How much does off course scenery matter to you ?

[Randy Van Sickle]

I don't think the off-course scenery impacts how I look at any given shot on any given hole, in terms of figuring out the ideal strategy that the architect has tried to provoke, but I must say I like to take many moments during a round to enjoy scenery like this:

[Powell Arms]

Off course scenary is very important, IMO.  The best example of this in my experience occurred last summer.  I played a couple of courses in Kauai, one of which wrapped around a shopping center.  The course was relatively treeless, so many holes had a great view of the back of Home Depot and Borders.  

In thinking back, some of the holes were pretty good, but I just couldnt get past the off-course views, or lack thereof.  The price was about half of the other courses, which are oceanside.  even with that, I did and would continue to choose to pay more for the view with comparable quality of architecture hole-by-hole on the more expensive courses.

[Tom Yost]

Off-course scenery certainly has an affect on the golf experience and would seemingly have to carry some weight in the overall evaluation of the course.




Tom

[Ken Moum]

The two courses I've played the most where I currently live are diametrically opposite re. views off the course.

One is surrounded by mostly a depressed area of town, with badly maintained housing and city streets on most views. It's where I was a member for 7 years, and am now back after a two-year stint at the other.

The "other" is located on a lake, and is easily the prettiest course in town. You can see the lake from every hole, and there's only one short section wehre housing of any kind is visible on the other boundary. The houses there are relatively new, and attractive McMansions.

I LOVE the course with crummy surroundings, and detest the pretty one.

To me, the views are almost completely irrelevant.

Although I did take that photo of Dornoch when I had the chance.

Ken

[tlavin]

It matters a lot, whether the scenery is positive (Pebble, Pacific Dunes) or gritty (Harborside in the industrial part of Chicago).  Sometimes a course is great because you can forget where you are in the world, but dominant natural scenery is great because you know EXACTLY where you are.  The view of the paint factory or the city landfill from Harborside is a very "grounding" thing, just as 6-10 at Pebble Beach is exhilirating.  But I have to say that I enjoy both experiences.  I'm sure that the beautiful natural scenery inflates my regard for those courses, but I truly do like a gritty, city course as long as the holes still "hold" their own.

[Adam Clayman]

I agree with Pete Lavallee. I think it's possible to separate the experience from an architectural analysis. And, if I'm not mistaken, that is Pat Mucci's position, too.

It is similar to being able to appreciate quality GCA even if the temporary course conditions are not optimal.

As an example of the former, the eighth at Pebble Beach didn't suffer architecturally from the building of the monstrosity of a mansion built on the hill in the distance. It actually helps the caddy tell the uninitiated where to aim. (The garbage Bin doors)

And on the flipside, a course like Southern Dunes' (Haines City Fl.)architecture is compelling enough to ignore the surrounding repetitive housing.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Surely the scenery does matter when an architect has taken the trouble to use it as an inspiration for his design - scaling moundwork so that it is proportion to a mountain background (Thompson?) or using drop-offs to thrill the golfer playing to a green seemingly at the end of the earth (Doak Kidnappers?).  

I rather like Cleveland and its industrial skyline (shared with Seaton Carew and Hartlepool).  It's good to be reminded that there is still some industry in this country and that it is generating some of the wealth required to play golf and to maintain courses.  What about that nuclear facility next door to Seascale?  It is an eyesore, and may well be a health risk, but at least Bin Laden hasn't managed to blow it up, yet...

But the worst eyesore in British golf has to be The Old Course Hotel.  OK, a century ago the St Andrews skyline was not all pretty, what with the gas works and the railway, but even so....

One of the reasons I loved the Meadow Club was that you simply could not see a house, other than the clubhouse, from the course, although there were glimpses of the maintenance shed through the trees.

[Tom Huckaby]

You guys are evil.  Truly, truly evil.

You do realize Mucci and I (with Kalen assisting on my side) had a 15 page thread on this very issue not more than a few months ago... and you want to rehash it now, now, when finally the dust is clear and we came to at least some grudging acceptance of each other's positions?

I must stay clear... must... but man I can't help it....

To Adam and Pete - you have Mucci's take basically correct, but just do realize that a certain Tom Doak disagreed very directly with him, and now you if you take this side... Doak said a very basic function of architecture was to maximize great views when they are available, and mimimize bad views as much as possible without otherwise affecting play.  So yes, scenic views very much do play into architecture.  Even Mucci came to accept this, btw..

Our disagreement was about how views affect play, or not.

And we sincerely do NOT need to rehash that again.

Now as for Matt's questions, I'd of course say views do matter, very much so.  Even for you architectural purists, hell just take it as an assessment of how the architecture works or not vis a vis how Doak described this.  That's part of the architecture.   As for me, far more concerned with golf courses and how much fun it is to play them than any silly assessment of pure architecture, of course views matter.  When they're nice, they're a bonus.  When they suck, they're a negative.  If they don't exist one way or the other, it's neutral.  Seems pretty simple and obvious to me, since one doesn't play this game with his eyes closed and has a lot of time in between golf shots.

TH

[Doug Ralston]

Monday I was playing 'Olde Beau' in the mountains of Western North Carolina This course was built in stunning scenery on the east side of the Appy's, and the views alone made it a destination. But the course is challenging and quite cleverly built. There is over 1500ft of elevation change on 18 holes, with nearly as much play UP as DOWN.

If you go there, you will find that playing up steeply is much more challenging that the obviously joyful pitch to a green 100ft below.

On one hole, I had 90yd, and hit a full 8-iron! I was lying very uphill, of course, and the ball looked like it went straight up into infinity. It landed 6ft from the pin. If there had been a wind in my face, the ball might have been there too .....LOL.

This course is a 'real' course, with lots of fun decisions and things to try, but it must be acknowledged that scenery is the great attraction for golfers.

Oh, here is a link, just for fun.
http://www.oldebeau.com/olde_beau_seventeen.htm

Doug

[Kalen Braley]

Huck,

That was what I thought when this thread popped up too.  I was envisioning 5 more pages of P Mucci and you going toe to toe again.  

Back on topic...we are all people of emotion and feelings, even though my wife claims to the contrary.  This just doesn't turn off when we hit the links.  The reality is, we are affected by our environment in at least some small way.  A panamoric view of the coastline like 7 or 8 at Pebble would overwhelm almost anyone, even a slightly jaded person as myself.  And for others if they are inspired by views of homes, hotels, or industrial factories, then more power to them.  Its what makes people different and adds the color to life.

To try to convince ourselves otherwise that these things don't affect us in some way is just nonsene...unless you are Mr. Mucci.  

P.S. Huck, I'm always available to provide supporting screen shots and arials, just let me know  

[Matt_Ward]

Gents:

I can name a few courses with ocean proximity that are clearly a good bit overrated -- Torrey Pines jumps right out -- ditto Sandpiper in Goleta is also worth mentioning -- although a few holes there (e.g. 10th, 11th, 13th) are quite good.

Yes, I do agree with those who have opined that architects try to weave in the most stunning elements -- both on and off course alignments -- while also trying to minimize the lesser aspects (e.g. electriv wires, housing, roadways, etc, etc).

However, just having an ocean in the immediate "frame" of a golf course doesn't automatically -- or should I say should not automatically, convey some special status beyond those that don't have it in their portfolio.

Give you another example -- take the ocean out of Pac Dunes and place one next to Ballyneal and much of the fanfare tied to the Bandon layout would be viewed a good bit differently IMHO.

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

Well, there's no doubt that off-course views might get overvalued by some.  I just do believe that to declare that they absolutely cannot and should not have ANY role in a golf course assessment is rather silly.

Once again, I'd say it goes like this:  bonus for good views, negative for bad, neutral if none exist, never giving all that much value one way or the other, keeping in mind that the course and the playing of the shots is the meat and potatoes of the assessment... so call the views the dessert.

Can't see anything wrong with that.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

Clue you in on what often shakes out on this site -- too many people focus on the dessert and frankly have amnesia on the beef / main entree.

Take a number of interior courses in the nation's heartland and if you added an ocean the net result would be a good bit different. Of course, that's no different than when people say if the queen had b*lls she'd be the king. Purely speculation on my part.

One other thing -- although I did mention Pebble before -- I haveto give the devil it's due -- the green shapes / dimensions at the famed CA course are often times vastly underappreciated and would remain so whether or not the facility bordered an ocean or of comparable nature.

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

I'd venture to say it's the opposite in here:  most assessments DOWNPLAY scenery far more than they should, as purists focus too much on what they see as the "architecture."  But perhaps in the rating world, you're correct.

And in any case, well... the courses in the nation's heartland don't have an ocean, and don't generally tend to have scenery that most find obviously beautiful.  Such is life.  They don't get the obvious bonus.  But some manage to overcome this just fine... for example I've clearly stated my opinion of what I find to be the greatest course on this planet - and it's nowhere near an ocean.  It's in Mullen, Nebraska and perhaps you've heard of it.  

 I think you hit the nail on the head anyway re the king and the queen.  Courses are where they are.  Such is life and golf.

TH

[Rick Shefchik]

Matt,

Maybe those on this site who seem to give too much credit to ocean-side courses are simply saying that, all things considered, they'll take a little less architectural genius in exchange for a little more visual wow.

Count me among them.

[Matt_Ward]

Rick:

I guess that explains why so many who wax poetic on the Augusta of "today" have simply missed the boat on what the course was originally intended to do.

[Rick Shefchik]

I don't think so. I don't see any additional "visual wow" factor at Augusta National.

[Brent Hutto]

To answer the original questions, the scenery that's in view when you're playing a golf course matters immensely. I play golf with all my senses engaged and vision is the one with precedence. Now as for how much the scenery matters in evaluating the actual architecture of the course, there are two answers depending on how the question is intended.

If you want to talk about "shot values" or "difficulty" or "challenge" or the details of how one plays particular shots then the scenery only matters in as much as scenic elements are also in play or acting as hazards. So there are certainly many technical discussions you could have about particular holes at Cypress Point or Pebble Beach in which the scenic features matter not at all. Discussions such as how to play conservatively or aggressively on a certain approach shot or whether slopes on a certain fairway favor one kind of strategy over another would be much the same if one were talking about a course a thousand miles inland.

But if you want to talk about what makes Cypress Point a great golf course, then darned right you'd better address the issue of scenery. Anyone so focused on his golf game or his score card that he can't realize that an oceanfront view on the Monterey Peninsula is superior to a housing development somewhere in the hinterlands isn't really a golfer. He's an obsessive suffering from an exceedingly impoverished point of view.

I agree that it's a mental and rhetorical error to somehow forgive a golf course's faults between the tee and the hole because it's gorgeously situated. But it's just as big an error to claim that a golf course is somehow magically immune to improvement or detriment by its surroundings.

[Matt_Ward]

Rick S said, "I don't see any additional "visual wow" factor at Augusta National."

The reason you "don't see" is that too many trees have now been planted by the braintrust at Augusta.  

So much for the original intent as envisioned by Jones and his desire to pattern Augusta after TOC.

*****

Brent H said, "But it's just as big an error to claim that a golf course is somehow magically immune to improvement or detriment by its surroundings."

Like I said before -- place an ocean next to Ballyneal and I can tell you with relative certainty the place would be the next best thing to slice bread. A land site next to water gains far too often simply because of the intersection of circumstances.

[Tim Pitner]

I agree, if Ballyneal were by the ocean, it would be one of the world's best (if it isn't already).

But, it's not just the views of the ocean that benefit a course--it's the turf, the sea air, and everything that goes along with being by the ocean.  There's just something about oceanside and, particularly, links golf.  This is where Pacific Dunes picks up a lot of points (and, yes, I know it's technically not a links).  

[Brent Hutto]

Like I said before -- place an ocean next to Ballyneal and I can tell you with relative certainty the place would be the next best thing to slice bread. A land site next to water gains far too often simply because of the intersection of circumstances.

But why should it be otherwise?

I live in a nice house on a nice city street. It would be even nicer situated all by itself overlooking a lovely stretch of oceanside clifftop.

Ballyneal is a very fine golf course. It would be even finer if you could look around between shots and see waves crashing onto a beach.

Those statements are not meant to run down or disparage that house or that golf course. If we accept that Ballyneal would be one of the great courses in the world if situated next to an ocean then it would logically follow that it must be a awfully good golf course on its own merits as it actually sits.

P.S. to Tim P...

I think you're onto another important dimension. A course being on the Monterey coastline or the Firth of Forth is a qualitatively different thing than a course being on the Atlantic coast of Florida. All of those locations can have an ocean view but the great oceanfront locations are the ones that also offer a maritime climate condusive to great turf and great golf weather.

[Kalen Braley]

Brent,

I agree with what you're saying.  But I also think your local muni would be a mightly enhanced course if it sat right next to the ocean as well, (unless it case it already does).   Pacific Grove comes to mind, although a few of the holes on the back thru the dunes are very nice.

IMO its an exercise in futility to try to determine how well a course would rate if sitting in a setting like the Monterey Penisula.  Its impossible to seperate the course from its setting and I suspect there are many top 100 courses that would skyrocket up the list if they were positioned such and visa versa.  I guess when it comes to ratings, I guess a big component of it, is to have the good fortune to have a gem peice of land to start with in right spot.

[Matt_Ward]

Brent:

You missed my point -- the simple juxtaposition of a water site AUTOMATICALLY conveys additional brownie points. The best example that leaps to mind for me is Torrey Pines. Heck, the place is still touted -- likely less so here -- as a gem of a course (forgive my hidden laughter).

You stated no less yourself ... "Ballyneal is a very fine golf course. It would be even finer if you could look around between shots and see waves crashing onto a beach."

What does waves crashing onto a beach have to do with the qualities of the actual course itself? I don't doubt it's a wonderful scene but should a course that doesn't have such a feature be thought less so or another more so because it does?

If you placed Pac Dunes and Ballyneal together I dare say the edge Pac receives is because of the ocean next to it. I've played both and frankly the Colorado course is no less in overall qualities in my mind. And I say that not to diminish Pac Dunes but to reinforce my original point -- the added element of an ocean or huge body of water adds at minimum subconsciously to the overall impressions people provide.

[Brent Hutto]

Kalen,

Yes, one of the many reasons I don't discuss ratings. It's hopeless to make sense of an arbitrary combination of different raters opinion on different aspects of a golf course, somehow with the hope of ranking them from best to worst.

[Rick Shefchik]

Rick S said, "I don't see any additional "visual wow" factor at Augusta National."

The reason you "don't see" is that too many trees have now been planted by the braintrust at Augusta.  

So much for the original intent as envisioned by Jones and his desire to pattern Augusta after TOC.

Matt, you're really mixing issues here. I don't know if you missed the intent of my previous post, but let me try to make it as clear as I can.

When I said "additional," that's what I meant. There's nothing new at Augusta National to add a visual wow factor. What was beautiful to the eye there remains so; the additional trees have changed the playing characteristics, but they haven't disguised the course's visual appeal. But in any event, how is a land-locked course relevant to your original point, unless you believe ANGC is somehow under-rated because it's not on an ocean?

It's your contention that the course has been changed for the worse, and  while I have never "waxed poetic" about the changes at ANGC, you and I have discussed this issue before, and I don't see how it has anything do with the subject of this thread.

[Tags:]

Tags: