Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Rich Goodale (Guest) on September 24, 2002, 03:22:26 AM
-
.........isn't it?
This site is devoted to “talking” about golf. While sometimes this talk relates to actual experience, more often than not it relates to predilections, theories, readings and conjectures. This is natural as we all have far too little time to spend actually playing golf, and when we do play, most of us do not have the opportunity to do so on the elite courses that tend to be of most interest to this site. As a result, many of us seek solace in the written words of the old masters, or of the new masters, or of aficionados like ourselves who interpret the writings of the old and new masters, or aficionados who interpret the interpretations of other aficionados, etc. etc. ad infinitum…….
While I understand the need of some to “research” golf course architecture, I personally believe that any such research is inferior to actual experience, in terms of understanding the subtleties of any “great” golf course. This is assuming, of course, that the person with the experience is a highly competent and interested observer and golfer. I, for one, will listen more closely to the words of, say, Joel Stewart on Olympic than I will to all of the collected writers and wannabie writers on this site (excepting the mad Armenian, of course…. ;)).
Thus, I find it laughable and sad that, on a another thread, some are suggesting to Pat Mucci that he, in effect, go back to the library before he comments more on the Tucker course that he has been playing and observing for over 50 years—all with a very high degree of competence and interest, I can presume. You could get 500 non-Mucci DG participants and give them 500 typewriters, 10 years, an unlimited travel budget and all the library cards they ever dreamed of and I would be surprised if they were to reach anything close to the understanding that he probably has of that course and of Tucker, much less a conclusion ;). Even more laughable, people who have probably only played NGLA once or twice in their life seem to want to dictate to the members and owners of the club what they should do with their property, all the while ignoring that these same members and owners are the ones that had the vision to hire Karl Olsen in the first place and make significant changes to a course which was threatened with falling into the dustbin of history (or so I am told)! To me, this is like telling the current residents of “Falling Waters” (the famous Frank Lloyd Wright house that famously leaks) that they cannot fix the roof because it would be contrary to FLW’s design intent, or the perquisites of “history” or whatever…….
I played 4 rounds of golf last weekend over 3 courses that I know quite well and I learned more in those 2 days about those courses and architecture than I would have reading all of Dan King’s or Michael Thomas’s library. However, the fact that I lurk and sometimes participate on this site helped me significantly in this experiential learning. I see all of those courses in a different light and learn more when I play them than I did 3 years ago. This is good. But……..
…..reading and pontificating is only a very weak substitute for experience, at least as I see it.
-
Oh yes, reading about golf is poor solace for playing it, and playing where I do, places no one here has ever heard of, is infinitely better than reading about places I will never play.
For instance, Sunday I played at my favorite course for the first time in a year with old friends I hadn't seen since Sept of last year. I drove the ball like a well oiled machine and hit my irons like a man doing an impression of a backhoe. But my one errant drive put me in the woods on a hole where the preferred approach is something high and soft to an elevated green. I was forced to manufacture a low cut 7 iron from 120 in the hopes of running it up a small ramp onto the green. Now I had always thought that shot was available just from looking at the course, but now I know it is. True, I barely reached the green, but the thrill of executing what I visualized was better than all my theorizing. It was, by God, fun. And isn't that what this game is supposed to be about.
Maybe that's the question all clubs should ask. Is our course fun. And will any proposed changes increase the fun or decrease it.
Knowledge has its own rewards, but perhaps we would be better off gleaning the knowledge from books and this DG in those long winter months when the member of golf played and the hope of golf to come are equally faint and distant.
Not exactly on topic perhaps, but I specialize in that.
-
Rich,
If you now believe that playing is much more important than research in our understanding of GCA architecture than how come you said the following to Tom Doak on another thread:
"Finally, as a highly accomplished practicing architect, what additional value would you get from having Myopia, for example, kept as it is now, vs. being able to see what it is now from photographs and descriptions of talented writers. Do aspiring aritsts have to visit the Louvre to understand and learn from the qualities of the Mona Lisa, or more properly, what additional vlaue do they get from standing in the queue and then getting a minute of so to view her smile under glass"?
In this quote you seem to be implying that by researching the "photographs and descriptions of talented writers" a person could get as much knowledge as could be had from actually being there ??? ???
You cannot have it both ways, sir. Pick a side and make a stand or understand the value that either element brings to the discussions held here.
-
Jim
The two threads you refer to had different topics and so it is not at all surprising that my thoughts differed on each.
The Doak one was about the need for preservation. All I was saying is that we have lost a lot of great golf courses and golf holes over time and this has not seriously impeded our "art." Just this past weekend I saw a really cool picturce of the old 6th hole at Dornoch, which is now the 11th green, played from a completely different angle. Would it be great to have hads that green preserved? Yes, all other things being equal. Would it have been a loss to us if the "new" (1946) 11th green (which is world class) had not been built due to that preservation? Yes, also. Sure, it would have been great to have preserved the old 12 hole Prestwick, say. Would it have been greater, however, than the 18 superb holes we have now? Life goes on.
My thread (this one) asks a very different set of questions, most simply, in terms of commenting on GCA--does not experience count for more than scholarship in a field of "art" where the primary purpose is to create a field of play? I think I said both are important, but that I give much more credence to) opinions that are based on actual play, particularly play of those who do so at a high level of skill. That is all.
PS--I have no fears that Myopia will ever change in my lifetime--when I last played it in 1972, the pro said "How's your father? (my father had last played it in 1938!)--but if it does, it will not be the end of the world, even the GCA world! ;)
-
Rich,
As usual, despite my short time with the discussion group,I find your views are articulate and well put.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with the sentiment that the playing of a course regularily can augment an architectural view but there is no doubt that those with a basic architectural knowlege can have their opinion/knowlege augmented by regular play.
May I suggest that in order to have an 'informed' opinion one needs to have understood the various writings of the old masters and the reasons for their architectural choices. If one has failed to grasp the basics then any opinion is in danger of becoming ill informed.
I cite for example those 'home boys' who play their own club week in week out and rarely venture further affield. I would suggest that this myopic view of golf should be less readily accepted than those of us who have strived to learn through a variety of experiences on courses of diverse design
-
Rich Goodale,
Thanks.
All too often paralysis through analysis takes hold.
Research can be beneficial, provided the data base isn't flawed.
Would one gain any indication of Tucker's work if they visited my club and studied it. The myriad of changes to the golf course over the last fifty years would confuse them, and I would challenge anyone on this site to identify all of the changes, especially the bunkers that have been removed, and altered.
How would they evaluate entire holes that have been completely redesigned ?
How would they understand the order, the evolution of the changes ?
Talk is cheap, there is no substitute for experience.
Thanks again.
-
Rich and Patrick,
There is no substitute for research in a person's understanding of GCA. As Patrick states, if you go to his club you will not see what Tucker wrought. Where might one find what Tucker hath wrought???, perhaps by reading a scholarly tome, if one exists, of his work.
When I became aware of Raynor, after playing for a number of years on a course that he built, I thought I had a good understanding of much of what he did, then I met George Bahto. What can I say-- return to square one.
Let's use George for an example(George, hope you don't mind. If I say anything that is untrue please beat me over the head with your book).
He researched CB, Raynor, Banks, and Barton. This was a scholarly pursuit. He spent time in the archives of Hotchkiss as well as at many other locations digging up the true visions of these boys. He spent many hours on the courses he researched seeing what was left and what remained of their works. His experience is a combination of both schools, research and field work.
If you want to amend this post to say that a combination of research and field experience is needed to make cogent arguments about GCA then I will agree with you 100%. ;D
-
Rich
I was going to reply with a lone word.
Excellent!
But I felt compelled to expand, if ever so slightly. You have near perfectly put into words a benign frustration I feel from time to time on this DG. It is so very hard to separate the discussion of architecture from the experience of playing. And maybe that's another of the beauties of the totality of this great game...its a subject big enough for scholarship and one that can't be separated from the experential.
-
Jim
I agree that both experience and reading/research is better than just one or the other. I admire the work that George B. and others have done to give us a better understanding of the archaeology of golf.
However......
...if Willie Dunn happened to become flavor of the decade for GCA mavens at some time in the future, would you recommend that Shinnecock tear up Flynn's improvements and go back to what was there in the 1890's?
I think that restoring GCA on a certain piece of land just because some icon once had a different idea as to what to do with that land than people who came later is not, in itself, a wise decision. What is of paramount importance, to me at least, is how the architecture plays. Not just how it looks. Not how "faithful" it is to the designer's intent, whatever that means. Not what others may have thought of it many years ago. Those things are interesting, but secondary. I think that is all I am trying to say. :)
Hod
Thanks.
Rich
-
Jim Kennedy,
Some courses are fortunate enough to have been designed by an architect of note, one who has an abundance of reference or research information available.
Where information and surviving original works are available research can certainly be beneficial.
But, in this case, the politics, forces or dynamics in play, will determine the result, not research. Elements within the club and elements within power structure want to modernize.
Sadly, many draw upon the work done at their Florida clubs, which in many cases, amounts to keeping up with the Jones's.
What I find interesting, is that I am deeply involved in this project, have been on the green committee and board for over thirty years, yet individuals who have never layed eyes on the property, have no idea of the politics, and no historical perspective, are contradicting me on what to do, especially in areas where they don't have the facts, and don't understand the particular circumstances unique to this club.
Each club has its own unique dynamic, and one must be exposed to it, to understand it.
I guess, anybody can be an armchair quarterback, especially monday morning.
THIS GROUP WOULD RECOMMEND RESEARCHING THE ART OF SELF DEFENSE WHEN YOU'VE JUST BEEN PUNCHED IN THE FACE AND ARE IN THE PROCESS OF BEING MUGGED.
-
While I understand the need of some to “research” golf course architecture, I personally believe that any such research is inferior to actual experience, in terms of understanding the subtleties of any “great” golf course.
This attitude has destroyed more great golf courses than any other.
This is assuming, of course, that the person with the experience is a highly competent and interested observer and golfer. I, for one, will listen more closely to the words of, say, Joel Stewart on Olympic than I will to all of the collected writers and wannabie (sic) writers on this site (excepting the mad Armenian, of course…. ;)).
HUGE assumption. Many great golfers & observers are clueless when it comes to altering golf courses. Listen to Johnny Miller any weekend.
Even more laughable, people who have probably only played NGLA once or twice in their life seem to want to dictate to the members and owners of the club what they should do with their property, all the while ignoring that these same members and owners are the ones that had the vision to hire Karl Olsen in the first place and make significant changes to a course which was threatened with falling into the dustbin of history (or so I am told)!
Everyone has his own read on that thread. Mine is not that anyone here was trying to "dictate" to NGLA what they should do with their property, but, rather, that they have seen what can happen when issues are not addressed up front and thus showed justifiable concern. Heck, if NGLA was my club, I'd be flattered that so many care so much about my course.
I played 4 rounds of golf last weekend over 3 courses that I know quite well and I learned more in those 2 days about those courses and architecture than I would have reading all of Dan King’s or Michael Thomas’s library.
Maybe you did & maybe you wouldn't - only you can judge that. Maybe the conclusions you drew are completely wrong, who knows.
However, the fact that I lurk and sometimes participate on this site helped me significantly in this experiential learning. I see all of those courses in a different light and learn more when I play them than I did 3 years ago. This is good. But……..
…..reading and pontificating is only a very weak substitute for experience, at least as I see it.
You got the first part right - that's a big part of the motivation for the site, as I see it. The second part, well, again, I can't speak for you.
The danger with this attitude is that it is 100 percent predicated on the theory that the individual in question is capable of asking the right questions, drawing the proper conclusions & making the right decision. Most fail in at least one of these areas, many fail in all three.
When one starts thinking he's smarter and knows better than everyone else, bad things usually happen.There's always someone smarter who's gonna disagree with you and make his own changes. Always.
Hod -
Guess we're gonna have to simply agree to disagree with everything posted on this site.
----
Sorry about the bold thing - don't know where it came from, don't know how to get rid of it.
-
I am so glad that Rich is back with us on this site, though he is now geographically "removed". He is the relatively rare individual who is not only articulate, curious, and insightful, but also a very good golfer. In my opinion, Rich definitely sees the trees from the forest.
Six months or so ago, I had a similar thought, i.e. that we get so caught up in the literature and theoretical discussions that we often forget that golf is a game to experience physically, viscerally, and on a very personal level. I opined that perhaps I needed to play more and post less. To some extent I have tried to do this, and have had one of the best years ever in terms of seeing new courses, learning about golf and architecture, and meeting some extraordinary people. From the standpoint of scoring, I am playing some of the worst golf in my life, but believe it or not, my interest in the game is being rekindled.
Not that I am opposed to "scholarship", but there may be a small amount of truth to the generality that those that can do, and those that can't teach (or talk about it). I have nothing but the utmost respect for teaching professionals who have a vocational calling, but I tend to give more weight to those folks who not only talk the talk, but walk the walk. My best professors were those that were immersed in practice in the disciplines that they taught. That is one of the reasons why when I read something by the likes of Tom Doak, Mike Young, Pete Galea or Don Mahaffey it has immediate credibility with me (not that I necessarily agree with everything they say).
-
George Pazin,
Generalizations and specifics are sometimes at odds.
-
Rich Goodale writes (belatedly):
"I think that restoring GCA on a certain piece of land just because some icon once had a different idea as to what to do with that land than people who came later is not, in itself, a wise decision. What is of paramount importance, to me at least, is how the architecture plays. Not just how it looks. Not how 'faithful' it is to the designer's intent, whatever that means. Not what others may have thought of it many years ago. Those things are interesting, but secondary. I think that is all I am trying to say."
Let's imagine that that were, in fact, all that Rich said. What do you guys think of THAT?
I can find nothing to fault there.
PS, to Rich: Great Fallingwater analogy!
-
If that were indeed all Rich said, I would say:
BRAVO! Right on, and thanks for phrasing it that way... I never thought of the whole restoration thing in that light. Who really is to say what time is "right" for a course to be restored to?
Bravo Rich and yes, welcome back. Of course, someone said you'd eventually return here... ;)
TH
-
Rich
It is not an either or proposition. I would never trade my experiences at Cypress Point or Cape Breton or Casa de Campo or Shinnecock or Pinehurst or Sand Hills or Riviera or Oyster Harbors or Chicago or Cascades or Crystal Downs or Victoria National or Ohio State. And thankfully I don’t have to. Experience inspired my initial interest in research that has in turn intensified my desire to experience.
It has been my observation that those who have a burning desire to master a given subject, become totally engrossed in that subject. Be it wine or drama or art or religion or history or whatever. Because of the strong desire to learn they enhance their experiences with research, which involves reading. Experience is vital, but limiting yourself only to experiences is like playing the game with one hand tied behind your back. If you have an overwhelming interest in haute cuisine, would you limit yourself only to dining experiences or would you pick up Escoffier? If your goal is to gain an expertise in a particular art form or subject matter, I believe you must tap additional sources, experience is not sufficient. You will pick the brains of respected individuals who have greater or different experiences than you own – I’ve never been to Australia, Japan or the UK, but that doesn’t dampen my interest. You will study the thoughts and theories of the greatest golf minds – past and present. To ignore them or claim they are irrelevant displays certain arrogance. You will delve into the past, who is not moved by the old images that Paul Turner posts – many of which are extinct or altered? And you will attempt to learn what inspired these great men to create what they created.
If you only have casual interest in the subject, I imagine this behavior might appear excessive or extreme. I also know through personal experience it can frustrating or humbling to debate someone who has a deeper or more scholarly understanding of a particular subject.
Aficionado is a term that has been thrown around lately, its definition: a person who likes, knows about, and appreciates a usually fervently pursued interest or activity. The great thing about golf and golf architecture is that it is both an activity and an interest. And it’s a never-ending pursuit of knowledge – through both experience and research. On the other hand a fervent pursuit is not for everyone. There are very few aficionados, but it seems to me that this site was designed as a haven for such people.
By the way I played golf four times last week
-
Who decides whose experience matters more or most?
In the case of your specific club, Patrick, wouldn't research in support of your position make it easier to convince others?
I missed the posts where others said research was the only thing, that golf experience does not matter. I wonder how Raynor would've felt about your ideas, Rich.
-
Furthermore, if you guys can read Tom MacWood's latest post & find anything objectionable, then the bias question is settled for me once & for all.
-
George
I don't think the question is whose experience matters most. But whether experience matters more than research. And to state that the conclusions Rich draws from his experience may be wrong (who knows) is trying to force the objective (actually your subjective I feel) on the subjective. Thats the height of critical snobbery cloaked in the guise of scholarly research. How could Rich's conclusions be wrong...they are HIS and his alone.
Tom
Although it sounds like you are taking a counterpoint to Rich's position, I agree with the both of you. Complimentary point well taken and articulated. Experience does drive research. Research does enhance experience.
-
Rich,
You remind me of a great Oscar Wilde line,
"I’ve given up reading, it takes my mind off myself."
It's all about your Rich! Don't ever forget that...Oh, and nice you are back to read all of these theories and predilictions. Seems kind of contradictory doesn't it? If it's all about experience and the self, then why waste Ran's server space with posts and hits? Why are any of us here at all?
Geoff
-
Let me ask a question:
Does anyone feel that the poor changes that have been made in the desire of improving golf courses were not born of experience but rather some malicious intent to damage a course?
Hod -
Anyone can draw improper conclusions & just because they are the conclusions of said person does not mean that they are right, even to that person. The logical extension of your idea would seem to be that every conclusion drawn by an individual is right to that person. I did not say that Rich was wrong, I said he could be wrong - only he knows his thoughts. I've read enough of Rich's posts to know that he is likely right in his observations, but my point is that this type of thinking is entirely reliant on the person making the observation. If I were to hire Tom Doak to build a course, play it, draw some conclusion from my playing experience that he made a mistake somewhere, make a change & butcher it, would you say that my conclusion was right, even to me? Intellectual snobbery is not questioning others' thoughts & conclusions - intellectual snobbery is feeling your thoughts are always right & above others' questions. Intellectual snobbery is feeling one's own experiences & thoughts supercede everyone elses experiences & thoughts.
-
Geoff:
Do I detect a sense of animus in your snippy comment to Goodale? It is unlike you.
-
Geoff:
Do I detect a sense of animus in your snippy comment to Goodale? It is unlike you.
-
George
Agree with your logic. But...if Tom Doak builds a course, and you and only you play it, and find a change somewhere needs to be made to improve it (in YOUR opinion) and said change is made...then in YOUR opinion (and in this case it is the only one that matters since only you are playing the course), your experience not only mattered, but was RIGHT.
It is only when someone else experienced the golf course (and subsequent changes) that your opinion could be construed as incorrect. That is, someone else's subjective view would judge your subjective view as incorrect. That would not mean your view was in violation of some objective criterion. Instead it would mean both views were correct relative to each person, and incorrect relative to the other person.
Which raises the question: Are there non-experiential absolutes of GCA? Of course there are (300 yd carries with no bail out comes to mind) but maybe they are way fewer than we would like to believe. And shouldn't the voice of the one playing a course count as much as the voice of the "expert".
-
Mr. Goodale is, as you all know, well-equipped to defend himself -- but I just can't stand it!
He did not say, as some of you are saying or implying, that research is useless.
He did not say that IT (golf, or GCA, or life, or anything) is, in Geoff Shackelford's words, "all about your [sic] Rich!"
What he said -- and pretty carefully, too -- was: "I personally believe that any such research is inferior to actual experience, in terms of understanding the subtleties of any 'great' golf course. This is assuming, of course, that the person with the experience is a highly competent and interested observer and golfer."
Read that carefully, Geoff S, and it should answer your question: "Why are any of us here at all?" Unless, of course, you meant your question in a considerably more existential way!
As for Tom MacWood's latest: I can't speak for Rich, but I doubt if he finds anything more objectionable in it than I do (I find nothing objectionable). Points well taken. (Potential aficionados welcome here in this haven, too, I trust.)
The only things I find disturbing are: (1) that Mr. MacWood has played Cypress Point and Casa de Campo and Shinnecock and Pinehurst and Riviera and Oyster Harbors and Chicago and Cascades and Crystal Downs and Victoria National and Ohio State -- and I have not; and (2) he played four times last week -- and I didn't play at all!
(Row of obligatory smileys, in various conformations.)
-
I second George's comment supporting Tom MacWood's post.
The thing about Pat and Rich which must be taken in context is that they relish to get you caught in these intellectual "moot court" sort of arguments. Between the two of them supporting each other are presented sets of 'catch 22' contradictory and incomplete problems that challenge folks to give them complete and absolutely pure answers. It forces people to do as George has ably done above and get the little quote box out and try and break down the Goodale - Mucci axioms one by one.
On one hand we have Pat asking for opinions on a proposed and if we are to believe him, highjacked, golf course remodelling that is implied to be defiling a great classic. Yet, we aren't told which course, which remodelling architect, or specifics of the process. He asks what certain DG mavens suggest he do in relation to his implied efforts to "save" the course from these evil forces. It is implied that members have a limitted knowlege of what greatness they have and that all they want to do is go out there and play some form of remodelled course. Then, when enthusiastic responses are offered that center around the notion that CONVINCING that limitted knowlege membership of the greatness of the 'mystery golf course' be accomplished through research and scholarly persuasion, we are told that our motives are 'wise-ass' and unappreciated. Pat implies he has played the course for 55 years and that is all that is required to be knowlegeable on the matter, and that those members ought to listen to him because of it.
Then Rich alludes to the 'mystery course' issue and assails us for suggesting that research and scholarly compilation of the course design history and architect is inferior to the act of playing it, and more importantly, playing it at a high level of skill. Yet if one considers that perhaps being a contemporary of other great architects of the day, Tucker may have also ascribed to the caveats or tenets of the published ideas of those great masters of the 'Golden Era' in that a truly great course must be built to be enjoyable and playable to the high handicapper and weaker player as well. (see C.B point 5 and MacK.'s points 8,11,12) And, of course Tillie and Ross said the same in slightly differing words.
Wouldn't some research and scholarly crafted arguments in Pat's case go a lot longer than him howling to this mystery membership that he has played it for years and that is that!
And Rich, I don't know how many times you played NGLA or Cypress or Pine Valley or Marion, or if your game was so perfect on those days to really assess the test at the highest degrees of critical analysis, but I bet you didn't play them all that much and well to have developed any intimacy of knowlege. So, what is the better approach to getting the most of that sort of experience when the rare occasion does present itself? To your credit Rich, you acknowlege that research and play coupled is most desirable. I know if I ever get a crack at any of them, I will go back through the books I have to see what is written about them by those most knowlegeable authors inorder to maximise a rare chance to experience the playing of them. But, I won't ever be able to play them at the high skill level you seem to require. But, then again, I feel confident those great old archies knew that would happen and designed them as such, almost as if they knew I'd be coming. ;)
-
Rich:
You said in reply to Jim Kennedy;
"I agree that both experience (playing) and reading/research (architectural education) is better than just one or the other."
By that I'm certainly assuming you mean to say that both are very necessary!
This is a most interesting thread you started but that remark of yours to Jim Kennedy about sums it all up as well as could be expected!
In other words to truly understand a golf course and the quality and nuances of its architecture you really can't be JUST the most knowledgeable person in the world on all the interesting principles and factors of golf course architecture and not have played the course or been to the club! That is simply a virtual impossibility!
On the other hand, you could certainly be someone who has played a course for 55 years and without an understanding of some of the principles of architecture or even what the architect was trying to do (design intent), your knowledge of the course and its architecture will always be incomplete and probably very much so!
And furthermore, it's not just that your knowledge WILL BE incomplete but more ironically and amazingly your ability to ENJOY the golf course will probably always be incomplete TOO!
So, both certainly very much go hand in hand, Rich, just as you said to Jim Kennedy!
But I hope you really mean that! I hope you really do mean that research, reading and understanding of the principles of architecture or even the design intent of a golf course (most particularly if it's a very good one) is extremely important! I hope you don't just mean to say that experience is really all it takes (and thereby imply that true understanding and education is somehow minimized as a necessity) because that is simply not the case, in my opinion!
I belief, like you seem to from what you said, that both, experience (playing and becoming familiar with a course) is only one side of a single coin and that understanding well architectural principles and such contained in writing (as well as the design intent of your own course or others) is the other side of the coin and probably equally important to overall enjoyment--and certainly in the end probably doing the right thing by any golf course!
If it wasn't that way I can't imagine why so many of the members of my course have said that although they have played the course for decades, that now that they have had the opportunity to read what it's all about and what the likes of Ross and Maxwell were up to, has made the experience of playing the course SO MUCH BETTER and more ENJOYABLE than it ever had been before! (And most of them even admit they aren't actually hitting the ball or playing any better--just playing with a clearer understanding of what the golf course and its architecture is about and that it does have real meaning, principles, design intentions etc)!
So I hope you mean exactly what you said! I do sometimes wonder if you do, though, and the reason is that you have so many times attempted to minimize the talents of some of the best of the architects by saying that whatever it is they do or have done is in no way art, in your mind!
Your implication has seemed to me to be that it's never anything special or truly unique, in any case, and that anyone conceivably could have done it!
That to me is so untrue, and if you do in anyway believe that, to me it speaks a kind of intellectual arrogance without foundation at all or simply a kind of approach that is almost wholly inclined to only the playing of golf!
Playing certainly comes first, I'm sure, because afterall golf architecture only serves the end of the playing of a game or more accurately a "sport"! But playing it is certainly not all there is to the ultimate end of enjoyment which the game or sport is supposed to ultimately serve!
So I hope you really mean what you said--all of it, and then I sure do agree with you.
But none of us should ever forget (certainly the great architects didn't or don't) that the sport and its architecture really is completely subjective, and one man's joy or taste may truly be another man's distaste!
And also;
"Golf and its architecture is a great big game and there really is room in it for everyone!"
-
Wow... that was really well said, Dick. I continue to learn a lot on this thread.
BTW, I love the word "animus" - thanks, Charles Roberts! There seems to be a lot of that going around lately...
I'll hop out of this now - just wanted to give some attaboys.
TH
-
Amen! Just as Shivas would have said. I would bet that your father is enjoying the book as he is able to draw from his deep reservoir of experience as a player. He may be even gaining a better understanding of why he enjoyed the game as much as he did when he was physically able.
-
Dave Schmidt:
That's a wonderful little story about your father and I would love to know someday what he really does think of the book and the study of architecture.
But the more all of us learn the more things always seem to be not easily categorized.
Again, I hope that Rich is not saying that the playing of golf is the only way to enjoy golf course architecture because there is an even crueler joke often afoot in all of this!
That is that some of the best architectural minds of the past and the present often get away from the playing of the game either in part or totally!
Why, may never really be understood but it is no less true for lack of understandability! It is without question a proven fact too!
It only says to me that anyone who tries to claim that any kind of "one size fits all" in golf or its architecture still as a long way to go on the learning curve of it all!
-
Rich,
No, I wouldn't recommend Shinnecock go back in time to Dunn, whether or not he became the flavor of the day.
The opinions of people I respect, those who know the history and the present day course, consider it a marvelous place.
Of course, the opinions of people I respect recommend that Yale would be a marvelous place if restored to its original configuration ;)
It is case by case.
Patrick,
Perhaps those people you refer to, the "individuals who have never layed eyes on the property, have no idea of the politics, and no historical perspective, are contradicting me on what to do", are offering you opinions they deem helpful to your endeavor, perhaps not.
Perhaps some of those people are ones you must deal with at the club of which you speak. That type of frustration can be extremely stressful.
Lou,
You are right about the saying "Those that can, do, and those that can't, teach", there is little, if any truth to it.
-
Hod -
You're getting a little too esoteric for me. I promise that if I hire Tom Doak to build a course for just me & then decide to butcher it, I'll invite you over to play it too, so we can agree that I butchered it. :)
-
Not much to add except that from what I have learned from this site about GCA has made the playing of the game much more fun and fulfilling.
I'm not playing nearly as well score wise, as I use to, but it is still much more fun.
Isn't that the point of the game,the site, the study of golf architecture as a hobby, to have fun?
It works for me and I'm grateful to all of you, on the days I don't have time to play and in preperation for the day I CAN'T play, talking about golf and its architecture will keep the memories fresh.
-
In general, I agree with Rich's original post. If you want to find out a lot about a golf course, ask someone who has played there a lot. (But that's not to say they know anything about architecture at all.)
One of the quandries about publishing The Confidential Guide was just that: many of the courses I had only seen once, and that wasn't entirely fair. Of course, if I'd only commented on courses I'd played ten times, it would have been a much shorter book.
Some of the discussion has brought to light another pet subject of mine: while as Geoff wrote, it's not about the observer, IT'S NOT ABOUT THE ARCHITECT, EITHER.
There are many here who believe that if Alister MacKenzie or Tom Doak built it, it should be preserved or restored; and if Willie Tucker or Damian Pascuzzo built it, there's nothing worth saving. This is unfair: it has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. MacKenzie did some shit work: maybe because of disagreements with clients or a poor contractor or whatever, but it was still shit, and doesn't merit restoration.
Likewise, there are architects most of you have never heard of who have done some work worth preserving.
I'd like to think that most of my work is worth preserving -- that is, that it's not so bad that it's worth someone's money to change. I wish this were the standard for every course and every designer. Unfortunately, some clubs have so much money that they can make changes blithely, and so many egos on the various committees that they have no qualms about doing so. If only they knew what they did not know, I suspect the world of golf architecture would be a far more interesting place today.
-
Rich Goodale:
Like Tom Paul, I'm not sure what point you are really trying to make.
I meet very few people who play golf who also research golf architecture. During the years I lived in Southern California, I visited the Ralph Miller Library on several occasions; each time the place was basically empty.
Sleeping Bear has done quite a bit in recent years when it comes to publishing golf architecture related books. However, I doubt that even the most successful title has been read by one tenth of one percent of people who play golf.
Equally, I'll bet if you spoke to a hard core collector, someone like George Lewis of Golfiana, you would find is customer list quite small.
While people who play golf generally don't "research" golf architecture, I'll bet people who do take the time to study written word about this subject also go out play, probably a fair amount. And I can't imagine any person who does "research" ever thinking that visiting and playing great courses isn't critical to the learning process.
So, exactly what point are you trying to make?
That too much golf architecture research is going on?
That people who read golf architecture books don't play golf?
-
Tim,
Rich's point is obvious, just read between the lines. As a matter of fact you don't even have to read that much, just the header, first line and last line of his original post. Oh, heck I'll do it for us:
"Golf is a game we play....isn't it?
…..reading and pontificating is only a very weak substitute for experience, at least as I see it".
-
Jim Kennedy:
Thanks for educating me. I never thought golf was a game we play. I thought people just read about it in the library.
I feel so much better now that I understand it.
-
Tim -
I think you meant to say "I thought people just read about it in the library and followed mindlessly everything they read." ;)
-
Jeez!
I take the sprogs out swimming for a couple of hours and all hell breaks loose! Where is our beloved moderator!
Enough exclamation points........
As many of your have understood, I do not at all disagree with Tom MacWood, and in fact said so (in effect) more than once in my previous posts on this thread. Namely:
RESEARCH AND EXPERIENCE ARE BOTH IMPORTANT!!!
Sorry for the Mucci treatment (I would have used the Pazin bold type strategy too if he or I knew how to replicate it ;)), but I'd just like to get that one out of the way before more animus starts ceeping into the conversation we're having.
Where Tom and I disagree, and probably disagree pretty strongly is in the relative value of these two aproaches in determining the quality of a particular golf shot, or golf hole or golf course. I tend to think that this is determined more by the collective experience of golfers, not just me (although I'm not far from perfect, as Geoff Shackleford has so cleverly determined) but all golfers who have played a hole rather than by the direct or indirect observations of "old masters" or writers who happen to have spent a lot of time reading the old masters. I personally prefer Tom MacW's posts where he talks about his actual golfing experiences more than those which talk about his love for the history of the game, but that is in fact just me and my predilections.
Tom Paul
Have I convinced you yet that I haven't slipped off the rails yet?
Good.
Let me get to one of the bees whcih seems to have lain in your bonnet for some time before popping out today.
Art.
I probably did say many moons ago that I was sceptical that GCA is in fact what most people would call "art." I always have found it difficult to compare a Vermeer or a Bach concerto or "Ulysses" to Cypress Point. I even have trouble comparing CPC to the Sistine Chapel, as Sandy Tatum famously once did. In thinking of your post I went to my trusty dictionary, adn I looked up both "art" and artifact." The latter definition I found very intriguing:
"any object made by man, especially with a view to subsequent use."
This, at least to me, is where GCA fits most neatly. As opposed to the art of Vermeer, or Bach, or Joyce, or even Phillip Johnson, golf courses are made "with a view to subsequent use." Not only that, their very use changes them, from day one and their exposure to the elements changes them, and their sheer magnitude makes them susceptible to both serious imperfections in both design and construction as well as subtle changes over time by either owners or caretakers (i.e. greenskeepers). I do not doubt that the better architects may have a more finely tuned esthetic sense, but I still find it difficult to describe their work as "art." However, my mind is open and I can be convinced!
Thingy ;) Daley
You are right that my experiences on more than a few of the great courses I have been able to play have been limited, and if you have followed my posts with the stalking intenisty of some others you would remember that I have always qualified anything I have said about those courses with a caveat about my near virginity.
Tim W
As Alice said, in effect, I mean what I say and I say what I mean, but like Alice, I find myself confused at times, and often in a strange world.....Nevertheless, I do think we get sidetracked too often on this site by letting our love for the past cloud our vision for the future. Sure the old stuff that Paul Turner and others have revealed to us through their research is neat, but is it what we think golf ought to be in this century? Perhaps it is, perhaps not.
I'm keeping an open mind, but shouldn't my mind be influenced as much or more by experience (mine and others I know and tlak to) as by words and old photographs?
Just wondering.......
-
Jim Kennedy:
I think you're very much onto what Rich Goodale is saying--you certainly are onto what he's implying at any rate the way I'm reading him.
Personally, I don't think Rich puts much stock in architectural research or education or even that there are some fascinating principles and applications in the art of golf architecture and plenty of evidence of same, that certainly needs to be considered and seriously!
I don't know why he feels that way but knowing him I would say it may be just that he really loves playing at the exclusion of studying!
I realize too that much of what Rich has said in the past on here might be some tongue in check stuff but I'm concerned at how often he made light of the thoughts, works, writings and contributions of a man like Robert Hunter, for instance!
Rich is obviously a smart guy with lots of interesting thoughts but it seems like his general take on people of the ilk of Hunter or Behr and also those that study them and those like them is that all of them are virtually unimportant or unworthy of the kind of consideration that many of us give them. I think that feeling reflects on some on here too, in his opinion!
I hope that's not so, in his opinion, because he's said a few seemingly contradictory things on this thread like his reply to you that experience and research are both necessary but at another point he said research is inferior to playing, in his opinion!
I suppose he might mean that he thinks that research at the total exclusion of playing is inferior, and I might agree with that thought but if he means someone whose interested and competent to do both and that then research is still inferior I don't know that I would agree with that at all.
If he really does think the latter, my take is that he possesses some kind of intellectual snobbery about architectural research and study. Why that would be, if it's true, is concerning and it would tell me he's just not comfortable with it probably because he really hasn't done it! He's even said he has read some of it but in my experience one has to do more than that.
Reading it is one thing, but giving it the time and consideration to sink in is something else entirely and of course it certainly helps to go back out there and look and play and find if what you're reading has application!
I think it certainly does, more so all the time, and I hope too I'm completely wrong about what I'm saying about where Rich is coming from!
And also there is no question that plenty of the contributors on here think that others are trying to be intellectually superior about all kinds of things to do with architecture all the time!
I doubt that will ever go away--that's just sort of the way it seems to be about golf course architecture anyway and not just on here--that's real prevalent at golf clubs and courses too, all over the world, I think!
In that vein after studying all this stuff very intensely for over five years I think I'm finally getting to a point that I'm very glad for and that is to not take personally what others say or say about one's own opinions!
-
Rich --
Next time, why don't you just get the sprogs a book about swimming? Or find them a good swimming Discussion Group? :P
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but: Philip Johnson? His works aren't designed with a view to subsequent use?
-
Charles,
Animus no, self-importance fatigue, absolutely. I'm continually perplexed by the notion of golfers putting their game ahead of all else because the mere playing of the game entitles them to knowledge of architecture and what works, what doesn't. It's a destructive trend. A little reading :) would reveal that this has long been the primary reason facinating courses to play get changed. Every architect has written about this notion of golfers demanding change because their "exaggeration of ego" takes offense to features that threaten them.
I just don't see how seeking out information and understanding history has ever hurt one's approach to playing or their appreciation of golf. I sense it's branded as insignificant because some consider it an inconvenience that they don't have time or interest in, and thus write it off as outdated or old-fashioned thinking to get around the issue at hand.
When design analysis is focused on individual, self-important views based strickly on the card and pencil or the mere privilege to express an opinion, well, it seems the results are pretty apparent: bland designs where the course is trying to stay out of the golfer's way and coddle his ego, not challenging his ego in a fun way. So we end up with courses built in recent years to please the individual's needs, and coincidentally, many are failing to generage repeat playing interest. They are heavy on personal gratification services, short on captivating architecture that people enjoy PLAYING over and over again.
Geoff
-
TEPaul,
Thanks, implication it is.
As for the research/experience thing, I wonder why we even need a distinction between what is the more important. ???
Rich,
We should also look at a definition of art, if only to give it equal time.
art n.
Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
The study of these activities.
The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.
A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.
Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: “Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice” (Joyce Carol Oates).
arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.
Artful contrivance; cunning.
My opinion is that the two are inextricably blended when used in the context of GCA. Without art would there be any artifacts?
-
All
I can't type anywhere nearly as fast as Tom Paul, so I'm probably responding to stuff written an hour or so ago. Apologies. After this one I think I'll relax adn get back to the later posts tomorrow. Until then....
Dan K
I was thinking of the Seagram's Building, for example. While it is used, it's use does not affect the form of the building, and it's internal use is varied, both in form and function. Inside the building there are lawyers and aluminum siding companies, decorated in Mexican velvet and Louis XIV styles. None of this matters to the "art" of the building. Golf courses, on the other hand, are directly and indirectly affected by their use. Not a great metaphor, I'll concede, but you get what you pay for....
Tom P
So it's YOU that is making Geoff S. think that I think that this thread is all about me. ;) I don't and it ain't, or shouldn't be. Rather than rehash some of our long past discussions, I'd like to hear from others why they think (or do not think) that Hunter, Behr, McKenzie, McDonald, etc. have relevance in this century.
Cheers
Rich
-
I have found this thread fascinating for what it reveals about motivation.
The Topic seems benign enough, the problem is that the topic is an opinion that is given as a statement of fact:
"Golf is a game we play......isn't it?"
That may be a truism for rich but not for Tom or someone else. While Eddie and others play for the simple joy of playing, Jerry & Ernie do so because of the 'thrill of competition'. There are almost as many reasons for playing the game as there are players. It is for that reason that the interest in architecture or history of the game or course(s) are of such interest to some and noe whatsoever to others.
Most know that I wrote a book about Bethpage Black; big deal! It (like most books) was written out of a combination of ego, joy and a desire to share that joy with others.
To do this book I spent numerous hours in research even though I had played the Black for 30+ years before writing it. The one thing that I got out of the research that I tried most of all to share in the book was that as much as I "knew" about Bethpage Black, I really didn't. As much as I loved the idea that this was my course as a member of the golfing public in New York, I hadn't earned the privilege of being an owner as I didn't know it. I discovered how little the general public knew about it and how, in the end, it didn't matter.
What really matters is what the game means to you as a person and how close you can stay to the purity of that meaning. Is it something you do for fun? Then never walk off the course mad. Is it as much study of what was built and why? Then recognize that you are their for that purpose as well and try to walk off the course with an better understanding of it than when you teed off on one.
If the history of the game is a passion of yours (as it now is of mine), read as much as you can with an open mind and an inquisitive one.
The greatest privilege that I've personally ever experienced in the game of golf occurred this past June at the Open. I was fortunate beyond my dreams to be given media access, the only person NOT affiliated with any media coincern (print, radio or TV). There were only 2 people present (to my knowledge) who had access and were working on books about the Open, John Feinstein & myself.
For me the privilege that was so great was walking the course for 12 days from the Thursday before when the USGA concession tent was open to the Monday afterwards. I had the pleasure to interview over 1,200 people from every corner of the world as to why they were there and what did this Open at Bethpage mean to them.
The answers were touching. I would like to share one with you that i feel explains why we all need to appreciate the "why" of why we play the game.
On Sunday, fathers day, about 10 in the morning, I came across a very old gentleman sitting on his own on a bench in front of the scoreboards by the 1st hole of the Blue course. After asking himwhy he had come, he explained to me that he was 97 years old and that when he had come home the day before (he maintaions his own apartment in an elderly community), there was a note stuck in his door. Inside was a fathers day card & a ticket for the Open. It said "Dad, what better way to enjoy tomorrow than at the Black at the Open you always wanted to see. Love (your son)"
He called his 72 year old son up to thank him & was surprised to hear that he had found a similar one on the windshield of his car with the same message only this one signed by his son.
This 45 year old son (when called by his father) related that they didn't have him to thank since he had found a similar card in his front door that aftrenoon as weel.
It turns out that his 18 year old son had gotten all of the tickets and surprised them all with them. He did this because he had listened to them talk for several years about the Black & the reverence they all felt for the course. What a day they had this Son, father, grandfather & great-grandfather enjoying this day together.
Now, why do you play this game, and why do you love it?
-
Rich:
What you said in your last post about "art" and golf architecture is so interesting although we have been over this before on here!
You certainly are consistent in saying again that you struggle with considering golf architecture to be art simply BECAUSE it is something that involves "subsequent use"!
I do know what you mean by that, for sure, but let me ask you to now really open your mind to this and explain to me exactly why something that involves "subsequent use" like golf architecture that is clearly there to be playing on actively although originally involving an "artistic creation" should be considered less than art or not art?
What difference does that (subsequent use) really make in the context of the creation of a golf course and the fact it could be considered art due to its uniqueness or significance?
Everything changes evolutionarily Rich, to some degree or another and why would a larger degree of natural or evolutionary change (through it's subsequent use) disqualify it as art? One might even say that the factor of "subsequent use" (and that interesting evolution) might even make golf architecture one of the most interesting "art forms" of all!
Much of what we say on these recent threads, though, involves so much more than the evolutionary changes all golf courses go through. Some evolutionary changes are good, some are bad, the bad changes being the primary reasons for restoration, not much different than a painting that might need to be cleaned or restored from some kind of unintended damage.
But other than that why do they need to undergo wholesale change other than the destructive evolutionary aspect of it?
We know they do change because people want to change them for other reasons, mostly not good reasons!
And the reasons people generally want to change them is part of the contributing factors to the rationale for change that an analyst like Geoff Shackelford is now identifying! The explosion of the function of equipment that is really not necessary and is certainly not particularly economical to golfers and clubs and courses!
Allthough Geoff Shackelford has sort of been my original mentor in golf architecture I've sometimes resisted some of what he's said about classic architecture and the need to preserve it! I think he's one of the most talented guys anywhere in truly understanding not just the architecture in golf but also very much the true importance of the fascinating EVOLUTION of it all!
That EVOLUTION in the ART of ARCHITECTURE and understanding it is the very thing that DOES need to be preserved. Certainly not all of it or even a large part of it! Doak says the same thing and I couldn't agree more--most architecture just isn't worthy of restoration or preservation because it frankly isn't very interesting and certainly not significant but some certainly is! Some most definitely IS worthy of preservation!
Certainly some like NGLA! The only reason it's not completely obvious to some to preserve it is the great onrush of advancement in technology in golfers' general thinking like par, GIR, handicapping, difficulty, whatever!
But GeoffShac's point is some of this architecture is so significant in the evolution of golf architecture it should be preserved even as a museum piece! If that's not done it will lose what it actually is in the evolution of architecture and made to be like and look somewhat like that which followed well after it's creation! Just like painting art, there must be a need to preserve the evolution of it, and some of the best of it, the most significant pieces of it should be preserved-have to be really or they will be gone forever and we will lose what the fascinating evolution was!
NGLA is far too significant in the evolution of architecture not to be preserved. What it represents in the evolution of American architecture is too significant to risk losing by changing it!
What the membership of NGLA has is something extremely interesting in art and architecture--it's very look and playability of a time--really the sole representation as the beginning of a significant era!
That, I think is why he asked if the membership really understood what they HAVE!
But you have a good point Rich about subsequent use! But more than just the subsequent use part, don't you think it's more of the subsequent perceptions involved in many of the ways golf is going (equipment and such) that contributes to the problems of "subsequent use" and the destructive influence of it on significant architecture?
I think to Geoff Shackelford, the architecture of NGLA because of what it represents and what it is is more important than the concern of par or GIR or whatever else is driving the desire to change the course And I now agree!
I even saw something yesterday in Marion, Mass that was truly fascinating! The very first architectural effort of George Thomas, possibly the most naturally creative architectural mind ever. It was a little, extremely quirky, extremely rudimentary nine hole course that looked as much like a steeplechase course as anything else! Two or more of the holes had stone wall no more than 10-12 yards in front of the greens with an opening like a gateless gate for the golfers to walk through!
Can you imagine ever changing that course at this point? I can't! It would totally ruin it and make it completely worthless and meaningless in today's world of hi-tech golf! If I had to play that course with a 7 iron and putter only I'd much rather do that than see it changed and ruined and made worthless because someone tried to make it something it could never be! Why can't golfers sometimes enjoy stripping away the decades and truly stepping back into another time and era! It's truly fascinating?
It is so fascinating for exactly what it is that has never changed, the first work of one of the most creative architects ever. It would probably be like finding Picasso's first artistic expressions at five years old!
It's too valuable to change now despite the "use" or "subsequent use" part of it that you correctly cite!
I know you probably agree with none of this but does it have even some slight meaning to you? That's about all I ask really although most would never agree, I'm sure!
I'm just thankful I've seen and played some of this evolutionary architectural representation as it once was before it's gone forever!
-
Rich,
The architects whose relevance you are questioning designed courses, and those courses are still played to this day. Even revered by some who play them. Even criticized by some who go on to try to mimic their styles (Tom Fazio). Either way, their work has endured.
So shouldn't it be the other way around, shouldn't you explain why they are irrelevant? After all, these architects put themselves out front by writing and creating courses. They exposed themselves to critics and golfers by designing and writing. They left something behind that is still enjoyed. They took chances and backed up their ideas. Their designs and their views have lasted despite an onslaught of egotism, difficult economic times and changes in the game. Their legacies endure because people love playing golf on their courses. I'd say that makes them pretty relevant.
So are they irrelevant simply because you think so? Seems to keep coming back to the same thing, which I can understand.
Geoff
-
Geoff --
Where did Rich say they were "irrelevant"? Would you mind quoting that passage?
Seems to me that Rich said -- and, oh, what the hell, I'll quote him saying it: "I think that restoring GCA on a certain piece of land just because some icon once had a different idea as to what to do with that land than people who came later is not, in itself, a wise decision. What is of paramount importance, to me at least, is how the architecture plays. Not just how it looks. Not how 'faithful' it is to the designer's intent, whatever that means. Not what others may have thought of it many years ago. Those things are interesting, but secondary. I think that is all I am trying to say."
I'm not a legal scholar, nor do I play one on TV, but it seems to me: What we have here is analogous to various debates about the U.S. Constitution. (Almost said "... a failure to commun'cate" -- which would certainly be apt.)
Some of you are strict constructionists, believing that the specific views of the Founding Fathers must be deferred to at every turn.
Others have a more flexible, evolutionary view of the document.
And never the twain shall meet.
-
Geoff
Please re-read what I said, and if you can understand it the second time, please tell me to what degree Hunter, Behr et. al. are relevant to you and/or GCA, if you wish to do so. I didn't say they were "irrelevant," I just asked people like you to educate me as to why they were.
I'm just trying to learn something. Are you?
Rich
-
Rich,
You questioned their relevance, which sure seems like stating that they are irrelevant. My apologies if there is a difference there that I misunderstood, but I don't think based on this and many of your past posts (sadly, so many have been deleted into cyberspace by David :) ), that there is a misunderstanding:
"I'd like to hear from others why they think (or do not think) that Hunter, Behr, McKenzie, McDonald, etc. have relevance in this century."
Again, their work is out there to play, read and study, and it is played, read, and studied daily. If you don't see it's relevance based on that alone, then why is it our job to help you understand something you could look into on your own time by playing the courses, reading the words, respecting the thoughts these architects put out presumably for people to absorb (assuming they are willing to take the time away from thinking about themselves). Many people do, many have little trouble grasping the relevance of the architects you liste and many people's lives have been enhanced by the work of these architects. Perhaps because they've taken the time to give the information that consideration. Why is it you feel you are entitled to have it explained to you here, in lieu of taking advantage of what's already out there to study?
Geoff
-
Come on Rich, for God sake don't just ask Geoff Shackelford to educate you on Hunter and Behr and particularly their writing! Just read what they wrote a few times and I think you'll have gotten all the education you'll need. If at that point you haven't or feel like you haven't then ask Shackelford to help you learn something more!
And no, from the quote of yours that Dan Kelly produced you didn't actually say that those men and their writing were "irrelevant" but your implication that you couldn't see how it (or they) were "relevant" was pretty darned clear! It's all pretty clear but maybe hidden from you in things like the need and efficacy for restoration and preservation on certain courses with things like design intent and so forth!
And I don't think we need to preface a discussion about this subject with the way a jurist might be considered a "liberal interpreter" of the US Constitution or a "strict constructionist" either.
-
Where Tom and I disagree, and probably disagree pretty strongly is in the relative value of these two aproaches in determining the quality of a particular golf shot, or golf hole or golf course. I tend to think that this is determined more by the collective experience of golfers, not just me
Right on. I work in the film industry where the actors, directors and writers fall into two camps. One think that they are artists and the other camp consider themselves craftsman. It is not for anyone to term what they do as "art." Art is determined by the "collective" and it usually becomes art because it reflects how a society lived, thought, expressed themselves. Acting is not art; directing is not art and screenwriting is not art. But together, on occassion, art can result. Remember that Ordinary People won the Oscar over Raging Bull 20 years ago; the "collective" would say otherwise if voting today. Citizen Kane got some crappy reviews when it opened 60 years ago by the leading critics of the day. Art, in movies and golf, is visceral and is to experienced.
(I just wrote that? Forgive me. Now, I'll bury myself in a Dan Jenkins book and get back to reality)
-
Rich,
The architects whose relevance you are questioning designed courses, and those courses are still played to this day. Even revered by some who play them. Even criticized by some who go on to try to mimic their styles (Tom Fazio). Either way, their work has endured.
So shouldn't it be the other way around, shouldn't you explain why they are irrelevant? After all, these architects put themselves out front by writing and creating courses. They exposed themselves to critics and golfers by designing and writing. They left something behind that is still enjoyed. They took chances and backed up their ideas. Their designs and their views have lasted despite an onslaught of egotism, difficult economic times and changes in the game. Their legacies endure because people love playing golf on their courses. I'd say that makes them pretty relevant.
So are they irrelevant simply because you think so? Seems to keep coming back to the same thing, which I can understand.
Geoff
Come on, Rich, how can you write that last post? How can you say Geoff didn't read or respond to your post? "Their legacies endure because people love playing golf on their courses." Their writing was a way of explaining what they were thinking of while designing. Who is it that is trying to learn here?
P.S. This time I added the bold intentionally! :)
-
I have a feeling this thread was inspired by my response to Pat Mucci's thread on his home course. Rich wrote, "I find it laughable and sad that, on a another thread, some are suggesting to Pat Mucci that he, in effect, go back to the library before he comments more on the Tucker course that he has been playing and observing for over 50 years—all with a very high degree of competence and interest, I can presume. You could get 500 non-Mucci DG participants and give them 500 typewriters, 10 years, an unlimited travel budget and all the library cards they ever dreamed of and I would be surprised if they were to reach anything close to the understanding that he probably has of that course and of Tucker, much less a conclusion."
Pat agreed and said, "Research can be beneficial, provided the data base isn't flawed. Would one gain any indication of Tucker's work if they visited my club and studied it. The myriad of changes to the golf course over the last fifty years would confuse them, and I would challenge anyone on this site to identify all of the changes, especially the bunkers that have been removed, and altered." It sounds like he believes there may not be much of Tucker remaining. He goes on to say, "How would they evaluate entire holes that have been completely redesigned? How would they understand the order, the evolution of the changes? Talk is cheap, there is no substitute for experience." My answer: through research.
He goes to say, "What I find interesting, is that I am deeply involved in this project, have been on the green committee and board for over thirty years, yet individuals who have never layed eyes on the property, have no idea of the politics, and no historical perspective, are contradicting me on what to do, especially in areas where they don't have the facts, and don't understand the particular circumstances unique to this club."
If I'm not mistaken Pat requested four individuals, none of which have seen the golf course, for their advice. I was the first to respond, asking for more information about the architect and the evolution of the course. My advice: if you want to preserve and restore the Tucker course (and it now sounds like there isn't much Tucker left to preserve), take the TE Paul route and present a well researched document as to why it was in the club's best interest. I wouldn't characterize that as telling him to go 'back to the library.' Nor would I say that advice discounts his 50 years of experience. The response was sad, but not my response. The irony of this thread, Pat wants to preserve and restore his vintage course, Rich feels that restoring GCA is a bad idea. Their common thread, they both disagree with me. Explain that one to me.
-
My old logic professor used to say something to the effect of "From faulty premises anything follows." Seems like as good an explanation as anything.
-
Rich (and Jeff and Chris),
Thanks very much for your company up at Dornoch this weekend. It was very highly appreciated and enjoyed, even if some of my responses to my (many) bad shots may have indicated otherwise.
I don't quite know how to add to this discussion, nor am I sure that I want to. I do know that I wish I had more fun on the golf course than I do when I play the game poorly. I suspect (though may well be wrong) that some people, in forcing themselves to agonize over the logic/wit/clarity of their replies, aren't having much fun on this thread. Self-importance - pride, by any other name - goeth before many a fall...
Cheers,
Darren
-
I really do wonder why many, if not most of the contributors on this site even bother to read and write on here the way they seem to feel about things on some of these threads!
It seems like more and more the subject of discussion is the self importance that contributors feel that others show! It sure does get a little depressing around here sometimes!
-
TEPaul:
Don't get depressed.
Just think about a great weekend in New England and all the wonderful things you saw at Kittansett, Brookline and The River.
Best,
Dave
-
Dave:
Oh sorry, to say things get a little depressing around here sometimes I didn't exactly mean I get depressed! And you're right, if ever I do get depressed I'll just walk through Charles River in my mind! You guys sure are right, you can't forget a thing about it!
I feel like it's almost unfair to the course to mention one thing over another about it but #11 keeps coming to my mind first!
If a golfer ever passes through that hole and the hole can't get some kind of reaction out of that golfer, the golfer probably shouldn't be playing golf, in my opinon! That's a hole that will definitely span the ages!
-
Dear Rich and other readers/writers,
You have brought up a very good subject here.
But the answer lies in both research and experience. I am currently seeking my own niche in the Architecture market. Hopefully someday my name will be spoken along with the Joneses, Dyes, Fazios, Rosses, et al. But for now I can only use my experience along with my research to expand my knowledge to make me a better Architect in the future.
My experience stems from over 20 years in the golf business. Job titles have included cartboy,greens keeper,Asst. Golf Professional, General Manager, Irrigation Foreman, construction Foreman, and now Asst. Superintendent. I have also played extensively throughout the country on every imaginable type of golf course as well as some in Ireland.
I don't know if that all qualifies as golfing experience but let me know if I'm lacking in a particular area and I'll do my best to try and cover it, cause you can't get too much experience.
As for research experience I have a degree in Landscape Architecture and also participated in the golf course design,development, and planning seminars at Harvard a couple of years back. I do have one weak point in that I have only read maybe 8 to 10 books on the subject of Architecture . I feel that for my future creations to be unique, following the design philosophy of others would just be repetition.
Now, golf is a game that we play! It is played on ground manipulated by someone(e.g. Architect) or something(e.g.Nature). Architects of golf courses are bound by the parameters of the game in creating their art and at the same time creating something which should be aestethically pleasing for the player.For someone to accomplish this they MUST have experience with the playing of the game. They MUST also be supported by research and education in order to make informed decisions on how the game will be played on their new creation.
The Architect therefore uses both his knowledge from experience and from research to provide the best piece of work he can. So to say that research is inferior to experience when it comes to understanding subtleties in architecture doesn't hold water. They must work hand in hand to make informed decisions, or comments for that matter.
Criticisim and controversy will always be there. "Why does this hole play this way",or "This hole should go like that" are comments heard at every club no matter how great it is. You can please some people sometimes but you can't please all the people all the time.
P.S. Frank Lloyd Wright's masterpiece is "Falling Water" not "Waters".
-
P.S. Frank Lloyd Wright's masterpiece is "Falling Water" not "Waters".
Well, since you inisisted on correcting him, I'll do it to you: It's "Fallingwater." One word, not two.
-
Tom MacW
I do not believe that "restoring GCA is a bad idea." Sometimes it is a good idea, sometimes it is not. Same thing, in effect, that Tom Doak said in his thoughtful post earlier on.
Sometimes I agree with Pat Mucci, sometimes I do not. Life is not so black and white as some people seem to want to make it to be. Or, as one of my Professors once said: "There are two kind of people in the world--those that divide things into twos and those that do not..........." ;)
-
Rich
Kind of like this thread?
-
SVEN:
You said in your post above; "architects are bound by the parameters of the game in creating their art....."
That is precisely why anyone truly interested in architecture should read a thinker and writer such as Max Behr!
He makes the very point that the "game" as opposed to golf as a "sport" is the very thing that has saddled man, golfers and certainly architects with the idea of "boundaries" and endless "restrictions" of how the game "must" be played (and obviously how design and architecture "must" conform to those boundaries and restrictions)!!
Behr's reference to golf as a "sport" vs a "game" is precisely the context in which golfers can somehow get away from endless "boundaries and strictures" and then consequently be allowed to express themselves in the playing of golf and experience a certain sense of individual "freedom" (of expression) in doing so instead of always being dictated to and sort of "shown the way" (architectural roadmapping)!
His basically simple principle of "lines of charm" is no more than an architectural application of that very freedom and sense of individual expression!
This is a fundamental and most interesting distinction ("game" vs "sport") and when it's made you will hear almost everyone say that it's impossible in today's world due to land requirements, economics, legal liabilities, golfers' preferences etc, etc.
This is evidenced too by architects like a Tom Fazio telling us in his book he knows EXACTLY what golfers want and don't want and what they will accept and won't accept!
Well, that's basically crap! Fazio does not KNOW any such thing! Of course he may sense such a thing for some particular reason of his own but then he only perpetuates the perception by making public remarks like that (he "KNOWS" what golfers....blah, blah, blah)!
Clearly there may be all kinds of problems involved in the application of Behr's principles in today's world but those problems are prescisely what today's architects need to solve in new and interesting ways and applications that are architectural to return strategies and golf and the playing of it to some form of individual expression and freedom!
That's why, of course, experience is necessary but so is reading and research into some adventurous and creative thinking like that of a Max Behr!
He wrote those things 75+ years ago and clearly he did not give us an exact "blueprint" in how to accomplish some of these things architecturally in today's world. But he outlined a wonderful and adventurous idea and it's up to us to figure out how to make it work today--and certainly since it's undeniably valid in principle! And if one didn't read and research how would one have ever become aware of it?
-
Rich:
For us to go forward into all kinds of interesting possibilities and even some extraordinary "sunlit uplands" in golf and golf architecture in the future, maybe it's about time all of us stop telling each other what things like life is and isn't!
Maybe you should just stop saying things like; "Life is not so black and white as some people seem to want to make it be", and maybe you should stop quoting some professor who said; "There are two kinds of people in the world, those that divide things into twos and those that don't...."
Maybe it's just a better idea to recognize that life is whatever the hell anyone wants to make it be for himself and just leave it at that!
I have a feeling if we can start to get into a bit more of that we just might be able to get away from the constant striving on here to get others to agree with us... and then consequently maybe much of the arguing on here would begin to cease!
I like professors too, and I respect you as well, but they have no more idea about what life is to you or me than we do--that's for sure!
-
Tom MacW
I'm very pleased that you "kind of like this thread."
Tom P
That "Professor" thing was an attempt at self-deprecating humor (as if I ned to deprecate myself these days what with all that's eing said about me on this thread!).
Have nice days :)
Rich
-
Rich:
Sorry I missed the humor of the professor thing and the philosophical certainty of what life is and isn't! I need to work on my humor sense, I guess, but don't worry, we all still love you on here!
But you know, you of all people should look very carefully into the writing of Max Behr!
You would be a natural to subsribe to his ideas and principles! Anyone who even thinks of the joys of playing golf holes in some kind of odd progression and odder spectrum of 40 yard holes to 800 yard holes even over previously uncharted directions on any golf course is very much naturally into true "freedom of expression" in golf (and architecture) and basically that is most of what Behr is all about!
Knowing you, the man will probably turn out to be your long lost great uncle anyway!
-
I find it helpful on threads like this to go back to the original post to see the genesis of the discussion.
I think Rich's first post had to do more with the differences between research or study in the GENERAL sense and experience in the SPECIFIC (one day I'll learn how to italicize) sense, and which is a better mentor when it comes to a specific course (his examples were Pat's course and NGLA).
It since seems to have gotten into a research vs. experience debate. Which of course is somewhat nonproductive because both are important tools in understanding GCA in the macro and a particular course in the micro. Imagine a doctor with no body of knowledge of medicine treating a patient. Just as silly as the same doctor treating a patient armed only with a medicine book and no personal history of the patient.
-
Hod -
Good points indeed.
If you didn't lurk much before posting, then you would have no way of knowing this, but Rich has always taken a perverse pleasure in belittling those of us who choose to read & analyze the many writings on golf course design, always somehow implying that we were nothing more than automotons (sp?) who mindlessly spit out what we read. When he starts making statements like finding research "laughable," then we have to rein him in. :) Particularly since Patrick specifically invited response & advice from the four individuals who had not played his course. Who knows why Patrick even asked?
-
Dear George
The only thing I get perverse pleasure in is playing the game of golf.
I have never consciously "belittled" anybody on this site. If you or anybody else feels that way, I aoplogise.
I don't remember using the word "laughable," and could not find it in this thread or elsewhere using the crack GCA search engine. (OK, that's two things I get perverse pleasure in, playing golf and belittling the crack GCA search engine....) ;). Please let me know when and where I said it so I can see the context. I would be surprised if I said anything like "finding research 'laughable'" since I do not beleive that to be true.
I've never called anybody on this site an "automonon" or anything similar or even implied such, as I do not believe that to be the case.
In fact, I think I am one of the more civil of the fairly regular posters.
It is sad to me that you obviously disagree.
Cheers
Rich
-
Rich:
The word "laughable" is in your first post in this thread a couple times and it's not that hard to tell where you seem to be going with it!
I don't think you've ever belittled anyone on this website that I can remember but you certainly have questioned the usefulness and relevancy of some of the architects and writers that have been mentioned on this site many times as respected architectural minds and writers, particularly Robert Hunter!
You said you've read his book and his writings (or some or parts of it) but I wonder how well you've read them and how interestedly you've read them!
There's no question in my mind and memory that you passed Hunter off as some kind of rich dillettante who dabbled in architecture and may not have been an opinion to be considered or respected.
I hope you remember that and I certainly hope you won't say that was just your self-deprecating sense of humor!
-
Thus, I find it laughable and sad that, on a another thread, some are suggesting to Pat Mucci that he, in effect, go back to the library before he comments more on the Tucker course that he has been playing and observing for over 50 years
This darn quote feature always comes back to bite you (general you, not you specifically - I'm sure many of my quotes could be used to get me too).
Rich, I certainly find you civil & I always enjoy our little debates - that's why I jokingly refer to you as my "archnemesis." We often find ourselves on different sides on the more theoretical discussions on this site.
As for belittling, that's probably me reading too much into your comments - I've always maintained the worst thing about online discourse is that there are no personal inflections to read. When I made my comments to Hod re: your style, it was more of a friendly teasing nature, that's why I put the smiley face in. Still, you must admit it's quite easy to read your initial post & infer that you are looking down on those who choose to research & read - how else is one to interpret the 500 non-Muccis sitting at 500 typewriters? This is a pretty clear reference the old theory of 500 monkeys sitting at typewriters randomly hacking away in an effort to reproduce Shakespeare (not worth reproducing, IMHO).
-
George Pazin --
This is starting to drive me batty!
You write, to Rich: "You must admit it's quite easy to read your initial post & infer that you are looking down on those who choose to research & read - how else is one to interpret the 500 non-Muccis sitting at 500 typewriters? This is a pretty clear reference the old theory of 500 monkeys sitting at typewriters randomly hacking away in an effort to reproduce Shakespeare (not worth reproducing, IMHO)."
(1) Mr. Goodale VERY CLEARLY said, right there in that initial post, that he values the insights gained from the experience of playing a course more than all of the insights that could be gained from reading about it. He very clearly did not say that research was worthless. He has very clearly said, since, that he considers both playing experience and research to have usefulnes -- though he considers experience superior to research.
Why do you need to INFER anything?
(2) Shakespeare: not worth reproducing?
In the immortal words of Charlie Brown: AUUUUUUUUGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
-
Dan, Mr. Editor Sir:
Isn't it "ARRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH"? ;)
KC
-
Ken --
Could be. "Bartlett's" doesn't have it -- yet.
Our paper -- which once employed Charles Schulz, but then let him go (I think he wanted a raise -- to 15 bucks a week, or something equally outrageous) -- has never carried "Peanuts." And in the immortal words of our accountants: ARRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!
-
Dan -
Come on, Dan, you sound like a lawyer parsing down statements. Does it depend on what "is" is? :)
I addressed Rich's initial post for two reasons:
1) As I stated, I believe the attitude he expresses is in large part what leads people to believe they can improve any course & as such is quite dangerous.
2) I don't care what you think, it is a miraculously small inference on my part to conclude that the "laughable" part is directed at the many participants of this board that choose to read & research. Good lord, you got offended at my non-sequitor (sp?) on Shakespeare - how can it not be okay to take some offense at calling the well intentioned & solicited(those italics were for Hod:)) advice of one of the more thoughtful posters on this site "laughable?" (And why do the question marks go inside the quotation marks, while I'm complaining?:))
We all have our soapboxes - many complain about bias & bashing to no apparent end. My soapbox is defending the posters on this site. And maybe tearing apart loose logic. :)
-----
I must admit the Shakespeare thing is absolute bias on my part. You are a journalist & likely some kind of English or communications major. I find it absolutely deplorable that Shakespeare is shoved down everyone's throat ad nauseam while most of the major scientific advances throughout history are largely ignored. I was a math guy in college. :) Physics for Poets is offered at most schools in some form to help out the poor non-science types to get through there science distribution requirements, while I had to sit through the same boring Shakespeare & Faust crap (actually, Faust wasn't so bad) that the non-science guys took. I believe Pennsylvania requires all high school students to take 4 years of English & History, yet only 2 years of math & science. Go figure.
You can have Shakespeare - I'll take Newton.
Sorry about all the smileys - just trying to convey that I'm enjoying this debate, not that I'm angry.
-
Rich had it a little bit wrong. The world IS divided into two kinds of people -- but one of those groups is made up of those who think Shakespeare is crap.
-
Oh how true that is, Rick. And I've avoided this thread like the plague so far - it's been fun for me to watch Rich getting beat on a little, in a perverse way, given the beating I took on the "new courses thread"....
But Shakespeare v. Newton I just can't resist. What a cool dividing line that is.
I've always said the world is divided into "word people" and "math people" and ne'er the twain shall meet. A much better way to put this is indeed Shakepeareans and Newtonites.
And I am most definitely a Shakespearean.
Oh, I have nothing against the Newtonites - they have created the wondrous technology we have today. The grand philosophical question is, however, is the world indeed a "better" place with these advances. Talk about potential for a deep discussion.... it really isn't as simple as you likely think, George....
For me it comes down to this: Newton explains, Shakespeare gives meaning.
Now is this the furthest afield from golf course architecture we have ever gotten here? ;)
Unfortunately, the bottom line is I love ya George, but I know you will never convince me just as I will certainly never convince you, if this "debate" occurs.
So I say we just make peace - you likely think we Shakespeareans are worthless, and that's ok. I can suffer the slings and arrows of your contempt, without this becoming the summer of my discontent. ;)
In essence anyway I just wanted to give kudos to the Newton v. Shakespeare distinction. Well done, George!
TH
-
George --
So much to say, and so little time!
(1) I'm a writer and an editor.
My brother is a lawyer.
My dad was a lawyer.
My dad's dad was a lawyer.
I can't help caring about what words mean! I can't help caring about precision in language. Parsemoniousness (smiley) is in my blood.
(2) I'm sorry, but no matter what you (and Geoff S) may think, Rich never said one should tear up a course based solely on one's own experience of playing it. Rich never said one should tear up a course without so much as a backward glance at its history.
If others believe (and have acted on their belief) that one SHOULD tear up a course based solely on one's own experience of playing it, without so much as a backward glance at its history ... well, to hell with them! But I have no doubt at all about this: You would not find Mr. Goodale among their company.
(3) I did NOT take offense at your comment about Shakespeare. I take offense very, very rarely. I merely found your comment ... what's the word? ... unthinkable!
(4) Question marks do NOT go inside the quotation marks, unless the question mark is part of the quoted material. As in: (a) Why do you find my position "laughable"? (b) "He said: 'Why do you find my position laughable?' "
Periods and commas always go inside the quotation marks. Other punctuation marks (question marks, exclamation points, dashes, semicolons, colons, etc.) go outside the quotation marks UNLESS THEY'RE PART OF THE MATERIAL BEING QUOTED. Why? Who "knows"?
(5) I was a History major. Your hypothesis is rejected! (Smiley.)
(6) Please do not infer that my fondness for Shakespeare (or my concentration in History) is in any way meant as (a) a slight to Sir Isaac Newton, or to any other scientist or science major, living or dead; or (b) an argument in favor of (i) "Physics for Poets" or (ii) any unbalanced high-school curriculum, in Pennsylvania or any other state!
(7) I will leave you with this thought -- which, I gather from your earlier remarks, you will enjoy: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
"Henry IV, Part II," Act IV, Scene ii
By William Shakespeare
All the lawyers -- except, maybe, my brother, and Shivas, and Doug Wright, and ...
Smiley, smiley, smiley... (Law Firm of the Day: Smiley, Smiley & Smiley, P.A.)
Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth...
Dr. Katz? Stat!
-
Dan -
Thanks for the grammar lesson (I was always taught that quotation marks are always last) and the reminder of one of my all time favorite quotes - in spite of the fact that almost every teacher I had & many friends feel that I would best be suited for a career in law. Hey, now that I think about it, maybe they were slamming me, that's a reasonable inference.:)
For the record, I never said Rich would advocate tearing up any course. Indeed, I said to Hod on one of my posts that I respect Rich's views a great deal. What I said (you don't even have to infer it) was that it was this type of attitude that was dangerous & that it has destroyed many a classic course. The notion that golf experience supercedes all else leads lesser individuals to wreak havoc on many courses, old & new, classic or otherwise. My own home course, a nice old relic called North Park Golf Course, an Allegheny County muni, exhibits this all the time with mindless tree & bunker additions.
I still stand by my other inferences & slanderous remarks re: Bill Shakespeare. Then again, I'm somewhat hard of hearing, so maybe I just can't understand those darn accents. :)
P.S. History, English, same thing. ;D ;D
-
Shakespearean Question - Is a thoughtless redesign by any other name (i.e. restoration) any less beautiful?
Newtonian Answer - Yes.
-
Dan:
You may be very good at reading what someone is technically writing but some of us are six steps ahead and around the corner from you because not only do we know what Rich Goodale is technically writing but we also know what he's actually saying and why and further we know exactly what he means-or let's say what he's actually thinking despite what he writes or even later writes that he means!
But nevertheless it's nice to have our own inhouse editor as it is to have our own inhouse psychiatrist!
-
To take this as far off topic as possible. Huckaby, have you read Bloom's "Shakespeare and the Invention of the Human."
And Yes, George, that means you have arranged to play golf with a (shudder) Shakespearean.
Maybe we could all have a discussion based on C. P. Snow's "The Two Cultures."
-
OhMYGOD, now we have some kind of literary genius on our golf architecture website!
-
An English professor of mine at Oxford once remarked that he thought that Dr. Crapper had done more for mankind than Shakespeare and Marlowe combined.
-
Bob --
That must be why he couldn't get a job at Cambridge -- eh?
-
Bob:
Did you know that it was Dr. Crapper who designed TOC? Most people attribute it to God, but there's no way that's true--I just came across Crapper's individual hole blueprints and it's all there--designed just "as was"!
-
To take this as far off topic as possible. Huckaby, have you read Bloom's "Shakespeare and the Invention of the Human."
No... but I'd have to guess my Dad has (talk about a Shakespearean - he taught the classes George hates for 40 years)... and in any case it sounds to me like I need to find it!
TH
-
i think this thread is misappropriately named. rather it should be "golf is a game we play so we can talk about it".
would you have the same enjoyment from golf if you were mute and illiterate? would the interior monologue in your head be as wonderfully cacophonous as this thread ;)
-
Speaking of the name of the thread made me think of Khristine Janusik of the Ross archive fame. She doesn't play yet must be as immersed as the rest of us.
-
Dan Kelly:
Touche.
Bob
-
Dan Kelly, TEPaul et al.......
The enigma of Thomas Crapper is solved.
see:
http://www.rotorooter.com/fun_history_1904.html
-
Seeing that explanation of how doughboys in England coined the word "crap" I now know why and how the Scots invented the term "shank."
-
Rich,
I think that the scots word 'shankers' was maybe a miss spell when describing a committee group in the 1800s who decided to build new tees, loose the best bunkers and introduce cocktails to the Luncheon menu.
-
Rich Goodale,
I go away for a week and chaos breaks out.
Somehow those who visit and post on this site have taken it upon themselves to ordain that no research has taken place at this club, on Tucker or some of his courses.
How did they arrive at that conclusion ?
Perhaps the research was done some time ago, negating the need to update such research every year.
I wonder if those who feel that the answer lies in READING, put any credibility in those dating books, like....
"HOW TO SCORE ON EVERY DATE." or
"HOW TO PLEASE A WOMAN EVERY TIME",
or the money making books,
"HOW TO MAKE A FORTUNE IN REAL ESTATE, WITH NO MONEY"
Reading can be informative, but it doesn't convey talent, which is inate.
I could read all the books in the world about drawing and painting, but I just don't have the eye nor the talent for it.
Geoff Shackelford,
Perhaps I misread or misinterpreted your post, but it seems to me that one can't disqualify an individual's architectual insight because they haven't read, books deemed essential by some,
to the furthering of their architectural education.
There seems to be, on the part of some, an attempt to disqualify or dismiss players, especially good ones, as serious architectural minds. Charles Blair MacDonald, Donald Ross and Ben Crenshaw would seem to be evidence to dispute that theory.
If one has an abundance of PLAYING EXPERIENCE, it doesn't render them automatically incapable of being impartial.
They are capable of not giving undue special weight or attention to the low, or high handicapper. Instead, they too can forge a tactical challenge that each group can aspire to, without removing the factor of enjoyment.
This notion, that players, especially good players are architectually tainted by their athletic talent, is nonsense.
Each individual should be judged by their architectural abilities, not by their handicap or the number of rounds they play, or don't play.
All too often, in many fields, there is an elitist attempt to quiet the voices of talented individuals who don't have the right pedigree.
Jim Kennedy, et. al.,
Educating the membership can have a disruptive effect on the club. I've never believed in petitions, as I believe that they are devisive and counter productive to the overall health of the membership. Once you begin the engagement process, the political lines are drawn, and the feud begins. Once you go public, you can't go back to working behind the scenes, which I would prefer to do.
As a last ditch effort, if I thought, unequivically, that the course was going to be ruined, I would consider going to battle prior to the general membership meeting.
I have had two one hour meetings with the project chairman and another concerned individual. We have made significant progress. Another meeting is planned for thursday, and I'm hopeful that a RESTORATION effort will be the result of that meeting.
Keep in mind that the project chairman is a lifelong friend, as are other individuals involved in this situation.
I'm also curious as to how many of the posters who have offered their sage advice solve differences of opinion on domestic issues in their households ;D
-
I'm also curious as to how many of the posters who have offered their sage advice solve differences of opinion on domestic issues in their households ;D
Pat, that one is easy. The answer is the same every time, in one form or another: "Yes, dear, whatever you say" OR "Of course you are right, dear, what was I thinking." OR "I'll jump on that project right now; let me just put my clubs back in the shed." ;D
Ken
-
Ken Cotner,
The price we pay for peace and piece.
The concessions we make in the name of hopeful harmony.
Sometimes, it's no different at a golf or country club.
As married individuals can attest, It's easy to posture on your key board, but when someone you live with every day makes a demand, embarks upon siege warfare, or disagrees on an issue, no matter how big or how small, sometimes early settlement, and/or compromise allows one to continue with the reasonable enjoyment of their activities and/or lives.
At country clubs, with relatives, acquaintances and friends, sometimes the same forces come into play.
-
Ken Cotner,
The price we pay for peace and piece.
The concessions we make in the name of hopeful harmony.
Sometimes, it's no different at a golf or country club.
As married individuals can attest, It's easy to posture on your key board, but when someone you live with every day makes a demand, embarks upon siege warfare, or disagrees on an issue, no matter how big or how small, sometimes early settlement, and/or compromise allows one to continue with the reasonable enjoyment of their activities and/or lives.
At country clubs, with relatives, acquaintances and friends, sometimes the same forces come into play.
Pat,
Piece? What's that? ???
"Early settlement"...for me this is known as "cave quickly". ;)
BTW, much congratulations on your Senior Am. Next year it's on to match play!
K
-
Pat
When was the architectural high point of the course?
-
Pat
Two things...one, I'm wondering how you are going to word you're answer to the "piece" question. Are you going to rely on your experience or your research?
Secondly, congratulations on the Senior Am. What a thrill it must be to play in a USGA event. It may interest you to know that there was a complete stranger to you (namely me) checking the scores in the paper (during morning constitution) to find out how you did. As luck would have it, the Houston paper cut the scores of the first round off right after your name. So it looked like you were last in the field. Knowing the paper like I do I knew this not to be the case.
But it did remind me of a funny story told to me years ago. (I hope you take this in the proper vein): Seems that when Butch Harmon played the tour (early 70s), he went through a tough stretch of missed cuts. And his dad (who never missed a chance with the needle) would talk to him and the conversation would go something along these lines:
Claude Sr.: "Well, son, I see you won another tournament out there."
Butch: "Actually, Dad, I've missed the last two cuts."
Claude Sr.: "I see...Must have been looking at my paper upside down."
Congrats, Pat
-
Tom MacWood,
That's a good question.
One that every club should be asking of itself.
The answer is, after some length had been added, but before the golf course became open season for every green chairman, and before a landscape architect was brought in to make free form tees, swirly fairway lines, moved fairway lines, and heavy tree planting. Probably the late 60's, and I would add, prior to the first automatic sprinkler system.
In addition, two key, enormous trees were lost to lightening, and this allowed the landscape architect to shift the fairways, 20-30 yards, on both holes, to their detriment.
Since that time virtually every hole except # 9 has been tampered with.
One of the trademarks of the golf course was large bunkers.
Several green chairman, with an architect in hand, chopped them up into two or three smaller bunkers with difficult sides,
such that we have two types of bunkers, flat bottomed and tea cup.
On our 18th hole, there was a magnificent horseshoe shaped bunker surrounding the green, which was fronted by water.
A green chairman, one winter, without board approval, chopped that bunker into three sand bunkers and one grass bunker, all of which are a horror. Yet, the club did not restore the damaged bunkers.
I am hopeful, that my meeting tomorrow will produce an agreement to RESTORE the course, feature wise to that point in time.
It is also interesting to note, that originally, there was but one fairway bunker, which NLE, on the second hole. Today, eight of the holes have fairway bunkers which were built by various green chairman since the late 60's. They are inconsistent in look, construction and play.
HOD,
Thanks.
Claude and my dad were friends, I think they shared the same needle.
-
Tom MacWood,
One of the other changes was to the 15th hole which had a marvelous diagonal kidney shaped green, exceptionally well bunkered, with an option off the tee to carry a creek to the left side of the fairway leaving one with an ideal angle of attack into that green, or play a less risky tee shot straight away, leaving a more difficult shot into the narrow angle of the green.
Within the last year the ability to recreate/restore that hole has been lost as a retention reservoir has been built along the right side (old straight away fairway). This was built despite the fact that a firm was willing to dredge and haul away our large ponds that have silted in over the years. Over 15,000 cubic yards of excavated dirt from the creation of a retention pond has been relocated ON the Golf course in the form of mounds. All under the supervision and approval of an architect retained by the LRPC chairman, without consultation with the committee.
Despite all the work done to the 15th hole, the individuals in charge forgot, or didn't pay attention to ongoing drainage problems which they could have cured as the retention pond was being built.
In addition, when the 15th was first altered, and a mini pond created, I objected to same, but was assured that the pitch wouldn't exceed three (3) degrees. Unfortunately, the closer to the pond one gets, the steeper the grade, which exceeds three (3) degrees by a good margin, further adversely affecting the play of the hole.
One of the early solutions to the drainage problem when the hole was first altered was to plant weeping willows to soak up the water. But, the rocket scientists in charge of the project planted the weeping willows on the low side of the fairway.
When the retention pond was built this last year, I suggested that some of the non-clay fill be used to ameliorate the excessive pitch of the fairway, and that the drainage problem be addressed at the high side of the hole. Both suggestions were not pursued.
When I mentioned that the location of the new pump house was incorrect, and that it should be offset 20 yards from the far side of the pond, allowing for cart traffic, and to further hide the pump house, visually and accoustically from golfers playing the 15th hole, that too was ignored, resulting in a club joke about the pump house which now resides largely, and directly on the pond, casting a beautiful reflection for all golfers to enjoy.
The individual in charge suggested that carts ride to the left of the fairway, and then cross the fairway in front of the green between the pond and the green so that they could proceed behind the green to the 16th tee. This creates a terrible eyesore, and impediment to play.
However, I still feel that the original green can be reproduced, helping to recreate the advantage to a riskier tee shot, and leaving the safer tee shot with a more difficult shot to the green.
The three bunkers that now surround the HUGE green are so out of character with the rest of the golf course, and two of them are unplayable for most members as they are raised above the green, and slope to the green, creating downhill lies to a green that slopes away from the golfer.
I hope this provides you with a general idea of some of the changes that have taken place on most of the holes.
If you have any questions about the 15th hole, or any other hole, let me know.
-
I stumbledupon this old thread whlst using GCA.com's crack search engine. Those were the days......
-
Gentlemen,
Having wallowed in this wonderful thread for over two hours I can only quote Ed Baker
"Not much to add except that from what I have learned from this site about GCA has made the playing of the game much more fun and fulfilling..........Isn't that the point of the game, the site, the study of golf architecture as a hobby, to have fun?"
And Shakespeareans versus Newtonites ...... I just love it!
What a terrific thread. And Rich Goodale gets whacked about the ears. That's worth reading about in itself.
Cheers Colin
-
Rich:
This was (is) a marvelous thread and thank you for reprising it. In my opinion, those were the true Halycon days of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com (this thread is almost a decade old).
As you know, I've always been fascinated by your particular approach to the subject of golf course architecture both actually and historically. I believe in a "Big World" theory of opinion and over the years the only thing I don't much agree with you on is your basic lambasting or at least pooh-poohing of Max Behr and his writing.
I am a huge, HUGE fan of Behr's writing even if I do recognize and admit that his writing style is peculiar (for many of us today). He wrote in a form of Edwardian style so he is hard to follow but once you get onto his style his themes and points and premises are laser-like, in my opinion-----perhaps far more than anyone ever was who wrote on golf course architecture. Max looked so deeply into golf course architecture he practically looked right into the golfer's soul. But apparently you do not read EDWARDIAN very well or appreciate it!
This was a wonderful thread, including the fact Pat Mucci was a putz then and he is still a putz today!
-
Hi Tom
I'd classify Behr as Jabberwockean rather than Edwardian, but that is the picking of a very minor nit.
Rich
-
"I'd classify Behr as Jabberwockean rather than Edwardian, but that is the picking of a very minor nit."
Ricardo the Magnidiot:
It certainly is picking a very minor nit considering King Edward VII was probably weaned on Carrol and Jabberwocky! Both King Edwards of the 20th century were slow learners and of something less than top-notich minds so Carrol's "nonsense" style apparently appealed to them more than most. Furthermore writing in mirror image might be the highest form of intelligence. Leonardo did it and so did Carrol. This was all obviously not lost on Max Behr who looked so deep into golf and golf architecture he apparently discovered there is some serious "nonsense" in the best of golf and golf architecture too! Anyone who actually achieves the ultimate goal of reaching the sunlit uplands of golf and golf architecture understands that they aren't ultimately looking at a golf course or golf architecture----they are looking at it through a looking glass and looking at themselves.