This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.
Dude, it's like when you look at a naked woman. How do you go about describing her architecture, all you know is how it affects you.Same with golf course architecture. First and foremost, a great course is about the feeling it leaves you with.I think that's true, even if it's a clothed woman.There's a uniqueness in the one on one relationship between the golfer and the golf course/architectureA chemistry or connection between the course/architecture and the golfer that's either there or not there.That's a relationship of relativity.However, I also think there are absolutes that trump individual chemistry.And, I think you have to disengage the golfer from his play of the golf course when evaluating the architecture.All too often, how one plays the golf course gets confused with assessing the quality of the architecture.Did the 'walk in the park' thrill you? Could you have taken that walk and NOT PLAYED golf but still enjoyed yourself? I don't agree with that distinction.Most who have walked the cliffs on Monterey Penisula or in Bandon would enjoy the walk absent the golf.If a poor or mediocre golf course existed on those sites, the external sights would remain superior, but, that doesn't speak to the quality of the golf course and/or the merits of the architecture. A truly great course MUST possess incredible land. I'm not so sure I agree with that.Is the land at TOC, as seen from the golfer's eye, incredible ?GCGC ?Pine Tree ?Texas Tech ?This is the spice of golf course architecture, some great courses are atop cliffs overlooking the ocean, others run across tree-lined meadows, others occupy the nastiest scrub land you've ever layed your eyes on. A round of golf should be a thrilling journey. Was every club in the bag asked for, did you hit a wide variety of shots, did the course test your entire set of skills, did the course require thought and strategy, in addition to execution?Once you've experienced the feeling, then you can begin to study how different kinds of holes and different architectural features help propogate "that" experience. It is possible to have an incredible architectural achievement over a boring plot of land. (Texas Tech)Aren't you contradicting yourself ?Just like the biggest crime in golf course design is wasting a plumb piece of property with a dog of a golf course (Sandpines)With the nearby commercial buildings, I'm not so sure I'd label Sandpines as a plumb piece of property and I don't regard it as a dog of a golf course.Some of the holes are quite good.Does anyone have any recent pictures.
Quote from: Anthony Gray on July 03, 2009, 08:13:55 AMHarvey,Live Love Laugh and enjoy your youth so when you are old you won't be bitter that your best days are behind you. Anthony,On his introductory thread, Harvey stated he's like 40 something.I think youth has passed him by already, but he doesn't sound bitter!
Harvey,Live Love Laugh and enjoy your youth so when you are old you won't be bitter that your best days are behind you.
Quote from: Michael Dugger on July 02, 2009, 11:04:26 PMDude, it's like when you look at a naked woman. How do you go about describing her architecture, all you know is how it affects you.Same with golf course architecture. First and foremost, a great course is about the feeling it leaves you with.I think that's true, even if it's a clothed woman.There's a uniqueness in the one on one relationship between the golfer and the golf course/architectureA chemistry or connection between the course/architecture and the golfer that's either there or not there.That's a relationship of relativity.However, I also think there are absolutes that trump individual chemistry.And, I think you have to disengage the golfer from his play of the golf course when evaluating the architecture.All too often, how one plays the golf course gets confused with assessing the quality of the architecture.Did the 'walk in the park' thrill you? Could you have taken that walk and NOT PLAYED golf but still enjoyed yourself? I don't agree with that distinction.Most who have walked the cliffs on Monterey Penisula or in Bandon would enjoy the walk absent the golf.If a poor or mediocre golf course existed on those sites, the external sights would remain superior, but, that doesn't speak to the quality of the golf course and/or the merits of the architecture. A truly great course MUST possess incredible land. I'm not so sure I agree with that.Is the land at TOC, as seen from the golfer's eye, incredible ?GCGC ?Pine Tree ?Texas Tech ?This is the spice of golf course architecture, some great courses are atop cliffs overlooking the ocean, others run across tree-lined meadows, others occupy the nastiest scrub land you've ever layed your eyes on. A round of golf should be a thrilling journey. Was every club in the bag asked for, did you hit a wide variety of shots, did the course test your entire set of skills, did the course require thought and strategy, in addition to execution?Once you've experienced the feeling, then you can begin to study how different kinds of holes and different architectural features help propogate "that" experience. It is possible to have an incredible architectural achievement over a boring plot of land. (Texas Tech)Aren't you contradicting yourself ?Just like the biggest crime in golf course design is wasting a plumb piece of property with a dog of a golf course (Sandpines)With the nearby commercial buildings, I'm not so sure I'd label Sandpines as a plumb piece of property and I don't regard it as a dog of a golf course.Some of the holes are quite good.Does anyone have any recent pictures.