[Frank M]

A recent thread speaking to the "fabric" of golf and whether it is being degraded lead me to wonder about this topic. Who and what exactly defines the "fabric" of golf?

In regards to golf course architecture, being this is an architecture community, why is it that some of us tend to believe certain qualities, whether inherent or extraneous to golf course architecture, define the fabric of golf? Is golf not more than that? Is golf course architecture simply an enabler of the game or do you view it as a defining aspect of golf itself? Are golf courses simply the grounds the game are played upon or are they part of the very definition of the game?


 

[Sean_A]

Frank

I suspect everybody will see things differently.  I used to think of courses as purely an enabler to play golf.  I didn't place much more value on courses than that, however, in the past 10 or so years I have come to realize that I only want to play interesting courses which are reasonably dry and firm given the time of the year.  The value of the golf course has risen dramatically in my estimation, but I am lucky to have many cool, accessible  courses not too distant from my house. I feel a twinge of sorrow for those who don't have many options and that is why I think it is best to be lenient on one's opinion about cart golf.  But without a doubt, the fabric of golf are the punters who stump up their cash every week or so to play easily walked courses which are affordable and accessible.  I am very lucky to live in the UK where I can secure a very affordable membership which also gives me reasonably priced access to many other good courses. 

Ciao

[Pat Burke]

Obviously, Melvyn!

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I think in reality it is self defining with 'self" being whomever is teeing it up.

I may not like many of the course routings that require extensive cart paths as in other threads on here, but some of those courses require paths for most to play, whose fabric is that?
 
Sure many of "we" snobs on hear may choose to fel that we and our views are the definng fabiric, with out traditionalist viewpoints and etiquette, but in reality that is not the norm fabric of the modern game.
It is really like asking what is the fabric of music, to some it may be gangsta rap to others a concerto extrordinaire from the 18th century, it is what you want it to be.
I may not like many of the course routings that require extensive cart paths as in other threads on here, but some of those courses require paths for most to play, whose fabric is that?

People playing the game is of upmost importance and in general peolpe of like "fabric" find eachother and play together.

For me personally the fabric of golf is the endless pursuit of that ball striking I desire, I love to practice,  me against mechanics, the constant learning curve pursuit.
As such practice facilties area big part of my fabric, I love courses with good practive facilities, hence my love for Diamante which has one of the finest.
If I am going to play the course has to be interesting to me or I would rather just practice, that is my snobbery, my fabric, my golf.
I am not anti social, but that aspect of the game has never been importatnt to me, I think the game is so diverse, nailing down any fabric criteria in almost impossible.
People playing the game is of upmost importance and in general peolpe of like "fabric" find eachother and play together.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Frank,

I think Sean A was closer in his original views than he is now. 

The fabric of golf is camaraderie and competition. 

The architecture is an enabler, but in that all fields of play are different, and not standardized, the variety that they provide is, IMHO, a part of the basic fabric of golf.  Perhaps only around the edges, or a second importance level of the fabric. Golf would be less of a game on a standardized playing field, even if that were possible. 

Beyond that, the outdoor and nature connection is probably a fabric of golf, and of course, golf courses facilitate that.  Some say they ruin it by being too artificial, or not of a particular type, which can be true, but on any course, you are still outdoors in a space that is more natural than most, even if not truly natural.

So, that's my take. Architecture is part of the fabric of golf, but a second level of importance part. (If there are levels of fabric......)

[Paul Gray]

Perhaps this is an overly functional answer but the fabric of the game, regardless of whether you perceive architecture to be an art form or not, is made up of the component parts which are essential to its existence. So in this sense, players, courses and club (and ball) makers are the fabric of the game. Anything else, good or bad, is merely consequential.

[Carl Rogers]

I might ask what defines the fabric of the game?  Is it's fabric stretchable?  At what point is not "GOLF"?

In relationship to other threads currently on page 1 .....
-Carts, do carts compromise the fabric of the game? .... (I would say not)
-Does desert golf compromise the fabric of the game?  ie.: golf in a difficult climate, soil conditions with a lot of technology and water use ..... (I would say not)

[BHoover]

I think Michael's post above is excellent. If I understand it correctly, I think the fabric of the game is unique to individuals depending upon what is important or fundamental to the individual. If that's correct, then I think it's a very good summarization of what the fabric of the game is.

[JMEvensky]

I think Michael's post above is excellent. If I understand it correctly, I think the fabric of the game is unique to individuals depending upon what is important or fundamental to the individual. If that's correct, then I think it's a very good summarization of what the fabric of the game is.

Agreed. We each get to define fabric in our own terms. That's what makes golf so great--it can mean different things to different people,but there's enough commonality that we can each relate to (almost) everyone else's definition.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Brian,
As usual you know me very well....that is exactly what I am saying.
The game is bigger than any defined fabric.
We on here are a very select bunch of golfing snobs, who "get" what the game is "supposed" to be to us and thus our fabric.
Which is probably  close to what the men in blazers always intend it to be, but Joe blow hacker cant be bothered with all those rules etc...

To which one may ask, is it therfore still golf ?
To them if they say it is , it is

[Peter Pallotta]

It strikes me that the 'definers' (or would-be definers) of the fabric of golf have never before been so numerous or so varied; and so on the one hand I'd agree with the basic sentiments of others that we are now living in an 'existentialist democracy' where every golfer has an 'equal' voice in defining that fabric for themselves, as they deem best, i.e. a world in which existence (the individual golfer) predates and is of greater importance than essence (some fundamental notion of the fabric of golf). On the other hand, it seems to be a particular folly of this modern individualistic age to assume that we are truly 'free agents', i.e. to believe that we're actually defining that fabric for ourselves free from the subtle or overt influences of the collective/consensus opinion. This strikes me as folly, not least because some of our would-be definers (architects, writers, self-proclaimed experts) have tools today at their disposal for shaping that discussion/definitions that their golden age bretheren could never have even dreamed of or imagined. In short, if you think that the top 20 lists (modern or classic) are simply 'accidents', i.e. that the courses perennially listed there emerge out of a 'statistically objective' and 'fabrically-neutral' environment, I believe you are mistaken.

Peter

[Mark Pavy]

Frank, great thread topic. Some really great replies.

I would suggest that the "fabric" is the enjoyment of hitting a ball with a stick and with that, all that follows- self improvement, competition and camaraderie.

It's only natural that on a golf course architectural forum that the importance of the course, in respect to the game, be elevated.
I agree with Peter's point regarding the architects, writers and self-proclaimed experts exerting undue influence over the game.
I have a theory that golf can be so hard on the psyche that many golfers develop a love/hate relationship for the game and move away from the self-improvement/competition aspect towards focussing on aspects of golf that don't mess with their head so much, possibly focussing on golf course architecture, its history and writing. I'm not doubting these guys love for the game, but I do question these guys when they comment on how golf should be, their opinions are skewed.

[Garland Bayley]

My guess is this question comes out of whether using a cart is proper/improper.
My simple contribution here is to say that the USGA has been on record as stating "Golf is a walking game."

[Stephen Pellegrino]

I guess my answer to this question lies within the question itself. Fabric is made up of many threads - different colors, different textures and running in different directions.

Me? I tend to seek out courses that promote walking, are not afraid to show some brown grass and have a culture that appreciate the historical roots of the game. But in my eyes, the best part of the game is that it is not tennis, or squash or lawn bowling. Every course is different and  each of these courses represents the wants of its players/members. It's exactly because of the fact that no two courses or clubs are alike that I keep playing golf. Different challenges, different looks, different feels, different people.

Just because I like to walk and play on older quirky courses doesn't mean that an uninspired cartball track has no place in the game. Nor does it mean that there aren't a great number of people within the golfing fabric (as opposed to the GCA fabric) that choose to play on that very type of golf course. To each his own, and thank God for that...

-Stephen

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()