How many plays does it take?

[brad_miller]

A topic that has been touched upon in the "most overated thread" is: how many times around does it take to "get" (understand) certain golden age and modern courses? Many of the Golden Age's best may take mutiple plays under varying conditions to begin or in may cases "fully comprend" and understand their greatness, changing winds, different pin positions and the various optimal angles of attack. I have often found on some of the older courses enjoying them more, the more often I have been lucky enough to play them, Merion, NGLA and Seminole are 3 great US examples, TOC might be the best non US example.

Whereas with many modern courses with certain exceptions, the first time around is the best and subsequent rounds may still be interesting but I find my feelings, rankings going south and not north. Examples might be Stanwich, Spyglass Hill, Spanish Bay,Nantucket, Hudson National, Dorado Beach.... exceptions, Sand Hills, Friar's Head, Rustic Canyon and Wild Horse.

It must be something about the architecture, the inability to see mans hand, or at least the archie's use of the land in harmony with what he needed to do and the strategic elements that many times make certain courses almost different from day to day. (wind and sandy soil, sure don't hurt)

[Lou Duran]

Some interesting and thought provoking insights, Brad.  

I've played Pebble Beach just once, and based on that somewhat underwhelming experience, my opinion of the course does not seem to conform with the majority here.  High expectations and extrinsic factors (staff, marshalls, playing partners, etc.) sometimes get in the way of "getting it".  Also, one's experience base and knowledge of the subject matter has a lot to do with it (I didn't see much subtlety nor substance in 6 or 7 holes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they were not there).

Unfortunately, for most folks, the chance to play the "top" courses multiple times is not possible.  First time impressions and the courses' notoriety form the basis for opinions.  So if a course requires more experience to be understood or appreciated, it is likely to fall short.  This is something that has concerned me about the various rating lists.  Just how deep is the panelists' experience, and how much emphasis is given to a course without sufficient study.

Some say that familiarity breeds contempt.  While that has never been the case for me in golf, there are some courses that have become less enjoyable the more I've played them, including some from the classical period (e.g. Colonial CC).  On the other hand, the more I've played some (e.g. Scarlet, 300+ times), the greater my appreciation and respect.  I can't think of a reason why the best modern courses would be any different in this respect.        


    

[CBM]

It depends upon the intuitive nature of the individual, but,
I've maintained that one should play a hole/course under every possible condition before passing judgement.

[ForkaB]

This is a really good topic.  I think it applies to any course, potentially wind-swept or not.  In fact, I think that the greatest courses show best their class when played in a dead calm.  It is only courses that fall below that top standard which need to have wind to be truly interesting.

[ForkaB]

Shivas

Staying off topic.....

I think that any hole or any hazard that is designed to be only interesting in some sort of "prevailing" wind is inferior.  Great holes and great hazards--and great courses, PARTICULARLY!!!--play well in any wind, or in no wind at all.

Getting back on topic....

Great golf courses get greater the more you play them.  Not so great golf courses cannot stand up to this sort of scrutiny.  Nobody can know how great a golf course is or isn't until they play it more than just a few times.

[Cup Cutter]

You have to first determine the number of interesting pin positions a course has and go from there. Add in the other aspects of the course and you will end up with a rather large number. But a good excuse for playing a lot of golf.

[ChipOat]

Being a little dense by nature, I need at least 2 rounds on a great track PLUS at least one post-round discussion with an expert on the course before I really start to appreciate any subtleties on the non-signature holes.

Even I "get" the famous holes at first blush.

As to Rich Goodale's observation about conditions - that's worth its own thread.

Example:  IMO, Stanwich is just too damn hard even in the most benign weather (partly because of the course set-up) and NGLA, Dornoch and TOC are vulnerable to very low scoring under windless conditions (the course records for all 3 are 63 or below).  Shinnecock and Pine Valley, on the other hand, are great tests on a windless day and, shall we say, "a significant challenge" in a big wind?

Does that mean Stanwich is "better" than those 3?  Hardly.  Does that mean that PVGC and Shinnecock are America's (the world's?) 2 best?  Maybe yes - maybe no.

Maybe that's the most defensible criteria for "best", though.

[ForkaB]

CupCutter

That is a great topic in itself and a very telling one.  I fully agree that the "greatness" of any course is very largely in relation to the number and quality of the posssible pin positions.

Fellow member Chip

The course record at Dornoch is 62.  It was made in a tournament for wannabie assistant professionals where the tees were moved forward, the pins were set in the middle of the greens and the person who shot 62 was completely legless after having spent the previous night in the company of all sort of intoxicating substances--human and otherwise.  The next best score over the course over its 500 or so years is 65.  Very few players break 70 at Dornoch, regardless of hte conditions.

[A_Clay_Man]

Can it be concluded that the person who has played any particular course more than others in say a conversation, is more of an expert?

And if that's true I just wonder how many of the bashers (of any course) can bash successfully from thier own exploits? (Hello SB)

[ChipOat]

Fellow member Rich:

You didn't take my observation as a criticism of RDGC, I hope?

Merely said it had been done and was do-able under benign conditions.

Was seeking to add further validation to the architectural importance of your prescient observation/question.

Not interpreted that way??

[ForkaB]

Chip

I was just trying to express my belief that Dornoch (and other great venues) are in fact NOT necessarily "vulnerable to very low scoring under windless conditions."  My experience says otherwise.  In fact, windy conditions/benign pin placements are usually far easier than benign conditions/"Sunday" pin placements.

[THuckaby2]

My humble take on Dornoch, as a fortunate guest who has made but 5 trips around those storied links:

Benign conditions/benign pins/guest tees = fairly easy scoring, easier than one might think, anyway.  We got it once with all of these, and the boys were raving about how they conquered the alleged beast.  I didn't have the heart to tell them how easy they had it... But then again, they found out themselves the next day when we got some tough pins and the wind blew.

But what course COULDN'T you say this about?  That is, dumb everything down and it's easy scoring?

Ramp up any of those factors and the course becomes damn tough damn quick, as we found out.  I'm with Rich in that "Sunday" pins would make for the quickest easiest way to toughen the course, making for a stone bitch even with not a breath of wind.

TH

[TEPaul]

"I do not believe that any one is qualified to pass on the merits of a hole, let alone eighteen holes, unless he has played them under all the varying conditions possible--varying winds, rain, heat, frost etc."
C.B. Macdonald

In case any of you have missed it so far which would be hard to beleive he's said it so many times on here, this is Pat Mucci's prescript for being allowed to say a single word about any hole or anything to do with architecture. This draconian prescript probably disqualifies a number of 90 year old club members from commenting on their own holes and courses even after belonging to the club for 70 years. Logically it would probably preclude any analyst under the age of 75!

So all you architectural analysts and contributors out there should just shut up and go to your rooms without dinner! No one is interested in hearing your uninformed and unqualified opinions about architecture.

Frankly, Golfclubatlas.com should be shut down for its total lack of architectural experience!

[CBM]

aclayman,

No, your conclusion that quantity is the qualifying criterion is incorrect.  It might build familiarity but not necessarily insight.

Tom Paul,

You are correct, playing a hole once, or just seeing it, should qualify one as an expert, especially if they participate on this site, and are considered one of the annointed gurus.

Rich Goodale,

Seminole is a golf course that is considered windy.
It plays considerably different when the prevailing winds change direction or vanish.  With no wind the course is almost benign, but I wouldn't call the architecture flawed.

[Matt_Ward]

Shivas:

You make a good point -- playing a masterpiece course with no wind and when wind requires 2+ clubs does make for some interesting commentary. A good example being Seminole. Thse wo only play the course is down may come away with a lesser appreciation of what's needed. However, if someone only played the ocurse with a 20-30 mph whipping through then you may think otherwise in a big manner.

I would love to play Bandon and Pac Dunes with a "winter wind" from the south to see how different the layouts play. In the 36 holes I've played on Bandon and the 36 holes I played on Pac the summer wind from the north was blowing.

Clearly, some courses become more thought provoking and interesting the more times you play them. Conversely, there are plenty of courses where if you play them one time it's no different than driving on a benign featureless road -- utterly predictable and clearly nondescript. Lou Duran mentioned Colonial and I quite agree with his choice there.