Jeff -
your post brought this to mind:
if in the late 20s when the book was written there were, say (for the sake of argument), 100,000 great sites available upon which a golf course could be built, that number is obviously much much lower today - for many and varied reasons. And as that number of high-quality sites steadily dropped from the 1920s to the 2020s, the less-than-excellent sites necessarily became more and more the ones that developers & architects had left to choose from. And with that, in turn, came the increasing use of equipment/heavy machinery required to manipulate those sites so as to create good golf courses, as well as (for many architects) the ability and willingness to do precisely that, i.e. to keep working the site until, in TF's words, there is no "least".
And with all those changes over the last century, and granting the overall 'advancements' in the craft, isn't it safe to assume that what TF means by 'best' and 'no-least' is very different than what W&S would've meant if they used those words? and that their 'noble course in spite of/because of its defects' is a concept that most modern architects wouldn't side with at all, even if they understood its meaning in the context of the times in which W&S wrote it?
So yes: in short, let's agree (at least for the sake of argument) that W&S made 'as much sense' in their time and TF makes in his own time. That still leaves us, doesn't it, with the seeming fact that their fundamental goals, aims and ideals were very different than his? And when all is said and done, isn't the difference in goals/aims and ideals the most significant difference of all when it comes to the 'finished product', i.e. to the kind and the quality of golf course that remains?
Peter,
[/size][/color]Nice post, and a lot to unpack. I am reminded of a Simpsons episode where they are trying to figure out the big meaning of something. After a lot of discussion, Marge says something like, "I guess it was just a whole lot of stuff that happened."
Are the Tom's really trying to build to different aims? Or are they both simply trying to build the best course possible, given the tools at their disposal and the site they are working on?
If Simpson had an ocean front site, would he purposely avoid putting at least a few holes on the ocean (if he had a choice, I mean, Pebble did it for real estate reasons) just to make sure a few weren't as good as the others?
Lastly, I presume Simpson was fairly typical of his era. I don't think Fazio is. He is in 1% of the market that lets him spend anything on so-called perfection and tries to deliver. For the rest of us, there is not that luxury and we know not every hole will be a postcard. That said, the two most jaw dropping statements I have heard from architects, include:
I know there will be a few bad holes on any course, so I don't worry about it. And,
I only spend 3 days on routing, wasting any more time just isn't worth it.
(Names withheld to protect the guilty)
Both highlight what I presume is standard among modern architects - You don't get to many pokes at the pig, so make each poke count. If it takes me 30 routings, I'll do 30 routings. If it takes doing full plans (so I can work on theory and variety in relatively low pressure, i.e., no schedules looming, environment) I'll do full plans, even knowing that I will be changing things again in the field if the situation presents itself.
I force myself to reduce bunkering on some holes, more in the name of variety than purposely trying to build an average hole. To me, a valley of sin green with no bunkers works well in the context of other holes with more standard type hazard arrangements, etc.
Mike Hurdzan once divided architectural eras in to the early era, "pre-architecting" and then post architecting, which could probably be subdivided into several other categories. Simpson was a tweener for both eras. Thinking continued to evolve, but I think the core principles remain, perhaps refined a bit by the times. Maybe the best example is blind shots. Ross, Mac, etc. writings show they didn't like them, but accepted them, at least on the tee shot. IMHO, its because they had to.
Fazio (and most other moderns) writes that he would move mountains to avoid a blind shot, if it came up as part of a routing. (On most sites, I think they would hopefully route non blind holes unless totally impossible in a few cases.) That said, Faz course at Disney (IIRC) has a green that is half visible, half blind (sort of like the Dell Hole) and I am sure he has others, indicating that he understands the charm of an occasional (if optional) blind shot. And, that suggests he has studied gca history more than most here would give him credit for.
Short version, Marge was right. It's just a lot of stuff that happened, and a lot more people seriously interpreting it in their current gca work.
Cheers.
Peter,
You are correct. In this field, there are many left brainers and right brainers, which affects how they solve problems. (or inadvertently create them, LOL) I think Ron Whitten did an article decades ago assigning left and right qualities to various practicing architects.
The very nature of the job requires a hybrid nature of thinking, and it's what makes if fascinating to me, along with the rough split of desk time vs. time out in the field.
Yes, it's rare to find a true 50-50 split. Of course, that's what drove many partnerships, like Langford and Moreau combining to provide both design and engineering perspective, or CBM and Raynor, etc. And to a lesser degree, less heralded staffing decisions at many firms