Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: mike_malone on August 13, 2022, 05:56:05 PM
-
I don’t mean the pinnacle where courses like Pine Valley reside but maybe where Yale or North Berwick fit.
Is it all about feel or are their standards that must be met?
When does a course go from very good to great?
-
When it is expensive and some douche bag with ten fingers gets comped. Or the good Dr. designed it and and it's a short drive from true greatness. Or it's in a region experiencing a drought with a great superintendent.
I personally see so much more greatness than most because the weather follows me and I only play with interesting people. Plus the veil that blocks greatness was lifted from my vision when I turned 60. it's not wisdom, it's...
-
It's like art, when the New York Times critics declare it so.
-
The scenario I don’t understand is Rustic. As the architect is recognized for greatness the course loses favor with critics.
It must be the Fazio conundrum.
-
As long as the golfer is asked to keep score, I'm inclined to believe defining greatness is impossible.
I think the best you can do is look for people whose opinions reflect your own thinking, and use that to guide your adventures.
I think most golfers miss what is important. Most readers probably miss what writers' intend, and most viewer's probably miss what painters' intend, but in golf, it is compounded by that score thing.
-
I think most golfers miss what is important. Most readers probably miss what writers' intend, and most viewer's probably miss what painters' intend, but in golf, it is compounded by that score thing.
I discovered long ago it applies to sermons as well. Many miss what I have intended. They will pick up one thought then finish the sermon themselves in their head. When I discovered that I was fine with it, as long as it was either comforting or challenging to them.
-
How does it fit your game? I remember being invited to a member guest at a course where the trees on the right side of the fairway substantially invaded the fairway. I always drew the ball, couldn't move it left to right. I hated the course, it didn't fit my eye or game.
-
Tommy, have you ever compiled your sermons into a written document? I'd buy that.
That's definitely a problem as well, Cary.
If I were a betting man, I'd guess JohnK's Rustic example is a fitting one. I'd guess most either shoot a good score and think the width, etc, isn't necessary and doesn't provide sufficient challenge, or they shoot a higher score than they "should" and can't figure out why.
-
While I love Rustic Canyon I don’t see it crossing my greatness threshold.
But it can be argued that it’s great.
Interesting presentation
It has this for sure.
Variety
Check
Sense of place
Check
It may just not have the challenge needed to reach greatness.
-
It may just not have the challenge needed to reach greatness.
This has been the biggest hang-up about great courses since I've been in the business -- better players saying a course is "not elite" because it doesn't have enough 440-yard par-4's.
Is this really a deal breaker for a great course?
Well, do you dismiss Cypress Point and North Berwick and Fishers Island because they are not tough enough? If you do, I feel sorry for you, but that's your right, because greatness is subjective.
-
It may just not have the challenge needed to reach greatness.
This has been the biggest hang-up about great courses since I've been in the business -- better players saying a course is "not elite" because it doesn't have enough 440-yard par-4's.
Is this really a deal breaker for a great course?
Well, do you dismiss Cypress Point and North Berwick and Fishers Island because they are not tough enough? If you do, I feel sorry for you, but that's your right, because greatness is subjective.
I’m not talking of penal features. North Berwick has plenty of challenges. Those are things you must overcome that test either your talent or your decision making. The Pit and the Redan are just two holes where you can’t just hit it straight.
-
Greatness is over-rated.
Ciao
-
I don’t see how Rustic can be overrated. Greatness in land use, value and accessibility.
-
Greatness is over-rated.
Ciao
I disagree, or I would change this statement to "Greatness is too often assigned, and rarely achieved".
The key is design innovation, feeling as though you are playing something unique, exciting and/or different. For whatever reason, I thought of the 9th hole at Pacific Dunes first. Especially when you play to the lower green, that hole is unusual. You have to drive the ball to carry the imposing wall of sandstone to reach the fairway, which slopes down rather sharply to the small, undulating green. I don't know if it's still there, but there used to be a little gorse bush guarding the left side of the green. In the summer, the two shots are playing decisively downwind. Those are two exciting and unusual shots. It's hard to get the distance right on the second shot, downwind from a downhill lie.
By the way, I like the lower green at Pacific Dunes #9 way better than the upper green. I think the hole is far more interesting played that way. You also get the bonus of playing the 10th hole from the lower tee.
That's one reason why North Berwick is so great. You just see stuff that is new and exciting and challenging. It grabs your attention and stokes your interest. When you see something new and different, it makes golf more fun.
I say great courses offer bold and innovative hole designs.
-
I wouldn’t say that not being able to choose which green is best is hardly a sign of greatness. Why stop at two? C&C didn’t build all 100 holes at Sand Hills. They put on their big boy pants and chose 18.
-
I wouldn’t say that not being able to choose which green is best is hardly a sign of greatness. Why stop at two? C&C didn’t build all 100 holes at Sand Hills. They put on their big boy pants and chose 18.
Coore and Crenshaw didn't have a client at Sand Hills that had such strong preferences for the second-best green site . . . although, as I recall, I wrote a letter to Dick Youngscap about letting them build the 4th green where they wanted to, instead of down on the flats [away from the big bunker] because it was more natural.
-
I don’t see how Rustic can be overrated. Greatness in land use, value and accessibility.
John,
I 100% agree. One day last spring, I played 36 holes there and would have gone 54 if there would have been enough sunlight. I put Sand Hollow in the same category in terms of land use, value and accessibility.
As for the threshold for "Greatness"? I don't know how you even begin to define that on a broad scale.
-
I wouldn’t say that not being able to choose which green is best is hardly a sign of greatness. Why stop at two? C&C didn’t build all 100 holes at Sand Hills. They put on their big boy pants and chose 18.
Coore and Crenshaw didn't have a client at Sand Hills that had such strong preferences for the second-best green site . . . although, as I recall, I wrote a letter to Dick Youngscap about letting them build the 4th green where they wanted to, instead of down on the flats [away from the big bunker] because it was more natural.
Was what you did a first at an important course where the choice isn’t at least partially to keep the green playable.
-
Greatness is when you look pass what you are experiencing (food, music, arts, golf course architecture) and desire to know its source (its efficient cause). Greatness asks you 'why?' when you lay in the bed and it creates hope that you experience it again. Greatness is not overrated; ordinary is overrated. Everyone desires what is extraordinary.
-
As you get older it evolves quicker than it disappears. Eventually you see greatness everywhere.
-
Is that called Wisdom John?
-
I think the threshold may lie on the boundary between the expected and the unexpected, ie, in the interplay of the delightful surprise and the comfortingly familiar out of which it emerges. If there is one thing that all the merely average-decent courses I've played have in common it's that they almost never surprise me. The equation/balance is off at the average course -- they are comprised too much of the expected, with but rare flashes of the unexpected. In a word, the average-decent course is entirely predictable -- which in any art-craft implies a serviceable functionality that is not to be sneezed at, but that at the same time is the kiss of death for any chance at greatness.
-
Is that called Wisdom John?
My wife and I have that discussion often. She leans towards old. I don’t think that wise people enjoy the element of surprise. I rarely see it coming.
-
I don’t mean the pinnacle where courses like Pine Valley reside but maybe where Yale or North Berwick fit.
Is it all about feel or are their standards that must be met?
When does a course go from very good to great?
What is the threshold for Pinnacle?
Ira
-
I think you need a minimum of 6 holes where you actually say “whoa!”
-
There are about 38-39k golf courses in the world. That means there are about 400 golf courses in the top 1 percent. Golf architecture is a well-developed art form. Are there 400 great courses in the world? I'm not sure about that.
I thought Yale was pretty special when I played it. It's big and bold.
-
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
It evokes memory or expected memory. I remember playing Black Rock in eastern MI and wondering about hunters that would have trod there a hundred years ago in a few places on the course, but not enough to elevate it.
A sublime routing that paints a cohesive picture.
-
I ask myself this question all the time. Last summer I played two courses that about five miles apart. One was highly ranked while the other didn't even make the best in state list. If I didn't know the ranking and was plopped down on those two courses I couldn't have told you which one was ranked higher.
I look for options off the tee, shots that require skill into the greens and imagination around and on the greens. I don't care how hard it is. I do care if it is fun. I think the course needs interesting terrain and being in a pretty setting helps the overall feel of the course. AFter all is said and done it is subjective, that's why rankings always have a diverse reaction to them.
-
8) As a player my greatness threshold is wonder, as in I wonder how am I going to play this hole's tee shot or approaches or putts?
Good is when options for all the parts are presented amongst the various holes individually, intermittently, making some memorable moments. Great is when almost all shots, i.e., tees to hole-outs, are presented with wondrous options to ponder... hey, no one's perfect...
Take-away quote is, "Wow, I have some unfinished business on that course." So, the general solution is greatly superseded by the specific ones, and yes, my opinion of great has evolved over the years... I hope for many more too.
-
Was what you did a first at an important course where the choice isn’t at least partially to keep the green playable.
Actually, the only other one I can think of is the 9th at Pine Valley; I believe the alternate green was Alison’s idea but, unlike the 8th, it didn’t have anything to do with Crump’s green being too small.
I would suggest that some other examples are more the cause of liking two green sites and taking advantage to make one of them small, instead of not having space to make the preferred green big enough, but I’m not sure since I’ve only done this once.
-
Greatness means something different to everyone.
To me, I think I feel it when a course takes me out of the analytical exercise of judgement and just sucks me in. I get that will not make sense to many here who use numbers to judge holes and courses. And maybe i'd feel different if I played the greats everyday. But that's it for me. For just a little while I lose track of all the things we think about and just live in the moment. Other activities do that to me as well like live music, a great book, or movie. For just a bit of time the great things in life change the way we "are".
-
I’m suggesting that Yale and North Berwick are indeed great to me but I don’t expect everyone to agree. As for Rustic Canyon I’m not going to argue with someone who sees it as great but it seems a little modest to me. I enjoy it thoroughly but think it just falls short of greatness.
Let’s see how this week goes. I know Wilmington which I would call solid and know little about Ridgewood which seems to be on that threshold.
I find that speaking of specific courses helps to define the line.
-
Greatness means something different to everyone.
To me, I think I feel it when a course takes me out of the analytical exercise of judgement and just sucks me in. I get that will not make sense to many here who use numbers to judge holes and courses. And maybe i'd feel different if I played the greats everyday. But that's it for me. For just a little while I lose track of all the things we think about and just live in the moment. Other activities do that to me as well like live music, a great book, or movie. For just a bit of time the great things in life change the way we "are".
I agree with this. But then I also think that because of this, greatness is fluid and more dependent on the individual person at any one time, the receiver of the greatness rather than the giver. Greatness isn’t fixed. Perhaps it should be but it isn’t.
-
Greatness is over-rated.
Ciao
I disagree, or I would change this statement to "Greatness is too often assigned, and rarely achieved".
The key is design innovation, feeling as though you are playing something unique, exciting and/or different. For whatever reason, I thought of the 9th hole at Pacific Dunes first. Especially when you play to the lower green, that hole is unusual. You have to drive the ball to carry the imposing wall of sandstone to reach the fairway, which slopes down rather sharply to the small, undulating green. I don't know if it's still there, but there used to be a little gorse bush guarding the left side of the green. In the summer, the two shots are playing decisively downwind. Those are two exciting and unusual shots. It's hard to get the distance right on the second shot, downwind from a downhill lie.
By the way, I like the lower green at Pacific Dunes #9 way better than the upper green. I think the hole is far more interesting played that way. You also get the bonus of playing the 10th hole from the lower tee.
That's one reason why North Berwick is so great. You just see stuff that is new and exciting and challenging. It grabs your attention and stokes your interest. When you see something new and different, it makes golf more fun.
I say great courses offer bold and innovative hole designs.
I say greatness is over-rated for a few reasons. As you suggest, its too easily used to describe anything, both on a personal and community level. Furthermore, when it comes to golf, it matters little what anybody else believes. Its one's personal opinion which carries the most weight. So any such conversation about the subject is a lot of wasted time.
I also think greatness is over-rated because we don't need greatness and to expect greatness does a disservice to many well designed, sustainable, affordable courses which admirably serve (or could serve) their communities. This feeds back to the above. Greatness can be assigned to these courses because anything less of description will turn people off or draw the ire of others. We have seen that happen on this all too often. Greatness can be wonderful, but its not the reason I play golf.
When it comes to golf, I know greatness when I see it. It may take 1 or 10 looks, but I will eventually see what I think is greatness if its there. It can be no other way because greatness is a completely subjective term. All I can do is offer up what I think is great, but I think its much easier to substitute favourite for great. Fewer egos bruised and fewer roundabout conversations.
Ciao
-
Don and Ally are spot on. And Don’s analogy to music, books, and movies is apt for how I judge greatness. A great course presents a coherent and compelling narrative. I am both emotionally drained and emotionally invigorated because the course sucked me in (to use Don’s vivid verb) in a way that commanded my emotional investment and then rewarded that investment with enlightenment and enjoyment.
Mike, to get specific, and subjective, North Berwick is great. Yale is close; I found it compelling but not fully coherent—more a collection of excellent individual holes than a fully fleshed out drama.
Ridgewood is near great because it is a coherent narrative (at least the two nines we played), but was not quite compelling. Just down the road, I found Somerset Hills unquestionably great.
Other courses that I consider great in no particular order: Woking, CPC, PH2, Ballyneal, and Lahinch.
Near great: Swinley Forest, Bandon Trails, Friar’s Head, Sleepy Hollow, St. George’s Hill, Streamsong Blue, Brora, Mid Pines, Elie, and Pasatiempo.
Courses that raters consider great that do not cross my personal threshold: Ballybunion, PAC Dunes, and Royal Dornoch, Castle Stuart, and Kingsbarns. The first three certainly are near great, and I think my expectations were unreasonable—a bit like everyone telling you that you are about to see the best movie ever. Fortunately, we are seeing PD twice more in a couple of weeks so my expectations may have adjusted. CS and KB are very good remakes or covers that do not come near rising to greatness.
But as Don and Ally said so well, it is personal and therefore subjective. And I agree with Sean whose post crossed with mine that Great and Favorite can be different in a good way.
Ira
-
Ally - perhaps the fact that greatness isn't fixed is precisely the reason why there's such fervent attempts to collectivize it (through rankings & ratings, and sites like this one) and to codify it (through magazine writers and PR and podcasters/youtubers) -- ie because you couldn't effectively commodify and monetize it otherwise. Our experience of that greatness would remain wholly personal and subjective -- which is a lovely and sacred space, but one that doesn't generate much money/enough ROI for big time developers or small time wannabes or anyone else in the industry, and so holds very little value for the world at large.
Peter
PS - very nice line re greatness being less about the giver than the receiver
-
Ally - perhaps the fact that greatness isn't fixed is precisely the reason why there's such fervent attempts to collectivize it (through rankings & ratings, and sites like this one) and to codify it (through magazine writers and PR and podcasters/youtubers) -- ie because you couldn't effectively commodify and monetize it otherwise. Our experience of that greatness would remain wholly personal and subjective -- which is a lovely and sacred space, but one that doesn't generate much money/enough ROI for big time developers or small time wannabes or anyone else in the industry, and so holds very little value for the world at large.
Peter
PS - very nice line re greatness being less about the giver than the receiver
Pietro
I agree. Very few people could produce a list that would be universally accepted/praised and have commercial value. Its the magazines/rankings which hold this clout.
Ciao
-
Don and Ally are spot on. And Don’s analogy to music, books, and movies is apt for how I judge greatness. A great course presents a coherent and compelling narrative. I am both emotionally drained and emotionally invigorated because the course sucked me in (to use Don’s vivid verb) in a way that commanded my emotional investment and then rewarded that investment with enlightenment and enjoyment.
Mike, to get specific, and subjective, North Berwick is great. Yale is close; I found it compelling but not fully coherent—more a collection of excellent individual holes than a fully fleshed out drama.
Ridgewood is near great because it is a coherent narrative (at least the two nines we played), but was not quite compelling. Just down the road, I found Somerset Hills unquestionably great.
Other courses that I consider great in no particular order: Woking, CPC, PH2, Ballyneal, and Lahinch.
Near great: Swinley Forest, Bandon Trails, Friar’s Head, Sleepy Hollow, St. George’s Hill, Streamsong Blue, Brora, Mid Pines, Elie, and Pasatiempo.
This post sums it all up, including that part of the reason there is a threshold is for people to nit-pick and tell us which courses "fall short".
Peter is right that the word has become commodified and that's undeniably true, just look at the green fees for courses on the Top 100 lists . . . and remember that GOLF DIGEST calls theirs the "100 Greatest".
-
Tom,
I actually do not believe that there is a threshold because that implies a clear delineation among descriptive categories. That concept mekes it even more subjective in a quantum physics kind of way. But Mike introduced the threshold concept, and it is an intriguing one to think through, especially to think about how I define great and why my personal definition leads to my views about particular courses.
I also agree with Mike that specific examples help. But I am not in business so it is easier for me to be specific.
Ira
-
Tom,
I actually do not believe that there is a threshold because that implies a clear delineation among descriptive categories. That concept mekes it even more subjective in a quantum physics kind of way. But Mike introduced the threshold concept, and it is an intriguing one to think through, especially to think about how I define great and why my personal definition leads to my views about particular courses.
I also agree with Mike that specific examples help. But I am not in business so it is easier for me to be specific.
Ira:
The main reason I quoted your comment was that you were specific about WHICH courses didn't quite make your standard of "great" but offered no reasons as to why. I suspect that's because if you delineated your reasons, you'd find that not everyone agrees with all of them, which is exactly why this is all a subjective exercise.
-
I always figured it was implied that if someone declared a course to be great it was subjective by default.
But to keep Barney happy, I will now contradict myself in proclaiming that a course can generally be considered great if a consensus/majority vote of those with informed opinions/background deem a course to be a 9 or 10 on the DS.
-
Tom,
I delineated my reasons for the ones that Mike mentioned in his posts that I have played (NB, Yale, and Ridgewood). I thought it would be a a bit self indulgent to do so for the rest. Plus I needed to go to work.
For me and my definition of greatness (built upon Don's and Ally's foundation) that includes a threshold, the questions would be why I consider Woking great and Swinley Forest and St. George's Hill near great or why Ballyneal but not PD or why Lahinch but not Ballybunion or RD. The answers are not too different than Don's point about music, literature, and movies. Woking is an intellectual tale of the first order; Ballyneal presents more mystery from tee to green and around/on the greens; and I found Lahinch to be magical in its variety and quirk--it reminded me of a Ken Kesey novel.
Ira
-
To paraphrase FTRH. Act like everywhere you play is a great place to be.
-
I’ve never played TPC Sawgrass but the mention of it on the season finale of Better Caul Saul put the cement on it.
-
Continuing to throw random thoughts at the thread.
The Major League Baseball Hall of Fame requires a "yes" vote by 75% of those casting ballots to elect a player into the Hall of Fame. (Each member of the committee can vote for up to 10 players in any given year). While it is subjective, the Baseball Hall of Fame is generally the most exclusive of the major sports.
I think we'd find that a 75% agreement on greatness would be a high bar with golf courses. I'm a "No" on some of the courses I've seen on the top 100 lists.
Assigning greatness can be a consensus exercise.
As an aside, I would have voted "No" on David Ortiz.
-
I’ve been rolling the original premise around in my head and believe that we are not necessarily thinking about this the right way.
While there might not be 400 great courses available today, are there 400 courses that with the appropriate stewardship could/would achieve that status?
All great courses have great ownership that have not only maintained what they have, but also continually tried to improve what’s there. Admittedly with some attempts better than others.
How much of our architecture fetish is less about the original architecture and more about the club’s/owner’s continual pursuit of greatness. There are plenty of courses that have fallen from grace only to be re-elevated once proper investment and care is forthcoming.
There are about 38-39k golf courses in the world. That means there are about 400 golf courses in the top 1 percent. Golf architecture is a well-developed art form. Are there 400 great courses in the world? I'm not sure about that.
-
I have heard Gil Hanse say that a great course has a sense of place. I take that to mean that there is a unique feel of enjoyment that can’t be separated from the 18 holes you are playing.
This is subjective particularly at the margin of greatness.
-
All great courses have great ownership that have not only maintained what they have, but also continually tried to improve what’s there. Admittedly with some attempts better than others.
Riviera?
Apache Stronghold, when it opened, was a great golf course. It didn't have great ownership.
-
Ira,
I should introduce you to my buddies who think I’m hard to please!
I like your objection to Yale. I can see it as not a drama but a collection of holes.
So routing or the journey is another factor in the definition of that threshold.
Interestingly I use the word “ magical” to describe Ballybunion and “awesome “ for Lahinch. I see both solidly above the threshold.
-
Here’s my personal scale:
Good = Fun course but would only play it on vacation, holidays, or weekend if I happen to be in the area.
Very Good = Very fun course that I would schedule a golf trip to play even if there is not much else to do after the round (i.e. bad food/bar/clubhouse).
Great = Willing to rearrange work/family schedule to play under just about any scenario.
-
There are about 38-39k golf courses in the world. That means there are about 400 golf courses in the top 1 percent. Golf architecture is a well-developed art form. Are there 400 great courses in the world? I'm not sure about that.
I thought Yale was pretty special when I played it. It's big and bold.
John,
If you use the four scorers in the Confidential Guide as a smaller in number version of your Baseball HOF concept, the number of courses that receive an 8 or above from even one of them bears out your answer to your question.
Ira
-
Continuing to throw random thoughts at the thread.
The Major League Baseball Hall of Fame requires a "yes" vote by 75% of those casting ballots to elect a player into the Hall of Fame. (Each member of the committee can vote for up to 10 players in any given year). While it is subjective, the Baseball Hall of Fame is generally the most exclusive of the major sports.
I think we'd find that a 75% agreement on greatness would be a high bar with golf courses. I'm a "No" on some of the courses I've seen on the top 100 lists.
Assigning greatness can be a consensus exercise.
As an aside, I would have voted "No" on David Ortiz.
John:
I love baseball, but the Hall of Fame sucks. You just need to get a quorum of 26% of a bunch of sanctimonious writers to exclude some of the greatest players who ever lived.
-
Raters can’t be sanctimonious because they got no sanct.
-
Continuing to throw random thoughts at the thread.
The Major League Baseball Hall of Fame requires a "yes" vote by 75% of those casting ballots to elect a player into the Hall of Fame. (Each member of the committee can vote for up to 10 players in any given year). While it is subjective, the Baseball Hall of Fame is generally the most exclusive of the major sports.
I think we'd find that a 75% agreement on greatness would be a high bar with golf courses. I'm a "No" on some of the courses I've seen on the top 100 lists.
Assigning greatness can be a consensus exercise.
As an aside, I would have voted "No" on David Ortiz.
John:
I love baseball, but the Hall of Fame sucks. You just need to get a quorum of 26% of a bunch of sanctimonious writers to exclude some of the greatest players who ever lived.
Whoa Tom. The HOF doesn't suck. Anyone who "loves" baseball or has visited that fabulous museum knows that.
If you have a problem with the inductee process, I admit it can be flawed.
Sincerely,
Bert Blyleven.
-
John:
I love baseball, but the Hall of Fame sucks. You just need to get a quorum of 26% of a bunch of sanctimonious writers to exclude some of the greatest players who ever lived.
+1...and at the same time increasingly include many players who offer little extraordinary to the narrative of baseball in their times; yes the manner, method and criteria is flawed...not the artifact of the Hall itself
-
John,
If you use the four scorers in the Confidential Guide as a smaller in number version of your Baseball HOF concept, the number of courses that receive an 8 or above from even one of them bears out your answer to your question.
Ira
Hi Ira,
I just checked out my copy of the Confidential Guide, Volume 3 (The Americas, Summer Destinations). Three out of four experts rated 28 courses 8 or higher and 70 courses at 7 or higher.
Hi Tom,
Maybe there are glaring flaws in the Hall of Fame ballot process. I can't gauge the sanctimoniousness of the writers. My point stands that the nebulous concept of greatness may only be assigned by a consensus opinion. In baseball, statistics help evaluate a player's worth, but you can sometimes see a player excel over the course of a single game. That happened to me once when I saw Barry Larkin dominate a game in San Francisco.
In golf, it helps to be a seasoned observer to see greatness. Greatness is (mostly) a combination of the natural environment, the flow of the holes and the quality of the shots. Like a single baseball game, you might see greatness the first time around, but it's unreliable. I say the same concept is valid. If enough smart people think it's great, then it's great.
-
John,
If you use the four scorers in the Confidential Guide as a smaller in number version of your Baseball HOF concept, the number of courses that receive an 8 or above from even one of them bears out your answer to your question.
Ira
Hi Ira,
I just checked out my copy of the Confidential Guide, Volume 3 (The Americas, Summer Destinations). Three out of four experts rated 28 courses 8 or higher and 70 courses at 7 or higher.
Hi Tom,
Maybe there are glaring flaws in the Hall of Fame ballot process. I can't gauge the sanctimoniousness of the writers. My point stands that the nebulous concept of greatness may only be assigned by a consensus opinion. In baseball, statistics help evaluate a player's worth, but you can sometimes see a player excel over the course of a single game. That happened to me once when I saw Barry Larkin dominate a game in San Francisco.
In golf, it helps to be a seasoned observer to see greatness. Greatness is (mostly) a combination of the natural environment, the flow of the holes and the quality of the shots. Like a single baseball game, you might see greatness the first time around, but it's unreliable. I say the same concept is valid. If enough smart people think it's great, then it's great.
Sure, it takes some form of community concensus to determine greatness, but if I don't care for a course does its greatness matter to the most important person...which is me....and that me is the royal me? At the end of the day, so what if a course is great if I don't want to play it again? I realize that is a practical PoV in the middle of a theoretical discussion, but testing the theory in practice is important. There are many courses I can accept as great because learned people have always said they are, but the courses don't do it for me.
Ciao
-
Sean,
I agree.
-
Sure, it takes some form of community concensus to determine greatness, but if I don't care for a course does its greatness matter to the most important person...which is me....and that me is the royal me? At the end of the day, so what if a course is great if I don't want to play it again? I realize that is a practical PoV in the middle of a theoretical discussion, but testing the theory in practice is important. There are many courses I can accept as great because learned people have always said they are, but the courses don't do it for me.
That gets to the crux of the issue because unless there is a universal definition of greatness, the concept means different things to different people.
A lot of people will say that Pine Valley is undeniably great but others will ask how great can it be if 99% of golfers can never play it. Others will say it isn't as great as it was or could be because of the encroachment of trees or the work by Fazio, while still others will say it is too penal so it doesn't fall under their idea of greatness.
Similarly with Pebble Beach. Although it has unmatched scenery, great history, iconic golf holes and anyone can play it, others will say it isn't great because it costs a million dollars to play, the experience is kind of a cattle call, the everyday maintenance is just ok, there are too many pedestrian holes, etc...
Magazine rankings at least profess to have a methodology and things like the Confidential Guide have individuals behind it who let you know their guiding principles.
I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it's an ethos.
-
Everyone has a say as to what their favorite is. If someone tells me there favorite cheeseburger is from Burger King I can’t argue that it isn’t but I can certainly argue as to whether or not it is great. Trying to settle on the definition of great is the rub.
-
Sure, it takes some form of community concensus to determine greatness, but if I don't care for a course does its greatness matter to the most important person...which is me....and that me is the royal me? At the end of the day, so what if a course is great if I don't want to play it again? I realize that is a practical PoV in the middle of a theoretical discussion, but testing the theory in practice is important. There are many courses I can accept as great because learned people have always said they are, but the courses don't do it for me.
That gets to the crux of the issue because unless there is a universal definition of greatness, the concept means different things to different people.
A lot of people will say that Pine Valley is undeniably great but others will ask how great can it be if 99% of golfers can never play it. Others will say it isn't as great as it was or could be because of the encroachment of trees or the work by Fazio, while still others will say it is too penal so it doesn't fall under their idea of greatness.
Similarly with Pebble Beach. Although it has unmatched scenery, great history, iconic golf holes and anyone can play it, others will say it isn't great because it costs a million dollars to play, the experience is kind of a cattle call, the everyday maintenance is just ok, there are too many pedestrian holes, etc...
Magazine rankings at least profess to have a methodology and things like the Confidential Guide have individuals behind it who let you know their guiding principles.
I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it's an ethos.
Magazines may have a methodology, but that doesn't mean it's a good methodology. It's a different conversation, but I am one to believe in the trust of the rater...screw methodology. I have said this many times before. Sometimes a particular design attributes outweigh the limited outlook of percentage points per category. You go to a place like Oakland Hills and its greens are a standout feature of the course. Enough so that the greens alone may make the course great. It could score zero in every other category, but the greens are something special. I like the idea of a savvy rater being able to defend his rating based on this. Another course may be its bunkers etc etc. I think this approach helps get back to architectural intent. We shouldn't be rating all courses using the same criteria. Hence imo it's best to enlist a relatively small number of trusted raters and let them get on with it.
Ciao
-
Magazines may have a methodology, but that doesn't mean it's a good methodology.
It doesn't really matter if the methodology is good or not because that is to be judged by the individual reader. The point is that you know the basis of how and why they are calling courses great and you can judge for yourself whether to accept, take it with a grain of salt or reject it. The same way you would do it with individuals after you know enough about their thinking to trust or not trust their opinions on golf architecture.
-
Sean,
I'm curious, without mentioning details, when is the last time you got a recommendation from someone on this site and as you walked off 18 you thought to yourself "He's lost his bloody marbles"
P.S. I don't think even the most objective, rational, logical thinkers would ever agree on a definition of great in this context, but it seems there are a lot of terrific opinions and assessments of courses from people on this site. To boot a few years back we took a poll of everyone's top 100 courses over the course of several months....and IIRC correctly, it was very similar to the ones listed in the prominent periodicals.
-
Sean,
I'm curious, without mentioning details, when is the last time you got a recommendation from someone on this site and as you walked off 18 you thought to yourself "He's lost his bloody marbles"
P.S. I don't think even the most objective, rational, logical thinkers would ever agree on a definition of great in this context, but it seems there are a lot of terrific opinions and assessments of courses from people on this site. To boot a few years back we took a poll of everyone's top 100 courses over the course of several months....and IIRC correctly, it was very similar to the ones listed in the prominent periodicals.
I don't recall ever thinking someone lost their marbles. I've been mildly disappointed with some recos, but nothing seriously amiss.
David
The categories and weightings for rankings mean virtually nothing. I think most of the time people decide a course is whatever and fit the numbers to their impression.
Ciao
-
A good course "fits" within the terrain, is enjoyable and challenging for ~20 handicaps to scratch and when the round is complete, has you reconsidering how you'd play 5-10 holes next time. A great course meets these same hurdles except the holes you'd reconsider vary after each time you played such that after playing 5+ times, you've re-strategized just about every hole.
-
I think the Confidential Guide standard works well for this question. How far would you go play it. If it’s worth a trip just to see it, it’s a great golf course.
-
There will always be debate about anything that can’t be quantified. Growing up, I thought the chip and putt course I used to play was great. I still do :)
We all define what is a great golf course using something called ordinal data and ordinal data has no standard scale on which the differences can be measured.
EVERY ranking of great golf courses uses ordinal data so there is truly no statistical significance to them but that is ok as most understand this.
James,
I like the Doak Scale as well. It is a 1-10 scale that many can at least relate to when trying to assess greatness. But even that scale is all relative.
-
How far is a dead metric coming out of the pandemic. Anywhere, anytime, anyhow.