[TEPaul]

Pat Mucci said:

"TEPaul,
You're wrong with respect to my comments about Notre Dame and Easthampton."

Pat:

Am I? I don't think so. Some time back out of the blue you asked why Notre Dame and Easthampton weren't top 100 courses. You can say now that remark has nothing to do with Coore & Crenshaw and only to do with idolators. That doesn't make much sense to me Pat.

I don't recall anyone at all saying that either Easthampton or Notre Dame were courses worthy of top 100 ranking--nobody at all--not the people you label as C&C idolators or anyone else.

So basically in that post above I gave you my feeling about why they aren't top 100 courses--plus I've never seen Notre Dame except for a bunch of photos of Coore's---and furthermore I've never said anything about Notre Dame on Golfclubatlas. And I don't remember anyone else on here saying Notre Dame was a top 100 golf course.

So where were you coming from when you asked us on this board to explain why Notre Dame and Easthampton weren't top 100 courses? You're taking shots at a bunch of people you gratuitously label as C&C idolators who aren't anything of the kind. The only earthly reason you do things like that on here, in my opinion, is to constantly attempt to make the point that various people are bashing Rees Jones and Tom Fazio and being biased towards them.

There're some people on here who don't really like the architecture of Rees Jones and Tom Fazio for a number of reasons and I really can't see why that's so hard for you to accept. People have different preferences in architecture and some happen to like the work of architects like Coore/Crenshaw, Doak and Hanse. I can't understand why you have a problem with that and I don't think many on here can either. At the very least you must admit that the architecture of C&C, Doak and Hanse is very little like the architecture of Fazio and Rees Jones. You can at least see the differences and distinction, can't you?

You said;

"C&C are extremely selective in their site/project selections, and as such, shouldn't they be held to a higher standard ?
If one "cherry picks" sites, one would expect the product to be superior.  I understand, at Easthampton, that the routing was inherited."

What kind of bullshit is that that one would expect their product to be superior and your question that shouldn't they  be held to a higher standard? Talk about lack of facts! What do you know about the facts of why Coore and Crenshaw took on various projects?

What do you mean by 'cherry picking' sites? Please tell me exactly what you mean or are implying by that. Tell me at least you don't mean to imply that they select sites simply so each and every one of their courses has the best chance possible of making something like the top 100. Because if you're even remotely implying that you don't have the vaguest idea about Coore and Crenshaw and what motivates them in all their project selections. It certainly can be a number of things and it certainly sounds like you don't really know much about why they probably selected the projects they've already completed.

And what's this about idolators? What's that supposed to mean? Do you have any preferences in living architects Pat? Do you have any real preferences in architecture of current architects? And if you do who are they and what are they? Are you afraid to go on the record and commit to a preference in architecture and architects? I guess most of us on here would have to say what you generally do on here is ask a hundred questions and then take people to task for answers that don't suit you for some reason.

My preferences in architects happen to be Coore & Crenshaw, Doak and Hanse. And I'm sure there'd be a number of others if I'd get out there and familiarize myself with the work of others more. I don't idolize those three either, I just really like most of the work they do more than I like the work of anyone else I've seen. That's no idolatary in my book---that's nothing more than architectural preference!

What's your preferences in current architects and architecture Pat? Why don't YOU answer THAT quesiton for a change and go on the record instead of just asking everyone else questions?

Commit to a statement of your preferences for a change. Or are you concerned that someone is going to accuse you of being an idolator? And shitcan, at least for a little while, all the questions about what everyone else thinks!  

Matter of fact, when some of those you accuse of being Coore/Crenshaw, Doak and Hanse idolators say nice things about the product of Tom Fazio and Rees you don't seem to even notice or acknowledge that or you're oddly silent on that FACT. Why is that?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Is it true that C&C are selective in their site/project selection ?

Your memory must be fading, I was the one who asked why Notre Dame and Easthampton weren't top 100 courses.
The answer I received was because of the site.
If that's the case then why shouldn't other architects get the same pass when the site's they work on are inferior ?
Why is it that their (the architects) work is inferior when a poor site is designed on, but the site itself is inferior when C&C produce a less than terrific design on an inferior site.
I'm just trying to understand the apparent double standard that seems to exist.

If Fazio creates a less than top 100 course on a poor site, just give him the same consideration that you give C&C on a poor site, nothing more, nothing less, it's called fair play.
And, that was my point from the get go, that you missed.

You know, from direct discussions that I've had with you, and from my postings, that I think they did a marvelous job at Friar's Head.  So you can't say I don't like their work or am biased against their work.

You may also recall in my earlier discussion that I likened their work to mortality rates of surgeons who do routine cases and the mortality rates of surgeons who do more difficult cases.
Just because the mortality rate is higher for surgeons who do more difficult cases doesn't make them inferior surgeons.
And, Likewise, architects who take on difficult sites shouldn't be hammered for a less than spectacular product.

I think it's valid to hold to a higher standard, architects that get prefered sites, versus inferior sites, whether it's Rees, Fazio or your beloved C&C.

I like C&C's work that I've seen, Tom Doaks work that I've seen and Gil Hanse's work that I've seen.

I noticed in another post, in response to Rich Goodale, that you indicated that Gil Hanse did good work, but that the Applebrook and Innescrone sites were inferior.  Just give other architects the same exemption when they work on inferior sites.

I've got to head out to dinner with an architect, but,
I'll be back.

P.S.  Go back and reread your post and stop hyperventilating

[TEPaul]

Patrick, you just said:

"Your memory must be fading, I was the one who asked why Notre Dame and Easthampton weren't top 100 courses."

Well, that's just typical! Why is my memory fading when I just said to you on the post above;

"Some time back out of the blue you asked why Notre Dame and Easthampton weren't top 100 courses."

No wonder you only ask questions--it looks to me like you're either incapable of reading or at least understanding what you've just read!

You said:

"I'm just trying to understand the apparent double standard that seems to exist."

I know you are Pat--we all know you're trying to understand--but one of the necessary requirements of understanding on this website is to read correctly what's been written and then understand what you've just read. You seem to have an ongoing problem with one or the other or both!  

Can you read this?

NO DOUBLE STANDARD EXISTS!! We all realize you keep saying that but it doesn't make it true! We all understand that you have a very difficult time coming to that realization but none of us really expect much more from somebody who's wrong 98% of the time and apparently on the increase to a booby prize winning 100%!

[AWTillinghast]

Mr. Mucci
It seems that you are the one who is hung up on analyzing architects based on their Top 100 results.  Most others seem to be focused on whether an architect makes the most of the site.  Big difference don't you think?

I don't see where certain architects are given a free pass and others are not.  In the case of Easthampton and Applebrook, by way of example, many on this site don't think they are Top 100 but they do think that C&C and Hanse made the most out of what they had to work with.  They don't seem to think the same of many of the courses that Rees and Fazio have designed.  Doesn't mean they are right, but that's what they think.

So maybe you would answer these questions.
Given the sites they had to work with,
Did C&C do a great job with Easthampton?  If not, why not?
Did Hanse do a great job with Applebrook?  If not, why not?
Did Rees do a great job with Sandpines?  If not, why not?
Did Rees do a great job with The Bridge?  If not, why not?
Did Jack do a great job at Bear's Club?  If not, why not?

I suspect many will look forward to your answers.

[Patrick_Mucci]

AWT,

I've never been hung up on architects based on their top 100 results, I don't where you conceived that notion.
Probably the bad air in your tomb.

In order to answer your questions intelligently one would be required to have seen the sites pre and post development, and have all of the pertinent information relative to restrictions.
I did not examine any of the sites prior to development, and I don't have the restricted information, and I have never seen Easthampton and The Bridge post development, hence I'm unqualified to make an evaluative, qualitative analysis.

Perhaps others who have this information can offer their opinions.

Have you seen all of the sites pre development ?
If not, how could you evaluate the answers ?

[DMoriarty]

Dave

I know you were just trying to make a lawyerly point, but you shouldn't have used the word "quote" when you in fact misquoted what I said.  Over here in Old Blightly that sort of folderol might lead to some serious libel action.  Not to mention the fact that by "flipping" my first two words you ended up with a much inferior sentence fragment than the one which I originally wrote.....

I didnt misquote you because I didnt quote you.  Far be it from me to put words in your mouth.  My quote was merely a hypothetical, attribited to the elusive "one."  If I had been quoting you, I would have said "you."

You are right, though, one's quote is awkward, perhaps one should have said:  

We are priviliged to have such a talented architect/writer/thinker as Tom Doak participating on this site, but many of us just don't want to offend him, for whatever reason.

 Still not great, but one didnt leave me that much to work with.  

Do you care to answer Pat's question or are you content to wallow in semantics today?

 I dont like the question, and couldnt even begin a compilation course of PD and BD.  

  Take, for example, the first hole at Bandon, which I think is the least artful hole on either eighteen.  Obviously the one I should throw off, correct?  But my main problem with BD No. 1 is that it just doesnt fit as well as the other holes on BD.  So now you want me to replace it with a hole from Pacific that fits in even less?  What is the point of that?

  So, I dont care to answer.  I am quite happy wallowing in semantics today, like a pig in sh!t.  

[Tim_Weiman]

mdugger:

I don't believe Tom Doak ever suggested Tom Simpson was a genius for using the relatively poor part of the Ballybunion property for par five holes.

He avoided doing so for good reason: Simpson, in fact, inherited the routing which included the par fives that now play as #4 and #5. In the plan he submitted to the club in 1937, Simpson compliments the existing routing and advises the club to simply focus on making improvements to the existing holes.

Moreover, the Simpson plan didn't make any recommendations for changes to the 4th (formerly #17) and only minor changes to the 5th (formerly #18).

Nonetheless, Tom Doak's observation giving credit to whoever made the Ballybunion routing decision makes sense and the lesson may well apply to Pacific Dunes' #3 and #12.

[ForkaB]

Dave

The "exercise" as I see it, is:

1.  To see if there is a real and feasible "composite" course out there in Bandon, a la RM and TCC.

2.  To hypothecize about an "ideal" 18 from the current holes on the property.

Both of these exercises are just meant to be fun, but also as a means for us to learn more about GCA.  For example, your brief comments on #1 at Bandon could lead to an interesting discussion about hte pros and cons of that hole, the role of 1st holes in general, your issue of "fit", etc.

Why do some on this site find it so hard to go through simple "contrast and compare" exercises when talking about golf courses?  I personally think that the two courses at Bandon are an ideal laboratory for us to explore what we really think GCA is all about.  Many of us have played the courses, and each of them is an outstanding example of what can be done today by the profession.  Also, each course has examples of great GCA and some not so great GCA, IMHO.  Different people will have diferrent takes than me on these issues, and I'd love to hear them and compare them with my own recollections of my bfrief time on the two courses.  However, few people seem to want to go through this sort of exercise, which I find to be sad.

PS--I do like your current predilection for semantic wallowing (as well as the Cliff Notes summaries of Aristophanes etc.).  Keep up the good work.

[Tim_Weiman]

Rich Goodale,

As I've expressed, the idea of a composite course at Bandon is a turn off just like the same holds true for the Fazio courses at World Woods. That's what I hear people saying.

But, I also feel Pat Mucci made two mistakes in the way he initiated this thread and with his follow up comments.

First, I noticed that Pat never really expressed whether he thought a composite would make sense at Bandon and, if so, what holes he thought would work well. Like you say, many people on this board have played these courses, but Pat just returned from a visit. If he wasn't willing to lay out his own views before asking anyone else to do the same, chances are people would only feel less inclined to bother with the exercise.

The second mistake Pat made was to make suggestions why people didn't have any interest in the Bandon composite exercise. Pat came across as if he wasn't willing to accept the view that people just don't like the idea of a Bandon composite. None of us who expressed this view worried about offending David Kidd, Tom Doak or Mike Keiser. We just don't think these courses - as good as they are - would fit together as an appealing composite. If David, Tom, Mike or even Pat feels offended, well too bad. I see each course working quite well on ts own but not together. Period.

Rich, it is possible that a composite at Bandon might make sense. I don't see it, but perhaps it is there. Nothing prevents you or Pat from laying out such a case. For the sake of the thread it would have been better for Pat to do so while initiating the discussion and skipping the part of trying to assess other people's motives for not participating.

[Michael Dugger]

mdugger:

I don't believe Tom Doak ever suggested Tom Simpson was a genius for using the relatively poor part of the Ballybunion property for par five holes.

Nonetheless, Tom Doak's observation giving credit to whoever made the Ballybunion routing decision makes sense and the lesson may well apply to Pacific Dunes' #3 and #12.

Tim,

That's what I meant to say, sorry it didn't come out quite like that.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Again, I think trying to come up with a composite from Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes is a waste of time for a lot of reasons. Firstly although right next to each other and the same basic style of architecture the holes and so much about them are just different because they were done by two different architects and two different companies. The only possible interest I could see in such an excerise would be in sort of an ideal routing sense or excercise if both sites could be used ideally for one course. But frankly to even attempt to do that well and do the excercise justice would take a whole lot more work and specific knowledge of all the details of that site which I can't imagine anyone on this site really has. If I wanted to do an excerise like that justice I'd want to go out there and study things for quite some time.

Again, Shinnecock and NGLA are right next to each other too and both are terrific courses and terrific architecture but trying to put together the holes of each into a composite course is basically a waste of time.

I don't think not wanting to answer a question like this is sad at all. And don't forget that Pat asked this question. Pat has already asked about a million questions on this website and the fact that most of them weren't answered isn't sad at all. It would be sad as hell actually if the contributors to the site truly did try to answer all of Pat's mindless questions which basically are all trying to make the foundation for double standards and bias that doesn't exists anyway!  

[Tim_Weiman]

mdugger:

Unfortunately, documentation on exactly who is responsible for Ballybunion's routing doesn't exist, at least not to my knowledge. Simpson gets lots of credit for the course based on his consulting assignment in the late 1930's, but it is clear that the routing was not something he worked on.

It's too bad. There are many courses where golf architecture students would love to know what went through the mind of the architect while designing the course. For example, apparently RTJ presented the club with three routing plans for the Cashen. Maybe on my next trip over I'll try to find out if there is any record of the two plans not used.

[DMoriarty]

Why do some on this site find it so hard to go through simple "contrast and compare" exercises when talking about golf courses?  

About golf courses?  No problem.  See my description of the two courses to Shivas, above.  If that is not detailed or critical enough, add that I thought Bandon's greens were a bit formulaic and repititious.  For example, it seems that Mr. Kidd or one of his people had a thing for shaping a kidney shaped shelf somewhere on the large green.  Not necessarily a bad feature the first time, but . . .   In comparison, Pacific's greens were varied, interesting, free flowing, fantastic.  

 But that wasnt the question.  The question was about golf holes, not courses.  Taking golf holes out of the context of their course is missing much of the point of golf architecture.

This should be no surprise to you or Patrick, as we have discussed this before.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()