An Epiphany II?

[Mike Hendren]

Can a golf course be greater than the sum of its individual holes?

Mike

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

Even as a man of deep faith, I believe you're only allowed one ephiphany per day.  

[Tom Huckaby]

Without question.  Many things can add to the greatness of a golf course that have little to do with the holes themselves... views, nice weather, tradition, feel, firm and fast conditions... all of these things could make one say a course is fantastic, while not saying that particularly about all the individual holes.

To discount these things is folly.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

redanman:  I know perfectly what he said.

And my answer stands.  All those things are part of PLAYING the golf course.  If one wants to assess the course in a vacuum sans playing, then they wouldn't matter - but such things as proper use of land, keeping costs down, skill in permitting, etc. would all also have to count.  And who the hell really cares about any of that, other than those in the business?

Nope, my answer stands.  Of course Bogey can clarify what he means by "golf course"  - but I have to believe he means the field of play, not the artistic achievement.

TH

[JESII]

Can a golf course be greater than the sum of its individual holes?

Mike

My opinion...it had better be!

[Mike Hendren]

Mike,

Even as a man of deep faith, I believe you're only allowed one ephiphany per day.  

Mike,

I am currently reading C. S. Lewis' Mere Christianity.  Trust me, a man can have ME's (multiple epiphanies).

Mike

[Padraig Dooley]

Aren't most great courses greater the the sum of the individual holes?

There are very few courses without weak holes.

The 18th in Cypress is a bit of a let down, for example.

[Adam Clayman]

I believe the 18 great hole collection evaluators, miss the mark when it comes to what comprises great courses. Pebble Beach being the epitome of a great course with a handful of holes that on their surface seem less than great.

Flipside is a place like Wolf Creek in Mesquite, Nv. 18 testosterone inducing golf holes without soul, flow, or, the attention to detail needed to be considered a work of art.

[Tom Huckaby]

One need not be a lawyer, nor engage in semantics, to get a grasp on this.

It's very simple, redanman.

A golf course does not exist in a vacuum.  It can be judged by those in the business outside of how it plays, if they so desire.  But only they would be qualified to make the proper assessment.  For a golfer, the course should be judged based on how it plays.  And while part of that is individual, is not all judgment of anything individual?

Nope, a golf course does not exist in a vacuum.  Anything that effects how one plays it ought to matter in an assessment.  And I continue to believe that this is very simple and to insist otherwise is not only silly, but illogical.

TH

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

I would define "how a course plays" as more than just the mechanics of what score you shot.  I would also define it to include how it feels to be out there.  And in that case, you have to think about more than just the individual holes.

[Bob_Huntley]

Bogey,

Can your question be summed up thus?  When you played X course of considerable mien and prestige but left bereft of joy but played a lesser course Y and felt exhilarated, did it matter a twit about the architechture?

Let us play golf for its pleasure, rather than discussing the redan at the 15th. Oops, I am afraid that I might be drummed out of the regiment for such heresy.

Bob

[paul cowley]

....is the course being judged in relation to itself or to others?

And when thinking through an answer to the threads guestion, I would suggest that a course cannot be judged in its entirety to another, but only to the comparison parts of another.

But regardless of the process it takes to get there, I would answer the question Yes.

[David_Madison]

Pinehurst #2 is a great example of that. A nice but not spectacular environment, and with the exception of the fifth hole really nothing that grabs you. But put it all together and you have one of the best golfing experiences on one of the greatest golf courses anywhere.

[Gene Greco]

Bogey,

Can your question be summed up thus?  When you played X course of considerable mien and prestige but left bereft of joy but played a lesser course Y and felt exhilarated, did it matter a twit about the architechture?

Let us play golf for its pleasure, rather than discussing the redan at the 15th. Oops, I am afraid that I might be drummed out of the regiment for such heresy.

Bob

  Not by me for you have described what I would term the 'soul' of a golf course.

Both courses at MPCC would be excellent examples of courses which stand up to most architecturally but are much more compelling than virtually all if one only considers just the land each sits on. The beauty of the surrounds at MPCC is overwhelming and manifests continual thoughts of great spirituality.


This elevates my experience and being to a far greater extent than the quality of, say, the Raynor template holes. Strantz also recognized this in his rerouting so most of the holes would play towards the Point, a pristine sight which continually mollifies the golfer as he negotiates the seaside holes.

The peak experience one feels playing golf on the Monterey Peninsula, the architecturally challenged Pacific Grove Muni included,  is rarely matched anyplace else in this world.

Thus, the answer to Bogey's question is a resounding "yes"!

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom:

I would define "how a course plays" as more than just the mechanics of what score you shot.  I would also define it to include how it feels to be out there.  And in that case, you have to think about more than just the individual holes.

100% concurrence - and that is exactly what I meant.  Folks like redanman will never understand this, but that's OK.  I'll keep trying to preach.

 

[Lou_Duran]

Bogey,

Without a question.  CPC comes quickly to mind.  There is probably not a single hole at CPC that's truly world-class (not even the famous, penal #16), or a stretch of great holes like 8-10 at Pebble Beach, but there is not a course on this planet that I would rather play any day, any time.

[Tom Huckaby]

When did I ever say I don't enjoy playing alone?  I love it... in the right time and place.  If I can have an enjoyable course to myself, that's fantastic by me... Hell I go on and on about golf sprituality and it's at those times that such is typically felt the strongest.  This just doesn't tend to happen much where I live. that's all.  What I've come to not like is playing as a single and getting grouped with others I don't know, on a crowded course.  

As for the rest, perhaps it is semantics.  But the point remains that if one feels it, it counts.  And yes there is a fine line to be drawn, but no one ever said this was meant to be easy.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

 
The edit took a bit longer.

I will say this - I do tend to watch interesting topics, and I am a rather fast typist.

 

[DMoriarty]

My guess is that every great course must me greater than the sum of its holes.  

A few that come to mind . . . The Valley Club, Crystal Downs, Prairie Dunes, even Cypress.

[Tom Huckaby]

"I've yet to see anyone separate "golf course" from "Experience".

They can be separated, but we rarely if ever do.

And why don't we?  Because they SHOULDN'T be separated, except by those in the business trying to assess a job well done, or not.

Stick with me - you'll get it eventually.