[Mark Bourgeois]

Niall,

I think *almost* no old course that is divisive could be considered great but a modern course that is divisive could.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Charlie, Niall, your posts are interesting because they came together yet effectively take the opposite view.

Both posts are starting to investigate the reason I started the thread.

[Charlie Ray]

I am not sure if Niall and my posts are interesting because at the basis of them is the century old debate of subjective versus objective.

I am a proponent of objectivity whenever possible.  The golf course is great because its greatness is contained with the efficient, material, formal, and final causes of said course,  Therefore, whether someone says the course is great or not makes zero difference.  Penelope Cruz is a beautiful woman even if you are Ray Charles.   

[Ally Mcintosh]

OK, now you're getting further away...

[Charlie Ray]

Ally -
Okay, so what exactly are you attempting investigate? 

In your original post, you ask 'which courses are universally loved?'   and then go on to ask  basically :  is this because they fit in the middle of two extremes. 

If that is what you are attempting to investigate,  then I would say no.  I think most on this website are drawn to courses that push the envelope when it comes to design.  But unlike many things, the vogue designs at the present moment, aren't progressive but regressive.  ie,  The proclamation that we are in the 'Second Golden Age.'    Concluding:  what is universally loved on this site is its attachment/representation with proven/enjoyable golf design principles found in the handful of books that all of us have read.

[Jason Topp]

Desert Forest should be a divisive course and probably is.  It has wonderful terrain, shows off the natural landscape, has intricate green complexes and plenty of strategic decisions for the player.  It also provides a way around the course for a short hitter with few forced carries and an opportunity to play along the ground into many of the greens.

However, it is very intimidating for nearly every shot on the course.  The desert is at least a one shot penalty in most cases and often costs you two shots.  Some of the fairways appear impossibly narrow off the tee.  For iron shots you need to be very precise or have your shot repelled to bunkers or worse.  Around the green, simply getting it on the surface can be a very good shot if you are in the wrong position.  Once on the green, you need to have a feel for the overall slope of the area and play for multiple difficult slopes between you and the hole. 

In private, I suspect many people find it overwhelming.  On the discussion board, it is going to receive more support. 

I am a big fan after one visit.  I believe most people (including me) would need to play it 5-10 times to really form an informed opinion on the course.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Charlie, is it not the case that golf courses at either extreme cannot be universally loved? And are therefore divisive...

[Jim Nugent]

Augusta National is pretty divisive.

Seems like most people, at least on this site, who complain about ANGC have not played the course.  Those who have played it have trouble coming up with enough superlatives in describing how great it is. 

[Charlie Ray]

Extremes are rarely sustainable.

Golf courses that are extreme can never be UNIVERSALLY loved.  Nothing is universally loved for that matter, but I will try not to regress.   I apologize, but your use of the word 'universal,' along with the double negatives are throwing me off.  

But the concept of divisive/polarizing has much merit.  What do you think about one of your questions you asked on the OP,  why and what makes a course that is held in high regard divisive?  

[Ally Mcintosh]

I don't believe I asked that question.

My point / question was that golf courses that are considered great by all tend to be those that do not reside at extremes (or as Mark recognises, old courses that have become accepted either way). But does that make those courses at extremes that are revered by some any less great? Certainly in terms of rankings which tend to honour the collective view....

Probably I'm not getting my intention across very well... But possibly, you're not helping...

[Charlie Ray]

Thanks for clarifying.

I agree with your premise:  (Golf courses that are considered great tend to be those that do not reside at extremes)

As far as extreme courses not being revered as great courses I would say that this is the unfortunate case.  Do you think there should be more extreme designs?  I would hope so, but I doubt that the profitability would allow for these courses to be economically sustainable.  I can design you a an extreme house on my computer, but the owner probably won't allow me to build it when he realizes that the resale value and market will be small.  Sorry for not helping

[Daniel Jones]

I think anytime you get into the extremes of anything you're going to get divided opinions. Salvador Dali isn't really my cup of tea, but I don't think that makes his work any less great.

Still, isn't it all subjective to the experience of the individual golfer? If two guys visit a typically divisive course, and one shoots a million in the rain while the other breaks 80 for the first time in the sunshine, isn't their opinion of the course going to be skewed by this?

[Charlie Ray]

Daniel,
Yes, to what you responded;  however just because something is in the realm of the subjective doesn't mean its totally a matter of opinion and therefore cannot be quantified or reasonably discussed.   I think this is a valuable topic,  so I ask what design features of courses make them divisive / polarizing.  (and lets pretend that our opinions are not skewed by what we shot)  

[Sean_A]

Ally

What do you think?


My point / question was that golf courses that are considered great by all tend to be those that do not reside at extremes (or as Mark recognises, old courses that have become accepted either way). But does that make those courses at extremes that are revered by some any less great?

Ciao

[Scott Warren]

For what it's worth Giles, I agree on Hankley... good course but not the great course it should be.

I think that those who rave about Hankley tend to be the ones who place views and prettiness over anything else.

WHACK!

I am an unabashed Hankley fan.

The greens could have more to them but for my money they are quite interesting in a subtle, lay-of-the-land way. I'm thinking of 1, 3, 6, 7, 14, 15 and 18, for example.

The routing is great, the land is interesting, and the setting is unrivaled.

I probably talked it up too much pre-Buda and managed expectations poorly, but I really can't see that it's as pedestrian as some of you reckon.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Sean, I'm not sure myself.

What I know is for some people, the courses at extremes cannot be surpassed, whether it is big dune golf or radical design or even - lest we forget the other end - the course that appears simple to work out yet reveals itself to be the opposite over multiple plays.

The courses that are immediately hailed as great by all usually offer features that are relatively obvious, offer intermediate movement in the land and offer an element of scenic satisfaction. Or just offer enough written history that every new golfer is already pre-programmed to understand it as "great".

It's probably a dead end question but I wonder sometimes if the dissenting voices on courses at each end of the scale damage their standing despite them being the pinnacle for many... Perhaps I can't translate my thoughts in to words...

[James Boon]

For what it's worth Giles, I agree on Hankley... good course but not the great course it should be.

I think that those who rave about Hankley tend to be the ones who place views and prettiness over anything else.

WHACK!
I am an unabashed Hankley fan.
I probably talked it up too much pre-Buda and managed expectations poorly, but I really can't see that it's as pedestrian as some of you reckon.

Scott,

I too loved Hankley over the two rounds at Buda and was raving about it afterwards but most others seemed a little let down (perhaps we should blame you for building up expectation?  ).

After some reflection, I've come to realise that as I had a great round that afternoon, it had perhaps coloured my judgement? There are some very good holes (off the top of my head I liked 3, 7 and the run in from about 14) and the setting is wonderful, but there are also a number of holes that certainly could be a little better? A course in that setting with the hand of Braid and Colt on it, could have been much better. That's not to say its poor, rubbish or dull, but it could and perhaps should have been better?

Ally,

This potentially raises another query: Is a course divisive if its only one or two vocal ones in support or attacking the course? 

Cheers,

James

[Sean_A]

Ally

I am not sure I quite understand the question.  But it sounds like you are saying in nearly all cases greatness is defined somewhere toward the middle of an imaginary design spectrum.  Those designs on the extreme ends of the spectrum nearly always take time to settle with public opinion to be considered universally (well nerly anyway) great.  If this what you mean can you identify exceptions to the "rule" or are courses like Old Mac  not great and/or not extreme? Just like greatness is subjective, so is extreme or middling toward the norm.  Are there any new courses which you think are great or you strongly suspect are great which veer toward an extreme end of design?    

An interesting course which may be part of this discussion is the Castle.  Drainage aside, the design could be great, but it has and will require pushing more toward the norm.  How much it should be pushed and still retain its flavour is a matter of opinion.  Given the horrible reaction to the course thus far it may take twice as long to ever reach greatness  

Ciao    

[Greg Taylor]

You can ask the question the other way around.... a list of courses that are within reason accepted as being universally "great" on GCA. And the list by definition would have to short too.

I'd start with Sunningdale, Swinley Forest, Formby, TOC, Lahinch in the UK.

Other side of the pond, I'd say PV, CPC, Somerset Hills, NGLA etc...



I mean not even Muirfield, a Doak 10, isn't universally loved on here. It's all subjective really... not a science, but there is a consensus to be had!

[Scott Warren]

James,

I do feel, seriously, that my hype probably resulted in a few - Pearce & co - walking away from Hankley let down.

My last round before departing England was there, it was a gorgeous autumnal afternoon & I shot 73. So maybe I am
In the same basket as you. But I had played it once or twice before then and already felt strongly about it.

For sure, 4&5, 10-12 break up the good stretches and break the momentum somewhat.

[Mark Pearce]

I don't think Giles or I are saying that Hankley isn't a decent course, just that it isn't great and it could, no should, have been much better.  Like Bill on that BUDA trip I warmed to Liphook far more.  It offered far more interest.  Far more times when I had to really think about what shot to play.  It also offered far more thrilling shots.

Going back to Ally's question, I'm wondering what is "extreme" about Muirfield?  How does it fit on his proposed spectrum?  Is it the exception that proves his rule or does it disprove the theory?

[David Davis]

Ally,

If you read this site I'd almost say they all do to a certain extent. It's rare that everyone agrees on this site. there seems to always be something in a given conversation that some are for and others are against.

As Mark mentioned Muirfield, you could also say the Old Course, we have lovers and many others who are underwhelmed. In the same area we have the Castle Course - which I've yet to play but Doak for one hates it. I've not played it yet but have seen photos and I already disagree that's it's a 0. Others rant and rave about it.

Pine Valley, ranked the best, so clearly most love it. However, many say they've let the tree growth, for example get out of hand.

If I look here locally, my home course hugely divides opinion, many say it's one of the best they've played, others say it's unfair and far too difficult. Funny enough the other 3 top courses in the country all are arguably great courses for me yet the meanings are split on all of them. Many say one is a nice gentle routing but too easy, the other needs 3 x 9 just to come up with a decent loop of 18 and 9 of those are poorly routed (but make up the decent route of 18). Yet another that is argued to compete for the best course in the country has too dramatic terrain, crowned greens, 2 par 3's with the same length on the front and two basically the same on the back plus an 18 hole that's completely out of context with the other 17.

I'd be equally interested in knowing which great courses don't divide our opinions at all.

[Cristian]

Mmmm, is it not a question of preference?

Almost everybody likes a course to present some quirk and boldness. Almost everybody likes a course to present a fair test, however the more boldness and quirk, the harder it becomes to present a fair test with every hole. So there are basically 3 kinds of courses:

1) Fair test oriented (ie Muirfield, Lytham). Loved by especially better players. Players who mostly enjoy strokeplay.

2) Balancing fairness and boldness. Loved by all if well executed. (ie TOC, County Down, Dornoch)

3) Boldness and quirk courses. (ie N-Berwick, Cruden Bay) Loved by architecture freaks, people who can enjoy a round without a scorecard. (you don't need a scorecard in matchplay)

[Ally Mcintosh]

I don't think Giles or I are saying that Hankley isn't a decent course, just that it isn't great and it could, no should, have been much better.  Like Bill on that BUDA trip I warmed to Liphook far more.  It offered far more interest.  Far more times when I had to really think about what shot to play.  It also offered far more thrilling shots.

Going back to Ally's question, I'm wondering what is "extreme" about Muirfield?  How does it fit on his proposed spectrum?  Is it the exception that proves his rule or does it disprove the theory?

Mark, I started to use the word "extreme" and it throws us off what I meant... I meant courses at both end of a scale.... Muirfield fits at one end because it is seen by many as boring, flat or without interest (in fact it was the Nairn thread that instigated this one in many ways).... Somewhere like Carne fits at the other end where people think there is too much going on....

I've heard sensible critics describe both these courses as "their favourite in the world".... Some people just prefer one end of that scale or the other. But at each end, there are always strong dissenters.... Courses that sit in the middle and don't push those boundaries generally offend less people and are easier for everyone to love....

I'm not really sure there is a point to my thread / questions to be honest. I guess it is that when there are even a few major dissenters against a course, it is harder for it to be considered as great because people are so unused to hearing criticism... Muirfield escapes this because the vast majority have been led to believe that it is one of the world's best courses... so usually say something along the lines of "I know it is a great course an' all but I just don't like it".... But think of a course like Ballybunion Cashen, its reputation always tarnished.... Some people adore that course. For them, it's one of the best there is... Who's to say they're wrong?

[Mark Pearce]

Cristian,

As an observation the majority of play at Muirfield (loved by especially better players, players who enjoy strokeplay) is without a card and pencil.  I'm not sure I have ever seen a member with a scorecard and the vast majority play matchplay.  There aren't a lot of low handicap members, either!  Visitors probably do carry and keep a scorecard but isn't that true of visitors everywhere?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()