Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Tim_Weiman on November 02, 2010, 11:51:28 AM
-
A couple recent threads, including the discussion of Arthur Hills’ work, got me to thinking:
What is good golf architecture writing?
What are the do’s and don’ts?
What should a person posting here about a golf course or architect be trying to accomplish?
-
What should a person posting here about a golf course or architect be trying to accomplish?
access?
-
details about why you like something or don't
other examples of where it worked or didn't
patience & editing
-
I think the poster should be trying to accomplish the following.
1.) Describe the design and why it is interesting, strategic, etc. This can help the reader learn and appreciate architecture more fully and lead to more enjoyment.
2.) Encourage the reader to want to get out and play the course and learn the course and enjoy the course immediately (if it is a positive write-up).
3.) Stimulate the mind of the reader as to how they might suggest improvements to any course they have influence on.
I am sure there are many more but these seem to be the things I think of when I read some of these excellent posts.
-
What should a person posting here about a golf course or architect be trying to accomplish?
access?
Winner, winner, chicken dinner!
-
To make things less gloomy.
To dispel the darkness and bring light and lightness.
A golf course is a field of play.
It's meant to help keep the man-child alive.
Let not golf writing bludgeon it to death.
-
PS - I have been a prime bludgenor. But no more!!
-
PS - I have been a prime bludgenor. But no more!!
PeterP,keep bludgeoning.You have a faithful following.
-
LIke most threads, this one touches a number of issues simultaneously....
1. This thread dodges the issue of how to be a critic of golf architecture? or how to be a design critic?
2. We do not live in the world Lake Wobegone. How to define average?
3. If another world class course (give it 25 years to be given that status) was discovered and written about, who would have the credibility in the larger Golf World beyond this web site that would be listened to? As (at least as it appears to me) private as PV is, how many years did it take for it to achieve its status?
-
Carl,
I'm hoping folks would chime in and tells us how to be a golf architecture critic.
It feels like a big part of the task is to address an audience assuming they haven't seen the golf course. How can one describe a course that will accurately sum up what the place is all about and provide for the reader a guide for whether they should go out of their way to visit and play it?
-
Tim - First you have to consider your audience. Who are you writing your crit for? An architect? A magazine/book?
One thing I always keep in mind is will my father understand what I'm talking about? I think he played 45ish holes over the last 2 years, and only knows golf architecture from what I tell him and make him read to edit. If you start dropping words like Biaritz, internal contouring, and those kinds of terms, nobody will ever know what you are talking about.
Are you writing a course review? a hole review? just an essay of some thoughts or a research piece?
Whichever one it is, I always write like I was back at school. With an intro, body and conclusion. I think people sometimes forget its writing and just focus on golf, and you get lost in yardages and hole #'s. Also, don't tell me something is simply good or bad, unless you explain why, your assessment is meaningless.
Last, make your voice come through.
-
Thorough, thoughtful and entertaining.
Tough to accomplish all 3. It might just be that no one does it consistently, unless you consider his whole body of work.
Some are strong enough on one or two that they are worth reading anyway.
-
Jaeger,
Assume you are writing for the gca.com audience.
-
Booze!
-
Who would you rather read, Tim - Henry James or Raymond Carver? Bernard Darwin or Ron Whitten? Tom Doak or Fill-in-the-Blank-with-Garden-Variety-Golf Magazine-Golf Week-Golf World-Writer of the Day?
Peter
-
Search for the person who writes rather than reports...
-
The thing I have noticed about some of the more engaging writing here is that the author is able to capture the very essence of a course in such a way that the reader is not only learning about the course – he is on the course. The Royal Melbourne thread by Mark Bourgeois is a wonderful example of this. I suspect this is a gift few of us have..
Lyne
-
Tim, yours is a very good question. I envy those who can write well on the subject. Perhaps a framework is helpful. I don't do this but I'll try going forward:
Force myself to list three strengths and three weaknesses of the golf course.
Distinguish between opinions and facts.
Address the sum as well as the parts.
Draw a fine line between criticism and diplomacy.
Just a few stupid random thoughts to myself.
Bogey
-
Good architectural writing should not detract from a great picture. Great architectural writing should be something you would be embarrassed to let your friends know you enjoy. The fragile state of the golf industry has made it impossible for a working professional to express an unbiased opinion. The politically correct plague of apology ridden morning afters has made it impossible for anyone else to express their honest opinion, twice.
-
An example of fine architectural writing with no pictures is The American Private Golf Guide by Daniel Wexler. As soon as I can muster an ounce of charity with a pinch of thoughtfulness I will take a copy to my local pro who recently was asking where to send a group of members who were traveling to Scottsdale. I was surprised once I had the book in hand how much more informed I could have been.
Daniel does love Florida and C&C a bit too much, so while the book is not perfect, it is perfectly good enough.
-
I think good golf architecture writing isn't much different than good writing on any other subject involving description of something both physical and sensory. It's mostly about interesting and perhaps unique observations (both physical and sensory) and being able to articulate them in an educational, entertaining, and even perhaps provocative way. I think, far more than most, the very best golf and golf architecture writers tapped into and articulated well their own personal observations and sensations instead of trying to describe things directed at some consensus.
-
Bogey,
No, it isn’t very easy to write about golf architecture. Actually, the motivation for this thread came from a recent thread about a particular architect’s work. One poster who had seen only a limited sample was very critical. Another poster responded by questioning the credentials of this poster. His argument was: you haven’t seen enough of this architect’s work to generalize.
That seemed reasonable until I got to thinking that questioning another poster’s credentials really isn’t golf architecture writing at all. It is something else.
I agree a course description needs to include the “sum” and the “parts”.
By the way, my favorite golf architecture writing is still Dan Jenkins’ description of Pine Valley in his 1965 Sports Illustrated’s The Best 18 Golf Holes in America. “Any man who has ever waggled a wedge with serious intent knows about Pine Valley”, Jenkins wrote. At that point I was hooked. I was determined to see Pine Valley and every great course I could see.
-
I have had the great fortune of writing extensively about golf course architecture. Of course, my own thinking as to what constitutes good GCA writing has evolved along with my knowledge of the subject and my bank of experience, but here's how I personally try to approach it...
1. Do not write solely for the aficianado. The first step in making any art or craft or endeavor accessible and enjoyable is to provide a gateway into the vision and creativity of its practitioners. Most golfers have never had the opportunity to interview, walk a course or play golf with an architect. Therefore, they don't really have a frame of reference. The goal is to encourage a deeper view. I want to nail the intent of the architect much more than polish my interpretation of it.
2. Show, don't tell. My "aha!" moment came when I was walking Cherry Hills with the talented architect and historian Mark Fine some years back while he was working on a master plan for the club. Mark does his research. He was able to point out to me the physical instances where changes (some man-made, others the cumulative effects of time and play) to Flynn's original vision. I experienced what you might call a moment of clarity, and I've never looked at any golf course the same way since. Some months later, I got to play Riviera in the company of Mark, Ian Andrew and the inimitable Norm Klaparda. The strategies and options of the golf course absolutely enthralled me, to the point where golf game took on a new dimension. Since then, I have been lucky enough interview and even to play golf or walk courses with many/most of the top architects in the game. The highest goal of my writing is to be invisible enough to allow readers to get to know the architects and the works that have added so much to my own relationship with golf.
3. Demonstrate the relevance. Mark Fine and I wrote a series of columns for Golf Tips Magazine a few years back. The series focused on architecture, how to read it and how to put an understanding of architecture into your regular golf game. It was not an erudite exercise on the vision of artists; it was a here's what it is, why it matters and how it can enrich your experience with golf to understand it kind of thing. Very satisfying.
4. Entertain. It's my job to bring the subject to life as much as possible, without manipulating it. Good writing is good writing. Active voice. Detailed imagery. A real command of the intent of the piece - is it a first-person review or would intrusion by the author disrupt the story?
5. always, Always, ALWAYS remember, no one could give a Redan's shadow how you played or what you shot. As an old man once told me at a tournament in South Georgia, when I stood there recounting my round to him, "Tom, here's something to remember...half the people don't care what you shot, and the other half wish you had shot higher."
-
Tom Ferrell:
Here's a good story for people who talk too much about their own round after golf.
Listener after hearing someone recount every shot he hit on the first and second holes:
"I'm going to go take a shower, but I hope to be back just before you get off the 18th green."
-
I look for stories and subjects that allow me to tell an incomplete story, allowing the reader to ask his/her own questions. No need to explain everything. When I have time, I try to get the words right and the cadence right to reflect my rhythm.
Words right
Cadence right
Words left
Cadence left
Fewest, most accurate words
Story incomplete
What's misisng?
Great thread, great responses.
-
Tim,
A welcome topic and one that's generated some insightful replies. I agree witht the general tenor of the discussion which seems to be that the best writing about golf architecture is both entertaining and educational. When I finish reading an article—whether it's about a hole or a feature or a course—I like to feel that my time with it was well spent.
-
Bump. This is a very good thread, notwithstanding my less valubale entry a couple of posts ago.
-
Brute honesty. Explain both the strengths and shortcomings without worrying what the course will think.
-
John Kirk,
Thanks. When I thought about this thread I was hoping we could get a few people to write reviews both positive and negative about "ABC Golf Course". Really just calling it ABC and creatively writing a review that would be worthwhile - maybe a model of what we should do here.
-
I think good golf course architecture writing means discussing the good and bad aspects of a golf course with honesty and flair. If you like a golf course, tell me what specific holes or features make it great. If you do not like a course, say so! I think it is worth as much knowing which courses to avoid as knowing which courses to see.
Also, I think any good review of a golf course (especially if it is a positive review) covers two major themes:
1) What makes the course unique.
2) What can a golfer learn from the course.