[Doug Siebert]

MikeCirba,

Replaying Waterville greatly increased its stature in my mind.  I still don't think deserves mention in the same breath as Ballybunion and Lahinch, and lies behind Tralee and Old Head in my mind, but compared to what I thought of it on my first visit it certainly moved up a lot.  There are probably two causes for this -- it was raining when I played there the fist time and I've never been much good in the rain (I had my first decent round in the rain ever last time I played Carnoustie, only because I decided getting a caddie would insure my clubs stayed dry and I was able to play halfway decently)  In addition, there had been some work done on it in the intervening years (between 1996 and 2004) but I didn't remember what was there before well enough to recall if that could account for much of my change of heart.

Likewise I think that Dornoch would improve upon a replay.  I played it once in 1991 and while I thought it was a good course, I didn't feel it was in the same category as many of the other links I played on that visit.  Hopefully next time I'm in Scotland I'll get up there for a replay or two (perhaps I can get Rich Goodale to join me and point out its charms)  Maybe I just didn't "get it" when I was there, or the benign conditions and easy 75 I shot reduced its stature in my mind compared with the sterner tests I faced elsewhere -- I eagled 12 with a driver/wedge, I don't think I should be able to do that on a top course (especially with a balata ball) but in more typical wind conditions I would guess that's not really a possibility.

If I had played Waterville on a day without rain and Dornoch on a day with a good stiff breeze, perhaps I would have rated them higher, perhaps I just wasn't smart enough to recognize how good they are, or perhaps I just differ with the consensus on them (certainly possible, my second visit to Turnberry only reinforced my opinion that it is vastly overrated)

Perhaps playing a course multiple times in a variety of conditions isn't so necessary as playing them once in suitable conditions.  Links need wind, most golfers don't like playing in much more than a sprinkle, courses that are waterlogged or severely drought sticken will not show their best, etc.  If I had a chance to visit ANGC for a week but it had rained 12" in the week before I arrived and rained an inch and a half every night, even though it might be sunny and warm during the day when I played the course would not be showing itself at its best, and it wouldn't matter that I might play it a half dozen times, I still wouldn't be capable of fairly evaluating it as well as I could with one play when the course is playing F&F as was intended.

[Mark_Fine]

I believe once you have seen and played a number of great courses (dozens and dozens if not hundreds, not just six   ) you can start to identify greatness with your first time around and your initial assessment will be pretty accurate.  This also applies to playing numerous courses designed by the same architect.  If for example, you only have played five or six Tillie courses (depending on which ones they are) you might not realize just how good his designs can get and may need to re-assess your initial evaluations (which maybe you gave too high of opinion) as you see more and more of his better ones.  

Also, I have always argued that the greatest courses need to be studied many times to truly be learned and appreciated as the subtleties that often separate good from great will only reveal themselves with repeated visits (and that doesn't mean just walking around, unless you are witnessing play as well).  

So how often does my mind change about a course; it does once in a while.  I like to think that don't have a bias for or against any one architect (though we all have favorites gained from experience that we like to seek out).  But despite this, there are times when on follow up rounds or visits, a course will begin to lose interest or appeal to me more.  Rarely anymore will my opinion waiver more than a point one way or the other but it's happened.  

I've been lucky to have played most of the courses on the major Top 100 lists plus many more and when I see one that ranked high or low that shocks me, I will often take a closer look next time around to see what I might have missed with my own evaluation.  I don't let a "ranking" sway my opinion, but I will be open minded to re-study and revalidate my initial thoughts (assuming it is a course I have already played).

Tom Doak, you might remember that we compared our personal Top 250 courses in the world lists that we had seen along with Ran and a few others for a number of years and most of us were pretty close with our numbers.  I don't recall seeing too much change year to year in those numbers and I'm sure their were repeat visits to numerous courses we each had listed though I admit I really didn't compare that aspect too closely.  I was more interested in seeing what we each thought.  I should call Ran and have us do that again as it has been a few years since we shared numbers.  

I'll add one more comment (this has probably been mentioned already in someone's earlier post), but I would guess that maintenance is probably the biggest reason numbers/reviews vary from visit to visit.  I rarely let this sway my overall opinion of a course, but it is easy to see how this could move an individual's review more than a point or two in either direction.  Does anyone here for example, think Augusta National would stay at the same Doak number if it were maintained like an under funded muni?  I don't think so.  Conditioning (good or bad) can sway any of us.    

For what it's worth.
Mark

[TEPaul]

In my opinion, if clubs want their courses (architecture) to favorably change golfers minds about their quality (or greatness) those clubs better start working towards maintenance practices that highlight their architecture in play.

I think most on here know what I call that maintenance goal.

On particularly the older courses this creates a change of opinion that is almost indescribable.

I've seen almost entire memberships say things like "where has this course been all our lives?" when this is done well and done with regularity.

When you slap a really good firm and fast maintenance meld on a golf course it shines exponentially and the best architecture tends to show its subtlety and sophistication in ways that lesser architecture never can even with an ideal maintenance meld.

This is where memberships and those who know courses pretty well really see a difference.

I would not say the same thing for magazine raters because they inherently just don't have much or any experience with individual courses in a comparative sense.

[David_Madison]

TEPaul - Why wouldn't I as a rater playing a course before and after it has gone through a maintenance change as you've described experience the same thoughts? As long as I kept good notes/had a good memory of what I experienced the first time around, couldn't I have the same WOW type of reaction?

[Doug Wright]

But what I'd like to ask is, how many of you have actually changed your opinion of a course so substantially after a second visit, that it went from "not great" to "one of the top 100 courses in America" in your mind?

Tom,

I've changed my opinion substantially on at least two courses I can think of, one positively and one negatively (I'm sure there are others).

Positively--Cherry Hills CC. Through several playings during the '80s and '90s I had questions about its lofty Top 100 status. Then came the work on the course in recent years and my view changed substantially. But the work done there isn't the only reason--during this period I gained a deeper appreciation for the work of William Flynn and golf course architecture in general, so, to put it simply, I knew what to look for!

Negatively--Elie. I've played this course twice, 15 years apart. The first time, I was really impressed but maybe because I was in Scotland for the first time and enjoying the links golf experience. The second time I was underwhelmed. Sure there's the cool opening tee shot and the periscope plus a few pretty holes along the water but the course just didn't live up to my recollections. Also, again, my understanding and appreciation of golf course architectue was markedly different in 2005 than it was in 1990. Perhaps that's the difference for me--a changed understanding of what is fine architecture and my opinions thereon.

[Mike_Cirba]

Doug,

I'm not sure it's the same thing when a course is changed markedly through some type of restoration/renovation/preservation/relocation/kenelration or whatever term is in vogue these days, as per the case of Cherry Hills.  

[tomgoutman]

If you have half a brain, you change your mind about courses. Why should golf courses be different than anything else in life? A number of years ago, I asked a fairly well-known artist what painter he really liked. Two years later, I ran into him and recommended a retrospective in New York of the painter he had expressed enthusiasm for previously. He replied, "I think his work is second-rate." I said, "but he was your favorite two years ago." He responded, "What do you think, I died two years ago and my brain stopped functioning?" If you stop changing your mind about things, including golf courses, you have stopped living.

[henrye]

But what I'd like to ask is, how many of you have actually changed your opinion of a course so substantially after a second visit, that it went from "not great" to "one of the top 100 courses in America" in your mind?

I'm not sure this has ever happened for me.  My experience is that the very best courses seem to get even better the more you get to know them ... on the third or fourth visit, you realize that even the weakest hole on the course is pretty darned good.  But, it's much less often that a course I thought was just okay reveals itself to be something much greater.  A great course has to have a fair number of great holes, and how do you miss a great hole the first time around?

Just wondering if experience proves the rule, or tears it to shreds.

I find that generally, the more I play a course, the more I see its merits - but the reverse can be true as well.  Others have stated the reasons, but for myself the clearest example of going against the grain has been Cabo Del Sol.

I first played the course the year it opened and was absolutely blown away by the scenery & conditioning.  There is no question those items influenced me heavily.  On subsequent visits I have been much less impressed and on my last visit, just over a year ago I found myself enjoying the much less celebrated Weiskopf course more.

By no means am I saying the course is not a wonderful experience and it has always been my #1 recommendation in the area.  It's just that on repeated play, I found myself less enthused instead of more.

Thought I'd bring up this old thread, because I've changed my mind yet again.  Was in Cabo over the holidays and played both the Cabo Del Sol courses yet again.  The Ocean course was better than I remembered.

[Jason Topp]

Pasatiempo is one that has dropped for me with repeat exposure, probably from a Doak 8 to a 7.  

I was sufficiently enthralled by the bunkers, greens and Mackenzie name the first time around to ignore the cramped back and forth routing of the front nine as well as a large number of mundane holes (1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 17).

In addition, my first round was in the summer on a firm course.  Later rounds were in the winter on a softer course.  

[Sean_A]

The only course I can think of which has fallen well short of what I initially thought is Birkdale.  A good course for sure, but no where near deserving of its lofty position.

Ciao

[Tom Huckaby]

Pasatiempo is one that has dropped for me with repeat exposure, probably from a Doak 8 to a 7.  

I was sufficiently enthralled by the bunkers, greens and Mackenzie name the first time around to ignore the cramped back and forth routing of the front nine as well as a large number of mundane holes (1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 17).

In addition, my first round was in the summer on a firm course.  Later rounds were in the winter on a softer course.  

Wow Jason, for us Pasatiempo lovers, them's fightin' words.  

I have to ask:  have you played it recently, in its most recent restorative incarnation, and with the massively improved drainage?

If so, then we do have some fightin' to do.  If not, I would simply suggest you come see it again soon, and then we shall talk.

A little birdie tells me ye shall get a fine chance to play it again soon... stay tuned for an important announcement.

TH

[John Moore II]

I can't say that I ever had a course that I thought was not great the first time I played it and then really thought it was a great place. Mostly because the places I do not like, I simply don't return to. I have however had courses that I thought were pretty good the first time I played, but after playing again, or even just thinking about it, thought they might not be so great after all.

[Kyle Henderson]

I tend to recall course very well from tee to green, but revisits can modestly alter my opinion of a course if I find the green complexes to be more or less interesting than I remembered.

Does anyone feel they tend to remember some types of course features better than others over time?

[Michael Whitaker]

The only course I can think of which has fallen well short of what I initially thought is Birkdale.  A good course for sure, but no where near deserving of its lofty position.

Ciao

Sean - I had exactly the opposite opinion of Birkdale! After reading LOTS of reviews on the course before I played it (here and elsewhere) I was not expecting it to blow me away... but it did! I came away thinking it was definitely in my top 5. We should start a thread on the course. It would be a fun conversation.

One course that has really improved its standing with me over time is Prestwick CC in Surfside Beach, SC. A 1989 Pete Dye course that was orginally slated to be a private residential club... a concept a bit ahead of its time for the Grand Strand market. At first, I didn't understand Dye... it just seemed a little too weird to me. But, as I played the course more I began to enjoy and appreciate its "unusual" look and challenge. Then, I went to the UK for the first time and I said, "Oh, that's where Dye gets the ideas for that stuff!!!" Some criticize Prestwick CC for being "manufactured" and "unnatural," which it is. But, I still like it more and more each time I play it and always look forward to my next round there. That's got to count for something.

[Jim Thompson]

Tom,

I've done it in both directions.

Staying in Michigan-

I thought the Mines was average at best the first time I played. After the third time around the switch went on and I got it.  Now I think it is a great venue.

On the other side, I thought the Thouroughbred was average the first time I played as well.  Now I'm convinced it is about 200,000 cubic yards short of even being a golf course.  I don't know who gets the blame for that one, but I won't even keep score there and avoid it at all costs.

Cheers!

JT

[Philippe Binette]

Tom Doak mentionned: Ninety percent of restoration projects are just expensive plastic surgery.

Jeez, that argument is not going to sell a lot of jobs

on the question,
For me, a course that I thought OK can maybe go up the second time around and keep going up but if it goes down the second times around, it's going down forever...

courses that could improve the second time around: Gullane no 1, I didn't got it, thought it was bordering boring, but I don't know if I'm stupid enough to put another 100 pounds down to know if I was wrong (especially with North Berwick for 75 pounds 10 minutes away)...

One course that I can think that could improve by playing it (or watching good players playing it) is Mount Bruno near Montreal a visitor just looking won't see how good it plays since half of the greens are basically unreadable with the naked eye... then you discovered that they are runaway greens and you realize how much finesse you need to play the course.

I'd like to see Western Gailes again since I didn't see the second half of the course, the wind pick up so much my head was spinning on the back nine...

[Jon Wiggett]

The only course I can think of which has fallen well short of what I initially thought is Birkdale.  A good course for sure, but no where near deserving of its lofty position.

Ciao

Sean,

I always find it interesting that people knock Birkdale but never seem to be able to say exactly why. The course does lack quirk and doesn't have any real signature holes. Having said that it does have one of the best opening holes in golf followed by a great second hole. It also has a great set of par 3s and a finishing stretch with 4 four great holes. Also of all the links courses that I have played only Muirfield plays as fairly and it is maybe this that is the telling letdown for many.

It is probably the last point that is the let down for many that despite its setting in large sand dunes Birkdale does not create much in the way of suspence. If you hit a good shot then it will get a good result and a bad shot won't benifit from a quirky bounce.

I really like Birkdale but would not put it on the same standing as TOC or North Berwick in relation of fun to play.

[Philippe Binette]

What I remember most from Birkdale is how hard it looks from the back tee... (I didn't play) long par 4s...

and maybe the elevated tee (more often present than other links course give that impression since you see more of the hole.

Has anyone seen the new 17th green (completed in 2006)? I thought it was pretty good with a good front right pin with a pot bunker just behind.

[Jason Connor]

I don't think I've ever had my opinion increase dramatically the 2nd time, which is the particular Change of Mind you mention.

Perhaps the closest is Heritage on Pawleys Island.  Though the first time I played it was in some terrible fog.  So honestly, I saw little of the course, particularly the front nine. On my 2nd play, I fell in love.  It's now one of my favorite courses (albeit house lined) and I look forward to playing it every October.


The opposite is far more common, where at first I may enjoy a track then the 2nd or 3rd time around it loses its luster. Two big examples perhaps are The Judge on the RTJ Trail and Torrey South.  

I guess the Torrey scenery overwhelms  the first time around (plus I shot the lights out, for me).  But then you realize it's just a decent course in a spectacular setting.  Still fun to play though.  Where else do you get hang gliders and military aircraft and that view?

The Judge I thought was a helluva hard, in your face, bring your A+ game, yet super fun course the first time.  Especially the front nine.  Then in my 2nd and 3rd plays I've enjoyed it substantially less each time, to the point where I doubt I'll ever play it again.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()