Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: John Kavanaugh on November 29, 2011, 12:27:31 PM
-
The exact quote was "I'm constantly surprised that your tastes in golf courses are so -- excuse me for saying -- mainstream." Anytime PPallotta takes enough time to read something I have written and then comment I take it as a compliment. So first, let me say Thank you.
I will say that when I was a teenager I took great pains to listen to obscure music in an attempt to foster an image too cool to care what people thought of me. I saw two concerts in college, Muddy Waters and David Bromberg. I also married my highschool sweetheart so I was never influenced by the sweet notes of P when it came to my album collection. Guess what, I grew up and now enjoy many of the mainstream bands of my generation. I only bring this up to give some background in the possibility that many people manufacture tastes to project an image they desire. I hope I don't do that with golf.
Now what the hell does mainstream taste in golf courses imply?
-
No center line hazards :)
-
No center line hazards :)
Yes, for example Torrey Pines South, or most Rees Jones courses.
Lack of internal contouring in the greens and fairways also seems to be "mainstream."
Oh god, I'm a golf architecture hipster. I knew it!
-
Evergreen (no matter what!) fairways and no blind shots.
-
No center line hazards :)
No center of the green hazards.
-
JK - well, I should at least share what I was thinking when I wrote that. It was in the context of your far-ranging mind and outside-the-box thinking in most other areas of life, but seemingly not - from what I can tell from your posts here over the years. including what you haven't posted -- in regards to golf and gca. In this area, you are surprisingly mainstream, by which I meant mostly "conventional". Since, it seems to me that:
For you, a golf course is not a poem or a rock song or a movie or a metaphor, it's a golf course.
For you, a golf course is not a field of play, it's a golf course.
For you, a golf course best serves its purpose when it gives a big hitting single digit guy with a fade a chance to score and compete and win (which scoring and competing and winning are why golf courses's aren't fields of play or metaphors but golf courses).
You have no opinion on whether golf and gca would be better served by having a single set of tees, and golf courses averaging under 6,500 yards.
You seem untroubled by the fact that the 'structures' of golf have been so rigidly codified over the last 100 years, and that the vast vast majority of courses fall within a very narrow/tight band-width by whatever measurements you use.
You seem content with an art 'form' that hasn't actually expanded/evolved since its birth; as if, to borrow a line from Chris Shaida, ALL poems continued to be written in the form of sonnets (with not one Haiku among them).
The age old and nuanced penal-strategic debate seems to hold no interest for you; a golf course -- not a field of play -- is simply either too hard or too easy or just right.
You are a big fan of Riviera.
For you, the golf course is a TEST, not an medium through which to store memories or experience breakthroughs.
But, as I write this JK, it occurs to me now that I may have been unfair to you and/or to the mainstream. If so, my apologies. I'm not suprised that you have the good grace not to 'manufacture' your tastes or to create an image; but I am a bit suprised that the inventor of Haiku Tuesdays is content to have a game of golf and a golf course be JUST a game of golf and a golf course.
Peter
-
Just the fact that you considered David Bromberg cool explains a lot... ;)
-
Peter,
I lead such a full life that I have little need for a game to be more than a game.
-
For you, a golf course is not a poem or a rock song or a movie or a metaphor, it's a golf course.
For you, a golf course is not a field of play, it's a golf course.
For you, a golf course best serves its purpose when it gives a big hitting single digit guy with a fade a chance to score and compete and win (which scoring and competing and winning are why golf courses's aren't fields of play or metaphors but golf courses).
You have no opinion on whether golf and gca would be better served by having a single set of tees, and golf courses averaging under 6,500 yards.
You seem untroubled by the fact that the 'structures' of golf have been so rigidly codified over the last 100 years, and that the vast vast majority of courses fall within a very narrow/tight band-width by whatever measurements you use.
You seem content with an art 'form' that hasn't actually expanded/evolved since its birth; as if, to borrow a line from Chris Shaida, ALL poems continued to be written in the form of sonnets (with not one Haiku among them).
The age old and nuanced penal-strategic debate seems to hold no interest for you; a golf course -- not a field of play -- is simply either too hard or too easy or just right.
You are a big fan of Riviera.
For you, the golf course is a TEST, not an medium through which to store memories or experience breakthroughs.
Peter,as always,I enjoyed your prose.But,I think you went a long way around just to say that JK actually plays golf.
My guess is that,for him, the playing trumps all the ancillary stuff--and probably does for a lot of good players.
-
Indeed, I recognize and grant you that, John. But is THIS game really just a GAME for you? If so, then I continue to be surprised. If not, then you're hiding your light under a bushel....or at least using a dimmer bulb!
Peter
Jeff - You're right, but I couldn't help it -- JK started a thread about it. I thought I OWED him some of my usual ramblings/meanderings. All I meant originally is basically that -- surprise that the ancilliary stuff IS ancilliary
-
Just the fact that you considered David Bromberg cool explains a lot... ;)
I've been married thirty years and David Bromberg is the only concert I have attended with my wife. He was also the illegitimate father of Gillette Silver. Gils mom became pregnant during her studies at Columbia. She never told David and I always admired her for that.
-
All I meant originally is basically that -- surprise that the ancilliary stuff IS ancilliary
I'd bet that it's ancillary for a lot more people on this DG than would admit.Heretical as it may sound,IMO,most would volunteer to play CPC with blinders on if they could shoot 68.
Prose sounds better than ramblings and was a much better description.
-
Mainstream: Depends on your point of reference. On this site, it would mean that you love "minimalist" designs of Doak and Coore and would rather have a old, quirky golf course than a straight forward test of golf. On the pga tour, it would mean you love "fair", straight forward tests of golf that identifies the best golfer rather than creates fun shots.
In regards to myself, I am what I am - which makes me mainstream in some groups and a nut in others. For instance, I love most minimalist courses, especially by Doak and Coore, but also have seen areas where I would have liked some more changes on some holes (ie. I loved Pacific Dunes - best course I have played - but I hate the first tee box - it just feels too random and boring). I also love many Nicklaus and Fazio courses, but likewise think some of their holes are too artificial (ie. I don't understand Nicklaus' desire to continue to change Muirfield to make it an Augusta clone). I hate that Trump puts his name on courses and has a waterfall on most 18th greens, but I am willing to give every course a fair shake.
-
Ah, JM - you may be right...but I'm not so sure. Or at least I should say, if I muck around the back of my mind a bit, even when I recognize my desire to excel in a chosen pursuit I can't quite seem to find the desire to shoot a 68 'in a vacuum', as it were. It's just a number - and besides, even at that, there'd still be a lot of folks who could and would shoot 66 or 62. There's got to be more than that at work in golf and gca, and for most I assume. I think plenty of us, for example, think that even the courses that Sean A profiles and gives 'only' a 5 to would, for many ancilliary reasons, offer a deeper and richer experience than shooting a 68 at CPC. (Maybe it's partly the inverse pride, to put it harshly, that takes pleasure in not notching a belt..)
Peter
-
I heard Gillette Silver is a member at DR too.
Perhaps he will grace us with his prescense this year at the 5th major!! ;D
-
I heard Gillette Silver is a member at DR too.
Perhaps he will grace us with his prescense this year at the 5th major!! ;D
Gillette was a member at Dismal but posted confidential financial details of his deal on the internet and was asked to resign. His vanity handicap will be missed.
-
K - If Gillette shows up at the 5th Major wearing a monocle and plus fours and suggesting that DR reminds him of an early Led Zeppelin album, call him out on it, will you. And after the round, when he starts reading/screaming a poem he's wrtten entitled "Hark, Not Par -- but LIFE!", mock him incessantly please and buy him another bottle of Wild Turkey.
Thanks
P
-
As a professional singer my musical tastes are wider than most. What I cannot stand is carelessly composed music and there is a lot of that about today particularly in church music.
As a professional golf writer I have been lucky to see over 1,000 courses, mostly in the UK, with a smattering of courses elsewhere. I always look for the positives and there are very few courses on which I can discover no redeeming merit. When I am unlucky enough to encounter such a place (and there are several close to home) I weep for the wasted use of a piece of land, however boring that land.
To the best of my knowledge Bach never wrote a fugue on A BAD EGG (partly because he didn't speak English), but if he had done it would have been uplifting. Similarly if MacKenzie or Colt had been given a really boring piece of land I suspect they would have created something acceptable if not actually great from it (although I imagine they would have turned down the invitation).
So, I have no golf architecture proscriptions. I like it when things work. I like it when things surprise me. What I don't like is work which fails to take full advantage of a piece of land. Above all I dislike most stupidity. It's understandable up to a point (although unforgivable) if someone has never designed a course before and tries his hand at it, but I can think of several courses locally where I simply want to scream at the designer (if you can call him that) who obviously hasn't a clue how long handicappers, ladies, juniors, seniors etc play a course. These are not championship courses, simply bad courses.
-
Mainstream golfers believe a course must be green, difficult and routed so that you cannot see adjacent holes which means you must plant trees in order to accomplish this.
-
As a professional singer my musical tastes are wider than most. What I cannot stand is carelessly composed music and there is a lot of that about today particularly in church music.
As a professional golf writer I have been lucky to see over 1,000 courses, mostly in the UK, with a smattering of courses elsewhere. I always look for the positives and there are very few courses on which I can discover no redeeming merit. When I am unlucky enough to encounter such a place (and there are several close to home) I weep for the wasted use of a piece of land, however boring that land.
To the best of my knowledge Bach never wrote a fugue on A BAD EGG (partly because he didn't speak English), but if he had done it would have been uplifting. Similarly if MacKenzie or Colt had been given a really boring piece of land I suspect they would have created something acceptable if not actually great from it (although I imagine they would have turned down the invitation).
So, I have no golf architecture proscriptions. I like it when things work. I like it when things surprise me. What I don't like is work which fails to take full advantage of a piece of land. Above all I dislike most stupidity. It's understandable up to a point (although unforgivable) if someone has never designed a course before and tries his hand at it, but I can think of several courses locally where I simply want to scream at the designer (if you can call him that) who obviously hasn't a clue how long handicappers, ladies, juniors, seniors etc play a course. These are not championship courses, simply bad courses.
Nice post, Mark. The type of designer you disparage would probably just say, play the right tees.
And that's why I'd side with you, not him.
-
... internal contouring in the greens ...
Can someone give examples of "external" contouring in greens?
-
Good question, Mike.
I hope that someone will please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the photo below depicts examples of external green contouring, eg spines tied to the surrounds, humps and dips around the edges, etc.
(http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr7/rednorman/bcfe06c5.jpg)
-
... internal contouring in the greens ...
Can someone give examples of "external" contouring in greens?
I just mean contours within the confines of the putting surface. I've played many courses where you have fairly flat greens and "containment mounds" surrounding it.
-
The exact quote was "I'm constantly surprised that your tastes in golf courses are so -- excuse me for saying -- mainstream." Anytime PPallotta takes enough time to read something I have written and then comment I take it as a compliment. So first, let me say Thank you.
I will say that when I was a teenager I took great pains to listen to obscure music in an attempt to foster an image too cool to care what people thought of me. I saw two concerts in college, Muddy Waters and David Bromberg. I also married my highschool sweetheart so I was never influenced by the sweet notes of P when it came to my album collection. Guess what, I grew up and now enjoy many of the mainstream bands of my generation. I only bring this up to give some background in the possibility that many people manufacture tastes to project an image they desire. I hope I don't do that with golf.
Now what the hell does mainstream taste in golf courses imply?
People wear clothes that they don`t necessarily like or feel comfortable in to appear in style and current. The same applies to cars, hairstyles,jewelry, and I guess golf course architecture. Most on this site know that ODG`s and certain modern day archies are "de rigueur". We also know who is out of favor and what design principles make them so.That said I believe that collectively our tastes are truly skewed toward a certain style which the ODG`s and those select modern day archies ascribe to. Although there may be some poseurs Kav certainly does not fall among them and I applaud him for his honesty. As far as the answer to what is mainstream taste in golf courses I`m not really sure.
-
It's not too difficult to describe "mainstream" tastes in golf courses--people generally like their courses green, with plenty of trees, and with fast, flattish greens. And they like water hazards (espeically on par 3s) and bunkers (not too deep) around the greens. For some reason, even not very good golfers want their courses to be difficult. And no blind shots and few surprises of any kind. This seems to be especially true of low handicap players--they want the course to dictate what shot they should play. This isn't exhaustive but covers a fair amount.
-
Good question, Mike.
I hope that someone will please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the photo below depicts examples of external green contouring, eg spines tied to the surrounds, humps and dips around the edges, etc.
(http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr7/rednorman/bcfe06c5.jpg)
Which hole is this?
-
13th at Barnbougle.
-
What good is great architecture if it is not fun or provide options that can be used to manipulate an opponent. My goal from the strike of the first shot is to win the game I am playing. What better avenue than one whose architecture may allow me to outsmart a more talented ball striker. I love great architecture because it increases my chances of success.
-
What good is great architecture if it is not fun or provide options that can be used to manipulate an opponent. My goal from the strike of the first shot is to win the game I am playing. What better avenue than one whose architecture may allow me to outsmart a more talented ball striker. I love great architecture because it increases my chances of success.
Who doesn`t want this guy as a fourball partner?
-
The exact quote was "I'm constantly surprised that your tastes in golf courses are so -- excuse me for saying -- mainstream." Anytime PPallotta takes enough time to read something I have written and then comment I take it as a compliment. So first, let me say Thank you.
I will say that when I was a teenager I took great pains to listen to obscure music in an attempt to foster an image too cool to care what people thought of me. I saw two concerts in college, Muddy Waters and David Bromberg. I also married my highschool sweetheart so I was never influenced by the sweet notes of P when it came to my album collection. Guess what, I grew up and now enjoy many of the mainstream bands of my generation. I only bring this up to give some background in the possibility that many people manufacture tastes to project an image they desire. I hope I don't do that with golf.
Now what the hell does mainstream taste in golf courses imply?
Show me any guy who ever said he didn't want to be popular, and I'll show you a scared guy. I've studied the entire history of music. Most of the time, the best stuff is the popular stuff. It's much safer to say popularity sucks, because that allows you to forgive yourself if you suck. And I don't forgive myself. Do you?
Jeff Bebe from "Almost Famous"
-
What good is great architecture if it is not fun or provide options that can be used to manipulate an opponent. My goal from the strike of the first shot is to win the game I am playing. What better avenue than one whose architecture may allow me to outsmart a more talented ball striker. I love great architecture because it increases my chances of success.
This explains why I prefer match play (or hate medal play) and don't golf by myself.
-
John,
I think your tastes in golf courses, posted on GCA, are "mainstream." But I've gathered it's due to wanting to show the other posters that they often try to be different, for different's sake.
Personally, I think many on here do try hard to be a GCA "hipster", "snob", "elite", or whatever. There is a happy medium to having an open mind to both the best of Fazio, Jones, Jones Jr., Dye, etc. as well as the best of Doak, C&C, MacRaynor, etc.
-
John,
I think your tastes in golf courses, posted on GCA, are "mainstream." But I've gathered it's due to wanting to show the other posters that they often try to be different, for different's sake.
Personally, I think many on here do try hard to be a GCA "hipster", "snob", "elite", or whatever. There is a happy medium to having an open mind to both the best of Fazio, Jones, Jones Jr., Dye, etc. as well as the best of Doak, C&C, MacRaynor, etc.
I do honestly believe my tastes in courses has more to do with where I am invited to play, or join, than where I would choose to play under equal circumstances. I think a perfect example was when I naively called St. Louis CC and talked to the membership director about joining. I had never played there or set foot on the grounds but thought it would be a cool place to rest my heels when visiting the town. The funny thing was that the guy was so confused about who I was that he spent an hour on the phone with me and asked me to submit an application once I got to know some members and went through a seven or eight year waiting period. I called and joined Norwood Hills instead, also without ever playing the course. note: I have since met many members of St. Louis CC and had great times playing the course and enjoying their company. I believe I exhibited good taste by wanting to be a member. To me, wanting to join Bellerive would have been the mainstream choice.
When choosing where to play or join taste is a two way street.
-
[My guess is that,for him, the playing trumps all the ancillary stuff--and probably does for a lot of good players.
An insightful observation. Back in the glory days of the Hillbilly Tour I often complimented John that he enjoys playing the game more than anybody I'd ever met. The guy loves to golf the ball - that's why he's a delight to play with.
Bogey
-
John,
I think your tastes in golf courses, posted on GCA, are "mainstream." But I've gathered it's due to wanting to show the other posters that they often try to be different, for different's sake.
Personally, I think many on here do try hard to be a GCA "hipster", "snob", "elite", or whatever. There is a happy medium to having an open mind to both the best of Fazio, Jones, Jones Jr., Dye, etc. as well as the best of Doak, C&C, MacRaynor, etc.
I do honestly believe my tastes in courses has more to do with where I am invited to play, or join, than where I would choose to play under equal circumstances. I think a perfect example was when I naively called St. Louis CC and talked to the membership director about joining. I had never played there or set foot on the grounds but thought it would be a cool place to rest my heels when visiting the town. The funny thing was that the guy was so confused about who I was that he spent an hour on the phone with me and asked me to submit an application once I got to know some members and went through a seven or eight year waiting period. I called and joined Norwood Hills instead, also without ever playing the course. note: I have since met many members of St. Louis CC and had great times playing the course and enjoying their company. I believe I exhibited good taste by wanting to be a member. To me, wanting to join Bellerive would have been the mainstream choice.
When choosing where to play or join taste is a two way street.
While I am not rushing out to join clubs on a whim, I do agree that choosing where to play is often down to invites. I am inclined to accept the invite (if in the area) even if it means I won't see the top courses in the area. Its wonderful to be invited anywhere by well known friends or practical strangers never before seen and invites shouldn't be dismissed lightly because of "the course". My advice for travellers is to always try to accept invites.
Ciao
-
While I am not rushing out to join clubs on a whim, I do agree that choosing where to play is often down to invites. I am inclined to accept the invite (if in the area) even if it means I won't see the top courses in the area. Its wonderful to be invited anywhere by well known friends or practical strangers never before seen and invites shouldn't be dismissed lightly because of "the course". My advice for travellers is to always try to accept invites.
Ciao
Sean:
I agree 100% -- I'd almost always rather play with someone who has invited me than to play somewhere else (especially solo) because the course is better. There are probably exceptions, but for me, there's so much more to a round than just the course.