Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Tom_Doak on March 14, 2021, 09:18:22 AM
-
Don Mahaffey made a post in the Sweetens Cove thread that I thought deserved a topic of its own. Here it is:
The challenge for all modern cult classics with followings built on social media and the internet is sooner or later they will become the subject of a real critique. Wolf Point may be in that group and while I love the golf course and what we did, it’s never really been the subject of serious criticism like all the greats. Sweaters, WP9, WP...all deserve real study to back up the hype. I happen to believe that one or two can withstand it, but maybe not all will survive and come out on the other side ranked as high.
This post made me smile because it raised several questions simultaneously:
1. Is there really much "serious criticism" of golf architecture?
2. What are the other "cult courses" Don left out?
3. The importance [or not] of rankings generally, because he did go there at the end of his post.
So, here goes my response. Apologies if it gets a bit long.
1. I'll keep this part short. There is not a lot of serious criticism of golf architecture. There certainly isn't in the golf magazines: they don't want to offend anybody. This web site is supposedly a leading source of such criticism, but its founder never says writes anything critical. I used to do some, but I get attacked as "biased" half the time I try nowadays. No one has picked up the mantle, as far as I have seen.
3. The magazines use rankings as a proxy for criticism, because they can't be bothered to write a long form piece about design. Most people fall into that same trap, which might be why Don fell back on talking about rankings in the end . . . plus his and Mike's work at Wolf Point has now been "validated" by a ranking, so he now believes they are important.
Rankings are pretty important WITHIN THE GOLF BUSINESS. Golf courses advertise off the back of them; once you've been ranked you can advertise it forever, even if your course was removed years ago. Designers whose courses are ranked can charge much more to future clients for fees, in theory anyway. They can make or break careers, even though getting a ranking is no guarantee of business success, for a golf course or for a designer.
And, let's face it, rankings are trash. They are the carefully assembled and collated opinions of a bunch of anonymous guys who think they know something. When I was a freshman at MIT, there was an acronym for that: GIGO.
[To all my panelist friends, this is not a personal attack; I was once in the same place, fighting valiantly to make the system better. If you really want to contribute, start asking, why are all these other guys on this panel? What do they know?]
I'll tackle the cult courses in a separate post.
-
Tom-Do you think your courses get a fair critique or are they muted by your presence on this site? If you choose the former you aren’t being honest with yourself.
-
Regarding other cult courses, don’t the high end destination courses beloved (mostly) on here qualify? Certainly there is a cult following for Bandon. I think the courses deserve their reputation. Same is true for Streamsong although I could see Black wearing out its welcome. Kingsbarns and Castle Stuart had a bit of a cult following, and I am surprised that they have held up so well in the rankings—which perhaps helps prove the problems with the rankings.
The absence of serious Gca criticism is an interesting one. It cannot be just about advertising dollars because even in the Internet Age, my guess is that the New York Times derives a higher % of dollars from Broadway show advertisements than the golf magazines do from golf resorts. The theater critics rarely pull their punches. On the other hand, other “art” forms also are not subject to heavy critiques while some are. I read a lot of book reviews, and there must be 9 positive reviews for every negative one. Restaurants and movies both seem to attract more mixed if not downright negative reviews.
Ira
-
2. ON CULT COURSES
When I was a junior at Cornell, trying to figure out where I should go on my overseas scholarship, I stumbled upon a picture of the 8th hole at Cruden Bay, with sheep all over it, in a 1929 copy of GOLF ILLUSTRATED in the basement of the ag school library. [Who says an Ivy League education isn't good for anything? ;) ] Honestly, I had never heard of the golf course, and wondered if it still existed . . . that's how unknown it was in 1980.
Somewhere in between then and now, Cruden Bay became a cult course. Maybe I even played a small part in that. I loved it when I first saw it, but I also understood it had its limitations [total length, blind par-3's, a heart-attack-hill climb, and some lesser holes to offset the awesome ones]. I was quite surprised when it made a ranking of the top 100 courses in the world years later, but I believe the main reason it did is because rankings were seen as the only way to recognize it, so its fans just kept pushing until they succeeded.
Don Mahaffey's post named the current internet darlings [Sweetens Cove, Wolf Point, and Winter Park] as examples of cult courses, but there have certainly been others, in the stone age days of traditional media. Many designers have cult followings at the start of their careers, when nobody in the mainstream will pay any attention to them.
The course that Sweetens Cove reminded me of most is Tobacco Road, which is a great study for this exercise. Tobacco Road has legions of loyal fans, including myself, but it has never done well at all in the magazine rankings, and I don't really think that is even seen as a controversy -- I can love it and yet agree that it does not meet the working definition of "great" employed by most of the ranking panels.
So why is Tobacco Road like that, but Sweetens Cove and Wolf Point have people insisting they belong in the rankings? Volume. Tobacco Road is less than an hour from Pinehurst, and it cannot help but be compared with all of the courses there, whose pecking order is well established. The contrast with everything in Pinehurst has been key to Tobacco Road's business success: it adroitly siphoned off the golfers who were sick of playing five courses that all looked the same, and established its own little niche. Indeed, it was so successful that it caused the owners of Pinehurst and Mid Pines to start re-investing in their own properties to make sure their courses did not look all the same.
[If you didn't notice, I have switched words now, because that's what this is REALLY about. Golf, like other luxury goods is a niche business, and if you can find your own niche, you can be very successful without worrying about what's happening in other niches.]
By comparison, Sweetens Cove and Wolf Point and Winter Park are in tiny, tiny markets that also happen to be architectural wastelands. There is not much around them to compare them to, and nothing whose pedigree is firmly in place to peg them on the pecking order like Pinehurst et al do for Tobacco Road. Their charms are magnified a million times by the size and structure of the internet, which seems like free word-of-mouth advertising: but remember, GIGO goes double on the internet, because you don't know who are the people whose word you're taking, or whether they are even real people!
Will these courses find [or create] their own niche? Perhaps. Sweetens and Winter Park are nine-hole courses, which conveniently keeps them from having to be compared apples to apples against full-size courses; the same applies to The Cradle, Bandon Preserve, The Mulligan, and all the other "short courses" making waves these days. They may help popularize a resurgence of nine-holers that somehow makes them the granddaddy of that genre, because their advocates have never been to Whitinsville or the Sacred Nine. [Wow, talk about cult status, just think of that nickname! Or of The Dunes Club in Michigan which preceded these newcomers.]
And really, for Winter Park, if it works for the community, it doesn't matter a bit whether Matt Ginella fans are going there, too. But Sweetens and Wolf Point must operate under a different measure.
[size=78%] [/size][size=78%]] [/size]
-
Tom-Do you think your courses get a fair critique or are they muted by your presence on this site? If you choose the former you aren’t being honest with yourself.
Tim:
That was an excellent straw man, except for the part where you answered your own leading question, and therefore blew the setup.
I don't really think very many courses get an honest critique here, or anywhere else. It's not just mine. But mine are the only courses where that is ascribed to BIAS because I participate so prominently on the site, and that's pretty annoying, now that you ask. So thanks for asking! :D
ADDING: One of the advantages of participating here is that 1500 people who supposedly care about design can ask me questions about my work, and provide me with direct feedback. I've always seen that as valuable, for both sides. There are only a few guys who insist that it's a negative.
-
Regarding other cult courses, don’t the high end destination courses beloved (mostly) on here qualify? Certainly there is a cult following for Bandon. I think the courses deserve their reputation. Same is true for Streamsong although I could see Black wearing out its welcome. Kingsbarns and Castle Stuart had a bit of a cult following, and I am surprised that they have held up so well in the rankings—which perhaps helps prove the problems with the rankings.
The absence of serious Gca criticism is an interesting one. It cannot be just about advertising dollars because even in the Internet Age, my guess is that the New York Times derives a higher % of dollars from Broadway show advertisements than the golf magazines do from golf resorts. The theater critics rarely pull their punches. On the other hand, other “art” forms also are not subject to heavy critiques while some are. I read a lot of book reviews, and there must be 9 positive reviews for every negative one. Restaurants and movies both seem to attract more mixed if not downright negative reviews.
Ira: See my substitution of "niche" for "cult" in the post above. Bandon Dunes is certainly a niche business, but like Tobacco Road, once your niche gets big enough you cannot avoid comparison with the other great courses of the world, and at that point a cult must give way.
As to "serious criticism", just try naming some people who have ever really done it well, and you will identify the problem.
-
Tom,
I understand your amendment. But it also means that the courses that have become “big” niches should face even more serious scrutiny than when they were just cults. To your point, that rarely happens.
I gladly would take up Gca criticism in my retirement. In my “real” life, I make you seem like weak tea in the candor department. Alas, I do not actually pretend to know enough about Gca to be useful.
Ira
-
Tom-Do you think your courses get a fair critique or are they muted by your presence on this site? If you choose the former you aren’t being honest with yourself.
Tim:
That was an excellent straw man, except for the part where you answered your own leading question, and therefore blew the setup.
I don't really think very many courses get an honest critique here, or anywhere else. It's not just mine. But mine are the only courses where that is ascribed to BIAS because I participate so prominently on the site, and that's pretty annoying, now that you ask. So thanks for asking! :D
ADDING: One of the advantages of participating here is that 1500 people who supposedly care about design can ask me questions about my work, and provide me with direct feedback. I've always seen that as valuable, for both sides. There are only a few guys who insist that it's a negative.
So not only yours but few courses get a fair critique? You better tell Ran because I’m not sure he knows. ;)
-
This thoughtful post provoked me to chime in with my lingering malaise about the faux criticism posted here. It seems like every day somebody posts a list seeking bit of near triviality. Like:
Best two or three hole loops.
Three or more course clubs.
Best nine hole courses.
Cult following courses.
Tough greens on par 3’s or 5’s.
Greatest courses not named after their location.
Top Ten in Your Town.
Most underrated courses.
Most overrated courses.
Courses where you are allowed to play all day.
Courses you would play every day.
Best American links.
Faux links courses.
Real links gems.
Best Irish courses.
Best Australian courses.
Great courses nobody ever talks about.
Overly penal courses.
Great courses on indifferent landforms.
Indifferent courses on great landforms.
Don’t get me wrong: I plead guilty to engaging in this rote behavior. Years back I started a few threads dubbed Mister Lister seeking such information.
It just seems that the collective obsession with ranking and rating has turned into perseverating instead of golf architecture perspicacity.
Glad I got that off my chest. What are the highest rated courses that you wish you hadn’t played? 😅
-
IMHO :
true critique would require that one not know who the architect was. Most people are not capable of critique w/o knowing who the architect is.
The person doing the critique would have to be capable of removing maintenance from his critique.
critique would be of the "whole" and not "holes" of the course and this eliminates much of the 80's and 90's era product when each hole was there to produce lots for homes. And it should..IMHO
But I just don't know where you find the people to critique. Most people in golf are ass kissers...contractors kiss ass to work for the archie, vendors kiss ass to sell the irrigation, golf car companies want to be sure they get the fleet and boards just usually have no clue and go with the fad...the average board member plays a course based on name of archie and not architectural merit. And they would critique that way.
But I am sure of two things that produce better architecture assuming one is a good architect. Design/build cannot be beat and if you take on more work than you can do with the people you trust to do the work the work will not be as good.
Just not sure there can ever be a FAIR serious criticism...IMHO
-
Tom,
I mentioned the rankings because...what else is there..?!?.
WP9 - Yes Ginella hyped the course and Keith and Riley. But in my mind what makes WP9 worthy of study is not just the architecture! And among successful golf course renovations and creations isn't it often more than just the architecture? While you have to get that right in some manner, what happened at Winter Park was the transition of a run down small muni that was losing money and fighting to survive in some manner...to a community task force that found a way to get some energy into the process, hired some young guys who may have been considered unproven in some circles (you and I knew better as we know Keith and Riley) and turned a loser into a winner. last time I was on a call about WP9 they were trying to figure out how to expand the parking lot! They made a profit for the first time ever in the first few months and it's been record breaking for them ever since. However the architecture is measured, it is a success story worthy of real study.
Wolf Point - Built for one guy who absolutely abhorred the idea of anyone ever telling him how his course was architecturally or in any other way. It was his course built for one purpose, for him to have a recreational 18 holes every day it was 60F or higher. One tee time at 9 am every day. If Mike or I wanted to bring someone out, he was Ok with that but he wasn't interested in anyone's opinion about his course. Does that mean its good? Of course not, but it was developed free of many constraints and that does make it unique. And yes, in its region, it is a star. But in any region it would still be unique.
Sweetens - Never been. Just watched with amusement when the SC cheerleaders would relentlessly hype the course and trash the opposition during the Covid driven twitter face offs. Reading SC fans trash #2, Prairie Dunes, and any other opposition with their only real reason being, Sweetens was more fun. Maybe that's enough.
I have a feeling they've developed something really cool there and it does seem to be lasting. I need to see it.
-
2. ON CULT COURSES
By comparison, Sweetens Cove and Wolf Point and Winter Park are in tiny, tiny markets that also happen to be architectural wastelands. There is not much around them to compare them to, and nothing whose pedigree is firmly in place to peg them on the pecking order like Pinehurst et al do for Tobacco Road. Their charms are magnified a million times by the size and structure of the internet, which seems like free word-of-mouth advertising: but remember, GIGO goes double on the internet, because you don't know who are the people whose word you're taking, or whether they are even real people!
Architectural wasteland, sure. But Orlando is about as far from a tiny golf market as it is possible to get.
-
Wolf point is a cult course? Did I miss something? Is it widely available to many? [size=78%]Who has played it besides raters, friends of the owner, or friends of Don M? Many many have played the other examples. [/size]
-
Rankings are utterly pointless. I participate in one just because I get to meet up with people I know to discuss golf courses. I like that.
If you think about it, rankings are entirely random because they are driven by a few or all of the below:
- Historic positioning
- Trends in course types / loves
- Love of an architect
- Tournament history
- Social Media viral marketing / hype
- Desire to be promoting an unusual course that few others are
- Based often on only one or two rounds
- An amalgamation of many different thoughts that cancel each other out and defer to the norm
Rankings only work if they belong to a single person (see Doak scale) with reasoning and individual biases that are very clear to that person.
The way Tom evaluates courses is his and his alone. Others can be different and still as valid. Everyone has personal preferences.... But the point that there is very little honest critique is very true, sometimes through lack of knowledge of either what makes a great course or at least how to put that in to words, sometimes because of a desire not to offend.
-
IMHO :
true critique would require that one not know who the architect was. Most people are not capable of critique w/o knowing who the architect is.
The person doing the critique would have to be capable of removing maintenance from his critique.
critique would be of the "whole" and not "holes" of the course and this eliminates much of the 80's and 90's era product when each hole was there to produce lots for homes. And it should..IMHO
But I just don't know where you find the people to critique. Most people in golf are ass kissers...contractors kiss ass to work for the archie, vendors kiss ass to sell the irrigation, golf car companies want to be sure they get the fleet and boards just usually have no clue and go with the fad...the average board member plays a course based on name of archie and not architectural merit. And they would critique that way.
But I am sure of two things that produce better architecture assuming one is a good architect. Design/build cannot be beat and if you take on more work than you can do with the people you trust to do the work the work will not be as good.
Just not sure there can ever be a FAIR serious criticism...IMHO
Mike,
This might explain the difference between book reviews on the one hand and theater, movie, and restaurant reviews on the other. The vast majority of book reviews are written by other authors who probably are hoping for positive reviews of their own work. Theater, movie, and restaurant critics are highly unlikely to have to worry about being in a position to be reviewed by those who they review.
As it relates to Gca rankings, they should be taken with a grain of salt. However, I think it is fair to say that the “top” several hundred or so are far better than the thousands in the middle.
Ira
-
Wolf point is a cult course? Did I miss something? Is it widely available to many? [size=78%]Who has played it besides raters, friends of the owner, or friends of Don M? Many many have played the other examples. [/size]
John,
I don't know the definition of a cult classic.
Re WP, there is a new owner now and my understanding is he does host groups. I'm not involved but I've heard there is a link that one can use.
Before it changed hands, we hosted annual outings for the last few years, and Mike Nuzzo and I hosted friends and golf architectural nerds over the years. But yes, no where near the volume that have played the other courses mentioned here.
PS...raters have never been part of the equation, and my understanding now is that is still the case. One magazine rates the course, and thru the years many raters have seen it because they were friends of Mike and me. But the owner never wanted it "judged". Only after he died did his wife allow it, and while that may have helped with the sale, it was more as a favor to Mike and it wasn't ranked by any pub during the sales process, only after did it come out in Golf Mag's top 100 US.
-
WP9 - Yes Ginella hyped the course and Keith and Riley. But in my mind what makes WP9 worthy of study is not just the architecture! And among successful golf course renovations and creations isn't it often more than just the architecture? While you have to get that right in some manner, what happened at Winter Park was the transition of a run down small muni that was losing money and fighting to survive in some manner...to a community task force that found a way to get some energy into the process, hired some young guys who may have been considered unproven in some circles (you and I knew better as we know Keith and Riley) and turned a loser into a winner. last time I was on a call about WP9 they were trying to figure out how to expand the parking lot! They made a profit for the first time ever in the first few months and it's been record breaking for them ever since. However the architecture is measured, it is a success story worthy of real study.
Interesting thread.
Funny that WP9 is mentioned. I first visited there a few years ago the week before it opened while on a day trip there for work. They were nice enough to let me walk around before there was even a scorecard. I took pictures and posted a thread here on GCA. I've been back a few times and love the course.
I think, given the site and constraints, the golf course is terrific. I think the par-3 holes hold up incredibly well to almost anything you find on a new C&C or Doak course.
My appreciation of WP9 though does come from the entire experience, though. How can it not...small clubhouse/patio, no carts, quick play, interesting golf course, for less than $20 in a metropolitan area?
-
Years ago Ron Whitten had a column entitled "Architorture." It was as close to serious criticism as a magazine gets.
As for this site, I do try to begin threads about some aspect of architecture.
-
Just when I was thinking I might get enough downtime by early April to write my "Year in Review" of all 78 courses I played in 2020...
I like to think I did serious criticism in my 2019 reviews, although invites did dry up a bit this past year which I had hoped was Covid-related. :-X ;)
-
The most prevalent level of criticisms performed by the golfing community today is through money spend and rounds played. None of it directly applies to the architectural merits of a property, but it does take into account desirability and interest. New properties full of hype are not judged today, they're judged in 10, years, 20 year, 50 years. As properties age and new interests pull for player's attention does a course's price and tee sheet drop.
Places like Pebble and Pinehurst have not only been able to stand the test of time, they've thrived because of it, demanding $500 a round with a constantly full tee sheet. While other high-profile venues from the past 20-30 years have dramatically fallen off in stature.
Sweetens, Winters Park, Goat Hill, Schoolhouse Nine, and other properties represent a new model for golf. And as such presents a different value proposition to the consumer. Among this group of courses Sweetens may be the most architecturally examined, but the main drivers of these courses are as community and entertainment centers. A serious critique of these facilities should not solely focus on the architecture, in actuality grading these course should focus the most on how the community embraces them and less on the actual design features of the course.
-
To Tom's first question, no, there isn't much serious criticism in golf. Many have an opinion on why they love a course, but few have the tools/knowledge to perform a proper critique. The bigger problem is there are many who have the tools, they just aren't because they don't want to ruffle feathers of potential clients, colleagues, employers, etc.
The Feldman Model of Art Criticism is as follows:
1. Description - what do you see?
2. Analysis - how did they do it?
3. Interpretation - why did they do it and what does it mean?
4. Judgment - is it good?
In golf, a lot of people go from 1 to 4 because they don't know how to execute 2 and 3. That's because analysis and interpretation requires a baseline (if not robust) understanding of principles of design, historical context, regional context, discerning hierarchy, etc. Judgment is based on criteria and evidence, and without proper analysis and interpretation, judgments fall back on "I like it" or "I hate it".
That's my biggest problem with cult courses combined with social media. Everyone has a voice, everyone can be a critic, but few have seen enough golf courses, know enough about golf's history, or know the principles of design well enough to make a worthwhile judgment of said cult course within the broader context.
-
Just when I was thinking I might get enough downtime by early April to write my "Year in Review" of all 78 courses I played in 2020...
I like to think I did serious criticism in my 2019 reviews, although invites did dry up a bit this past year which I had hoped was Covid-related. :-X ;)
Mike-Keep doing what you are doing as that was a great thread in 2019. It’s hard for me to put much weight behind the criticism of the criticism. ;D
-
As mentioned above, this is an interesting thread.
A couple of months ago I started a thread on Mid Pines not being *considered* the best course in the Sand Hills and the main response I seemed to get back is "because its not." After that the thread devolved into a "I have 10 plays in Pinehurst, which courses should I play?"
It's also interesting that Tobacco Road is mentioned. I played there on the same trip after having not been there for many years and loved it. After I played I posted on Twitter on 1/3/21: Tobacco Road manages to succeed in all the ways other modern big name courses, such as Mammoth Dunes, have fallen short. TR provides visual intimidation paired with supreme strategy and, in the end, forgiveness and FUN. Why isn't TR in the Top 100 US?!" I received a fair amount of interesting comments to that post, and I planned to post a thread here, but after Mid Pines I just didn't feel like it would really drive an interesting discussion.
Why? Well you could compare TR to the new #4. I don't think its even close which the better golf course is but few here would openly post something negative about a Gil Hanse / Caveman course. #4 is a fine course, with some cool holes built on a not-as-good-as-you'd-think site, but is it a Top 100 golf course in the US? I don't think so. It throws every modern minimalist trick at you...wide fairways, scraggly bunkers, internal putting contours, etc. etc. but it all felt so contrived when a place like Tobacco Road feels so much more authentic and interesting.
So, yes, I agree with the general premise of the original post. There is a lot of group think out there, both with the NLU/Sweetens/Zac Blair crowd as well as here. Not sure what's driving that, but it's there.
I think it would be interesting to pull this thread back up in a few years when The Tree Farm is considered a cult course? :)
-
2. ON CULT COURSES
By comparison, Sweetens Cove and Wolf Point and Winter Park are in tiny, tiny markets that also happen to be architectural wastelands. There is not much around them to compare them to, and nothing whose pedigree is firmly in place to peg them on the pecking order like Pinehurst et al do for Tobacco Road. Their charms are magnified a million times by the size and structure of the internet, which seems like free word-of-mouth advertising: but remember, GIGO goes double on the internet, because you don't know who are the people whose word you're taking, or whether they are even real people!
Architectural wasteland, sure. But Orlando is about as far from a tiny golf market as it is possible to get.
Adam,
As a member of the Gca publishing world, where do you go to find serious criticism?
I think the guys at The Fried Egg do a nice job of explaining Gca, but they tend to go light on the critiques. The reviewers on Top100 Courses seem to be the most willing to attach their names to critiques.
Ira
-
To Tom's first question, no, there isn't much serious criticism in golf. Many have an opinion on why they love a course, but few have the tools/knowledge to perform a proper critique. The bigger problem is there are many who have the tools, they just aren't because they don't want to ruffle feathers of potential clients, colleagues, employers, etc.
The Feldman Model of Art Criticism is as follows:
1. Description - what do you see?
2. Analysis - how did they do it?
3. Interpretation - why did they do it and what does it mean?
4. Judgment - is it good?
In golf, a lot of people go from 1 to 4 because they don't know how to execute 2 and 3. That's because analysis and interpretation requires a baseline (if not robust) understanding of principles of design, historical context, regional context, discerning hierarchy, etc. Judgment is based on criteria and evidence, and without proper analysis and interpretation, judgments fall back on "I like it" or "I hate it".
That's my biggest problem with cult courses combined with social media. Everyone has a voice, everyone can be a critic, but few have seen enough golf courses, know enough about golf's history, or know the principles of design well enough to make a worthwhile judgment of said cult course within the broader context.
I'm not sure about all that Blake. I get the academic version, and of course academics like to push the empirical or academic method.
But in the end, isn't art about the emotions it stirs? How did the critics judge a Picasso? A Tobacco Road? I fear that this method can, as Sir Ted Robinson described in his TED talk. "educate the creativity out". Ultimately I believe we need to start by deciding if golf architecture is art or engineering? Engineers can be creative so I don't mean to be pithy. But what I often hear among the well traveled educated golf builders when they critique seems to be more engineer based than artistic. And of course its simpler to talk about greens slopes that are too steep/flat and bunkers that wash rather than composition.
-
2. ON CULT COURSES
By comparison, Sweetens Cove and Wolf Point and Winter Park are in tiny, tiny markets that also happen to be architectural wastelands. There is not much around them to compare them to, and nothing whose pedigree is firmly in place to peg them on the pecking order like Pinehurst et al do for Tobacco Road. Their charms are magnified a million times by the size and structure of the internet, which seems like free word-of-mouth advertising: but remember, GIGO goes double on the internet, because you don't know who are the people whose word you're taking, or whether they are even real people!
Architectural wasteland, sure. But Orlando is about as far from a tiny golf market as it is possible to get.
Adam,
As a member of the Gca publishing world, where do you go to find serious criticism?
I think the guys at The Fried Egg do a nice job of explaining Gca, but they tend to go light on the critiques. The reviewers on Top100 Courses seem to be the most willing to attach their names to critiques.
Ira
You can only be totally independent and objective if you have complete financial freedom. Fundamentally as a content provider that means users paying for your content (unless you are so rich that you just publish for the hell of it).
-
About serious criticism in gca, HL Mencken might've said:
"No one can write it, no one wants to read it, and nobody cares. Not even those who write it and read it!"
Subjectivity is a terrible thing to waste -- but we've got nothing else to waste except time and money.
-
All of us non-architects are beneficiaries of the architects and other professionals who contribute erudite commentary. The rest of us are here to learn, to absorb and hopefully communicate our acquired knowledge to those in power to make changes to courses that we know and care about. I’ve learned enough here from Doak, Mahaffey, Young, Klein, Morrissett , Fine, Lawrence et seq to make a difference in decisions about renovations, tree removal and other course projects at a number of great courses. It’s not that I’m in any way an expert, but I like to think that a lot of us rank amateurs (contextual pun intended) can learn and spread the word.
-
You can only be totally independent and objective if you have complete financial freedom. Fundamentally as a content provider that means users paying for your content (unless you are so rich that you just publish for the hell of it).
Just publishing for the hell of it does not require you to be rich, in this era.
-
As mentioned above, this is an interesting thread.
A couple of months ago I started a thread on Mid Pines not being *considered* the best course in the Sand Hills and the main response I seemed to get back is "because its not." After that the thread devolved into a "I have 10 plays in Pinehurst, which courses should I play?"
It's also interesting that Tobacco Road is mentioned. I played there on the same trip after having not been there for many years and loved it. After I played I posted on Twitter on 1/3/21: Tobacco Road manages to succeed in all the ways other modern big name courses, such as Mammoth Dunes, have fallen short. TR provides visual intimidation paired with supreme strategy and, in the end, forgiveness and FUN. Why isn't TR in the Top 100 US?!" I received a fair amount of interesting comments to that post, and I planned to post a thread here, but after Mid Pines I just didn't feel like it would really drive an interesting discussion.
Why? Well you could compare TR to the new #4. I don't think its even close which the better golf course is but few here would openly post something negative about a Gil Hanse / Caveman course. #4 is a fine course, with some cool holes built on a not-as-good-as-you'd-think site, but is it a Top 100 golf course in the US? I don't think so. It throws every modern minimalist trick at you...wide fairways, scraggly bunkers, internal putting contours, etc. etc. but it all felt so contrived when a place like Tobacco Road feels so much more authentic and interesting.
So, yes, I agree with the general premise of the original post. There is a lot of group think out there, both with the NLU/Sweetens/Zac Blair crowd as well as here. Not sure what's driving that, but it's there.
I think it would be interesting to pull this thread back up in a few years when The Tree Farm is considered a cult course? :)
Pat:
You touched a lot of hot buttons there in one post! Good for you.
One difference between Tobacco Road and Mammoth Dunes is who owns them. That's also a difference between TR and Pinehurst #4. One of them is a huge advertiser in many golf publications, the other is not.
I would love to get into a discussion of Pinehurst #4, which I walked on my recent trip also, but Tim Martin would throw a fit, so I suggest you start that as a separate topic. As Mike Young says, it's difficult anymore to find honest criticism because designers' names and reputations are so strongly set in advance. The Tree Farm is a perfect example: Zac Blair has never built anything yet, and already there are a million guys who have made up their minds about his work.
-
I think, given the site and constraints, the golf course is terrific. I think the par-3 holes hold up incredibly well to almost anything you find on a new C&C or Doak course.
My appreciation of WP9 though does come from the entire experience, though. How can it not...small clubhouse/patio, no carts, quick play, interesting golf course, for less than $20 in a metropolitan area?
The first bit there is a very good critique, it's specific and it invites comparison. The part about the atmosphere is fine, but seems to outweigh the first bit for too many people.
-
Pat, Tom - your exchange brought this to mind:
that there are three potential 'points of focus' in whatever someone writes about a golf course -- ie the writer himself, the course, or the rationale for writing
*I* think that Course X is the best in the region because...
or
I think that *Course X* is the best in the region because...
or
I think that Course X is the best in the region *because*
It's not always obvious where the focus lies, but for whatever reasons -- eg the nature and function of social media -- these days the focus seems most often to be placed on 'Course X', followed in close second place by a focus on 'I', and with the 'because' bringing up the rear in distant third
-
As mentioned above, this is an interesting thread.
A couple of months ago I started a thread on Mid Pines not being *considered* the best course in the Sand Hills and the main response I seemed to get back is "because its not." After that the thread devolved into a "I have 10 plays in Pinehurst, which courses should I play?"
It's also interesting that Tobacco Road is mentioned. I played there on the same trip after having not been there for many years and loved it. After I played I posted on Twitter on 1/3/21: Tobacco Road manages to succeed in all the ways other modern big name courses, such as Mammoth Dunes, have fallen short. TR provides visual intimidation paired with supreme strategy and, in the end, forgiveness and FUN. Why isn't TR in the Top 100 US?!" I received a fair amount of interesting comments to that post, and I planned to post a thread here, but after Mid Pines I just didn't feel like it would really drive an interesting discussion.
Why? Well you could compare TR to the new #4. I don't think its even close which the better golf course is but few here would openly post something negative about a Gil Hanse / Caveman course. #4 is a fine course, with some cool holes built on a not-as-good-as-you'd-think site, but is it a Top 100 golf course in the US? I don't think so. It throws every modern minimalist trick at you...wide fairways, scraggly bunkers, internal putting contours, etc. etc. but it all felt so contrived when a place like Tobacco Road feels so much more authentic and interesting.
So, yes, I agree with the general premise of the original post. There is a lot of group think out there, both with the NLU/Sweetens/Zac Blair crowd as well as here. Not sure what's driving that, but it's there.
I think it would be interesting to pull this thread back up in a few years when The Tree Farm is considered a cult course? :)
Pat:
You touched a lot of hot buttons there in one post! Good for you.
One difference between Tobacco Road and Mammoth Dunes is who owns them. That's also a difference between TR and Pinehurst #4. One of them is a huge advertiser in many golf publications, the other is not.
I would love to get into a discussion of Pinehurst #4, which I walked on my recent trip also, but Tim Martin would throw a fit, so I suggest you start that as a separate topic. As Mike Young says, it's difficult anymore to find honest criticism because designers' names and reputations are so strongly set in advance. The Tree Farm is a perfect example: Zac Blair has never built anything yet, and already there are a million guys who have made up their minds about his work.
Start the thread and I guarantee I won’t participate. Sorry that I don’t serve up softballs here for you like most. Have at it!😊
-
Every time we get into this conversation about ranking and criticism I always think about similar conversations about wine and art. It is always easier to have a settled consensus about old things in art, wine, and golf than new things.
Judging the CORRECT “place” of a course built 10 years ago is just impossible. But it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
-
I'm not sure about all that Blake. I get the academic version, and of course academics like to push the empirical or academic method.
But in the end, isn't art about the emotions it stirs? How did the critics judge a Picasso? A Tobacco Road? I fear that this method can, as Sir Ted Robinson described in his TED talk. "educate the creativity out". Ultimately I believe we need to start by deciding if golf architecture is art or engineering? Engineers can be creative so I don't mean to be pithy. But what I often hear among the well traveled educated golf builders when they critique seems to be more engineer based than artistic. And of course its simpler to talk about greens slopes that are too steep/flat and bunkers that wash rather than composition.
You are right that when confronted with something they never would have dared to build, fellow designers tend to fall back on technical criticisms, though it is also true that technical details DO matter in the long term. I happened to see Tobacco Road immediately after a strong rain -- it had to be closed, and there is significant washout damage to be fixed every time they get a big rain. Its inspiration, Pine Valley, has some of the same problems actually.
Talking about composition, on the other hand, seems fruitless to me. There are a certain number of ways you can create tension in the golfer's mind, and some architects go for that, and some avoid it altogether. Unfortunately, one of the things that can create good composition [in most people's eyes] is laying down a lot of hazards that look good but only punish the weaker golfer. I am not saying everything has to be minimalist, just that most people's idea of "cool" leads to excess. That's one of the best things about Wolf Point, actually, there is not too much of that.
I guess my take is that it is easy to love some of these places if you are willing to just accept them for what they are. Sweetens Cove is a riot, but it caters to a certain type of player. Wolf Point's steep greens work better at a different speed than what most people demand now. Cruden Bay is not there to host The Open Championship. But once you start thinking about RANKING them, in fairness, you should apply the same standards you do to every other great course. And maybe that's another reason why rankings have hurt the game.
But I do agree with Blake, it would be nice if more people could analyze WHY the 6th hole stirs their emotions, instead of just insisting that it's great because it does.
[size=78%] [/size]
-
Every time we get into this conversation about ranking and criticism I always think about similar conversations about wine and art. It is always easier to have a settled consensus about old things in art, wine, and golf than new things.
Judging the CORRECT “place” of a course built 10 years ago is just impossible. But it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
Well of course it is EASIER to have critique something when there is already a settled consensus for you to position your opinion against.
And I'm not sure there is such a thing as a CORRECT place, since this is all subjective. But it's not impossible! I had Sand Hills pegged "correctly" when it was still just mowed out prairie grasses. It's just not foolproof.
-
Pat, Tom - your exchange brought this to mind:
that there are three potential 'points of focus' in whatever someone writes about a golf course -- ie the writer himself, the course, or the rationale for writing
*I* think that Course X is the best in the region because...
or
I think that *Course X* is the best in the region because...
or
I think that Course X is the best in the region *because*
It's not always obvious where the focus lies, but for whatever reasons -- eg the nature and function of social media -- these days the focus seems most often to be placed on 'Course X', followed in close second place by a focus on 'I', and with the 'because' bringing up the rear in distant third
I think it depends on where you put the # symbol, but I am too old to understand it for sure. ;)
-
I'm not sure about all that Blake. I get the academic version, and of course academics like to push the empirical or academic method.
But in the end, isn't art about the emotions it stirs? How did the critics judge a Picasso? A Tobacco Road?
A serious critique cannot just be about emotion. Emotion is the result of something, so if it's your only consideration then you're skipping over whatever stirred it. A viewer can have their own metrics for what they deem important, but if their only consideration is emotion then that's not serious art criticism. That's essentially what I mean by going from 1 to 4.
Picasso was judged on much more than emotion, but maybe Mike Strantz isn't? Picasso's 1907 Les Demoiselles d’Avignon stirred a lot of negative emotion until people thought about what came before it, why Picasso chose to do something different, and what it meant. Then you study it more and realize it's rooted in formal composition, balanced, an advanced understanding of color theory, strongly iconographic (after Picasso went to a show featuring African masks), and you appreciate more why it was the impetus for Modernism.
Strantz work incites some strong opinions, but I'm not sure what percent of those opining could really tell you why they feel that way. Doesn't mean there isn't a reason, it may just mean they can't articulate it. All the more reason for those that can articulate it to do so.
I fear that this method can, as Sir Ted Robinson described in his TED talk. "educate the creativity out". Ultimately I believe we need to start by deciding if golf architecture is art or engineering? Engineers can be creative so I don't mean to be pithy. But what I often hear among the well traveled educated golf builders when they critique seems to be more engineer based than artistic. And of course its simpler to talk about greens slopes that are too steep/flat and bunkers that wash rather than composition.
I operate under the assumption that art and engineering exist on a spectrum and some sites need more of one than the other. Not sure you need to decide if/or. Golf has to be functional, so engineering critiques hold merit, but there's far less people who can critique that seriously.
For instance, the Sweeten's Cove is a tough site to drain. It's really easy to say there are too many catch basins that hold water for too long near the greens, but it's hard to critique the drainage system without knowing what other options were available. So am I in a position to critique the stormwater engineering? Why did they do what they do, what were their constraints, what could they have done differently, etc. Maybe what they have is the best possible solution for the site?
Maybe that's the difference between rating and critiquing. If I'm rating it, I don't care what their constraints were, my ball is in a puddle on a sunny day. If I'm critiquing, I care more about why the designer did what they did, and that requires a deeper understanding of the subject matter.
-
Its difficult to be be seriously critical of the vast percentage of courses courses mentioned in rankings, on this site or many other places because
1. Almost all the courses discussed are at least good. It really is fine tooth comb stuff which often comes down to preference.
2. Some courses are so cheap to play that there is no point in hammering the negatives.
3. Afraid to offend.
4. Does anybody really care?
5. Many people are more concerned about the experience of the day, customer service, conditioning or whatever. I can't say as I blame them either! The day can be made much more enjoyable or not by all sorts of issues which have nothing to do with architecture.
6. So much about architecture is site based. For a layman to parse between the site and what was done to that site is near on impossible.
I try to be honest an open about my photo tours. I am not afraid to call something rubbish if I think it is. But I have had quite a few unpleasant encounters from owners, managers etc.
I have long thought there is far less quality gap between famous courses than rankings suggest...and that many, many other courses have just as good architecture, but on lesser land or the architecture is less grand. People don't buy this PoV because of the emotional aspect of design.
Ciao
-
While there are certainly cult/niche courses out there, it goes beyond that to cult designers and even cult design takes or positions within GCA.
Initially, while Sweeten's is certainly one of the darlings of social media, I was able to play it back in 2015 when it was relatively unknown. I certainly didn't know anything about it when I stepped out of my car. I was supposed to play Lookout Mountain that day when we were rained out and found out that SC was open. I went around three times and enjoyed it a lot. Variety, character, formidable vexing greens, yet difficult to lose your ball and multiple ways to attack the holes. I saw it as nine holes that could be as fun or as challenging as you wanted them to be and not once during those 27 holes did I have a boring shot. It was the passion project of King and Collins, both of whom likely thought that might be their only opportunity to showcase their craft in the way they wanted and expressed it in detail throughout.
I've wondered before, however, why a place like the Skyway course at Lincoln Park, 20 minutes from Manhattan, doesn't get similar social media treatment. It's nine holes as well, created from a former Superfund site and is wonderfully firm and fast with wind being a factor more often than not. It doesn't have the visual panache of SC but there isn't a public course around that plays the way it does. Its affordability, accessibility and walkability, not to mention its location, make it worthy of a lot of attention. Yet it doesn't have that cult status or social media pilgrimage worthy title. My guess is this is because it doesn't need any of that. Because of its location, its tee sheet is pretty much booked day in and day out. It addressed an overwhelming demand in that area and is essentially accomplishing its purpose. Corica Park South falls into this similarly, yet I imagine there are some other issues at play there.
I see cult or niche as another word for trendy. If one goes to Winter Park or SC and posts photos of them at the course or whatever, that will get validated a lot more than if that same person posts photos of Skyway. Inherently, it's easier for that person to heap praise on the trendier places, which validates their troubles getting there and the experience they had. In turn, it's easier for that person to critique Skyway because there won't be so much blowback from the masses. This applies the same way in rankings and even exclusivity of access.
Part of this is the individual. Someone above essentially claims that you shouldn't be able to offer critiques of courses unless you know what you're talking about. I know a lot of people who, even if they do have criticisms of a course or outright don't like a course, will not communicate it at all because they fear they might be missing something, or "don't get it." Conversely, it's much easier to criticize what's trendy to criticize because there's safety in numbers. You're much more likely to hear how Rees Jones is terrible than you are Gil Hanse. My position is trends and social media have a lot more to do with that than we'd like to admit. So in terms of if there's any serious criticism of course architecture, most of I see is what I'd call "safe takes." Rees Jones is a butcher, Tom Fazio is generic with no substance, anything decrying trees or rolling back the ball, etc. There are exceptions, of course, Tom Doak on this site will offer some interesting input from time to time and I really think Derek Duncan's podcast asks a lot of interesting questions about the state of GCA that should be discussed a lot more. I've always tried to offer criticism in my reviews instead of avoiding it, for what it's worth. But in addition to magazines avoiding critical pieces, you don't hear a lot of designers getting critical of each other, other projects, or their past projects. I'm sure there's a lot of politics there and it's certainly a business but there' s a lot of protecting the field. So what are you left with? The guys who do know what they're talking about won't get critical of their colleagues, most major media won't go there, all because of the risk built into going against the grain. [size=78%] [/size]
In terms of cult/niche/trendy courses not mentioned yet, it's a long list. Some of them deserve the accolades. Some of them, because of a more wide spread proliferation of information, have been "discovered" by the general public. I'd put Seth Raynor in general in this category. Some other courses off the top of my head that fall along these lines not mentioned yet I'd put Aiken Golf Club, Goat Hill, Santa Anita, Triggs Memorial and Wilmington Municipal. I'm not addressing the merits of any of these but these and it's a small sample size. Why are they niche or cult depends on the place. Some time it's that sense of discovery and journey. Perhaps, like me at SC, it's that unexpected surprise factor. Or maybe it's simpler than that; they're courses offering really good golf that don't receive the attention many think they should.
As for rankings, they're important for certain reasons. They are not important with respect to whether I should like the course or that the higher ranked course is "better" than those below it, but they foster discussion and attempt to put some, well, structure I suppose into the whole thing. As someone above mentioned, rankings are all over this site and elsewhere. Functionally, they've helped me figure out some courses to check out in an unfamiliar area. I suppose those who know enough to ignore them can consider them trash but there's an entire group out there that have to start some where and it's helpful as a general guide in that respect.
I wished it would be possible to play courses like a blind bourbon tasting. The most revered or popular bourbon rarely wins out and the taster is left judging each sample on its substance alone. Like anything else, there's a lot of other factors that typically influence one's assessment of a course, whether it's a podcast, social media, rankings, cults or even what they've seen on television.
-
Not even the most ardent of Popists would contend that Ariana Grande’s music carries the same artistic importance and gravitas as Bob Dylan’s. There a corollary there to golf architecture. Modern pop music doesn’t interest me due to its inherent disposability in contrast to its fore-bearers.
The disinterest I feel in golf architecture at this moment in my life can be explained away by variables related to work, fatherhood, and other hobbies. But that would be a lazy take. Golf architecture itself is also at fault. The disposability of golf media and more specifically, golf architecture media, makes it much harder to stay engaged. The point in my life where I was engaged required effort that exceeded the hobby/interest’s importance. And what’s more, you for sure couldn’t be negative about a course if you wanted to further your knowledge and get deeper into the hobby. How would you secure invites? Would an architect want to talk to you if you said their work wasn’t pristine?
Sitting at home and listening to Blonde on Blonde and thinking that Dylan was the man is much easier than getting on Cypress Point and deciding that MacKenzie was the man. Conversely, listening to Cardi B and opining publicly that her music isn’t very good won’t keep you from hearing her music ever again. In a world of Popists, it’s hard to be a Rockist.
That’s why cult courses exist. It’s no different than why a 15 second Instagram story that pumps a brand or lifestyle item has the potential to pay more than a painfully edited two thousand word review. The market and society dictate positivity in lieu of criticality.
-
Not even the most ardent of Popists would contend that Ariana Grande’s music carries the same artistic importance and gravitas as Bob Dylan’s. There a corollary there to golf architecture. Modern pop music doesn’t interest me due to its inherent disposability in contrast to its fore-bearers.
The disinterest I feel in golf architecture at this moment in my life can be explained away by variables related to work, fatherhood, and other hobbies. But that would be a lazy take. Golf architecture itself is also at fault. The disposability of golf media and more specifically, golf architecture media, makes it much harder to stay engaged. The point in my life where I was engaged required effort that exceeded the hobby/interest’s importance. And what’s more, you for sure couldn’t be negative about a course if you wanted to further your knowledge and get deeper into the hobby. How would you secure invites? Would an architect want to talk to you if you said their work wasn’t pristine?
Sitting at home and listening to Blonde on Blonde and thinking that Dylan was the man is much easier than getting on Cypress Point and deciding that MacKenzie was the man. Conversely, listening to Cardi B and opining publicly that her music isn’t very good won’t keep you from hearing her music ever again. In a world of Popists, it’s hard to be a Rockist.
That’s why cult courses exist. It’s no different than why a 15 second Instagram story that pumps a brand or lifestyle item has the potential to pay more than a painfully edited two thousand word review. The market and society dictate positivity in lieu of criticality.
Pop music is pop music. Dylan's music was never pop music, even though it crossed over a bit here and there.
There is plenty of weighty, yet accessible music being made to day. You just have to find it.
-
As mentioned above, this is an interesting thread.
A couple of months ago I started a thread on Mid Pines not being *considered* the best course in the Sand Hills and the main response I seemed to get back is "because its not." After that the thread devolved into a "I have 10 plays in Pinehurst, which courses should I play?"
It's also interesting that Tobacco Road is mentioned. I played there on the same trip after having not been there for many years and loved it. After I played I posted on Twitter on 1/3/21: Tobacco Road manages to succeed in all the ways other modern big name courses, such as Mammoth Dunes, have fallen short. TR provides visual intimidation paired with supreme strategy and, in the end, forgiveness and FUN. Why isn't TR in the Top 100 US?!" I received a fair amount of interesting comments to that post, and I planned to post a thread here, but after Mid Pines I just didn't feel like it would really drive an interesting discussion.
Why? Well you could compare TR to the new #4. I don't think its even close which the better golf course is but few here would openly post something negative about a Gil Hanse / Caveman course. #4 is a fine course, with some cool holes built on a not-as-good-as-you'd-think site, but is it a Top 100 golf course in the US? I don't think so. It throws every modern minimalist trick at you...wide fairways, scraggly bunkers, internal putting contours, etc. etc. but it all felt so contrived when a place like Tobacco Road feels so much more authentic and interesting.
So, yes, I agree with the general premise of the original post. There is a lot of group think out there, both with the NLU/Sweetens/Zac Blair crowd as well as here. Not sure what's driving that, but it's there.
I think it would be interesting to pull this thread back up in a few years when The Tree Farm is considered a cult course? :)
Pat:
You touched a lot of hot buttons there in one post! Good for you.
One difference between Tobacco Road and Mammoth Dunes is who owns them. That's also a difference between TR and Pinehurst #4. One of them is a huge advertiser in many golf publications, the other is not.
I would love to get into a discussion of Pinehurst #4, which I walked on my recent trip also, but Tim Martin would throw a fit, so I suggest you start that as a separate topic. As Mike Young says, it's difficult anymore to find honest criticism because designers' names and reputations are so strongly set in advance. The Tree Farm is a perfect example: Zac Blair has never built anything yet, and already there are a million guys who have made up their minds about his work.
I have posted on more than one occasion that PH4 is at best a nice resort course, and I explained why: over bunkered, several awkward and/or uninspired holes, a weakish finish, etc. But I also ticked Doak off when I posted that Pasatiempo is a better course than Pac Dunes. Perhaps Adam is correct in ducking my question: if you are in the business, you have to watch on which side your toast is buttered. Except Mike Young.
Ira
-
Pop music is pop music. Dylan's music was never pop music, even though it crossed over a bit here and there.
There is plenty of weighty, yet accessible music being made to day. You just have to find it.
I’m not comparing the categorical merits of their music directly. I’m comparing the criticisms of their music. When a few music critics decided in the early 80’s that Pop music deserved the same skeptical eye towards authenticity as rock historically had up to that point, they began a revolution in music criticism. But, to me, what it really did was normalize Pop music’s artfulness compared to rock. That’s just not right in my opinion.
Modern golf architecture criticism has accomplished much the same in my mind.
-
Pop music is pop music. Dylan's music was never pop music, even though it crossed over a bit here and there.
There is plenty of weighty, yet accessible music being made to day. You just have to find it.
I’m not comparing the categorical merits of their music directly. I’m comparing the criticisms of their music. When a few music critics decided in the early 80’s that Pop music deserved the same skeptical eye towards authenticity as rock historically had up to that point, they began a revolution in music criticism. But, to me, what it really did was normalize Pop music’s artfulness compared to rock. That’s just not right in my opinion.
Modern golf architecture criticism has accomplished much the same in my mind.
Ahhh. Makes sense now. Carry on. ;-)
-
Years ago Ron Whitten had a column entitled "Architorture." It was as close to serious criticism as a magazine gets.
As for this site, I do try to begin threads about some aspect of architecture.
It may have been truthful, but it was anything but serious, at least his "live version" which I guess not many have seen. Line up all those he featured one at a time in GD, and it was hilarious, presented in Jeff Foxworthy "You might be a Redneck" style. I still laugh when I think about it.
Besides, it considered gca feelings. At least, I think a gca would feel a little less embarrassed/angry at having one hole called Architorture, than having an entire course rated a "0". Or one feature, like a Green Monkey in a sand bunker, or a giant's footprint sand bunker..... :o
-
Some other courses off the top of my head that fall along these lines not mentioned yet I'd put Aiken Golf Club, Goat Hill, Santa Anita, Triggs Memorial and Wilmington Municipal.
That's funny because I went to see Aiken Golf Club on this trip, too, and I had planned on going to Wilmington Municipal originally, but shortened the trip due to the cold snap.
Perhaps it is easier to become a cult course if I haven't posted a review of it and it's free game!
-
I keep reading this thread, and thinking about the posts. Sean's post brought this to mind:
That the only reason to attempt 'serious criticism' about gca is because you believe what you're saying is *true*.
If you don't believe in 'truth' or that anything 'true' can be said about golf course architecture, why bother?
Without that goal in mind, you're either marketing yourself, acting as a shill for others, or trying to get a tee time.
-
Peter,
In this day and age, even in real world news, it seems like there are no facts, no truth, just opinions. News morphed from infotainment to opiniotainment. Can there really be truth in golf course criticism, or it is just one outlet or person trying to force his opinion down throats by being louder or more outrageous than the last?
-
Peter,
In this day and age, even in real world news, it seems like there are no facts, no truth, just opinions. News morphed from infotainment to opiniotainment. Can there really be truth in golf course criticism, or it is just one outlet or person trying to force his opinion down throats by being louder or more outrageous than the last?
Jeff -- but if I believed that, why would I listen and try to learn from anyone? And if you believed that, what would it say about all your years of study and apprenticeship and hard work and dedication to mastering your craft? An archer can only be great/successful if there's an actual *target* he is trying to hit. The very process (and theory behind) serious criticism presupposes that there is a goal-ideal we're trying to reach.
-
Tom,
In the past we've had discussions how there are relatively few people who have seen enough courses and have domain expertise to be in a position to cast a vote for a legit top 100 World Rankings list. Can we also then postulate that if these handful of people are the only ones qualified to rank them, are they also the only ones who can offer a valid critique too?
P.S. I tend to agree with Sean in that if we took the top 100 list from any of the major publications don't the vast majority of those courses actually belong there, and are there any that are truly egregious in being included on those lists? Those lists seem to be a bit like the 68 team field for March Madness, no matter who they pick there will always be disagreement on the last few teams in vs those who didn't make it.
-
I keep reading this thread, and thinking about the posts. Sean's post brought this to mind:
That the only reason to attempt 'serious criticism' about gca is because you believe what you're saying is *true*.
If you don't believe in 'truth' or that anything 'true' can be said about golf course architecture, why bother?
Without that goal in mind, you're either marketing yourself, acting as a shill for others, or trying to get a tee time.
Peter:
When I was 26 and wrote The Confidential Guide, I absolutely believed that I was trying to get at the Truth. And most of my readers seemed to agree with me enough that I felt like I was at least getting close.
It seems so much harder to do that today! The truth that we hear on the news nowadays is just another competing Narrative. Plus, I have traveled the world enough more to understand that what might be Truth to you and me, does not work the same in some other places.
So, these days, I tend to look to prove things in my own designs, rather than looking for it in others' work. But by far the most interesting things I have seen lately were simple attempts to make golf work in unique situations, rather than a young designer trying to set the world on fire.
-
I keep reading this thread, and thinking about the posts. Sean's post brought this to mind:
That the only reason to attempt 'serious criticism' about gca is because you believe what you're saying is *true*.
If you don't believe in 'truth' or that anything 'true' can be said about golf course architecture, why bother?
Without that goal in mind, you're either marketing yourself, acting as a shill for others, or trying to get a tee time.
I was golfing with another golf industry guy this morning, at a 9 holer that gets snubbed by those who came to play its bigger brother at the same resort; we wondered why it doesn’t get more love.....it certainly fits our preferences. Then we got into the whole “art” aspect, which then gets you to “subjectivity”, which then gets you to “right and wrong”, which gets you to.....this. How can anyone criticize/ rate/ judge/ otherwise, when it’s all so subjective? Our takeaway was this: If your preferences, pertaining to golf course design and presentation, aren’t constantly being tweaked and fluctuating, you may have a fairly narrow mindset that you don’t want to be set free of.
-
Tom,
In the past we've had discussions how there are relatively few people who have seen enough courses and have domain expertise to be in a position to cast a vote for a legit top 100 World Rankings list. Can we also then postulate that if these handful of people are the only ones qualified to rank them, are they also the only ones who can offer a valid critique too?
You can postulate that, but I think you've got things entirely backwards!
To contribute to a world ranking requires that you have a good sense of how many great courses there are in the world. If you hadn't been to the UK and just dismissed all of the courses there as too old or poorly kept, you would be no real help.
But you would certainly be able to offer valid critiques of Sweetens Cove or Wolf Point or Ballyneal, without having been to Scotland.
-
I was golfing with another golf industry guy this morning, at a 9 holer that gets snubbed by those who came to play its bigger brother at the same resort; we wondered why it doesn’t get more love.....it certainly fits our preferences. Then we got into the whole “art” aspect, which then gets you to “subjectivity”, which then gets you to “right and wrong”, which gets you to.....this. How can anyone criticize/ rate/ judge/ otherwise, when it’s all so subjective? Our takeaway was this: If your preferences, pertaining to golf course design and presentation, aren’t constantly being tweaked and fluctuating, you may have a fairly narrow mindset that you don’t want to be set free of.
There is a large difference between "snubbed" [I saw it, but dismissed it as inferior from the start] and "ignored" [I just didn't know it was worth having a look at]. Which was the case at the course in question has a lot of bearing on your argument.
-
Tom - when I was 26 and 36 and 46 all that interested me in any area of my life and work and study was 'the truth'. It seemed then the only thing worth striving for and understanding. You're right that it's 'much harder to do that today'. But the question I have for myself and haven't yet answered is: Is it harder now because I've grown wiser, or simply because I've gotten tired? (Yours seems to me a very sensible 'answer', i.e. proving it in your own work instead of looking for it in the work of others)
Joe: Similarly, I wonder all the time whether my fixed opinions/preferences and goals reflect a still burning desire for truth, or instead a narrow mind set that I'm unwilling and unable to be free of.
-
I keep reading this thread, and thinking about the posts. Sean's post brought this to mind:
That the only reason to attempt 'serious criticism' about gca is because you believe what you're saying is *true*.
If you don't believe in 'truth' or that anything 'true' can be said about golf course architecture, why bother?
Without that goal in mind, you're either marketing yourself, acting as a shill for others, or trying to get a tee time.
Pietro
I am old enough (and tired) to know that if I am pursuing a truth it is my own. My truth is essentially the simple beauty in golf courses. I will let you know when I can explain beauty.
Ciao
-
As it relates to Gca rankings, they should be taken with a grain of salt. However, I think it is fair to say that the “top” several hundred or so are far better than the thousands in the middle.
Ira
Ira,I think it is fair except I think there are around 2000 courses with architectural merit in the US.
-
Sweetens, Winters Park, Goat Hill, Schoolhouse Nine, and other properties represent a new model for golf. And as such presents a different value proposition to the consumer. Among this group of courses Sweetens may be the most architecturally examined, but the main drivers of these courses are as community and entertainment centers. A serious critique of these facilities should not solely focus on the architecture, in actuality grading these course should focus the most on how the community embraces them and less on the actual design features of the course.
What you say above is very spot on. The model of my generation is not a sustainable model for many. And sadly, most of the golfers of my generation base quality via maintenance level which is way out of hand. What intrigues me about these places is the way they are embraced. It is sustainable in communities and while there will always be superbly maintained destinations etc, these types of places can be enjoyed by more people and allow golf to continue. GOOD POST JMO
-
Sweetens, Winters Park, Goat Hill, Schoolhouse Nine, and other properties represent a new model for golf. And as such presents a different value proposition to the consumer. Among this group of courses Sweetens may be the most architecturally examined, but the main drivers of these courses are as community and entertainment centers. A serious critique of these facilities should not solely focus on the architecture, in actuality grading these course should focus the most on how the community embraces them and less on the actual design features of the course.
Is that really true for Sweetens? It's in the middle of nowhere and my understanding is that a significant amount of their play comes from non-locals (people driving from places like Atlanta and Nashville, not to mention players stopping by on longer trips to other places).
I could be wrong about that, but if it's true, I think it would be hard to argue it's any kind of community center.
-
Peter,
In this day and age, even in real world news, it seems like there are no facts, no truth, just opinions. News morphed from infotainment to opiniotainment. Can there really be truth in golf course criticism, or it is just one outlet or person trying to force his opinion down throats by being louder or more outrageous than the last?
Jeff -- but if I believed that, why would I listen and try to learn from anyone? And if you believed that, what would it say about all your years of study and apprenticeship and hard work and dedication to mastering your craft? An archer can only be great/successful if there's an actual *target* he is trying to hit. The very process (and theory behind) serious criticism presupposes that there is a goal-ideal we're trying to reach.
There are those of us who learn just for the sake of learning, but we just have to filter out more volume and noise. In the end, I think the critique of ratings is too many follow the groupthink of the rating system. I have learned a lot (and am only slowing down now) in gca with the intent to incorporate it into my work. Just thinking about it, I tend to incorporate ideas or designs of single holes in locations where they seem similar to the green site or whatever I am working on. I probably haven't tried to incorporate what I learned over an entire course, nor am I quite sure I could. I guess I view a course as a collection of 18 good to better than good holes (hopefully) and use the site and design style to try to craft those best ideas for each site into a somewhat cohesive whole.....or not. Nothing wrong with a bit of eclecticism in design, eh?
In the end, we all have to make up our own minds. And, the critique of art forms isn't really a ranking, or a thumbs up or down type thing. You may value the art of gca over a guy like JN, who probably values the shot values. No right answer!
-
I'm a bit late to post, but I wrote this slowly while watching the golf today.
1. Is there really much "serious criticism" of golf architecture?
2. What are the other "cult courses" Don left out?
3. The importance [or not] of rankings generally, because he did go there at the end of his post.
It must be Festivus season. Let the airing of the grievances begin!
To summarize, I have attempted to offer criticism of major golf projects several times in my fifteen years here, but my last few attempts were met with considerable resistance. It became painful, so I don't feel much like trying anymore. Some people can't stand it when their favorite courses are criticized, when their favorite architects are criticized, even when their friend's home courses are criticized. Granted, I tended to choose prominent, outstanding designs to analyze and pick apart. Some people seem to assume the analyst must have a secondary motive for offering criticism. As if the intent of the criticism, on a golf course website whose mission statement is frank commentary of golf architecture, is to diminish work. Frank commentary may ultimately do that, but that shouldn’t be my problem. I participate here to evaluate golf courses, and I believe my analysis has been fair and compassionate.
A quick comment to Mike Young. People in general can be fair judges knowing who the architect is. I think most people understand their biases. An unfamiliarity with a course or architect might prevent someone from fully appreciating the nuances and tendencies of that architect. I also think maintenance is fair game for course evaluation, and cannot be separated completely from the design. A great course with terrible playing surfaces is much less fun to play.
The architects have a superior understanding of golf course design and maintenance. Still, I feel the domain of criticism belongs with the people who play the game. They build them, and we tell them how much we like them. Granted, much of what I’ve learned about golf architecture starts with the architects. Over forty years of golf I’ve played something like four to five thousand rounds, including rounds at about a quarter of the two hundred or so best courses in the country. My experience is probably about average among this esteemed group of analysts. After playing so much golf, an experienced player can interpret how a golf course will play by simply looking at it. As long as I offer simple observations based on that experience, while freely sharing my personal biases for certain types of shots, I can make thoughtful contributions to frank commentary.
A good argument can be made that Ballyneal is a “cult” course, with rather severe contours around the greens, and a devoted following. The big question with Ballyneal is whether there are too many bowls and troughs in the greens which reject indifferent shots and reward good shots with short putts. In general, the “cult” courses have greens with lots of bowls, humps and ridges which push or pull balls away or toward the hole. I don’t like courses with too many of these features. We all have a different complement of putts we’d like to see. The gently curving long approach putt is a shot I like to encounter at least several times a round.
Golf is also a business, and criticism will inevitably be perceived as damaging to a club’s prestige and finances. As a result, you have to be willing to take the heat for giving honest opinions about what you see. For me, offering opinions stopped being fun. People’s egos and pocketbooks started getting in the way.
-
Tom - when I was 26 and 36 and 46 all that interested me in any area of my life and work and study was 'the truth'. It seemed then the only thing worth striving for and understanding. You're right that it's 'much harder to do that today'. But the question I have for myself and haven't yet answered is: Is it harder now because I've grown wiser, or simply because I've gotten tired? (Yours seems to me a very sensible 'answer', i.e. proving it in your own work instead of looking for it in the work of others)
Joe: Similarly, I wonder all the time whether my fixed opinions/preferences and goals reflect a still burning desire for truth, or instead a narrow mind set that I'm unwilling and unable to be free of.
Sometimes I think that Peter has too much time and too many brain cells for his own good, but I think he might have hit the nail on the head here. If everything is subjective, then what is the point of anything that, in any way, claims objectivity?
-
Tom - when I was 26 and 36 and 46 all that interested me in any area of my life and work and study was 'the truth'. It seemed then the only thing worth striving for and understanding. You're right that it's 'much harder to do that today'. But the question I have for myself and haven't yet answered is: Is it harder now because I've grown wiser, or simply because I've gotten tired? (Yours seems to me a very sensible 'answer', i.e. proving it in your own work instead of looking for it in the work of others)
Joe: Similarly, I wonder all the time whether my fixed opinions/preferences and goals reflect a still burning desire for truth, or instead a narrow mind set that I'm unwilling and unable to be free of.
Sometimes I think that Peter has too much time and too many brain cells for his own good, but I think he might have hit the nail on the head here. If everything is subjective, then what is the point of anything that, in any way, claims objectivity?
Adam,
This partially encapsulates my views of rankings lists.
Ranking courses is a very subjective activity, akin to ranking the hottest woman, or the best musical groups.. yet we still seem to fall all over ourselves and at times have fits trying to "objectively" analyze why such and such course is either ranked too high, too low, or not at all.
This thread topic is a great one, but trying to find logic in course rankings at the micro-level is an exercise in futility...
-
Tom - when I was 26 and 36 and 46 all that interested me in any area of my life and work and study was 'the truth'. It seemed then the only thing worth striving for and understanding. You're right that it's 'much harder to do that today'. But the question I have for myself and haven't yet answered is: Is it harder now because I've grown wiser, or simply because I've gotten tired? (Yours seems to me a very sensible 'answer', i.e. proving it in your own work instead of looking for it in the work of others)
Joe: Similarly, I wonder all the time whether my fixed opinions/preferences and goals reflect a still burning desire for truth, or instead a narrow mind set that I'm unwilling and unable to be free of.
Sometimes I think that Peter has too much time and too many brain cells for his own good, but I think he might have hit the nail on the head here. If everything is subjective, then what is the point of anything that, in any way, claims objectivity?
Adam,
This partially encapsulates my views of rankings lists.
Ranking courses is a very subjective activity, akin to ranking the hottest woman, or the best musical groups.. yet we still seem to fall all over ourselves and at times have fits trying to "objectively" analyze why such and such course is either ranked too high, too low, or not at all.
This thread topic is a great one, but trying to find logic in course rankings at the micro-level is an exercise in futility...
The concept of objectivity is one of the most controversial in philosophy. If everything is a question of someone's opinion, then how can anything possibly be objective? And if something claims to be objective, what if you do not agree with the criteria on which that "objectivity" is based? This debate goes back a hundred years and more, to Wittgenstein among others.
Now, it is a long time since I studied philosophy at university, and if there are people on here who know more about this than I do (which is very probable) then they should feel free to correct me. But literature, for example, has evolved the concept of 'the canon' -- a group of works that are accepted, by a majority of qualified commentators, as being objectively superior to most others. The canon is not irrefutable -- works can, and are, added to or removed from it as the balance of critical opinion changes. Melville's 'Moby-Dick' is a very good example -- a novel that was ignored for a long period of time, but which critical opinion eventually coalesced into believing was a great work.
Cannot the concept of the canon apply to other spheres? It requires enough qualified critical assessment if it is to work, but theoretically there is no reason why it should not be deployed in any area of human activity.
-
Pop music is pop music. Dylan's music was never pop music, even though it crossed over a bit here and there.
There is plenty of weighty, yet accessible music being made to day. You just have to find it.
I’m not comparing the categorical merits of their music directly. I’m comparing the criticisms of their music. When a few music critics decided in the early 80’s that Pop music deserved the same skeptical eye towards authenticity as rock historically had up to that point, they began a revolution in music criticism. But, to me, what it really did was normalize Pop music’s artfulness compared to rock. That’s just not right in my opinion.
Modern golf architecture criticism has accomplished much the same in my mind.
Ben,I think you my be right. When you were younger and really into the GCA stuff there were still courses being designed and built at a much higher rate than today. Using your music analogy...one of the best covers out there is Wilson and Phillips cover of Stairway to Heaven. Great song by a great band and the cover was very good. I'm not sure golf architecture critics today can appreciate the difference between a band and a cover band. Music knows the difference.
-
Cannot the concept of the canon apply to other spheres? It requires enough qualified critical assessment if it is to work, but theoretically there is no reason why it should not be deployed in any area of human activity.
I suppose the magazine rankings are an attempt to establish "the canon" of golf architecture, but as has been noted, it would be much easier to agree upon if newish courses weren't allowed. Instead, there is a concerted push to put new courses into the list to keep the debate raging.
Also none of the rankings do much in the way of qualified critical assessment.
-
Cannot the concept of the canon apply to other spheres? It requires enough qualified critical assessment if it is to work, but theoretically there is no reason why it should not be deployed in any area of human activity.
I suppose the magazine rankings are an attempt to establish "the canon" of golf architecture, but as has been noted, it would be much easier to agree upon if newish courses weren't allowed. Instead, there is a concerted push to put new courses into the list to keep the debate raging.
Also none of the rankings do much in the way of qualified critical assessment.
Correct. Which suggests that there is insufficient true critical assessment of golf architecture to evolve a canon. But it does not deny its theoretical possibility.
-
I have posted on more than one occasion that PH4 is at best a nice resort course, and I explained why: over bunkered, several awkward and/or uninspired holes, a weakish finish, etc. But I also ticked Doak off when I posted that Pasatiempo is a better course than Pac Dunes. Perhaps Adam is correct in ducking my question: if you are in the business, you have to watch on which side your toast is buttered. Except Mike Young.
Ira
ira,It's not that I don't watch where my bread is buttered, I just feel we all get to an age where we don't tolerate BS as easliy. It's funny you say this..just last week a president at a club where I am doing some work instagramed a photo or something like that. Well the archie who had done their last master plan and work a few years ago sees it and comments " you hired Mike Young..are you kidding me?" I have never seen a group of people take themselves as seriously as so many golf archies...I might now need therapy...
-
I have visions of Dylan the BBC TV hippy rabbit leaning zonked against the Magic Roundabout saying quietly to himself something like “Hey man, there’s some heavy stuff going down around here.” :)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRm7LgC0qXTs9a_bYaXeoEjd5dWRFlqi-VZ2g&usqp=CAU)
As to ratings, rankings, comments, criticisms etc I tend to look at them as essentially indicative (and fluid too). Humorous sometimes as well.
atb
PS - as to the musical references mentioned above, would restorations, renovations, changes etc etc to existing golf courses be akin to ‘covers’ of songs? :)
-
So, these days, I tend to look to prove things in my own designs, rather than looking for it in others' work. But by far the most interesting things I have seen lately were simple attempts to make golf work in unique situations, rather than a young designer trying to set the world on fire.
Challenges like that appeal to me because A) opportunities are good and B) I'm confident in my problem solving skills to come up with something unique and cool. Curious if those opportunities appeal to more established architects, however? Does the challenge of solving a unique problem offset the limitations that come with taking on the work?
Makes me think of Frank Llyod Wright's Usonian homes. In 1937 Wright's friend Herbert Jacobs challenged him to build a home for $5,000. Wright hit on something cool and wound up building several dozen of these middle-income homes on unusual and inexpensive sites. I believe there's even a planned community of them somewhere in New York.
-
I'm a bit late to post, but I wrote this slowly while watching the golf today.
1. Is there really much "serious criticism" of golf architecture?
2. What are the other "cult courses" Don left out?
3. The importance [or not] of rankings generally, because he did go there at the end of his post.
The architects have a superior understanding of golf course design and maintenance. Still, I feel the domain of criticism belongs with the people who play the game. They build them, and we tell them how much we like them. Granted, much of what I’ve learned about golf architecture starts with the architects. Over forty years of golf I’ve played something like four to five thousand rounds, including rounds at about a quarter of the two hundred or so best courses in the country. My experience is probably about average among this esteemed group of analysts. After playing so much golf, an experienced player can interpret how a golf course will play by simply looking at it. As long as I offer simple observations based on that experience, while freely sharing my personal biases for certain types of shots, I can make thoughtful contributions to frank commentary.
John-I appreciated the entire post but wanted to drill down on this paragraph and the first couple of sentences in particular. I sure think that golf architecture is an art form inasmuch as the pure pleasure and range of emotion that particular holes and courses evoke. You wrote and I quote “Still, I feel the domain of criticism belongs with the people who play the game”. Anyone that has spent any amount of time on this site has learned much from industry guys and most especially from Tom Doak’s participation. That said some “hobbyists” just might have played enough courses and seen enough different architectural styles to render a reasonable opinion. I don’t think it’s necessary to completely understand the design/build process to offer an informed judgement on the finished product. The rub is that opinions will sometimes run contrary to those who profess to know the most. Frank commentary is then in the offing.
-
Adam,
I like the concept of an established "canon" or best of list. Perhaps the publications would do better to say here is the list of great courses as we see it, and then list em in Alphabetical order.
However, my comments were more directed at the micro-level nitpicking of ordering said lists. Could you imagine a panel trying to order a ranked Canon of Religious texts? How would one even go about trying to rank the Bible, Quran, Dead Sea Scrolls, The Torah, Book of Mormon, etc. Chaos would ensure and more thank likely heads would roll...literally. Its the attempt to apply objective analysis of a list compiled by very subjective means where the futility lies.
P.S. John Kirk was correct from what I've seen, some nasty counter attacks for comments that were very well thought out and frank in nature.
-
Cannot the concept of the canon apply to other spheres? It requires enough qualified critical assessment if it is to work, but theoretically there is no reason why it should not be deployed in any area of human activity.
I suppose the magazine rankings are an attempt to establish "the canon" of golf architecture, but as has been noted, it would be much easier to agree upon if newish courses weren't allowed. Instead, there is a concerted push to put new courses into the list to keep the debate raging.
Also none of the rankings do much in the way of qualified critical assessment.
Tom,
Would you have been fine if say a waiting period of 10 years was applied to all new course additions, including a course like Pac Dunes?
-
I want to give this a bit more thought but I have 2 quick observations. First, regarding the music analogies I tend to think of the architect as being closer to a jazz musician than a rock musician or a classical musician. The jazz musician can write his own music or he can take the chord structure of a standard and improvise to make it his own. Similarly, an architect can take themes that have been used by others and, depending on the property and his/her particular tastes and talents, improvise and make something that is uniquely theirs. This ability to take something familiar and make it your own is a special talent both in jazz and in GCA. It is distinct from playing a "cover".
Second, the great period for serious criticism was in the Golden Age when there were fewer "rules" and the architects were trying to figure out what made a course great. Less history, fewer preconceptions, and a smaller industry made for greater freedom in analysis. When the turn to "minimalism" came, it was a rejection of several decades of thought and an attempt to return to some of the Golden Age verities. The problem is, just as in the Golden Age, there remains significant disagreement as to the validity/identity of the "verities". I really don't think the ratings try to address this issue notwithstanding their criteria.
-
Challenges like that appeal to me because A) opportunities are good and B) I'm confident in my problem solving skills to come up with something unique and cool. Curious if those opportunities appeal to more established architects, however? Does the challenge of solving a unique problem offset the limitations that come with taking on the work?
Makes me think of Frank Llyod Wright's Usonian homes. In 1937 Wright's friend Herbert Jacobs challenged him to build a home for $5,000. Wright hit on something cool and wound up building several dozen of these middle-income homes on unusual and inexpensive sites. I believe there's even a planned community of them somewhere in New York.
Blake:
I was thinking mostly of some of the very-low-budget places I have seen in the far reaches of my travels, where they probably didn't pay much to any architect, established or not.
Some of those things DO appeal to me, but there is something of a food chain in this business and I would hate to take that sort of work away from someone who needs it.
-
Cannot the concept of the canon apply to other spheres? It requires enough qualified critical assessment if it is to work, but theoretically there is no reason why it should not be deployed in any area of human activity.
I suppose the magazine rankings are an attempt to establish "the canon" of golf architecture, but as has been noted, it would be much easier to agree upon if newish courses weren't allowed. Instead, there is a concerted push to put new courses into the list to keep the debate raging.
Also none of the rankings do much in the way of qualified critical assessment.
Correct. Which suggests that there is insufficient true critical assessment of golf architecture to evolve a canon. But it does not deny its theoretical possibility.
Adam,
What is your canon?
Ira
-
I want to give this a bit more thought but I have 2 quick observations. First, regarding the music analogies I tend to think of the architect as being closer to a jazz musician than a rock musician or a classical musician. The jazz musician can write his own music or he can take the chord structure of a standard and improvise to make it his own. Similarly, an architect can take themes that have been used by others and, depending on the property and his/her particular tastes and talents, improvise and make something that is uniquely theirs. This ability to take something familiar and make it your own is a special talent both in jazz and in GCA. It is distinct from playing a "cover".
Second, the great period for serious criticism was in the Golden Age when there were fewer "rules" and the architects were trying to figure out what made a course great. Less history, fewer preconceptions, and a smaller industry made for greater freedom in analysis. When the turn to "minimalism" came, it was a rejection of several decades of thought and an attempt to return to some of the Golden Age verities. The problem is, just as in the Golden Age, there remains significant disagreement as to the validity/identity of the "verities". I really don't think the ratings try to address this issue notwithstanding their criteria.
8) SL_ I like these thoughts and agree that jazz really starts with a framework that quickly moves to full improvisation, but only repeating itself to be commercial. The best rarely play the same thing or same way twice, it depends on how they feel and find a pocket to groove in, I see the gca or shaper making his way as fits the site terrain from tee to green to tee etc., playing/carving the slopes akin to modulating between scales. Each site's problems are there to be reconciled, like resolving a scale starting on the dominant 5th degree, is that a mixolydian template with a ii versus iii or something from CBM?
Cover bands and classical musicians have to play all the right notes, else they're not being authentic. They may have high degree of skill, but can't get outside the box of expectations.
Peter P., one needs to seek truth and knowledge, the qualitative and quantitative to make imaginary determinants in the complex domains 8)
-
PS - as to the musical references mentioned above, would restorations, renovations, changes etc etc to existing golf courses be akin to ‘covers’ of songs? :)
No, those would be akin to remastered versions.
:)
-
Ran doesn't profile sh!te or banal courses. Ran doesn't interview anyone but rock stars. Would we continue to read if he did?
-
Ran doesn't profile sh!te or banal courses. Ran doesn't interview anyone but rock stars. Would we continue to read if he did?
Actually you learn a lot by seeing what not to do.
Plus, even a lot of great courses have a poor hole or two. Ran's reviews just skip over them.
-
The architects have a superior understanding of golf course design and maintenance. Still, I feel the domain of criticism belongs with the people who play the game. They build them, and we tell them how much we like them. Granted, much of what I’ve learned about golf architecture starts with the architects. Over forty years of golf I’ve played something like four to five thousand rounds, including rounds at about a quarter of the two hundred or so best courses in the country. My experience is probably about average among this esteemed group of analysts. After playing so much golf, an experienced player can interpret how a golf course will play by simply looking at it. As long as I offer simple observations based on that experience, while freely sharing my personal biases for certain types of shots, I can make thoughtful contributions to frank commentary.
John-I appreciated the entire post but wanted to drill down on this paragraph and the first couple of sentences in particular. I sure think that golf architecture is an art form inasmuch as the pure pleasure and range of emotion that particular holes and courses evoke. You wrote and I quote “Still, I feel the domain of criticism belongs with the people who play the game”. Anyone that has spent any amount of time on this site has learned much from industry guys and most especially from Tom Doak’s participation. That said some “hobbyists” just might have played enough courses and seen enough different architectural styles to render a reasonable opinion. I don’t think it’s necessary to completely understand the design/build process to offer an informed judgement on the finished product. The rub is that opinions will sometimes run contrary to those who profess to know the most. Frank commentary is then in the offing.
Hi Tim,
The golf course is certainly an artistic creation, but it also serves as a playing field for a game. As a group, they are beautiful.
The majority of regular contributors are "hobbyists" like you and me, but most of us have devoted more than 10,000 hours to playing and practicing golf, the time investment that Malcolm Gladwell deems necessary to achieve mastery of a subject. Together with our regular group of builders and designers, the players offer valuable feedback. The players/consumers also bring expertise in a wide variety of unrelated disciplines, from all around the world.
GCA maintains an admirable camaraderie. We have the world's leading authority on golf course design, and dozens of talented design professionals who happily offer their lifetime of knowledge. And there's lots of regular guys like you and me who have been playing golf and logging into GCA every day for decades.
It seems "serious criticism" is hard these days. I believe the problem is a distrust in the motivations of the people offering negative feedback, a defensive reaction to a perceived threat. It's a public relations issue. To your comment, I never felt like having an opinion that was "contrary to those who profess to know the most" was discouraged. In my experience it was having opinions that conflicted with the desires of people with a personal, financial or professional interest in a specific project. I'll say this, though. Every time I did shoot my mouth off, I was allowed to do so. There are times when I wish somebody would've asked me to stop sooner.
Regardless, the mission statement is for frank commentary. That's the goal. If GCA isn't capable of serious criticism, then no social networking site is capable.
-
John-I appreciated the entire post but wanted to drill down on this paragraph and the first couple of sentences in particular. I sure think that golf architecture is an art form inasmuch as the pure pleasure and range of emotion that particular holes and courses evoke. You wrote and I quote “Still, I feel the domain of criticism belongs with the people who play the game”. Anyone that has spent any amount of time on this site has learned much from industry guys and most especially from Tom Doak’s participation. That said some “hobbyists” just might have played enough courses and seen enough different architectural styles to render a reasonable opinion. I don’t think it’s necessary to completely understand the design/build process to offer an informed judgement on the finished product. The rub is that opinions will sometimes run contrary to those who profess to know the most. Frank commentary is then in the offing.
Tim:
For what it's worth, I agree with you and John and others here who have said that feedback from golfers is just as important as what "expert" designers might say. It's shocking how little chance most of us in the business have to get back to our own designs and enjoy them, much less spend enough time there to sort out whether the holes all work as we intended. [Spending a whole week watching the Tour players tackle Memorial Park was the longest I have spent on any of my courses post-opening in ages.] In the end, golf courses are meant to be played, and how they play is the ultimate review.
By the same token, I doubt that anyone who plays one of my holes one time is going to understand it as well as I do. The best feedback I get on my courses is generally from members who have played the holes a lot -- enough to know if the shot their buddy hit was a fluke, or something replicable.
Also, sometimes someone here suggests a fix that just doesn't work for some technical reason, and I do feel obliged to point out those instances, whether on my own courses or someone else's. There are factors beyond our control, that most people would never be aware of, and this is a good place to learn about those. These factors do not invalidate the criticism that the 18th at High Pointe was a bad hole, and I should have found a different way around it; but everyone should understand how that kind of mistake happens, and that it's not always easy to fix.
-
A couple of things that struck me in this thread are the discussion of truth and Tom’s acronym.
Here’s another acronym: KISS. I contend that the reason Sweetens survived and now thrives is because of the underlying architectural integrity of the golf course. It’s natural to get distracted by the hype, the social media machine, etc., but Sweetens did something this year that no other American course can claim: we sold every available weekend tee time in a seven month span in 31 minutes. Every single one. The rest of the weekday tee times quickly followed, and the course is sold out in its entirety until sometime in November. People are flocking from all over the country to do loops on the course primarily because it asks unique and varying questions each and every time around. For the vast majority, it never gets old, and most are assured that it will challenge in a new way with each loop. While we are enjoying the current state of affairs, our reality now was most definitely not always the status quo. Patrick and I used to lament in the early days that there were more clouds in the sky on a bluebird day than there were golfers on the course. But, we repeatedly doubled down, knowing in our hearts that if enough people saw it, it would eventually become a sensation, and it did. It is also easy to dismiss much of the hype as a byproduct of the well-known investor group. Of course, that has drawn attention to the golf course, but the majority of the critical acclaim that the course enjoyed was written prior to that partnership. Regarding the concept of truth, it is Michael’s truth (and other posters on this thread) that the golf course doesn’t reward shotmaking in the way he thinks it should (among other criticisms). It is also the truth of countless others of all playing abilities and varying degree of architectural acumen with whom I have spoken or played golf that the exact opposite of these criticisms is the truth, and I think this point touches on one of my main goals for the course from before we started construction: I’m far more interested in what the course is asking you and the impression it gives after your 100th or 1,000th loop than what you see on your 1st, second, third, or fourth. It is worth noting that I know that the course has this staying power and effect on others, for I have seen it too many times with my own eyes for it not to be the truth. To sum up, I came to realize that a thread I wrote on Twitter a year ago during the March Madness tourney by Golf Digest is relevant to the discussion. Here it is:
Here’s a pic of me, my brother, & my dad on the 18th @PinehurstResort (https://twitter.com/PinehurstResort) #2 during my Dad’s 75th bday celebration in 2007. That day is one of my favorite memories of him, & my architectural world changed that day too.
Every course we ever work on will have the lessons of @PinehurstResort (https://twitter.com/PinehurstResort) #2 baked into it. It has had a profound effect as any in the world on my understanding & practice of architecture. So, it’s fun to see our debut effort in the Elite 8 against #2 in the @feedtheball (https://twitter.com/feedtheball) tourney.
I’m wishing our friends @PinehurstResort (https://twitter.com/PinehurstResort) good luck in the match today! If you haven’t played Sweetens, here’s a photo of the 7th green. This is but one example of the influence of #2 on Sweetens. And, if you haven’t seen Pinehurst, you need to get there ASAP!
I believe that @PinehurstResort (https://twitter.com/PinehurstResort) #2 is one of the few perfect golf courses I’ve ever seen. It’s simply not possible to put a better course on that piece of ground. That perfection provided an inspiration for us at Sweetens.
Our hypothesis at Sweetens was that if you execute every tiny detail on the course & leave none behind that the sum of the details would lead to a special final product. I’m proud of our grind & determination in the face of immensely long odds & what we created.
It’ll be fun to see what happens & whether Sweetens wins or loses, I love that it made it this far. I’m also deeply thankful for the people who have supported the course through the years. Having said that (using my best Larry David voice), go vote!
PS/ As a postscript, I’d like to address the @feedtheball (https://twitter.com/feedtheball) framing of this matchup & the underlying implication by some that the popularity of Sweetens is more a result of “group think” & less about substance. First, SC did not become an international golf destination by accident.
SC became a destination without the benefit of indoor plumbing, food and beverage service, & overnight lodging. None of this would’ve happened without a golf course that asked widely varying & distinctive questions of the golfer (architecture).
This architecture is the result of thousands & thousands of hours by a dedicated & talented team that refused to let even the smallest detail go. It was the hours that were invested in 2011/12/13/14 when no one was looking that laid the foundation for what Sweetens has become.
For Derek to dismiss this as a black & white issue of popularity v. architectural integrity is totally unfair. Every minute we sweated & toiled to create that course was because of inspiration that was derived from Pinehurst & other places that dared to pursue perfection.
Whether you like Sweetens or not (and the intention was for it to be polarizing), isn’t the point. The bottom line is that Sweetens never lets you sleep on a single shot, while allowing you to approach and recover in a multitude of ways.
And it does all of this in a unique & uncommon way, which is no easy task given that all architecture is borrowing or learning from something that preceded it.
...and we will take those accomplishments to our graves. In sum, to write it off as a popularity contest or group think betrays the monumental effort required to create the course in the first place. Win or lose, Pinehurst touches me in a way that few others do. Sweetens is another.
PPS/ I think that the @coorecrenshaw (https://twitter.com/coorecrenshaw) work at @PinehurstResort (https://twitter.com/PinehurstResort) amounts to the greatest renovation of all time. It’s my favorite work on one of my very, very, very small handful of favorite courses in the world. Thank you for the inspiration & much respect to all involved there.
-
I think, given the site and constraints, the golf course is terrific. I think the par-3 holes hold up incredibly well to almost anything you find on a new C&C or Doak course.
My appreciation of WP9 though does come from the entire experience, though. How can it not...small clubhouse/patio, no carts, quick play, interesting golf course, for less than $20 in a metropolitan area?
The first bit there is a very good critique, it's specific and it invites comparison. The part about the atmosphere is fine, but seems to outweigh the first bit for too many people.
Tom,
As I expressed in a thread about a year ago, I came away from my first and only visit to Winter Park a big fan.
Was it the “architecture” that impressed me? Not really, though there a couple pretty good par 3s.
What makes the Winter Park 9 noteworthy is just how pleasantly it fits into the community. You get a sense of wishing you could live nearby and experience it on a regular basis.
Just as there should be more places like Common Ground, I’d like to see more Winter Park 9s.
-
While there are certainly cult/niche courses out there, it goes beyond that to cult designers and even cult design takes or positions within GCA.
Initially, while Sweeten's is certainly one of the darlings of social media, I was able to play it back in 2015 when it was relatively unknown. I certainly didn't know anything about it when I stepped out of my car. I was supposed to play Lookout Mountain that day when we were rained out and found out that SC was open. I went around three times and enjoyed it a lot. Variety, character, formidable vexing greens, yet difficult to lose your ball and multiple ways to attack the holes. I saw it as nine holes that could be as fun or as challenging as you wanted them to be and not once during those 27 holes did I have a boring shot. It was the passion project of King and Collins, both of whom likely thought that might be their only opportunity to showcase their craft in the way they wanted and expressed it in detail throughout.
I've wondered before, however, why a place like the Skyway course at Lincoln Park, 20 minutes from Manhattan, doesn't get similar social media treatment. It's nine holes as well, created from a former Superfund site and is wonderfully firm and fast with wind being a factor more often than not. It doesn't have the visual panache of SC but there isn't a public course around that plays the way it does. Its affordability, accessibility and walkability, not to mention its location, make it worthy of a lot of attention. Yet it doesn't have that cult status or social media pilgrimage worthy title. My guess is this is because it doesn't need any of that. Because of its location, its tee sheet is pretty much booked day in and day out. It addressed an overwhelming demand in that area and is essentially accomplishing its purpose. Corica Park South falls into this similarly, yet I imagine there are some other issues at play there.
I see cult or niche as another word for trendy. If one goes to Winter Park or SC and posts photos of them at the course or whatever, that will get validated a lot more than if that same person posts photos of Skyway. Inherently, it's easier for that person to heap praise on the trendier places, which validates their troubles getting there and the experience they had. In turn, it's easier for that person to critique Skyway because there won't be so much blowback from the masses. This applies the same way in rankings and even exclusivity of access.
Part of this is the individual. Someone above essentially claims that you shouldn't be able to offer critiques of courses unless you know what you're talking about. I know a lot of people who, even if they do have criticisms of a course or outright don't like a course, will not communicate it at all because they fear they might be missing something, or "don't get it." Conversely, it's much easier to criticize what's trendy to criticize because there's safety in numbers. You're much more likely to hear how Rees Jones is terrible than you are Gil Hanse. My position is trends and social media have a lot more to do with that than we'd like to admit. So in terms of if there's any serious criticism of course architecture, most of I see is what I'd call "safe takes." Rees Jones is a butcher, Tom Fazio is generic with no substance, anything decrying trees or rolling back the ball, etc. There are exceptions, of course, Tom Doak on this site will offer some interesting input from time to time and I really think Derek Duncan's podcast asks a lot of interesting questions about the state of GCA that should be discussed a lot more. I've always tried to offer criticism in my reviews instead of avoiding it, for what it's worth. But in addition to magazines avoiding critical pieces, you don't hear a lot of designers getting critical of each other, other projects, or their past projects. I'm sure there's a lot of politics there and it's certainly a business but there' s a lot of protecting the field. So what are you left with? The guys who do know what they're talking about won't get critical of their colleagues, most major media won't go there, all because of the risk built into going against the grain. [size=78%] [/size]
In terms of cult/niche/trendy courses not mentioned yet, it's a long list. Some of them deserve the accolades. Some of them, because of a more wide spread proliferation of information, have been "discovered" by the general public. I'd put Seth Raynor in general in this category. Some other courses off the top of my head that fall along these lines not mentioned yet I'd put Aiken Golf Club, Goat Hill, Santa Anita, Triggs Memorial and Wilmington Municipal. I'm not addressing the merits of any of these but these and it's a small sample size. Why are they niche or cult depends on the place. Some time it's that sense of discovery and journey. Perhaps, like me at SC, it's that unexpected surprise factor. Or maybe it's simpler than that; they're courses offering really good golf that don't receive the attention many think they should.
As for rankings, they're important for certain reasons. They are not important with respect to whether I should like the course or that the higher ranked course is "better" than those below it, but they foster discussion and attempt to put some, well, structure I suppose into the whole thing. As someone above mentioned, rankings are all over this site and elsewhere. Functionally, they've helped me figure out some courses to check out in an unfamiliar area. I suppose those who know enough to ignore them can consider them trash but there's an entire group out there that have to start some where and it's helpful as a general guide in that respect.
I wished it would be possible to play courses like a blind bourbon tasting. The most revered or popular bourbon rarely wins out and the taster is left judging each sample on its substance alone. Like anything else, there's a lot of other factors that typically influence one's assessment of a course, whether it's a podcast, social media, rankings, cults or even what they've seen on television.
Chris,
You address quite a few topics in this post. Let me just briefly highlight Wilmington Municipal. It is a great piece of property in terms of topography and soil conditions. The course also offers a lot architecturally, especially the way greens are located to take advantage of the topography. Great course, IMO.
-
A couple of things that struck me in this thread are the discussion of truth and Tom’s acronym.
Here’s another acronym: KISS. I contend that the reason Sweetens survived and now thrives is because of the underlying architectural integrity of the golf course. It’s natural to get distracted by the hype, the social media machine, etc., but Sweetens did something this year that no other American course can claim: we sold every available weekend tee time in a seven month span in 31 minutes. Every single one. The rest of the weekday tee times quickly followed, and the course is sold out in its entirety until sometime in November. People are flocking from all over the country to do loops on the course primarily because it asks unique and varying questions each and every time around. For the vast majority, it never gets old, and most are assured that it will challenge in a new way with each loop. While we are enjoying the current state of affairs, our reality now was most definitely not always the status quo. Patrick and I used to lament in the early days that there were more clouds in the sky on a bluebird day than there were golfers on the course. But, we repeatedly doubled down, knowing in our hearts that if enough people saw it, it would eventually become a sensation, and it did. It is also easy to dismiss much of the hype as a byproduct of the well-known investor group. Of course, that has drawn attention to the golf course, but the majority of the critical acclaim that the course enjoyed was written prior to that partnership. Regarding the concept of truth, it is Michael’s truth (and other posters on this thread) that the golf course doesn’t reward shotmaking in the way he thinks it should (among other criticisms). It is also the truth of countless others of all playing abilities and varying degree of architectural acumen with whom I have spoken or played golf that the exact opposite of these criticisms is the truth, and I think this point touches on one of my main goals for the course from before we started construction: I’m far more interested in what the course is asking you and the impression it gives after your 100th or 1,000th loop than what you see on your 1st, second, third, or fourth. It is worth noting that I know that the course has this staying power and effect on others, for I have seen it too many times with my own eyes for it not to be the truth. To sum up, I came to realize that a thread I wrote on Twitter a year ago during the March Madness tourney by Golf Digest is relevant to the discussion. Here it is:
Here’s a pic of me, my brother, & my dad on the 18th @PinehurstResort (https://twitter.com/PinehurstResort) #2 during my Dad’s 75th bday celebration in 2007. That day is one of my favorite memories of him, & my architectural world changed that day too.
Every course we ever work on will have the lessons of @PinehurstResort (https://twitter.com/PinehurstResort) #2 baked into it. It has had a profound effect as any in the world on my understanding & practice of architecture. So, it’s fun to see our debut effort in the Elite 8 against #2 in the @feedtheball (https://twitter.com/feedtheball) tourney.
I’m wishing our friends @PinehurstResort (https://twitter.com/PinehurstResort) good luck in the match today! If you haven’t played Sweetens, here’s a photo of the 7th green. This is but one example of the influence of #2 on Sweetens. And, if you haven’t seen Pinehurst, you need to get there ASAP!
I believe that @PinehurstResort (https://twitter.com/PinehurstResort) #2 is one of the few perfect golf courses I’ve ever seen. It’s simply not possible to put a better course on that piece of ground. That perfection provided an inspiration for us at Sweetens.
Our hypothesis at Sweetens was that if you execute every tiny detail on the course & leave none behind that the sum of the details would lead to a special final product. I’m proud of our grind & determination in the face of immensely long odds & what we created.
It’ll be fun to see what happens & whether Sweetens wins or loses, I love that it made it this far. I’m also deeply thankful for the people who have supported the course through the years. Having said that (using my best Larry David voice), go vote!
PS/ As a postscript, I’d like to address the @feedtheball (https://twitter.com/feedtheball) framing of this matchup & the underlying implication by some that the popularity of Sweetens is more a result of “group think” & less about substance. First, SC did not become an international golf destination by accident.
SC became a destination without the benefit of indoor plumbing, food and beverage service, & overnight lodging. None of this would’ve happened without a golf course that asked widely varying & distinctive questions of the golfer (architecture).
This architecture is the result of thousands & thousands of hours by a dedicated & talented team that refused to let even the smallest detail go. It was the hours that were invested in 2011/12/13/14 when no one was looking that laid the foundation for what Sweetens has become.
For Derek to dismiss this as a black & white issue of popularity v. architectural integrity is totally unfair. Every minute we sweated & toiled to create that course was because of inspiration that was derived from Pinehurst & other places that dared to pursue perfection.
Whether you like Sweetens or not (and the intention was for it to be polarizing), isn’t the point. The bottom line is that Sweetens never lets you sleep on a single shot, while allowing you to approach and recover in a multitude of ways.
And it does all of this in a unique & uncommon way, which is no easy task given that all architecture is borrowing or learning from something that preceded it.
...and we will take those accomplishments to our graves. In sum, to write it off as a popularity contest or group think betrays the monumental effort required to create the course in the first place. Win or lose, Pinehurst touches me in a way that few others do. Sweetens is another.
PPS/ I think that the @coorecrenshaw (https://twitter.com/coorecrenshaw) work at @PinehurstResort (https://twitter.com/PinehurstResort) amounts to the greatest renovation of all time. It’s my favorite work on one of my very, very, very small handful of favorite courses in the world. Thank you for the inspiration & much respect to all involved there.
Rob, thanks. I particularly appreciate the thought of a course being perfect for a property...even though I don't believe in perfection. But the thought conveys to me the same message as nearly perfect. Although I don't believe I have seen a course I would call nearly perfect. Is perfect your truth or one of many truths?
Ciao
-
While there are certainly cult/niche courses out there, it goes beyond that to cult designers and even cult design takes or positions within GCA.
Initially, while Sweeten's is certainly one of the darlings of social media, I was able to play it back in 2015 when it was relatively unknown. I certainly didn't know anything about it when I stepped out of my car. I was supposed to play Lookout Mountain that day when we were rained out and found out that SC was open. I went around three times and enjoyed it a lot. Variety, character, formidable vexing greens, yet difficult to lose your ball and multiple ways to attack the holes. I saw it as nine holes that could be as fun or as challenging as you wanted them to be and not once during those 27 holes did I have a boring shot. It was the passion project of King and Collins, both of whom likely thought that might be their only opportunity to showcase their craft in the way they wanted and expressed it in detail throughout.
I've wondered before, however, why a place like the Skyway course at Lincoln Park, 20 minutes from Manhattan, doesn't get similar social media treatment. It's nine holes as well, created from a former Superfund site and is wonderfully firm and fast with wind being a factor more often than not. It doesn't have the visual panache of SC but there isn't a public course around that plays the way it does. Its affordability, accessibility and walkability, not to mention its location, make it worthy of a lot of attention. Yet it doesn't have that cult status or social media pilgrimage worthy title. My guess is this is because it doesn't need any of that. Because of its location, its tee sheet is pretty much booked day in and day out. It addressed an overwhelming demand in that area and is essentially accomplishing its purpose. Corica Park South falls into this similarly, yet I imagine there are some other issues at play there.
I see cult or niche as another word for trendy. If one goes to Winter Park or SC and posts photos of them at the course or whatever, that will get validated a lot more than if that same person posts photos of Skyway. Inherently, it's easier for that person to heap praise on the trendier places, which validates their troubles getting there and the experience they had. In turn, it's easier for that person to critique Skyway because there won't be so much blowback from the masses. This applies the same way in rankings and even exclusivity of access.
Part of this is the individual. Someone above essentially claims that you shouldn't be able to offer critiques of courses unless you know what you're talking about. I know a lot of people who, even if they do have criticisms of a course or outright don't like a course, will not communicate it at all because they fear they might be missing something, or "don't get it." Conversely, it's much easier to criticize what's trendy to criticize because there's safety in numbers. You're much more likely to hear how Rees Jones is terrible than you are Gil Hanse. My position is trends and social media have a lot more to do with that than we'd like to admit. So in terms of if there's any serious criticism of course architecture, most of I see is what I'd call "safe takes." Rees Jones is a butcher, Tom Fazio is generic with no substance, anything decrying trees or rolling back the ball, etc. There are exceptions, of course, Tom Doak on this site will offer some interesting input from time to time and I really think Derek Duncan's podcast asks a lot of interesting questions about the state of GCA that should be discussed a lot more. I've always tried to offer criticism in my reviews instead of avoiding it, for what it's worth. But in addition to magazines avoiding critical pieces, you don't hear a lot of designers getting critical of each other, other projects, or their past projects. I'm sure there's a lot of politics there and it's certainly a business but there' s a lot of protecting the field. So what are you left with? The guys who do know what they're talking about won't get critical of their colleagues, most major media won't go there, all because of the risk built into going against the grain. [size=78%] [/size]
In terms of cult/niche/trendy courses not mentioned yet, it's a long list. Some of them deserve the accolades. Some of them, because of a more wide spread proliferation of information, have been "discovered" by the general public. I'd put Seth Raynor in general in this category. Some other courses off the top of my head that fall along these lines not mentioned yet I'd put Aiken Golf Club, Goat Hill, Santa Anita, Triggs Memorial and Wilmington Municipal. I'm not addressing the merits of any of these but these and it's a small sample size. Why are they niche or cult depends on the place. Some time it's that sense of discovery and journey. Perhaps, like me at SC, it's that unexpected surprise factor. Or maybe it's simpler than that; they're courses offering really good golf that don't receive the attention many think they should.
As for rankings, they're important for certain reasons. They are not important with respect to whether I should like the course or that the higher ranked course is "better" than those below it, but they foster discussion and attempt to put some, well, structure I suppose into the whole thing. As someone above mentioned, rankings are all over this site and elsewhere. Functionally, they've helped me figure out some courses to check out in an unfamiliar area. I suppose those who know enough to ignore them can consider them trash but there's an entire group out there that have to start some where and it's helpful as a general guide in that respect.
I wished it would be possible to play courses like a blind bourbon tasting. The most revered or popular bourbon rarely wins out and the taster is left judging each sample on its substance alone. Like anything else, there's a lot of other factors that typically influence one's assessment of a course, whether it's a podcast, social media, rankings, cults or even what they've seen on television.
Chris,
You address quite a few topics in this post. Let me just briefly highlight Wilmington Municipal. It is a great piece of property in terms of topography and soil conditions. The course also offers a lot architecturally, especially the way greens are located to take advantage of the topography. Great course, IMO.
Hey Tim, it was certainly a longer post than normal for me. I'd really like to get to Wilmington to check it out. I've heard nothing but good things about the courses I mentioned and would like to see them for myself. I grew up fairly close to Santa Anita and have played it several times. It's worth checking out for sure.
-
- As a guy with two English Lit degrees, I can appreciate a canon's ability to provide a little conversational direction when you meet someone else who appreciates literature. But it's not really necessary in a field as narrow as golf course architecture. There are more books at my local library than there are golf courses in the world.
- I love Bob Dylan more than most, which is why it's hilarious to me when old guys try to use him as a trump card to prove that nobody's any good at writing songs anymore, or whatever they think their point is. "Pop music today is a joke!" yells the Boomer as the hook implores him to "Sit down... be humble." Anybody who really thinks Bringing it all Back Home is objectively better than Folklore has frogs inside their socks. Isn't there a Dylan song about times changing or something?
- This thread calls out the issue of lack of serious criticism. I'd call out that it hasn't stimulated any real criticism among its replies, although it has stimulated some wild tangential thought. I just want to call out Rob Collins' post. I played Sweetens during grow-in, 8 years ago nearly to the day. More and more, that cold morning feels like the closest I ever came to falling in love with a band in a club and watching as they became stars over the years. I posted about it at the time. I'll see if I can find the thread. I would humbly suggest that it offered some real criticism. It was based on my experiences playing a ball over the growing-in course with a group. I don't think criticism is that hard to drum up, but I do think it requires you to really think about the golf, and not just fall back on tropes, rules of thumb, and a fear of disagreeing with the published "right answers."
- Honestly, if I think about it, we practically never discussed "quality" in a university-level English Literature class. Certainly not "relative quality" - there was never a discussion at the end of a semester where we ranked the 15 books we had read. Meanwhile, that feels like the only damn discussion that ever happens around here sometimes. The simple step might be to stop worrying so much about whether this course or that course is "better," and worry more about the elements of the architecture that influence a given course's character, central challenges, themes, etc. I love the thumbs up/down system, but that was just a way to summarize Gene and Roger's takes, not the entire conversation.
-
The original Confidential guide was written by Tom Doak with the bulk of the critiques based on a one time play and it is purported that some courses were not seen in their entirety. That means more to me now than it did when I first picked it up. I’m a fan of the volume because it’s ballsy and unfiltered but the best part for me was learning of the existence of courses that I was previously unaware of as opposed to the critiques themselves.
-
The original Confidential guide was written by Tom Doak with the bulk of the critiques based on a one time play. It is purported that some courses were not seen in their entirety while others were seen “over the fence”.
There were maybe 10-20 courses in the original book where I stopped short of walking all 18 holes for some reason -- usually because they were quite busy and I would be getting in the way. It's possible I missed a cool hole on one or two of those. But if I hadn't seen it all I would have been much more general in my critique.
There were zero courses that I posted a review of that I only saw "over the fence" -- there were a few that I drove up, took one look, skipped and did not review -- so whoever "purported" that is a liar.
-
The original Confidential guide was written by Tom Doak with the bulk of the critiques based on a one time play. It is purported that some courses were not seen in their entirety while others were seen “over the fence”.
There were maybe 10-20 courses in the original book where I stopped short of walking all 18 holes for some reason -- usually because they were quite busy and I would be getting in the way. It's possible I missed a cool hole on one or two of those. But if I hadn't seen it all I would have been much more general in my critique.
There were zero courses that I posted a review of that I only saw "over the fence" -- there were a few that I drove up, took one look, skipped and did not review -- so whoever "purported" that is a liar.
Tom-I amended my post to remove the “over the fence” comment. I’m happy to hear that wasn’t the case.
-
Started to think of a sound bite answer while drinking coffee (and Baileys!) Sunday. Why aren't there serious criticisms of golf course architecture and/or courses? Perhaps, and I hate to say this, the field just doesn't deserve it, in the bigger picture, not here?
Of course, most critiques and even fields of critiques begin with true believers and passionate people, which I believe pertains to Whitten, Klein, Doak, and a few others. And, that is how it generally is. That said, the field is relatively unimportant, if you go by how many it really affects (10% of US population at most) and as a result, few do it, and even fewer are held accountable by an irate public.......which tends to NOT increase the reliability/credibility of those critiques.
BTW, Congrats to Rob Collins on Sweetens Cove, it looks like a great project, even if it is out of the box and doesn't please everyone. That was Mac's definition of greatness, or at least one of them.
-
This thoughtful post provoked me to chime in with my lingering malaise about the faux criticism posted here. It seems like every day somebody posts a list seeking bit of near triviality. Like:
Best two or three hole loops.
Three or more course clubs.
Best nine hole courses.
Cult following courses.
Tough greens on par 3’s or 5’s.
Greatest courses not named after their location.
Top Ten in Your Town.
Most underrated courses.
Most overrated courses.
Courses where you are allowed to play all day.
Courses you would play every day.
Best American links.
Faux links courses.
Real links gems.
Best Irish courses.
Best Australian courses.
Great courses nobody ever talks about.
Overly penal courses.
Great courses on indifferent landforms.
Indifferent courses on great landforms.
Don’t get me wrong: I plead guilty to engaging in this rote behavior. Years back I started a few threads dubbed Mister Lister seeking such information.
It just seems that the collective obsession with ranking and rating has turned into perseverating instead of golf architecture perspicacity.
Glad I got that off my chest. What are the highest rated courses that you wish you hadn’t played? 😅
Judge-I think the volume of the types of threads you are lamenting above has some correlation to COVID-19. The boredom that has ensued as a result of societal limitations has prompted even more of what we love here the most-Lists and Rankings. ;D
-
I’m with The Judge. We have lost sight of analysis and examination in favor of just jumping straight to rating and ranking.
It’s not a new trend. I’ve had some great discussions of the intricacies of different holes and courses over the years, but it feels like I wade through 100 threads like those Terry points to on the way to each of those nuanced ones.
We far too often confuse “understanding architecture” with “knowing how to parrot the favored lists and Doak Scale ratings of courses.” I once asked a GCAer playing partner what he thought of a course he had played earlier that morning. He replied “It’s a 6.” I can’t imagine a more boring answer. I’d never get such lack of insight from a retail golfer.
Bloom identifies 6 levels of understanding. Traditionally, it goes Knowledge > Comprehension > Application > Analysis > Synthesis > Evaluation. We have a collective bad habit of jumping straight to Evaluation, while skipping the really interesting bits (Application, Analysis, and Synthesis, for me).
-
The original Confidential guide was written by Tom Doak with the bulk of the critiques based on a one time play. It is purported that some courses were not seen in their entirety while others were seen “over the fence”.
There were maybe 10-20 courses in the original book where I stopped short of walking all 18 holes for some reason -- usually because they were quite busy and I would be getting in the way. It's possible I missed a cool hole on one or two of those. But if I hadn't seen it all I would have been much more general in my critique.
There were zero courses that I posted a review of that I only saw "over the fence" -- there were a few that I drove up, took one look, skipped and did not review -- so whoever "purported" that is a liar.
I have no idea who Tim Martin was alluding to, but on the subject of criticism, I have noted in the past that my copy of the "Confidential Guide" had a rating for the Scarlet course at Ohio State based on what a credible source described as an "over the fence" look. Specifically, "purportedly", the evaluation was made from information garnered around the mostly fenced-in pro shop area overlooking the 10th tee and fairway, the 18th green and approach, and the 9th green from below grade. My memory is now less exact on the rest of that communication and what was said about a number of other courses, but the site visit may have included a walk to the starter's shack which would have provided views of #1 tee and a better look at #9 green.
I am not courting controversy here, but if it is me being purported to be a "liar", I suppose that I can reveal my source of that information. Not being of the kiss & tell type, I'd rather not, but most would deem it to be unimpeachable.
The subject matter does bring to mind the old joke: "You can drink a man's whiskey, have relations with his wife, but never, ever criticize his golf course". I think that most people believe that they are open-minded and have thick skin. That has not been my experience. I've seen previously warm relationships cooled beyond repair due to comments meant in friendly, "open and frank" discussions. The fact is that we like the +1s a lot. We have much more affinity for the sycophants than for those willing to offer opinions which counter our "canon". Even constructive criticism sandwiched between slices of effusive or benign praise is at times met with hostility.
I do like the notion that the malaise is attributed to Covid. Why not. Every other excess is.
-
This isn't rocket science.
-
Places like Pebble and Pinehurst have not only been able to stand the test of time, they've thrived because of it, demanding $500 a round with a constantly full tee sheet. While other high-profile venues from the past 20-30 years have dramatically fallen off in stature.
If Pebble and Pinehurst didn't host PGA events (more importantly US Opens) do you think they'd be able to charge $500/round?
Similarly if Sweetens didn't have youtube/@twitter/#instagram stars making videos or posting photos at the course does anyone think they would be sold out through November?
Which is more important for financial success, good architecture or good marketing? Both is obviously ideal.
-
What you say above is very spot on. The model of my generation is not a sustainable model for many. And sadly, most of the golfers of my generation base quality via maintenance level which is way out of hand. What intrigues me about these places is the way they are embraced. It is sustainable in communities and while there will always be superbly maintained destinations etc, these types of places can be enjoyed by more people and allow golf to continue. GOOD POST JMO
At one point in time 9 hole courses greatly outnumbered 18 hole courses in this country and in many ways the game may have been better for it. Then the public was told that 9 holes wasn't regulation golf and you had to play 18. So anything other than 18 was viewed as inferior and not championship caliber. I don't remember who said it, but I recently read a comment about the post war golf boom in the 50's and 60's that said players of that time didn't care so much for how good the course was, they just wanted courses to play. This new batch of courses are embracing their unique position within the game and promoting it as an asset. They don't shy away from being less than 18, they showcase the game in a different light and promote the course as a better playing field for enjoyment. The old guard may view them as breaking the rules, but the public is clearly latching onto their promotion of enjoyment and flexibility of play.
Is that really true for Sweetens? It's in the middle of nowhere and my understanding is that a significant amount of their play comes from non-locals (people driving from places like Atlanta and Nashville, not to mention players stopping by on longer trips to other places).
I could be wrong about that, but if it's true, I think it would be hard to argue it's any kind of community center.
Ed,
By community I wasn't solely speaking of the local population. While Winters Park has directly positioned themselves as the neighborhood course, Sweetens and Goat Hill has worked really hard to tap into a greater golf community. Sweetens is a destination course but it's not just one or two players making the trip, its groups of 8 or more than are driving up from Atlanta to play. Players as Sweetens embrace the low key feel and like to share their experience with all that's playing that day.
-
At one point in time 9 hole courses greatly outnumbered 18 hole courses in this country and in many ways the game may have been better for it. Then the public was told that 9 holes wasn't regulation golf and you had to play 18. So anything other than 18 was viewed as inferior and not championship caliber. I don't remember who said it, but I recently read a comment about the post war golf boom in the 50's and 60's that said players of that time didn't care so much for how good the course was, they just wanted courses to play. This new batch of courses are embracing their unique position within the game and promoting it as an asset. They don't shy away from being less than 18, they showcase the game in a different light and promote the course as a better playing field for enjoyment. The old guard may view them as breaking the rules, but the public is clearly latching onto their promotion of enjoyment and flexibility of play.
I agree with all of this, and I think that in general, young architects should seek out nine-hole and short-course projects to show what they can do. It is much easier on such projects to flaunt the "rules" of design because most of the customers are not so worried about the score they post, which has been the single biggest road block against innovation in design for the last 100 years or so.
-
This thread now has a significant number of posts passively calling for the death of criticism. Didn’t see that coming.
-
Love the thread. Not sure if this relates but here it goes:
I have played a number of Pete Dye courses lately and am struck by how formulaic and artificial his courses are. He just seemed to dial the difficulty up and back depending on the purpose of the course.
Par 3’s carry similarities to the Raynor templates. Early in each nine is a short par 4. Middle of each nine are draw/fade or vice versa long par 4s. Last 3 holes have a 3, 4, 5. Severe artificial slopes are favored hazards for bailout shots. Par 5s tend to entice.
The formula makes for terrific golf so I discount the repition from one site to another. Most people feel they have a chance on each hole and temptation to bite off more than they can chew.
As a long time rater, I have concluded my ratings are less about insight and more about understanding the likely consensus view on any particular course. I decided to drop my card. I am not sure I am adding anything useful.
-
I keep trying to find a spot to interject, but everyone else is doing a better job articulating their thoughts than I can. Personally I'd love to see more serious criticism or analysis, but in terms of golf courses, I just don't see what's in it for the critic. Often it seems any criticism of a widely known or highly regarded golf course (or, on the flip side, hype of a lesser known golf course) is more likely to be met with derision than debate, and any criticism or analysis of a lesser known or regarded golf course will likely be met simply with indifference. Either way, I'm not sure it's worth the time.
The question reminds me of a now ancient thread about Tallgrass (RIP) that probably would qualify as the type of serious analysis that's part of this current discussion. It stood out to me at the time because I had recently stumbled upon Tallgrass, was immediately impressed, and as a newcomer to critical thought on golf courses, here was a real analysis that put many of my observations into words.
Needless to say, the thread quickly devolved into an internet food fight complete with rating scales, a showdown of courses played and a contrived Tale of the Tape against a golf course thousands of miles away. I would refer back to it in following years to pull out some of the relevant nuggets and would always read through it again hoping for a different ending, the way some people rewatch horror movies.
Some here might recall that thread; most should recall the more recent debate about the merits of Bethpage Black that included so much name-calling and aggression that I kept waiting for someone to drop a "You wanna step outside?"
-
If Pebble and Pinehurst didn't host PGA events (more importantly US Opens) do you think they'd be able to charge $500/round?
Similarly if Sweetens didn't have youtube/@twitter/#instagram stars making videos or posting photos at the course does anyone think they would be sold out through November?
Which is more important for financial success, good architecture or good marketing? Both is obviously ideal.
Pebble and Pinehurst being on TV is a huge reason why they can charge that type of money, but not all high cost courses are regular tour venues and some long standing high cost venues have not been able to sustain the price premium.
For the longest time Pebble seemed to be the gold standard in very expensive greens fee with a booked tee sheet. For Pinehust, I can't recall how much they were charging back before the 1999 US Open. it would be interesting to compare those two courses at that time to see how much Pinehurst has used the US Open to boost their price.
Doral was near the $500 club just 5 years ago and now you can get a round for $275. How much of that is because of the course losing the WGC and how much of that is for other reasons? It's hard to say.
Being on TV, even every 10 years, may be the best marketing avenue for a course, but it can be very hard to recoup the costs. Social Media on the other hand is dirt cheap and can develop a greater grassroots following that may be more sticky to the golf community.
For the masses, good architecture is measured against good conditioning and good service, all day of experience factors that are drivers for repeat business. But you have to get the to show up first. To get them in the door you need good marketing and good press. We're the only group in golf that will go out of our way to play an unknown course with good bones. We're also the only group that would rep a hat for some super obscure club over a social media darling such as Goat Hill.
-
To a certain extent, the environment in which "serious criticism" may have flourished in the past is gone/obsolete. The paradigm has shifted. The monoculture is pretty much dead at this point, and the orthodoxy that criticism used to serve has been traded away for a choose-your-own-adventure approach to media consumption.
Today, if you don't agree with what someone writes about something, it is pretty easy to attach yourself to one of the other voices out there - some from traditional sources (in which public trust has never been lower, for reasons we don't need to debate here), some from new-media channels. This applies to subjects far beyond golf course architecture.
I wonder if the current climate calls for a "new criticism," or a new approach to doing the sorts of helpful things that we believe criticism has traditionally done.
Even when I've played courses I've found underwhelming or uninspiring, I note that there are always people around who are nevertheless having an authentically good time. I may be a bit more learned about course design than they are, but still, who am I to tell them their pleasure is fraudulent?
Although this site and its participants have had a tangible, positive effect on the recent history of golf course design, it is still the case that golfers have a range of different tastes. Not everyone is into architecture the way we are, so there will always be golfers who enjoy courses we may regard as inferior for reasons we may find ridiculous. C'est la guerre.
When I am writing about a course or place, I find description to be a more important project than critique or judgment. The question I am most interested in answering about a particular course is not Is it any good? Instead, it's things like Who is this for? What is it like? What is noteworthy/interesting here? I'm confident that I can communicate my preferences without explicit negativity. When I do criticize, I try and make it constructive. It's easy to bash something; it takes more consideration to suggest an alternative, and I feel like doing that is a form of respect for the subject matter.
In the end, I've found that lifting up the positive elements of even middling golf courses is a way to do the same work as probing the negative elements. Maybe that's the new criticism we can work toward.
-
Tim,
A very thought provoking and considerate post. The reality is that with exceptions in the GB&I and Australia most of the courses that we discuss/dissect/disseminate here are either private or expensive.
Ira
-
To a certain extent, the environment in which "serious criticism" may have flourished in the past is gone/obsolete. The paradigm has shifted. The monoculture is pretty much dead at this point, and the orthodoxy that criticism used to serve has been traded away for a choose-your-own-adventure approach to media consumption.
Today, if you don't agree with what someone writes about something, it is pretty easy to attach yourself to one of the other voices out there - some from traditional sources (in which public trust has never been lower, for reasons we don't need to debate here), some from new-media channels. This applies to subjects far beyond golf course architecture.
I wonder if the current climate calls for a "new criticism," or a new approach to doing the sorts of helpful things that we believe criticism has traditionally done.
Even when I've played courses I've found underwhelming or uninspiring, I note that there are always people around who are nevertheless having an authentically good time. I may be a bit more learned about course design than they are, but still, who am I to tell them their pleasure is fraudulent?
Although this site and its participants have had a tangible, positive effect on the recent history of golf course design, it is still the case that golfers have a range of different tastes. Not everyone is into architecture the way we are, so there will always be golfers who enjoy courses we may regard as inferior for reasons we may find ridiculous. C'est la guerre.
When I am writing about a course or place, I find description to be a more important project than critique or judgment. The question I am most interested in answering about a particular course is not Is it any good? Instead, it's things like Who is this for? What is it like? What is noteworthy/interesting here? I'm confident that I can communicate my preferences without explicit negativity. When I do criticize, I try and make it constructive. It's easy to bash something; it takes more consideration to suggest an alternative, and I feel like doing that is a form of respect for the subject matter.
In the end, I've found that lifting up the positive elements of even middling golf courses is a way to do the same work as probing the negative elements. Maybe that's the new criticism we can work toward.
Tim:
Your first point is interesting and probably spot on, that there is no mainstream anymore. Everything is a niche.
Your last point, I agree with. When I would write up courses that fall in the middle of the Doak scale, the biggest question I was trying to answer was, what about this course would make someone want to play it? Whereas I saved most of the critiques for the higher-rated courses and the hyped ones. For example, here's a random entry from The Confidential Guide, Montrose GC:
"This solid but somewhat plain links is in the next town north from Carnoustie. Thirty years later, I can still recall the short 3rd, with its green up in the dunes, and the long par-3 16th, with a big hump inside the green." [4]
The point of that entry was never to denigrate Montrose GC or the people who enjoy it; it was to help someone going to Scotland decide if it was worth a stop. And the "4" is simply a shorthand for "I liked Panmure [5] better, and Monifieth [3] not as much." But, since those numbers are 4's and 5's and anything short of an 8 is an insult to people nowadays, I'm controversial.
-
Tim,
A very thought provoking and considerate post. The reality is that with exceptions in the GB&I and Australia most of the courses that we discuss/dissect/disseminate here are either private or expensive.
Ira
Ira--
I agree, which is why I have tried whenever possible to loop in lesser-known courses to my travels, because as you and others are probably well aware, the places that tend to be able to bring writers to come see them tend to be a bit higher-end. I have been fortunate to visit several of those sorts of places, but I have also really enjoyed tacking on some visits to more under-the-radar spots onto such visits.
A perfect example: my visit to Spokane, Washington in May 2019, which I added onto a media visit to Coeur d'Alene. Spokane is not at the top of anyone's list of golf destinations, but between Indian Canyon, the Creek at Qualchan, Kalispel G&CC and the three delightful Spokane County courses - Hangman Valley, MeadowWood, Liberty Lake - it kind of blew me away as far as solid, affordable golf goes. Are the courses I mentioned on the same level of architectural sophistication as, say, Gamble Sands or the courses in/around Bend, Oregon? No, but they were pleasurable places to play in a city I found very enjoyable overall, as someone from Connecticut who now lives in Florida. I think an approach more loaded with "serious criticism" might have yielded a more dour take than Spokane seems to deserve. (If you want to read what I wrote about it, here (https://www.golfpass.com/travel-advisor/articles/spokane-washington-municipal-golf-indian-canyon) it is.)
--Tim
-
The original Confidential guide was written by Tom Doak with the bulk of the critiques based on a one time play. It is purported that some courses were not seen in their entirety while others were seen “over the fence”.
There were maybe 10-20 courses in the original book where I stopped short of walking all 18 holes for some reason -- usually because they were quite busy and I would be getting in the way. It's possible I missed a cool hole on one or two of those. But if I hadn't seen it all I would have been much more general in my critique.
There were zero courses that I posted a review of that I only saw "over the fence" -- there were a few that I drove up, took one look, skipped and did not review -- so whoever "purported" that is a liar.
I have no idea who Tim Martin was alluding to, but on the subject of criticism, I have noted in the past that my copy of the "Confidential Guide" had a rating for the Scarlet course at Ohio State based on what a credible source described as an "over the fence" look. Specifically, "purportedly", the evaluation was made from information garnered around the mostly fenced-in pro shop area overlooking the 10th tee and fairway, the 18th green and approach, and the 9th green from below grade. My memory is now less exact on the rest of that communication and what was said about a number of other courses, but the site visit may have included a walk to the starter's shack which would have provided views of #1 tee and a better look at #9 green.
I am not courting controversy here, but if it is me being purported to be a "liar", I suppose that I can reveal my source of that information. Not being of the kiss & tell type, I'd rather not, but most would deem it to be unimpeachable.
The subject matter does bring to mind the old joke: "You can drink a man's whiskey, have relations with his wife, but never, ever criticize his golf course". I think that most people believe that they are open-minded and have thick skin. That has not been my experience. I've seen previously warm relationships cooled beyond repair due to comments meant in friendly, "open and frank" discussions. The fact is that we like the +1s a lot. We have much more affinity for the sycophants than for those willing to offer opinions which counter our "canon". Even constructive criticism sandwiched between slices of effusive or benign praise is at times met with hostility.
I do like the notion that the malaise is attributed to Covid. Why not. Every other excess is.
Lou,
Regarding the question of whether Tom Doak’s rating of the Ohio State Scarlet course was based on just looking over the fence, that seems unlikely to me. From my one visit and experience playing the course (circa early 1980s), I don’t recall it being a gated community. One could just drive up and, at a minimum, have a look around. Knowing Tom, it seems well out of character for him to just look over the fence, especially given his well known respect and love for Alister MacKenzie.
That aside, one thing stands out from playing the Scarlet: though I lived in Cleveland and had a former neighbor that worked in the pro shop, I never really had a desire to return. That was my feeling before ever hearing about and reading Tom’s review in the Confidential Guide (which I just re-read). In short, I think Tom got it right. It is a “5”, a course to play if you are in town, but not one worth driving very far to get to and far from being a Mackenzie course worth seeing and studying.
I think the genius of Tom’s Confidential Guide is not the ratings. Rather, it was his ability to summarize and objectively state what is noteworthy about the course being reviewed. Again, IMO, Tom got it right with the Scarlet.
-
Chris Mavros,
Let me state again my affection for Wilmington Municipal. If given the opportunity to re-visit Wilmington or the Bethpage Black course, I would much prefer Wilmington. Sure, Bethpage Black is a “championship” course and certainly worth experiencing, but Wilmington just makes sense for more and a greater variety of golfers.
Go see and play Wilmington if you are anywhere near it. It is worth the drive from, say, Pinehurst.
-
I’m with The Judge. We have lost sight of analysis and examination in favor of just jumping straight to rating and ranking.
It’s not a new trend. I’ve had some great discussions of the intricacies of different holes and courses over the years, but it feels like I wade through 100 threads like those Terry points to on the way to each of those nuanced ones.
We far too often confuse “understanding architecture” with “knowing how to parrot the favored lists and Doak Scale ratings of courses.” I once asked a GCAer playing partner what he thought of a course he had played earlier that morning. He replied “It’s a 6.” I can’t imagine a more boring answer. I’d never get such lack of insight from a retail golfer.
Bloom identifies 6 levels of understanding. Traditionally, it goes Knowledge > Comprehension > Application > Analysis > Synthesis > Evaluation. We have a collective bad habit of jumping straight to Evaluation, while skipping the really interesting bits (Application, Analysis, and Synthesis, for me).
Jason,
I quite agree. Yet Bloom was perhaps the last and most ardent defender of the canon.
Ira
-
Also:
We're not designing courses here, at gca.com. We're not building them, or shaping them. We're certainly not financing them. While we're here at gca.com via our computers or phones, we're not even playing them. All that we're doing is reading, and sometimes thinking, and often writing. That's what we're doing here; that's our 'job' as it were. So when yet another thread is a ranking thread, or when yet another post consists mainly of a number from the Doak Scale, the reading is boring, the writing is banal, and the thinking is non existent. In short, we're doing a lousy job of the one 'job' we actually have -- especially when someone not in the industry assumes/tries to project the air of authority and expertise by posting only very short or pithy comments, or a 'It's a 6', as if every one of their words was like manna from on high and worth its weight in gold and needed no further explanation/defence. Which is to say: trying to engage in 'serious criticism' -- here, on gca.com -- is a sign that we honour & respect each-other, and are trying to do our 'jobs' as well possible for the sake of the collective. Taking a little bit of time to read and think and write really is the least we can do, no?
-
8) So Peter, would you advocate for the removal of the "last post" button, i.e., folks really should read the developed thread before posting, to soak in all the comments, before opining?
... and then who are the canonical architects now, just the usual suspects discussed around gca.com threads? Perhaps the modern gca.com period of 1986 - 2021 should be closed and a new present gca period begun?
-
1986?
-
I’m with The Judge. We have lost sight of analysis and examination in favor of just jumping straight to rating and ranking.
It’s not a new trend. I’ve had some great discussions of the intricacies of different holes and courses over the years, but it feels like I wade through 100 threads like those Terry points to on the way to each of those nuanced ones.
We far too often confuse “understanding architecture” with “knowing how to parrot the favored lists and Doak Scale ratings of courses.” I once asked a GCAer playing partner what he thought of a course he had played earlier that morning. He replied “It’s a 6.” I can’t imagine a more boring answer. I’d never get such lack of insight from a retail golfer.
Bloom identifies 6 levels of understanding. Traditionally, it goes Knowledge > Comprehension > Application > Analysis > Synthesis > Evaluation. We have a collective bad habit of jumping straight to Evaluation, while skipping the really interesting bits (Application, Analysis, and Synthesis, for me).
Jason,
I quite agree. Yet Bloom was perhaps the last and most ardent defender of the canon.
Ira
In the words of Alpa Chino... that's a whole different dude altogether.
-
1986?
Tom D,
1986?? Just thinking that the periods outlined by GOLFCLUBATLAS.COM, need to be extended... its time. With minor license I paraphrase the 4 periods first described by Ran:
Pre-1899: Naturalism
1900-1937: Movers and Shapers
1949-1985: The Dark Ages
Present: Manufactured Impact and Profiles in Courage
I don't know the beginnings of your Renaissance Golf Design (as much as 8th St. in TC), but its ethos has been much appreciated helping to lead things out of the Dark Ages... So you pick a date
-
Wow...
I've been juggling multiple 2am remote productions atop other shoots so missed all of this fantastic mayhem!
Couple of opinions.
As a media type, I would pose that this group sometimes fails to recognize that for better or worse,"gca" is now part of popular media. (good thing). And, as a media type that also chaired what began as a contentious architectural restoration, I have first hand experience of the vicious, brutally opinionated and personal attack side of a "gca" restoration. Some fellow members were so horrible to a number of us, some of those wounds will never heal. All because we wanted to cut some damn trees so the greens would stop rotting. One tried to say hi to me just last year and I had to restrain myself from telling him to go *** himself... 5 years later.
Then with the golf media side of our little shop we absolutely worked to raise the value of the investment we made in our course.The best way to accomplish that was to make sure our guys to got recognition for taking a ton of s**t, busting ass, turning out a great golf architectural product, and hopefully get more folks to join. It was part of a business.
Period. No apologies. I had blood all over my person after that restoration so had zero compunction about getting our team recognition for excellent work and the ratings were the logical pathway.
Would do it again
... And will likely have to after a storm from last year.
IMO, Social media is an outstanding tool for growing the appreciation of "gca".
Just like music and film, where I have also had buckets of blood spilled upon my person, you may not like the song or the movie, but that is a matter of taste. The art form and the distribution still benefit the artform.
Just like in music and film, the most important opinion whether a movie review is accurate is that of the consumer.
I would not argue if someone wanted to buy a house next the course we restored and turn it into an AirBnB to play the course.
Ratings? Again, big fan. Sure some are trash and no subjective list is perfect.
We went after them and appreciate them. They give a baseline of opinion to folks that are not here on "The GCA". No apologies. No Remorse. Just like in the media arts, The Grammys (Have two) always deliver a bucketload of garbage victories.
The Oscars will as well, and the Golden Globes are voted on by fewer than 100 people so what does that tell you?
Some benefit from the pop media side of GCA, other club could care less. Folks pick their lane.
Like it or not, the combo of ratings and social media have consumers interested in the "gca" side of golf now more than ever. I am fully and enthusiastically part of the noise floor and hope to spread more golf propaganda in ways that get more folks to play any and all types of courses. Golf Porn is good for all of us.
There was an interesting quote from Judge Potter Steward regarding obscenity and Porn.
To paraphrase: He couldn't necessarily define the components but said: "I know it when I see it."
That's where consumers are today. They look at the social media, play a variety of courses and may not know why the like them but the know that they do.
I would not begrudge any opinion on this fantastic thread.
I would however hope that we all step back, take a look at the subject of these arguments, and focus a bit on the parts of these arguments that have resulted in the growth of the game. The fact that some of the "gca" work is reviled for its popularity in the consumer market is an indication of opportunity.
We have our cameras in some of the most GCA of high end places, as well as some of the most broken-down-gone-to-seed- munys in the nation! Love them all. They should all be celebrated, supported and most importantly, deliver excellent GCA powered play. As the Wakanda version of Switzerland, we look forward to sharing more stories on all media platforms about work done by all of the folks in here, including the ones that piss each other off, because it is all growing the game.
Regarding serious criticism? All for it and hang out with the likes of Adam Lawrence for that very reason. That said, I am equally proud to celebrate the pop culture/crossover side of gca. The more folks that can experience excellent golf course architecture, the more they will hopefully celebrate and enjoy the game. Once you move from a neglected muny with grass from the football field and circular greens, to a properly architected and maintained golf course, you appreciate the difference.
Hey, a party with a roomful of us is Brandel Chamblee's nightmare scenario so there's that!
Carry on.
V
"Controversy is Press." - Prince
-
I keep thinking... I doubt we're all using the same definition of "serious criticism."
I just think of "serious criticism" as being real discussion, centered on "the text." In this case, the text is the course, and its holes, and the features of how they play. A critical essay outlines a thesis and then supports it. We shouldn't always strive to produce "critical essays" around here - I'm one of many of us who probably drifts in that "essay" direction a little too often - but I do think we should strive for "criticism" in the sense of exploring the themes and details that give a course that sense of character and appeal that we either feel or don't feel when we play somewhere.
As Vaughn calls out, golfers are aware of architecture. They're interested in it, at least in the sense of wanting to play certain places. TPC Sawgrass generates buzz every year. It's not because people don't pay attention to architecture.
I also don't buy that Tim's Spokane travel article would've been better if it was more into beard-pulling and lambasting weaknesses of courses. I read it. It made me want to plan a trip, based on how he illuminated the golf character of the city.
I don't buy that golf needs a "canon." As Vaughn also points out, there's already a wealth of "best-of" lists that serve any purpose a "golf canon" ever would. There are "GCA Best Of" lists all over the history of this forum. I never found any of them more worthy of reference than a mag list.
As far as I'm concerned, the lamest thing we do around here is seeking to reinforce our own notions of taste. "RTJ bad!" "Ross good!" "Water bad!" "Width good!" That's what I hear in the urge to canonize: let's further formalize our tastes as the "right" ones.
If there's value in our geekdom, it's that we might be just a little more willing to dig into what actually creates architectural appeal. The traveling retail golfer sees it, and consumes it. He sees it at Augusta, Sawgrass, Tobacco Road, and even locally at a place like Henry County CC that every golfer in Kentucky this side of Mayhugh loves, even though it's a $30 course that just looks like a rolling bit of farm land with a Doak 2 slapped down on it. There's SOMETHING that makes it different from the rest of the $30 farmland courses scattered around the state, and I don't totally understand it, but it's clearly there when I talk to golfers, or register months in advance to ensure I get a spot in their fast-filling 144-person Invitational.
Serious criticism, to me, is seeking to understand that appeal. We spend too much time prescribing what should be appealing, and then complaining that the average player just doesn't get it. I think that more often means that WE aren't getting it.
-
- As a guy with two English Lit degrees, I can appreciate a canon's ability to provide a little conversational direction when you meet someone else who appreciates literature. But it's not really necessary in a field as narrow as golf course architecture. There are more books at my local library than there are golf courses in the world.
- I love Bob Dylan more than most, which is why it's hilarious to me when old guys try to use him as a trump card to prove that nobody's any good at writing songs anymore, or whatever they think their point is. "Pop music today is a joke!" yells the Boomer as the hook implores him to "Sit down... be humble." Anybody who really thinks Bringing it all Back Home is objectively better than Folklore has frogs inside their socks. Isn't there a Dylan song about times changing or something?
Jason,
Me and my buddy Ben are all over this post. In a good way. We think you're one of the cool kids. It elicited 30 minutes of conversation, a flurry of texts and a bit of research. Evaluating popular music from different eras is completely fascinating. And I am actually a dreaded boomer, sneaking it at the tail end before the 1960 cutoff. My apologies to everybody else.
Furthermore, if I frame my art discussions in terms of music, nobody here is going to punish me for having opinions about golf courses.
-
1986?
Tom D,
1986?? Just thinking that the periods outlined by GOLFCLUBATLAS.COM, need to be extended... its time. With minor license I paraphrase the 4 periods first described by Ran:
Pre-1899: Naturalism
1900-1937: Movers and Shapers
1949-1985: The Dark Ages
Present: Manufactured Impact and Profiles in Courage
I don't know the beginnings of your Renaissance Golf Design (as much as 8th St. in TC), but its ethos has been much appreciated helping to lead things out of the Dark Ages... So you pick a date
Steve:
I'm not going to pick a date if you insist on putting "2021" as the close of it :D
-
Ratings? Again, big fan. Sure some are trash and no subjective list is perfect.
We went after them and appreciate them. They give a baseline of opinion to folks that are not here on "The GCA". No apologies. No Remorse. Just like in the media arts, The Grammys (Have two) always deliver a bucketload of garbage victories.
The Oscars will as well, and the Golden Globes are voted on by fewer than 100 people so what does that tell you?
Thank you for admitting as much. The Best New renovations, in particular, were always heavily influenced by politicking the voters, because it was the green chairmen and the members spearheading it. [Architects get accused of this, too, but for the most part, those attempts were more transparent, and the busy architects really do not have much time to do it!]
Luckily the point of a restoration is not to win an award, but for the members to enjoy it afterward.
-
If there's value in our geekdom, it's that we might be just a little more willing to dig into what actually creates architectural appeal. The traveling retail golfer sees it, and consumes it. He sees it at Augusta, Sawgrass, Tobacco Road, and even locally at a place like Henry County CC that every golfer in Kentucky this side of Mayhugh loves, even though it's a $30 course that just looks like a rolling bit of farm land with a Doak 2 slapped down on it. There's SOMETHING that makes it different from the rest of the $30 farmland courses scattered around the state, and I don't totally understand it, but it's clearly there when I talk to golfers, or register months in advance to ensure I get a spot in their fast-filling 144-person Invitational.
Serious criticism, to me, is seeking to understand that appeal. We spend too much time prescribing what should be appealing, and then complaining that the average player just doesn't get it. I think that more often means that WE aren't getting it.
Very well stated. Unfortunately, the Pinehurst #4 thread did not really get to those heights, but maybe others will.
By the same token, there is a huge gulf between searching for the Truth and trying to be popular. If we are just going to look for the latter here, it will be time for me to get back to the former.
-
I keep thinking... I doubt we're all using the same definition of "serious criticism."
I just think of "serious criticism" as being real discussion, centered on "the text." In this case, the text is the course, and its holes, and the features of how they play. A critical essay outlines a thesis and then supports it. We shouldn't always strive to produce "critical essays" around here - I'm one of many of us who probably drifts in that "essay" direction a little too often - but I do think we should strive for "criticism" in the sense of exploring the themes and details that give a course that sense of character and appeal that we either feel or don't feel when we play somewhere.
As Vaughn calls out, golfers are aware of architecture. They're interested in it, at least in the sense of wanting to play certain places. TPC Sawgrass generates buzz every year. It's not because people don't pay attention to architecture.
I also don't buy that Tim's Spokane travel article would've been better if it was more into beard-pulling and lambasting weaknesses of courses. I read it. It made me want to plan a trip, based on how he illuminated the golf character of the city.
I don't buy that golf needs a "canon." As Vaughn also points out, there's already a wealth of "best-of" lists that serve any purpose a "golf canon" ever would. There are "GCA Best Of" lists all over the history of this forum. I never found any of them more worthy of reference than a mag list.
As far as I'm concerned, the lamest thing we do around here is seeking to reinforce our own notions of taste. "RTJ bad!" "Ross good!" "Water bad!" "Width good!" That's what I hear in the urge to canonize: let's further formalize our tastes as the "right" ones.
If there's value in our geekdom, it's that we might be just a little more willing to dig into what actually creates architectural appeal. The traveling retail golfer sees it, and consumes it. He sees it at Augusta, Sawgrass, Tobacco Road, and even locally at a place like Henry County CC that every golfer in Kentucky this side of Mayhugh loves, even though it's a $30 course that just looks like a rolling bit of farm land with a Doak 2 slapped down on it. There's SOMETHING that makes it different from the rest of the $30 farmland courses scattered around the state, and I don't totally understand it, but it's clearly there when I talk to golfers, or register months in advance to ensure I get a spot in their fast-filling 144-person Invitational.
Serious criticism, to me, is seeking to understand that appeal. We spend too much time prescribing what should be appealing, and then complaining that the average player just doesn't get it. I think that more often means that WE aren't getting it.
Jason-For my money an incredibly insightful post. I always pause when someone says “he gets it.” Recently a friend screen grabbed a post off of Twitter and sent it to me with those exact words and for purposes of this post it’s not necessary to drill down on the specifics. Along with the screen grab the sender added and I quote “Here’s someone who doesn’t get it himself weighing in on someone who does”. So like any medium you need some due diligence to determine whose opinions you respect whose take isn’t clouded by an agenda.
-
Jason-For my money an incredibly insightful post. I always pause when someone says “he gets it.” Recently a friend screen grabbed a post off of Twitter and sent it to me with those exact words and for purposes of this post it’s not necessary to drill down on the specifics. Along with the screen grab the sender added and I quote “Here’s someone who doesn’t get it himself weighing in on someone who does”. So like any medium you need some due diligence to determine whose opinions you respect and to determine whose take isn’t clouded by an agenda.
I agree with most of that, but in an internet forum, "whose take isn't clouded by an agenda" is sort of like "who is the sucker at this table"? Everyone has bias, some are just more well known than others.
-
Jason-For my money an incredibly insightful post. I always pause when someone says “he gets it.” Recently a friend screen grabbed a post off of Twitter and sent it to me with those exact words and for purposes of this post it’s not necessary to drill down on the specifics. Along with the screen grab the sender added and I quote “Here’s someone who doesn’t get it himself weighing in on someone who does”. So like any medium you need some due diligence to determine whose opinions you respect and to determine whose take isn’t clouded by an agenda.
I agree with most of that, but in an internet forum, "whose take isn't clouded by an agenda" is sort of like "who is the sucker at this table"? Everyone has bias, some are just more well known than others.
An avid player with no industry connections whatsoever can come to the site without an agenda in my opinion. That person with no course to hype, architect to promote or magazine to boost is possibly the purest voice of all. Biases take time to form for a variety of reasons.
-
- As a guy with two English Lit degrees, I can appreciate a canon's ability to provide a little conversational direction when you meet someone else who appreciates literature. But it's not really necessary in a field as narrow as golf course architecture. There are more books at my local library than there are golf courses in the world.
- I love Bob Dylan more than most, which is why it's hilarious to me when old guys try to use him as a trump card to prove that nobody's any good at writing songs anymore, or whatever they think their point is. "Pop music today is a joke!" yells the Boomer as the hook implores him to "Sit down... be humble." Anybody who really thinks Bringing it all Back Home is objectively better than Folklore has frogs inside their socks. Isn't there a Dylan song about times changing or something?
- This thread calls out the issue of lack of serious criticism. I'd call out that it hasn't stimulated any real criticism among its replies, although it has stimulated some wild tangential thought. I just want to call out Rob Collins' post. I played Sweetens during grow-in, 8 years ago nearly to the day. More and more, that cold morning feels like the closest I ever came to falling in love with a band in a club and watching as they became stars over the years. I posted about it at the time. I'll see if I can find the thread. I would humbly suggest that it offered some real criticism. It was based on my experiences playing a ball over the growing-in course with a group. I don't think criticism is that hard to drum up, but I do think it requires you to really think about the golf, and not just fall back on tropes, rules of thumb, and a fear of disagreeing with the published "right answers."
- Honestly, if I think about it, we practically never discussed "quality" in a university-level English Literature class. Certainly not "relative quality" - there was never a discussion at the end of a semester where we ranked the 15 books we had read. Meanwhile, that feels like the only damn discussion that ever happens around here sometimes. The simple step might be to stop worrying so much about whether this course or that course is "better," and worry more about the elements of the architecture that influence a given course's character, central challenges, themes, etc. I love the thumbs up/down system, but that was just a way to summarize Gene and Roger's takes, not the entire conversation.
Text from a buddy...“That guy called you a Boomer!” Which easily qualifies as the worst put down I’ve had since the kids said I wasn’t cool enough to be any other Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle except the nerdy Donatello back on the playground in ‘91.
From same buddy. “Bringing It Back Home” was recorded in three days. Folklore took four months and five studios. That brings me to my biggest point over what you said. If you’re going to say I’ve got frogs in my shoes, let’s at least wait awhile until they aren’t tadpoles. I’m happy to discuss Folklore’s spot in the canon in 35 years.
I disagree that a canon isn’t necessary in a field as narrow as golf architecture. Full stop. Conversational direction is one thing. But at some point we have to recognize that commercial success and availability doesn’t make for quality control. I doubt Rob wants to argue that McDonalds is the standard bearer for a hamburger. But he did infer that the quality of Sweeten’s design can be backed up by its full tee sheet. And I couldn’t disagree more. There’s more to it than that.
Lastly, the reason you don’t hear about quality in university level literary courses is because it’s likely heretical to any quality lit dept to allow a professor to present texts that *aren’t* generally recognized as canon in 400-level and below courses. At least that was my experience.
Look, I don’t need to defend Tom Doak. He’s been getting dragged by fellow architects for daring to opine honestly on the art since before I wanted to be Michelangelo turtle on the playground. But the reason this site exists to to discuss the matter at hand. And that involves being critical.
Thanks for fun and thought provoking post. Cheers.
-
- As a guy with two English Lit degrees, I can appreciate a canon's ability to provide a little conversational direction when you meet someone else who appreciates literature. But it's not really necessary in a field as narrow as golf course architecture. There are more books at my local library than there are golf courses in the world.
- I love Bob Dylan more than most, which is why it's hilarious to me when old guys try to use him as a trump card to prove that nobody's any good at writing songs anymore, or whatever they think their point is. "Pop music today is a joke!" yells the Boomer as the hook implores him to "Sit down... be humble." Anybody who really thinks Bringing it all Back Home is objectively better than Folklore has frogs inside their socks. Isn't there a Dylan song about times changing or something?
- This thread calls out the issue of lack of serious criticism. I'd call out that it hasn't stimulated any real criticism among its replies, although it has stimulated some wild tangential thought. I just want to call out Rob Collins' post. I played Sweetens during grow-in, 8 years ago nearly to the day. More and more, that cold morning feels like the closest I ever came to falling in love with a band in a club and watching as they became stars over the years. I posted about it at the time. I'll see if I can find the thread. I would humbly suggest that it offered some real criticism. It was based on my experiences playing a ball over the growing-in course with a group. I don't think criticism is that hard to drum up, but I do think it requires you to really think about the golf, and not just fall back on tropes, rules of thumb, and a fear of disagreeing with the published "right answers."
- Honestly, if I think about it, we practically never discussed "quality" in a university-level English Literature class. Certainly not "relative quality" - there was never a discussion at the end of a semester where we ranked the 15 books we had read. Meanwhile, that feels like the only damn discussion that ever happens around here sometimes. The simple step might be to stop worrying so much about whether this course or that course is "better," and worry more about the elements of the architecture that influence a given course's character, central challenges, themes, etc. I love the thumbs up/down system, but that was just a way to summarize Gene and Roger's takes, not the entire conversation.
I doubt Rob wants to argue that McDonalds is the standard bearer for a hamburger. But he did infer that the quality of Sweeten’s design can be backed up by its full tee sheet. And I couldn’t disagree more. There’s more to it than that.
There absolutely is more to it and that’s when the conversation begins to veer away from the architecture. That the tee sheets are full is a fact. That the architecture is the sole reason for same I don’t believe to be the case and I am comfortable in saying that without ever setting foot on the property. That said I would like to check it out somewhere down the line and decide for myself.
-
It's natural and to be expected:
An architect believes a course is successful because of the architecture.
A developer believes it's successful because of his due diligence and early key decisions.
A superintendent believes its successful because of the maintenance.
A rater believes it's successful because he's helped others to see its true worth.
A golfer believes it's successful because he and all his friends have chosen to play there often.
A magazine writer believes it's successful because of the sparkling prose with which he's profiled it.
So maybe the smart, well-informed and serious critic is the only one who can see the big picture and take a bird's eye view. And if he's honest and not currying favour, that's worth something, no?
-
If there's value in our geekdom, it's that we might be just a little more willing to dig into what actually creates architectural appeal. The traveling retail golfer sees it, and consumes it. He sees it at Augusta, Sawgrass, Tobacco Road, and even locally at a place like Henry County CC that every golfer in Kentucky this side of Mayhugh loves, even though it's a $30 course that just looks like a rolling bit of farm land with a Doak 2 slapped down on it. There's SOMETHING that makes it different from the rest of the $30 farmland courses scattered around the state, and I don't totally understand it, but it's clearly there when I talk to golfers, or register months in advance to ensure I get a spot in their fast-filling 144-person Invitational.
Serious criticism, to me, is seeking to understand that appeal. We spend too much time prescribing what should be appealing, and then complaining that the average player just doesn't get it. I think that more often means that WE aren't getting it.
"Everyone in Kentucky likes it" therefore it has architectural merit is not a conclusion I would agree with. The popularity you refer to could be due to hospitality (first rate), price (cheap), or course design. I'm sorry that I did not succumb to the charms of the course as you did. I can accept that it appeals to some (maybe even many), but not that discussion of its design justifies more than a brief thread. There's little on the ground that needs to be copied or isn't executed better elsewhere.
-
This is one of the most interesting threads on this site in a long time.
I want to go to one of the points that Tom Doak made when he said that serious criticism was getting lost at the crossroads of "searching for the truth versus trying to be popular."
The first edition of The Confidential Guide, in my opinion, was "searching for the truth". Many (who would have been wrong) would have predicted that a young architect who hadn't built much was wrecking his chances at a decent career by writing a book like that. Tom was/is a rare breed in that field who was (and is) as much interested in "the truth" as he was/is in his career. Maybe nobody else has ever been that person in the golf industry. I think it is an easy argument to make that golf architecture (and the golf industry) is better because of his hunger for finding the truth.
To the other points made about the rankings and other potential "serious critiques" of golf architecture...it's easy to get frustrated searching for truth along that road. With a very small minority of exceptions, it's hard to view golf course raters as anything other than people seeking access, and people seeking access are not well-served giving negative reviews. The magazines are selling publications and ads so they are not in the business of offending. While I have heard Ran speak negatively about certain golf holes in person, Tom's criticism of his course profiles ("he skips over the bad holes") is feedback that could help improve our attempt to seriously study golf architecture. To Tom's point, there is value to be derived from studying what not to do.
But unlike movie critics who will both praise and crucify a film once it is released, the golf architecture industry resides in a vacuum that eliminates a very high percentage of serious critique due to a multitude of conflicts of interest. That is why I would argue that we need more resources like The Confidential Guide. Maybe some young gun who is less concerned with how he/she will be viewed and more interested in searching for "the truth" will come along and provide us with more of what is missing. :)
TS
-
Lou,
Regarding the question of whether Tom Doak’s rating of the Ohio State Scarlet course was based on just looking over the fence, that seems unlikely to me. From my one visit and experience playing the course (circa early 1980s), I don’t recall it being a gated community. One could just drive up and, at a minimum, have a look around. Knowing Tom, it seems well out of character for him to just look over the fence, especially given his well known respect and love for Alister MacKenzie.
That aside, one thing stands out from playing the Scarlet: though I lived in Cleveland and had a former neighbor that worked in the pro shop, I never really had a desire to return. That was my feeling before ever hearing about and reading Tom’s review in the Confidential Guide (which I just re-read). In short, I think Tom got it right. It is a “5”, a course to play if you are in town, but not one worth driving very far to get to and far from being a Mackenzie course worth seeing and studying.
I think the genius of Tom’s Confidential Guide is not the ratings. Rather, it was his ability to summarize and objectively state what is noteworthy about the course being reviewed. Again, IMO, Tom got it right with the Scarlet.
Tim,
I didn't imply that the Scarlet & Gray GC was gated. The pro shop building forms a boundary to the course with a single-strand chain fence on one side all the way to the starter's shack and a split rail fence on the other (north and east). As told to me, the opinion of the Scarlet course was based from the confines of these boundaries.
The gentleman who shared this and similar insights on some other visits frequents this DG regularly and has seen this thread. He can step in if he wishes and set the record straight.
Relying on information from knowledgeable sources once again, we might remember that the original "Confidential Guide" was more of a pamphlet than a book, for the use of friends and colleagues and not meant for wide dissemination. Also taking into account Tom's age and level of experience at the time, I see the original CG more as being directionally useful, another source of interesting information. His much later multi-volume Confidential Guide is certainly more complete.
Re: Scarlet's rating, I confess to being greatly biased. I have probably played the course 400-500 times, and it is the place where my affection for the game was born and nurtured. In the years since leaving Ohio in the summer of 1978, I've yet to find a club experience that I enjoyed nearly as much.
Having said all this , I've played over half of the courses in most America's top 200 lists and believe that Scarlet fits easily among them. IMO, if it had the conditioning, set-up, and exclusivity of most courses on the list, I could see it cracking the top 100, at least under the Golf Digest methodology.
-
If there's value in our geekdom, it's that we might be just a little more willing to dig into what actually creates architectural appeal. The traveling retail golfer sees it, and consumes it. He sees it at Augusta, Sawgrass, Tobacco Road, and even locally at a place like Henry County CC that every golfer in Kentucky this side of Mayhugh loves, even though it's a $30 course that just looks like a rolling bit of farm land with a Doak 2 slapped down on it. There's SOMETHING that makes it different from the rest of the $30 farmland courses scattered around the state, and I don't totally understand it, but it's clearly there when I talk to golfers, or register months in advance to ensure I get a spot in their fast-filling 144-person Invitational.
Serious criticism, to me, is seeking to understand that appeal. We spend too much time prescribing what should be appealing, and then complaining that the average player just doesn't get it. I think that more often means that WE aren't getting it.
"Everyone in Kentucky likes it" therefore it has architectural merit is not a conclusion I would agree with. The popularity you refer to could be due to hospitality (first rate), price (cheap), or course design. I'm sorry that I did not succumb to the charms of the course as you did. I can accept that it appeals to some (maybe even many), but not that discussion of its design justifies more than a brief thread. There's little on the ground that needs to be copied or isn't executed better elsewhere.
Hey man, I don't hold it against you. I wish we'd had a little more downtime at this year's Mashie to talk through some of what we see differently out there, keeping it as brief as the course warrants. It's not in my canon by any means, but I grew up playing the Longviews, Wild Turkey Traces, Duckers Lakes, and Coal Ridges of the world. Weissinger Hills might have been the nicest course I had ever played when I first saw it about age 20. Kearney Hill blew my mind a few months later.
I probably have more of an appetite than most to dive into the nuances of a pasture links, but hell, I spent the first 15 years of my golf life playing nothing else, with people who played nothing else. A few guys at the Mashie thought I overrate Lawsonia too, but it's just about the pinnacle of that variety of golf that I love so much and I've accepted that I think it's the best course in Wisconsin. I first learned of it the same way I first heard of HCCC - through the mouths of local retail golfers I met at the munis of Madison who insisted it was a great place to play.
My wife got real fired up about the literary canon last week, and at some point during a two hour debate about whether anyone should ever care about an old white guy's opinion or not (her arguments have a horrifying way of time traveling into the future), she actually brought up The Old Course to be like "Just because you and your golf nerd friends think that place is so awesome doesn't mean it's any better than some course you'd never give a crap about because it's not as fancy." So then I tried to explain that it in some ways has more in common with the unfancy courses than the fancy ones, and that it's basically the answer to every architectural question, and that those things do sort of make the case that it occupies a unique place of influence and relatability that make it canonical. And then I wondered aloud whether Dannebrog is canonical and she told me to shut up about the place with the damn cows already.
And of course, she also added "And don't even get me started on that Sawgrass piece of shit again!"
I don't know what my point is. I guess it's that I hate The Great Gatsby, but I do think there's value in everybody reading it because it gives me a nice barometer. When someone says "I like Fitzgerald" I immediately know "That's someone whose opinion I should not plan my reading list around."
I think you should definitely stop at Dannebrog on a trip to the Sandhills if you haven't already. It's useful that when I say that, you know you shouldn't, right?
-
Sweet Lou
Regards the Confidential Guide, yes, it was meant as a travel guide for friends. It is in no way a serious critical review of courses. That said, in a way the book worked almost like social media. Quick hits, summary number then on to the next would be tweet.
Ciao
-
Jason T, as a fellow English Lit guy, I'm down with pretty much everything you've written in this thread--until the comment on The Great Gatsby.
I'll just assume it was a typo ;D .
-
- As a guy with two English Lit degrees, I can appreciate a canon's ability to provide a little conversational direction when you meet someone else who appreciates literature. But it's not really necessary in a field as narrow as golf course architecture. There are more books at my local library than there are golf courses in the world.
- I love Bob Dylan more than most, which is why it's hilarious to me when old guys try to use him as a trump card to prove that nobody's any good at writing songs anymore, or whatever they think their point is. "Pop music today is a joke!" yells the Boomer as the hook implores him to "Sit down... be humble." Anybody who really thinks Bringing it all Back Home is objectively better than Folklore has frogs inside their socks. Isn't there a Dylan song about times changing or something?
- This thread calls out the issue of lack of serious criticism. I'd call out that it hasn't stimulated any real criticism among its replies, although it has stimulated some wild tangential thought. I just want to call out Rob Collins' post. I played Sweetens during grow-in, 8 years ago nearly to the day. More and more, that cold morning feels like the closest I ever came to falling in love with a band in a club and watching as they became stars over the years. I posted about it at the time. I'll see if I can find the thread. I would humbly suggest that it offered some real criticism. It was based on my experiences playing a ball over the growing-in course with a group. I don't think criticism is that hard to drum up, but I do think it requires you to really think about the golf, and not just fall back on tropes, rules of thumb, and a fear of disagreeing with the published "right answers."
- Honestly, if I think about it, we practically never discussed "quality" in a university-level English Literature class. Certainly not "relative quality" - there was never a discussion at the end of a semester where we ranked the 15 books we had read. Meanwhile, that feels like the only damn discussion that ever happens around here sometimes. The simple step might be to stop worrying so much about whether this course or that course is "better," and worry more about the elements of the architecture that influence a given course's character, central challenges, themes, etc. I love the thumbs up/down system, but that was just a way to summarize Gene and Roger's takes, not the entire conversation.
Text from a buddy...“That guy called you a Boomer!” Which easily qualifies as the worst put down I’ve had since the kids said I wasn’t cool enough to be any other Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle except the nerdy Donatello back on the playground in ‘91.
From same buddy. “Bringing It Back Home” was recorded in three days. Folklore took four months and five studios. That brings me to my biggest point over what you said. If you’re going to say I’ve got frogs in my shoes, let’s at least wait awhile until they aren’t tadpoles. I’m happy to discuss Folklore’s spot in the canon in 35 years.
I disagree that a canon isn’t necessary in a field as narrow as golf architecture. Full stop. Conversational direction is one thing. But at some point we have to recognize that commercial success and availability doesn’t make for quality control. I doubt Rob wants to argue that McDonalds is the standard bearer for a hamburger. But he did infer that the quality of Sweeten’s design can be backed up by its full tee sheet. And I couldn’t disagree more. There’s more to it than that.
Lastly, the reason you don’t hear about quality in university level literary courses is because it’s likely heretical to any quality lit dept to allow a professor to present texts that *aren’t* generally recognized as canon in 400-level and below courses. At least that was my experience.
Look, I don’t need to defend Tom Doak. He’s been getting dragged by fellow architects for daring to opine honestly on the art since before I wanted to be Michelangelo turtle on the playground. But the reason this site exists to to discuss the matter at hand. And that involves being critical.
Thanks for fun and thought provoking post. Cheers.
- Man... would I rather be called Donatello or a Boomer? That's seriously tough. I get it and apologize for any hurt I caused.
- The Bringing it all Back Home vs Folklore comparison is seriously one I wish we could dive deep into. I find both brilliant if slightly uneven. I also find them both part-and-parcel of the record that followed them. Dylan wins because Highway 61 has no weaknesses, whereas Evermore is more than half weakness in my book. But I can't front on the prolificness, and there's still some awesome stuff on Evermore, and to be honest... I think Blonde on Blonde is a little uneven too.
- Here's what really blew my mind about Folklore: I thought that girl was totally uncanonical until I heard it. And now I'm realizing that she's been hiding in plain sight as perhaps the most gifted songwriter of her generation for 15 YEARS! I've listened to New Morning in the last 15 years, but never sat down and actually listened to Our Song. That's the problem with canons... you end up listening to Desire a dozen times trying to convince yourself that you'll eventually like it, while all you need to do is turn on the radio and listen to the 15 year old with a teardrop-stained guitar to find what you're really looking for.
- I do think we'll know a lot more about the staying power of Sweetens and Folklore in 35 years. But it doesn't take 35 years to realize that Invisible String and Betty are just about perfectly constructed songs, or that 5 is a pretty freakin' awesome short 4.
- I had the thought yesterday that maybe Doak is crossing a line when he tries to be both artist and critic. And then I remembered that my favorite music critic is definitely Noel Gallagher. It's not that I always agree with him, but I'm always glad I listened to his opinion.
-
Some other courses off the top of my head that fall along these lines not mentioned yet I'd put Aiken Golf Club, Goat Hill, Santa Anita, Triggs Memorial and Wilmington Municipal.
That's funny because I went to see Aiken Golf Club on this trip, too, and I had planned on going to Wilmington Municipal originally, but shortened the trip due to the cold snap.
Perhaps it is easier to become a cult course if I haven't posted a review of it and it's free game!
Tom - in my neck of the woods Aiken Golf Club is the closest thing we have to a "cult" course... it's history, it's uniqueness of design compared to all the modern courses, and it's owner's commitment... all give AGC a mystic attraction amongst those who care about such things.
Another course that fit the "cult" moniker was one Mike Young could really appreciate... the Penny Branch Golf Course in the Low Country of South Carolina... a McKenzie design!!! (no, not that McKenzie) It was a "home made" family-built, family-run course that was well know for having great conditions. Sadly, they closed several years ago: https://www.facebook.com/103657769435/videos/10153339839514436 (https://www.facebook.com/103657769435/videos/10153339839514436)
-
A perfect example: my visit to Spokane, Washington in May 2019, which I added onto a media visit to Coeur d'Alene. Spokane is not at the top of anyone's list of golf destinations, but between Indian Canyon, the Creek at Qualchan, Kalispel G&CC and the three delightful Spokane County courses - Hangman Valley, MeadowWood, Liberty Lake - it kind of blew me away as far as solid, affordable golf goes. Are the courses I mentioned on the same level of architectural sophistication as, say, Gamble Sands or the courses in/around Bend, Oregon? No, but they were pleasurable places to play in a city I found very enjoyable overall, as someone from Connecticut who now lives in Florida. I think an approach more loaded with "serious criticism" might have yielded a more dour take than Spokane seems to deserve. (If you want to read what I wrote about it, here (https://www.golfpass.com/travel-advisor/articles/spokane-washington-municipal-golf-indian-canyon) it is.)
--Tim
Tim,
Thanks for this post, it warms my heart. You've probably done more in one post than I did in several years of posting on the merits of that area along with the several course reviews I did when I lived there. But that was 10+ years ago and those posts/course reviews have certainly fade on GCA. I lived in the Liberty lake area and have played Meadowood and Liberty Lake at least 50+ times as well as Indian Canyon and the others 10+. I may have to dig up some of those old course reviews, Indian Canyon at least is always worth another look.. just a gem of a course!
And now I find myself in Northern Utah with lots of great value proposition courses (low green fees, easy to get on, decent architecture) akin to what is in Spokane, but they are also very unknown in these circles.
P.S. I don't know how well you recall the 2nd hole at Qualchan Creek, but I've always thought that's one of the coolest holes I've ever played and potentially competes with some of the besties I've seen on the big name courses.
-
Here are a couple things I wanted to share:
1. Bringing It All Back Home was recorded in three days, while Folklore was finished over the course of somewhere between two and four months. In the olden days of the mid-20th century, studio time was expensive, and even famous artists felt a sense of urgency to complete the work. As a result, the music has an imperfect, less refined sound. Certainly, some of Bob Dylan's song required numerous takes, and songs like "Like a Rolling Stone" were only played all the way through once, and a final version was spliced together from the tapes. But many of these songs are just tried a few times, and the decision is made to move to the next song.
I would suggest this is relevant for golf architecture, that course designs are best done in a few takes, and not necessarily with concrete, detailed plans. Striving for perfect is the enemy, and compromises human inspiration.
2. One of the greatest songs on Bringing It All Back Home is “It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue”. It is a duet, with Dylan on vocals, guitar and harmonica, and Bill Lee (Spike Lee’s dad) on bass. Lee is a trained jazz musician, so I’m sure Dylan simply tells him the chord sequence, and then he starts playing the song, with Lee following along and improvising throughout. I can listen to this over and over, focusing on any of the four voices, three provided by Dylan, or Bill Lee’s wonderful contribution. The performance swings so hard. It’s the best song of the album, along with “Mr. Tambourine Man”.
So far I’ve listened to two hits on Folklore, “Exile” and “Cardigan”. Thanks for the suggestion. They’re really good. I can see why many consider this her best work. On this album, she is working with her friend Jack Antonoff, and a new collaborator, Aaron Dessner from the National.
A key difference between these two songs and a good Dylan record is that the musicians on Folklore establish the background for Taylor Swift without making their own statement. Everything is geared to be of service of Ms. Swift and her story. Being an old basketball player, old enough so that Mom and Dad loved Dixieland jazz, I like music where each artist’s voice is heard. The modern style of popular music has strayed from the Dixieland ideals of improvisation and spontaneous inspiration. It abides by a star system at the exclusion of the team.
In a sense, golf course development at the highest level seems to abide by these Dixieland ideals. Plans and general concepts are discussed at the nightly pow wow, and the "associates" go out each day and put their stamp on individual design features. The lead architect oversees the whole project. Sometimes he suggests changes, and within a few takes he says “good”.
3. We don’t know yet whether Folklore will be remembered as a classic. How many songs will become “pop standards”, remembered by fans and coveted by musicians fifty years from now?
As GCA fans, speculating on which courses will become “standards” is what we do.
4. I admire Taylor Swift’s music more than I love it. The recordings are too flawless for me. I generally pursue syncopated music that makes me excited and happy. Swift is earnest and sings about love almost exclusively.
I like Kacey Musgraves a little more than Swift, and my favorite modern female singer/songwriter is Natalia Lafourcade from Mexico, especially when she performs with Los Macorinos. What a team.
-
Yes we need to be critical of cult courses.
Some that come to mind:
Rustic Canyon
Bandon Trails
Torrey Pines
Whistling Straits
Shadow Creek in Las Vegas
Common Ground
(is there one in Arizona that everyone loves?)
I think Rustic Canyon has dropped in the ratings as it became more and more popular. It was once ranked in the Top 100 Modern but it now rated no. 151. I think it is great and yet GCA has been critical of it. There was a thread about how the seventh hole is not what it once was. I am not a big fan of no. 15 either. I see it as connector hole, but a par 3. So we do need to be critical of our favorite courses in order to see that no course is perfect.
-
I think Rustic Canyon has dropped in the ratings as it became more and more popular. It was once ranked in the Top 100 Modern but it now rated no. 151. I think it is great and yet GCA has been critical of it. There was a thread about how the seventh hole is not what it once was. I am not a big fan of no. 15 either. I see it as connector hole, but a par 3. So we do need to be critical of our favorite courses in order to see that no course is perfect.
Scott:
I like Rustic Canyon, and this point is not about Rustic Canyon specifically. But, as I posted somewhere earlier -- I think about Cruden Bay -- because the only real discussion of golf courses in the magazines is via rankings, when there is a course that a dedicated following believes to be important, they will just lobby and push and bend arms and do anything they can to get that course into a ranking, to prove its worth and vindicate their strong opinion of it. And once that happens, and they're satisfied, it will often disappear. I can think of lots of courses that fit this pattern. Remember Lehigh?? :D
That's why there are more than 350 courses in Paul Rudovsky's "top 100 ever" list.
-
It's natural and to be expected:
An architect believes a course is successful because of the architecture.
A developer believes it's successful because of his due diligence and early key decisions.
A superintendent believes its successful because of the maintenance.
A rater believes it's successful because he's helped others to see its true worth.
A golfer believes it's successful because he and all his friends have chosen to play there often.
A magazine writer believes it's successful because of the sparkling prose with which he's profiled it.
So maybe the smart, well-informed and serious critic is the only one who can see the big picture and take a bird's eye view. And if he's honest and not currying favour, that's worth something, no?
Yep. That's a keeper of a post.
-
The first edition of The Confidential Guide, in my opinion, was "searching for the truth". Many (who would have been wrong) would have predicted that a young architect who hadn't built much was wrecking his chances at a decent career by writing a book like that. Tom was/is a rare breed in that field who was (and is) as much interested in "the truth" as he was/is in his career.
. . .
But unlike movie critics who will both praise and crucify a film once it is released, the golf architecture industry resides in a vacuum that eliminates a very high percentage of serious critique due to a multitude of conflicts of interest. That is why I would argue that we need more resources like The Confidential Guide. Maybe some young gun who is less concerned with how he/she will be viewed and more interested in searching for "the truth" will come along and provide us with more of what is missing. :)
Hi Ted:
You've known me longer than most here; Tim Weiman, too. I appreciate your defense.
My "search for truth" was going to see all of those golf courses for myself, which I was still doing until this COVID thing happened. The Confidential Guide was just an attempt to help friends decide what courses they should see for themselves.
Here's a small piece from the Introduction:
"Along the way, I hope to impress all of you with my opinions on general issues of design, so the book [like its author] tends to be very critical in nature. Who knows? Perhaps someday I'll be quoted in textbooks on golf architecture, like Charles Blair Macdonald: "I only approve of the Maiden at Sandwich as a bunker, not a hole." That sort of thing."
I was 27, and that was tongue in cheek. It is absolutely amazing to me that 30+ years later, the book is taken so seriously that Lou Duran is going to doxx me for not spending more time at the Ohio State University Golf Course [the version they blew up!] before giving it a 5. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
I've spent the last twenty years on Golf Club Atlas disclaiming every statement with what Pete Dye told me: everything in golf is a matter of opinion. [Sayeth Pete: "There is no right way to swing the club, no right way to grow grass, and no right way to design a golf hole."] And I understand, as he did, that the important thing is to believe in what you are doing. So I know that the only reason my book touched so many nerves back when I was a nobody [and still does to this day] is because it had the ring of Truth. If it didn't, people would just dismiss my opinions as easily as anyone else's.
I'm certainly not always right, and everything's a matter of opinion, but there is so much bulls**t around the golf business that even a passing glance of the Truth is downright dangerous.
-
I think Rustic Canyon has dropped in the ratings as it became more and more popular. It was once ranked in the Top 100 Modern but it now rated no. 151. I think it is great and yet GCA has been critical of it. There was a thread about how the seventh hole is not what it once was. I am not a big fan of no. 15 either. I see it as connector hole, but a par 3. So we do need to be critical of our favorite courses in order to see that no course is perfect.
Scott:
I like Rustic Canyon, and this point is not about Rustic Canyon specifically. But, as I posted somewhere earlier -- I think about Cruden Bay -- because the only real discussion of golf courses in the magazines is via rankings, when there is a course that a dedicated following believes to be important, they will just lobby and push and bend arms and do anything they can to get that course into a ranking, to prove its worth and vindicate their strong opinion of it. And once that happens, and they're satisfied, it will often disappear. I can think of lots of courses that fit this pattern. Remember Lehigh?? :D
That's why there are more than 350 courses in Paul Rudovsky's "top 100 ever" list.
I like that you wrote, "and vindicate their strong opinion of it." People love a course, it gets ranked, and then they move on to play their new favorite course. No one goes there anymore because it is crowded and overpriced. I would expect there is a developer and designer out there planning or dreaming up the next cult course with wild greens and layout.
-
I'm certainly not always right, and everything's a matter of opinion, but there is so much bulls**t around the golf business that even a passing glance of the Truth is downright dangerous.
Tom,
This was an interesting comment in your last post. I'd be very surprised quite frankly if there wasn't.
Where a chance exists to make money, gain power, or develop a prominent reputation this kind of bull shit will always be around any type of organizational structure or niche you can find whether it be business, political, religious, educational, governmental, etc. in nature.
-
Lou,
Regarding the question of whether Tom Doak’s rating of the Ohio State Scarlet course was based on just looking over the fence, that seems unlikely to me. From my one visit and experience playing the course (circa early 1980s), I don’t recall it being a gated community. One could just drive up and, at a minimum, have a look around. Knowing Tom, it seems well out of character for him to just look over the fence, especially given his well known respect and love for Alister MacKenzie.
That aside, one thing stands out from playing the Scarlet: though I lived in Cleveland and had a former neighbor that worked in the pro shop, I never really had a desire to return. That was my feeling before ever hearing about and reading Tom’s review in the Confidential Guide (which I just re-read). In short, I think Tom got it right. It is a “5”, a course to play if you are in town, but not one worth driving very far to get to and far from being a Mackenzie course worth seeing and studying.
I think the genius of Tom’s Confidential Guide is not the ratings. Rather, it was his ability to summarize and objectively state what is noteworthy about the course being reviewed. Again, IMO, Tom got it right with the Scarlet.
Tim,
I didn't imply that the Scarlet & Gray GC was gated. The pro shop building forms a boundary to the course with a single-strand chain fence on one side all the way to the starter's shack and a split rail fence on the other (north and east). As told to me, the opinion of the Scarlet course was based from the confines of these boundaries.
The gentleman who shared this and similar insights on some other visits frequents this DG regularly and has seen this thread. He can step in if he wishes and set the record straight.
Relying on information from knowledgeable sources once again, we might remember that the original "Confidential Guide" was more of a pamphlet than a book, for the use of friends and colleagues and not meant for wide dissemination. Also taking into account Tom's age and level of experience at the time, I see the original CG more as being directionally useful, another source of interesting information. His much later multi-volume Confidential Guide is certainly more complete.
Re: Scarlet's rating, I confess to being greatly biased. I have probably played the course 400-500 times, and it is the place where my affection for the game was born and nurtured. In the years since leaving Ohio in the summer of 1978, I've yet to find a club experience that I enjoyed nearly as much.
Having said all this , I've played over half of the courses in most America's top 200 lists and believe that Scarlet fits easily among them. IMO, if it had the conditioning, set-up, and exclusivity of most courses on the list, I could see it cracking the top 100, at least under the Golf Digest methodology.
Lou,
I won’t go over ground we have already covered, but perhaps I shouldn’t have used the words “gated community”. I merely meant to say that from my recollection the Scarlet course was pretty accessible if someone merely wanted to have a look at the place.
By contrast, my father had a friend who lived very close to the entrance of NGLA. Mistakenly, my father’s friend said there would be no problem going through the gate and having a look at the place.
Wrong! I did make it to the parking lot, but only barely made it out of my car before some guy came up and told me I should leave. Now!
Thank heavens for the Walker Cup. I may never have seen the course otherwise.
-
I'm certainly not always right, and everything's a matter of opinion, but there is so much bulls**t around the golf business that even a passing glance of the Truth is downright dangerous.
Tom,
This was an interesting comment in your last post. I'd be very surprised quite frankly if there wasn't.
Where a chance exists to make money, gain power, or develop a prominent reputation this kind of bull shit will always be around any type of organizational structure or niche you can find whether it be business, political, religious, educational, governmental, etc. in nature.
Kalen,
I suppose that's true, but it's enough to drive you crazy sometimes if you're in the business. People tooting their own horn is of course to be expected, but the lying about other people and other places is not.
When we were building High Pointe, almost from the day we started, I was amazed at the crazy rumors about what we were doing: that someone else had bought it, that it was bankrupt, etc. etc. The only possible reason for some of those was to deliberately denigrate the project in the minds of potential visitors. Welcome to the neighborhood! ::)
-
I don't buy that golf needs a "canon." As Vaughn also points out, there's already a wealth of "best-of" lists that serve any purpose a "golf canon" ever would. There are "GCA Best Of" lists all over the history of this forum. I never found any of them more worthy of reference than a mag list.
As far as I'm concerned, the lamest thing we do around here is seeking to reinforce our own notions of taste. "RTJ bad!" "Ross good!" "Water bad!" "Width good!" That's what I hear in the urge to canonize: let's further formalize our tastes as the "right" ones.
If there's value in our geekdom, it's that we might be just a little more willing to dig into what actually creates architectural appeal. The traveling retail golfer sees it, and consumes it. He sees it at Augusta, Sawgrass, Tobacco Road, and even locally at a place like Henry County CC that every golfer in Kentucky this side of Mayhugh loves, even though it's a $30 course that just looks like a rolling bit of farm land with a Doak 2 slapped down on it. There's SOMETHING that makes it different from the rest of the $30 farmland courses scattered.
Serious criticism, to me, is seeking to understand that appeal. We spend too much time prescribing what should be appealing, and then complaining that the average player just doesn't get it. I think that more often means that WE aren't getting it.
Thurm
I concur.
That said, we overthink l so normal golfers don’t have to. Lol
-
Last month I attended a virtual conference entitled “The Temperature of Art Book Criticism and Scholarship,” the term “art book” referring to books which are art works in their own right. The instructor of an online course in which my wife participated last year made books out of meat. At a 2019 NYC exhibition of works inspired by Whitman, a remarkable homage to one of his poems hung from the ceiling like drapery, text imprinted in a very calculated way (which I won’t attempt to describe or explain) in blues and greens, iirc. Conference practitioners lamented the art book’s lack of standing in art, literary and academic institutions. Two young individuals without specialized programs to enter trained themselves. One obtained a BA in visual arts and an MFA in literature. The other earned an English Lit. BA and a visual arts MFA. One publishes art book reviews in a Brooklyn-based arts journal. There is no art book Ph.D.
The audience for even the best GCA criticism—as written—is small and will remain small because there is no money in it and the focus is too narrow. A multi-disciplinary approach would reach some new people, albeit still a small niche—and perhaps retain some of the present company. My hypothetical “serious” GCA critic would resemble the aspiring book art critics in having a passion for something without its neat place in the hierarchy (hire-archy). Here’s the resume of someone whom I would love to see supplement his existing gifts by boning up on our favorite land art and its history, taking up the game and then letting fly:
“Allen S. Weiss is committed to both interdisciplinary research and experimental performance across the media. Among his theoretical works are The Aesthetics of Excess (SUNY); Phantasmic Radio (Duke); Breathless: Sound Recording, Disembodiment, and the Transformation of Lyrical Nostalgia (Wesleyan); Feast and Folly: Cuisine, Intoxication, and the Poetics of the Sublime (SUNY); Varieties of Audio Mimesis: Musical Evocations of Landscape (Errant Bodies); and most recently Zen Landscapes: Perspectives on Japanese Gardens and Ceramics (Reaktion). He has also written two gastronomic autobiographies, Autobiographie dans un chou farci (Mercure de France) and Métaphysique de la miette (Argol). His creative work includes Theater of the Ears (a play for electronic marionette and taped voice based on the writings of Valère Novarina), which premiered at CalArts and ended its tour at the Avignon Off Festival; Danse Macabre (a marionette theater for the dolls of Michel Nedjar), which premiered as part of the Poupées exhibition that ASW curated at the Halle Saint Pierre in Paris, and subsequently showed at the In Transit festival at the Haus der Kulturen der Welt in Berlin; and a novel, Le livre bouffon (Le Seuil). His radio productions include L’Indomptable (with Gregory Whitehead) for France Culture; the Hörspiel Glissando as well as Radio Gidayū (a soundscape of Kyoto), both for the Klangkunst program of Deutschlandradio Kultur; and Carmignano, an audio essay on wine for Radio Papesse in Florence. He most recently produced and directed Poupées des ténèbres / Dolls of Darkness, a documentary film about the dolls of Michel Nedjar and the Holocaust. He created the photographic illustrations to Chantal Thomas' latest book, East Village Blues (Le Seuil), which won the Prix Le Vaudeville (2019). His most recent book is Unpacking My Library, or, The Autobiography of Teddy (K. Verlag, 2020), co-authored with his Teddy bear.”
If Weiss or similar can’t be hired, then why not a DG commission? Start a kitty, solicit proposals, and then select a winner to compose something really “out there.”
Disclaimer: I have thought vaguely about such an essay (or art book ;) ) before, am unqualifed to write one. This proposal was a “free write,” a term Jason, Peter and others will know. No doubt many holes can be shot in it. I also did not read every post before me. Hey, it’s my hypothetical full-time career critic who will read every DG thread and post. :D
-
Greg - good post there, and you may be absolutely right about how small a niche is the niche for serious critiques of gca. Mr. Weiss sounds a fascinating fellow -- you need one heck of a subtle and diverse mind to produce that interdisciplinary range of experimental performance art! Ha -- I'm chuckling at the thought of what he might do with a small bit of turf from a C&C course and a lock of Ben Crenshaw's hair, as it relates to the concept of par! But before you posted, I was thinking along much more 'main stream' lines. Earlier tonight and out of the blue I thought: if gca had even one writer who wrote about it like David Foster Wallace did about tennis, we wouldn't have need of this thread at all, nor any of our posts. The truth would be there for all to see, the inherent value of the endeavour self evident. But we don't. We don't have anyone who writes about gca with the insight of an expert, the precision of a scientist, the heart of a poet, and the literary talents of a Willa Cather. There's at least a few courses in the world merit that/that treament.
-
I am not convinced that the niche interest in Gca fully explains the dearth of serious criticism. If you look at the biographies of the architecture critics for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post, you will see real life versions of Allen Weiss. My guess that the same is true for their art critics. Yet how many people actually read their pieces regularly and closely? The difference is that the editors of the papers view the topics as being a traditional function of a serious publication. I do not know if that ever was the case for Gca.
Ira
-
The audience for even the best GCA criticism—as written—is small and will remain small because there is no money in it and the focus is too narrow. A multi-disciplinary approach would reach some new people, albeit still a small niche—and perhaps retain some of the present company. My hypothetical “serious” GCA critic would resemble the aspiring book art critics in having a passion for something without its neat place in the hierarchy (hire-archy). Here’s the resume of someone whom I would love to see supplement his existing gifts by boning up on our favorite land art and its history, taking up the game and then letting fly:
Greg,
I may be entirely wrong and Tom can chime in if he likes, but I'm guessing he has in fact made money off writing frank course criticism. So much so that he did additional volumes in his CG series. Perhaps its just to fulfill his writing itch, but i'd have to think there was money to be made.
-
Here are a couple things I wanted to share:
1. Bringing It All Back Home was recorded in three days, while Folklore was finished over the course of somewhere between two and four months. In the olden days of the mid-20th century, studio time was expensive, and even famous artists felt a sense of urgency to complete the work. As a result, the music has an imperfect, less refined sound. Certainly, some of Bob Dylan's song required numerous takes, and songs like "Like a Rolling Stone" were only played all the way through once, and a final version was spliced together from the tapes. But many of these songs are just tried a few times, and the decision is made to move to the next song.
I would suggest this is relevant for golf architecture, that course designs are best done in a few takes, and not necessarily with concrete, detailed plans. Striving for perfect is the enemy, and compromises human inspiration.
YES! I love a little ramshackle in the sound. As a musician, I've never liked playing the same thing twice or doing a ton of rehearsing, and I've always been enamored of the idea that guys like Young Dylan and Iggy Pop could show up in the studio and basically just freestyle lyrics and arrangements on the fly. St. Vincent is one of my favorite musicians today, and apparently her next album (out on May 14) was mostly done in single takes, and your final sentence above was basically the exact quote I read from her about why. The next two months can’t go fast enough for me.
And yes! It relates to GCA! It feels akin to all these Pete Dye stories of starting with a general plan, but then letting good results be good results even if they don't follow the plan exactly... I think that's a real thing but I'm not the guy to elaborate on it.
2. One of the greatest songs on Bringing It All Back Home is “It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue”. It is a duet, with Dylan on vocals, guitar and harmonica, and Bill Lee (Spike Lee’s dad) on bass. Lee is a trained jazz musician, so I’m sure Dylan simply tells him the chord sequence, and then he starts playing the song, with Lee following along and improvising throughout. I can listen to this over and over, focusing on any of the four voices, three provided by Dylan, or Bill Lee’s wonderful contribution. The performance swings so hard. It’s the best song of the album, along with “Mr. Tambourine Man”.
So far I’ve listened to two hits on Folklore, “Exile” and “Cardigan”. Thanks for the suggestion. They’re really good. I can see why many consider this her best work. On this album, she is working with her friend Jack Antonoff, and a new collaborator, Aaron Dessner from the National.
YES! On literally all the above. Check out "Peace" from Folklore. Based on the things you love about It’s All Over Now Baby Blue, I think you'll dig it.
A key difference between these two songs and a good Dylan record is that the musicians on Folklore establish the background for Taylor Swift without making their own statement. Everything is geared to be of service of Ms. Swift and her story. Being an old basketball player, old enough so that Mom and Dad loved Dixieland jazz, I like music where each artist’s voice is heard. The modern style of popular music has strayed from the Dixieland ideals of improvisation and spontaneous inspiration. It abides by a star system at the exclusion of the team.
In a sense, golf course development at the highest level seems to abide by these Dixieland ideals. Plans and general concepts are discussed at the nightly pow wow, and the "associates" go out each day and put their stamp on individual design features. The lead architect oversees the whole project. Sometimes he suggests changes, and within a few takes he says “good”.
Again, I'm with you. There opening 3 beats of Bringing it All Back Home makes a bigger instrumental statement than, like, the entirety of the backing instrumentation on Folklore.
As a guitarist who always wanted Trey Anastasio’s freedom to solo incessantly, the most significant realization for me musically was when I really came to grasp that the best thing I bring to the table, musically, is to chunk and groove and riff all in service of the tune. It unlocked me as a (totally unaccomplished) songwriter, and gave me my voice musically. That approach to instrumentation is part and parcel of Bringing it all Back Home, Highway 61, Blood on the Tracks... Nashville Skyline! It’s not that Robbie Robertson is soloing his ass off. But every note he plays lives on forever in my head.
And you're right - the musicianship on Folklore is polished and excellent, but the voices of the musicians don't always shine through. My impression is that much of TSwift’s catalog to this point (which we should note, I’m mostly unfamiliar with) hasn't really unlocked the voices of her backing musicians, partly because she's always been a great songwriter but maybe not such a great singer/performer that she could front a really fully uninhibited band. Totally fair for someone who debuted at 15. I think she's grown enough as a performer that her masterpiece is hopefully ahead of her, and involves that classic formula of Killer Songs + Killer Musicians + Killer Performances All Around.
All else being equal, music is better when that happens. I love the craft of Taylor’s songs. She’s just a fabulous writer. But to compare her to some other contemporary divas, I do prefer the musical presentation of Gaga, Adele, St. Vincent… there’s a difference, as you outline, between playing deferentially to the star and playing in service of the song while letting the star do star-level things.
And yes, to listen to Doak talk about getting out of his associates' way, the same way Pete Dye did for him and others, you hear the same ideal. You see it with great basketball teams too. It’s the contrast between the James Harden Rockets, where the other guys played in ways that served the star, and the Beautiful Game Spurs, where the unique skills of 10 guys were all maximized. I prefer the latter almost every time, except when it requires me to cut a solo short…
3. We don’t know yet whether Folklore will be remembered as a classic. How many songs will become “pop standards”, remembered by fans and coveted by musicians fifty years from now?
As GCA fans, speculating on which courses will become “standards” is what we do.
True, although I’d suggest that with the death of the monoculture, and the unique circumstances of Folklore’s release that really made it the “album of the pandemic,” that it’s as well positioned to become a classic as any 7 month old album has ever been. I think it’s too uneven for me to really consider it a GREAT album… there are some real dirges on that thing. But in the Spotify era, it’s easy enough to mitigate that. My Everlore playlist is one of my favorite albums ever! (https://open.spotify.com/playlist/2VdYQLUH166uh4gS7MC2h3?si=eaba3318b9f54c5f (https://open.spotify.com/playlist/2VdYQLUH166uh4gS7MC2h3?si=eaba3318b9f54c5f))
You could say the same about Sweetens Cove. I don’t know if it’s a great course given that I find 7 largely forgettable, 4 remarkable but not quite great, and I’m not sure that 8 really works. Top 100 seems crazy to me. But it’s one I look forward to returning to again and again. I think Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness is at least semi-classic even though it only has 6 good songs on a preposterously long double album. Both Folklore and Sweetens are much better than that, and they’re both iconic/groundbreaking enough to elevate them beyond their (pretty minor) weaknesses.
4. I admire Taylor Swift’s music more than I love it. The recordings are too flawless for me. I generally pursue syncopated music that makes me excited and happy. Swift is earnest and sings about love almost exclusively.
I like Kacey Musgraves a little more than Swift, and my favorite modern female singer/songwriter is Natalia Lafourcade from Mexico, especially when she performs with Los Macorinos. What a team.
I’ve only started my Kacey Musgraves deep dive in literally the last few days. I have a long backlog of music to listen to at all times, and she’s been working her way to the top of the list for years. She’s wonderful. I’ll check out Natalia Lafourcade. I always believe that the only thing any of us are playing for, when it comes to having “well educated opinions” on music, golf courses, or anything else that’s purely subjective at the end of the day, is for anyone else to give a shit what we think. So I’ll check out ya girl. That’s the highest compliment I can pay to anyone’s criticism. I question Tom Doak's critiques sometimes too, but I also pull out the Confidential Guide before I plan a trip.
-
Greg - good post there, and you may be absolutely right about how small a niche is the niche for serious critiques of gca. Mr. Weiss sounds a fascinating fellow -- you need one heck of a subtle and diverse mind to produce that interdisciplinary range of experimental performance art! Ha -- I'm chuckling at the thought of what he might do with a small bit of turf from a C&C course and a lock of Ben Crenshaw's hair, as it relates to the concept of par! But before you posted, I was thinking along much more 'main stream' lines. Earlier tonight and out of the blue I thought: if gca had even one writer who wrote about it like David Foster Wallace did about tennis, we wouldn't have need of this thread at all, nor any of our posts. The truth would be there for all to see, the inherent value of the endeavour self evident. But we don't. We don't have anyone who writes about gca with the insight of an expert, the precision of a scientist, the heart of a poet, and the literary talents of a Willa Cather. There's at least a few courses in the world merit that/that treament.
Peter, I was displaying false modesty, would try for the DG commission if the kitty isn't chump change. The course would not have to be great. I can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. I love DFW, but the tennis book was a stretch, could not finish. Oblivion in the Oblivion story collection has a golf angle.
-
1986?
Tom D,
1986?? Just thinking that the periods outlined by GOLFCLUBATLAS.COM, need to be extended... its time. With minor license I paraphrase the 4 periods first described by Ran:
Pre-1899: Naturalism
1900-1937: Movers and Shapers
1949-1985: The Dark Ages
Present: Manufactured Impact and Profiles in Courage
I don't know the beginnings of your Renaissance Golf Design (as much as 8th St. in TC), but its ethos has been much appreciated helping to lead things out of the Dark Ages... So you pick a date
Steve:
I'm not going to pick a date if you insist on putting "2021" as the close of it :D
Tom D, OK that's cool, how about
1989 - 2019, Big Impacts and Minimalism Profiles in Courage?
Present: Design by Generational Mantra
-
I may be entirely wrong and Tom can chime in if he likes, but I'm guessing he has in fact made money off writing frank course criticism. So much so that he did additional volumes in his CG series. Perhaps its just to fulfill his writing itch, but i'd have to think there was money to be made.
Yes, I've made some money . . . possibly even enough to cover the expenses of seeing those 1500 courses! But there is no way to make a living at it, unless some generous media organization offers to pay you a salary to do it, and even those come with lots of compromises. GOLF Magazine was always very frugal about paying for its architecture editors to actually go see anything, but started allowing developers to pay their expenses, which created some whopping conflicts of interest. GOLF DIGEST did give Ron Whitten a decent travel allowance, but certainly not a blank check.
-
Earlier tonight and out of the blue I thought: if gca had even one writer who wrote about it like David Foster Wallace did about tennis, we wouldn't have need of this thread at all, nor any of our posts. The truth would be there for all to see, the inherent value of the endeavour self evident. But we don't.
Is this really true? Between Tom's writings and those of folks like Brad Klein and Tom Dunne and others - not to mention golf writing's ODGs like Darwin, Wind, Jenkins - I think there are plenty of examples out there of writing about golf courses that yield as nice a mix of pleasure and insight as Wallace's "Federer Both Flesh and Not" or, outside of tennis, "A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again."
I would have loved to read what Wallace thought about golf, but I don't think it would have been overly positive. At any rate it's a disservice to the writers we have, and their craft, to hold them up against DFW.
Perhaps we can mail each of golf writing's best living practitioners a bandana if you think that might help.
-
Tim - no offence intended to any writer or to those you mentioned --all of whom, as I did when I wrote television documentaries, fit their talents into a specific 'format' and tailor those talents to fill specific functions/needs; but DFW was to me one of the finest essayists of all time, and in quoting me you left out the part about what, in my mind, made him so special and so good: that unique/very rare combination of deep insight, careful precision, soulful poetry and sheer literary talent. Yes: I'd like very much to have read DFW writing about golf course architecture; it wasn't a criticism of what we already *have*, it was a longing to read what we currently *don't*, and with DFW never will.
-
Tim - no offence intended to any writer or to those you mentioned --all of whom, as I did when I wrote television documentaries, fit their talents into a specific 'format' and tailor those talents to fill specific functions/needs; but DFW was to me one of the finest essayists of all time, and in quoting me you left out the part about what, in my mind, made him so special and so good: that unique/very rare combination of deep insight, careful precision, soulful poetry and sheer literary talent. Yes: I'd like very much to have read DFW writing about golf course architecture; it wasn't a criticism of what we already *have*, it was a longing to read what we currently *don't*, and with DFW never will.
Should've figured you for a DFW fan--respect.
-
Tim - no offence intended to any writer or to those you mentioned --all of whom, as I did when I wrote television documentaries, fit their talents into a specific 'format' and tailor those talents to fill specific functions/needs; but DFW was to me one of the finest essayists of all time, and in quoting me you left out the part about what, in my mind, made him so special and so good: that unique/very rare combination of deep insight, careful precision, soulful poetry and sheer literary talent. Yes: I'd like very much to have read DFW writing about golf course architecture; it wasn't a criticism of what we already *have*, it was a longing to read what we currently *don't*, and with DFW never will.
Are all of the finest essayists/other writers of all time maximalists like Wallace? Presumably some (read: all) of his peers worked more economically but no less poignantly. It's not an essay, but my all-time favorite short story - "The School," by Donald Barthelme - is less than a thousand words. The impact it makes in such a short amount of time makes it feel like magic. I struggle with brevity/economy in my own writing so perhaps my admiration for that story is in part from jealousy that I can't replicate its effect.
This may seem like a tangent, but I think it connects back to the nature and evolution of GCA criticism. I think we need to push back on this blinkered (IMO) position - everyone who is not Wallace is inferior - and its analogs with regard to our much narrower area of interest. To adopt a title from an opposite of Wallace's, Ernest Hemingway, golf course writing should be concerned with identifying the "Clean, Well-Lighted Place" in the world, communicating why they are so and encouraging their proliferation. The "serious criticism" of high-profile (often not widely accessible) courses is good, but it needs to continue to be supplemented by greater coverage of the Clean Well-Lighted Places.
-
8) The Clean Well lighted place is now Top Golf...
How can there be a larger popular audience for serious criticism when human attention spans are now approaching those of a goldfish? Declining with the electronic media explosion of the 21st century.
See link human-attention-span (https://www.wyzowl.com/human-attention-span/)
-
Tim -
I agree. The quality of the criticism is more important than the style of the writing. The concise and crystal-clear critique can be wonderful -- but in any case (and to get back to Tom's initial post) I'd like it to be 'serious criticism' rather than, say, a 'review' that tends to confuse/conflate "I don't like this" with "This doesn't work".
-
Perhaps we can mail each of golf writing's best living practitioners a bandana if you think that might help.
Wouldn't cost much to send out a handful of bandanas, at most. ;)
The standard of golf writing is not what it used to be, but that is probably because nobody wants to pay for writing anymore. I was re-reading Patric Dickinson's book, A Round of Golf Courses, this week, and his descriptions of courses [and diagrams!] make most of today's pundits look like monkeys at a typewriter. Of course, Dickinson was a poet and a translator of Latin and Greek classics, and a scratch golfer to boot.
-
Totally fair for someone who debuted at 15. I think she's grown enough as a performer that her masterpiece is hopefully ahead of her, and involves that classic formula of Killer Songs + Killer Musicians + Killer Performances All Around.
All else being equal, music is better when that happens.
I don't think that's always true -- an individual with a clear, specific vision of exactly what they want in all aspects of a song can be as good or better than anything else. Of course, I mainly have Brian Wilson in mind when I say that (one of my all-time favorites), and there aren't very many like him in numerous ways. Not that he didn't have an exceptionally talented group of musicians (the Wrecking Crew) to work with, but they were almost like instruments he was playing rather than people adding their own voices to a song.
[/size]On the other hand, Van Morrison is also one of my absolute favorites, and a lot of his work has revolved around collecting a group of talented musicians and letting them just play/improvise along with whatever songs he wrote.
-
I was 27, and that was tongue in cheek. It is absolutely amazing to me that 30+ years later, the book is taken so seriously that Lou Duran is going to doxx me for not spending more time at the Ohio State University Golf Course [the version they blew up!] before giving it a 5. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
.....
I'm certainly not always right, and everything's a matter of opinion, but there is so much bulls**t around the golf business that even a passing glance of the Truth is downright dangerous.
You should do neither. I had to look up the word "doxx" to understand what I supposedly have done to you. It does not much matter to me what you thought about Scarlet. But you are Tom Doak not Harvey Schwartz and your opinions on golf architecture do carry some weight widely. It does matter to me, however, when you call someone a liar for essentially telling the truth.
BTW, Scarlet in 2018 was not that much different than when I played it regularly in the 1970s. The biggest differences are that Nicklaus denuded the site of junk trees, deepened and moved some of the bunkers, and relocated #4 green to the east closer to the lake. The Athletic Department has made it more difficult and expensive for students to play, and it appeared to be in much better playing condition and less busy than when I was a student member (for around $100 annually). I suspect that if you took an hour tour of the course today, you would probably still give it something around a 5. Despite its MacKenzie routing, it is just not your type or style of course.
I am mostly in agreement with your last sentence. Approaching "the Truth" is only dangerous if we take ourselves too seriously and react badly when our personal views are challenged. I am fortunate in that my tastes of golf architecture are eclectic and have no expectations that anything done by humans can approach perfection.
-
Don Mahaffey made a post in the Sweetens Cove thread that I thought deserved a topic of its own. Here it is:
The challenge for all modern cult classics with followings built on social media and the internet is sooner or later they will become the subject of a real critique. Wolf Point may be in that group and while I love the golf course and what we did, it’s never really been the subject of serious criticism like all the greats. Sweaters, WP9, WP...all deserve real study to back up the hype. I happen to believe that one or two can withstand it, but maybe not all will survive and come out on the other side ranked as high.
This post made me smile because it raised several questions simultaneously:
1. Is there really much "serious criticism" of golf architecture?
2. What are the other "cult courses" Don left out?
3. The importance [or not] of rankings generally, because he did go there at the end of his post.
So, here goes my response. Apologies if it gets a bit long.
1. I'll keep this part short. There is not a lot of serious criticism of golf architecture. There certainly isn't in the golf magazines: they don't want to offend anybody. This web site is supposedly a leading source of such criticism, but its founder never says writes anything critical. I used to do some, but I get attacked as "biased" half the time I try nowadays. No one has picked up the mantle, as far as I have seen.
3. The magazines use rankings as a proxy for criticism, because they can't be bothered to write a long form piece about design. Most people fall into that same trap, which might be why Don fell back on talking about rankings in the end . . . plus his and Mike's work at Wolf Point has now been "validated" by a ranking, so he now believes they are important.
Rankings are pretty important WITHIN THE GOLF BUSINESS. Golf courses advertise off the back of them; once you've been ranked you can advertise it forever, even if your course was removed years ago. Designers whose courses are ranked can charge much more to future clients for fees, in theory anyway. They can make or break careers, even though getting a ranking is no guarantee of business success, for a golf course or for a designer.
And, let's face it, rankings are trash. They are the carefully assembled and collated opinions of a bunch of anonymous guys who think they know something. When I was a freshman at MIT, there was an acronym for that: GIGO.
[To all my panelist friends, this is not a personal attack; I was once in the same place, fighting valiantly to make the system better. If you really want to contribute, start asking, why are all these other guys on this panel? What do they know?]
I'll tackle the cult courses in a separate post.
Tom,
I started a thread, which I hoped would be an honest attempt at judging the merits of certain work that was happening in the UK:
https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,67394.msg1610859.html#msg1610859
To this day, it's the thread that sticks in my mind the most, and the one that more people reached out to me about than any other.
There's so much more I'd like to criticise in the UK, but there are a few brutal truths on why I maybe don't:
- It doesn't feel good. I'm a pretty happy and upbeat person in general. I take 0 pleasure in bashing others or their work. I appreciate some will get a twisted satisfaction (particularly on social media) in calling out others, but I've always tried to encourage the good.
To this point, an example would be the new par-3 at Royal Liverpool, and the work in general that is being done at the course. I think it needs more serious criticism as Don mentions, and behind closed doors, people are having these conversations. But it doesn't feel good to blast the club on GCA (or even privately) when you're friends with members. Not because you're worried about an invite, but because you know what the course means to them. I would probably be disappointed if someone came on here and said North Berwick was a pile of crap.
- I also get nervous when calling out work as I know I'm not an expert. To Blake's point - am I jumping from 1 to 4, or can I appreciate why something was done the way it was? I know I can't to the same level that Clyde J can (for example). I don't feel ashamed about that.
I would love to have more serious criticism as long as it was taken in the right way. I know others in the UK are hesitant to seriously criticise the work being done here because they have skin in the game, and I get that. But it feels like no one else is picking up the baton as you say.
I'll leave with one example: Dumbarnie. It's a perfect example of lacking serious criticism. Everything I've seen on social media and in magazines is glowing about the place. But behind the scenes there are conversations that are much more critical. It's not to say it's terrible, and far from it. But now, if one bad thing is written about a course, it becomes the focal point rather than the 10+ good things that were written. It's like when you get asked at an interview what your weaknesses are. Everyone bullshits it knowing full well what their weaknesses are, but if you're too honest, you get marked down. So why ask in the first place?
-
Maybe I don't fully understand the reason for criticism. I always thought criticism exists for two main reasons. First, criticism is a personal exploration. Earnest critics delve into their subjects because they are interested. The critic gains a better understanding of the subject by going through their process which when at least partially complete will be presented to others. Which leads to the second reason, guiding others. The style of criticism can range from factual to lyrical. This doesn't matter nearly as much as being honest. There is no point in expressing a dishonest opinion or suppressing an honest opinion...if you are a critic.
As has been pointed out previously, there is virtually no platform, money or future career prospects in proper criticism of golf courses. Maybe things are on the turn with podcasting. I am waiting for narrated drone work to be used as a tool for public criticism. I can definitely see this as a possibility in conjunction with podcasting.
Tim, I get your point about critism. It is easy to get led down rabbit holes which are usually pointless. I miss Ian Andrew on this site because I knew an in depth exchange with him would lead to better things. But I never worry if folks don't like my favourite courses. In the end I hope to be entertained and learn something thru the discussion.
Ciao
-
Tim, I get your point about critism. It is easy to get led down rabbit holes which are usually pointless. I miss Ian Andrew on this site because I knew an in depth exchange with him would lead to better things. But I never worry if folks don't like my favourite courses. In the end I hope to be entertained and learn something thru the discussion.
Ciao
Sean-I was happy to see that Ian posted on the Cherry Hill thread yesterday replete with some photos. I missed him as well as a fan of his restoration work and writings. He’s got quite a body of work that some may be unaware of.
-
I've been away from GCA since this "criticism" driven thread and other's started days ago. Busy at my day, and night, job of building golf. And every day that I get to do that I am indescribably grateful to earn a living working in the dirt with others building golf. So I always feel a little hypocritical if I start to criticise the very business that affords me that living.
I've read Blake's very well written post in reply to my "emotion" driven theme of criticism, or maybe not criticism, but simply the liking or disliking of the golf experience on a given course. And while I haven't read every word on this thread and the others that it has spawned, I've yet to see anyone really describe why we like what we like. And maybe that's the way it should be as I just don't know how you bring empirical thoughts into something you feel. I know we try, and I know it's done in the various arts by experts, but I play golf; I look at paintings and listen to music. Landscape and building architecture is a little more participatory than just observation as one experiences the look and the spaces, but no art I know of involves the critic as much as golf architecture. And my game is different than yours.
So I could go on the Streamsong thread and say, #7 feels awkward to me, but I want to play it, and what sense does that make? I don't like how the routing works in that part of the course, but I like very much that the green complex doesn't work as predictable as so many in golf think things should. I like courses that have bad bounces, and that's probably the biggest difference I have with most who build golf as eliminating the bad bounce seems to be at the top of so many lists. You can give me a checklist of steps or qualities I'm supposed to follow or look for, and I doubt bad bounce is going to be on it, at least on the plus side.
So when Blake and Peter and I had our little run of name dropping threads, and I brought up the quote "educate the creativity out" that is sort of what I was trying to get at. We spend so much time planning and building and finishing and maintaining assuring it all works, but some of the best doesn't. Explain that.
The first time I played #7 at the blue, I didn't like the how it fit in the flow of holes, it made me a little anxious....thinking WTF Tom, but the setting was nice, and the company too as we waited. Then I hit what seemed like a great shot, and it hit the green and ended up in the water. And I said I'll get you next time you SOB. I don't want Tom to fix the hole, I want to play it until I get my fair share of good bounces.
Golf holes with no uncertainty are dull, and making them appear hazardous while building concave shapes to protect golfers in the name of fun is the most boring golf of all.
-
The first time I played #7 at the blue, I didn't like the how it fit in the flow of holes, it made me a little anxious....thinking WTF Tom, but the setting was nice, and the company too as we waited. Then I hit what seemed like a great shot, and it hit the green and ended up in the water. And I said I'll get you next time you SOB. I don't want Tom to fix the hole, I want to play it until I get my fair share of good bounces.
Golf holes with no uncertainty are dull, and making them appear hazardous while building concave shapes to protect golfers in the name of fun is the most boring golf of all.
Hi Don:
I will post something about #7 here and hope it does not interrupt people from posting about it on the Streamsong Blue thread.
From the first time I set foot at Streamsong, our client Rich Mack pointed over the lake at the green site for #7 and said, "What about a hole playing over to there?" Bill Coore pointedly did not have a hole there on any of this routings, though he did have what became #16 Red at the end of the lake, to a green site that was not so obvious to me or to Rich Mack.
When Bill and I did the 36-hole plan, we had the 7th Blue as a short par-3 along the tee side of the lake, not playing across. I don't think either of us really loved that idea; it might even have been one of the things that helped Bill choose to build the Red course instead. I was concerned we'd have to do something that took away from 15 Red, and then on top of that, The Mosaic Company was concerned about the safety of golfers being on the slopes of the big lake, which were not 100% stable. [When we worked near any of the lakes, the guy in the dozer had to have a life preserver.] I was really not excited about building a hole where you missed the green right, and found a sign saying you weren't allowed to go hit it.
Once it was determined we would build the Blue course, I had all of my associates down to do a walk-through, and when we looked at #7, Brian Schneider asked why I hadn't gone across the lake instead? Honestly, no one had ever looked at the green site from the current tee . . . Rich Mack had always been looking at it straight across from the line of the forward tee, which was not a good hole, and I had just dismissed the idea of a green over there. Plus of course didn't fit well into the routing.
But from the angle of the current blue tee, the scale of the hole reminded me of the 9th at Yale, and if we cleaned up the shoulder of dune that came in front of the green on the right, it wasn't an impossible carry for most golfers. It was a way more appealing option than the problematic short par-3 on the near side, apart from the walk back over the bridge. So, I suggested it to Rich Mack, knowing he would jump at it. And people sure seem to like taking photos of it.
The green is more difficult than I intended, or realized. There was a lot of slope from left to right and front to back, and Eric took a dozer over there three different times to soften it, but it's still nasty. If Mike Keiser owned the place, we'd have changed it last year when they re-grassed all of the greens [if not before then], but we've discussed it more than once and the client has always been in favor of leaving it nasty. :)
-
Tim, I get your point about critism. It is easy to get led down rabbit holes which are usually pointless. I miss Ian Andrew on this site because I knew an in depth exchange with him would lead to better things. But I never worry if folks don't like my favourite courses. In the end I hope to be entertained and learn something thru the discussion.
Ciao
Sean-I was happy to see that Ian posted on the Cherry Hill thread yesterday replete with some photos. I missed him as well as a fan of his restoration work and writings. He’s got quite a body of work that some may be unaware of.
Great to know that Ian may be back. His blog is so informative.
Ira
-
If there's value in our geekdom, it's that we might be just a little more willing to dig into what actually creates architectural appeal. The traveling retail golfer sees it, and consumes it. He sees it at Augusta, Sawgrass, Tobacco Road, and even locally at a place like Henry County CC that every golfer in Kentucky this side of Mayhugh loves, even though it's a $30 course that just looks like a rolling bit of farm land with a Doak 2 slapped down on it. There's SOMETHING that makes it different from the rest of the $30 farmland courses scattered around the state, and I don't totally understand it, but it's clearly there when I talk to golfers, or register months in advance to ensure I get a spot in their fast-filling 144-person Invitational.
Serious criticism, to me, is seeking to understand that appeal. We spend too much time prescribing what should be appealing, and then complaining that the average player just doesn't get it. I think that more often means that WE aren't getting it.
"Everyone in Kentucky likes it" therefore it has architectural merit is not a conclusion I would agree with. The popularity you refer to could be due to hospitality (first rate), price (cheap), or course design. I'm sorry that I did not succumb to the charms of the course as you did. I can accept that it appeals to some (maybe even many), but not that discussion of its design justifies more than a brief thread. There's little on the ground that needs to be copied or isn't executed better elsewhere.
Hey man, I don't hold it against you. I wish we'd had a little more downtime at this year's Mashie to talk through some of what we see differently out there, keeping it as brief as the course warrants. It's not in my canon by any means, but I grew up playing the Longviews, Wild Turkey Traces, Duckers Lakes, and Coal Ridges of the world. Weissinger Hills might have been the nicest course I had ever played when I first saw it about age 20. Kearney Hill blew my mind a few months later.
I probably have more of an appetite than most to dive into the nuances of a pasture links, but hell, I spent the first 15 years of my golf life playing nothing else, with people who played nothing else. A few guys at the Mashie thought I overrate Lawsonia too, but it's just about the pinnacle of that variety of golf that I love so much and I've accepted that I think it's the best course in Wisconsin. I first learned of it the same way I first heard of HCCC - through the mouths of local retail golfers I met at the munis of Madison who insisted it was a great place to play.
My wife got real fired up about the literary canon last week, and at some point during a two hour debate about whether anyone should ever care about an old white guy's opinion or not (her arguments have a horrifying way of time traveling into the future), she actually brought up The Old Course to be like "Just because you and your golf nerd friends think that place is so awesome doesn't mean it's any better than some course you'd never give a crap about because it's not as fancy." So then I tried to explain that it in some ways has more in common with the unfancy courses than the fancy ones, and that it's basically the answer to every architectural question, and that those things do sort of make the case that it occupies a unique place of influence and relatability that make it canonical. And then I wondered aloud whether Dannebrog is canonical and she told me to shut up about the place with the damn cows already.
And of course, she also added "And don't even get me started on that Sawgrass piece of shit again!"
I don't know what my point is. I guess it's that I hate The Great Gatsby, but I do think there's value in everybody reading it because it gives me a nice barometer. When someone says "I like Fitzgerald" I immediately know "That's someone whose opinion I should not plan my reading list around."
I think you should definitely stop at Dannebrog on a trip to the Sandhills if you haven't already. It's useful that when I say that, you know you shouldn't, right?
Jason,
We should make sure that our wives do not team up—we would end up on the short of the stick. Mine is not as quite as opposed to the idea that some courses are just simply in a league of their own, but she does not react well when I ask, “Don’t you remember this course or that hole?” On the other hand, she did love Brora and the sheep.
I was not a lit major, but I do remember discussions comparing works by the same author perhaps not so much about better or worse but about evolution of thinking/style. And your Fitzgerald reference strikes home. I believe Gatsby to be a strong political statement but not a great work of art. On the other hand, I found Tender is the Night to be beautifully written. My inchoate point about Gca criticism: comparisons across courses by the same architect is worthwhile so long as analysis is stated. Perhaps that is what we will get if Tom Doak continues his threads about his courses.
Ira
-
I don't think that's always true -- an individual with a clear, specific vision of exactly what they want in all aspects of a song can be as good or better than anything else. Of course, I mainly have Brian Wilson in mind when I say that (one of my all-time favorites), and there aren't very many like him in numerous ways. Not that he didn't have an exceptionally talented group of musicians (the Wrecking Crew) to work with, but they were almost like instruments he was playing rather than people adding their own voices to a song.
On the other hand, Van Morrison is also one of my absolute favorites, and a lot of his work has revolved around collecting a group of talented musicians and letting them just play/improvise along with whatever songs he wrote.
Hi Edward.
Just a brief response to indicate I read your remarks. Yeah, the Beatles and Steely Dan are two more examples of artists who used the studio to perfect their work. The first Beatles album was completed in a day, whereas their last, Abbey Road, took six months. Some carefully produced work is very successful, and some (especially with pop songs trying to be hit songs) sounds overproduced and lifeless.Like you, I am a big fan of Van Morrison. Van takes his new songs on the road and refines the best ones. Over the course of a full career, the people who keep writing songs and cranking out new albums tend to get more interesting things done.Making a half-hearted attempt to relate this to golf, having a little quirk in a golf course — a few unexpected features and "imperfections" you wouldn't expect — makes me like a course more. Unless the odd feature impacts drainage. Like Don Mahaffey wrote recently, bad bounces are a good, natural thing.P.S. I am so tired of having to insert extra carriage returns to try and get these posts to format correctly. Anybody know what I'm missing? This has been going on for years. Is there some trick to getting my paragraphs to separate with less than three returns? In this case, I couldn't get it to format properly with a number of approaches.
-
John,
If you want your text to look like this.
With only 1 line of space in between lines.
Select the entire text of your post as shown, go to Font Size found above, and set it to 10.
Kalen
(https://i.imgur.com/Je2e9AO.jpg)
-
Kalen,
That doesn't work.
The issue is not the font size.
The issue is spacing between paragraphs.
This was written using the return key twice between sentences.
If I want to have the paragraphs spaced properly, I have to hit the return key three times.
In some cases like the last post, nothing worked to separate the paragraphs.
-
John,
That's certainly very odd. If I only do one carriage return, it correctly puts no space between my lines, but if I do 2 carriage returns it will appear as if I did 3. Selecting the text and picking a font size will resolve it thou. Perhaps these side effects vary from browser to browser. I always post from the same machine with Chrome on Windows 10.
-
I think Rustic Canyon has dropped in the ratings as it became more and more popular. It was once ranked in the Top 100 Modern but it now rated no. 151. I think it is great and yet GCA has been critical of it. There was a thread about how the seventh hole is not what it once was. I am not a big fan of no. 15 either. I see it as connector hole, but a par 3. So we do need to be critical of our favorite courses in order to see that no course is perfect.
Scott:
I like Rustic Canyon, and this point is not about Rustic Canyon specifically. But, as I posted somewhere earlier -- I think about Cruden Bay -- because the only real discussion of golf courses in the magazines is via rankings, when there is a course that a dedicated following believes to be important, they will just lobby and push and bend arms and do anything they can to get that course into a ranking, to prove its worth and vindicate their strong opinion of it. And once that happens, and they're satisfied, it will often disappear. I can think of lots of courses that fit this pattern. Remember Lehigh?? :D
That's why there are more than 350 courses in Paul Rudovsky's "top 100 ever" list.
Tom--
Just read thru this thread and totally agree with your comment above. Lots of posts on GCA opine about what it takes to be a good rater or have valid opinions. Truth is that with 38,000 golf courses around the world, courses playing very differently in different weather conditions (not to mention course conditions), rounds taking 3-4 hours, a limited # of years/days/hours in one's life to play this silly game and see many courses (or few courses many times)...no one can do it all. Just not enough time to do it...except in one's day dreams. And maybe the impossibility of it all is part of the fascination with it.
So in that sense...the rating "system(s)" do serve a purpose because no one person can come close to doing it all. In terms of great courses played I may have had the greatest breadth...but by definition that means I have that shallowest depth. By having 100 panelists (or 800 or 1500...one can argue forever about which number is right and there is no "right" answer) a "PANEL" can come close to creating width and depth. Of course, that means you are using different biases and outlooks...but like most things in life, that has its +'s and -'s (most things are double edge swords).
So guilty as charged! But those on this site who criticize ratings need to think about what system would be better and would have the wear-with-all to stay around for decades (and one thing I am sure about regarding ratings, is that the quality of them have improved dramatically over these decades...and that the original "pioneers" including you had a near impossible task...finding one's way in fresh snow is very very hard since there are no footprints to follow). But please do continue to criticize...that helps the "system" improve.
-
Paul,
There is no rating panel / system that works. None of them - and I mean none - tell you as much as you would learn from one individual who is well travelled, knowledgeable and who you know well enough to know their biases and what you can trust.
That is why The Confidential Guide works (a lot of people know Tom’s preferences).
That is why Kevin Markham’s “Hooked” is the bible for many people in Ireland. Kevin posts on here occasionally and would admit himself that he does not have an intimate knowledge of “design”. But he knows and loves his golf courses, is clear about what and why he loves certain courses and this allows a vast swathe of the population to follow his recommendations. It is the go-to book for a huge number.... I keep on threatening Kevin that I will write a book called “Sliced” to give a few different views in the same format. Might kill my career though!
-
There is no rating panel / system that works. None of them - and I mean none - tell you as much as you would learn from one individual who is well travelled, knowledgeable and who you know well enough to know their biases and what you can trust.
Ally,
Isn't it an opinion that a well traveled group of golfers opinions, isn't as good as your own preference? In today's day and age of big data, why discount the large amount of ratings of a critical mass of people against a certain criteria? You may not agree, and others on this board would agree with you as well (maybe myself included), however preferences/opinions are gathered today and sold as information to dial in what consumers want. As biased as we may critique the population opinion (cumulative rating panels) vs. the GCA sample population their viewpoint still exists.
-
Paul,
There is no rating panel / system that works. None of them - and I mean none - tell you as much as you would learn from one individual who is well travelled, knowledgeable and who you know well enough to know their biases and what you can trust.
That is why The Confidential Guide works (a lot of people know Tom’s preferences).
That is why Kevin Markham’s “Hooked” is the bible for many people in Ireland. Kevin posts on here occasionally and would admit himself that he does not have an intimate knowledge of “design”. But he knows and loves his golf courses, is clear about what and why he loves certain courses and this allows a vast swathe of the population to follow his recommendations. It is the go-to book for a huge number.... I keep on threatening Kevin that I will write a book called “Sliced” to give a few different views in the same format. Might kill my career though!
I tend to agree with you Ally. I rarely use any magazine/online panel to inform me. I use guys whose opinion I trust (and some are probably panelists), but one isn't enough. As Paul noted, no one person is best placed for most areas.
I have never really bought into large panels because the larger the group the harder it is to maintain quality control. What probably needs to happen is for panels to be rebuilt/restructured and the the lists of considered courses to be rethought.
Ciao
-
I find Top100 Courses useful not so much for the order of rankings but because the reviewers are identified by name and write at least a paragraph or two about the course. Many of them are well traveled at least in a region so one can get a sense of their preferences to compare to my own. The actual rankings process is too opaque which is too bad because the lead(s) for countries/regions include some posters here.
Ira
-
There is no rating panel / system that works. None of them - and I mean none - tell you as much as you would learn from one individual who is well travelled, knowledgeable and who you know well enough to know their biases and what you can trust.
Ally,
Isn't it an opinion that a well traveled group of golfers opinions, isn't as good as your own preference? In today's day and age of big data, why discount the large amount of ratings of a critical mass of people against a certain criteria? You may not agree, and others on this board would agree with you as well (maybe myself included), however preferences/opinions are gathered today and sold as information to dial in what consumers want. As biased as we may critique the population opinion (cumulative rating panels) vs. the GCA sample population their viewpoint still exists.
Jeff:
What's the phrase about lies, damn lies, and statistics? Big data in the world of subjective ratings is just a bigger pile of garbage. And, don't discount the levers available for gaming the system.
Many of the public do not really know what they want, so their opinions are based on (a) what they think they should say, and (b) whether they enjoyed themselves, which is unfortunately strongly linked to the randomness of how they played that day. This is even true of some raters on the bigger rankings panels. And anything overseen by a corporation has another level of filtering in play. [Have you ever seen a negative word about one of Tiger Woods' designs? --> Is that because they're perfect, or because nobody wants to cross Tiger Woods?]
No single person's opinion is always "right", but an informed person can tell you what you need to know. For example, I might not ever want to play course X again, but I would tell you if I thought you would enjoy it while you were around Aberdeen, as opposed to your other alternatives. [Note that this is the primary use of the "0" rating in The Confidential Guide . . . those are the only courses I would never recommend to anyone.]
-
There is no rating panel / system that works. None of them - and I mean none - tell you as much as you would learn from one individual who is well travelled, knowledgeable and who you know well enough to know their biases and what you can trust.
Ally,
Isn't it an opinion that a well traveled group of golfers opinions, isn't as good as your own preference? In today's day and age of big data, why discount the large amount of ratings of a critical mass of people against a certain criteria? You may not agree, and others on this board would agree with you as well (maybe myself included), however preferences/opinions are gathered today and sold as information to dial in what consumers want. As biased as we may critique the population opinion (cumulative rating panels) vs. the GCA sample population their viewpoint still exists.
Jeff:
What's the phrase about lies, damn lies, and statistics? Big data in the world of subjective ratings is just a bigger pile of garbage. And, don't discount the levers available for gaming the system.
Many of the public do not really know what they want, so their opinions are based on (a) what they think they should say, and (b) whether they enjoyed themselves, which is unfortunately strongly linked to the randomness of how they played that day. This is even true of some raters on the bigger rankings panels. And anything overseen by a corporation has another level of filtering in play. [Have you ever seen a negative word about one of Tiger Woods' designs? --> Is that because they're perfect, or because nobody wants to cross Tiger Woods?]
No single person's opinion is always "right", but an informed person can tell you what you need to know. For example, I might not ever want to play course X again, but I would tell you if I thought you would enjoy it while you were around Aberdeen, as opposed to your other alternatives. [Note that this is the primary use of the "0" rating in The Confidential Guide . . . those are the only courses I would never recommend to anyone.]
Perfect? No. Useful? IMHO I think they are, but not infallible. I don't take the half empty view of the data from raters, I don't believe I'm alone in saying that as we have quite a few on this very DG. To know their bias is to better understand their ratings, some have an agency problem, some just want access, some will never be honest because they don't want to be an outlier. However, some (or many depending on how you survey this landscape) give a well traveled informed opinion on places I have never been. That critical mass of data on a set criteria, albeit subjectively ranked, has value. To hold it to measuring stick that is either 100% gospel or void of value I think is negating utility for golfers.
My opinion today is more well developed than it was 2, 5, 10 years ago via experience and knowledge gained. I think the rating panels, like the golf mag panel, has improved and hopefully will continue to do so with well traveled opinions.
-
To hold it to measuring stick that is either 100% gospel or void of value I think is negating utility for golfers.
My opinion today is more well developed than it was 2, 5, 10 years ago via experience and knowledge gained.
Fair enough, but for God's sake, let's not turn this into a rankings thread. There are plenty of those.
-
I tried asking this question earlier, but it may have got lost in the other convos.
I look at a list like this, and I don't see what is offensive about it or way off-base. Yes of course not everyone will agree with every last course on the list, but I don't see anything that would rise to the level of having disdain for it.. https://golf.com/travel/courses/golf-top-100-golf-courses-us-2020-2021/
What am I missing?
-
8) Nothing offensive in any way, shape or form. Nice narrative promotional prose and beautiful pictures, and a forced ranking splitting hairs for national discussion.
Perhaps an article on architectural wastelands is in order... :o could that would be serious criticism or just piling on?
after all, golf is a game for most... https://www.golfchannel.com/article/travel-insider/golf-courses-square-mile
-
Perhaps an article on architectural wastelands is in order... :o could that would be serious criticism or just piling on?
after all, golf is a game for most... https://www.golfchannel.com/article/travel-insider/golf-courses-square-mile (https://www.golfchannel.com/article/travel-insider/golf-courses-square-mile)
There are 23 golf courses in Alaska? I thought there were less than ten.
-
Rankings are a dilution of lots of opinions that cancel each other out to the point that no-one can read the “character” or driver behind anyone’s considered argument. And that’s before we get to the other influencing factors.
If I read Sean Arble’s Top-100 GB&I, it will tell me something. If I read Golf World’s Top-100 GB&I, it doesn’t.
-
Adam L has highlighted the idea of ‘the canon’ within literature. The idea seems to have merit within golf too.
Atb
-
Perhaps an article on architectural wastelands is in order... :o could that would be serious criticism or just piling on?
after all, golf is a game for most... https://www.golfchannel.com/article/travel-insider/golf-courses-square-mile (https://www.golfchannel.com/article/travel-insider/golf-courses-square-mile)
There are 23 golf courses in Alaska? I thought there were less than ten.
That was an old link, I see 22 now; have only played 1, Anchorage Golf Course back in 1998, we tee'd it up at like 9:30 PM, they were limiting times to 10:30 due to bears roaming around, feeding. Gives "bear trap" a new perspective...
-
What am I missing?
Owners of the lists.... :)
-
Interesting article in this morning's WSJ that touches on the subject: "Deconstruction, Identity and the Dying Art of Criticism". Two particularly applicable quotes resonated with me- Toni Morrison's "If there were better criticism, there would be better books.", and T.S. Eliot's on the function of the critic as "the common pursuit of true judgement and correction of taste".
On the subject of "canon" in gca, it became fairly obvious to me well over a decade ago that there were several common areas of taste expressed often on this site. Using MacKenzie's list of design principle's as a model, I attempted to come up with the site's dominant preferences/tastes and posted them for consideration.
Of course, opinions on golf architecture are just that- e.g. someone's preference for a tight routing is another's aversion on the grounds of safety, site compromises, clutter, less than peaceful environment, etc. I wasn't thinking of "canon" as used in literature or religion, but was trying to arrive at a set of characteristics that seemed to have wide support on this site.
The response was not encouraging. One, from a then good friend who no longer posts, was representative though particularly negative, arguing that the subject matter was far too wide and varied to be pigeon-holed. Though he was an iconoclast like many here when it came to gca and likely thought highly of MacKenzie, he and others resisted to be tied down to a set of principles or standards in evaluating golf courses.
In my years of analyzing performance, having clear standards/expectations was extremely important. As the Desert Forest thread indicates, two knowledgeable people can look at a piece of work and one sees it as "vandalism" while another as a finest example of its kind. Criticism furthers knowledge if we can get passed our own implicit biases and engage it for reasons other than to show how clever we are. It is also helpful to be able to gauge the opiner's familiarity with his subject matter.
-
What am I missing?
Owners of the lists.... :)
Mike,
Fair enough, but this is about critiquing the actual message, aka the courses that actually exist on the list.... not just shooting the messenger.
I've asked this question a few times now, and I'm curious why no one has taken on actually attempting to critique which course(s) absolutely do not belong and why.
-
I've asked this question a few times now, and I'm curious why no one has taken on actually attempting to critique which course(s) absolutely do not belong and why.
I wouldn't know where to start, because I am honestly not sure what is the purpose of ranking the top 100 courses.
If you were trying to throw a wide net around all of the most original and inspiring pieces of work, there would be room for a course like Tobacco Road or Sweetens Cove, and there would be no need for so many Raynor clones.
So, clearly based on the results, that is not what's being attempted. The ratings committees have expressed a preference for a toned-down version of Mike Strantz with ocean views [MPCC], and they make room for lots of pre-approved templates.
If you tell me what the purpose is, I will tell you which courses do not belong.
-
I've asked this question a few times now, and I'm curious why no one has taken on actually attempting to critique which course(s) absolutely do not belong and why.
I wouldn't know where to start, because I am honestly not sure what is the purpose of ranking the top 100 courses.
If you were trying to throw a wide net around all of the most original and inspiring pieces of work, there would be room for a course like Tobacco Road or Sweetens Cove, and there would be no need for so many Raynor clones.
So, clearly based on the results, that is not what's being attempted. The ratings committees have expressed a preference for a toned-down version of Mike Strantz with ocean views [MPCC], and they make room for lots of pre-approved templates.
If you tell me what the purpose is, I will tell you which courses do not belong.
See Post 182. It seems to be inevitable that we indulge in rankings discussions.
Ira
-
I wonder what serious criticism actually is? When I say I like this course because of X, Y and Z, is that serious criticism? If yes, then there is a lot of it. If no, then what is missing?
Do I need to work for a Magazine? Or should I rather be free of professional interests?
Or does the seriousness of my criticism hinge on the nature of X,Y and Z? If yes, then who gets to define X,Y and Z as valid?
-
Ulrich:
Good question. I don't honestly know what serious criticism is and I don't need to be the guy who defines it.
However, I can say, as a designer I tend to listen more closely when the criticism is not a gripe about something that upended the critic or his buddy. Those sorts of criticisms are TOO serious.
-
Good serious criticism is earnest, balanced and interesting to read. It is generally devoid of malice. Most criticism can be framed in terms of positive observations. The cruel world paradigm of art criticism is dead.
-
It's tough to frame a negative experience in terms of positive observations and still make it clear to an astute reader that it was a bad experience. It's impossible to get it done for casual and/or uneducated readers, as they would typically not have enough experience to read between the lines.
-
As an added point of nuance. When it comes to serious discussion, I often appreciate more the details from sources who either worked on it, or were close by, especially in a before and after type of capacity.
But Ulrich certainly frames the toughest issue, is there any such thing as an objective party in criticsm? Whether its Magazines, Raters, Owners, Designers, great golfers, or just casual players there always seems to be a laundry list of reasons why their motives or background can't be trusted or reliable.
-
Hi Ulrich,
I admit my comment was more of a soundbite, an idea not fully considered.
For example, we can choose to praise courses with good drainage, or generally discuss the importance of good drainage, rather than criticize individual courses for poor drainage, to as great an extent as possible.
But sometimes it makes sense to identify shortcomings based on one's experiences. It seems to be getting harder to do without receiving some form of a defensive response.
With respect to Kalen's recent post, I can't see where having an agenda does me any good. It is in my best interest to be as objective as possible, while being humble about my lack of expertise. I'm here to learn. Not everything in life is some game to be won.
-
With respect to Kalen's recent post, I can't see where having an agenda does me any good. It is in my best interest to be as objective as possible, while being humble about my lack of expertise. I'm here to learn. Not everything in life is some game to be won.
Agreed John,
And I should clarify my last comment in that often times is seems a list of excuses is simply invoked to not trust or listen to so and so... instead of examining, analyzing, and processing the comments on their own merits.
-
If criticism were to be couched in 100% positive language the reader would have to know the critic's style very well. Besides, what is the point of the guess work involved with reading between the lines when something can be stated in a plain and open manner? Is guessing what the critic intends somehow better writing? It's not as if I reread critical opinions of golf courses over and over. I read these pieces to determine if I might want to play the course one day.
Ciao
-
You're right, Sean.
I became more reluctant to share my opinions over the years, mostly due to a couple of detailed analyses I was involved in. After one of these long threads, I was treated differently by a number of people. My primary emotion is that I'm mad about it, and don't want to play this game anymore if people are going to get all bent out of shape. As it stands now, I haven't played golf in 18 months, and haven't seen anything new for years, so I have little to offer anyway.
The mission statement is "Golfclubatlas.com exists to promote frank commentary on golf course architecture". Every time someone with a vested interest tries to disrupt the site from its stated intention, it diminishes the site. Just recently we had an ad hominem response to a rather anodyne observation about a course.
Commercial and professional interests are antithetical to the site's intent. Occasionally they attempt to eliminate forthright analysis when it does not suit them. My question to the moderators is "why don't you do more to discourage this?". One problem is that GCA is now a part of the mainstream, with a number of members in high positions in the architecture and journalistic hierarchy.
You're supposed to be able to offer your opinion here. Sean, maybe it's easier for you to critique British courses because there are fewer Brits on the site, or perhaps Americans are more sensitive to criticism.
-
Something important and indicative happened about 15 years ago (my goodness, time does fly):
Brad Klein wrote his 'open letter' to Tiger Woods, as the latter was embarking on his design career.
I remember even back then being of two minds about it -- how 'prescriptive' it was, even though I liked the prescription.
Then and now, from insightful & influential voices, 'opinions' do tend to sound a lot more like 'rules', if not 'moral imperatives'.
I can't immediately find the letter on-line, but if memory serves, the prescription Brad gave to Tiger Woods was to design courses like Coore & Crenshaw did -- subtle features, lots of room, not requiring Tiger's level of skill to play etc. But preferably public. (I remember thinking that the 'ideal' sounded like a mix of Sand Hills, Rustic Canyon and Pinehurst #2.)
And the stated reason for Brad writing was noteworthy too: it was precisely because, Tiger being Tiger, the golf courses he designed would likely be very 'influential', ie set the stage for what would be considered quality golf course architecture in the years ahead.
In other words, Brad (and Ran, and me, and many/most of us) was saying that there was one kind of 'best' -- ie the kind of golf courses that Donald Ross built, and the kind of architecture that he and the neo-traditionalists favoured. The key concepts were 'strategic' & 'playable' -- which implied width, no forced carries, and little water. (Cutting down all the trees came later.)
Not that I disagreed with any of that, but I have to say it didn't feel all that much like opinion -- it felt like 'truth'. And that letter 15 or so years ago has proven quite the influence on & reflection of our times.
-
You're right, Sean.
I became more reluctant to share my opinions over the years, mostly due to a couple of detailed analyses I was involved in. After one of these long threads, I was treated differently by a number of people. My primary emotion is that I'm mad about it, and don't want to play this game anymore if people are going to get all bent out of shape. As it stands now, I haven't played golf in 18 months, and haven't seen anything new for years, so I have little to offer anyway.
The mission statement is "Golfclubatlas.com exists to promote frank commentary on golf course architecture". Every time someone with a vested interest tries to disrupt the site from its stated intention, it diminishes the site. Just recently we had an ad hominem response to a rather anodyne observation about a course.
Commercial and professional interests are antithetical to the site's intent. Occasionally they attempt to eliminate forthright analysis when it does not suit them. My question to the moderators is "why don't you do more to discourage this?". One problem is that GCA is now a part of the mainstream, with a number of members in high positions in the architecture and journalistic hierarchy.
You're supposed to be able to offer your opinion here. Sean, maybe it's easier for you to critique British courses because there are fewer Brits on the site, or perhaps Americans are more sensitive to criticism.
John
I have received an earful from folks now and again and I admit the grief did make me tone down my comments somewhat, but I am still honest. I will still do tours of courses even if I think they are very middling...which to be honest is not that often. Though to be fair, I think some people don't like that I have clear cut differences in my approach when it comes to best and favourite. I have never felt comfortable with the idea of best lists because as many people have pointed out, its a bit of a dopey concept. Plus, best lists leads to the same courses being discussed over and over...after a while its fairly dull.
I don't notice nearly as much sensitivity about courses these days on GCA.com. I get the impression that most of those who get angry about this stuff have left. Maybe people realize that for the most part, the context of the courses we discuss is they are nearly all good to great. It is almost impossible not to talk about negative aspects as a way to differentiate between the courses.
Ciao
-
It is almost impossible not to talk about negative aspects as a way to differentiate between the courses.
This has always been the key, to me. If you are talking about a course that's 5 or less on the Doak Scale, you would want to note the things that would make it still worth seeing to some observers. But if you're talking about a course that's a 6 or more, you ought to note the things that would turn off some visitors and make them feel like they'd wasted their money.
-
I have to say it didn't feel all that much like opinion -- it felt like 'truth'. And that letter 15 or so years ago has proven quite the influence on & reflection of our times.
How did it influence anything?
-
It is almost impossible not to talk about negative aspects as a way to differentiate between the courses.
This has always been the key, to me. If you are talking about a course that's 5 or less on the Doak Scale, you would want to note the things that would make it still worth seeing to some observers. But if you're talking about a course that's a 6 or more, you ought to note the things that would turn off some visitors and make them feel like they'd wasted their money.
Tom
I appreciate this approach. When combined with more practical info such as cost, history, club ambience, beauty and location it helps me decide if I want to play the course. A great course, or a historical course or a cheap course are usually not in and of themselves enough of a reason to convince me to visit a course. When you tell me a course is good, in a great setting with a few outstanding, interesting or unusual holes and I then discover the course is £30...I want to play it pronto. If the cost is £200 I am much less keen which means I will usually bide my time and see if the course can be played for a more sensible price. Which essentially means that for there are effectively an unlimited number of courses I might want to see. There is no point in getting hung up on the canon.
Ciao
-
Tom -
in the context of this thread, to me what it influenced was the influencers.
It was indicative of the assuredness with which opinion-makers promote their opinions.
TW was going to do what he did regardless; and Brad I believe went on to restate his same basic message in countless presentations at many courses and to many committees over the years.
The 'open letter' was mostly a clever conceit. But the 'truths' it contained about quality gca and the seeming-certainty that lay behind Brad's missive to the GOAT does seem to have set a tone.
'Indicative of' is probably more accurate than 'influence on'.
-
I have to say it didn't feel all that much like opinion -- it felt like 'truth'. And that letter 15 or so years ago has proven quite the influence on & reflection of our times.
How did it influence anything?
I was thinking along the same lines. And on a related note has any of Tiger's courses had much of an impact on the biz, other than its one more shop to compete against? I rarely see much talk about them here.
-
8) I've noted before that TW's Bluejack Nat'l. in Magnolia, TX is built upon the bones of C&C's (#1-12) & Mr. Bkake's (#13-18) holes at the Blaketree Nat'l course site, reusing routings, reversing some holes, adding some new holes. So he perhaps did heed Brad Klein's advise to be like C&C and use their models there... with his own thoughts added. too bad Blaketree didn't have the maintenance budget that's there now!
-
Some recent posts by John, Sean, and Peter really made me think about the modern concept of the “review”. What is a critique vs a review?
(Caveat, let’s first dismiss the reviews released by the parties selling the product. A review of a golf course by the person that is selling memberships or tee times doesn’t mean much to me. Lots of consumer avenues these days are pumping marketing as “reviews”.)
That question to me comes down to compensation and intent. Critique’s seem to be reserved for professionals that are giving a professional opinion on the work and the result. Sometimes that is compensated and sometimes not. Reviews seem closer to consumer-driven feedback, often by consumers themselves.
Why is the the difference important? I think it comes down to intent. The intent of a critique is to identify and judge quality. Where I think a review stops short of judgement and merely identifies.
I’ve been writing for an outdoor gear company and in editing we routinely have to measure our judgements. Why? Cause it’s not our job to tell a consumer whether a bike is good or not. But it IS our job to identify the what bike can do, can’t do, and why. That allows us to make a judgement about who the bike is good for. Notice I didn’t say whether it was “good” or not. Perhaps golf course architecture discussion should be similar.
Outside of that, I’ll never understand why people flip out over the identification of negative aspects of a golf course. John, unsurprisingly, hit the nail on the head earlier. He’s been the protagonist on some pretty good threads that went tango uniform once someone saw something they didn’t like about someone else’s opinion. Even in this thread Rob showed up to defend his baby. Why? What does it need defense from? Selling out your tee times for 6 months seems pretty good to me.
Identify and discuss. Explain the what’s and how’s. Seek to inform golf consumers on why one may or may not enjoy the golf holes. I don’t understand why this is so hard.
(Speaking of identification. I’m identifying that posting on an iPad sucks Ran.)
-
Ben's post reminds me of a compliment I wanted to pay both Sean and John K, for the excellent critiques-reviews they've provided here over the years. For me they are both very good at that task: they have the required experience/knowledge, but more importantly they have catholic tastes and dispassionate approaches.
What I mean is: while they have their preferences, they don't look at every course through that same narrow lens, i.e. they review-analyze a course based on *what it actually is* instead of what they themselves want it to be or what it *should be* -- they critique-review a course on its own terms. That's why John can critique Pumpkin Ridge as Pumpkin Ridge, and Stone Eagle as Stone Eagle, and Ballyneal as Ballyneal etc; and it's why Sean can review a Turnberry or Carnoustie as effectively as he can a Cleeve Cloud or a Sherwood Forest.
And then on top of that, both Sean and John are logical-lucid thinkers, not prone to emotional outbursts or angry rhetoric, or even to passionately overwrought expressions of appreciation. They keep things in 'proper perspective' -- an important attribute to have in order to offer "serious criticism" (which, by the way, neither of them equates necessarily with 'criticizing'). I think some of us (and me, as a prime example) often confuse a critique-review with a 'manifesto'.
Truth to be told, I've long thought that this, our very own beloved website, started life more as a manifesto than as a discussion board. Maybe that's the way it *had* to start, the only way it *could* start and grow and flourish. But maybe now, like a teenager turning into an adult, it's having more mature discussions.
-
I just encountered a quote, attributed pretty commonly to Frank Zappa but apparently originated by Martin Mull:
"Talking about music is like dancing about architecture."
It's pretty elegant, and I though I don't think it's entirely agreeable to everyone, I wonder if the question of what constitutes "serious criticism" and what that criticism's function is has something to do with it anyway.
It seems to me that there's some minimum threshold of pleasure that the playing of a golf course must supply in order to create some generalized positive feelings about it among the golfing public. Two particularly important questions follow:
1. What golf courses meet this threshold?
2. What collection of factors comes together to allow a golf course to meet this threshold?
To the extent that a (the?) major goal of criticism is to help advance the art form with which it concerns itself, I have to think that in terms of GCA, providing clear and cogent arguments in favor of answers to the two above questions is crucial.
"Streamsong Red or Streamsong Blue?" is one of the most common GCA debates of the last decade. Part of what makes it spirited and fun to indulge in is its tremendously, almost hilariously low stakes. Both golf courses are, in absolute terms, superb, so the expression of a preference for Red over Blue or (in my case) Blue over Red comes down to some irreconcilable, individual mix of reactions to the way the courses interact with certain (mostly aesthetic in nature) biases golfers have.
Because the greatness of the courses relative to each other is relatively unimportant, the most important work a critic can do, IMO, is help readers understand that greatness in the context of the greater universe of golf courses. Doing that can inspire readers in a couple important ways that advance the art form. The first is that it will help open-minded golfers become interested in seeing the courses for themselves. The second is to make golfers understand the concepts at play such that they can recognize them at their home courses, and encourage their implement and enhancement where appropriate/feasible.
Academic detachment and attempting to wring "Truth" out of comparisons of objectively excellent pieces may be fine when the criticism has to do with literature or visual arts, but golf course architecture has both interactive and commercial elements that force it to demand a different set of criteria for its criticism.
Ben Sims' analogy of writing about bikes is spot-on. If he's writing about a bike, it should be safe for any reader to assume that the bike might be for them. So it should be not just with golf courses, but the major individual elements that form them. It was sort of fun to read when it first came out, but Pete Wells' takedown of Guy Fieri's restaurant in Times Square from a few years ago seems uglier and uglier as time passes.
-
Because the greatness of the courses relative to each other is relatively unimportant, the most important work a critic can do, IMO, is help readers understand that greatness in the context of the greater universe of golf courses. Doing that can inspire readers in a couple important ways that advance the art form. The first is that it will help open-minded golfers become interested in seeing the courses for themselves. The second is to make golfers understand the concepts at play such that they can recognize them at their home courses, and encourage their implement and enhancement where appropriate/feasible.
Academic detachment and attempting to wring "Truth" out of comparisons of objectively excellent pieces may be fine when the criticism has to do with literature or visual arts, but golf course architecture has both interactive and commercial elements that force it to demand a different set of criteria for its criticism.
Tim:
I'm not sure about your numbered points 1 and 2 . . . it seems like any course we are talking about should meet the first threshold, and #2 is only interesting when there is an unusual factor involved, or when there is a really unique take on one of the other factors [for example, the greens at Pinehurst #2].
But I agree completely with the two paragraphs you posted above. The most important thing is to identify, why would I want to go there? Doing that successfully will compel the reader to consider whether other courses can say the same.
I guess someone was bothered that I brought up drainage at Sweetens Cove, but I actually did so to explore the context of, is it okay for a course to be worth recommending if it might well be soggy when you play it? And I think my take was that it was. I mean, they could have just left the place as a flood plain and not played golf on it, and who would benefit from that? Part of the reason the project was doable was that the drainage issues made the land affordable.
-
The most important thing is to identify, why would I want to go there? Doing that successfully will compel the reader to consider whether other courses can say the same.
I guess someone was bothered that I brought up drainage at Sweetens Cove, but I actually did so to explore the context of, is it okay for a course to be worth recommending if it might well be soggy when you play it? And I think my take was that it was. I mean, they could have just left the place as a flood plain and not played golf on it, and who would benefit from that? Part of the reason the project was doable was that the drainage issues made the land affordable.
I haven't been to Sweetens myself; I would love to see it soon, given both the photos I've seen for years and Rob's stated admiration for Mike Strantz.
As for the extent to which the course can tend to get soggy, I would say that disclosing that fact is part of the due-diligence that someone writing about he course should do. As a future visitor, I'd certainly like to when the course is most likely to be dry and firm and fast, and when it's going to be wetter. When I played Trysting Tree in Corvallis, OR, in 2019, I appreciated head pro Sean Arey showing me a photo from earlier that year when the Willamette River had flooded, which it tends to do when all the snow melts upstream. All that was visible were the course's elevated greens, which I believe Sean said were built to stay above the 100-year flood stage. The rest of the golf course functions to hold that floodwater back from the town. That made me even more impressed with the course.
-
Ben Sims' analogy of writing about bikes is spot-on. If he's writing about a bike, it should be safe for any reader to assume that the bike might be for them. So it should be not just with golf courses, but the major individual elements that form them. It was sort of fun to read when it first came out, but Pete Wells' takedown of Guy Fieri's restaurant in Times Square from a few years ago seems uglier and uglier as time passes.
Clutch observation Tim.
Exploring this a bit further. Generally I believe that the onus is on the reviewer (and the critic too, maybe even more) to review/critique as if there will be those that prefer and those that don’t prefer the thing they’re reviewing. Approaching golf architecture critiques as an objective good vs bad debate is boring and doesn’t serve to identify the qualities of the architecture. As a reader, sure, I can make that distinction. But I think it’s important NOT to make that distinction as a matter of criticism/review.
-
As for the extent to which the course can tend to get soggy, I would say that disclosing that fact is part of the due-diligence that someone writing about the course should do.
I don't know that anyone does that. I only noticed it at SC because I was there in a rainy week and the pro shop addressed it up front. [Good for them.] I'd have never known if I had been there during a drought. But I guess it's not unusual there, so I suspect that some correspondents must have actively suppressed the info in talking about the course. :-X I was quite surprised to find out.
I am trying to think of other well-known courses that have drainage issues like that. I once played Chicago Golf Club when it was sopping wet -- drives plugging in the fairway to where you were lucky to find them -- but they seem to have addressed that. The soil at The Valley Club at Montecito is like pudding during El Nino years, but that's hardly normal conditions in southern California. I've seen a few modern courses that are drained by catch basins, where the water just pools around the catch basins when it rains and doesn't drain off very quickly . . . but not many where you can't recover your ball because the pool is twelve feet across and two feet deep. And Bethpage Black was a rice paddy for its second U.S. Open.
-
Clutch observation Tim.
Exploring this a bit further. Generally I believe that the onus is on the reviewer (and the critic too, maybe even more) to review/critique as if there will be those that prefer and those that don’t prefer the thing they’re reviewing. Approaching golf architecture critiques as an objective good vs bad debate is boring and doesn’t serve to identify the qualities of the architecture. As a reader, sure, I can make that distinction. But I think it’s important NOT to make that distinction as a matter of criticism/review.
Well, almost. I take a lot of flak for having the "0" score as part of The Confidential Guide, but don't you think there are some courses where you wouldn't recommend that anyone bother to play them, if it's not cheap?
-
Clutch observation Tim.
Exploring this a bit further. Generally I believe that the onus is on the reviewer (and the critic too, maybe even more) to review/critique as if there will be those that prefer and those that don’t prefer the thing they’re reviewing. Approaching golf architecture critiques as an objective good vs bad debate is boring and doesn’t serve to identify the qualities of the architecture. As a reader, sure, I can make that distinction. But I think it’s important NOT to make that distinction as a matter of criticism/review.
Well, almost. I take a lot of flak for having the "0" score as part of The Confidential Guide, but don't you think there are some courses where you wouldn't recommend that anyone bother to play them, if it's not cheap?
I don’t remember reading much flak about the Doak 0, but I can only take you at your word. I think the Doak 0 was more of a pejorative for your book thirty years ago and also in what Peter above called the “manifesto” days of GCA. In that way, it served its purpose I suppose. It’s certainly provocative and I think it absolutely makes a point about the art and your opinion of what golf architecture shouldn’t aspire to.
But does the scale really need it? Only you can answer that. As you’re fond of pointing out, other people’s Doak ratings don’t really matter since it’s *your* scale.
Perhaps the existence of the Doak 0 does a pretty good job of explaining what I was trying to explain earlier about the difference between a critique and a review.
-
I don't notice nearly as much sensitivity about courses these days on GCA.com. I get the impression that most of those who get angry about this stuff have left.
Ciao
I agree with this, Sean. An alternate explanation is the dearth of new development, the period of time when a course's financial heath is most precarious.
But yeah, things are a lot mellower on GCA lately. It even seems the number of complaints about seeking access has declined to near nothing, leaving behind the people who like to analyze golf courses. If you came here ten or twenty years ago to make friends and develop golf connections, by now you've surely accomplished your goal. On the other hand, those GCA members with desirable club memberships may have tired of all the requests and hosting.
Ben Sims' analogy of writing about bikes is spot-on. If he's writing about a bike, it should be safe for any reader to assume that the bike might be for them. So it should be not just with golf courses, but the major individual elements that form them. It was sort of fun to read when it first came out, but Pete Wells' takedown of Guy Fieri's restaurant in Times Square from a few years ago seems uglier and uglier as time passes.
I've spent a fair amount of time the last few years hanging out with an informal group of classical music critics and fans. Between the comments I've read there, and the music review books I've collected over the last forty years, I can confirm that music criticism has softened over the years as well. The public's appetite for harsh reviews is waning. I think I know the reason why. Though it happens very slowly, times are actually much tougher than they were fifty years ago. The future looks dim in comparison. Sitting behind a computer and offering a withering critique is less tolerable. People still do it sometimes. If a prominent golf course project opened with water everywhere, flat greens and a ten mile walk around the course, you'd be compelled to identify the offending architecture and exclaim, "that's bullshit."
-
Wells takedown of Guy Fieri’s place was epic, but not in same league as the Per Se review. And in my mind, perfectly okay from a restaurant critic in NYC. There probably are as many restaurants in NYC even with COVID as there are golf courses in the US. People should be able to choose to steer away from ones that a good reviewer disses. Wells always wrote at length about his reasoning.
Ira
-
The public's appetite for harsh reviews is waning. I think I know the reason why. Though it happens very slowly, times are actually much tougher than they were fifty years ago. The future looks dim in comparison. Sitting behind a computer and offering a withering critique is less tolerable. People still do it sometimes. If a prominent golf course project opened with water everywhere, flat greens and a ten mile walk around the course, you'd be compelled to identify the offending architecture and exclaim, "that's bullshit."
Waning hunger for brutal criticism as a symptom of the perceived deteriorating condition of Man is something I had not considered. I think that's really interesting, and probably has some truth to it.
Ira, I understand the position, but I guess I'm a little uncomfortable about the potential for collateral damage from a high-profile public bashing. To what extent should we empower a restaurant critic to potentially affect the livelihoods of the buspeople at the Guy Fieri joint via a devastating (rhetorically and, potentially, financially) review when he could simply decline to write that review and instead submit one of another restaurant he'd recommend?
I will say the Per Se review is a little different than the Fieri one, because at Per Se, Wells was adding his view into a discourse where that restaurant had been regarded as among the very best in the world for several years. By contrast, if I remember correctly, Fieri's place had opened recently, and it seems more like Wells was pouncing on an opportunity to create a bit of a sensation by punching down at a relatively plebeian restaurant. He certainly got more social media action by etherizing Fieri than he would have by propping up, say, an underrated Nepalese joint he'd recently discovered. Is that the highest use of his platform?
Clutch observation Tim.
Exploring this a bit further. Generally I believe that the onus is on the reviewer (and the critic too, maybe even more) to review/critique as if there will be those that prefer and those that don’t prefer the thing they’re reviewing. Approaching golf architecture critiques as an objective good vs bad debate is boring and doesn’t serve to identify the qualities of the architecture. As a reader, sure, I can make that distinction. But I think it’s important NOT to make that distinction as a matter of criticism/review.
Well, almost. I take a lot of flak for having the "0" score as part of The Confidential Guide, but don't you think there are some courses where you wouldn't recommend that anyone bother to play them, if it's not cheap?
I don’t remember reading much flak about the Doak 0, but I can only take you at your word. I think the Doak 0 was more of a pejorative for your book thirty years ago and also in what Peter above called the “manifesto” days of GCA. In that way, it served its purpose I suppose. It’s certainly provocative and I think it absolutely makes a point about the art and your opinion of what golf architecture shouldn’t aspire to.
But does the scale really need it? Only you can answer that. As you’re fond of pointing out, other people’s Doak ratings don’t really matter since it’s *your* scale.
Perhaps the existence of the Doak 0 does a pretty good job of explaining what I was trying to explain earlier about the difference between a critique and a review.
I do remember a bit of a foofaraw about Tom giving the Castle Course a 0 in a version of the Confidential Guide. I think for the sake of consistency in my position my alternative would have been to simply not proffer any review of the course at all, and let that omission speak volumes (I consider that a fair strategy in my own course writing - give more paragraphs/better position in the piece to the courses I liked, don't dwell on the ones I didn't and let the savvy reader understand the implications). But I can't deny that the ensuing debate/drama was interesting to view from afar!
The Castle Course was changed/softened a bit after that review, wasn't it? If so, I suppose it ended up functioning as a sort of the activism that I've supported as a goal of criticism in this day and age.
-
I do remember a bit of a foofaraw about Tom giving the Castle Course a 0 in a version of the Confidential Guide. I think for the sake of consistency in my position my alternative would have been to simply not proffer any review of the course at all, and let that omission speak volumes (I consider that a fair strategy in my own course writing - give more paragraphs/better position in the piece to the courses I liked, don't dwell on the ones I didn't and let the savvy reader understand the implications). But I can't deny that the ensuing debate/drama was interesting to view from afar!
The Castle Course was changed/softened a bit after that review, wasn't it? If so, I suppose it ended up functioning as a sort of the activism that I've supported as a goal of criticism in this day and age.
The course was changed more than "a bit". They took out all the weird little moguls and rough grasses in the middle of the landing areas -- one of the strangest features I've seen anyone build in many years -- and they did work on and around several of the greens.
Regarding the bad review of the Guy Fieri restaurant, I understand being sheepish to cost someone their job in this economy [although nobody seems to mind getting people fired if they ever said something politically incorrect years ago]. That's more like me dumping on a golf course that charged $30 to play and never made any pretense of being great, although presumably Guy's restaurant was doing a fair amount of self-promotion. However, the waiters and buspeople at such an establishment could work at any restaurant in town; pulling your punches about bad food on their behalf is kinda silly.
-
Asides:
Just as 'The Old Course' can provide an answer to every question, so too can 'The Godfather' provide a quote for every situation, eg:
"The Corleone Family Critics don't even have that kind of muscle anymore".
I'm glad criticism's era of sterile viciousness seems just about over, for the moment; I can hardly believe now how seriously some critics took themselves and their work, and how gleefully brutal they thought it necessary to be. And it's hard to believe how much power/influence some of those critics had, and wielded. [If you haven't seen it in a while, watch 'Sweet Smell of Success' for a 1950s version of the corrosiveness of that world.] But if critics no longer have that kind of muscle for ill, neither it seems do they have it for good; the fragmentation of media outlets and the audience likely means we won't soon have another Jon Landau "I have seen rock and roll future and its name is Bruce Springsteen" moment, or see a Pauline Kael able to single-handedly reverse the critical response to 'Bonnie and Clyde'.
I'm not sure if the trade-off is a plus or a minus.
-
the fragmentation of media outlets and the audience likely means we won't soon have another Jon Landau "I have seen rock and roll future and its name is Bruce Springsteen" moment, or see a Pauline Kael able to single-handedly reverse the critical response to 'Bonnie and Clyde'.
It wouldn't matter in golf, anyway, because of the rampant dishonesty. For years, it has bothered me to find that what golf writers and p.r. people and podcasters say about courses "off the record" is radically different than what they will say on the record. Architects, too, for that matter . . . they can be very catty in private!
It took me a few years to understand that one reason The Confidential Guide was so often quoted as "controversial" was that was an easy way for the writer to put something critical about a course they didn't like into print, and then pretend to defend it from my biased essay. Had they actually liked the course, they would never have mentioned my review!
-
the fragmentation of media outlets and the audience likely means we won't soon have another Jon Landau "I have seen rock and roll future and its name is Bruce Springsteen" moment, or see a Pauline Kael able to single-handedly reverse the critical response to 'Bonnie and Clyde'.
It wouldn't matter in golf, anyway, because of the rampant dishonesty. For years, it has bothered me to find that what golf writers and p.r. people and podcasters say about courses "off the record" is radically different than what they will say on the record. Architects, too, for that matter . . . they can be very catty in private!
It took me a few years to understand that one reason The Confidential Guide was so often quoted as "controversial" was that was an easy way for the writer to put something critical about a course they didn't like into print, and then pretend to defend it from my biased essay. Had they actually liked the course, they would never have mentioned my review!
Well, that really brings this thread back full circle, doesn't it?
A very good thread, with lots of insightful posts and nuances and perspectives.
But re: your initial "serious criticism" question, it does indeed seem to come down to a basic fundamental, i.e.
Being honest, in all that you write and say.
-
The public's appetite for harsh reviews is waning. I think I know the reason why. Though it happens very slowly, times are actually much tougher than they were fifty years ago. The future looks dim in comparison. Sitting behind a computer and offering a withering critique is less tolerable. People still do it sometimes. If a prominent golf course project opened with water everywhere, flat greens and a ten mile walk around the course, you'd be compelled to identify the offending architecture and exclaim, "that's bullshit."
Waning hunger for brutal criticism as a symptom of the perceived deteriorating condition of Man is something I had not considered. I think that's really interesting, and probably has some truth to it.
Ira, I understand the position, but I guess I'm a little uncomfortable about the potential for collateral damage from a high-profile public bashing. To what extent should we empower a restaurant critic to potentially affect the livelihoods of the buspeople at the Guy Fieri joint via a devastating (rhetorically and, potentially, financially) review when he could simply decline to write that review and instead submit one of another restaurant he'd recommend?
I will say the Per Se review is a little different than the Fieri one, because at Per Se, Wells was adding his view into a discourse where that restaurant had been regarded as among the very best in the world for several years. By contrast, if I remember correctly, Fieri's place had opened recently, and it seems more like Wells was pouncing on an opportunity to create a bit of a sensation by punching down at a relatively plebeian restaurant. He certainly got more social media action by etherizing Fieri than he would have by propping up, say, an underrated Nepalese joint he'd recently discovered. Is that the highest use of his platform?
Clutch observation Tim.
Exploring this a bit further. Generally I believe that the onus is on the reviewer (and the critic too, maybe even more) to review/critique as if there will be those that prefer and those that don’t prefer the thing they’re reviewing. Approaching golf architecture critiques as an objective good vs bad debate is boring and doesn’t serve to identify the qualities of the architecture. As a reader, sure, I can make that distinction. But I think it’s important NOT to make that distinction as a matter of criticism/review.
Well, almost. I take a lot of flak for having the "0" score as part of The Confidential Guide, but don't you think there are some courses where you wouldn't recommend that anyone bother to play them, if it's not cheap?
I don’t remember reading much flak about the Doak 0, but I can only take you at your word. I think the Doak 0 was more of a pejorative for your book thirty years ago and also in what Peter above called the “manifesto” days of GCA. In that way, it served its purpose I suppose. It’s certainly provocative and I think it absolutely makes a point about the art and your opinion of what golf architecture shouldn’t aspire to.
But does the scale really need it? Only you can answer that. As you’re fond of pointing out, other people’s Doak ratings don’t really matter since it’s *your* scale.
Perhaps the existence of the Doak 0 does a pretty good job of explaining what I was trying to explain earlier about the difference between a critique and a review.
I do remember a bit of a foofaraw about Tom giving the Castle Course a 0 in a version of the Confidential Guide. I think for the sake of consistency in my position my alternative would have been to simply not proffer any review of the course at all, and let that omission speak volumes (I consider that a fair strategy in my own course writing - give more paragraphs/better position in the piece to the courses I liked, don't dwell on the ones I didn't and let the savvy reader understand the implications). But I can't deny that the ensuing debate/drama was interesting to view from afar!
The Castle Course was changed/softened a bit after that review, wasn't it? If so, I suppose it ended up functioning as a sort of the activism that I've supported as a goal of criticism in this day and age.
Tim,
Actually the restaurant reviews for NYC have boosted many off the beaten path restaurants. Pre-COVID (and let’s hope soon post-COVID), several publications provided at least 250 word reviews of restaurants around the city on a regular basis. But as it relates to Gca, NYC does indeed support in one way or another probably 15000 restaurants because residents and visitors need to eat every day. No one needs to play golf every day, but real reviews (positive and negative) versus rankings would still be beneficial for golf.
Ira
-
the fragmentation of media outlets and the audience likely means we won't soon have another Jon Landau "I have seen rock and roll future and its name is Bruce Springsteen" moment, or see a Pauline Kael able to single-handedly reverse the critical response to 'Bonnie and Clyde'.
It wouldn't matter in golf, anyway, because of the rampant dishonesty. For years, it has bothered me to find that what golf writers and p.r. people and podcasters say about courses "off the record" is radically different than what they will say on the record. Architects, too, for that matter . . . they can be very catty in private!
It took me a few years to understand that one reason The Confidential Guide was so often quoted as "controversial" was that was an easy way for the writer to put something critical about a course they didn't like into print, and then pretend to defend it from my biased essay. Had they actually liked the course, they would never have mentioned my review!
Well, that really brings this thread back full circle, doesn't it?
A very good thread, with lots of insightful posts and nuances and perspectives.
But re: your initial "serious criticism" question, it does indeed seem to come down to a basic fundamental, i.e.
Being honest, in all that you write and say.
I wonder if some might view diplomacy (ability to hold one’s tongue when it might be wise to do so) as a form of dishonesty/ disingenuousness. Honesty is a virtue, to be sure. I’m also glad my wife doesn’t *always* tell me what she thinks of me every time I do or say something foolish.
-
Tim,
Actually the restaurant reviews for NYC have boosted many off the beaten path restaurants. Pre-COVID (and let’s hope soon post-COVID), several publications provided at least 250 word reviews of restaurants around the city on a regular basis. But as it relates to Gca, NYC does indeed support in one way or another probably 15000 restaurants because residents and visitors need to eat every day. No one needs to play golf every day, but real reviews (positive and negative) versus rankings would still be beneficial for golf.
Ira
Hi Ira,
It seems to me the ultimate triumph for a professional critic (or reviewer) is to find that hidden gem, be it music or food or golfing experience. It is the greatest contribution a critic can make to society. Having early knowledge of something new and special bestows a certain credibility on a person. It's worth a lot.
Tom and all,
We've talked about Bill James being a primary inspiration of this type of popular criticism. It occurred to me this week that Roger Ebert preceded James by a few years, and is perhaps just as influential to this modern culture of "recreational analysis". Gene Siskel was excellent, too, but I always though Ebert was the brightest star of the great duo. Before I was buying Baseball Abstracts (first one in 1982), my Dad had clued me in to Siskel & Ebert at the Movies on PBS, and I was watching them regularly by the late seventies.
-
John,
One of the reasons I enjoy NYC restaurant reviews even though we do not live there is that finding the gem is so much more possible in such a great food city.
Your reference to Roger Ebert is completely on point. An extremely thoughtful critic. Plus he was completely unpretentious—he used to spend time at a bar in Lincoln Park where he could care less if anyone knew who he was and never expected anyone to pick up his tab.
Ira
-
No one needs to play golf every day, but real reviews (positive and negative) versus rankings would still be beneficial for golf.
Ira
I agree with you. However, I don't know how such reviews would ever gain any significant audience.
I think the vast majority of golfers that do any reading about the game at all do it in the form of the golf magazines (Golf Digest, Golf, Golfweek, et al.). Those magazines have a vested interest in avoiding any serious negative commentary about a course, because that could cut off a revenue source in the form of ad buys. They just don't have much reason to engage in that type of commentary. A golf architecture critic could self-publish, or create a website where they post their reviews (and those websites exist), but they're unlikely to ever garner a large audience that way.
Most of the other types of criticism that have been discussed here exist in newspapers or other publications/mediums that allow for frank criticism in a way the major golf publications do not, because they're not so reliant on what's being criticized for revenue.
I suppose that leads to a follow-up of whether the overall reach even matters, though. Does it really make a difference if such criticism is limited to a small niche and thus is never heard by the majority of golfers as long as it exists for the people who want it?
-
I suppose that leads to a follow-up of whether the overall reach even matters, though. Does it really make a difference if such criticism is limited to a small niche and thus is never heard by the majority of golfers as long as it exists for the people who want it?
No, it doesn't. My first attempt was for an audience of forty!
The more disturbing part is that the stuff in the mainstream is so misleading.
-
the fragmentation of media outlets and the audience likely means we won't soon have another Jon Landau "I have seen rock and roll future and its name is Bruce Springsteen" moment, or see a Pauline Kael able to single-handedly reverse the critical response to 'Bonnie and Clyde'.
It wouldn't matter in golf, anyway, because of the rampant dishonesty. For years, it has bothered me to find that what golf writers and p.r. people and podcasters say about courses "off the record" is radically different than what they will say on the record. Architects, too, for that matter . . . they can be very catty in private!
Tom--
As a member of the writing class, I understand this perspective but I'm not sure it's quite this black-and-white.
You may be relying on an assumption that what a writer says off the record both 1) is a truer take and 2) would ultimately be a more useful take to the public than what he or she ends up writing on the record. I'm not certain that is always the case (I grant it probably is sometimes). A short, searing off-the-record take might well be the product of a knee-jerk reaction that the taker ultimately finds a little overheated in hindsight when the time comes to actually say something cogent and public about the course.
In your own conversations with people about golf courses, have you ever felt as though some of them might be trying to play your game a little bit, turning the rhetorical heat up a notch or two on their true opinion of a course as a product of their interpretation of your style in the Confidential Guide? I don't know if that's true in practice, but if there's a kernel of truth to it, it might make certain off-the-record takes less than completely authentic. It's human nature to be eager to impress people we respect and whom we see as experts on something we're passionate about. Perhaps some of that is at play sometimes?
I think there's another general reason why the off-the-record takes can sound different from the on-the-record dispatch. The off-the-record hot take is ephemeral and disposable in the way a tweet is. That doesn't necessarily make it unreliable, but the brevity of it also usually doesn't make it complete, either. It's also more likely to be grounded in personal opinion/biases in a way that the longer-form piece probably shouldn't be, at least not as much. I have written about golf courses I don't personally love several times, but for reasons I've given previously in this thread, I have a bit of a philosophical problem with letting them infect my writing too much, because I know that many people authentically do enjoy them, and that dissuades me from wholesale dismissals. Person-to-person conversation and public writing are fundamentally different forms of communication. It doesn't surprise me that there isn't complete overlap.
All that said, I think you have a point re: difference in private expressions of opinion vs. public writing about golf courses. Hoping I'll be able to do a bit more of it this year, it's something I will bear in mind.
-
Tom--
As a member of the writing class, I understand this perspective but I'm not sure it's quite this black-and-white.
You may be relying on an assumption that what a writer says off the record both 1) is a truer take and 2) would ultimately be a more useful take to the public than what he or she ends up writing on the record. I'm not certain that is always the case (I grant it probably is sometimes). A short, searing off-the-record take might well be the product of a knee-jerk reaction that the taker ultimately finds a little overheated in hindsight when the time comes to actually say something cogent and public about the course.
In your own conversations with people about golf courses, have you ever felt as though some of them might be trying to play your game a little bit, turning the rhetorical heat up a notch or two on their true opinion of a course as a product of their interpretation of your style in the Confidential Guide? I don't know if that's true in practice, but if there's a kernel of truth to it, it might make certain off-the-record takes less than completely authentic. It's human nature to be eager to impress people we respect and whom we see as experts on something we're passionate about. Perhaps some of that is at play sometimes?
I think there's another general reason why the off-the-record takes can sound different from the on-the-record dispatch. The off-the-record hot take is ephemeral and disposable in the way a tweet is. That doesn't necessarily make it unreliable, but the brevity of it also usually doesn't make it complete, either. It's also more likely to be grounded in personal opinion/biases in a way that the longer-form piece probably shouldn't be, at least not as much. I have written about golf courses I don't personally love several times, but for reasons I've given previously in this thread, I have a bit of a philosophical problem with letting them infect my writing too much, because I know that many people authentically do enjoy them, and that dissuades me from wholesale dismissals. Person-to-person conversation and public writing are fundamentally different forms of communication. It doesn't surprise me that there isn't complete overlap.
All that said, I think you have a point re: difference in private expressions of opinion vs. public writing about golf courses. Hoping I'll be able to do a bit more of it this year, it's something I will bear in mind.
Hi Tim:
Yes, perhaps it is true that sometimes they are lying to me about their opinions, instead of lying to their readers. :D
I understand your points, but I'm talking about people saying directly to me that they don't like the being part of the chorus of sycophants for X or Y, but they can't risk taking the opposite line for career reasons. They search out other stories, instead, but then they have to cover the "big stories" that the major media cover: for example, you couldn't NOT write about Streamsong, and you couldn't say much bad about it, either.
Ron Whitten was often handcuffed because he was having to write up the results of a GOLF DIGEST panelist vote about new courses, and even when he disagreed with the results [which seemed to be about 50% of the time], he had to feign enthusiasm about the winners so as not to cast a shadow on their whole process. They rarely let him just write on topics of his own choice and that was a shame.
-
Ron Whitten was often handcuffed because he was having to write up the results of a GOLF DIGEST panelist vote about new courses, and even when he disagreed with the results [which seemed to be about 50% of the time], he had to feign enthusiasm about the winners so as not to cast a shadow on their whole process. They rarely let him just write on topics of his own choice and that was a shame.
Interesting. The most plausible explanation I've heard why the quality of writing on architecture in mass circulation mags is (and has been for a while) so markedly inferior to writing on architecture during the Golden Age. In fairness, the comparisons are tough: - Darwin, Simpson, Campbell, Fowler, Croome, Ambrose, Crane, MacK and others. But still... too much anodyne modern stuff.
It makes sense that a mag's course rankings limit the commentary that the mag will publish. Whitten and others were in no position to discredit the same rankings they oversaw.
OTOH, now that Whitten is retired, I'd love to read his 'tell-all' on the state of modern golf architecture.
Bob