News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Dan_Callahan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What should all great courses have ?
« Reply #50 on: March 31, 2023, 01:23:45 PM »
Dan


It seems to me that you are talking about the experience rather than the course itself. What if you had played Caledonia the very next day when there weren't any other golfers ? The course would be the same and in substantially the same condition. Would you rate it any differently ?


Niall


I guess the point (for me, anyway) is that there would not be a very next day.


And I suppose this is loosely connected to the debate about whether views/setting/location should be considered when evaluating a course. Would Pebble be a top 50 course if it didn't have the cliffs and Pacific Ocean? If you took away the eye candy and simply evaluated the course? The fact is, it does have those things, they add to the experience, and need to be part of the conversation, in my opinion.


And if someone tells me there is an architecturally "great" course, but it will take 6 hours to play, I will immediately lose any desire to play it. I have a hard time considering a course "great" if I have zero interest in playing it. Which I realize is 100% subjective and probably not the way most would look at it.

Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What should all great courses have ?
« Reply #51 on: March 31, 2023, 01:47:17 PM »
I hate to play slowly. So I actually have found that my tolerance for a slow round is a decent indicator for how I find the architecture. We had a slow rounds at Pac Dunes and Sheep Ranch last year. I was not as bothered at PD because the architecture is so compelling while although, Sheep Ranch is very good, the pace of play was more annoying because the architecture is not as compelling. The same thing with a slow round at Sleepy Hollow (did not bother me much) compared to slow rounds at Kingsbarns and Castle Stuart (architecture not good enough to overcome pace of play).


Ira

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What should all great courses have ?
« Reply #52 on: March 31, 2023, 08:53:23 PM »
Rick,
I think the checklist approach is more likely to predict mediocre design.


Thatís why I shudder at the Raynor templates being lionized.
[/quote]

Shudder?  Give me a Short and Biarritz every time and you can keep the Eden and Redan.  Iíll never get enough of the first two.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2023, 09:19:18 PM by Mike Hendren »
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: What should all great courses have ?
« Reply #53 on: March 31, 2023, 09:13:00 PM »
The idea of knocking a course from consideration for slow play is hard for me because it's so random.  I guess there are some course designs where play tends to back up, and some venues that overbook every day they can, so that the slowness is really a phenomenon.  But it's just as likely to be a day where you were unlucky, had a late tee time, and were stuck behind some bad golfers.


However, I would be okay with people including the "experience" as a part of their rating, if everyone did it consistently.  In that case, a one-time bad experience wouldn't have nearly the effect of a course which was consistently slow.


I got onto this idea when considering weather as a factor in the rankings.  No one ever really addresses that, either, but there are a few courses where the weather is a factor so often, that being told to disregard it is disingenuous.  Indeed, on a course in a windy place, a design that allows players to get around in the wind and still enjoy themselves should be a major consideration as to whether the course is really good.


You could do the same for conditioning -- as long as everyone did it consistently, then the bad days would be scored at the proper rate.





Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What should all great courses have ? New
« Reply #54 on: April 01, 2023, 01:38:15 AM »
The idea of knocking a course from consideration for slow play is hard for me because it's so random.  I guess there are some course designs where play tends to back up, and some venues that overbook every day they can, so that the slowness is really a phenomenon.  But it's just as likely to be a day where you were unlucky, had a late tee time, and were stuck behind some bad golfers.


However, I would be okay with people including the "experience" as a part of their rating, if everyone did it consistently.  In that case, a one-time bad experience wouldn't have nearly the effect of a course which was consistently slow.


I got onto this idea when considering weather as a factor in the rankings.  No one ever really addresses that, either, but there are a few courses where the weather is a factor so often, that being told to disregard it is disingenuous.  Indeed, on a course in a windy place, a design that allows players to get around in the wind and still enjoy themselves should be a major consideration as to whether the course is really good.


You could do the same for conditioning -- as long as everyone did it consistently, then the bad days would be scored at the proper rate.

As you know, I am all about the experience. Which course is better than which is just about discussion entertainment. Anyone who takes it more seriously than that has rocks in their head. Unless of course you have skin in the game, which of course makes that opinion biased.

I definitely give bonus points to those courses with space to get around in strong winds. However, some catch these courses on low wind days and think these places are fields. There are far more courses spoiled by being too narrow for wind and firm conditions than there are courses too wide for whatever reasons. Looking for golf balls is one of the worst things about the game.

Ciao
« Last Edit: May 23, 2023, 12:41:01 AM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2023: Clyne

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back