[Adrian_Stiff]

Sean far from miss your point I agree with you, I was more trying to say somelike Painswick some don't, and whats fun for some is hell for others. Some of Pete Dye's courses are brutal, its a different kind of fun. I would not enjoy those courses 365 days a year. Fun is making birdies to me.

The course I have just built was based quite a lot on bits I have grabbed from this very site (always an invite for you ofcourse) and the essence from the start was FUN... its just opened and most of the feedback echoes that word. I am a crap golfer now but I can plot it around, a few weeks ago I had an eight footer for a 29 on the back nine (par 33) now that to me was fun. I was a 13 handicapper and shot nett 55.

[Garland Bayley]

"Many top golfers do not want courses to be hard for them, they want courses to be hard for everyone else."

This seems to me to be very well said and the source of a lot of the muddy thinking about architectural 'superiority'.  One might even extend the thought and say that when such a golfer finds a course that he thought was going to be hard (that is, hard for others!) to be hard for him) -- then he calls it 'unfair'!."

("While my continued involvement on this website may hint otherwise, I'm no masochist."  Funny.)

I think someone has finally pinned down the misuse of the word fair as used with respect to golf courses for me.

A fair course is one I can score on and less talented players cannot. An unfair course is one that I can't score on.
These courses vary greatly by the ability of the player.

I am not very talented, but my home course is fair (slope 122). My home course eats my younger brother alive. He thinks his home course which has a slope rating of 106 is fair.

A tour pro thinks TPC courses with pinching bunkers and ponds are fair. Although, when I play such a course I find a lot of bunkers and ponds, and they are no fun. However, let Pete Dye build a shot testing course to the extreme such as PGA West, and suddenly it is unfair to the PGA tour pro.

Note that the courses in question do not change from player to player, so ultimately they are fair. They just have varying degrees of difficulty.

[George Pazin]

Is Seminole superior to Achasta?  Yes.  No doubt about it.  I have more "fun" on Achasta than I did on Seminole.  I am not good enough to enjoy or appreciate Seminole.

This comment seems to have been overlooked.

As for the rest, I'd simply say define your terms.

[Niall C]

Sean far from miss your point I agree with you, I was more trying to say somelike Painswick some don't, and whats fun for some is hell for others. Some of Pete Dye's courses are brutal, its a different kind of fun. I would not enjoy those courses 365 days a year. Fun is making birdies to me.

The course I have just built was based quite a lot on bits I have grabbed from this very site (always an invite for you ofcourse) and the essence from the start was FUN... its just opened and most of the feedback echoes that word. I am a crap golfer now but I can plot it around, a few weeks ago I had an eight footer for a 29 on the back nine (par 33) now that to me was fun. I was a 13 handicapper and shot nett 55.

Adrian,

This new course of yours, I take it you are also the owner as well as the Chairman of the Handicap Committee ?

Just asking.

Niall

[Adrian_Stiff]

Im off 11 now Niall !

[John Moore II]

David: If we are to say that Oakmont it architecturally superior to, say, Pine Needles, does that mean Oakmont is more fun for all golfers, exclusive of the 'private club' experience? I say, from that I have seen of Oakmont on TV and images, that Oakmont would be too hard for an average golfer to enjoy day-in-day-out while Needles, from what I have seen personally, would be enjoyable for all golfers at just about any time.  Do you not agree?

I haven't played either one, so it is impossible for me to play.   But I wouldn't call any course "architecturally superior" if it wouldn't be fun for a wide spectrum of golfers to play day after day.   If a course really is too tough to be fun for a big share of golfers, then it may be a great "Championship Test" but it wouldn't be great architecturally.  

David: I am going to name a few of the courses from the Golf Digest 50 Toughest Golf Courses which are also GD Top 100: The Ocean Course, Oakmont, Bethpage (Black),Whistling Straits, Pine Valley, Winged Foot (West), TPC Sawgrass, Blackwolf Run, Butler National, Spyglass Hill, Pinehurst #2, Medinah #3, Yale (not GD Top 100, but Golfweek Top 100). I will use Bethpage (Black) as a good example as pretty much everyone on this site says it is a real beast; same with Yale. You tell me if these courses are good architecture?

[TEPaul]

"But I wouldn't call any course "architecturally superior" if it wouldn't be fun for a wide spectrum of golfers to play day after day.   If a course really is too tough to be fun for a big share of golfers, then it may be a great "Championship Test" but it wouldn't be great architecturally."



That is most certainly an opinion and statement I would disagree with. 

[TEPaul]

"Many top golfers do not want courses to be hard for them, they want courses to be hard for everyone else.  They think more of themselves when others struggle.   So when a course is playable for them but unplayable for most everyone else, then it must be top notch."



I am wondering how David Moriarty thinks he knows what 'many top golfers' want or do not want or what they think of themselves for any reason or what they think makes for a top notch golf course?   

Talk about blatant speculation that he attempts to pass off as some fact (or is it PHACT?). 

[TEPaul]

The idea of the "ideal" golf course was a concept that was thrown around in the old days by a number of people. Certainly Macdonald talked about and wrote about and defined what he felt an "ideal" golf course was and wasn't.

However, I'm not sure that I am aware that he ever actually articulated that an "ideal" golf course was completely synonymous with "great golf course architecture" or was even supposed to be.

I suppose others such as Bob Jones or even Mackenzie or Ross visualized the ideal golf course or golf architecture as something that could both challenge the great player while accomodating the beginner. This to me might have been as much a semi-marketing ploy as anything else.

Thankfully it seems George Crump never fell for that ploy when he created Pine Valley. If Crump had heard or understood that concept for "ideal" golf architecture it seems his intention with Pine Valley was to create something much less than IDEAL! And by connection to what a few misguided analysts have said on this thread about ideal and superior architecture being virtually one and the same it seems Crump's intention with Pine Valley was to create a golf course that was something much less than SUPERIOR architecture too!

And by analogy the same could be said for many of the traditional most highly respected architecture such as Myopia, Oakmont, The Black, Pinehurst #2, Merion East, etc, etc, etc,.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I suppose others such as Bob Jones or even Mackenzie or Ross visualized the ideal golf course or golf architecture as something that could both challenge the great player while accomodating the beginner. This to me might have been as much a semi-marketing ploy as anything else.

Those two may have believed that TOC, which exemplified that ideal, was the best representation of what a golf course should be.

Seems more real than just being a semi-marketing ploy on their parts.

[John Moore II]

"But I wouldn't call any course "architecturally superior" if it wouldn't be fun for a wide spectrum of golfers to play day after day.   If a course really is too tough to be fun for a big share of golfers, then it may be a great "Championship Test" but it wouldn't be great architecturally."



That is most certainly an opinion and statement I would disagree with. 

I whole-heartedly disagree with that statement as well. Certainly a "Championship Course" can be poor architecture, just look at all the 'championship' golf courses built in the 70's and 80's. However, the very best of the championship courses, the ones where we see the US Open's played, specifically, BPB, WFW and Oakmont, are said to be very, very difficult, yet also said to be some of the very, very best.

[TEPaul]

"Certainly a "Championship Course" can be poor architecture, just look at all the 'championship' golf courses built in the 70's and 80's. However, the very best of the championship courses, the ones where we see the US Open's played, specifically, BPB, WFW and Oakmont, are said to be very, very difficult, yet also said to be some of the very, very best."


John K. Moore:


I think that's a very intelligent and important observation.

However, I am certainly mindful that it was apparently not just the so-called "championship" type golf course of the 70s and 80s that some important golf analysts felt were lacking in some way. Otherwise how could Bob Jones have made the remarks as early as he did about how one dimensional he felt some of the earlier so-called American "championship" courses were? And one can add to that the fact that Bob Jones was never particularly critical of any specific course (perhaps because he was too much the gentleman to be so) but in one lapse he was particularly critical of the bunkers of Oakmont.

Nevertheless, it is certainly true to say that many of those courses that were the best at testing the best, and not just in tournaments or championships, have always been considered by so many to be the best examples of superior architecture!

Maybe it's all something like the reality of the Bell at the State Fair---eg most all understand they are not capable of ringing it but that does not seem to prevent them from being fascinated by it and the concept of it somehow!  

Personally, like some on here, I don't think the so-called "Fun Factor" has all that much to do with superior architecture. Or at least I guess I should say that personally I sure don't think it has just about everything to do with superior architecture as apparently some others on here do.

I've told the story on here a number of times but one of the courses I had the most fun on in my entire career for an entire week was this pretty simple little golf course in Southern Ireland, Mallow GC. It was sort of on the side of a gentle moutain and it was really hot and dry in the summer of 1999 when I played it every morning for a week at daybreak. It was the fastest course I ever saw----eg the ground was just super alive in that the ball could bounce and runout more than 100 yards at a time. To me it was totally tansfixing, and I don't remember having more fun trying to figure out what to do on it.

But was little Mallow GC's architecture superior to Pine Valley or Merion or NGLA or Shinnecock or Oakmont or Myopia or so many others of the highly respected ones I know?

Of course not.

However, what should I say about the architecture of Mallow, particularly with the extremely fast conditions on which I played it? I would say its architecture was just fine given the fact it was on and had some really lovely sloping and rolling ground----the kind that just makes for good and fun golf no matter where the hell it is or what it's name is.

[Mac Plumart]

Ok…I haven’t read these last few posts, but will right now.

But I’ve been trying to put some of these thoughts together all day and I think I’ve got some of my thoughts sorted out.  Please help me/correct me with any issues you see with my comments.

We are essentially sorting out what is good architecture and does it have to be fun.  At least that is how I take it.  So, first off what is architecture and how can we determine if it is good.  To answer this maybe we go back to the start, St. Andrews Old Course.

As I understand it The Old Course at St. Andrews isn’t man-made, it was just there.  It so perfectly fit for the game of golf with its soil, undulations, turf, etc that it became the basis for an ideal course.  CBM played there and took golf to America.  He then built Chicago Golf Club and The National.

Now there were other courses in America at the time, but it is my understanding that the British golfers were dominating the Americans in golfing competitions for quite some time.  If I am recalling this correctly, Tom Macwood cited these types of examples in his reply to Bob Crosby’s “Joshua Crane” articles. 

I believe Tom M. said that Americans then began to build golf courses that were sterner test of golf.  I think Oakmont, Shinnecock, Merion, Pine Valley came around this time.  Please correct me if I have the wrong courses and/or the wrong times.

With these more difficult golf courses as their training grounds, the Americans began to take over the international golfing scene.  So, good architecture in this regards led to winning golfing tournaments.  Therefore, good architecture was a training ground for championship golfers.

Also, with the explosion of golf with Francis Ouimets stunning victory in 1913 golf began to spread at a rapid pace in America.  Perhaps this led to the “masses” begin to play golf and not just the elite competitors.  Could this have led the greats (Ross I think and maybe Mackenzie) to say that a great course is a challenge to the scratch golfer and fun for the high handicapper.

Could these instances be the basis of the continuing argument regarding what is good architecture?  St. Andrews spearheading natural  golf courses.  The stern US golf courses spearheading the idea that good architecture builds great golfers.  And then the great Golden Age architects making stern enough tests that are also fun.

If this is true, doesn’t your idea of great architecture simply depend on your point of view? 

I am not convinced I am right or wrong.  So, I would love to hear others thoughts on this.

[TEPaul]

Mac:

That seems to me to be quite a fair analysis of the evolution of GCA both abroad and here. It's a bit general but nevertheless pretty accurate, in my opinion. However, I think some of those terms such as "Ideal" and such were thrown around back then for various reasons, the sum and substance of all those reasons being or meaning to me that we should never take terms like that too specifically or too seriously or certainly not in some vein of some particular standardization of what makes for superior architecture.

And I would say to your final question----of course!

But lastly, I would encourage both you and JC and others on here to pay particular attention to Tom Doak's Post #18 on this thread. To me, as is common with many of his posts on this website, it pretty much says all we really need to know on the subject of this thread and others. In my opinion, some of us should just sit back and try to realize and appreciate how lucky we are to have a guy like Doak on here contributing as he has all these years. I feel a single Doak on here is worth far more than about 10,000 MacWoods and Moriartys and their circumspect and circuitous pontifications and argumentations.

[Sean_A]

"However, the ultimate test of greatness is when a course can challenge and provide entertainment for all levels of players, but still keep a bit of humour/whimsy about it."


Sean Arble:

Well, then, do you suspect there is something about North Berwick that would not provide as much challenge and entertainment to say Tiger Woods as it apparently does to you? And if you do, what is it? In considering that question you should probably disregard the fact that he generally scores better on any golf course than you would? 

Tom

I am beginning to think most of your questions are rhetorical. 

I looked at the Whip It Out thread and notice I have only seven cross over courses from my Favourites and Best lists of 25 each. 

I have always been more interested in the favourites courses of folks much more than their idea of the best courses.  It tells me more about a person.  Additionally, I don't really care what the best courses are because golf only needs to be so good to be good enough for my purposes of having fun.  It is sort of like "more than a handful is a waste". 

Ciao

[TEPaul]

Sean:

My question or questions to you were not rhetorical. However, judging from your last post perhaps what you should've just said in the beginning was all I really care about with greatness or whatever is what I think it is. If that's the case maybe the following was not the best or most accurate thing to say on here.



"However, the ultimate test of greatness is when a course can challenge and provide entertainment for all levels of players, but still keep a bit of humour/whimsy about it."

[Mac Plumart]

Is Seminole superior to Achasta?  Yes.  No doubt about it.  I have more "fun" on Achasta than I did on Seminole.  I am not good enough to enjoy or appreciate Seminole.

This comment seems to have been overlooked.

As for the rest, I'd simply say define your terms.

George, I hope this comment wasn't overlooked as I find accurate self-analysis to be vital when analyzing anything, particularly golf course architecture. 

For instance, I found Pinehurst #2's greens hard to hold (as well as Grandfather's) but does that mean they are flawed greens?  Not at all.  Any shot into those greens that isn't well struck will be deflected...in fact I think that is a great characteristic of those courses, despite my inability to hold them consistently.  On #2, I found those greens a particularly excellent challenge due to the wide open nature of the fairways.  This made for an interesting insight to actually witness a course that is playable for the high handicappers (given the wide open fairways), while remaining a challenge for the scratch golfer (with those greens).

I also found Kiawah especially challenging with the wind, but "fair" given the waste bunkering and collection areas to gather wayward shots...rather than excessive use of water.

Seminole is the only course to date that I didn't see any respite from the difficulty of the course.  Heavy wind.  Undulating greens.  Hard/very firm greens.  Very fast greens.  With the undulations usually leading you into a bunker.  And many, many fairway bunkers to catch windblown or wayward shots. 

Perhaps here is a question for the group...NGLA.  I think it is an historic course and a tremendously fun course.  But is it relevant to the top tier golfers?  And, therefore, is it still great?   

[George Freeman]

In order for any of these arguments to make any sense, you must first have a definitive answer for what a "great" golf course is or what "great" golf architecture is. 

The problem is, people have been trying to pin a definition on the phrase since golf courses graced this planet, and to this date there is no definitive answer.

Take this site for instance: ask 10 people, specifically, what makes golf architecture "great" or golf architecture "fun," and you're bound to receive 10 different answers pertaining to each, even from a group of people who all think similarly about GCA (in general).  This thread is a perfect example.

[Mac Plumart]

George, why let the facts get in the way of a great discussion.  The topic is interesting and the answer is unknowable.  Therefore, we could talk about this interesting topic literally forever.  And then you go and throw a wet blanket on it.  Geez!! 

[George Freeman]

Mac,

Sorry to rain on your parade!

The back and forth is fun either way.  We just need to remember that this is 100% subjective and that no one is wrong.

[JC Jones]

JC:

It's an unanswerable question as an absolute.  It's answerable for any individual who wants to take the time to break down everything he's seen and why he likes what he does.  I've spent the last 31 years working on that.  But I've also spent the last twenty years listening to other people react to what I've built, and the more I listen, the more I realize that few others are ever going to have the same take on architecture that I do. 

So, to me, trying to write down exactly what you SHOULD think is pointless ... in fact, it's self-defeating.  What I need to do is listen to others, and see if they say anything that I haven't already thought of and internalized.

In the end, though, all design is a matter of opinion.  You can achieve a consensus of opinion, but it will only be meaningful for people who realize there will always be exceptions to their rules.  Hell, look at all the golf professionals who think The Old Course at St. Andrews is inferior architecture ... while I think it's our equivalent of a Biblical text.

Tom,

Firstly, it was good to see you again on Friday at the Downs.  Thanks for saying hello.

Secondly, I'm not sure why this thread bothers you.  I am in no way trying to separate architectural merit from golfing merit.  In fact, I am combining them.  What a hole offers a golfer is a result of it's routing and the strategy implemented by the architect.  Those two aspects of architecture are what create a particular hole's golfing merit.

I think the rest of your post is a round about punt to subjectivity (regardless of how much Tom Paul may drool over it).  Moreover, your subsequent post attempting to articulate the difference between golfing merit and architecture merit is confusing.  At what point does the discussion of whether people care about man made vs nature made come into this conversation?  I'm not sure what a perceived over-emphasis on man made v nature mad has anything to do with architectural and/or golfing merit?  Perhaps I need to define my terms.  When I say "can a golf course have superior architecture and be less fun than another golf course," I am not asking any questions about what was built and what wasn't. 

I am asking, quite simply, in the pie of "great" architecture, is there a piece for "fun"?  After 31 years, what, in your opinion, constitutes a great golf course?  Routing?  Green complexes?  Quirk?  Interplay with the existing land and surroundings?  Fun?

Or, at the end of the day, does superior routing, green complexes, quirk, variety, naturalness, etc. lead to a fun golf course and therefore a "great" golf course?

Why is Oakmont great if it is no fun?  Why is North Berwick so much fun if it is not "great"?

[JC Jones]

Philosophy 101: The subjective/objective debate is as old as the hills, and is found in virtually every area of 'art'. One one level, there is no absolute reference point for what a golf course should be, unless you want to take a pure utilitarian viewpoint, which in golf terms would translate as 'the best courses are those that are most fun for most people to play'. This is superficially attractive, but it leads us to unappealing conclusions when courses that are justly regarded as great are unfavourably compared to seemingly lesser venues, just as utilitarianism leads inevitably to the conclusion that it is better to be a happy pig than a dissastisfied Greek philosopher.

But pure subjectivity is not a credible position either, as it leads inevitably to the conclusion that if I think a Big Mac is better food than a great steak, my view is equally valid as yours that it isn't. Or in golf terms: my contention that Pacific Grove is a better golf course than Cypress Point has the same validity as Jack Nicklaus saying the reverse.

Art, and I'm including golf courses in this category for the sake of the argument, is 'group objective'. Objective judgements can and are made based on the collective subjective viewpoints of qualified individuals. They are not truly objective in the same way that statements such as 2+2=4 are, but they emerge from the communication and criticism of members of a group. They are subject to revision if new facts emerge, or new opinions convince the members of the group to change their minds, but they are more than pure subjectivity. Thus we can say 'TOC is a better golf course than Balbirnie Park' and it means more than just a pure subjective opinion.

blimey....

This is by far the single best post on this thread and it should be read several times. 

Adam,

How much do you think status quo bias affects the group's ability to internalize and react to new facts?  Does this explain why 80 of the Golfweek composite top 100 are Classic courses? 

[Colin Macqueen]

JCJ and Adam L,
I was very taken with the Philosophy101 post by Adam as being able to tie my golfing fanaticism and a quick philosophy tutorial together earns top marks from me. Good, good fun!
In response to your question JCJ,
"How much do you think status quo bias affects the group's ability to internalize and react to new facts?"
my answer would be to think that the affect is very large. I suspect that as one sees, hears and sub-consciously internalises the status quo in many, if not all, sorts of different situations it is simply too difficult to dissociate oneself from that. Such is human nature methinks.

Colin.

[DMoriarty]

David: I am going to name a few of the courses from the Golf Digest 50 Toughest Golf Courses which are also GD Top 100: The Ocean Course, Oakmont, Bethpage (Black),Whistling Straits, Pine Valley, Winged Foot (West), TPC Sawgrass, Blackwolf Run, Butler National, Spyglass Hill, Pinehurst #2, Medinah #3, Yale (not GD Top 100, but Golfweek Top 100). I will use Bethpage (Black) as a good example as pretty much everyone on this site says it is a real beast; same with Yale. You tell me if these courses are good architecture?

Nice list!  With a few exceptions, I have little interest in these courses, so it shouldn't surprise you that I haven't played most of them. That should also tell you something about my tastes, or lack thereof.

I have played the Black and I've walked it a few times in the years before the first USOpen there.  So not too much exposure, but it did leave an impression or two.  I was amazed with the scale of the place and and the architectural bones, and would have loved to have played it 50 years ago, and while I cant say for sure it was probably great then.  But unfortunately in my experience a decade ago it was a boring slog with too-narrow fairways, wrist-cracking rough, fairway bunkers not anywhere near the fairways, and  flattish uninteresting greens a long, long way away.  I am generalizing of course, but there was enough of this type of thing that the course was reduced to not much more than any other long slog course with high rough and narrow fairways.    

Don't get the impression that I am advocating for easy.  I enjoy the challenges and agree that challenging golf holes are another prerequisite for an excellent golf course.   But challenge and enjoyability are not mutually exclusive, except perhaps when a course is set up like Bethpage was a decade ago.

I see where you wrote elsewhere that Bethpage is "said to be" among the "very, very best."   Let's set aside the groupthink about what is "said to be" excellent.      My question is why?  

What is excellent about any golf course where there is little or no choice off the tees except to try and hit a very narrow fairway, and where any miss could result in a lost ball or a broken wrist?    What is excellent about fairway bunkers nowhere near the fairway? What is excellent about stripping all the interest and variety out of a design to make it harder?  

More generally, what does creating a Championship Test have to do with creating an excellent golf course?  When they try to turn a great golf course into a Championship Test, aren't they much more likely to ruin the course rather than improve it?

[Sean_A]

Sean:

My question or questions to you were not rhetorical. However, judging from your last post perhaps what you should've just said in the beginning was all I really care about with greatness or whatever is what I think it is. If that's the case maybe the following was not the best or most accurate thing to say on here.



"However, the ultimate test of greatness is when a course can challenge and provide entertainment for all levels of players, but still keep a bit of humour/whimsy about it."

I am unsure of the meaning of this post nor why my thoughts aren't accurate.  You or anybody else may disagree and that is fine with me.  As others have opined, there are no absolutes when it comes to architecture or art.  I spsoe this is one reason folks can come up with such terrific and imaginative work.  Which is partly why I think there should be an element of eccentricity and even controversy in any great design.

Ciao   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()