News:

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


Peter Flory

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has the World's Greatest Course Been Built Yet?
« Reply #25 on: October 21, 2023, 12:49:31 PM »
What other golf course besides Pine Valley was lucky enough to have Crump, Colt, Tillinghast, Maxwell and Alison as a collaborative force behind the design? Iím not sure it has a chance of being supplanted.


Erin Hills? 

Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has the World's Greatest Course Been Built Yet?
« Reply #26 on: October 21, 2023, 12:56:36 PM »
The consensus opinion has been that we're fortunate to be in a 2nd Golden Age of architectural design (and I agree), but might we be on the cusp of a new era where design combines with a technical ability to shape contour in ways not previously possible? Could that be the key?

Two thoughts...

I don't think we are. It's a better era than the last major one, but at least that one had some great reactions and departures  from what was being done. The bulk of the work was pretty average, but the reactions were often really spectacular. This era clearly has some excellent work, and has been lucky to work with some fantastic sites, but as a movement it's presenting a very similar vision for the art. Almost all the work draws from the same basic philosophy and works around a pretty consistent aesthetic. That's not a second Golden Age to me. The original Golden Age had far more breadth of ideas.

Technology is a tool. Creativity has nothing to do with tools. Pencils or computers achieve the same results in planning. It doesn't matter which you use since in the end its all about the built form, which is done with other tools, but more importantly are assessed and improved by people in the field. Tools making decisions will always play to the consensus. If anything more technology will lead us to a less interesting architectural future.


Ian,


Your post definitely provoked some thinking. I am not good at coming up with names so I will not get into what to call the current era. However, I agree that the Golden Age had more variety of ideas. Thinking about trips where we played both good to great modern courses and classic courses leads to that conclusion: CPC and Pasatiempo in the same 10 days as Bandon Dunes, Bandon Trails, Old Mac and Pac Dunes; Swinley Forest, St. Georgeís Hill, and Woking right after Castle Stuart; Kingsbarns in the same five days as NB and Elie; PH2 the day after PH4; Somerset Hills and Ridgewood right after Friarís Head. Needless to say, some of those modern courses properly rank among the best and some are among my favorites, but the classic courses have more variety of ideas.


The modern course that I think has the most variety of ideas in its 18 holes is Streamsong Blue.  I continue to scratch my head why it is not ranked higher.


Thanks for the post.


Ira

Tony_Muldoon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has the World's Greatest Course Been Built Yet?
« Reply #27 on: October 21, 2023, 02:42:58 PM »
It is entirely logical that if the future is infinite. courses better than those that exist will be built.  It's also predictable that what constitutes Greatest in the future, is not the same as now.



Let's make GCA grate again!

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has the World's Greatest Course Been Built Yet?
« Reply #28 on: October 21, 2023, 02:49:56 PM »
Surely the Worlds Greatest Comb-over has already built the Worlds Greatest golf course, several times in fact, and they will remain the Greatest forever! :)
Atb

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Has the World's Greatest Course Been Built Yet?
« Reply #29 on: October 21, 2023, 04:42:18 PM »

I have yet to have a client who dared to say they wanted to build THE BEST course in the world.  It's a ridiculous goal on the face of it, and just by saying it, you're going to have people who are fans of Pine Valley, Sand Hills, St. Andrews and all the rest lining up to denounce you for disrespecting them, so I don't think anyone would ever go that far.  But I think that's the only way it would happen . . . by setting the goal and by insisting that is the goal and not making any compromises and not being afraid to take chances to get there.  Because you would really have to take some big chances to get there.

Thanks for this, Tom. Part of why I asked my OP question was because I'm beginning to wonder how the client may set the project's ceiling just as much--if not more?--than the architect hired or site available. Has there been a course developer since Crump who's shared as brazen of a goal?

What kind of big chances would you have to make to get there, Tom? Any specific ideas? And connecting to what's been done at Lido and (eventually) at Rolling Sands, do you think current technology trends can be beneficial--or even essential--for making those "big chances" more plausible?   




Michael:


Your question at the start of the second paragraph is unanswerable . . . any given project with the potential to get there would need different treatment depending on what it had.


One of the sites we are just starting on, Punta Brava, has a chance to be rated very very highly -- it's not often you work on a routing where you could see your ball splash into the Pacific Ocean on eight different holes!  The rocky nature of the site makes it visually spectacular unlike other courses, but that will probably also wind up being a drawback, because balls into the native vegetation will often be lost, and there aren't many top-50 courses where you are going to lose a lot of golf balls.


Point Hardy GC at Cabot St. Lucia seems to have the same storyline, from what I've read.  [I haven't seen it.]


Sand Hills has come closest of anything in recent years to achieving this impossible goal, because it is a perfectly playable natural site for golf.  But, as Ian noted, the dominant minimalist style now seems to be a mark against it . . . indeed, it is almost impossible for any well-established architect to hit the mark, because their style becomes familiar and that takes the edge off the originality of their best one, in the eyes of the people who rank courses.  [Note that most of the candidates for World's Greatest Course are one-offs like Pine Valley or The Old Course at St. Andrews, whereas Donald Ross built 100 great courses himself but none that vie for the honor of Greatest.]

Matt Schoolfield

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has the World's Greatest Course Been Built Yet?
« Reply #30 on: October 21, 2023, 06:28:16 PM »
Technology is a tool. Creativity has nothing to do with tools. Pencils or computers achieve the same results in planning. It doesn't matter which you use since in the end its all about the built form, which is done with other tools, but more importantly are assessed and improved by people in the field. Tools making decisions will always play to the consensus. If anything more technology will lead us to a less interesting architectural future.

I'm confused by this take. I see technology like the PGA 2K design tool that helped recreate the Lido, and I see at the precipice of a technological revolution to parallel to how the photograph upended art as a concept, or how the synthesizer is currently upending music as we know it. The barrier to entry for golf course architecture is huge. With technology, we can find designers who have sat in their bedrooms designing courses from literal childhood, and putting them online, and getting real feedback and becoming better. The limitations of the technology are there, obviously, but as the photograph technology improved, as the synthesizer technology has improved, the barriers to entry have dropped so low, that the art forms have exploded in creativity. We should expect the same thing from these course design technologies.

Do I think the works of Klimt, Monet, or Picasso would be regarded as arguable the best ever if I were to ask folks in the Renaissance? They would probably think I was insane. The paradigm shift was likely so great it was likely unimaginable that realism would become boring to many. The same with modern music. While many classicist may dismiss me, I find it hard to think that modern composers like Mark Mothersbaugh or Hans Zimmer will not be held the highest esteem by the very important people a century from now.

As we give the engineering constraints to machines, we open the gates to anyone who wants to try their hand at design, and of those multitudes of folks who can now access the medium, I would expect us to find nominally more folks who have fascinating, completely original ideas, not fewer, even if the percentage of geniuses stays the same.

Perhaps I am missing something, and in a room full of legitimate giants of architecture, that's entirely possible. I just worry that our best courses, may exist in a different paradigm than what future golfers will have. I hope the future Mike Keisers of the world are paying attention to the design contests that are happening online.
Building an encyclopedia of golf courses that anyone can edit: Golf Course Wiki
Some strong opinions on golf: Wigs on the Green
I really think golf culture should be more like beer culture than wine culture

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has the World's Greatest Course Been Built Yet?
« Reply #31 on: October 21, 2023, 09:54:50 PM »
Matt,


One thing missing from your post is the differentiation between golf design and most other art forms. Golf design has engineering limitations (How much slope is too much before sand wonít stay, etc.) and functionality issues and safety issues, etc. I donít disagree that there will be new methodologies and creative inputs, but itís a different animal than music, painting, sculpture, etc.


Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Matt Schoolfield

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has the World's Greatest Course Been Built Yet?
« Reply #32 on: October 21, 2023, 10:53:51 PM »
Matt,


One thing missing from your post is the differentiation between golf design and most other art forms. Golf design has engineering limitations (How much slope is too much before sand wonít stay, etc.) and functionality issues and safety issues, etc. I donít disagree that there will be new methodologies and creative inputs, but itís a different animal than music, painting, sculpture, etc.


Joe

I completely understand what youíre saying, still, is it not plausible that these engineering constraints can be added to course design software? SolidWorks builds tolerance and testing into their software, I see no reason GCA computer assisted design programs couldnít do the same thing.

Much like an architect passes their artistic designs to an engineer, I see no reason who this type of software could not also divide the division of labor so that, in the future, the course designer generally need not be an engineer themselves.

Does this not seem plausible?
Building an encyclopedia of golf courses that anyone can edit: Golf Course Wiki
Some strong opinions on golf: Wigs on the Green
I really think golf culture should be more like beer culture than wine culture

Ian Andrew

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has the World's Greatest Course Been Built Yet?
« Reply #33 on: October 22, 2023, 02:18:46 PM »
I completely understand what youíre saying, still, is it not plausible that these engineering constraints can be added to course design software? SolidWorks builds tolerance and testing into their software, I see no reason GCA computer assisted design programs couldnít do the same thing.

Much like an architect passes their artistic designs to an engineer, I see no reason who this type of software could not also divide the division of labor so that, in the future, the course designer generally need not be an engineer themselves.

Does this not seem plausible?

Matt,

I'm enjoying the discussion. I've been using computers since the 1990's. So lets talk about the consistent problems.

1. Every single base plan I've ever received has some sort of error. Some are awful. The occasional one gets 95% right. So you will start with a flawed base plan for your software to begin to crunch your design.

2. All it takes is for a random glitch in the transition from points to contours to generate an error. Your own input - if not done perfectly into three dimensions - will have errors that can throw calculations for earth off by huge amounts. You have to review a plan for corrupted triangles to use engineering software for doing all your calculations. The software is not self aware enough to see what happened. It never will be.

3. Your software will be just as good as the person who wrote the software (its an issue) or the person putting in the information. Both will make assumptions that don't match your intentions. We overcome these by adapting to our "intentions."

I have a little more experience than most when it comes to computers.
I began with the original autocadd. Yes, I'm super old (I've used punchcards  :o )

I've also used Microstation and Site Works (an Engineering platform) for over 20 years.
I've worked with three dimensional modelling and 3D studio max 20 years ago.
I don't use them because they are slower than using Photoshop by Corel. I can paint faster too.
There are all cool tools, but they my manipulation to make them feel "more authentic."

It all comes back to a humans, main "in the field" correcting what doesn't actually work in real life.
A screen view never tells you everything going on with a form.
You need to be able to walk on it to really know if it works.

Computers are tools to get you to a certain point.
They make my work go faster and they adapt to change better than paper.

But eventually you need to blend and finish some pretty small details to really find magic.
Enjoying the back and forth.

A good question for Tom or Brian S. (on Lido) was how much on site deviation was required after the big grades were established. Blending, Green surfaces, drainage patterns, etc.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2023, 02:24:26 PM by Ian Andrew »
-

John Foley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has the World's Greatest Course Been Built Yet?
« Reply #34 on: October 22, 2023, 07:24:27 PM »
How would a new course be declared the best in the world? Isn't this all in the "eye of the beholder"? Subjective rankings for groupthink can identify something to strive for, but if the course has something you don't like / enjoy or causes the experience to detract from your expectation (because no matter how much we say it doesn't count, it does)with how can it ever get there?


I've ben blessed to see a lot, but no where near enough to be a realistic judge. To me Sand Hills is just a  stunning, jaw dropping place. Hits ever mark I could ever want in golf. It's a mix everything I love and nothing to point at that I would be bothered by, but again it's all subjective in my eye. Walked Pine Valley and again it's amazing place and an unreal test of skill, but to my enjoyment, I saw things I think that could take away from the experience. Doesn't mean it's not out of the world, but is it the best? To whom?


The one I want to see more than any there out there is Tara Iti. Does that mean its the best in the world? To me, it could be. Eye of the beholder.
Integrity in the moment of choice

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has the World's Greatest Course Been Built Yet?
« Reply #35 on: October 22, 2023, 09:47:46 PM »
This type of question is obvious bait for someone like me, but I'll answer it. The correct answer is that the question makes no sense. There is no "best" because there is no accounting for taste. It's a fun pastime, but it's like arguing about Coke and Pepsi.

However, without that cop out, I think the answer is very obviously no. The game is constantly in flux, and what made a course great in 1900 will hardly hold in 2100. As technology advances, there will be talent out there with the tools to create beyond the limitations currently imposed.

Quote
construction process that could one-day unseat Pine Valley

All our "greatest" courses can be made better simply by being accessible. I would argue an accessible reproduction of Pine Valley would be a de facto superior course, simply because you can actually play it enough times to really understand it... especially if you were, you know, a normal middle-class person, or, well, a woman.

With machine learning applied to topography, we will likely be able to find many different sites around the country where we could even reproduce course like Augusta with minimal land moving. That way you wouldn't have to think about all the racist nonsense we're effectively deifying by kowtowing to a club that could honestly probably be held in infamy if we're honest with ourselves.

I'm sure folks will argue that "hey now, the course isn't the club" and all that, noting that they have played it, you know, once. Then in the same breath dismissing a reproduction course as somehow being inherently inferior because it's a reproduction. Because, as we all know, when we are focused only on the course (with no regard for the history or culture), an identical reproduction must still be inferior because of terroir or something.

I'd like to play good reproduction of Pine Valley, Augusta, or even a Cypress Point (if that were somehow possible, like Lido, without the ocean). And while it likely won't happen in my lifetime, I can certainly hope it does eventually. That said, as the costs associated with building a course come down, I obviously hope that golf course architecture becomes more like beer culture, in that, there stops being a "best" because we become so overwhelmed with amazing interesting and unique architecture that the question stops making sense. I can't imagine how amazing it would be to live in a world where the you could actually play all the courses designed by GCA nerds using PGA 2K (HB Studios) course designer online for fun.
I donít think accessibility makes a golf course better. It is unlikely many people played the original Lido, but that doesnít mean it wasnít great. Then too, St. Andrews has long been accessible, but it is the golf itself that is great not that you and I can play it.


As for Pine Valley, regardless of its private status, the place probably couldnít handle much more play. It is too near a major city and the demand to play it is so high. Bob Kain of IMG, a member and one of the most powerful people in golf once told me he couldnít get a tee time in June when he called in February!
Tim Weiman

Joe_Tucholski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has the World's Greatest Course Been Built Yet?
« Reply #36 on: October 22, 2023, 11:52:59 PM »
Sand Hills has come closest of anything in recent years to achieving this impossible goal, because it is a perfectly playable natural site for golf. 


Are the sand hills of Nebraska really a natural playable site for golf?  Without irrigation would the mixed grasslands really be suitable for golf?  Thinking about trying to find and play balls that I hit outside of the irrigated areas on courses I've played in the sand hills and it wasn't very pretty.

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has the World's Greatest Course Been Built Yet?
« Reply #37 on: October 23, 2023, 03:38:29 AM »
Sand Hills has come closest of anything in recent years to achieving this impossible goal, because it is a perfectly playable natural site for golf. 


Are the sand hills of Nebraska really a natural playable site for golf?  Without irrigation would the mixed grasslands really be suitable for golf?  Thinking about trying to find and play balls that I hit outside of the irrigated areas on courses I've played in the sand hills and it wasn't very pretty.


Thereís definitely a reason that golf started on links land in GB&I. It is perhaps the only climate and geomorphology that could encourage the game before any tools were available.

Matt Schoolfield

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has the World's Greatest Course Been Built Yet?
« Reply #38 on: October 23, 2023, 03:58:19 PM »
1. Every single base plan I've ever received has some sort of error. Some are awful. The occasional one gets 95% right. So you will start with a flawed base plan for your software to begin to crunch your design.

2. All it takes is for a random glitch in the transition from points to contours to generate an error. Your own input - if not done perfectly into three dimensions - will have errors that can throw calculations for earth off by huge amounts. You have to review a plan for corrupted triangles to use engineering software for doing all your calculations. The software is not self aware enough to see what happened. It never will be.

3. Your software will be just as good as the person who wrote the software (its an issue) or the person putting in the information. Both will make assumptions that don't match your intentions. We overcome these by adapting to our "intentions."

I have a little more experience than most when it comes to computers.
I began with the original autocadd. Yes, I'm super old (I've used punchcards  :o )

I've also used Microstation and Site Works (an Engineering platform) for over 20 years.
I've worked with three dimensional modelling and 3D studio max 20 years ago.
I don't use them because they are slower than using Photoshop by Corel. I can paint faster too.
There are all cool tools, but they my manipulation to make them feel "more authentic."

It all comes back to a humans, main "in the field" correcting what doesn't actually work in real life.
A screen view never tells you everything going on with a form.
You need to be able to walk on it to really know if it works.

Computers are tools to get you to a certain point.
They make my work go faster and they adapt to change better than paper.

But eventually you need to blend and finish some pretty small details to really find magic.

I agree with all of this, I guess my only pushback would be that all of this is relevant right now. The idea that, in the not too distant future, with some limitations on the inputs that may call for multiple revision processes, I see no reason why improvements in golf course design software could not get to the point where the is a divergence of folks in the design process, and the engineering aspects of course building are separate. Will this lead places where design conflicts with engineering? Of course, it happens with architecture all the time. The engineers always win those fights, but the point is that engineers aren't somehow the best designers. I think it would be very hard to argue that, as technology lowers that barrier-to-entry, that we wouldn't see better design in aggregate, if not at the margins.

The existence of SolidWorks and other CAD programs as engineering tools would have been effectively science fiction in the 1970s. I see little reason why we shouldn't expect similar progress across every area of engineering.
Building an encyclopedia of golf courses that anyone can edit: Golf Course Wiki
Some strong opinions on golf: Wigs on the Green
I really think golf culture should be more like beer culture than wine culture

Matt Schoolfield

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has the World's Greatest Course Been Built Yet?
« Reply #39 on: October 23, 2023, 05:10:59 PM »
I donít think accessibility makes a golf course better. It is unlikely many people played the original Lido, but that doesnít mean it wasnít great. Then too, St. Andrews has long been accessible, but it is the golf itself that is great not that you and I can play it.


As for Pine Valley, regardless of its private status, the place probably couldnít handle much more play. It is too near a major city and the demand to play it is so high. Bob Kain of IMG, a member and one of the most powerful people in golf once told me he couldnít get a tee time in June when he called in February!
My argument here probably gets into a much deeper philosophical point than most are interested in. What we mean by "greatest course" is, as I argue in the relevant comment, effectively nonsensical. However, if I'm meant entertain the question, my point is that insofar as we mean "greatest", how would we understand that.

There are a few ways to look at this. The way I see you, and many, talk about what a "great" course is, typically is context-free. That is, from a hypothetical third-person perspective, if one were to be able to play the course, in an idealized situation, the course would be the most pleasant to play (once or generally) of any other course in existence.

The problem with this perspective is that it must exist with this type of idealization built in. If you can't, in actuality, play the course, or if when you play the course, you're subjected to some sort of harassment by the people at the course, it wouldn't be a good course.

To put it another way. Suppose one was debating the greatest city in the world, and not the greatest course. Now also suppose, for this thought-experiment, that person was homosexual. Could they honestly consider a city like Tehran as the "best" city, when from their perspective, living there would mean almost certain severe persecution? Or should they consider Tehran as a potential "best" city insofar as it were an idealized version of the city that it is, where if they lived there everyone would allow them to live the life they wanted to live, or perhaps they could imagine it as though they were different, and not the city.

Edit: I have thought of a better example of what I'm talking about. Imagine we are ranking the best house in the world. Let's say the house we were reviewing, was, say, an amazing mansion that had all the accouterments that we could want, however the house is at the South Pole, would we consider it the greatest house in the world? Obviously nobody would want to live there. However, if we are ranking houses, does the location of the house matter? It certainly matters for the real estate value, it certainly matters for it's desirability as a functional place. It's only when we remove the house from the context of the world we are in does the house have any value. We must imagine a fictitious version of the world in which the house isn't actually the house we are talking about, but is an identical house in another place. There are a lot of metaphysical issues here, but my entire argument will be that we choose to remove certain parts of the context of a thing, but not others, we remove disadvantages of one course without compensating the others. A mansion on the South Pole can have the location waved away, but a town-home in NYC cannot somehow have it's small size waved away.

The problem with using an idealized version of a place, a course, is that we aren't really evaluating the course as it is, but as it could be. Now we must note that this idealization only works in one direction. While people regularly talk about what it would be like to play Cypress Point "as a member" in evaluating it, but hardly anyone talks about what it would be like to play Pebble Beach "if it were a private club" in evaluating it. We don't rate muni courses as though they were better maintained, we rate them as they are. Yet industry folks rate courses that, say, exclude women, as though they would be played by a women without harassment or exclusion. We only resort to an idealized view of a place when we have to. Though on it's face it seems as though a arbitrary third-person perspective seems like a sensible way of rating a place, we can see that it skews ratings of private places toward an idealization.

I think the real place where folks that present a context-free version of a rating system run into trouble is with regards to reproductions. If we truly have a detached third-person perspective, it should not matter whether we are playing the original course, or a reproduction, since the course we are playing is identical. A publicly-accessible copy of Pine Valley should be exactly the same greatness as the original. To argue any differently would be to start considering the context and history of a place, not just the course, as authenticity shouldn't matter.

I think it's better to look at courses, not from some idealized version of the course, but as they are. We take the experiences that the course creates as the source of it's greatness. This idea of greatness is built on a much more utilitarian framework. It falls out that a place like Dornoch has a significant advantage over a place like Pine Valley in that it is able to create the greatest amount of joy for the greatest number. It also, awkwardly, falls out that physically accessible places have an advantage over inaccessible places for the same reason, and this is a fair criticism. The problem with this view is that it exactly is context-dependent, so the utilitarian framework is going to differ wildly from a personal perspective if that person's position is unique. A Pine Valley member will probably be up in arms at how their course is to being treated as though everyone who wanted had access to it, but it is exactly that the discontinuity of how much joy it could be creating vs how much it does that would pull the rating down from a utilitarian perspective. It's exactly the same reason that an accessible version would rank dramatically higher under this framework.

All of this is before we even consider the epistemological problems that are associated with considering a "greatest" course under a context-free version of a course. How much access does it takes to understand how good a course is? MacKenzie argued that even after significant play and close analysis of the Old Course, he was still learning from the long-time members different lines of play. This all leads to significant problems, but that's another wall of text for another day.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2023, 03:38:43 PM by Matt Schoolfield »
Building an encyclopedia of golf courses that anyone can edit: Golf Course Wiki
Some strong opinions on golf: Wigs on the Green
I really think golf culture should be more like beer culture than wine culture

Matt Kardash

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has the World's Greatest Course Been Built Yet?
« Reply #40 on: October 23, 2023, 07:59:31 PM »
Ian was talking about how all the top-ranked courses of today are drawing from the same aesthetic well. It has been something I have thought about myself for a while now. I think it is due to our easy access for information. Back in the day it was much harder to see what other designers were doing. To a certain extent everyone was working in their own bubble. Well, compared to today's standards anyways. Today, with the internet, planes, and cars,a designer can see any course in the world with ease. Back in the day it was an real effort to see the work of another designer. Today all I have to do is turn on my computer. It's a blessing and a curse.

Think about how all the great old cities of the world look different because they all got to develop without knowing what was going on a few hundred kilometers away. Now every suburb in the world looks the same because we are all drawing from the same architectural well now.
the interviewer asked beck how he felt "being the bob dylan of the 90's" and beck quitely responded "i actually feel more like the bon jovi of the 60's"

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has the World's Greatest Course Been Built Yet?
« Reply #41 on: October 23, 2023, 11:48:51 PM »
Matt,


I think you are just trying too hard. Accessibility doesnít make a course good or bad.


The site, the architect and his team and perhaps the support of the developer are what matter.


It is not easy to surpass what the old dead guys did.
Tim Weiman

Matt Schoolfield

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has the World's Greatest Course Been Built Yet?
« Reply #42 on: October 24, 2023, 12:22:30 AM »
I think you are just trying too hard.
I try to approach the subject seriously and put a lot of thought into it. My background in academic philosophy means I'll certainly have some confounding points of view.

It's a view that has push me towards trying to build a wiki as a response to the current course rating/ranking paradigm, as I don't think those systems serve most people very well.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2023, 12:26:55 AM by Matt Schoolfield »
Building an encyclopedia of golf courses that anyone can edit: Golf Course Wiki
Some strong opinions on golf: Wigs on the Green
I really think golf culture should be more like beer culture than wine culture

Joe_Tucholski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has the World's Greatest Course Been Built Yet?
« Reply #43 on: October 24, 2023, 12:28:25 AM »


All our "greatest" courses can be made better simply by being accessible.

I disagree for a number of reasons.

A unique and special treat often becomes less special when it's common place.

Matt Schoolfield

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has the World's Greatest Course Been Built Yet?
« Reply #44 on: October 24, 2023, 12:38:20 AM »
A unique and special treat often becomes less special when it's common place.
I certainly can't disagree with you on your subjective views, nor would I want to. This is my entire point of why I start with the idea that I ultimately think the question is nonsense, because we're all going to differ on things like this.

If we are generalizing to objective viewpoints, I think that's a hard position to hold, but I would certainly hear you out. I tend to suspend judgement on a course until I've played it nearly a dozen times, as I have learned that my initial impressions of a course don't really match my thoughts after I better understand a course.
Building an encyclopedia of golf courses that anyone can edit: Golf Course Wiki
Some strong opinions on golf: Wigs on the Green
I really think golf culture should be more like beer culture than wine culture

Charlie Goerges

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has the World's Greatest Course Been Built Yet?
« Reply #45 on: October 24, 2023, 02:14:06 AM »


All our "greatest" courses can be made better simply by being accessible.

I disagree for a number of reasons.

A unique and special treat often becomes less special when it's common place.




I understand what youíre saying Joe, but do you really think Pine Valley (or a similarly revered course) would go down in your estimation if you were a member and had played it many dozens of times?
Severally on the occasion of everything that thou doest, pause and ask thyself, if death is a dreadful thing because it deprives thee of this. - Marcus Aurelius

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has the World's Greatest Course Been Built Yet?
« Reply #46 on: October 24, 2023, 02:49:42 AM »


All our "greatest" courses can be made better simply by being accessible.

I disagree for a number of reasons.

A unique and special treat often becomes less special when it's common place.

I agree Joe, but that has no bearing on the quality of the course. Neither does the opposite, that of being public. The course is the course. It doesnít matter who or how people play it.

The bigger question for me is seasonal playability. All things being equal, is the year round course better than a course which closes for a season because of weather or limiting choice of grass? What about courses which cope with heavy rain better than others?

Ciao
« Last Edit: October 24, 2023, 02:56:13 AM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024: Fraserburgh, Turnberry, Isle of Harris, Benbecula, Askernish, Traigh, Iona, Tobermory, Minehead & Cruden Bay St Olaf

Kyle Harris

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has the World's Greatest Course Been Built Yet?
« Reply #47 on: October 24, 2023, 03:09:32 AM »
The worldís greatest golf course has existed for as long as golf has been played. Thatís how superlatives like ďgreatestĒ work.
http://kylewharris.com

Constantly blamed by 8-handicaps for their 7 missed 12-footers each round.

Thank you for changing the font of your posts. It makes them easier to scroll past.

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has the World's Greatest Course Been Built Yet?
« Reply #48 on: October 24, 2023, 03:31:05 AM »

All our "greatest" courses can be made better simply by being accessible.
Accessibility and golf is a curious subject.
On the one hand we have muni's and pay-n-play. On the other hand we have private member clubs often actually owned by the members themselves.
If you have an immaculately tended garden or backyard, your private area, an area that you own, would you let it be accessible to essentially anyone uninvited to wack a small ball around with some sticks and disturb your peace and quiet even on payment of a fee?
atb






Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Has the World's Greatest Course Been Built Yet?
« Reply #49 on: October 24, 2023, 03:58:23 AM »
What is the greatest song? Has it been written yet?
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back