[Sean_A]

Thanks much, MB -- very well said/done.

A question though: have you played both NGLA and Crystal Downs? If so, what do you think?

I'm sort of waiting to see if anyone who has played both will actually say, 'yeah, both are great, but only one is truly one of a kind". (I don't mean to focus on those two courses, but on those two kinds/species of great courses).

Peter

Peter

I have not played both but, as with TOC, NGLA surprised me. That a course could be so famous for so long, with holes copied from elsewhere and then copied somewhere else yet surprise me — that very element of surprise was surprising in and of itself. I think such surprise is our innate reaction to sui generis greatness.

I like what Mark wrote.  It is really the surprises I am looking for, not uniqueness.  It is very cool when a course really does surprise because everything seems to get discussed on this site.  Some examples

I couldn't believe Pests didn't rave about Liphook's 9th after Buda.  Its the most surprising and possibly the best hole on the course.

I rolled up to New Zealand and was floored by how much more meaningful the bunkering is there than any other heathland course, yet, nobody talked about it.  What, did they play the course with their eyes closed?

Huntercombe in general. Here is a design that can be replicated practically anywhere, yet it has a handful of very cool holes...where was everybody ten years ago?

Kington goes without saying.

The earthworks at Yelverton...hello...why didn't people talk about this?  I was dumbfounded to find such cool earthworks.

Cleeve Cloud could be the biggest the surprise of all.  What a nummy I am, the course is 30 minutes from house I heard barely a whisper about the course.  I do recall Craig Disher mentioning it a long time ago, but nobody jumped on the wagon like Doc, Turner and Stiff did a few years ago. 

Strandhill too was a huge surprise. 

Its wonderful to stumble onto great surprises with no intent.  Its what keeps me seeing new courses.  If I had to encounter Groves everywhere I went, I would likely give golf up.

Ciao

[Sean_A]

If I had to encounter Groves everywhere I went, I would likely give golf up.

Ciao

Haha - the Grove is the whipping boy every time 

Sheehy

The great thing is The Grove is a good course!  Its just that I (and I suspect you as well) am spoiled rotten.

Ciao

[George Pazin]

Seth Raynor designed many excellent and some near-great courses that have lots of similarities. Their similarities do not diminish their individual qualities, at least not in my opinion.

Jim

For me anyway, I don't feel the "need" to see many Raynor courses like I do Dr Mac courses simply because I am not convinced I will be getting something fresh for any given site.  There are expectations to be met with Raynor which isn't the case for Dr Mac.  That isn't to say that the Raynor  courses individually aren't outstanding, but that the implied promise of "outstanding" (whether accurate or not) is not enough for me to undertake serious travel. 

Ciao

Much like Devin Hester, this post illustrates why I believe uniqueness is highly overrated in golf. Or at least, generally misunderstood.

I believe the term is applied much too broadly. As many of my teachers said growing up, define your terms! How unique can one be, within the context of the game of golf, and still be good?

I'll take my changes on ANY Raynor and gladly put it up against ANY unique modern golf course. Sure, I'll lose occasionally - everyone knows my heart resides in Tasmania - but I believe the consistent application of solid, fundamental principles of good golf - which is what I believe the MacD/Raynor "template" is all about - will yield a superior course to the vague terms of "uniqueness and originality" each and every day of the week.

I'll take thoughtful golf over unique golf any day, every day, all day.

That's what the best deliver. Any day, every day, all day.

[jeffwarne]

I'll bite.
Give me unique when available.
Though "unique" may not be the right word in the strictest sense.(as in one of a kind)
Unusual and different, particularly when blended/constructed around unusual land forms can make for great golf, especially when blended with more subtle features

I'm not arranging any trips around a course with 100 predictably sized ,placed , and consistently maintained bunkers-no matter how thoughtfully they were placed.
Unique and/or unusual land forms, landscapes and textures excite me far more

[Phil McDade]

Its wonderful to stumble onto great surprises with no intent.  Its what keeps me seeing new courses.  

George: This statement, to me, is the essence of what I enjoy about golf.

See this thread on this course: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39987.0.html

Nobody goes out of their way to play this course; I literally had never heard about it until I came across it doing some research on Bendelow courses in the Midwest, and particularly Wisconsin. I had zero expectations, other than I knew it was a 9-hole golf course that Bendelow had a hand in.

When I played it, I kept thinking: This is a cool hole. This is something you don't see that often. That's a really good use of the land. This hole isn't much, but at least the green and surrounds are interesting. I've never seen this before. This is better than any hole I've played on some courses that cost $100+.

In fact, one of my primary goals in life is get Arble over here to play it and convince him it's better than the Sacred Nine.

I do like thoughtfulness in a course; it's why I return to certain courses year after year. But surprises keep me playing.

[Sean_A]

Seth Raynor designed many excellent and some near-great courses that have lots of similarities. Their similarities do not diminish their individual qualities, at least not in my opinion.

Jim

For me anyway, I don't feel the "need" to see many Raynor courses like I do Dr Mac courses simply because I am not convinced I will be getting something fresh for any given site.  There are expectations to be met with Raynor which isn't the case for Dr Mac.  That isn't to say that the Raynor  courses individually aren't outstanding, but that the implied promise of "outstanding" (whether accurate or not) is not enough for me to undertake serious travel. 

Ciao

Much like Devin Hester, this post illustrates why I believe uniqueness is highly overrated in golf. Or at least, generally misunderstood.

I believe the term is applied much too broadly. As many of my teachers said growing up, define your terms! How unique can one be, within the context of the game of golf, and still be good?

I'll take my changes on ANY Raynor and gladly put it up against ANY unique modern golf course. Sure, I'll lose occasionally - everyone knows my heart resides in Tasmania - but I believe the consistent application of solid, fundamental principles of good golf - which is what I believe the MacD/Raynor "template" is all about - will yield a superior course to the vague terms of "uniqueness and originality" each and every day of the week.

I'll take thoughtful golf over unique golf any day, every day, all day.

That's what the best deliver. Any day, every day, all day.

Thats fair enough George, but I think good, thoughtful golf can be applied in unusual ways.  It doesn't mean we have to have a rigid set of templates to follow regardless of what the land offers.  That was my beef with Yeaman's Hall, it may have been based on sound architecture, but it was terribly predictable with little in the way of surprises.  I am not saying I have been put off seeing Raynors, but good, thoughtful golf isn't enough for me to travel.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Struggling a bit to get my head around this one.

What would be say 5 'best' courses, whatever 'best' may mean, that were unique when built/created and are still unique today? 'Unique' being one of a kind?

atb

[George Pazin]

Its wonderful to stumble onto great surprises with no intent.  Its what keeps me seeing new courses.  

George: This statement, to me, is the essence of what I enjoy about golf.

See this thread on this course: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39987.0.html

Nobody goes out of their way to play this course; I literally had never heard about it until I came across it doing some research on Bendelow courses in the Midwest, and particularly Wisconsin. I had zero expectations, other than I knew it was a 9-hole golf course that Bendelow had a hand in.

When I played it, I kept thinking: This is a cool hole. This is something you don't see that often. That's a really good use of the land. This hole isn't much, but at least the green and surrounds are interesting. I've never seen this before. This is better than any hole I've played on some courses that cost $100+.

In fact, one of my primary goals in life is get Arble over here to play it and convince him it's better than the Sacred Nine.

I do like thoughtfulness in a course; it's why I return to certain courses year after year. But surprises keep me playing.

The fact that Phil had disagreed with me makes me feel really really good about my position.

Phil, please do me a favor and post a story about the last time you saw something really unique.

Nice post, Sean, can't say I disagree, just nitpicking over words.

[Peter Pallotta]

Good thread, thanks gents. But for all the nitpicking about the word "unique", I'll nitpick back and reference the original post; it used two "10s" to try to make a distinction/value judgement between a "10" that presents itself (its elements/aethetics/surroundings) in a relatively familiar way and a "10" that presents itself in a markedly less familar way, i.e. more original, sui generis, unique. Here's two more highly ranked courses: Pine Valley and Oakmont: both great, but to me the former's "essence" can be "extrapolated" from other courses I've played, whereas the latter would for me be a new experience.  

Peter

[jeffwarne]

"Best" is often not unique...
because to be widely aknowledged as " best", a majority would have to agree on it, and rarely is a course unique that a majority agree on, or in most cases the majority haven't seen enough to recognize and appreciate unique.

now I've got a headache......

[paul cowley]

For me quirk is why I would rank North Berwick and Lahinch above Muirfield and Turnbury...and the first two probably just happened while the other two were more designed. Do not ask for a hole by hole comparison please 

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks much for posting, Dave.

I've noted your high regard for Rock Creek before, and it is interesting from someone who has played a lot of great courses (and several of Tom's other more talked about ones).

Peter

[Phil McDade]

The fact that Phil had disagreed with me makes me feel really really good about my position.

Phil, please do me a favor and post a story about the last time you saw something really unique.

In golf, or in general?

In golf, I don't think I've seen anything like the 2nd at Erin Hills.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()