[Tom_Doak]

This is sort of an occupational hazard for me.

I tend to believe I am a quick study because I have seen so many courses that it is easy to identify whether there is anything different or remarkable about one I am seeing for the first time.

Sure, the more you see any course, the more you are going to learn about it -- and since we are talking mostly about courses on the good side of the Bell curve, the more you are going to like them.  Plus, every judge is human, thus susceptible to bias or error.  But making rules about how many times someone has to see a course to properly understand it is pretty silly ... in the end, all you do is disqualify nearly everyone from the discussion except for the "homers" who love it.

In the end, it comes down to this:  how often do you change your mind when you go back and see a course the second time [or 5th time] ?  If, like James in his initial post, it happens relatively often, then you would be wise to discount your first impression.  If, like me, you don't go back to a course often and think you messed up, then either you are a very good judge or overly self-assured.  But I don't know how anyone could judge me on that score without meeting me a bunch of times in different conditions. 

[George Pazin]

Frankly, considering how many GCAers have recently offered critiques of courses without ever even setting foot within 100 miles of the property, the value of a review after a single play is higher than ever in my book.

Please post links/quotes.

Thanks in advance.

-----

I'd trust Tom D's or any number of other posters over mine for assessing overall course quality, regardless of number of plays. But all I really care about it whether or not I like it. I tend to look for posters who have similar tastes and play accordingly.

[James Boon]

Thanks everyone, more responses than I was expecting so sorry if I dont respond to everyone directly. However a couple of things jump out.

Brian,

You are probably correct in that the examples I've given were all played some time ago, and so its fair to say my understanding and experience of golf course architecture wasnt as developed or refined as it is now. This reminds me that Sean Arble will often when posting lists reference courses left off said list as its been a while since he played there. This is a combination of factors I suppose, developing tastes and understanding as well as fading memory  but is probably a valid point the next time one starts praising or criticising a course played only once a long time ago...

Talking of Sean, interesting point about the number of people you play with? On one play getting to see how 3 others get on must certainly help add to the mix of understanding? I know a few courses I've played once on my own where I certainly didnt get as good an understanding as if there had been several others to observe? I also know a few courses I've played once were I had plenty of time and spent more time looking at different angles, checking out features etc than playing the actual game?

Its tricky, we all certainly have different abilities and talents when it comes to observations. This in turn will have an impact on how we would rate or like a course. As Tom Kelly says, I'm certainly finding I keep positive (but negative also) opinions in check a little more on only one play these days, and I'm also starting to add the caveat and make it clear if expressing an opinion on a course if I've only really got the one days experience behind me.

Lastly, I know my list of favourite courses is heavily populated by courses I've played a reasonable amount but whether I've played them more because i like them or I like them because I've played them more, I could say. 

Cheers,

James

[Ryan Coles]

The nuances of a course may have to be acquired.

But I think 1 play or walk is enough to form an opinion in general terms as to whether you'd like to return and the relative merits of the course.

In my case, my favourite course was the first decent course I played. It only continues to rise the more places I play that can't hold a candle to it. I knew it was great. Now I realise having travelled, just how great.

[Patrick_Mucci]

James,

It depends upon your powers of observation.

Anyone who's read Ran's reviews knows that some do get a true feel for the course after only one visit.

[cary lichtenstein]

Probably 65-75%. A lot depends on how well or poorly someone plays, does eye candy over whelm the senses, the conditioning, I knew the stars immediately minus the "subtle great ones" which to this day, I think are vastly over rated.

A few were developed taste over multiple plays, but  I really pretty much felt the same after multiple plays.

[Phil McDade]

Does anyone think playing a course limits your ability to assess its merits? I know that goes against conventional wisdom, but in recent years I've tended to walk more courses than play them, and often find I can get a better sense of what the design is about, and its merits, without having to worry about shot selection, avoiding penal areas, getting my ball in the hole, and such. My assessment of a course is much narrower when playing it; it broadens when I simply walk it, and walk around it looking for interesting features.

[Ben Malach]

I think that in one visit that I can find I a surface appreciation for what it is that the golf course has that makes it good, bad or indifferent i provided that I am looking to study the golf course not just play. If I am playing it can take multiple plays to even find the most simple of things.
 I personally believe that multiple plays over an extended period of time is the best way to truly study a golf course. But a golf course must make me want to put in this effort. IF I want to know more about a course I have found that playing with a local and to trying to take good architectural photos. Both change my personal mind set into one that is more receptive to the concepts related to golf architecture. As both tasks ask me to examine a different perspective about the golf course. Which is what I am looking for as I already have my personal take on a property but to augment that with more information is always welcome.

Adrian,
I was wondering how you could say that you understand many courses you have yet to play?
I have always found personally that it is hard to comment on or even feel a connection to a golf course that I have yet to play?

[Andy Troeger]

Does anyone think playing a course limits your ability to assess its merits? I know that goes against conventional wisdom, but in recent years I've tended to walk more courses than play them, and often find I can get a better sense of what the design is about, and its merits, without having to worry about shot selection, avoiding penal areas, getting my ball in the hole, and such. My assessment of a course is much narrower when playing it; it broadens when I simply walk it, and walk around it looking for interesting features.

No, because part of the sense of a course is the emotion you feel when worrying about penal areas and the other things you mention. Not to say that you can't learn a lot from walking only, but playing is a different experience. Golf courses are there to be played, not observed!

Now, by playing I don't mean grinding out a score. Playing in that manner may hinder ability to assess the course. But playing in a relaxed way without worrying about score is a far better way to experience the features of a course than just walking IMO.

Oh, and as to the original question: yes, one visit is enough to get the idea. Even if a course has a lot of subtle features and might be better with repeat play, it needs to be good enough after one visit to encourage the golfer to return. Otherwise, it fails and the subtle features aren't worth much.

[Matthew Lloyd]

My take is similar to a lot of the ideas already shared on this thread.  I can get a pretty good feel for any course -- on a macro level -- after one round.  I can get a strong sense of what the designer is trying to do, what he's trying to evoke, and I can definitely make a judgment call on whether I like a course after 1 round.  But when it comes to strategy and truly learning the nuances and details of a course, it definitely takes me 4-5 rounds to really "get it" if it's a great course.  Unfortunately I rarely get the chance to play great courses more than once!  But that's honestly one of the reasons I love reading the course profiles on this site and following the banter amongst the rest of you when you're debating courses -- for the tracks I've only played once I start to gain a better appreciation for them after the fact by not even playing.

[Tom_Doak]

Adrian,
I was wondering how you could say that you understand many courses you have yet to play?
I have always found personally that it is hard to comment on or even feel a connection to a golf course that I have yet to play?

Ben:

Not to speak for Adrian, but I think most architects have the ability to visualize how a course will play, without actually playing it -- as long as they are keeping an open mind about it.  We have to be able to visualize how a course will play when we're building it in the dirt; if we are any good at that, then we certainly should be able to visualize how a course in the grass plays, even if we don't hit the ball around ourselves.

Feeling a connection to the course is a somewhat different thing, though.

[Mark Pavy]

Tom, what do you mean by 'connection to the course'? Is this from a personal, architectural or golfers perspective?

[Pat Burke]

From a playing perspective.  I can enjoy and appreciate a lot of a golf course in one round.

In competition, I needed 3-4 rounds to feel like a knew a place well

[D_Malley]

Work as a caddy at a golf course for a period of time to get a true feel for how it plays.
You get to watch how it is played by people with different abilities and w/o as much bias from your own game.
Also you would get to see how it plays in different wind and weather conditions.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom, what do you mean by 'connection to the course'? Is this from a personal, architectural or golfers perspective?

Mark:

I was just trying to allow for the fact that Ben Malach might have meant something more than assessing all the holes and how well they fit together, when he said it was hard to feel a connection to the course if he'd never played it.

[Ryan Coles]

Hankley Common springs to mind reading this thread.

First visit, wowed by the sheer scale of the course and its surroundings and the undoubted beauty.

Second visit, thinking that it is perhaps a missed opportunity and should be one of the greats, were it not for the mundane greens and bunkering.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()