Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: JC Jones on July 25, 2010, 07:23:01 PM
-
Is it possible for a course to be more fun but architecturally inferior to another? How can a course be better than another yet less fun to play? How much should the fun factor contribute to the evaluation of the architecture?
-
"Is it possible for a course to be more fun but architecturally inferior to another?" Yes, yes, yes...there is no doubt about it!!!
I can think of a number of architecturally sound golf courses that are highly regarded by the experts, but I prefer to play less architecturally sound courses that are more fun for my taste. I think skill level plays a part in the "fun" equation as does plain and simple taste in golf courses. I think this plays a part in answering your second question; "How can a course be better than another yet less fun to play?"
Also, to your third question..."should the fun factor contribute to the evaluation of the architecture?". Yes. But once again, how each golfer defines "fun" is different. Perhaps a low handicapper thinks "fun" is challenging shot values and resitance to scoring. Perhaps someone looking to chill out and de-stress thinks "fun" is walking around a beautiful routed golf course enjoying the flow and feel of a natural golf course. I could literally go on and on...but the bottom line is each and every golfer will define "fun" in a different way and, therefore, look for different things in the design of a golf course.
-
JC -
People have been trying to package up fun and sell it to us in a bottle for a long time. Okay, fine - but please don't make it too obvious.
Take the elevated tee on most modern courses. Is it fun for me to hit a good drive and to watch it soar off high against the bright blue horizon and travel further than I'd imagine? Yes. But that fun is short-lived - because I can't help feeling that the 'game was rigged', that someone had set it up (with mathematical precision even) for me to have exactly the kind of fun I just had.
Blah.
I don't feel joyous, I feel duped.
But good architecture - no, exceptional architecture -- can pull off even the rigged game.
In fact, that may the very definition of exceptional architecture -- and it was for a long time, until the professional game took over.
Exceptional architecture treats us rabbits as rabbits, but it makes us think that we're tigers every once in a while. (To borrow/steal from Darwin -- the stylish writer of frivolities, not the ponderous purveyor of big ideas. Interesting that the two were related...)
Peter
-
Mac,
I agree that fun is subjective. But, so is the evaluation of architecture. Therefore, I am not sure how there can be no doubt that Course A can be "better" architecturally than Course B, yet Course B has architecture that is "more fun."
-
How much should the fun factor contribute to the evaluation of the architecture?
JC: It depends on the rater. There is no way that everyone is going to agree on the same criteria for what makes a golf course great. We all have our own preferences. The very best courses manage to touch nearly all the bases that everyone sets for them, but there are very few which really do.
Is it possible for a course to be more fun but architecturally inferior to another?
So, the answer to your first question is that it's unanswerable. No one can define what "architecturally superior / inferior" really mean.
-
Is Oakmont an architecturally sound (or superior) golf course?
-
Really, TD?
If you (or me, or someone) can't articulate the measure of -- the elements of -- greatness, what do you (or I, or someone) aim for when we start a project?
What is our ideal? (And where dis we get that notion of the ideal?)
What do you or I or someone aspire to?
Great work has and does engender great work. How - if that greatness can't be identified/define?
Peter
-
Tom,
I disagree that it is unanswerable. Why do you say that the architecture of Crystal Downs is superior to Bandon Dunes? When you say it is a "better" course you are saying it is superior.
If you had more fun playing Bandon Dunes than you did Crystal Downs, would you say (in your opinion) that Bandon Dunes was a "better' course?
-
Is Oakmont an architecturally sound (or superior) golf course?
I'd say that "sound" and "superior" are two entirely different concepts. When I say "superior," I mean can you say that Course A is "better" (therefore having better architecture i.e. holes, quirk, design, routing, etc.) yet have more fun playing Course B? If so, aren't you really saying that Course B has better holes, design, routing, etc.?
-
Here you guys go again...is Crystal Downs superior to Pacific Dunes. C'mon. That is subjective. They are both GREAT!!!!
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. Achasta is more fun for me. So, back to my first post. Yes. It is possible to a course to be architecturally inferior but more fun.
If you simply want to discuss the greatest courses in the world within the context of your question you will swirl around in circles as they are all great courses and the answers are completely subjective. Take the comparision down a few notches and perhaps the answer can become more clear.
-
Is Oakmont an architecturally sound (or superior) golf course?
I'd say that "sound" and "superior" are two entirely different concepts. When I say "superior," I mean can you say that Course A is "better" (therefore having better architecture i.e. holes, quirk, design, routing, etc.) yet have more fun playing Course B? If so, aren't you really saying that Course B has better holes, design, routing, etc.?
JC, I don't follow your above post. But frankly, I am hopped up on big time pain meds right now. So, I am sure it is my fault. But perhaps my last post touches on your question/point.
-
Here you guys go again...is Crystal Downs superior to Pacific Dunes. C'mon. That is subjective. They are both GREAT!!!!
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. Achasta is more fun for me. So, back to my first post. Yes. It is possible to a course to be architecturally inferior but more fun.
If you simply want to discuss the greatest courses in the world within the context of your question you will swirl around in circles as they are all great courses and the answers are completely subjective. Take the comparision down a few notches and perhaps the answer can become more clear.
I said Bandon Dunes, not Pacific Dunes!!!! ;D ;D
Of course it is subjective. So why not say you think Achasta is a better course than Seminole? Because others have said Seminole was great? If you have less fun at Seminole then what is it about it that makes it better than Achasta?
-
Is Oakmont an architecturally sound (or superior) golf course?
I'd say that "sound" and "superior" are two entirely different concepts. When I say "superior," I mean can you say that Course A is "better" (therefore having better architecture i.e. holes, quirk, design, routing, etc.) yet have more fun playing Course B? If so, aren't you really saying that Course B has better holes, design, routing, etc.?
JC, I don't follow your above post. But frankly, I am hopped up on big time pain meds right now. So, I am sure it is my fault. But perhaps my last post touches on your question/point.
If you find a course more fun than another aren't you saying you like it more than another? Therefore, aren't you saying that it's architecture is more appealing to you than another?
If so, how can you rate the other course higher or say it is "better"?
-
Certainly a course can be more fun and architecturally inferior. That is always a possibility. Mac sums it up pretty well. Fun is person dependent. But either way, it is not very hard for a course to be more fun than another that might be architecturally superior.
-
Here is a, hopefully apt, analogy:
If you prefer to eat a Big Mac rather than a porterhouse from Peter Luger's, how can you say that the porterhouse from Peter Luger's is better than the Big Mac?
-
Certainly a course can be more fun and architecturally inferior. That is always a possibility. Mac sums it up pretty well. Fun is person dependent. But either way, it is not very hard for a course to be more fun than another that might be architecturally superior.
Isn't the determination of superior architecture also "person dependent"?
Or, in other words, I'm not going to let anyone punt this question with a subjectivity argument.
-
Bandon Dunes, Pacific Dunes...whatever!!! I told you...I am hopped up on pain meds!!! :)
Regarding Seminole and Achasta, I am trying to answer your question...but you seem to not want it answered. Seminole is WAY better. Better routing, better greens, better bunkering...I could go on. But it is too difficult for me...at least it was the 1 time I've played it thus far. 30 mph winds, 13 stimped greens, wild slopes, bunkers everywhere. It seemed even the good shots I hit didn't work out like I planned. This wasn't "fun", but I am interested to get back out there and try to apply what I've learned about the course to see if I can do better. But the low handicapper would love the course I am sure.
Achasta is pretty good and under-rated I think, but it isn't in the class of Seminole. And frankly, for Seminole I could input TPC Sawgrass as well. Perhaps even Kiawah Ocean (which in my humble opinion is the "best" course I've played). Anyway, back to the Achasta/Seminole comparison. Achasta's routing isn't close to Seminole's. Achasta's variety isn't close to Seminole's. Achasta's greens are boring compared to Seminole's. Achasta has some "odd" holes. But I have fun on it, because no one is ever there...so I seem to get the course all to myself whenever I play it. The greens are more receptive to the golf ball, so scoring is easier. The routing is pretty good at Achasta, but at times the creek that cuts through the course gets redundant redundant and presents the same type of shot time and time again. But again, the course's "fun" factor is there for me and my taste. The mountain setting is particularly stunning in the fall...and like I mentioned no one is ever there...even at that wonderful time of year.
Anyway, that is what I got.
PS...I've seen you've posted more, but I think this touches on your added posts. And you will see this isn't a "punt". I've tried to answer in some detail why Seminole is "better" and why I have more "fun" on Achasta. Also, on my website I make it clear that I am ranking my "favorite" courses rather than the "best" courses I've played. Therefore, I hope this shows I've put some thought into your question prior to this and also shows how important I think the topic is.
PSS...The reason I posted the Oakmont question is that of course it is a great (superior) golf course architecturally. But I really don't think I would find it "fun" given my current handicap. So, again I am trying to provide an answer to your question.
PSSS...did I mentioned I had to take some pain meds? :)
-
JC - re your analogy of post #14.
People knew the difference once. That some no longer do doesn't make the difference disappear.
Peter
-
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.
-
I'll whip out another analogy.
For a lot of people, if you ask them to list the greatest movies, and then later ask them to list their favorite movies, the lists won't necessarily have a lot in common.
JC - is this kind of what you're talking about?
-
Yeah it is kind of unanswerable but in general, I have always said a golf hole does one thing well. In other words, its kind of hard to have a fun bounce built in and also be a "stern test of golf." Think Rees Jones Open Doctor remodels done for that purpose, vs one of my courses where I try to build in all kind of favorable bounces and slopes, because they are fun. When a good player looks at some of those, his reaction may be "Thats not golf. Some SOB can miss 30 yards left and be as close to the pin as I am!" I can achieve one aim and not the other in that stark case.
In other cases - like calling for a fade into a slot off the tee, its fun for all players because you ask for a specific challenge and its fun or at least satisfying to pull it off exactly as demanded.
Its really all a blend, and I say golf holes above, because a course could have 9 each fun oriented holes and 9 hard ones and perhaps have a nice blend of both. And it might come out in the middle of the ratings but serve well.
I think the whole concept of "a course you could enjoy every day" is underrated these days. I don't know that I hear many golfers say "Its a course I would enjoy beating me up every day" because most just don't play for the supreme challenge of difficult golf.
-
Is it possible for a course to be more fun but architecturally inferior to another? How can a course be better than another yet less fun to play? How much should the fun factor contribute to the evaluation of the architecture?
If you are talking about the golf experience and not the externatilities that add to or subtract from that experience, and if you are talking about fun over play after play, ideally hundreds or thousands of plays, then NO.
But I guess it depends a little on how one defines fun. If you want a stern test, go back to school. If you want to have fun, go play a great golf course.
-
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?
-
Quite simply a fantastic thread and subject. I hope we kick this around for quite some time...I know I can learn a lot by hearing what other people have to say.
John...IMO Pine Needles is very, very good architecturally and very fun. To me it is right there in terms of a darn near perfect golf course. And I think it can hold its own in term of architecture with almost any course...it may not win hands down, but it can hold its own for sure.
I love Kirk Gill's analogy to movies. I find that spot on. I loved Shawshenk Redemption, it might be one of the greatest movies of all-time. But I couldn't watch it every day. Grease on the other hand, any time, any place!!! ;D Seriously, though. Maybe that is Seminole vs. Holston Hills.
Tom Doak, Jeff Brauer...great stuff!!! Anymore thoughts or comments would be awesome!!
And David M...I think you hit on such a great point with you fun relative to hundreds of plays. Back to my Achasta/Seminole comparison. Achasta, I've got figured out...at least How to play it. Hole 15 has taken some time. Seminole, like I mentioned above, kicked my ass...but I think about it often concerning how I will play it in the future, what I will do differently, what I will try next time to see if that is the correct way to play it. Maybe The Old Course is that way, I don't know yet. But perhaps this is a big key to "great" architecture. You never stop learning from it and you never quite figure it out. Perhaps it isn't "fun" the first few times, but it captivates you. Thus far, Seminole, Kiawah Ocean, Pinehurst #2, and Canterbury have got me so far on this front.
-
Subjectivity, subjectivity, subjectivity.
Sorry JC, but that is all it is. We all interpret GCA differently, i.e. what's great, what's not great; what's fun, what's not fun.
If you judge golf courses only by how much fun you have, than the answer to original question is yes. If you judge courses only by how good you believe the architecture to be, irrespective of how much fun you have, than the answer to your original question is no. However, both are subjective in and of themselves.
Were there two particular courses that fueled this question? ;) That may be the more interesting conversation...
-
"Is it possible for a course to be more fun but architecturally inferior to another?"
JC:
I guess it depends on what kind of golfer you're talking about. Top notch competitive golfers or members and such.
"How can a course be better than another yet less fun to play?"
I think really great architecture can test all levels really well----even the best. I don't know that the test itself is necessarily supposed to just be a bundle of fun, though. ;)
"How much should the fun factor contribute to the evaluation of the architecture?"
I think it all depends on what kind of golfer you're considering and talking to or about.
I just played Myopia for the last four days. I've seen a lot of courses in my life, many of the very best out there, and to me Myopia is just about the most fun course I know. The way they have it set up now it's no push-over either. If you sort of fall asleep on some of those hole you can definitely pay for it. They had the Mass Amateur Championship last week, the week before the Leeds tournament I played in and I heard the average score for the stroke play qualifying segment was 78. I believe they have right around 13 or so completely unique holes on that golf course that all have something really interesting going for them with playability. The variety of holes there is wonderful, and it just exudes "old"----the club, the clubhouse, the course, the ethos etc, etc. And by the way----the "maintenance meld?" It was pretty much "Ideal."
I cannot imagine anyone thinking Myopia does not have a super high Fun Factor. For quite some time now I've felt that Myopia was the FIRST really good golf architecture in America! It is also remarkably well preserved with its original eighteen hole iteration.
-
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.
-
My apologies if I am over-posting on this thread, but this topic intersects right at the heart of my research regarding golf course architecture. And that is essentially, what makes a course the "best" or "great" rather than simply "fun" or one of my "favorites".
Tom Paul, I essentially agree with you regarding it depends on the type of golfer you are talking about.
But David M. I really like some of the things you are saying and they interest me a great deal. You say a course that is too difficult for the average golfer might be a great "Championship Test" but not great architecturally. This seems to go hand in hand with the cliche that a great course is playable for the mid to high handicapper but still a test for the scratch golfer. But why are these brutal tests of golf still regarded by every golf rating entity as some of the best in the world? That remains a bit of a mystery to me.
George...you say its all subjective. But why do all the usual suspects get rated by all the rating entities as the best of the best year after year. What do they have that everyone likes? Pine Valley, Cypress Point, Merion, Royal County Down, Sand Hills, Muirfield. They've got to have something that transcends subjectivity, right? If so, what is it?
And back to David M...aren't some of those courses I listed some of the most challenging test of golf on the face of the planet? Why are they still so highly regarded?
Anyway, like I said this is one of my keenest interests...to find out these types of answers, hence my high volume of posts on this thread.
-
"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 a opinion, remark, statement, whatever, that is highly subjective; there is nothing wrong with that, however. It is also one I sure would not subscribe to or agree with. Pine Valley is perhaps the classic or perfect example of architecture that was intentionally designed NOT for a large spectrum of golfers and it was also not exactly designed as a so-called "Championship Test" in the vein it was supposed to be basically a "tournament course" or championship venue in the sense it was a club or course to basically hold high-level tournaments.
It was intentionally designed, by its architect, George Crump, for a high level of golfer as a virtual training ground for very good players and if anyone who studies golf architecture and the history of golf architecture actually says Pine Valley is not or should not be considered truly superior or great golf architecture, I would say they are completely wrong.
-
"But why are these brutal tests of golf still regarded by every golf rating entity as some of the best in the world? That remains a bit of a mystery to me."
Mac:
Because they are some of the best and best architecture in the world. The idea behind some of them----eg Pine Valley, was as a test of champions and also an architectural model to encourage other golfers to get better, and obviously a lot better. I just can't see how that could ever either diminish or even qualify golf architectural excellence.
Pine Valley has probably been considered the best course and best architecture in the world longer than any other course even though it was never intended to be designed for or for every type of golfer, particularly bad or incompetent golfers. It set the bar high and it reached it.
-
Shoot...I've got to go to bed...I am exhausted. But I see some of you all are getting ready to post. I can't stay up. I'll be up first tihng tomorrow to read on. Great topic, great stuff...thanks for getting it going JC.
One final thought...Pine Valley is rated by all the rating entities as one of the top 1 or 2 courses in the world. Tom Doak gives it a 10. So, there is no question it is amazingly good. Perhaps the greatest course ever built. But I think there is no question it is designed as a stern test of golf for great golfers.
I have a hunch that greatness, and I mean truly great golf courses, are challenging for the greatest golfer in the world on any given day. Not tricked up for tournaments. Very good courses might fit that cliche of playable for average golfers and tough for great golfers. But really and truly great and timeless courses just might have to be challenging for the greatest golfer only. Anyway, just a final thought before tomorrow. Maybe I am too tired to think straight, but I think that might be correct.
EDIT...Tom posted as I was posting. I am too tired to respond tonight.
-
"Shoot...I've got to go to bed...I am exhausted."
Me too, Mac. I just drove from Boston to Philly and got in about two hours ago after playing in some serious heat up there. I was really rolling once I hit NJ and PA----like 90-100!
-
Consider this...
If a very beautiful house or building was designed by a leading and innovative architect for very tall and fat people (high archways, 12 foot ceilings, wide doorways, sturdy fixtures) the chances are a very small and thin person - and certainly the majority of average-sized people - could enjoy it too. There would be less consequence or disincentive for anybody to live in the well-designed and appointed big man's house than there would in the second case where the same innovative architect builds the same nice house but specifically for the small and thin person...
Now there's a bit of a problem. There are real inconveniences and consequences for anybody but a small and thin man to live in this house. Now depending on just how small and thin you aren't, this house could be a real pain in the ass and not a joy or a respite at all from the daily world. If you're me, I'm going to be very cranky and just seek to rent somewhere. If you're John Daly or a Stadler or Ernie Els, you won't even go in the front door.
For me, the very great house that Crump and supporters built is for the small man...the man that thinks he's really doing something by playing the game of golf well and suffering match and card misfortune when he doesn't. It is however great, i finally got to see a Crump Cup a few years back and it is a marvel and didn't disappoint my eye in the least. The scale was both more dramatic and more intimate than I anticipated. 90 years of tradition and my own keen sense of curiosity didn't hurt the impression.
I would love to play it a few times, but even if God blessed me with the good fortune I could never play more than a round a year there...I want to have fun. I do not want the anxiety of heroic deeds, looking for some balls and casting off many others. If I were on game enough to turn a regulation par at the difficult 13th and then cast a nice lofted iron safely on the 14th, it says nothing about anything, because the next time I play I could play similarly and return two double bogeys.
Im not a crack player - even when I was a 4.5, I was not so. I was practiced and had a good short game, a variety of partial shots and knew the proper tactics to avoid big numbers, but what good does that do me when the ball is pulled into a forest of sand or against a high lip bunker or... doesn't hit the green!
That's for someone else, not me. It's a marvel for the purpose - but that purpose is a small house. Because it is indeed a beautiful house and houses roughly resemble one another - it has foundational design features found in the best houses designed for the most people but as is, it the best house the Danny Devito's can make for themselves.
Maybe it's completely perverse to suggest to this board, but if I had any "Hell" bunkers on my par 5s, they would be a ridiculous easy carry or they would be 100 yards out of the way of play or they would be little bigger than a pot...isn't that more truly fun than just saying, "Oh the Long at 14 St Andrews has the famous Hell and that's a great hole and I'm going to make my own Hell on my longest hole"??
I mean I'm not insinuating any deficiency on the part of Crump and the geniuses of his era for doing what they did, it was was the real frontier then and they have provided many memorable golf experiences by their hand. Yet, I think a mixture of outrageous slopes and ridiculously easy obstacles to pass. To me it's much more aesthetically pleasing to pass a little obscure trap miles from play and have the caddies say the hole is named for that bunker called Hell. i ask why, it can't come into play and he says "just get into it once and you'll know." That is more of a terrifying yet charming adjunct of swinging at a golf ball than some 200 yard hit and hope over a wasteland.
But the St. Andrew's Hell wasn't made to be Hell, it got that way from extant usage and centuries of curses thrown at that juncture of the course. To make a Hell copy is in its own way both strangely sufficient AND deficient to the purpose, probably why St. Andrews is often imitated, never duplicated.
Golf is a game. It needs amusement and fun and affirmation. That how it is usually born into the soul, through its fun, not its disappointments and lost balls and punished mis-hits. Everyone knows their first good hit or their first birdie. Only the most craven of us remembers their first lost ball, OB or water hazard kerplunk.
I sunk a few fathoms from the topical surface, but this is all to say that golf course architecture that isn't fun first may be great and wondrous and a marvel and still miss the point.
By the standards of greatness essential to the offerings of those supporting Pine Valley as necessary to any great list, Trump national Briarcliff played from the tips should satisfy any challenge to the crack golfer Crump could ever dream.
Now is that great architecture though it has an island green in a waterfall and a hazard/boundary penalty available on every hole?
cheers
vk
-
V. Kmetz,
Thanks for the thoughtful post.
__________________________________
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.
Courses for only excellent golfers should be no more distinquished than courses only excellent for hacks. Both may serve the needs of their narrow band of continuents, but both are less than ideal for golf.
___________________________________________
Mac,
I've only played half the courses in your list and they were courses that anyone of moderate ability would find great fun, or at least they would be great fun if their memberships would give up their quest to remain relevant as Championship venues and get their courses get back to what make them great in the first place. Watering down or tricking up greatness for the sake of difficulty is a travesty.
As for Pine Valley, I haven't had the pleasure and cannot say one way or another.
As for your "hunch" as to what makes a great course great, it excludes all of the greatest courses I've ever played and includes a whole lot courses I wouldn't play if they were in my back yard. I don't give a damn whether a golf course "challenges" (whatever that means) the best golfer in the world every single day, and if it means what I think it means I have zero interest in playing that golf course. While my continued involvement on this website may hint otherwise, I'm no masochist.
-
This question is only definable on a subjective basis and subjectivity is not only a sliding contiuum, but also dynamic as the individual changes or even depending on his mood. I will toss out North Berwick. There is no way I wll buy that it is architecturally one of the 10 best courses in GB&I. Yet, most would have it on their list of greats. I would suggest it is down to the uniqueness of some features, an odd green, a famous par 3 and its setting. If looked at critically, there are many holes which should fail any test of greatness. However, there are enough of the WOW features and the are spaced well enough to combine well with the few excellent and not so excellent holes. In a word, North Berwick has variety in spades. Perhaps North Berwick is the reason I prize variety so much, but that is a personal hang up and doesn't necessarily equate to great architecture, even at North Berwick. But like Pennard, somehow North Berwick rises above strict architectural subjectiveness and is really what architecture is really about - purely subjective without the over-reliance that we have today on design method and princiiples.
I am in an interesting position with the two clubs I belong to. Burnham I consider to be a modern test of golf even though most of it is very old. Much iof it happens to be built by what I consider the first modern architect and his design values still absolutely rule the roost. I absolutely believe that on a shot by shot basis it is better than than my other club, Pennard. That isn't to say Burnham doesn't have its whimsical moments, but Pennard somehow defies architectural logic to the point where many folks love it despite its many shortcomings as a design. I put it mainly down to the fun factor (which may include its unpredictable nature), but that may only be for me. In any case, I beleive Burnham the better course, but I would rather play Pennard.
Now we have Painswick...Folks llove it, but could we consider it great architecture?
Ciao
-
Sean I am certain not everyone loves Painswick, it can be very hard to raise a team to go play there in interclub matches, its fun to some but hell to others...ie subjective. The crossing roads, crossing holes, bad conditioning, impossible to hold greens, weird bounces, blind par 3s are certainly hell to most, but there is no doubt someones hell is anothers fun.
I define fun golf as easy scoring, but perhaps someones handicap determines what is easy for them and my 'easy' may just be a totallly worthless golf experience for a better golfer.
-
Sean I am certain not everyone loves Painswick, it can be very hard to raise a team to go play there in interclub matches, its fun to some but hell to others...ie subjective. The crossing roads, crossing holes, bad conditioning, impossible to hold greens, weird bounces, blind par 3s are certainly hell to most, but there is no doubt someones hell is anothers fun.
I define fun golf as easy scoring, but perhaps someones handicap determines what is easy for them and my 'easy' may just be a totallly worthless golf experience for a better golfer.
Adrian
You miss my point. In terms of architecture, Painswick is a complete mess. YET, it survives and nnot only that, folks love it. This highlights to me why the best architecture doesn't necessarily equate to the funnest golf or the golf many want to play. IMO, this sort of design doesn't seem to have much room in the modern archie's sketch pad. Instead there is loads of talk about law suits, cart paths, maximum routng to take create more clubhouse business...Its a new world for sure, but not one that is particualrly brave.
Ciao
-
Great stuff!
Okay, I am getting my arms wrapped around my thoughts and will try to find a way to best articulate them throughout the day. For now, I think I will throw this out there.
1--I truly don't think great architecture is subjective. There is something about it that transcends subjectivity for people who are educated on the topic. However, for people who are not educated on quality architecture they can't understand it...so they simply rely on what they think is "fun". Frankly, I think Sean did a great job of touching on this topic.
2--This lack of subjectivity in determining great architeture is why many of the Top 100 lists have the same courses on them. The subjectivty (and/or futility) of trying to say that Pine Valley is #1 and Cypress is #2; and Pebble is over-rated at 8 and should be 12; and the like is where the confusion comes in regarding the level of subjectivity in determining great architecture.
3--A "great" golf course may not be a course a given golfer would want to play day in or day out. Frankly, it might be too stern a test for them. They would prefer a more fun course for day in and day out. For exmaple, I just got back from playing Kiawah Ocean. The course is in my opinion the best course I have played to date. I've played it 3 times in 30 mph winds, 20 mph, and 40 mph. My scores correspondingly were 91, 90, 88. Not my best scores by any stretches, but that 88 in 40 mph winds just might be my best round of golf. I've alway stepped on the first tee knowing that I had to focus the entire round and battle non-stop. I've done it and been fairly happy with my performance, but I've always walked off the course completely and totally exhausted. Therefore, I simply wouldn't be able to play it every day. I want to play it a few times a year to test my game, but not every day.
4--The "best" course architecturally does not have to be your most "fun" course are your "favorite" course. For instance...As I mentioned, per my opinion Kiawah Ocean is the "best" course I've played. But I'd rather play other courses day in and day out...Holston Hills, Pine Needles, Mid-Pines, Canterbury. Now for sure, most of these are great/very good architecturally...but not the very best I've seen, yet I still love to play them.
5---And finally I really think one's outlook or opinion on what course is the most "fun" depends on your golfing skill level and what you want from the golf experience. Perhaps Kiawah in 40 mph winds is what you love. Perhaps The Golf Club and it serene nature is what you like. That is up to you. But I truly believe every educated person would agree that both of those golf courses are excellent pieces of architectual work.
Ok...I've got to go to work!! ;)
-
Sean:
If I had been forced to come up with an example for my thoughts, I'd have used North Berwick, too.
It's way too short to test the best players. The bunkering is nothing to write home about, and really, neither are the greens, except for 4-5 of them which are really outstanding.
It's certainly one of the most fun courses in the world, though ... so much so that many talk of it as "architecturally superior" in spite of the statements above.
-
Is it possible for a course to be more fun but architecturally inferior to another?
On Thursday I visited an inland course in Ireland. The course was on heavyish soil but the topography was perhaps the best I'd seen on an inland site in the whole country. Everything at the club was done on a budget and the green complexes were fairly simple and there wasn't a huge amount of interest with the bunker strategy... But because of the topo, some of the holes were fantastic fun... I had a blast...
So taking aside Tom's answers on this thread, I'd certainly say that you can have simple (as opposed to subtle) architecture that provides loads of fun...
-
"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.)
-
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....
-
you can have simple (as opposed to subtle) architecture that provides loads of fun...
Ally: I agree completely with the quote above, but that's one of the things that bothers me about this thread (and many others in the past) -- when people try to separate "architecture" from "golf course".
There is nothing wrong with simple architecture, in fact the simple solution is usually the best. I think many architects and shapers try too hard. And, I worry that many critics of architecture now (panelists, not Ron Whitten or Brad Klein) tend to want to reward a course where the architect or shaper shows off how brilliant he is, because it will show off how brilliant the critic is. That's not the point. The point is to evaluate each course on its golfing merit, not its "architectural" merit.
-
Sean Arble:
It seems to me with the first paragraph in Post #34 you are sort of purposefully contradicting yourself:
"I will toss out North Berwick. There is no way I wll buy that it is architecturally one of the 20 or 30 best courses in GB&I."
Why wouldn't you put it in the 20-30 best courses in GB&I if you think it provides so much fun or uniqueness or variety?
"Yet, most would have it on their list of greats. I would suggest it is down to the uniqueness of some features, an odd green, a famous par 3 and its setting. If looked at critically, there are many holes which should fail any test of greatness."
So what then do you think the 'any test of greatness' is?
-
8) ;D 8)
A real good question which has multiple answers....most players couldn't take a steady does of Oakmont ...Pine Valley or Winged Foot as they are too difficult for the average layer and eventually would beat them down...even at your home club the super and golf pro are smart to set up the course easier ....pins tees etc as good scores + happy golfers .....soooooooo good architiecture ..even great architecture isn't always the most fun for the player every day
-
Sean Arble:
It seems to me with the following you are sort of purposefully contradicting yourself:
"I will toss out North Berwick. There is no way I wll buy that it is architecturally one of the 20 or 30 best courses in GB&I."
Why wouldn't you put it in the 20-30 best courses in GB&I if you think it provides so much fun?
"Yet, most would have it on their list of greats. I would suggest it is down to the uniqueness of some features, an odd green, a famous par 3 and its setting. If looked at critically, there are many holes which should fail any test of greatness."
So what then do you think the "test of greatness" is?
TomP
Because imo, the ultimate test of greatness is not just about fun. I usually look at these sorts of courses (ie North Berwick) as my favourites because they provide plenty of challenge for ME and are terribly fun. 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 also think it must be a comfortable walk - meaning a tidy design, but I am likely in the minority on that one. I have always believed that the truest and best expression of greatness is found on links. I do admit that these days meeting this ultimate test of greatness is becoming more and more difficult. So I would likely include courses which at one time in the not too distant past which pulled off this feat. Ironically, most modern courses which attempt to meet the challenge criteria fail miserably on the fun aspect.
Ciao
-
Tom D...any chance of expanding on this, "The point is to evaluate each course on its golfing merit, not its "architectural" merit."
And Adam Lawrence, this argument maybe as old as the hills but that response you put up was frickin' money!! And quite unique at least to me ears/eyes.
Others (too many to mention in the brief time I have)...awesome stuff. Great points.
-
"By the standards of greatness essential to the offerings of those supporting Pine Valley as necessary to any great list, Trump national Briarcliff played from the tips should satisfy any challenge to the crack golfer Crump could ever dream.
Now is that great architecture though it has an island green in a waterfall and a hazard/boundary penalty available on every hole?"
V Kmetz:
That was an interesting post of yours; it has something of an old fashioned Biblical tone to it. ;)
I've never seen Trump National Briarcliff but it sounds like numerous courses out there that can provide real challenge to the crack golfer but for starters if it (Trump National Briarcliff) or any of the others with huge penalty on every hole via some "hazard/boundary penalty" it and they are about as different from Pine Valley as night and day.
Most who don't really know Pine Valley probably do not realize and also fail to suspect that it is virtually impossible to hit a ball out of bounds at Pine Valley and it is also very rare (basically due to the caddies) to lose a ball at PV other than in one of its app four water hazards. This, in and of itself, may be one of the really unique aspects of this course that has always been considered so tough to score on by so many. One thing that those with experience at PV know is it is perhaps the greatest example in the world of how to both evaluate intelligently and execute effectively all kinds of imaginative and creative recovery shots even it means playing the ball something like a foot or two on purpose.
-
"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 D...any chance of expanding on this, "The point is to evaluate each course on its golfing merit, not its "architectural" merit."
Mac:
All I am saying is that too many people get tied up about what the architect or shaper did to make a hole, but in the end the only thing that matters is what it offers the golfer. [Note that I'm not saying that you should only judge the hole based on how a certain golfer plays it; different golfers may get different things out of it, including beauty, a respite, or anything else.]
In fact, I think that was where golf architecture got so far off base in the 1980's ... architects were consciously trying to BUILD things to draw attention to their work ... which created a niche for a reactionary movement [what everyone now calls minimalism].
To me, it doesn't matter whether a feature is created by the architect or not, as long as he doesn't draw too much attention to it, either deliberately or just through bad tie-in work. But there are too many people who give architects bonus points for what they have created from scratch, and also too many who give us credit for not having to create anything from scratch. None of that matters in the end, except maybe to the guy who had to pay for it.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Im off 11 now Niall !
-
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?
-
"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.
-
"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?). ::)
-
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,.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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
-
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."
-
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?
-
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.
-
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!!
-
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:
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"?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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:
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
-
There is one recurring theme in threads of this sort that I have a real problem with. That is, that a course that is difficult (and perhaps even one where a higher handicapper cannot play, or has little hope of playing, to handicap cannot be fun. That is not my experience.
The first (and only) time I played Carnoustie I was a 19 handicapper. I shot 104 in pouring rain and wind. My wife, who I was playing with, also struggled. As soon as we finished and despite being soaking wet from the rain we went back to the starter to see if there was any chance of going out again. It was difficult but fun.
Recently I had the good fortune to play at Yale, just after the NCAA Eastern Division finals there. The greens were so slick that I struggled enormously on the front 9, taking 24 putts. It is a notoriously difficult course. It is in the three most fun rounds of the year for me (the others being at Charles River and Silloth on Solway). Three years ago I shot 100 (as an 11 'capper) at Wolf Run. Another very difficult course. Another fun experience.
This afternoon, I will be playing with a client at Slaley Hall on the Hunting Course. It will be difficult. I almost certainly will fail to get close to handicap (I never have on that course). The company will be good but the course will not be fun. It never is.
My view, for what it is worth is that great architecture can be difficult for weaker golfersbut can still be fun. Anyone can design a course that is difficult. Greatness is for those who can achieve difficult but fun. For all standards of player.
-
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
I don't understand the perceived problem, either, but then I like your definition about as well as any, and especially like your addition of the element of whimsy or quirk (so long as it doesn't seem forced.)
My only difference would be that I no longer care whether the very best golfers are challenged or entertained. I am not sure it is still possible to challenge and entertain them without ruining courses for the rest of us. And I'd much rather cut them loose ruin great courses trying to accommodate them.
-
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?
Probably quite a lot, but then it should do. If knowledge is founded on collective opinions, subject to debate and criticism (peer review, if you like) then it follows elegantly that our knowledge becomes more reliable and secure over time. In essence, the judgement of the ages is more reliable than that of a shorter period, which is more likely to be affected by fashion and natural human enthusiasm for what is new and fresh, not to mention that fewer individuals will have had the opportunity to express opinions, and the peer review process will have been less rigorous.
I sound like Edmund Burke here, which is pretty depressing to someone who's identified as a lefty all his life, but we shouldn't reject the judgement of time lightly. If something has been regarded as great for a long time, it probably is, although classical music shows us that canons can be turned upside down - Bach, for example, was entirely forgotten for the best part of a hundred years after his death.
-
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
My only difference would be that I no longer care whether the very best golfers are challenged or entertained. I am not sure it is still possible to challenge and entertain them without ruining courses for the rest of us. And I'd much rather cut them loose ruin great courses trying to accommodate them.
David
I am with you. What is "greatest" isn't nearly as important as what appeals to me, but I do recognize the difference. I am not in the buinesss so I don't have to worry about what others think of as the greatest courses. While I don't share your view that building courses for all to be challenged and enjoy is impossible, I would probably agree that it is a goal no longer worth pursuing. Still, one cannot blame an archie wanting to build a "course for all".
Mark
I think some folks are looking at great courses and their difficulty on a "play every week" basis. This may be a meaningless criteria, but in the context of this thread valid. I know I have no interest in playing difficult courses as my weekly game. Burnham is right on the edge for me. I would prefer something a bit easier, but still with some character. Unfortunately, where I live this ideal is hard to come by.
Ciao
-
Sean,
My father in law is 82, plays off (but rarely to) 12 and plays 2/3 times a week at Muirfield. He loves it. The Northumberland isn't a great course but it is tough, particularly when the wind blows. I don't consider it a fun course and, to some extent at least, that's down to its toughness and the unrelenting need to be accurate. Frankly, I suspect I'd have more fun playing every week at Yale because, tough as it is, every hole involves fun shots and I'd lose fewer balls playing badly. I simply don't believe that it is not possible to design a fun course for weekly play which is also tough. Indeed I suspect (albeit from just one play) that Yale fits the bill. Certainly the members I played with were weaker golfers than me and seemed to enjoy it.
Mark
-
Sean,
My father in law is 82, plays off (but rarely to) 12 and plays 2/3 times a week at Muirfield. He loves it. The Northumberland isn't a great course but it is tough, particularly when the wind blows. I don't consider it a fun course and, to some extent at least, that's down to its toughness and the unrelenting need to be accurate. Frankly, I suspect I'd have more fun playing every week at Yale because, tough as it is, every hole involves fun shots and I'd lose fewer balls playing badly. I simply don't believe that it is not possible to design a fun course for weekly play which is also tough. Indeed I suspect (albeit from just one play) that Yale fits the bill. Certainly the members I played with were weaker golfers than me and seemed to enjoy it.
Mark
Mark
I am not suggesting it is impossible to design a fun course which is tough - aren't TOC and Sandiwch prime examples? I am suggesting that on a relative scale of difficulty, the tough courses tend to be less fun and less people want to play them week in and out. I could be wrong, but I even get that sense with the wing nuts on this site and it is nowhere near representative of what the average golfer wants. Of course, our ideas of toughness may be totally different. Not only that, but some tough courses, such as Muirfield, are playable for all. I suspect the nastiness of Muirfield only really comes out in the summer with harsh rough. There are a great many tough courses which are tough no matter the weather or season. Depite winter winds, the championship links tend to be quite forgiving most months of the year. Not to the point where they are EVER easy, but the challenge to fun ratio is in better balance - imo. This is one reason why I think links golf is the ultimate expression great design. The weather and seasons are allowed to lay their part and in a very real sense one can pick his level of difficulty. This is quite a unique concept when usually the alternative for choosing is shorter tees which often means less interfacing (Muccism) with the intended design.
Ciao
-
Sean Arble:
Here's a legitimate question for you---and definitely not a rhetorical one. ;)
Does your Fun Factor have anything to do with what you shoot on a hole or a golf course?
-
There is one recurring theme in threads of this sort that I have a real problem with. That is, that a course that is difficult (and perhaps even one where a higher handicapper cannot play, or has little hope of playing, to handicap cannot be fun. That is not my experience.
The first (and only) time I played Carnoustie I was a 19 handicapper. I shot 104 in pouring rain and wind. My wife, who I was playing with, also struggled. As soon as we finished and despite being soaking wet from the rain we went back to the starter to see if there was any chance of going out again. It was difficult but fun.
Recently I had the good fortune to play at Yale, just after the NCAA Eastern Division finals there. The greens were so slick that I struggled enormously on the front 9, taking 24 putts. It is a notoriously difficult course. It is in the three most fun rounds of the year for me (the others being at Charles River and Silloth on Solway). Three years ago I shot 100 (as an 11 'capper) at Wolf Run. Another very difficult course. Another fun experience.
This afternoon, I will be playing with a client at Slaley Hall on the Hunting Course. It will be difficult. I almost certainly will fail to get close to handicap (I never have on that course). The company will be good but the course will not be fun. It never is.
My view, for what it is worth is that great architecture can be difficult for weaker golfersbut can still be fun. Anyone can design a course that is difficult. Greatness is for those who can achieve difficult but fun. For all standards of player.
Terrific post, and it ties in with what I asked earlier, for people to define their terms. I'm also amazed by the number of people who think lesser golfers can't enjoy the challenge a difficult course may present.
For me, golf course architecture all comes down to how, not how many, which is somewhat of a paradox in regard to the game itself.
-
Mark Pearce:
Your post that George Pazin quoted gives me great hope and contentment. You obviously have quite the sophisticated (read; "Unself-centered" or "unself-consumed") "Fun Factor" somewhere within you! God Bless you, my man!
-
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:
Maybe I am missing your point. We've had several threads in the past where people tried to separate their idea of "architecture" [which they define as what the architect changed/built] from the end product, and I thought in your one post you were doing the same thing.
So, to answer your questions:
What, in my opinion, constitutes a great golf course? All of the above, plus a lot of other things you did not mention. The sum total of golf is more than what can possibly be included in any particular 18 holes. There is room for variety. Indeed, I often argue with Ran because I insist that a truly great course has to have an element of originality to it, and he doesn't.
Why is Oakmont great if it is no fun? It wouldn't be, if your assumption was actually true. But Oakmont [like Pine Valley] can be great fun if you take it in the right spirit and don't worry too much about what kind of score you are piling up ... if you just take it one shot at a time and enjoy those challenges. There is much, much more to it than to most other long, straightforward championship courses which only require you to hit long and straight; it is a really one-of-a-kind design. The only thing I don't like about Oakmont [even more than Pine Valley] is that the membership seems to revel in breaking the back of the golfer and NOT letting him enjoy each shot.
Why is North Berwick so much fun if it is not "great"? Again, you're making an assumption that it's fun for everyone. For a certain class of really good players, North Berwick is not as much fun as it is for you and me. They don't think it challenges them enough. Here, I might argue that they are obfuscating a bit, and that they are really more bothered by the fact they don't go as low as they want to, and we might beat them with strokes there. But I've heard that opinion enough times from players I respect to wonder if it isn't also partly true. And unfortunately, those sorts of players don't appreciate the originality aspect, either.
So, then you have to ask yourself on whose behalf you are pronouncing courses "great" ? Some insist a course isn't truly great unless it challenges the Tour player or at least the scratch player; others say it's all about fun. And that's why it's still a subjective exercise, when all is said and done ... because everyone has just as different a definition of "fun" as they differ about "great."
-
TomD:
Your last post is another excellent one----a bit more detailed and explanatory than your other good one on this thread (#18).
I could be wrong about JC, but it seems he is not quite understanding the importance you are placing on "subjectivity"----eg the ability of any particular golfer to pretty much understand what it is he likes (even if he may not be able to completely articulate why).
It seems like he is wanting to know what the actual building blocks of architecture or golf are to be able to built some kind of general consensus of opinion.
-
Seems like we are lumping together two separate activities. Playing golf and admiring the course architecture have different platforms for evaluation. When playing, fun is primarily scoring. When admiring architecture, fun is a combination of factors including everything from how artificial hazards are placed to the nature surrounding the course. I believe playing comes first.
For example, I belong to a Pete Dye course that is one of the best rated in the state. I have had a few friends over the years who have declined to play there saying "I'm not sure my game is up for that course". What they are really saying is it's not fun to lose a half dozen balls and struggle to break 90, or 100. If they could score better, they would then be able to have fun and admire the architecture. The average, average golfer, is often too busy trying to add up their score to slow down and admire the course.
-
For example, I belong to a Pete Dye course that is one of the best rated in the state. I have had a few friends over the years who have declined to play there saying "I'm not sure my game is up for that course". What they are really saying is it's not fun to lose a half dozen balls and struggle to break 90, or 100. If they could score better, they would then be able to have fun and admire the architecture. The average, average golfer, is often too busy trying to add up their score to slow down and admire the course.
Steve, you should read a thread I posted about two years ago titled something like "How good to you have to be to appreciate Pete Dye?" or something close to that, I think you'd find it an interesting read.
-
Sean,
My father in law is 82, plays off (but rarely to) 12 and plays 2/3 times a week at Muirfield. He loves it. The Northumberland isn't a great course but it is tough, particularly when the wind blows. I don't consider it a fun course and, to some extent at least, that's down to its toughness and the unrelenting need to be accurate. Frankly, I suspect I'd have more fun playing every week at Yale because, tough as it is, every hole involves fun shots and I'd lose fewer balls playing badly. I simply don't believe that it is not possible to design a fun course for weekly play which is also tough. Indeed I suspect (albeit from just one play) that Yale fits the bill. Certainly the members I played with were weaker golfers than me and seemed to enjoy it.
Mark
Mark
I am not suggesting it is impossible to design a fun course which is tough - aren't TOC and Sandiwch prime examples? I am suggesting that on a relative scale of difficulty, the tough courses tend to be less fun and less people want to play them week in and out. I could be wrong, but I even get that sense with the wing nuts on this site and it is nowhere near representative of what the average golfer wants. Of course, our ideas of toughness may be totally different. Not only that, but some tough courses, such as Muirfield, are playable for all. I suspect the nastiness of Muirfield only really comes out in the summer with harsh rough. There are a great many tough courses which are tough no matter the weather or season. Depite winter winds, the championship links tend to be quite forgiving most months of the year. Not to the point where they are EVER easy, but the challenge to fun ratio is in better balance - imo. This is one reason why I think links golf is the ultimate expression great design. The weather and seasons are allowed to lay their part and in a very real sense one can pick his level of difficulty. This is quite a unique concept when usually the alternative for choosing is shorter tees which often means less interfacing (Muccism) with the intended design.
Ciao
Mark/Sean,
If I may interject slightly in your conversation perhaps a distinction should be made between tough and challenging. I'll use two courses to illustrate the point, Silloth where I was a member and Glasgow Gailes where I'm a member now.
Silloth just grows in my estimation the longer it is since I last played it. Its a course that while ranked 4th hardest in the UK according to Golf World is great fun with a variety of challenges ranging from diagonal carries, blind and semi-blind approach shots, some fairly penal contouring round the greens, a lot of sideways roll on some of the fairways, elevation changes etc. The key for me is not only the challenge but the variety of challenges that make it fun. Nearly every hole offers an element of recovery for wayward shots.
Gailes on the other hand ,with its straight away gorse and heather lined fairways, presents a fairly singular challenge and that is the challenge of hitting the ball straight. Recovery options are limited when your knee deep in the ubiquitious heather. Its what I would call tough. Sure you get a buzz when you're playing well but you get that anywhere. You sure as hell don't call it fun when you're not playing well whereas at Silloth you can play indifferently and have a great time because there's always an interesting and challenging shot to be faced.
Niall
-
TomD:
Your last post is another excellent one----a bit more detailed and explanatory than your other good one on this thread (#18).
I could be wrong about JC, but it seems he is not quite understanding the importance you are placing on "subjectivity"----eg the ability of any particular golfer to pretty much understand what it is he likes (even if he may not be able to completely articulate why).
It seems like he is wanting to know what the actual building blocks of architecture or golf are to be able to built some kind of general consensus of opinion.
Tom Paul,
You are wrong. I completely understand the importance he is placing on subjectivity. I just don't buy it as an argument here.
Tom D asks "it depends on who says it is great." Let's start from this spot, the collective rankings of the various publications. This is why it is important to understand Adam L's post regarding collective objectivity.
-
So, then you have to ask yourself on whose behalf you are pronouncing courses "great" ? Some insist a course isn't truly great unless it challenges the Tour player or at least the scratch player; others say it's all about fun. And that's why it's still a subjective exercise, when all is said and done ... because everyone has just as different a definition of "fun" as they differ about "great."
[/quote]
I am not pronouncing the course great, the collective publications are. Generally, within a few spots here or there, the same characters show up in the top 20 or so courses. Those are considered to be the "great" courses by the collective. Therefore, those courses are objectively, great.
In your opinion, would you consider all of those courses to be fun? Also, in your opinion, are there courses which aren't considered great by the collective, but, in your opinion, are more fun than any of those "great" courses?
-
George,
That does sound like an interesting read.
Thanks for pointing it out.
[/quote]
Steve, you should read a thread I posted about two years ago titled something like "How good to you have to be to appreciate Pete Dye?" or something close to that, I think you'd find it an interesting read.
[/quote]
-
JC:
Perhaps you are right on your #90 post. Therefore, I will let you continue to discuss it with TomD without my participation or opinion, because TomD certainly does know his stuff individually (in other words I have always found him to have some very interesting personal ideas about golf and GCA not necessarily articulated by others), in my opinion, and he also has the added benefit of being part of and having been part of some pretty important ranking and rating magazine lists (Adam L's your so-called collective opinion) and such over the years, not to even mention his pretty unique early book on architectural opinion---"The Confidential Guide."
-
Terrific post, and it ties in with what I asked earlier, for people to define their terms. I'm also amazed by the number of people who think lesser golfers can't enjoy the challenge a difficult course may present.
For me, golf course architecture all comes down to how, not how many, which is somewhat of a paradox in regard to the game itself.
George,
I agree that Mark's post is a good one. At the very best courses, enjoyment and challenge should walk hand in hand. And it seems to me that some (but not all) of the supposedly great but hard courses would be great fun to play. What surprises me is that some of those claiming that lesser golfers can't enjoy the challenge of a course like Oakmont seem to have actually played the place!
Are these guys just plain wrong, or are they simply reacting to what Tom Doak describes as that club's revelry "in breaking the back of the golfer and NOT letting him enjoy each shot?" I know that my reaction to Bethpage Black has much more to do the back (or at least wrist) breaking nature of the set up and changes rather than anything to do with the original architecture.
And if clubs and courses like Oakmont and Bethpage are setting out to break the back of the golfer then shouldn't we be condemning them rather than celebrating them? After all, what could be worse for golf than destroying the elusive balance between challenge and enjoyability at those few places it actually exists?
I've seen a number of quality courses on the low end of golf drop in esteem when those in charge couldn't manage to take care of what they had. Shouldn't the courses on the high end of golf receive comparable treatment? Why aren't we panning clubs which fail to protect and preserve the delicate balance between challenge and enjoyability?
What good is great architecture if a club insists on negating it in the quest the difficult, relevance, and a Championship Test?
-
"And if clubs and courses like Oakmont and Bethpage are setting out to break the back of the golfer then shouldn't we be condemning them rather than celebrating them? After all, what could be worse for golf than destroying the elusive balance between challenge and enjoyability at those few places it actually exists?
I've seen a number of quality courses on the low end of golf drop in esteem when those in charge couldn't manage to take care of what they had. Shouldn't the courses on the high end of golf receive comparable treatment? Why aren't we panning clubs which fail to protect and preserve the delicate balance between challenge and enjoyability?
What good is great architecture if a club insists on negating it in the quest for difficulty and relevance?"
I would say to even begin to understand the questions you asked above, and certainly to understand what the true and accurate answers to them may be and/or really are you would pretty much need to have a real familiarity not only with the likes of the golf courses of Oakmont and Pine Valley and their history but also a pretty good familiarity with what their members think about their golf courses or have thought about them at any particular point in time.
You have neither, and you've admitted it on here a number of times. So why do you make the kinds of assumptions you do and the kind of conclusions you do about what those clubs are trying to acheive, as well as whether people such as yourself should condemn them? I do have that familiarity with both (both courses, their histories and a pretty signficicant slice of their memberships over time).
Therefore, you can continue to pontificate on and on about things you really don't know or you could choose to listen to others who do know and then carefully consider what they mean.
Without even knowing much of the foregoing just mentioned, for you to even ask what good is great architecture if clubs like Oakmont and Pine Valley insist on negating it in a quest for difficutly and relevence is both insulting to those clubs and historically uninformed. The fact is the creators of both (Crump and Fownes) set about creating both courses with supreme difficulty and challenge in mind for a particular purpose that they both articulated and those courses and clubs have been that way ever since. The next question is-----do the memberships of either largely oppose the way those courses are and the way they were originally created? Of course without knowing anything about either of them you really aren't in any postion to know any of it, are you David Moriarty? ;)
-
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?
JC,
Where did you come with this stat? The only composite list I've seen was unofficial, posted by Mac based on score, and I think had 54 Classics and 46 Moderns.
-
JC:
You mean this is a RANKINGS thread? I had no idea we were talking about THAT.
Each of the three main rankings has its own way of doing things.
GOLF DIGEST tries to define what a great course is, and then makes all of its panelists assign points for how each course fits the various criteria included in its definition. You can probably tell by my previous posts here that I am not a big fan of this. I think they are trying to make an essentially subjective exercise, seem objective, by introducing a bunch of numbers [all of which are still arrived at subjectively].
GOLFWEEK improves on GOLF DIGEST's formula [borrowing from GOLF Magazine] by asking its panelists to rank courses against each other. They do provide some potential criteria for panelists to consider, but don't require them to go against their own opinions because of the suggested criteria. The only problem with GOLFWEEK's rankings is that because they came after the other two magazines' rankings, their panelists already had an idea of what the results should look like ... that, and because they insist on keeping modern courses separate, you can never really know how their top modern courses are really regarded vs. the top classic courses, which is the one thing everybody really wants to know.
GOLF Magazine's rankings are something I had a lot to do with creating. Originally I was asked to help write a definition for what we were voting on, and I declined, telling the editor that I thought it would be stupid for him or me to try and tell Arnold Palmer or Deane Beman or Brian Morgan what a great course was. We wanted to know what THEY thought they were. But instead of a semantic exercise like your thread, we just decided to try and identify a diverse panel from all parts of the golf world -- Americans and foreign correspondents, men and women, Tour pros and 20-handicaps, photographers and superintendents and architects -- and then let their collective opinions form a consensus.
The fact that there are differences between the three rankings stems entirely from how they are put together, and the subjective viewpoints of the various panelists. [Not to mention that due to financial and logistical constraints, they all fail to cover the entire golf world as effectively as one would like.] If they all operated from the same definition -- say, GOLF DIGEST's -- I would guess that they would STILL be just as different, because the panelists would still have differing viewpoints and would imprint those biases onto the numbers they submit.
In fact, the only thing that establishes a basic consensus is a certain amount of peer pressure among the panelists of the different mags. Once a course makes one of the lists, it tends to get more consideration on the others. If it weren't for that, I suggest there would be much LESS agreement between the three lists, and then the whole process would be seen for the subjective exercise that it is.
-
George,
I agree that Mark's post is a good one. At the very best courses, enjoyment and challenge should walk hand in hand. And it seems to me that some (but not all) of the supposedly great but hard courses would be great fun to play. What surprises me is that some of those claiming that lesser golfers can't enjoy the challenge of a course like Oakmont seem to have actually played the place!
Are these guys just plain wrong, or are they simply reacting to what Tom Doak describes as that club's revelry "in breaking the back of the golfer and NOT letting him enjoy each shot?" I know that my reaction to Bethpage Black has much more to do the back (or at least wrist) breaking nature of the set up and changes rather than anything to do with the original architecture.
And if clubs and courses like Oakmont and Bethpage are setting out to break the back of the golfer then shouldn't we be condemning them rather than celebrating them? After all, what could be worse for golf than destroying the elusive balance between challenge and enjoyability at those few places it actually exists?
I've seen a number of quality courses on the low end of golf drop in esteem when those in charge couldn't manage to take care of what they had. Shouldn't the courses on the high end of golf receive comparable treatment? Why aren't we panning clubs which fail to protect and preserve the delicate balance between challenge and enjoyability?
What good is great architecture if a club insists on negating it in the quest the difficult, relevance, and a Championship Test?
These are all excellent questions. I can't really answer almost any of them, as they require speculation about many courses I've never seen and courses of which I'm certainly not privy to member intentions regarding setup, etc.
But when has that ever stopped any of us on here? :)
I personally question Tom D's premise that Oakmont is out to break anyone's back. While I personally would prefer less rough (or even no rough, as an experiment), I believe the members at Oakmont believe they are in fact highlighting the architecture of the course by presenting it in its full difficulty. It's interesting to me to look at the demands of Oakmont relative to the demands of other championship-testing courses. Oakmont is not brutally long - many of the longer holes are significantly downhill, and conditions are kept universally fast, so there is maximum roll on drives (frequently seen as a good thing on here for many different reasons). Oakmont does not generally have brutally long carries to reach the fairways or greens, as some courses do. Oakmont does not rely on water hazards and other penalty strewn hazards (which other courses rely upon far too heavily, imho). Most of the holes actually allow run up approach shots, if one so desires.
Oakmont combines 3 principal elements to create its challenge - brutal bunkering, heavy rough, and the best green complexes in the country (come on, let's stop kidding ourselves that Augusta's or #2's are even close.... :)). Of these, I personally only see heavy rough as back breaking; I'll leave it up to others to determine if that element of Oakmont's presentation is too much. The other two elements are primary components of top notch architecture, imho. Can't see where the lesser golfer isn't capable of handling these, as long as he is not overly obsessed with score. I'd sure hate to see someone argue for dumbing down Oakmont to help lesser golfers feel better about themselves - I'd rather see golfers accept the challenges presented and forget about their score.
Should we criticise clubs for not maintaining what they have? I don't know, I take each case as individual examples, and I know very little about the specifics of each to say with any sort of authority that clubs are not doing their job as protectors. Heck, I'd lay a lot more blame on the USGA & R&A for that.
I know you and Tom P have big problems, but I think he is right on the money with his question to Sean Arble about Fun Factor and scoring.
-
I don't think this thread is about ratings or rankings per se, but to get a handle on Adam Lawrence's collective opinion I think these lists are great proxies for that collective opinion. Each one is a bit different but yet tries to identify the "best" courses, but each one has many of the same courses on it. This is why I come up with the idea that good architecture isn't purely subjective. If it was how could these proxies for great courses be so similiar.
You could argue "groupthink", "herding", and the like...but look at the list Tom Macwood posted from 1939 in the "In My Opinion" section of the site. It has many of the exact same courses and these courses have stood the test of time, stood the test of passing fads and fancies and are still regarded as great.
Greatness in a golf course is something I don't think is entirely subjective. However, I believe fun is. Greatness, perhaps, can only be identified by educated observers and practitioners. While fun can be had by anyone and for different reasons.
Defining what is great, therefore, just might be the trick. But perhaps it is the timeless entertainment that the challenge of the course provides. Each one offers different challenges, but each one can entertain even the best of golfers over time. And by entertain, I don't mean laughs and giggles after 12 beers. I mean entertainment derived through all consuming highly focused golf. Golf in a Ben Hogan like trance. Golf with the weight of playing your best round on the line. Golf with major championships on the line. All consuming golf. Mentally stimulating...thinking through shots, calculating alternate routes, risks and rewards, making decisions based on your abilities and then being forced to execute...and therefore physically stimulating. No distractions...no horns blowing, no kids playing their backyard right by the course. All encompassing golf. This type of golf will captivate and entertain real golfers, regardless of handicap, for eternity.
Does score matter. Hell yes it does, but in a relative sense. On a truly great course maybe breaking 90 is the goal for one, while breaking par is the goal for another. The absolute score is irrelevant in many cases as the course and the players skill dictates what the target score for the round can be. But that is the idea of golf...to battle the course and see who wins.
It is weird that for years and years, this debate has been going on and yet no one can settle on the answer to what makes a great course. But if the same courses get ranked in our proxy as the best decade after decade, haven't we already admitted what greatness is?
-
It is weird that for years and years, this debate has been going on and yet no one can settle on the answer to what makes a great course. But if the same courses get ranked in our proxy as the best decade after decade, haven't we already admitted what greatness is?
Has anyone come up with an adequate answer as to what is great art? Literature? Not surprising to me at all we can't seem to come up with a definition for great courses.
Please don't anyone say "I know it when I see it". I hate self-defining standards, even if it's someone I truly trust and respect - just seems to reek of hubris.
-
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?
David-I think most of your points are correct about BPB. Pinehurst #2 is the one course on that list that I have seen in person. The severe greens on that course make it hard for good players, but the way the surrounds are maintained such that average players can have fun. Was Oakmont ruined by the founders intentions of making that course as tremendous challenge? What about Pine Valley, are there not options there? And how about The Ocean Course? Is it not interesting? And The Ocean Course was said to be the hardest course in America. Lets just look at pretty much all the major publications (they're not all wrong), they all have Pine Valley, Oakmont, The Ocean Course, Winged Foot (West) and some others near the top of the list, and they all 4 seem to be among the most difficult as well. Certainly difficulty and fun/greatness are not mutually exclusive.
Although, fun means something different to everyone. I might think it is fun to be able to play a good round of golf and shoot 90 because my misses were severely punished. But I am looking to really, really improve my game, so, I'm a little different.
Frankly, I think its good to require a player to hit 70 near perfect shots in order to shoot par. But like I said, I'm different than most.
-
John...I don't know if you are different than most. I think most golfers want that type of challenge from great courses. This is what I mean by "entertainment" rather than "fun".
A truly great course can entertain golfers in perpetuity (did I spell that right?). And it is this type of entertainment that just might be at the crux of defining greatness and, perhaps, is universally recognized. Hence, the reason why all golfing rating entities rate the same courses in their list.
"Fun" on the other hand is subjective and ever changing. I have "fun" playing with my 6 year old son. I have "fun" walking a quick nine hole round after work and simply de-stressing.
I am truly entertained by golf and a golf course when I lock in and focus and do battle with great courses. When I am locked in and really playing, I want demanding shots and interesting options. If I miss the shot, I don't want a rinky dink recovery...I want to be able to recover, but I want to earn it with a great shot...otherwise I accept the penalty for my initial error.
I might be like you in a sense. I am striving to get better. Three years ago I started playing. Two years ago I was an 18. Last year a 12. Right now a 10.6. I am nowhere near as good as you, but I still want the challenge as I want to earn everything I get. I also get a sense others are like you (and me). And again, the absolute number may not matter. Perhaps someone is striving to be a 15 and get down from a 20. In their mind, they want to battle (when they are truly playing serious golf) to earn their 89 much the way you want the battle with the course when you are gunning for your 71.
-
George,
I personally question Tom D's premise that Oakmont is out to break anyone's back. While I personally would prefer less rough (or even no rough, as an experiment), I believe the members at Oakmont believe they are in fact highlighting the architecture of the course by presenting it in its full difficulty. It's interesting to me to look at the demands of Oakmont relative to the demands of other championship-testing courses. Oakmont is not brutally long - many of the longer holes are significantly downhill, and conditions are kept universally fast, so there is maximum roll on drives (frequently seen as a good thing on here for many different reasons). Oakmont does not generally have brutally long carries to reach the fairways or greens, as some courses do. Oakmont does not rely on water hazards and other penalty strewn hazards (which other courses rely upon far too heavily, imho). Most of the holes actually allow run up approach shots, if one so desires.
Okay, I am with you so far. Sounds like it would be fun- I mean enjoyable- I mean entertaining. You know what I mean.
Oakmont combines 3 principal elements to create its challenge - brutal bunkering, heavy rough, and the best green complexes in the country (come on, let's stop kidding ourselves that Augusta's or #2's are even close.... :)). Of these, I personally only see heavy rough as back breaking; I'll leave it up to others to determine if that element of Oakmont's presentation is too much. The other two elements are primary components of top notch architecture, imho. Can't see where the lesser golfer isn't capable of handling these, as long as he is not overly obsessed with score. I'd sure hate to see someone argue for dumbing down Oakmont to help lesser golfers feel better about themselves - I'd rather see golfers accept the challenges presented and forget about their score.
I am with you on the discussion of the greens and the bunkers. I've no problem with brutal bunkering so long as there is usually a way to avoid the bunkers (at a cost, of course.) Generally I've got no problem with fast greens except that fast greens often lead to the dumbing down of green contours, like the USGA's plan for a few of the greens at Merion. When it comes to choosing great greens or fast greens, I go with great greens. But you say Oakmont has great greens and I assume they aren't messing with them, so I am all with you even with really fast greens.
But where I might lose you is with the brutal rough. I don't mind brutal rough on courses with wide fairways-- wide wide fairways-- because brutal rough can serve the same purpose as brutal bunkers, but like brutal bunkers it only works well if the golfer generally has the option to playing away from it. This isn't the case if the fairways are narrow and the rough brutal. So which is Oakmont? If the fairways are narrow and the rough brutal, then how on earth could brutal rough highlight the architecture? Or how does the club think it does?
Should we criticise clubs for not maintaining what they have? I don't know, I take each case as individual examples, and I know very little about the specifics of each to say with any sort of authority that clubs are not doing their job as protectors. Heck, I'd lay a lot more blame on the USGA & R&A for that.
I would lay most the blame with the USGA, but there is plenty of blame to go around, so I say slam them all, the USGA, the R&A, and all the courses who have followed their lead. It is pretty much the same group of people anyway.
Seriously, I am not sure that slam is the right word, but let's say there is a course using brutal rough and narrow fairways in an attempt to "highlight the architecture" but the result is that they are burying the architecture under brutal rough, to the extent that even the great greens are less great. (Great greens are only great to the extent that they work with the options presented on approach, and those options are all gone if there are narrow fairways surrounded by brutal rough.) Isn't that course begging for a constructive critique about how they have rendered a great course less good and that they ought to change direction?
I know you and Tom P have big problems, but I think he is right on the money with his question to Sean Arble about Fun Factor and scoring.
Tom who? I don't know what you mean?
I can tell you that for me scoring has absolutely nothing to do with how much (or how little) I enjoy a course. I haven't wanted to derail the discussion but to me the best and most helpful guideline for great architecture is derived from something Macdonald wrote (big surprise, I know.)
Golf courses should be designed, built and maintained for match play and match play only. They should never, ever, ever be designed, built, or maintained for stroke play.
This would relegate much of this garbage about whether courses are tough enough to challenge the best golfers to where such discussions really belong. In the dust bin.
____________________________________
John,
Pinehurst No. 2 is one of the courses on the list that think I would love. Except if they set it up like they did at the last open there. That was a joke and a travesty, and is a good example of the kind of thing I am talking about. I have mixed feelings about the Ocean Course at Kiawah and would probably have to see it in person to have a good sense of it.
As for your statement about "70 good shots" I have trouble connecting that to anything to do with great architecture and reference you to my last comments to George above.
-
David M...
great post.
CBM's quote about courses should be designed for match play not for stroke play. Help me get my arms around that. How would the two differ? What are the defining characteristics in a course built for match play? And vice-vera.
I've thought about that time and again, on and off, for some time but I guess I need some extra education on the differences in terms of architecture.
-
"It is weird that for years and years, this debate has been going on and yet no one can settle on the answer to what makes a great course. But if the same courses get ranked in our proxy as the best decade after decade, haven't we already admitted what greatness is?"
Mac Plumart:
Yes, we probably have sort of admitted what greatness is or what courses are considered to be great or great architecture since many of them have been on these opinion lists decade after decade. But are we discussing here why courses are considered great and great golf architecture or are we discussing here on this thread whether architectural superiorty and/or architectural greatness must also by necessity include a high Fun Factor or even a Fun Factor at all, and particularly for all levels of golfers?
-
Tom P...
agreed. I guess that is why I tried to make a distinction between "fun" and "entertainment" a few posts back.
Any course can be "fun". Great courses offer highly entertaining golf for decades on end. At least that is the conclusion I am reaching.
-
"David M...
great post.
CBM's quote about courses should be designed for match play not for stroke play. Help me get my arms around that. How would the two differ? What are the defining characteristics in a course built for match play? And vice-vera.
I've thought about that time and again, on and off, for some time but I guess I need some extra education on the differences in terms of architecture."
Mac Plumart:
Personally, I would very much enjoy watching David Moriarty try to help you get your arms around that remark of C.B. Macdonald's. I would very much enjoy seeing if he knows enough about golf and golf architecture and the fascinating dynamic within both and both together as the two primary, yet vastly different formats of golf, historically and otherwise.
I'm more than willing to sit back and wait and watch to see if he is capable. If some, including myself, feel he blew it or just said, AGAIN, what he says his not his opinion but fact, then he can expect others on here, including myself, to critique and criticize his opinions and statements. That's what we do on this DG. That's what we SHOULD do on this DG. If he reacts by taking those critiques ans criticisms personally, as he seemingly always has and does, and begins insulting people again because of them, then what does that say? What does that say about him? What does that say about this DG with him on it?
So let's see what he does. Let's see what he does if others disagree with him and criticize his opinions which he usually has an interesting way of claiming are facts not just opinons while claiming everyone else owes him facts for their responses rather than their opinions! ;)
I would also like to see him offer his opinions of the entire life and times of C.B. Macdonald, clearly a man he seems to admire greatly, as he said he would some two weeks ago---qualified by the remark, 'when I get the chance.' ;)
Apparently he has the chance to endlessly argue with Mike Cirba about what does and doesn't constitute a public course and what Industry Hills is, and to continually argue with Cirba about the relative quality of Cobbs Creek----but he doesn't have the time or the chance to offer his opinion of the life and times of the fascinating C.B. Macdonald and particularly in areas of golf and otherwise that don't necessarily specifically concern just golf architecture?
Uh huh; you bet; right!?! ;)
-
George,
Now I remember! You mean that "Tom P."
"David M...
great post.
CBM's quote about courses should be designed for match play not for stroke play. Help me get my arms around that. How would the two differ? What are the defining characteristics in a course built for match play? And vice-vera.
I've thought about that time and again, on and off, for some time but I guess I need some extra education on the differences in terms of architecture."
Mac Plumart:
Personally, I would very much enjoy watching David Moriarty try to help you get your arms around that remark of C.B. Macdonald's. I would very much enjoy seeing if he knows enough about golf and golf architecture and the fascinating dynamic within both and both together as the two primary, yet vastly different formats of golf, historically and otherwise.
I'm more than willing to sit back and wait and watch to see if he is capable. If some, including myself, feel he blew it or just said, AGAIN, what he says his not his opinion but fact, then he can expect others on here, including myself, to critique and criticize his opinions and statements. That's what we do on this DG. That's what we SHOULD do on this DG. If he reacts by taking those critiques ans criticisms personally, as he seemingly always has and does, and begins insulting people again because of them, then what does that say? What does that say about him? What does that say about this DG with him on it?
So let's see what he does. Let's see what he does if others disagree with him and criticize his opinions which he usually has an interesting way of claiming are facts not just opinons while claiming everyone else owes him facts for their responses rather than their opinions! ;)
I would also like to see him offer his opinions of the entire life and times of C.B. Macdonald, clearly a man he seems to admire greatly, as he said he would some two weeks ago---qualified by the remark, 'when I get the chance.' ;)
Apparently he has the chance to endlessly argue with Mike Cirba about what does and doesn't constitute a public course and what Industry Hills is, and to continually argue with Cirba about the relative quality of Cobbs Creek----but he doesn't have the time or the chance to offer his opinion of the life and times of the fascinating C.B. Macdonald and particularly in areas of golf and otherwise that don't necessarily specifically concern just golf architecture?
Uh huh; you bet; right!?! ;)
TEPaul,
This has been an interesting thread. It'd be a shame if you ruined it with your petty vendetta. You can start your own thread for that. Besides, aren't you supposed to be off convincing Ran that I need to be removed from the website for my rude behavior?
_________________________________________
Mac,
Now time now. Perhaps later.
-
"TEPaul,
This has been an interesting thread. It'd be a shame if you ruined it with your petty vendetta. You can start your own thread for that. Besides, aren't you supposed to be off convincing Ran that I need to be removed from the website for my rude behavior?"
David Moriarty:
What vendetta are you referring to on this thread? What petty vendetta? Show me the evidence of it on this thread! Show it to any of the contributors to this thread or this website. Show it to us on this thread, Moriarty, or admit you are just unnecessarily over-reacting, AGAIN, to anything anyone, particularly me, says to you in any response that may disagree with your opinions on this thread or your opinions elsewhere on this website.
I think the time has come and long gone where you get away with just throwing up some ridiculous vendetta card every time someone, including me, disagrees with something you say. This is a discussion forum and disagreement is part of it.
If, by chance, you are referring to another thread----eg one I started about visiting site projects to learn something about golf architecture all I said to Ben Sims is that I suggest he invite you (and MacWood) to go with him to a site project for the benefit of yourselves and even this website since he said he might do that.
With that suggestion, what I got on that thread was your continuous insults about wine and dregs and such but that was not this thread.
Show me any evidence of a vendetta with you on this thread or admit to this website there hasn't been one----other than your own!
-
JC:
You mean this is a RANKINGS thread? I had no idea we were talking about THAT.
Tom,
This is absolutely not a rankings thread and was never intended to be so. You asked "on whose behalf am I pronouncing these courses great?" I responded with us using the collective as a base for determining great. Meaning, lets take a look at the various rankings or hell, we could use this website to see which courses the collective group has determined to be great. This, of course, has become too complex and too abstract and has allowed for a discussion on the various merits (in your opinion) of rankings, generally, and a continued argument that the determination of great is subjective. Therefore, lets go with this:
Which courses do YOU think are great? You listed, in the Confidential Guide, a certain list of courses that receive a 10 on the Doak scale. What about those courses make them great? You, for purposes of this discussion, are now the source of objectivity (and, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, you have likely had more of an influence on the collective consensus than anyone today) and the arbiter of "great."
Once we have your list, the question then becomes, do you consider all of them to be "fun"? Do you consider any course not rated at 10 on the Doak scale to be more "fun" than any of the courses that ARE rated a 10 on the Doak scale. I bet you do.
Moreover, this thread isn't even remotely close to a logical or linguistic exercise in what is "great"? It is simply a discussion on whether Course A can be determined to be better (with more golfing or architectural merit, whichever word you want to use) yet not as fun to play as Course B. In the hypothetical, is North Berwick a better golf course than Oakmont? This discussion would be much easier if we didn't parse the hypothetical nor the rankings.
-
JC - I have more than a little sympathy for your pov, and for what you're trying to get/grappling with here. But increasingly it seems that the old saying is proving correct: "Those who know don't speak. Those who speak don't know".
Wait. That makes it sound like I'm saying you 'don't know'. I don't mean it that way. What I mean is, well, you know...
Peter (No - from now on, Silent Sam Smith, or Gary Cooper in High Noon)
-
Mr. Pineappley goodness,
Perhaps a more appropriate saying would be "those who should know, don't and therefore obfuscate" ;)
-
"JC - I have more than a little sympathy for your pov, and for what you're trying to get/grappling with here. But increasingly it seems that the old saying is proving correct: "Those who know don't speak. Those who speak don't know".
Wait. That makes it sound like I'm saying you 'don't know'. I don't mean it that way. What I mean is, well, you know...
Peter (No - from now on, Silent Sam Smith, or Gary Cooper in High Noon)"
PeterP:
That's beautiful; and the timing of it is just perfect.
You're terrific and you add so much to this site in so many ways----little AND big.
-
ah, god bless you JC - you dare speculate where we others fear to tread! May you be justly rewarded for your courage, sort of like Captain Kirk in the old star trek episodes who went where no man had gone before. (Just make sure you're not wearing a red-shirt - those security guys never got nothing but an untimely death...)
Coop
PS - thanks much TE, very kind of you to say. I really like JC's threads, he just needs to to be less reticent with his opinions....
-
"TEPaul,
This has been an interesting thread. It'd be a shame if you ruined it with your petty vendetta. You can start your own thread for that. Besides, aren't you supposed to be off convincing Ran that I need to be removed from the website for my rude behavior?"
David Moriarty:
What vendetta are you referring to on this thread? What petty vendetta? Show me the evidence of it on this thread! Show it to any of the contributors to this thread or this website. Show it to us on this thread, Moriarty, or admit you are just unnecessarily over-reacting, AGAIN, to anything anyone, particularly me, says to you in any response that may disagree with your opinions on this thread or your opinions elsewhere on this website.
I think the time has come and long gone where you get away with just throwing up some ridiculous vendetta card every time someone, including me, disagrees with something you say. This is a discussion forum and disagreement is part of it.
If, by chance, you are referring to another thread----eg one I started about visiting site projects to learn something about golf architecture all I said to Ben Sims is that I suggest he invite you (and MacWood) to go with him to a site project for the benefit of yourselves and even this website since he said he might do that.
With that suggestion, what I got on that thread was your continuous insults about wine and dregs and such but that was not this thread.
Show me any evidence of a vendetta with you on this thread or admit to this website there hasn't been one----other than your own!
Petty vendettas are thread specific? Who knew?
____________________________________________
-
"Petty vendettas are thread specific? Who knew?"
Who knew?
With your usual knee-jerk "vendetta" response on this thread as well, where there's no evidence of it at all, apparently not you! :P
Nevertheless, show me where any evidence of a vendetta is on this thread until you mentioned it. Can't do that can you Moriarty, and that's why you result to your usual deflection as quoted above. You're so transparent it is laughable. Again, where is any evidence of a vendetta on this thread until you mentioned it? Cant' do it, can you? ;)
-
But where I might lose you is with the brutal rough. I don't mind brutal rough on courses with wide fairways-- wide wide fairways-- because brutal rough can serve the same purpose as brutal bunkers, but like brutal bunkers it only works well if the golfer generally has the option to playing away from it. This isn't the case if the fairways are narrow and the rough brutal. So which is Oakmont? If the fairways are narrow and the rough brutal, then how on earth could brutal rough highlight the architecture? Or how does the club think it does?
This may not make sense, because frankly I don't believe it, but I am going to attempt to read the minds of those who do... :)
There are a lot of people who believe hitting a driver straight is one of the ultimate tests in golf. For many of these people, thick rough bordering narrow fairways is the best way to test the ability to hit a driver straight.
Similarly, there are a lot of people who believe that recovery shots from thick rough test important elements of the game, so they like thick rough near hazards, greens, etc.
Finally, there are a lot of people who believe a course should be set up to test the best golfers, not the rest of us.
I don't believe any of these things. I'd love to see how Oakmont plays on rough like they had at the Women's Open, or even no rough ala Augusta (for the first 70 years... :'(). I think the ball would run to places that would require really interesting and challenging recovery shots, and even stray shots that didn't run far would still be rather difficult, off tight lies around those tremendous greens.
I don't know enough about the Oakmont membership to tell you what they are thinking, but I do believe they are doing their best to present the course as they believe Fownes intended.
-----
And as an aside, I don't think you'd place much emphasis on score, never did. My reference to the question directed at Sean was more to highlight that there are many people that do. I also think, like Mark Pearce, that people like this tend to look at difficult courses and think, there's no way a high handicapper could enjoy this place. I disagree with that line of thinking entirely and find it highly condescending.
-
"I don't know enough about the Oakmont membership to tell you what they are thinking, but I do believe they are doing their best to present the course as they believe Fownes intended."
George:
Well, I sure do, or certainly enough of those there that have pretty much administered that club in recent times. And I would completely underscore what you said in your second sentence there. They are surely doing their best to present that course as they believe Fownes intended it to be. Frankly, the course got pretty far from the way Fownes intended it to be for maybe up to four decades but they sure have dedicatedly taken it back to the way he intended it to be and had it up to the late 1940s in the last 15 years or so.
Did you know that W.C. Fownes who completely ran that club since 1935 after his father died who had completely run it since its beginning in 1903, in the late 1940s and right in the middle of some inconsequential discussion at a board meeting slide a note across the table to the Board secretary saying he was completely resigning and not just that he was going to take his entire family out of the future of the club?
Fownes apparently had a real issue with the way he saw Oakmont going as a full blown country club and away from the model he believed in for Oakmont of just a golf club along the GB model.