Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Willie_Dow on July 24, 2002, 09:34:11 PM
-
Played Newport National today, a perfect New England high, lots of wind, beautiful sky and clear as can be!
But the course was so great that the day took over. Vistas of Little Compton, RI (Donald Ross' Sakonnet)
Which is better? The game, which remembers every hole played, or the view>
-
Willie - I think taking in the views is indicative of inner peace and probably indicates that your game took care of itself. Then again, you can be "zoned" and not see anything other than your target
This great question begs another question - do external factors like views significantly affect the perception of a course's greatness?
-
Dan: of course they do. Why shouldn't they?
Tom H.
ps - I've battled this exact point with Mucci (and others) MANY times over the years. I firmly believe that if one sees it and feels it it's silly not to count it in assessing the worth of a golf course. Shall I take it you take the Muccian view that external views don't matter at all? Be careful... your golfing soul is at stake... ;)
-
Dan: of course they do. Why shouldn't they?
Tom H.
ps - I've battled this exact point with Mucci (and others) MANY times over the years. I firmly believe that if one sees it and feels it it's silly not to count it in assessing the worth of a golf course. Shall I take it you take the Muccian view that external views don't matter at all? Be careful... your golfing soul is at stake... ;)
The never to be resolved issue of whether Pebble Beach would be so great if it weren't next to Carmel Bay. I've read a few of those discussions.
-
Phil: oh, it's resolved all right. Pebble Beach Golf Links is indeed adjacent to Carmel Bay and sans earthquake isn't moving any time soon. But those with ultrafocus can continue to wonder about such things.
;)
-
A golf course is more than a collection of golf holes -- is it not?
A golf course -- a good one, anyway -- is an experience.
How can one eliminate the vistas from the experience?
Why would one want to?
-
Tom,
I think when a balance is struck, it raises both the course and the setting to another level. I agree with you that to debate the merits of a course, all factors internal and external should be taken into account.
However, does the beauty and surroundings of say...Half Moon Bay add to the overall evaluation of the course, or does the architecture of the course detract from the beauty and surrounds? (Desperately trying to stay emoticon free)
WH
ps-Notice I stayed away from Pebble--
-
I was fortunate to spend a few hours earlier this month touring the Castle Stuart course (now in the grow-in stage), near Inverness airport. While great care has been taken regarding the architectural design/features of the course, equal care was taken to route the course so that many of the holes line up in the sight lines of the landmarks (bridge, lighthouse, castle, etc.) surrounding the course.
A great golf hole is a great golf hole, but a great golf hole set against a stunning view becomes a memorable golf hole.
-
Dan: those are all great questions, ones I've asked Mr. Mucci more or less. Quite astoundingly - but not surprisingly - he had answers. They were odd, but answers they were. In short, he prefers to assess the "architecture" - that is the design - and thus the experience of actually playing on said design was secondary to him. The fact that Tom Doak himself said that maximizing available views was a rather key part of design swayed him not. The fact that assessing design would necessarily take in all that goes into it - including quality of site, obstacles overcome, permitting/environmental issues, client involvement, etc. - and he can't possibly know those things for most courses - failed to sway him either. He's and those like him remains all about assessing "design" or "architecture", as illogical as that may be.
Thus we pray for their golfing souls.
TH
ps to David: exceedingly well said - that was the point Tom Doak made, more or less, also. But what does he know? ;)
-
Tom,
I think when a balance is struck, it raises both the course and the setting to another level. I agree with you that to debate the merits of a course, all factors internal and external should be taken into account.
However, does the beauty and surroundings of say...Half Moon Bay add to the overall evaluation of the course, or does the architecture of the course detract from the beauty and surrounds? (Desperately trying to stay emoticon free)
WH
ps-Notice I stayed away from Pebble--
Wyatt: I'd say fair is fair. If the "architecture" of a course does detract from what otherwise might be a great experience due to the beauty and surroundings, than it is assessed as lesser as well. I don't believe that's the case with either course at Half Moon Bay, but I could see someone trying to make that argument about the newer course there. The older one only has scenic beauty on 1-2 holes...
My point remains that completely discounting beauty and surrounds - as the Muccians want to do - seems to me illogical.
How one weighs it would be part of personal preference. I tend to give the course itself - that is, how it plays outside of the views - a lot more weight than the beauty and surrounds taken in a vacuum. Mucci has many times tried to put words in my mouth to the extent that beauty and surrounds are ALL I care about; and that is plain not true. I just do believe they must matter to some extent - and the questions Dan Kelly ask sum up why quite eloquently. How much they matter, well... reasonable minds will differ.
In any case, myy beef has always been with those who say that beauty and surrounds do not matter AT ALL.
And that is indeed what Mucci has always maintained.
TH
-
Tom,
Your just a Doak butt-boy if you say something like that. (http://www.msnheaven.com/content/emoticons/54/banana124.gif)
In all seriousness though, I would agree that if all one sees is the golf course, then your not really taking in the whole experience. Utah golf works well in at least small part due to the outstanding mountain views from pretty much every course in town.
-
Kalen:
Oh I'm a Doak butt-boy all right. He just LOVED my thoughts on Stone Eagle.
;)
But glad to read you have a golfing soul anyway.
TH
-
Can anyone think of a course with great views and so-so architecture? Where you'd just as soon take a walk along the grounds as play golf.
-
Can anyone think of a course with great views and so-so architecture? Where you'd just as soon take a walk along the grounds as play golf.
Torrey Pines...sorry I couldn't resist...
-
Can anyone think of a course with great views and so-so architecture? Where you'd just as soon take a walk along the grounds as play golf.
Mike Benham's gonna give me shit for thread domination... too many posts... but darn it this is another topic near and dear to my heart.
And thus to try to answer a damn good question....
Some would say the newer course at Half Moon Bay exhibits this. I don't agree, but people have said that.
I think there's a course or two in Scotland that could qualify as well... darn I can't remember which course, but I recall one on cliffs above the sea where the holes never got that close the cliffs and were otherwise pretty featureless... the views and the hike were glorious but the golf was mundane.... darn it it's killing me... hopefully I'll think of it.
More topically, many tend to put Torrey Pines South in this category... Spanish Bay... again I don't agree on either, but they have been mentioned in this light.
There must be others....
-
Mr. Huckaby:
Glad to come to your defense this time, because I agree with you here. As a golf course architect, I say you would have to be crazy to let your ideas of "good golf" steer you away from utilizing the most beautiful parts of a property to their utmost. You CAN have both at once, and most of the best courses do.
However, if a site offers a beautiful setting and all the architect does with it is produce banal holes with a view, then the setting adds little to my enjoyment. Phil, to name just a few: Bodega Harbour, Mauna Lani, Half Moon Bay, Torrey Pines :) [guess I can't agree with you completely] and for me, Turnberry is close, too.
-
Can anyone think of a course with great views and so-so architecture? Where you'd just as soon take a walk along the grounds as play golf.
Furry Creek
-
This great question begs another question - do external factors like views significantly affect the perception of a course's greatness?
I'd love to see the argument from someone who thinks they don't.
A lovely sunny afternoon near the water, whether it's Turnberry, Cape Kidnappers, Pebble Beach or somewhere else near the water has an amazing effect on one's mind. We must enjoy ourselves moreso in such settings. And rate the exerience highly as a result. How could we not?
Can anyone think of a course with great views and so-so architecture? Where you'd just as soon take a walk along the grounds as play golf.
I've not been there but all and sundry tell me Kauri Cliffs fits into this category nicely.
MM
-
Tom:
First, my Dad doesn't even go by Mr. Huckaby. But I appreciate the courtesy. I'll call you Tom given we've "spoken" so many times before in here, and well...I have little class anyway. ;)
In any case, many thanks for the confirmation. This - maximizing views - always did seem to me to be pretty fundamental, but of course the take of a true expert and leader in the field is always good when it helps one's case. Some day Pat will come around.
As for the individual courses, well... I don't doubt that some of those - even Torrey Pines - might have been done better; I just can't get to the point of calling Torrey Pines "banal" as my recollection is I faced quite a few fun and difficult shots. Same goes for Half Moon Bay (and I assume you mean the newer course there as the older has 95% views of houses). Bodega Harbour I am with you. Never played Mauna Lani.
Tom H.
-
Can anyone think of a course with great views and so-so architecture? Where you'd just as soon take a walk along the grounds as play golf.
Furry Creek
Tim - GREAT EXAMPLE!!!! ;D Incredible views of the fjords of Canada. Awful golf course. What were they thinking? I don't know if anyone could have done better, maybe it is just an impossible site.......
North Berwick woiuld always be a great golf course but think what the Bass Rock adds to it.
Great point by David Tepper about the skill of golf architects in lining up geographical features. That is one of the highlights to me of a round at Capilano, where Stanley Thompson lined up Vancouver harbor on three dowhill holes, and two mountain peaks on back nine holes. Absolutely drop dead gorgeous.
-
Tom:
Actually I was talking about the old course at Half Moon Bay, I've never been out on the new one. It used to get some attention because of the one hole with a view ... but it was an architectural decision (as well as a land planning decision and a financial decision) not to make better use of what they had to work with and let the golf course just get swallowed up in houses. We get contacts from developers every week or two with similar projects, and we pass on all of them.
-
Tom:
Actually I was talking about the old course at Half Moon Bay, I've never been out on the new one. It used to get some attention because of the one hole with a view ... but it was an architectural decision (as well as a land planning decision and a financial decision) not to make better use of what they had to work with and let the golf course just get swallowed up in houses. We get contacts from developers every week or two with similar projects, and we pass on all of them.
AHA!
Well we are in total agreement here then. The praise for this course as a seaside gem has always kinda irked me... and oddly enough, it's the first course I ever thought of in terms of what might have been. Not that I do that much anyway, but I did so about this one. No fan am I!
TH
-
I was just thinking about this exact topic today. The course I work at has some of the best water views around.
It made me think how would the golf course be perceived if it lacked these views, and thus aluding to the question of how would any golf course be perceived lacking its views.
To me they go hand in hand. The views are just as much apart of the golf course as a punchbowl is to a Seth Raynor golf coure. There have been some arguments about this with Pebble Beach.
There are some courses whose stock rises because of the views, and there are some courses that would be looked upon just fine minus the views.
-
Familiarity often breeds contempt, at least as far as golf course views go.
Some views are just so incredible that it really doesn't matter how many times you see them, they still impress, but some other views can become just part of the background after a while. Maybe to be really honest about judging architectural quality you need to play a course often enough that the "blown away by the view" factor recedes just a little bit.
Whenever this type of discussion comes up, I think of the poster child for amazing views locally, a course called Arrowhead. Red sandstone formations jutting out of the ground all over the place, and the view from the 10th tee is one of the most gorgeous I've seen, on or off the golf course. Out-of-towners just seem to love it. It takes a few turns around that track (perhaps significantly fewer trips for those with a more practiced eye than my own) to realize that the golf course just isn't that great.
Here's a link to some pics of the course by Aidan Bradley:
http://www.golfcoursephotography.com/courselist.asp
Under "United States" just click on Colorado, and you'll find the course listed there.
-
Kirk:
Why should us golfers care about judging "architectural quality"?
And if we were to be so hubristic (sorry, just spent a day with Bob Huntley and I am on a vocabulary high), wouldn't we want to know all that goes into the architecture and the design?
TH
ps - I've played Arrowhead, and I agree with you - it isn't that great of a golf course. But that being said, to me the views and surrounds at the very least keep it from being awful. Put it in the Bodega Harbour etc. class as listed by Tom Doak.
-
Now wait a minute Mr Huckaby ;) , I thought Pat said that crap was crap, no matter if there was a view or not. This seems to be what TomD is saying too, i.e., waste not, want not.
-
Kirk, Good call re Arrowhead. Great views so-so golf.
TH, I don't know what course you're thinking of but Lundin Links comes to mind as a very average seaside course.
-
Why should us golfers care about judging "architectural quality"?
Tom, most of the time, most golfers don't. If I was a golf magazine panelist, and had some responsibility to rate golf courses, I suppose I'd care more. And interestingly enough, there are times on the course where it just feels like the design, the architecture, calls out to me, demanding notice. I'm not sure what makes a course do that, but some courses do. Arrowhead doesn't.
-
Views are important, maybe even very important IMO. They are just one part of the golf course experience; I agree with those that say a mediocre course in a spectacular location is still a mediocre course, but there are worse things for sure!
I'm trying to decide if I would nominate 3 Creek Ranch in Jackson, WY, because the views there do make the course. At the same time, the design is really pretty decent in its own right. The course itself has very little terrain so I'd actually Rees Jones some credit for a nice routing that takes advantage of the spectacular scenery outside of the course grounds. Quintero on the other hand might be more applicable to the question.
-
Kirk:
Arrowhead was on my list of such courses in The Confidential Guide, also. What a cool site, and what a shame that the golf holes did not live up to it. I guess I would rate it higher than a dull course on a dull site, and that may be all Tom H. is saying, too. I'll let him clarify.
Doug:
I walked Lundin Links again last year after many years' absence, and there are a few cool holes there, so I wouldn't put it in this particular category. It's a shame it doesn't continue along the coast as it once did (before it split with Leven Golf Club), though. That must have been a VERY good course, and the nine holes up on the hill are mostly worthless substitutes.
-
Willie - Glad you liked Newport national - I loved it - let me know how much you liked the course.
-
Guys,
I work in a large real estate development company in the southeast. When we starting building golf courses routing are very important but so are the views for the course along with residential homesites. It is very difficult to find a great property that allows for a really good course design where the holes can be shaped working with the natural land features and also maintain the core golf feel it has to have some residential to make the course financially feasible for the development side.
Views are great but, the golf course has to also be very nice or the property is like Furry Creek. A golf course that has maybe one or two holes you want to play.
-
Really don't know how I got back on her after six years ago. But I recall that moment of thinking.
A golf course has recall, memory if you want to describe what I'm thinking.
For an old timer, change isn't always for the best !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I am not sure where I stand on this. Would the 9th at RCD be as awe inspiring without the Mountains of Mourne, the Bay, & the Slieve Donard serving as a backdrop?
(http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb178/pxexg101/RCD9thTeeShot.jpg)
-
If the views are not attractive (too many houses too close to the course), is not it easier to concentrate on the course design? What else is there to look at?
Should the architectural reputation of the course then be diminished if the GCA had no impact or power over what happens outside the course boundaries? It seems that a consensus of opinion on this web site, that the course quality should suffer???
-
Carl,
It is a balance and a fine line that you consider in the planning stages that allows a really good golf course to be created while also considering residential homesites. This can be done by using setbacks and controlling tree removal so that residences or cottages are tucked into the tree canopy and limiting size on roof height.
The best courses almost always have zero residential development pressure. The goal is to build a great golf course on a great piece of property. The architect / designer then goes to work looking at topo and walking the property to take into consideration the best natural features like views and sites for tees and greens.
-
Willie - Glad you liked Newport national - I loved it - let me know how much you liked the course.
(John - look at the date in Willie's post - it's from 2002 - I dug up his great question, which had had zero replies, from the GCA.com archives).
-
Dan
How did you find me from six years ago ? I'm trying to find out what my handicap was back then !
To answer your question about Newport National, which I have played but a few times, once in the fog when I had the pleasure of hitting it out of site, I would rate it as my favorite Arthur Hills course. Better than Hilton Head's Palmetto Cse, 1985 - or The Landings at Skidaway Island, which I considered to be top notch when I played there. The routing at Newport is far better than H/H or Skidaway. It is a memorable round of golf, which has always been one of my basic gauges for consideration.
I don't know the present state of ownership or whether it is private or public. When I go north in a month or so I'll check that out.
Willie
-
Jim Kennedy - that is absolutely NOT what Pat said - that is far too logical. He steadfastly maintained that external golf course views do not matter AT ALL in an assessment of the worth of the course, be they good or bad. In his world there are huge walls that surround the course and all that matters is the field of play. You can be the judge of his sanity... I know how I ruled. ;)
Regarding Arrowhead, I too would not call it a dull course on a dull site - the site is freakin' spectacular. What it is is a great example of Doak's "Dumb Blonde" category - beatiful but without substance.
To Patrick Glynn - why even ask that question about #9 RCD? Are those views going away? See, that's what's I don't get. Why does it matter what a hole, or a course, would be like without the views? Oh I know the standard answer - it's a way to judge the "architecture." But why should that matter? Are we trying to assess how courses play for Steview Wonder?
TH
-
Are we trying to assess how courses play for Steview Wonder?
TH
I heard Stevie is really long but can't putt to save his life.
-
Are we trying to assess how courses play for Steview Wonder?
TH
I heard Stevie is really long but can't putt to save his life.
Like the Lama.
TH
-
Matt,
My comment stems from my constant play at Riverfront in Suffolk, Virginia.
My only simple point can be stated thusly:
In the world of Golf Architecture Opinion, it will probably always suffer from the omni-present
absurdly over priced McMansion housing development, but that is really not a fair assessment of
the course or what Tom, Eric and group could control. That should be its criteria for evaluation.
-
Matt/Carl:
Now obviously a course not blessed with great external views, or burdened with mcmansions or other eyesores, has a tough road to hoe when compared with a Pebble Beach. But such is life! Just remember that the meat and potatoes of the assessment will be how the holes play - how much joy they give in the playing. And that can certainly be achieved without the positives of fine external views. My real argument continues to be against those who say views should never matter, no matter what. And I hope that is not what either of you are saying.
In any case, more interesting to me is Carl's statement, thus:
My only simple point can be stated thusly:
In the world of Golf Architecture Opinion, it will probably always suffer from the omni-present
absurdly over priced McMansion housing development, but that is really not a fair assessment of
the course or what Tom, Eric and group could control. That should be its criteria for evaluation.
And I politely disagree, or at least would request clarification or a slight change. If we are to evaluate ARCHITECTURAL SKILL, then yes, I'd agree with every word of that statement. I'd request though that we add that we also need to make sure we know all obstacles Tom, Eric and group had to overcome to get the course built (that is, any restrictions be it environmental or otherwise; what the site was like before they got to it and their skill in fashioning a course out of it, in terms of leaving what's worth leaving and building what needs to be built, etc.). If - and only if - we have all of this knowledge, then we can and should assess their architectural skill, and it will be worthwhile to do so.
The problem is none of us golfers have that knowledge.
So my simple point remains that we golfers ought to assess golf courses, not architectural skill. We can certainly evaluate how much joy a course gives us in the playing; we do not have the knowledge base to dare try to assess architectural skill.
So my take here remains that we are assessing golf courses, as golfers. And if we are, then of course the views a course provides matter.
TH
-
Eye candy is great, as long as it's combined with a well designed, built and maintained golf course. Awesome eye candy with average/sub-par design (did anybody say, Spanish Bay?) is not much fun at all.
-
Eye candy is great, as long as it's combined with a well designed, built and maintained golf course. Awesome eye candy with average/sub-par design (did anybody say, Spanish Bay?) is not much fun at all.
Terry - that's a description of Doak's "dumb blonde." As for how fun such a course is, well... it's a matter of personal preference. I have always enjoyed my rounds at Spanish Bay. But others do not. Such is life.
TH
-
So Huck, then you do believe that a crappy hole is a crappy hole, no matter the view, and a good hole is a good hole, no matter the view.
Therefore, the view has no impact on the quality (or lack of) of the architecture, yet may alter one's view of the course as a whole.
Correct ?????
-
So Huck, then you do believe that a crappy hole is a crappy hole, no matter the view, and a good hole is a good hole, no matter the view.
Therefore, the view has no impact on the quality (or lack of) of the architecture, yet may alter one's view of the course as a whole.
Correct ?????
Not sure how you got that, Jim. I didn't say anything close to that. Do you worship at the altar of Pat "put your own words in people's mouth no matter what they say, or believe" Mucci?
It's really very simple. Views matter in the assessment of a golf course. If one wants to assess "architecture" it's a whole different ball game, as I explained. But even then - as Tom Doak confirmed - maximizing available views is part of architectural skill.
So I really have no clue what you are trying to say... other than perhaps you are just being a Muccian contrarian?
TH
-
The best example I can think of to hopefully illustrate Toms claim is this.
The 8th hole at PB. Blind tee shot up the hill on a long par 4 that requires laying back on the tee. Followed by a very long shot to a teeny target that is pretty much carry the entire way.
I firmly believe that if this hole were built inland somewhere and the large chasm over the ocean were a swamp that this hole would get roundly dismissed as a bad golf hole. Remember combine a blind tee shot with a layup, followed by long approach over a swamp.
But because the hole is where it is in Pebble Beach with the ocean, views, seals barking, amazing ambiance, etc the hole is seen by many as one of the finest on the course and even the world.
In the end, I concur with Huck's basic premise. All we can evaluate is what is there in front of us. Is it bad architecture or good architecutre? I can speculate, but what would that mean?
I too believe its one of the finest golf holes in the world. If it were inland somewhere near a swamp, I likely wouldn't feel the same way.
-
Tom, one of the things I said earlier I truly believe when it comes to the role of views, and that is that the more you play a course the less effect the views have, and then you're left with the course itself. Needless to say, the more spectacular or out-of-the-ordinary the views are, the less their effect will drop off over time (like that view of RCD ! Whew !)
What I wasn't thinking about when I posted that is the opposite side of the coin, the ugly surrounds like the McMansion Valley effect, and whether or not over time the effect of those less-than-stellar views might also drop away. I know that there are courses I've played that seem over-run with housing (the back nine of Lone Tree, for instance) and the enjoyment of my round and my feelings about the course were definitely affected negatively. I don't know that I tend to go back to those courses enough to really know if my problems with the surrounding views would diminish with repeat play, but I'm guessing they probably would !
-
Kirk:
I think you make a great point in that the effect of views would necessarily diminish over time, and I do believe it would work in both directions. The good thing is - I think - that a I think it would take a LOT of plays for a view like that at RCD or those at Cypress or Pebble or the like to ever get fully taken for granted; but that awful views would indeed get ignored after awhile, particularly if the golf was interesting.
My home course has this to some extent... some nice views, some not so nice, with the latter not mattering any more as they tend to occur next to some of the more interesting holes in terms of how they play! In fact, oddly enough, the nicer views are paired with the less interesting holes... Hmmmm... I wonder if this was intentional or accidental?
TH
-
Willie - I was looking through old posts with zero replies trying to find a gem or two. I think I succeeded :)
-
Huck,
The emoticon in my post should have been a ;D instead of a ???
-
Huck,
The emoticon in my post should have been a ;D instead of a ???
I kinda figured that upon the re-read. Good stuff, my friend.
You're a New Englander, correct? Well... life-long Laker fan here. Hopefully we have something to discuss next week besides golf.
;D
-
I just skimmed this thread, but I will add this--
If a course has NO views, there better be some pretty amazing architecture to elevate it to any kind of a worthwhile GCA conversation....
-
Jed - One could say that Merion West has better views than East. But there's no way West is a better golf course. Needless to say, East has amazing architecture.
Likewise, Oak Hill sits in a pretty area surrounded in part by Monroe Ave's strip malls and a big Wegmans. But there is amazing architecture there too.
-
Dan - Thanks for the catch. I was not very observant.
Willie - glad to see you enjoyed it. -I'd recomend it to anyone in the NE area - it's really that good.
-
Thanks for bringing back my thoughts . All of you guys (and girls) on here have been thru a few of what I would call of concerns about this web site, and how it has been laid out. But to have Dan pick out something as far back as "then", and make a view so important suggests something that Ran had in mind.
Thank you, Monsieur
-
I do remember being out in Bandon one time when the place was entirely fogged in for two days and yet people loved playing the courses. I remember one guy telling me that for all he knew, "the ocean was just a giant sound effect," but he loved the golf courses.
-
Willie - It's my privilege. And that's exactly the spirit that I was going for.
Tom - Yeah, fog IS a mystical experience at Bandon - even more so if it's not terribly windy. I used to love driving to the Oregon coast after a tough day at work (Cannon Beach was the usual destination) and just walking the beach - fog added to the experience... But it made for a fun trip back to Beaverton.
-
We played Pacific Dunes 4-8 in a dense fog that blasted in from way off the coast and then blasted right out. It was a really cool feel on a great stretch of holes. Might have been disappointing it were to be the only time I got to play the course, but I had played it enough previously to enjoy this as a different experience. A few foggy photos to follow on the Pacific Dunes thread as we get to those holes.
-
Tim - you missed the sense of terror you might have had if your ball ended up on #4 over by the cliff. As one that's afraid of heights, that's one view I could have done without.
-
I do remember being out in Bandon one time when the place was entirely fogged in for two days and yet people loved playing the courses. I remember one guy telling me that for all he knew, "the ocean was just a giant sound effect," but he loved the golf courses.
And THAT is the mark of true greatness - that is, that little of the fun or joy is removed when the views are obscured. The same could be said for Pebble Beach, or at least I think so.
But in saying this, it in no way means that views do not matter AT ALL. The very best stand on their own without them, of course. But to say they don't matter at all when they are available is to really miss the spirt of golf, I think. I go back to Dan Kelly's eloquent questions at the beginning of this thread.
TH
-
Yes - Tom
I'm sure Ben Hogan didn't concern himself with the views around Merion during his final round !
But I'm sure those who watched his triumph felt something ?
Willie
-
Can anyone think of a course with great views and so-so architecture? Where you'd just as soon take a walk along the grounds as play golf.
Estancia (Scottsdale)