
-
Kelly:
Thanks for mentioning my name, but need to clarify a few items. First, my comments were directed at the repetition of approximately 6 holes that contained back tee distances within 10-15 yards of each other. I was hoping for a greater range of holes and although the land does have movement it is quite subdued. You will likely say otherwise and I respect that. All in all, the final product is clearly one of the dozen or so best public courses in NJ. I am sorry to hear it is turning private because much can be gained from the public playing it.
-
Just as a related aside, the 6th hole at Kelly Moran's course in question, Hawk Pointe GC in NJ, was recently singled out and cited by Matt Ward's "Jersey Golfer" magazine under the "Great Architecture" section.
It's a brilliant, bold, original take on the short par four concept and clearly deserving of the recognition.
I'm such a fan of the course that I even agree with Ron Whitten's assessment, which can be found at the following link;
http://www.golfdigest.com/courses/critic/index.ssf?/courses/critic/hawkpointe.html
Finally, I was looking up some old course reviews I used to do for a regional golf guide, and here's part of what I had to say about the course a few years back;
"If there is a more strategically planned course built recently, I'm curious to see it. Every single hole has options and requires risk/reward shotmaking. Some of the greens are incredibly daring, and there are several excellent holes that are better played than described. Suffice to say that both eyebrows and scores will be raised on holes like the short par four 6th, the par five 7th, or the par three 13th, chiefly due to the wildly undulating greens. Still, they are all enormous fun."
"Almost as daring is the somewhat retro concept of moving as little earth as possible during construction, and letting the design fit the land like a tailored glove. Hawk Pointe totally eschews modern concepts like "containment", "visual cueing", and "target bunkers". Instead, nothing is wasted, overdone, or cloyingly ingratiating and I imagine the course today doesn't look much different than when the architect started on the raw site."
"Two things hold the course back slightly...1) The bunkering, while huge and effective, is rather bland looking and inartistic. and 2) The holes are almost TOO strategically-conceived; some randomness of features would have balanced this course nicely."
-
Ronan;
Are we on the right track in answering your questions? I didn't mean to get too specific about any particular course or architect, but I also believe that the type of "working with the land" approach outlined by Kelly Moran is consistent with the general theme of this thread.
-
Ronan:
Your thread has now logged over 200 posts! You're now a true Golfclubatlas Treehouser (a distinction, if that, that's impossible to define). But now you're free to bash, slash, insult and anger anyone and everyone as some of us have been doing around here for years. You will now be hugged, laughed at, congratulated, snickered and sneered at and applauded all over the world.
Never worry about Pat Mucci, I'll take care of him for you!
-
..."bash, slash, insult and anger..." Aren't these the key ingredients of a great golf hole?
-
Kelly and Ronan:
When referring to Pete, Tom and the "revolution," I agree on a few points: revolutions aren't always necessarily a good thing. This is true, but I should say that the products of Dye and Fazio's "revolution" have pushed the boundaries of earthmoving and environmental impact. As a result, our "reaction" in modern design has been highly sensitive to the environment and the existing topo. For example- TPC Sawgrass. This project could never happen today. There is no way the government would allow an architect to fill a swamp in that fashion, in addition to using the toxic chemical-infested railroad ties. Building in a swamp today is extremely difficult because of all the regulations. Runoff must be entirely self-contained and recycled, wetlands must be preserved and created, rather than filled. The byproduct is a course like Shark's Tooth or Sea Island, where wetlands are a feature rather than an eyesore. Had it not been for the Dyes and Fazios of the world, we might have never built into wetlands to begin with. In the case of building in the swamps (or established wetlands, if you prefer), routing is irrelevant, except in considering wind and sun direction.
In the northeast, I agree with a few points. Architects don't spend enough time on routing and on-site before construction begins. Add to that a client that wants to establish homesites ASAP, and your hands are tied. It's unfortunate, but those are the facts. I feel that it is the designer's responsibility to be aggressive in establishing the best routing, both in-office and on site, before the client runs off for approvals. I don't feel that designers can compensate for a bad routing with eartmoving, unless we're talking about screening. In the case of Twisted Dune, it's completely overcooked. If anything, what makes it so unnatural is that you can't see other holes because the mounds are so huge, and the designer was careless in not creating any topo on the property edges. This makes it quite obvious that the course should not look like it does. The best hole out there is 4?(long par five?), because it seems to fit the natural topo better than any other.
-
Mike
Fantastic posts. Dare I say the last 10-20 have been the best yet. I really enjoyed kelly's post and his 'tell it as it is approach'. I agree with his theory on separating the two land use issues. We designed a links course in Ireland called Seapoint. A few years after the development the developers decided that it would be a good idea to build houses. The ones that skirt the course aren't too hard on the eye but the ones in the middle of the course could be most politely described as an eyesore! They visually detract from the golfing experience and the fact that is a links course means that there is very little to hide them. Unfortunately, that is how the developers make money and at the end of the day they all want to make a return. That leaves us in an awkward position as outlined by Kelly. Do you walk away from a job or do you stick with it? There are very few that can afford to walk away. If you stay you can make the best of a less than an ideal situation.
Carlos
Thanks for your post. Maybe without the aformentioned designers we wouldn't have the situation and the discussion that we are having now. Due to their 'lack of respect for the lines of nature' we have a movement of people who are rebelling against that approach. All we have to do now is convince the golfing fraternity!
TE Paul
It feels good to be a 'Treehouser' and I will gladly accept your invitation to unleash some strong opinions!
-
Carlos F:
I don't doubt that Twisted Dune may be "overcooked" but it does provide a number of things that many designs often lack. You can start with playability. The course is wide enough for just about any skill level to play. The demands for the better player are also included because you need to reach certain key points in order to score consistently.
When you say the designer was careless in not creating "any topo on the property edges" I wonder just what you mean by that? There are edges to Twisted Dune where you can't see off the property and are blended quite well. Clearly, as Mike C mentioned the course is the child of man's hand. But -- so what! The quality of the holes when linked in their totality does work -- in fact, I say it works quite well. At Twisted you do have to shape shots and where you are in the fairway will determine how aggressive and / or cautious you can be.
If man's hand was not involved with Twisted I dare say you would find a piece of land that is quite boring and lifeless. What was done at TD is use man's hand without going to such severe excesses you see in many courses today. I agree with Mike that creating "over the top" demands that simply pile on are not what's needed. However, I take a pragmatic position regarding the use of man's hands and don't always believe the minimalistic approach works as much as some of its advocates claim.
-
Ronan,
I very much enjoy your freshness and positive outlook. But I have one 'hang up' with this notion of revolution you are inquiring about. What do you say to someone who just got a bad new haircut? What do you say to those people who drive pink cars...watch the home shopping network and are, generally, uncool?
What I am getting at is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It has been that way since the beginning of time and will remain so forever. It is the basic objective/subjective distinction. While there may be groups of us who feel the same way about something, the opinion of our group does not make objective truth.
So what does this have to do with golf course architecture, you may ask? It means that there will forever be people out there who think Rees Jones bunkers are artistic. There will forever be people who think putting houses on a links course is perfectly acceptable. I'm sure there are groups of people out there who don't give a damn about the artistry of golf course architecture, they are merely in it for the $$$$. Furthermore, there is a large population, probably the majority, of golfers who think any course is as good as another, just as long as it has taken them away from their job, wife and kids and allows them to whack the ol' ball around.
How do we battle this? I suspect our plight is not unique to any group that is passionate about their 'hobby'. Old timers hate the way basketball is played in the 'new' NBA. They think it is disgusting how 'above the rim' the game has become-what poor free throw shooters players are today.
We have to remember human nature. Most golfers don't care about the architecture of their home course. Remember what Mackenzie said once, if I can recall it correctly. Ask most players what the greatest course in the world is and they will say it is where they play most often. Their home course. I've said it once and I'll say it again, only when we can establish 'objective truth' can we say that golf courses OUGHT to be designed and built one way or another. Without a foundation any argument crumbles.
-
..."bash, slash, insult and anger..." Aren't these the key ingredients of a great golf hole?
Forrest:
You can bet your bippy they are! Maybe not always but they can't hurt when offered in magnificent doses to some golfers!
-
I'm glad to get over here to a good golf architectural thread again (even if it is on revolution!)! I've been getting a little worn out over on that Whaley thread trying to run this country!
-
Tom
Actually Bash, Slash, Insult and Anger, Inc. is the PR firm representing both Ms. Whaley and Ms. Burk..............
-
Right you are Rich. If Bash, Slash, Insult and Anger Inc constructed the proper "Chinese wall" do you think they could manage to take ANGC's PR too--or would that be a conflict? Don't answer that--in today's world that's virtually unknown.
I hope they can as they would have to be able to do a better job than Hootie's Hotlanta PR firm of Doofus & Looselip Inc.
-
Tom
Once again I agree and as my granny often told me 'there is no accounting for taste'!!! Lets try to convince them of the merit of our ways which I know you will continue to do.
-
No.
Golf architecture is at a point of divergence. There are two distinctly different almost diametrically opposed branches of "What constitutes Good".
This is not a good thing.
I always go back to my nouveau-riche Colorado friend who is a member of THE Estancia as well as THE Preserve at Carmel (And CPGC no "THE"). After spending 3 days at Sand Hills he proclaimed it the most boring course he had ever played as all the holes looked the same. The same guy loves the $1M (Now $2M) flower budget at THE Vintage Club.
For every Kenny Bakst, there are these guys, too.
Which faction will win out? ???
13 years later this is a fascinating thread. Are we still at a divergence or have the flower lovers seen the light?
-
Ronan Branigan (Nice Irish name you have!);
In my opinion there will never be a revolution in all golf architecture to that. But I think a renaissance has been happening for almost ten years and it's building. But at the most optimistic it will only ever capture a slice of architecture, I think.
I do believe the ones who are doing it now, are in a way going back to the philosophies of Thomas and MacKenzie (as you said) and trying to pick up in some ways where they left off and may be even trying to experiment with what those guys hoped and dreamed about when architecture progressed in the future.
The oddity was the hiatus though--maybe almost sixty years. But I think the hiatus is over now but only for a slice of golf architecture, at most.
"Golf and its architecture is a great big game and there's room in it for everyone."
As relevant and accurate today as it was in 2002.
Plagiarism works for me. ;D
-
Joel,
Wow, long time since this post was active! Interesting to read some of the prophecies from all us soothsayers :) I’ll chime in with a few new comments:
- Water has become a MAJOR factor for golf courses and golf course design. Water is definitely impacting the “wall to wall” green philosophy that was quite prevalent back in 2002. The impact from the recent Pinehurst #2 “brown plays just at good as green and is better for the environment" display is still too early to call. I for one sure hope it catches on big time!!
- The C&C Sand Hills effect of minimalism and more natural looking courses has carried over to many designs and to many architects.
- More and more older courses (especially the classics) started to embrace their design history. Restoration of original design attributes really became in vogue.
- Many courses that had become arboretums from years and years of over planting, recognized the problem and got in the firewood business :)
- The cost of golf and the time factor to play it has become a central focus and will impact course design going forward. More courses are closing these days than new ones are opening (at least in the U.S.) so that is not so good.
- Whether you love them or hate them, the major golf magazines played a key role since 2002 in the direction of golf architecture. As one example, Golf Digest even changed their “conditioning" criteria in their rankings to promote less water, more brown, more natural appearances, and more firm and fast conditions vs soft and lush. All the major course rankings and associated articles have had a huge impact on what architects are designing and on what courses golfers are seeking out to play. And even The Golf Channel talks much more about golf architecture and features segments about course design.
Maybe that 99% figure I talked about in 2002 should be readjusted to 98 or 97% :)
-
Mark,
Humans are pack animals. Golfers are suckers for wanting to keep up with the Joneses (or Doaks). Your 97% could be reversed. Either that or we're going to end up with two different 'codes' of golf, much like ended up happening in rugby.
But nothing will happen overnight.