Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Ben Sims on November 02, 2022, 12:49:35 PM
-
Anodyne: adjective—not likely to provoke dissent or offense; inoffensive, often deliberately so.
A friend and I have been batting around the idea that anodyne-ness is a pervasive soul crushing daily issue in todays world.
Money is absolutely a factor in this. Developing or producing new things costs more than ever. The margins are thin. Appealing to masses is, frankly, profitable. But in the fight to appeal to as large a swath of consumers as possible, things (be it golf courses, food, music, whatever) we are inundated with decisions made not to offend.
Combining these decisions with seemingly unlimited power to know about things before you experience them, journeys aren’t so much ones of discovery, but rather ones of confirmation. In effect, it feels like we are being given the good stuff by an algorithm and then the internet confirms the algorithm via ratings, reviews, influencers, social media, etc, et al.
I am very much looking forward to whatever I may find in Scotland next year that borders on new, quirky, and sublime and flies in the face of conventional application. Hopefully I can resist the temptation to figure it all out before I get there.
-
I get your meaning, and agree.
But
I first heard the word in the Uncle Tupelo song.
That alternate definition is the one I think of when I hear anodyne:
"Something that soothes, calms or comforts."
I hope your trip will be an anodyne for you.
-
This thread reminds me of the old days, when a member posting such a musing would be called a beard puller and roundly ridiculed, in a fun way.
To me, it's more of a reaction to how most seem to view the world. Increasingly, people prefer to develop a quick opinion, and expect others to simply praise them for it, rather than challenge them. Or at least, that's my read.
If this is even a little true, it's easy to see how the anodyne would become the norm.
-
Bob,
Yes I do as well. As someone that chases horizons, it’s typically a lot more rewarding when a) the thing at the end of the rainbow is decidedly interesting and unique and b) the journey was done with discovery.
George,
Goodness, I’d forgotten how much I dislike that term, beard pulling or beard puller. I know it is used in jest but it’s the damndest thing for me on this website of all websites, roundly populated exclusively by very definition of the term. Cognitive dissonance and all…😁
Back on topic, there’s something a bit off to me, the drive to design and create things for the maximum appeal, and then see it broadcast for maximum consumption. I agree with you, the development of quick opinion and then the lack of willingness to defend that opinion, preferring instead the praise of the opinion itself, is a phenomenon I hadn’t really predicted with the rise of internet and social media technology.
I think it will be interesting to see where this current mini-boom in building goes. Seems there are some more aggressive and interesting ideas being bandied about at the moment.
-
Isn't it human nature to drift toward the middle? The extremes of most anything tend to be polarising and therefore more suspicious and susceptible to failure. For example, I think of Doak's work as mainly the more radical end of middle of the road, but it's not too far out there. The more time that goes by the more architecture becomes codified and the more difficult it is to break from the accepted norms. Often its the case that the unusual stuff is a one man idea and he plows on knowing his cheap and cheerful project likely ain't gonna make much money and that is if he does well. Or, perhaps an odd litter course can be tagged onto a resort as an added sideline amenity. That said I do think the appetite for odd little courses is increasing.
Ciao
-
8)
Love this ! RAGE Against the MACHINE my brother. Hope you find some truth in the "home of golf". If anything my love of quirk grows with age.
-
8)
Love this ! RAGE Against the MACHINE my brother. Hope you find some truth in the "home of golf". If anything my love of quirk grows with age.
More interesting might be that thing we are searching for, the old guys didn’t even know it was quirky! It just, was.
-
The primary definition of anodyne is "Inoffensive", or "not likely to provoke dissent."
On my last vacation, the primary dinner venue had this modern country music playing quietly in the background. The songs all shared certain elements: the same tired subjects and an easy going sound with just the right amount of twang and crack in the voice. Over the course of a few hours, not one song piqued my interest. Country Muzak numbing the senses and people needing to raise their voices to compensate for the added sound. By the way, the secondary definition of anodyne is "painkiller."
My Dad was the first person I remember saying he hated that background music. Nowadays it's omnipresent in restaurants, usually some hip "smooth jazz" clone. It's so manipulative. As if I need a certain tempo metronome to enjoy my salmon dinner or combination plate.
There is a golf course equivalent to Muzak, and it's mostly those multi-million dollar Doak 5s and 6s with green fairways, fast greens, big white bunkers and water hazards but they never ask the golfers any interesting questions. Looks nice, and it makes you hit the ball straight and solid, but it requires little thought and never offends the sensibilities.
Great modern designers can create very interesting golf courses, even on a flat piece of land. In order to make something great, they must always keep the player awake and thinking, sometimes afraid, never lulled to sleep by a painkiller. Dare to make something great. Don't settle for anodyne if you don't have to.
-
Interesting observation, but I'm not sure I totally agree. In general, TV shows are made for much narrower audiences than they were 20 or 30 years ago. The new era of "prestige TV" has figured out that you can be successful with a niche following of dedicated fans. I don't think they are making shows to offend necessarily, so it does not contradict your definition, but they are definitely not making shows that appeal to everyone.
That being said, I think you're onto something with this idea about golf courses. An oversimplification I've used before is that if everyone loves a course, it's probably not that interesting. This is obviously not completely true, but when everyone says new course XYZ is top 100, is there likely to be anything new and interesting in the design? I don't think so. In recent years, King/Collins seem to be the ones creating courses that might offend in a way that Doak did 25 years ago. More courses should offend a small percentage of the population in order to be loved by a different part of the population.
-
Interesting observation, but I'm not sure I totally agree. In general, TV shows are made for much narrower audiences than they were 20 or 30 years ago. The new era of "prestige TV" has figured out that you can be successful with a niche following of dedicated fans. I don't think they are making shows to offend necessarily, so it does not contradict your definition, but they are definitely not making shows that appeal to everyone.
That being said, I think you're onto something with this idea about golf courses. An oversimplification I've used before is that if everyone loves a course, it's probably not that interesting. This is obviously not completely true, but when everyone says new course XYZ is top 100, is there likely to be anything new and interesting in the design? I don't think so. In recent years, King/Collins seem to be the ones creating courses that might offend in a way that Doak did 25 years ago. More courses should offend a small percentage of the population in order to be loved by a different part of the population.
Joe,
Re: television shows, I think you’re onto something. It’s certainly a broader market than I can ever remember. And streaming services are pretty nonchalant about it. They just saturate the market and know they will get viewers.
Things like Apple Music and Spotify are intriguing, mostly because I think they water down the journey of discovery for music lovers. They have a vested interest in having algorithms recommend music that is most likely to appeal to broader spectrums. Rotten Tomatoes does much the same for film. The aggregate opinion tends to shove people in “rater approved” directions. I find I quite like some of the certified rotten films. Recently, the film Amsterdam was an example.
And yeah, you hit the nail on the head with regard to golf courses. Every now and then you stumble on a non-anodyne opinion however. This morning I read an old post where one of our posters opined that he quite enjoyed the uniqueness of Dunbar whereas Muirfield was a box checked. And honestly, I get that.
-
8)
Ben, good stuff really got me thinking about golf and design . At some point it goes back to the fairness question. To hell with it if you ask me. Particularly if you don' have a big maintenance budget. Because as we all know speed kills.
-
Anodyne is underrated; the courses of the "Dark Ages" regional guys are underappreciated here, but (IMO) widely appreciated elsewhere by those who play and operate them. And I don't think "inoffensive" is the primary meaning of anodyne, but rather soothing, alleviating distress. If you're "raging" about golf, perhaps anodyne is the solution, not the problem.
-
Anodyne is underrated; the courses of the "Dark Ages" regional guys are underappreciated here, but (IMO) widely appreciated elsewhere by those who play and operate them. And I don't think "inoffensive" is the primary meaning of anodyne, but rather soothing, alleviating distress. If you're "raging" about golf, perhaps anodyne is the solution, not the problem.
Bernie,
I considered what both the New Oxford American and Cambridge English Dictionaries list as the secondary definition; something designed to smooth or alleviate pain or distress. It fits the argument I’m making just the same. Challenging convention is fun, and necessary.
Going with your use of the word, it stands to reason that what is anodyne for some, isn’t for others. Maybe that’s where I’m going with this. In regard to golf courses, I know which doctors I’d want to prescribe my anodyne. Lots of them live on this site. And without opening a can of worms, it sure isn’t a magazine list or a social media influencer.
Oh, and by the by, Merrimack Webster lists your definition first. ;D
-
Anodyne is underrated; the courses of the "Dark Ages" regional guys are underappreciated here, but (IMO) widely appreciated elsewhere by those who play and operate them. And I don't think "inoffensive" is the primary meaning of anodyne, but rather soothing, alleviating distress. If you're "raging" about golf, perhaps anodyne is the solution, not the problem.
Bernie,
I considered what both the New Oxford American and Cambridge English Dictionaries list as the secondary definition; something designed to smooth or alleviate pain or distress. It fits the argument I’m making just the same. Challenging convention is fun, and necessary.
Going with your use of the word, it stands to reason that what is anodyne for some, isn’t for others. Maybe that’s where I’m going with this. In regard to golf courses, I know which doctors I’d want to prescribe my anodyne. Lots of them live on this site. And without opening a can of worms, it sure isn’t a magazine list or a social media influencer.
Oh, and by the by, Merrimack Webster lists your definition first. ;D
Being someone who appreciates a good middle of the road Colt or Ross course I can certainly see Bernie's point. But I also like some more dynamic stuff which Colt or Ross would never have built. Variety is the key and the reason why its good that some old stuff (and a bit of new stuff) isn't mucked with too much even if its polarizing. It disturbs me that so many links roll in the machinery in an effort to be more anodyne. Its often really about rankings and making more money off visitors or perhaps worse, placating the latest batch of members who don't have a clue as to the history of courses.
Ciao
-
"I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell."
-- Bruce Dickinson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVsQLlk-T0s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVsQLlk-T0s)
-
Isn't it human nature to drift toward the middle? The extremes of most anything tend to be polarising and therefore more suspicious and susceptible to failure. For example, I think of Doak's work as mainly the more radical end of middle of the road, but it's not too far out there. The more time that goes by the more architecture becomes codified and the more difficult it is to break from the accepted norms. Often its the case that the unusual stuff is a one man idea and he plows on knowing his cheap and cheerful project likely ain't gonna make much money and that is if he does well. Or, perhaps an odd litter course can be tagged onto a resort as an added sideline amenity. That said I do think the appetite for odd little courses is increasing.
Ciao
Missed this yesterday Sean, apologies.
I get what you’re saying, but I’m not sure if it is human nature to revert to the mean. I think it is more a reflection of the ideal of never offending, and always be selling. I don’t mean to assert that appealing to majority and avoiding the failure inherent in polarization is inherently bad, definitely not. I do find that as one experiences more and more, you find that it’s the newer stuff that is more of the same. Taking chances is seen as potential weakness in real time and a strength if success comes. That’s a fine line to walk.
-
It's an interesting question. And it seems deeply personal.
Personally, for me, if I've been doing work or shopping all day with the family, nothing will make me happier than an anodyne burger and fries. Not even a great burger would make me happier than a merely good one. But that's just me. It's not true for a foodie like my brother. He would drive an extra 15-30 minutes for the great one. Or even if only the meat was great but the bread was bad, he'd make that choice, because he got to try the wagyu burger or whatever.
I'll bet a lot of us on this board are like him when it comes to golf courses. Of course I want to see CPC and NGLA, but I'd rather see Painswick for the first time than 95-100% of TPC courses. I fully acknowledge that the vast majority of golfers would not agree.
It's a side note, but I also think the question of "anodyne-ness" only really registers on the scale of a golf course. Bigger (a destination resort or club) or smaller (individual holes) the question loses its meaning a bit.
-
Isn't it human nature to drift toward the middle? The extremes of most anything tend to be polarising and therefore more suspicious and susceptible to failure. For example, I think of Doak's work as mainly the more radical end of middle of the road, but it's not too far out there. The more time that goes by the more architecture becomes codified and the more difficult it is to break from the accepted norms. Often its the case that the unusual stuff is a one man idea and he plows on knowing his cheap and cheerful project likely ain't gonna make much money and that is if he does well. Or, perhaps an odd litter course can be tagged onto a resort as an added sideline amenity. That said I do think the appetite for odd little courses is increasing.
Ciao
Missed this yesterday Sean, apologies.
I get what you’re saying, but I’m not sure if it is human nature to revert to the mean. I think it is more a reflection of the ideal of never offending, and always be selling. I don’t mean to assert that appealing to majority and avoiding the failure inherent in polarization is inherently bad, definitely not. I do find that as one experiences more and more, you find that it’s the newer stuff that is more of the same. Taking chances is seen as potential weakness in real time and a strength if success comes. That’s a fine line to walk.
I think we agree, no? All I am really saying is there are good reasons why we don't see much in the way of far out new architecture. The most out there new architecture I have seen is The Loop and I don't think it's getting anywhere near the plaudits it should receive. For fucks sake, it's a reversible 18 hole course that was executed brilliantly. Most people just wonder where the two courses should be ranked. It's madness. One of the greatest feats in architectural history was pulled off and its open to the public. The problem mainly lies with golfers, not designers.
Ciao
-
Ben:
It's a good topic. I won't add much, other than to say I generally agree.
I won't disagree with Sean's characterization of me as "the more radical end of the middle of the road," although I would have preferred "mainstream" as the last phrase there. It was easier to be edgy and aggressive for clients like Rupert and Richard Sattler, [or Zac Blair], than it is for Mike Keiser and Ric Kayne [although we pushed the needle pretty far on Te Arai]. At the high end today, with the $$$$$ being invested, most of the client input is toward anodyne, so you're right on about the influence of money, just maybe not on who is being influenced. Whereas younger designers on smaller-budget courses are in the pursuit of attention, and sometimes go overboard to get it, IMHO.
I am glad that Sean recognizes The Loop, though. That concept was edgy enough that we didn't have to build 20-foot deep bunkers or 20,000 square foot greens to do something outside the box. I do think I can afford to be very edgy at this stage of my career; I've got nothing to lose. But I've got to find clients who agree, and I'd say right now there are only two out of eight I'd put in that category.
-
Isn't it human nature to drift toward the middle? The extremes of most anything tend to be polarising and therefore more suspicious and susceptible to failure. For example, I think of Doak's work as mainly the more radical end of middle of the road, but it's not too far out there. The more time that goes by the more architecture becomes codified and the more difficult it is to break from the accepted norms. Often its the case that the unusual stuff is a one man idea and he plows on knowing his cheap and cheerful project likely ain't gonna make much money and that is if he does well. Or, perhaps an odd litter course can be tagged onto a resort as an added sideline amenity. That said I do think the appetite for odd little courses is increasing.
Ciao
Missed this yesterday Sean, apologies.
I get what you’re saying, but I’m not sure if it is human nature to revert to the mean. I think it is more a reflection of the ideal of never offending, and always be selling. I don’t mean to assert that appealing to majority and avoiding the failure inherent in polarization is inherently bad, definitely not. I do find that as one experiences more and more, you find that it’s the newer stuff that is more of the same. Taking chances is seen as potential weakness in real time and a strength if success comes. That’s a fine line to walk.
I think we agree, no? All I am really saying is there are good reasons why we don't see much in the way of far out new architecture. The most out there new architecture I have seen is The Loop and I don't think it's getting anywhere near the plaudits it should receive. For fucks sake, it's a reversible 18 hole course that was executed brilliantly. Most people just wonder where the two courses should be ranked. It's madness. One of the greatest feats in architectural history was pulled off and its open to the public. The problem mainly lies with golfers, not designers.
Ciao
Yes we agree. In fact, your post was like a mic drop moment for the thread in general. One of my big regrets is missing a trip to The Loop as a result of an unfortunate dog-bicycle collision some years ago. I agree, lots of what I’ve read about that course is madness. I do think that if golfers were to roundly experience a new and different thing, and truly stop trying to mirror tour golf, golf architecture could move quickly to introducing new and edgy things. I know it’s fruitful, but I sort of loathe the concept of the “retail golfer” as introduced by Mike Keiser. I wonder what could’ve been without that white angel on shoulders.
Tom,
Just saw your reply. I’ll engage more later. But here’s to hoping upon hope that Sedge Valley gets a green light for a few of your ideas.
-
Ben:
It's a good topic. I won't add much, other than to say I generally agree.
I won't disagree with Sean's characterization of me as "the more radical end of the middle of the road," although I would have preferred "mainstream" as the last phrase there. It was easier to be edgy and aggressive for clients like Rupert and Richard Sattler, [or Zac Blair], than it is for Mike Keiser and Ric Kayne [although we pushed the needle pretty far on Te Arai]. At the high end today, with the $$$$$ being invested, most of the client input is toward anodyne, so you're right on about the influence of money, just maybe not on who is being influenced. Whereas younger designers on smaller-budget courses are in the pursuit of attention, and sometimes go overboard to get it, IMHO.
I am glad that Sean recognizes The Loop, though. That concept was edgy enough that we didn't have to build 20-foot deep bunkers or 20,000 square foot greens to do something outside the box. I do think I can afford to be very edgy at this stage of my career; I've got nothing to lose. But I've got to find clients who agree, and I'd say right now there are only two out of eight I'd put in that category.
Tom,
We had a small dinner party the other night and I went “off the reservation” (wife’s words) and served as authentic a sichuan hot pot as I could muster. I knew it would be a smash with most of our guests and an absolute disaster for one of them. She had no allergies and isn’t vegan, it was just a preference thing. She ended up eating and giggling like the rest of us. But…there is ZERO chance she would’ve experienced it otherwise.
I wonder how often you, and other architects, are put in a similar position. For me, raging against the anodyne is a way to stare right back in the face of comfortable and easy and say that that isn’t good enough. That is an easy position for me to take as the consumer and enthusiast. But I wonder how often that the decision designed to offend least, ends up being the wrong one.
-
Ben,
Excellent thread, its been a pleasure musing this topic.
I tend to agree with Sean here on two points:
1) Nearly every aspect of the game has effectively already been "anodynized" or made to be fair for the most amount of people. A few examples:
- Greens flattened so everyone can 2 putt.
- Fairways made smooth and tightly mowed so everyone is rewarded equally for a good shot
- Roughs mowed and maintained uniformly so as not to draw hard pan lies.
- Bunkers raked over and not too extreme, heaven forbid one gets a poor lie or can't extract themselves from it.
- Forced carries reduced and mitigated for nearly all.
- A tee box for everyone - upwards of 6, 7, 8 tee boxes
2) As he mentioned, then when someone like Engh comes along and does some really out of the box stuff, roundly rebuffed and slighted by the critics.
-
Tom,
We had a small dinner party the other night and I went “off the reservation” (wife’s words) and served as authentic a sichuan hot pot as I could muster. I knew it would be a smash with most of our guests and an absolute disaster for one of them. She had no allergies and isn’t vegan, it was just a preference thing. She ended up eating and giggling like the rest of us. But…there is ZERO chance she would’ve experienced it otherwise.
I wonder how often you, and other architects, are put in a similar position. For me, raging against the anodyne is a way to stare right back in the face of comfortable and easy and say that that isn’t good enough. That is an easy position for me to take as the consumer and enthusiast. But I wonder how often that the decision designed to offend least, ends up being the wrong one.
Ben:
I'm all for this, but, there is a difference between what you serve your friends in your home and what you might cook up as the chef at a high-priced hotel restaurant. When you are working for someone else it's just a different dynamic. At Ballyneal and Barnbougle the clients were more concerned about getting people to come and see them, than they were about potentially offending someone who did come.
I didn't mention it before but St. Patrick's is pretty edgy; as a part owner I had to think about the topic from both sides, but I did let the crew push the envelope pretty far there.
Sedge Valley has plenty of edgy elements - Michael K is not the same as his dad, but he wants to be involved to the degree that it is inevitable there is some over-thinking there. He seems to be most concerned with short game difficulty and especially difficult chip shots, which are my forte. The funny part of it is that we were starting Sedge concurrently with finishing the edgy Lido, where none of us were allowed to over-think Mr. Macdonald's design. ;)
-
Anodyne: adjective—not likely to provoke dissent or offense; inoffensive, often deliberately so.
A friend and I have been batting around the idea that anodyne-ness is a pervasive soul crushing daily issue in todays world.
Money is absolutely a factor in this. Developing or producing new things costs more than ever. The margins are thin. Appealing to masses is, frankly, profitable. But in the fight to appeal to as large a swath of consumers as possible, things (be it golf courses, food, music, whatever) we are inundated with decisions made not to offend.
Ben, I agree with your qualms about how much of mass media funnels toward the least common denominator ("appealing to the masses").
That said, I find your categorization of anodyne applicable more to the critic's taste than it is to distinguishing between an average and great golf course, tv show, or piece of music. A work of art need not always be provocative. And something provocative, no matter how well it might capture the avant garde, may not end up retaining its artistic value over time.
Robert Trent Jones Sr. was far from anodyne, yet some of his work has been elided in order to recreate what the original architects achieved on sites he overwrote.
In the next year we'll have both Landmand and Brambles open. One, I imagine, will be far more anodyne than the other. But that doesn't distinguish their qualities.
-
Ben:
It's a good topic. I won't add much, other than to say I generally agree.
I won't disagree with Sean's characterization of me as "the more radical end of the middle of the road," although I would have preferred "mainstream" as the last phrase there. It was easier to be edgy and aggressive for clients like Rupert and Richard Sattler, [or Zac Blair], than it is for Mike Keiser and Ric Kayne [although we pushed the needle pretty far on Te Arai]. At the high end today, with the $$$$$ being invested, most of the client input is toward anodyne, so you're right on about the influence of money, just maybe not on who is being influenced. Whereas younger designers on smaller-budget courses are in the pursuit of attention, and sometimes go overboard to get it, IMHO.
I am glad that Sean recognizes The Loop, though. That concept was edgy enough that we didn't have to build 20-foot deep bunkers or 20,000 square foot greens to do something outside the box. I do think I can afford to be very edgy at this stage of my career; I've got nothing to lose. But I've got to find clients who agree, and I'd say right now there are only two out of eight I'd put in that category.
Other than being reversable, the incredible aspect of The Loop is it makes business sense. Sure, it will cost a bit more to maintain than a normal 18 hole course on similar soil, but the punters will stay at least one night. I will be thinking about The Loop for a looong time.
What is the other edgy course? St Pat's? If so, why do you think so?
Ciao
-
St. Pats isn’t edgy. It is just common sense, beautifully executed.
The Loop is edgy and beautifully executed.
-
The world likes anodyne. Not every individual, but as a whole.
Express a different opinion, do something different, and while you may have a few ardent fans/viewers/users/whatever, you're most often dismissed by the masses.
It's like the actor who does "one for them, one for me" where "them" is basically $$$. They're raging when they do the film they want to do for themselves, in a small way, and accept that it may not be as popular.
I think some architects might almost do the same, except it may not even be on a project by project basis. I'm not familiar enough with Tom's work, but perhaps there are times when he built a green he wanted to do, but capitulated slightly on some other feature somewhere. You can call it pushing the boundaries, but it's almost the same thing to me - different developers will have different limits.
-
Ben:
It's a good topic. I won't add much, other than to say I generally agree.
...
I am glad that Sean recognizes The Loop, though. That concept was edgy enough that we didn't have to build 20-foot deep bunkers or 20,000 square foot greens to do something outside the box. I do think I can afford to be very edgy at this stage of my career; I've got nothing to lose. But I've got to find clients who agree, and I'd say right now there are only two out of eight I'd put in that category.
Other than being reversable, the incredible aspect of The Loop is it makes business sense. Sure, it will cost a bit more to maintain than a normal 18 hole course on similar soil, but the punters will stay at least one night. I will be thinking about The Loop for a looong time.
What is the other edgy course? St Pat's? If so, why do you think so?
Ciao
Sean, While I don't speak/relate to British slang, are you equating "punters" with "retail golfers?" The context seems to be in a negative context... non-anodyne?
Looking up the general meaning, (Britain, Australia, slang) A customer of a commercial establishment, frequently of a pub or (alternatively) of a prostitute.
or
chiefly British : a person who gambles especially : one who bets against a bookmaker. b : a person who uses a punt in boating.
or
customer, patron
If there's anything I rage against, its the cost of retail golfing, at least one doesn't have to stay at Forest Dunes to play there...
-
What is the other edgy course? St Pat's? If so, why do you think so?
The 2 out of 8 was actually referring to the eight courses I've got in planning now.
It's funny how that works out, though. The one client who said he really wanted something edgy had a piece of land that produced a less edgy routing; of course the devil will be in the details of what we build. The most difficult / dramatic site we have could be wild, but it also looks to me like one of the top 50 courses in the world if we just soften the difficult parts; we certainly don't need to ramp up the edginess, it's more a question of how much to tone it down.
I think St. Patrick's is pretty edgy in regards to all the contour we left in the fairways and around the greens. It's certainly more so than the other recent links courses built in the UK, judging by the reactions to it, except Ally, surprisingly. But, maybe I compare more to other modern courses than you would.
-
What is the other edgy course? St Pat's? If so, why do you think so?
The 2 out of 8 was actually referring to the eight courses I've got in planning now.
It's funny how that works out, though. The one client who said he really wanted something edgy had a piece of land that produced a less edgy routing; of course the devil will be in the details of what we build. The most difficult / dramatic site we have could be wild, but it also looks to me like one of the top 50 courses in the world if we just soften the difficult parts; we certainly don't need to ramp up the edginess, it's more a question of how much to tone it down.
I think St. Patrick's is pretty edgy in regards to all the contour we left in the fairways and around the greens. It's certainly more so than the other recent links courses built in the UK, judging by the reactions to it, except Ally, surprisingly. But, maybe I compare more to other modern courses than you would.
When I referred to St Patricks as common sense, it is - to me - exactly how a links course should be built and I’m not sure I understand any other way. There hasn’t really been another new 18 hole links course built on good links land for 20 odd years. And it was about time someone in the modern era actually used the land in the way it’s supposed to be used to produce golf. In that respect, I don’t consider it edgy in the slightest. Just really good.
-
The world likes anodyne. Not every individual, but as a whole.
Erik,
I couldn’t agree more. But that doesn’t mean I have to like it. The way you shift norms is by challenging, innovating, and reaching across that 15-20% acceptance chasm to mainstream. At least that’s what Diffusions of Innovations taught me. :)
The more interesting thing to me than trying to shift a norm with something new, is how something old retains or even gains charm and interest. Was North Berwick 13 always considered cool?
We are sort of moving away from my idea a bit and getting into the territory of esoteric architectural discussion about quirk and edginess and why that’s hard to do when someone hires you, etc etc. I’d rather this was more a discussion on why the masses prefer a thing. And why is that thing boring to some and not to others.
-
What is the other edgy course? St Pat's? If so, why do you think so?
The 2 out of 8 was actually referring to the eight courses I've got in planning now.
It's funny how that works out, though. The one client who said he really wanted something edgy had a piece of land that produced a less edgy routing; of course the devil will be in the details of what we build. The most difficult / dramatic site we have could be wild, but it also looks to me like one of the top 50 courses in the world if we just soften the difficult parts; we certainly don't need to ramp up the edginess, it's more a question of how much to tone it down.
I think St. Patrick's is pretty edgy in regards to all the contour we left in the fairways and around the greens. It's certainly more so than the other recent links courses built in the UK, judging by the reactions to it, except Ally, surprisingly. But, maybe I compare more to other modern courses than you would.
When I referred to St Patricks as common sense, it is - to me - exactly how a links course should be built and I’m not sure I understand any other way. There hasn’t really been another new 18 hole links course built on good links land for 20 odd years. And it was about time someone in the modern era actually used the land in the way it’s supposed to be used to produce golf. In that respect, I don’t consider it edgy in the slightest. Just really good.
I agree Ally. I don't think St Pat's is edgy except for isolated features. For instance, it's not as edgy as much of Portstewart, but St Pat's is superior regardless.
Ciao
-
Was North Berwick 13 always considered cool?
We are sort of moving away from my idea a bit and getting into the territory of esoteric architectural discussion about quirk and edginess and why that’s hard to do when someone hires you, etc etc. I’d rather this was more a discussion on why the masses prefer a thing. And why is that thing boring to some and not to others.
I am trying to remember what Bernard Darwin wrote about The Pit. I don't think it was his favorite hole. The first time I got excited to see it was in Patric Dickinson's book, A Round of Golf Courses, which was written in 1952.
Trying to get back to your topic, I think that the anodyne came into vogue not long after stroke play became the accepted form of the game. Certainly all of the old links are built with match play in mind, but really, match play was still the dominant form until right at the end of the Golden Age. The U.S. Amateur was just as important as the U.S. Open when Bobby Jones won them, and of course, people were less interested in adding up their score when it was that much harder to break 80.
With the "card and pencil" spirit as MacKenzie called it, any non-anodyne feature that might have the potential to wreck a scorecard was cast in an unfavorable light.
-
I think anodyne goes straight back to the emergence of of the first great architects we celebrate. The likes of Colt etc started and largely finished the codification of architecture. It was a done deal by WWII. But we have to remember that at the time, these guys were pretty edgy. It's just that we never moved on...for good reasons.
Ciao.
-
Interesting that Dr. MacK was brought up.
An argument could be made that his '13 principles' put golf on the fast path to homogenization.
http://www.montereypeninsulagolf.com/Alister-MacKenzie-13-Golf-Commandments
-
Interesting that Dr. MacK was brought up.
An argument could be made that his '13 principles' put golf on the fast path to homogenization.
http://www.montereypeninsulagolf.com/Alister-MacKenzie-13-Golf-Commandments (http://www.montereypeninsulagolf.com/Alister-MacKenzie-13-Golf-Commandments)
I don't really think that argument is worth much. Many of his points were already accepted wisdom for the majority of his peers; only a couple are really unique to MacKenzie, and those aren't the anodyne ideas. Likewise, I don't think MacKenzie had that much influence on what Robert Trent Jones or Dick Wilson or Jeff Brauer built. His 13 points are quoted much more often in the resurgence of interest in golf design the past 30 years, than they were before that.
-
The world likes anodyne. Not every individual, but as a whole.
Erik,
I couldn’t agree more. But that doesn’t mean I have to like it. The way you shift norms is by challenging, innovating, and reaching across that 15-20% acceptance chasm to mainstream. At least that’s what Diffusions of Innovations taught me. :)
The more interesting thing to me than trying to shift a norm with something new, is how something old retains or even gains charm and interest. Was North Berwick 13 always considered cool?
We are sort of moving away from my idea a bit and getting into the territory of esoteric architectural discussion about quirk and edginess and why that’s hard to do when someone hires you, etc etc. I’d rather this was more a discussion on why the masses prefer a thing. And why is that thing boring to some and not to others.
Ben,
Referring to the "masses" strikes me as more than a bit condescending. And any one person can be anodyne or non-anondyne depending upon the art form (including cooking). I for example enjoy Miles Davis and John Coltrane before their avant garde work. Does that make me anodyne? On the other hand, I put Ken Kesey and Ishmael Reed in my all time great novelist list. Does that make me non-anodyne? Lahinch and NB are two of my favorite courses but so are PH2 and CPC. Anodyne or non-anodyne? Maya Lin's Vietnam Memorial was edgily controversial among the "masses" and now it is beloved.
Labels are easy to throw about, including one entitled "the masses".
Interesting thread but specifics always helpful.
Thanks.
-
Was North Berwick 13 always considered cool?
We are sort of moving away from my idea a bit and getting into the territory of esoteric architectural discussion about quirk and edginess and why that’s hard to do when someone hires you, etc etc. I’d rather this was more a discussion on why the masses prefer a thing. And why is that thing boring to some and not to others.
Trying to get back to your topic, I think that the anodyne came into vogue not long after stroke play became the accepted form of the game. Certainly all of the old links are built with match play in mind, but really, match play was still the dominant form until right at the end of the Golden Age. The U.S. Amateur was just as important as the U.S. Open when Bobby Jones won them, and of course, people were less interested in adding up their score when it was that much harder to break 80.
With the "card and pencil" spirit as MacKenzie called it, any non-anodyne feature that might have the potential to wreck a scorecard was cast in an unfavorable light.
Tom,
I recently listened to an interview Brian Schneider gave with Fried Egg around the time the pandemic started. Paraphrasing Brian, he said when someone says that a course is a good match play course, he has no idea what that means.
As far as what his point was, I can only assume that he meant that a golf hole is functionally interesting or it isn’t. The form of keeping score doesn’t matter. I might be wrong. But that’s what I got from that part of the interview.
I wholly agree with him in ideal. That said, designing for mass acceptance might be the safest way to make the most people happy in places where stroke play is most prevalent. I see both sides.
-
The world likes anodyne. Not every individual, but as a whole.
Erik,
I couldn’t agree more. But that doesn’t mean I have to like it. The way you shift norms is by challenging, innovating, and reaching across that 15-20% acceptance chasm to mainstream. At least that’s what Diffusions of Innovations taught me. :)
The more interesting thing to me than trying to shift a norm with something new, is how something old retains or even gains charm and interest. Was North Berwick 13 always considered cool?
We are sort of moving away from my idea a bit and getting into the territory of esoteric architectural discussion about quirk and edginess and why that’s hard to do when someone hires you, etc etc. I’d rather this was more a discussion on why the masses prefer a thing. And why is that thing boring to some and not to others.
Ben,
Referring to the "masses" strikes me as more than a bit condescending. And any one person can be anodyne or non-anondyne depending upon the art form (including cooking). I for example enjoy Miles Davis and John Coltrane before their avant garde work. Does that make me anodyne? On the other hand, I put Ken Kesey and Ishmael Reed in my all time great novelist list. Does that make me non-anodyne? Lahinch and NB are two of my favorite courses but so are PH2 and CPC. Anodyne or non-anodyne? Maya Lin's Vietnam Memorial was edgily controversial among the "masses" and now it is beloved.
Labels are easy to throw about, including one entitled "the masses".
Interesting thread but specifics always helpful.
Thanks.
Ira,
The most specific examples I can think of are the algorithms that music streaming services use to recommend song, a website like Rotten Tomatoes for film, or aggregate golf architecture magazine ratings.
This to me it’s a real “bell curvy” way of getting people to think collectively in my opinion. I have discovered that I much prefer Sean Arble’s star designations and happy 100 list and Tom’s Confidential Guide style of thinking about golf architecture recommendations.
This is very humorous of course, this sort of well-intended “the masses are stupid, listen to this one guy or four guys!” opinion on courses. That could be looked at as hypocritical. But I don’t think it is. It is more a reflection of my own tastes and the opinions I trust. Which is part of what I’m getting at in this thread. Doing work to better hone in on what we like and what is good is a far more rewarding exercise than waiting for Spotify or Golf Digest to tell me what’s good.
-
We are sort of moving away from my idea a bit and getting into the territory of esoteric architectural discussion about quirk and edginess and why that’s hard to do when someone hires you, etc etc. I’d rather this was more a discussion on why the masses prefer a thing. And why is that thing boring to some and not to others.
Many people are content to eat at McDonald's because while few really LOVE McDonald's, nearly all who go there are unsurprised - they know what they're going to get. It's the same just about everywhere.
"Human being seek comfort." - Mike Tomlin
There's comfort in familiarity. In not being surprised.
-
We are sort of moving away from my idea a bit and getting into the territory of esoteric architectural discussion about quirk and edginess and why that’s hard to do when someone hires you, etc etc. I’d rather this was more a discussion on why the masses prefer a thing. And why is that thing boring to some and not to others.
Many people are content to eat at McDonald's because while few really LOVE McDonald's, nearly all who go there are unsurprised - they know what they're going to get. It's the same just about everywhere.
"Human being seek comfort." - Mike Tomlin
There's comfort in familiarity. In not being surprised.
Does familiarity and comfort = good?
It’s when I get sold anodyne as good that my disappointment begins.
-
Does familiarity and comfort = good?
It’s when I get sold anodyne as good that my disappointment begins.
Conversely, does controversial = good
Where I'm going with this is that some would argue Mike Strantz was the last true maverick of golf course architecture. Love 'em or leave 'em, many of his course designs are controversial for their difficulty and unconvention. He broke rules and thought outside of the box, which doesn't necesarily equate to great architecture. However, he shook up the golf course architecture industry at a time it desperately needed it, as it helped pave the way for the period we're in. Good thing for Mike he didn't care or listen to what critics had to say, which freed him to blaze the trail he did and show the golfing world at large what's possible in course design.
Perhaps it's the same rebellion and unconvention that's needed now for the reasons originally raised in this topic, as part of me empathizes with your original statement, but I also appreciate the great work that's been done the past two decades having seen and played enough shitty cookie cutter community courses designed and built during 70's, 80's and 90's to never ever want to revisit that period.
-
Does familiarity and comfort = good?
Is McDonald's "good"?
And if not, why do so many people eat it?
-
Does familiarity and comfort = good?
It’s when I get sold anodyne as good that my disappointment begins.
Conversely, does controversial = good
Where I'm going with this is that some would argue Mike Strantz was the last true maverick of golf course architecture. Love 'em or leave 'em, many of his course designs are controversial for their difficulty and unconvention. He broke rules and thought outside of the box, which doesn't necesarily equate to great architecture. However, he shook up the golf course architecture industry at a time it desperately needed it, as it helped pave the way for the period we're in. Good thing for Mike he didn't care or listen to what critics had to say, which freed him to blaze the trail he did and show the golfing world at large what's possible in course design.
Perhaps it's the same rebellion and unconvention that's needed now for the reasons originally raised in this topic, as part of me empathizes with your original statement, but I also appreciate the great work that's been done the past two decades having seen and played enough shitty cookie cutter community courses designed and built during 70's, 80's and 90's to never ever want to revisit that period.
I think clarifying definitions and leaning away from binary positions would help us. I don’t think controversial equals good. Nor do I think anodyne means boring per se. To me, anodyne means to do or produce in order to not provoke. It’s sterile, innocuous. There’s a lot of people in the world that would say there is pragmatism in sterility and not being provocative.
The argument I’m trying to make is that I disagree with that premise. And perhaps shining a light on why I’m looking forward to a place like Dunbar just as much as something much more popular.
-
Does familiarity and comfort = good?
It’s when I get sold anodyne as good that my disappointment begins.
Conversely, does controversial = good
Where I'm going with this is that some would argue Mike Strantz was the last true maverick of golf course architecture. Love 'em or leave 'em, many of his course designs are controversial for their difficulty and unconvention. He broke rules and thought outside of the box, which doesn't necesarily equate to great architecture. However, he shook up the golf course architecture industry at a time it desperately needed it, as it helped pave the way for the period we're in. Good thing for Mike he didn't care or listen to what critics had to say, which freed him to blaze the trail he did and show the golfing world at large what's possible in course design.
Perhaps it's the same rebellion and unconvention that's needed now for the reasons originally raised in this topic, as part of me empathizes with your original statement, but I also appreciate the great work that's been done the past two decades having seen and played enough shitty cookie cutter community courses designed and built during 70's, 80's and 90's to never ever want to revisit that period.
I think clarifying definitions and leaning away from binary positions would help us. I don’t think controversial equals good. Nor do I think anodyne means boring per se. To me, anodyne means to do or produce in order to not provoke. It’s sterile, innocuous. There’s a lot of people in the world that would say there is pragmatism in sterility and not being provocative.
The argument I’m trying to make is that I disagree with that premise. And perhaps shining a light on why I’m looking forward to a place like Dunbar just as much as something much more popular.
I do have a hard time agreeing with you since so many good and great courses are not provocative.
BTW...Dunbar is popular! Get an early time :)
Ciao
-
The world likes anodyne. Not every individual, but as a whole.
Erik,
I couldn’t agree more. But that doesn’t mean I have to like it. The way you shift norms is by challenging, innovating, and reaching across that 15-20% acceptance chasm to mainstream. At least that’s what Diffusions of Innovations taught me. :)
The more interesting thing to me than trying to shift a norm with something new, is how something old retains or even gains charm and interest. Was North Berwick 13 always considered cool?
We are sort of moving away from my idea a bit and getting into the territory of esoteric architectural discussion about quirk and edginess and why that’s hard to do when someone hires you, etc etc. I’d rather this was more a discussion on why the masses prefer a thing. And why is that thing boring to some and not to others.
Ben,
Referring to the "masses" strikes me as more than a bit condescending. And any one person can be anodyne or non-anondyne depending upon the art form (including cooking). I for example enjoy Miles Davis and John Coltrane before their avant garde work. Does that make me anodyne? On the other hand, I put Ken Kesey and Ishmael Reed in my all time great novelist list. Does that make me non-anodyne? Lahinch and NB are two of my favorite courses but so are PH2 and CPC. Anodyne or non-anodyne? Maya Lin's Vietnam Memorial was edgily controversial among the "masses" and now it is beloved.
Labels are easy to throw about, including one entitled "the masses".
Interesting thread but specifics always helpful.
Thanks.
Ira,
The most specific examples I can think of are the algorithms that music streaming services use to recommend song, a website like Rotten Tomatoes for film, or aggregate golf architecture magazine ratings.
This to me it’s a real “bell curvy” way of getting people to think collectively in my opinion. I have discovered that I much prefer Sean Arble’s star designations and happy 100 list and Tom’s Confidential Guide style of thinking about golf architecture recommendations.
This is very humorous of course, this sort of well-intended “the masses are stupid, listen to this one guy or four guys!” opinion on courses. That could be looked at as hypocritical. But I don’t think it is. It is more a reflection of my own tastes and the opinions I trust. Which is part of what I’m getting at in this thread. Doing work to better hone in on what we like and what is good is a far more rewarding exercise than waiting for Spotify or Golf Digest to tell me what’s good.
Ben,
I suggest that you are conflating several different things. Yes, many “arbiters” of taste such as Spotify may play to the anodyne because volume is how they make money. However, that does not mean that the consumer is a lemming who needs to follow. But it also does not mean that the artist who presents something popular has not created something truly special. And to be specific for golf: St. George’s Hill is not provocative, but it is a terrific golf course. In the US, I would say the same about all of the courses at Bandon and Streamsong Red and Blue. SS Black is provocative, but I think the weakest of the courses. That may make my tastes seem to run to anodyne, but Lahinch, NB, and Ballyneal are very high on my personal list.
It would be helpful to know which courses you think are anodyne or not.
Ira
-
Does familiarity and comfort = good?
It’s when I get sold anodyne as good that my disappointment begins.
Conversely, does controversial = good
Where I'm going with this is that some would argue Mike Strantz was the last true maverick of golf course architecture. Love 'em or leave 'em, many of his course designs are controversial for their difficulty and unconvention. He broke rules and thought outside of the box, which doesn't necesarily equate to great architecture. However, he shook up the golf course architecture industry at a time it desperately needed it, as it helped pave the way for the period we're in. Good thing for Mike he didn't care or listen to what critics had to say, which freed him to blaze the trail he did and show the golfing world at large what's possible in course design.
Perhaps it's the same rebellion and unconvention that's needed now for the reasons originally raised in this topic, as part of me empathizes with your original statement, but I also appreciate the great work that's been done the past two decades having seen and played enough shitty cookie cutter community courses designed and built during 70's, 80's and 90's to never ever want to revisit that period.
I think clarifying definitions and leaning away from binary positions would help us. I don’t think controversial equals good. Nor do I think anodyne means boring per se. To me, anodyne means to do or produce in order to not provoke. It’s sterile, innocuous. There’s a lot of people in the world that would say there is pragmatism in sterility and not being provocative.
The argument I’m trying to make is that I disagree with that premise. And perhaps shining a light on why I’m looking forward to a place like Dunbar just as much as something much more popular.
I do have a hard time agreeing with you since so many good and great courses are not provocative.
BTW...Dunbar is popular! Get an early time :)
Ciao
Sean,
I agree with you principally, but not totally. There are loads of courses are that are considered quite good that have something a bit different and potentially odd about them. In fact, I’m having a hard time thinking of a truly great course that I’ve played that I’d consider anodyne.
That said, I can think of many Doak 4-6 level courses that I would consider anodyne. The trick then, for me at least, is to find those 4-6 level courses that provide excitement and a unique point of reference. Easier said than done.
-
The world likes anodyne. Not every individual, but as a whole.
Erik,
I couldn’t agree more. But that doesn’t mean I have to like it. The way you shift norms is by challenging, innovating, and reaching across that 15-20% acceptance chasm to mainstream. At least that’s what Diffusions of Innovations taught me. :)
The more interesting thing to me than trying to shift a norm with something new, is how something old retains or even gains charm and interest. Was North Berwick 13 always considered cool?
We are sort of moving away from my idea a bit and getting into the territory of esoteric architectural discussion about quirk and edginess and why that’s hard to do when someone hires you, etc etc. I’d rather this was more a discussion on why the masses prefer a thing. And why is that thing boring to some and not to others.
Ben,
Referring to the "masses" strikes me as more than a bit condescending. And any one person can be anodyne or non-anondyne depending upon the art form (including cooking). I for example enjoy Miles Davis and John Coltrane before their avant garde work. Does that make me anodyne? On the other hand, I put Ken Kesey and Ishmael Reed in my all time great novelist list. Does that make me non-anodyne? Lahinch and NB are two of my favorite courses but so are PH2 and CPC. Anodyne or non-anodyne? Maya Lin's Vietnam Memorial was edgily controversial among the "masses" and now it is beloved.
Labels are easy to throw about, including one entitled "the masses".
Interesting thread but specifics always helpful.
Thanks.
Ira,
The most specific examples I can think of are the algorithms that music streaming services use to recommend song, a website like Rotten Tomatoes for film, or aggregate golf architecture magazine ratings.
This to me it’s a real “bell curvy” way of getting people to think collectively in my opinion. I have discovered that I much prefer Sean Arble’s star designations and happy 100 list and Tom’s Confidential Guide style of thinking about golf architecture recommendations.
This is very humorous of course, this sort of well-intended “the masses are stupid, listen to this one guy or four guys!” opinion on courses. That could be looked at as hypocritical. But I don’t think it is. It is more a reflection of my own tastes and the opinions I trust. Which is part of what I’m getting at in this thread. Doing work to better hone in on what we like and what is good is a far more rewarding exercise than waiting for Spotify or Golf Digest to tell me what’s good.
Ben,
I suggest that you are conflating several different things. Yes, many “arbiters” of taste such as Spotify may play to the anodyne because volume is how they make money. However, that does not mean that the consumer is a lemming who needs to follow. But it also does not mean that the artist who presents something popular has not created something truly special. And to be specific for golf: St. George’s Hill is not provocative, but it is a terrific golf course. In the US, I would say the same about all of the courses at Bandon and Streamsong Red and Blue. SS Black is provocative, but I think the weakest of the courses. That may make my tastes seem to run to anodyne, but Lahinch, NB, and Ballyneal are very high on my personal list.
It would be helpful to know which courses you think are anodyne or not.
Ira
Ira,
There’s always a good chance I’m conflating ideas. Chat board format is sometimes hard to keep everything concise and straight.
I would argue that it’s wishful to think that consumers won’t be lemmings, given an easy and digestible way to determine quality. It why things like magazine lists and streaming services are money-makers for their respective entities.
To answer your question, I’d consider Torrey Pines an anodyne course.
-
Does familiarity and comfort = good?
It’s when I get sold anodyne as good that my disappointment begins.
Conversely, does controversial = good
Where I'm going with this is that some would argue Mike Strantz was the last true maverick of golf course architecture. Love 'em or leave 'em, many of his course designs are controversial for their difficulty and unconvention. He broke rules and thought outside of the box, which doesn't necesarily equate to great architecture. However, he shook up the golf course architecture industry at a time it desperately needed it, as it helped pave the way for the period we're in. Good thing for Mike he didn't care or listen to what critics had to say, which freed him to blaze the trail he did and show the golfing world at large what's possible in course design.
Perhaps it's the same rebellion and unconvention that's needed now for the reasons originally raised in this topic, as part of me empathizes with your original statement, but I also appreciate the great work that's been done the past two decades having seen and played enough shitty cookie cutter community courses designed and built during 70's, 80's and 90's to never ever want to revisit that period.
I think clarifying definitions and leaning away from binary positions would help us. I don’t think controversial equals good. Nor do I think anodyne means boring per se. To me, anodyne means to do or produce in order to not provoke. It’s sterile, innocuous. There’s a lot of people in the world that would say there is pragmatism in sterility and not being provocative.
The argument I’m trying to make is that I disagree with that premise. And perhaps shining a light on why I’m looking forward to a place like Dunbar just as much as something much more popular.
I do have a hard time agreeing with you since so many good and great courses are not provocative.
BTW...Dunbar is popular! Get an early time :)
Ciao
Sean,
I agree with you principally, but not totally. There are loads of courses are that are considered quite good that have something a bit different and potentially odd about them. In fact, I’m having a hard time thinking of a truly great course that I’ve played that I’d consider anodyne.
That said, I can think of many Doak 4-6 level courses that I would consider anodyne. The trick then, for me at least, is to find those 4-6 level courses that provide excitement and a unique point of reference. Easier said than done.
Ok, I don't think I understand your use of anodyne.
Ciao
-
Does familiarity and comfort = good?
It’s when I get sold anodyne as good that my disappointment begins.
Conversely, does controversial = good
Where I'm going with this is that some would argue Mike Strantz was the last true maverick of golf course architecture. Love 'em or leave 'em, many of his course designs are controversial for their difficulty and unconvention. He broke rules and thought outside of the box, which doesn't necesarily equate to great architecture. However, he shook up the golf course architecture industry at a time it desperately needed it, as it helped pave the way for the period we're in. Good thing for Mike he didn't care or listen to what critics had to say, which freed him to blaze the trail he did and show the golfing world at large what's possible in course design.
Perhaps it's the same rebellion and unconvention that's needed now for the reasons originally raised in this topic, as part of me empathizes with your original statement, but I also appreciate the great work that's been done the past two decades having seen and played enough shitty cookie cutter community courses designed and built during 70's, 80's and 90's to never ever want to revisit that period.
I think clarifying definitions and leaning away from binary positions would help us. I don’t think controversial equals good. Nor do I think anodyne means boring per se. To me, anodyne means to do or produce in order to not provoke. It’s sterile, innocuous. There’s a lot of people in the world that would say there is pragmatism in sterility and not being provocative.
The argument I’m trying to make is that I disagree with that premise. And perhaps shining a light on why I’m looking forward to a place like Dunbar just as much as something much more popular.
I do have a hard time agreeing with you since so many good and great courses are not provocative.
BTW...Dunbar is popular! Get an early time :)
Ciao
Sean,
I agree with you principally, but not totally. There are loads of courses are that are considered quite good that have something a bit different and potentially odd about them. In fact, I’m having a hard time thinking of a truly great course that I’ve played that I’d consider anodyne.
That said, I can think of many Doak 4-6 level courses that I would consider anodyne. The trick then, for me at least, is to find those 4-6 level courses that provide excitement and a unique point of reference. Easier said than done.
Ok, I don't think I understand your use of anodyne.
Ciao
Me either.
I joke. Mostly I think there’s a clear line out there for most of us on what exhilarates us and what doesn’t. It’s different for all of us I’m sure. Maybe I’m trying to hit on a combination of sterile/boring/regular?
-
Does familiarity and comfort = good?
It’s when I get sold anodyne as good that my disappointment begins.
Conversely, does controversial = good
Where I'm going with this is that some would argue Mike Strantz was the last true maverick of golf course architecture. Love 'em or leave 'em, many of his course designs are controversial for their difficulty and unconvention. He broke rules and thought outside of the box, which doesn't necesarily equate to great architecture. However, he shook up the golf course architecture industry at a time it desperately needed it, as it helped pave the way for the period we're in. Good thing for Mike he didn't care or listen to what critics had to say, which freed him to blaze the trail he did and show the golfing world at large what's possible in course design.
Perhaps it's the same rebellion and unconvention that's needed now for the reasons originally raised in this topic, as part of me empathizes with your original statement, but I also appreciate the great work that's been done the past two decades having seen and played enough shitty cookie cutter community courses designed and built during 70's, 80's and 90's to never ever want to revisit that period.
I think clarifying definitions and leaning away from binary positions would help us. I don’t think controversial equals good. Nor do I think anodyne means boring per se. To me, anodyne means to do or produce in order to not provoke. It’s sterile, innocuous. There’s a lot of people in the world that would say there is pragmatism in sterility and not being provocative.
The argument I’m trying to make is that I disagree with that premise. And perhaps shining a light on why I’m looking forward to a place like Dunbar just as much as something much more popular.
I do have a hard time agreeing with you since so many good and great courses are not provocative.
BTW...Dunbar is popular! Get an early time :)
Ciao
Sean,
I agree with you principally, but not totally. There are loads of courses are that are considered quite good that have something a bit different and potentially odd about them. In fact, I’m having a hard time thinking of a truly great course that I’ve played that I’d consider anodyne.
That said, I can think of many Doak 4-6 level courses that I would consider anodyne. The trick then, for me at least, is to find those 4-6 level courses that provide excitement and a unique point of reference. Easier said than done.
Ok, I don't think I understand your use of anodyne.
Ciao
Me either.
I joke. Mostly I think there’s a clear line out there for most of us on what exhilarates us and what doesn’t. It’s different for all of us I’m sure. Maybe I’m trying to hit on a combination of sterile/boring/regular?
Alright, I thought you were talking about gravitating toward the average golfer? I think the average golfer eats up Colt and Ross. Between the two they have terrific courses which don't break any new ground or threaten edgy. At least they don't these days. St George's Hill is a good example. IMO a great course but because it does the basics very well on a lovely site, not because of edginess. The same could be said of the Sunnys and Swinley.
Ciao