[TEPaul]

.....with our pretty impressive architect contingent on this website?

Do you like to discuss with them;

1. Architectural concept and principle

2. The nuts and bolts of construction and techniques

3. How they feel about the comparative quality of architecture and ranking.

4. Or something else and altogether different like how the game is or should be played.

I like #1 best, #2 second, I don't really care about #3 and I find #4 most intteresting and reveling from and about them.

[Kyle Harris]

In order:

2, 1, 4, 3

[mitchell cooper]

I think it would be nice if we could arrange rounds of golf at some of the architecurally signifigant courses in the the country.  Many have been and continue to deny benefits and membership to others regardless of our abiltiy to pay the dues.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mitchell Cooper,

Were you refering to Century and/or Mountain Ridge ?

[A_Clay_Man]

Justifications, with a little history thrown in. That way we could figure out why #4 above is even on the list.

[mitchell cooper]

I am not familiar with Mountain Ridge.  Is there a problem there?  Why don't you explain your theory Mucci about how only Jewish clubs discriminate.

[ForkaB]

In my experience it's been almost exclusively 4 and 5 (none of the above) for me.  I try to treat archies I'm meeting or playing with as people rather than one-dimensional characters.  Talking more than casually about 1, 2 or 3 would be as exciting (and usefully informative) as asking a proctologist about technique.......

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mitchell Cooper,

No, I've never maintianed that.  That's your distorted, misguided attempt to divert attention from your preposterous position.  I'd rather hear you continue with your theory on how club's that don't serve Kosher food as standard fare discriminate, including Jewish clubs.

We're all familiar with your previous diatribes on discrimination.

I suspect, in your case, it has nothing to do with the global issues of ethnicity, race, color or gender, rather, it's about the individual.

[RJ_Daley]

I like 2 first, then 1.  I also like the discussion of inside the ropes or behind the scenes sort of discussion regarding decision makers at clubs and developers of projects, what issues they deal with between archies, constructors and powers that be.

Finally, I like it when archies and interested participants declare what they like and don't like, without mincing words,  3.

[TEPaul]

"That's your distorted, misguided attempt to divert attention from your preposterous position."

Pat:

Who am I to criticize the way you express yourself on here but don't you think it would be more effective if you threw another 4-5 adjectives in there than just "distorted". "misguided" and "preposteous"?  

May I at least suggest a few such as "psychotic" "pea-brained" and "misanthropic"?

[Tom_Doak]

I'll vote for #2 and #4.  Personally I most enjoy hearing other architects describe how they did what they did on a course, or where their ideas came from.

"Architectural concept and principle" would be interesting if there were many variations on the theme, but to me it all sounds pretty much alike.  I don't think everyone designs the same way, but everyone talks pretty much the same game.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Your suggestions are accepted.

[Mark Brown]

1 and 2

I enjoy talking about design strategy and the construction techniques, and design features used to accomplish it. I am also fascintated by the various types of greensites and specific goals of the archithect in designing them

[George Pazin]

What I enjoy most from our particiapting architects is hearing the reasoning behind why they did or did not do something (preferrably something beyond "the owner made me do it" ).

GCA principles-wise, I'm most interested in hearing about how a course is routed, though that seems to be the most difficult subject to discuss on here.

Even with as contentious as they often are, I also really enjoy hearing about restorations, particularly when someone like Tripp Davis steps forward and addresses our tough crowd. It's a shame more don't do it, but I can certainly understand why.

[BCrosby]

Tom Doak says:

""Architectural concept and principle" would be interesting if there were many variations on the theme, but to me it all sounds pretty much alike.  I don't think everyone designs the same way, but everyone talks pretty much the same game."

I think that is right.

But even thought we all talk much the same game in the abstract, there are wild disagreements when we get to specifics. It's fascinating to watch. We all agree that courses should be more strategic, and then disagree vehemently about what that means on specific holes, specific bunker locations, specific green contours, and so forth.

Those sorts of debates are fascinating and, for me at least, almost always educational.

A model for that kind of thread was one started by Ran several weeks ago titled "Lazy Architecture" where we debated the value of a single fairway bunker.

I would love to see more of the same. And fewer threads about whether Rustic Canyon should be 54th or 77th on the GW modern list.

Bob  

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I am not sure where this fall into Tom's categories, but I would simly like to ask them who were their respective architecture heroes and let them explain why they did what they did...or even in some cases why the hell did you do what you did

When it comes to green complexes I would really like to know how they achieved a certain look..and why that particular look for that hole/course

[Andy Acker]

I would have to say

1 including routing
2, 4 and 3. Including how to estimate costs before brining in outside parties.

[Doug Siebert]

The answers will be pretty different depending on one's background.  While I certainly know much more about architecture than the average golfer, I'm down near the bottom in knowledge compared to the 1500 here.  So I probably wouldn't get too much out of talking with the architects here about the nuts and bolts of construction beyond the most general stuff.  I might be curious what the steps are in building a green, say, but the intricacies of shaping are probably going to be lost on me.  But really, I don't have to understand the process to know what I like, anymore than I have to understand music composition or even scales to appreciate Mozart.

I'll certainly increase my meager knowledge when discussing #1, though I find for me I can relate better talking about #3, especially in terms of what I like/don't like architecture wise versus what someone truly knowledge in the field likes/doesn't like, and learning their thought process behind those conclusions.  Its been very enlightening reading the Confidential Guide in this regard.  Too bad putting out something like that wasn't a right of passage for all architects, it sure would be interesting to compare and contrast Doak's conclusions with say Fazio's or Nicklaus', or to compare their evolution over the years if for instance Nicklaus put something like that out at 40 and then did a new edition after the completion of Sebonack.

I'd agree with TEPaul that #4 is probably the most interesting and enlightening since a lot of the beliefs and biases one has about architecture probably come from there.

[Gary_Nelson]

I like to hear about how the courses were constructed, and how compromises were achieved during the process.  It's interesting to hear about how the routing evolved from the original concept to the finished product.

[Donnie Beck]

If I wasn't coming down with a cold and burning up with a fever I would probably write more on this, but I like to talk about agronomy and how it affects the playability of the golf course.

[John Kirk]

Unlike most here, I find #3 most interesting, though impractical.  Comparative opinions require explanations.  The problem with that type of critical analysis is the danger of offending other architect's work, and that's not worth the trouble here.

#1 and #2 are close behind, and like Donnie Beck, I like agronomy talk.

In person, I would rarely steer a conversation with an architect towards golf architecture.  These gentlemen build courses for a living, so I'd give them a break and let the conversation go elsewhere.  I'd just as soon talk about baseball.

[paul cowley]

....cute Tom, and I almost fell for it ...especially the way you come on with the 'it's just us guys talking' kind of thing.....no way are you getting my SECRETS out of me that easily.......and, I might add, especially since I've discovered the secrets of the shift key, YOU are going to have to wait  for MY BOOK since I can NOW express myself verbally and not just in the dirt!

[ian]

Tom,

1. Interesting new projects is the main reason that I come to look.

2. Anything to do with history is where I participate

3. Feel, rythem, flow and all those impossible to define elements of a great course. Your Max Behr stuff interest me even though I rarely post on it. This is what I want more of.

4, Great individual holes, hole strategies, techniques to influence play, ways to get in a golfer's head is another area that gets few threads.

[paul cowley]

Ian my man ...he's trickin ya, don't go there, follow the light

[ian]

Paul,

I see the light...................., but why is Andy Williams blocking the way?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()