Views vs Golf

[Jim_Kennedy]

Now wait a minute Mr Huckaby  , I thought Pat said that crap was crap, no matter if there was a view or not. This seems to be what TomD is saying too, i.e., waste not, want not.

[Doug Wright]

Kirk, Good call re Arrowhead. Great views so-so golf.

TH, I don't know what course you're thinking of but Lundin Links comes to mind as a very average seaside course.

[Kirk Gill]

Why should us golfers care about judging "architectural quality"?

Tom, most of the time, most golfers don't. If I was a golf magazine panelist, and had some responsibility to rate golf courses, I suppose I'd care more. And interestingly enough, there are times on the course where it just feels like the design, the architecture, calls out to me, demanding notice. I'm not sure what makes a course do that, but some courses do. Arrowhead doesn't. 

[Andy Troeger]

Views are important, maybe even very important IMO. They are just one part of the golf course experience; I agree with those that say a mediocre course in a spectacular location is still a mediocre course, but there are worse things for sure!

I'm trying to decide if I would nominate 3 Creek Ranch in Jackson, WY, because the views there do make the course. At the same time, the design is really pretty decent in its own right. The course itself has very little terrain so I'd actually Rees Jones some credit for a nice routing that takes advantage of the spectacular scenery outside of the course grounds. Quintero on the other hand might be more applicable to the question.

[Tom_Doak]

Kirk:

Arrowhead was on my list of such courses in The Confidential Guide, also.  What a cool site, and what a shame that the golf holes did not live up to it.  I guess I would rate it higher than a dull course on a dull site, and that may be all Tom H. is saying, too.  I'll let him clarify.

Doug:

I walked Lundin Links again last year after many years' absence, and there are a few cool holes there, so I wouldn't put it in this particular category.  It's a shame it doesn't continue along the coast as it once did (before it split with Leven Golf Club), though.  That must have been a VERY good course, and the nine holes up on the hill are mostly worthless substitutes.

[John Foley]

Willie - Glad you liked Newport national - I loved it - let me know how much you liked the course.

[Matt Varney]

Guys,

I work in a large real estate development company in the southeast.  When we starting building golf courses routing are very important but so are the views for the course along with residential homesites.  It is very difficult to find a great property that allows for a really good course design where the holes can be shaped working with the natural land features and also maintain the core golf feel it has to have some residential to make the course financially feasible for the development side.

Views are great but, the golf course has to also be very nice or the property is like Furry Creek.  A golf course that has maybe one or two holes you want to play.

[Willie_Dow]

Really don't know how I got back on her after six years ago.  But I recall that moment of thinking.

A golf course has recall, memory if you want to describe what I'm thinking.

For an old timer, change isn't always for the best !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Patrick Glynn]

I am not sure where I stand on this. Would the 9th at RCD be as awe inspiring without the Mountains of Mourne, the Bay, & the Slieve Donard serving as a backdrop?

[Carl Rogers]

If the views are not attractive (too many houses too close to the course), is not it easier to concentrate on the course design?  What else is there to look at?

Should the architectural reputation of the course then be diminished if the GCA had no impact or power over what happens outside the course boundaries?  It seems that a consensus of opinion on this web site, that the course quality should suffer???

[Matt Varney]

Carl,

It is a balance and a fine line that you consider in the planning stages that allows a really good golf course to be created while also considering residential homesites.   This can be done by using setbacks and controlling tree removal so that residences or cottages are tucked into the tree canopy and limiting size on roof height.

The best courses almost always have zero residential development pressure.  The goal is to build a great golf course on a great piece of property.  The architect / designer then goes to work looking at topo and walking the property to take into consideration the best natural features like views and sites for tees and greens.

[Dan Herrmann]

Willie - Glad you liked Newport national - I loved it - let me know how much you liked the course.

(John - look at the date in Willie's post - it's from 2002 - I dug up his great question, which had had zero replies, from the GCA.com archives).

[Willie_Dow]

Dan

How did you find me from six years ago ?  I'm trying to find out what my handicap was back then !

To answer your question about Newport National, which I have played but a few times, once in the fog when I had the pleasure of hitting it out of site, I would rate it as my favorite Arthur Hills course.  Better than Hilton Head's Palmetto Cse, 1985 - or The Landings at Skidaway Island, which I considered to be top notch when I played there.  The routing at Newport is far better than H/H or Skidaway.  It is a memorable round of golf, which has always been one of my basic gauges for consideration.

I don't know the present state of ownership or whether it is private or public.  When I go north in a month or so I'll check that out.

Willie

[Tom Huckaby]

Jim Kennedy - that is absolutely NOT what Pat said - that is far too logical.  He steadfastly maintained that external golf course views do not matter AT ALL in an assessment of the worth of the course, be they good or bad.  In his world there are huge walls that surround the course and all that matters is the field of play.  You can be the judge of his sanity... I know how I ruled.   

Regarding Arrowhead, I too would not call it a dull course on a dull site - the site is freakin' spectacular.  What it is is a great example of Doak's "Dumb Blonde" category - beatiful but without substance. 

To Patrick Glynn - why even ask that question about #9 RCD?  Are those views going away?  See, that's what's I don't get.  Why does it matter what a hole, or a course, would be like without the views?  Oh I know the standard answer - it's a way to judge the "architecture."  But why should that matter?  Are we trying to assess how courses play for Steview Wonder?

TH

[Phil Benedict]

Are we trying to assess how courses play for Steview Wonder?

TH

I heard Stevie is really long but can't putt to save his life.

[Tom Huckaby]

Are we trying to assess how courses play for Steview Wonder?

TH

I heard Stevie is really long but can't putt to save his life.

Like the Lama.

TH

[Carl Rogers]

Matt,

My comment stems from my constant play at Riverfront in Suffolk, Virginia.  

My only simple point can be stated thusly:
  In the world of Golf Architecture Opinion, it will probably always suffer from the omni-present  
  absurdly over priced McMansion housing development, but that is really not a fair assessment of  
  the course or what Tom, Eric and group could control.  That should be its criteria for evaluation.

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt/Carl:

Now obviously a course not blessed with great external views, or burdened with mcmansions or other eyesores, has a tough road to hoe when compared with a Pebble Beach.  But such is life!  Just remember that the meat and potatoes of the assessment will be how the holes play - how much joy they give in the playing.  And that can certainly be achieved without the positives of fine external views.  My real argument continues to be against those who say views should never matter, no matter what.  And I hope that is not what either of you are saying.

In any case, more interesting to me is Carl's statement, thus:

My only simple point can be stated thusly:
  In the world of Golf Architecture Opinion, it will probably always suffer from the omni-present 
  absurdly over priced McMansion housing development, but that is really not a fair assessment of 
  the course or what Tom, Eric and group could control.  That should be its criteria for evaluation.

And I politely disagree, or at least would request clarification or a slight change.  If we are to evaluate ARCHITECTURAL SKILL, then yes, I'd agree with every word of that statement.  I'd request though that we add that we also need to make sure we know all obstacles Tom, Eric and group had to overcome to get the course built (that is, any restrictions be it environmental or otherwise; what the site was like before they got to it and their skill in fashioning a course out of it, in terms of leaving what's worth leaving and building what needs to be built, etc.).  If - and only if - we have all of this knowledge, then we can and should assess their architectural skill, and it will be worthwhile to do so.

The problem is none of us golfers have that knowledge.

So my simple point remains that we golfers ought to assess golf courses, not architectural skill.  We can certainly evaluate how much joy a course gives us in the playing; we do not have the knowledge base to dare try to assess architectural skill.

So my take here remains that we are assessing golf courses, as golfers.  And if we are, then of course the views a course provides matter.

TH

[tlavin]

Eye candy is great, as long as it's combined with a well designed, built and maintained golf course.  Awesome eye candy with average/sub-par design (did anybody say, Spanish Bay?) is not much fun at all.

[Tom Huckaby]

Eye candy is great, as long as it's combined with a well designed, built and maintained golf course.  Awesome eye candy with average/sub-par design (did anybody say, Spanish Bay?) is not much fun at all.

Terry - that's a description of Doak's "dumb blonde."  As for how fun such a course is, well... it's a matter of personal preference.  I have always enjoyed my rounds at Spanish Bay.  But others do not.  Such is life.

TH

[Jim_Kennedy]

So Huck, then you do believe that a crappy hole is a crappy hole, no matter the view, and a good hole is a good hole, no matter the view.

Therefore, the view has no impact on the quality (or lack of) of  the architecture, yet may alter one's view of the course as a whole.

Correct ??

[Tom Huckaby]

So Huck, then you do believe that a crappy hole is a crappy hole, no matter the view, and a good hole is a good hole, no matter the view.

Therefore, the view has no impact on the quality (or lack of) of  the architecture, yet may alter one's view of the course as a whole.

Correct ??

Not sure how you got that, Jim.  I didn't say anything close to that.  Do you worship at the altar of Pat "put your own words in people's mouth no matter what they say, or believe" Mucci?

It's really very simple.  Views matter in the assessment of a golf course.  If one wants to assess "architecture" it's a whole different ball game, as I explained.  But even then - as Tom Doak confirmed - maximizing available views is part of architectural skill.

So I really have no clue what you are trying to say... other than perhaps you are just being a Muccian contrarian?

TH

[Kalen Braley]

The best example I can think of to hopefully illustrate Toms claim is this.

The 8th hole at PB.  Blind tee shot up the hill on a long par 4 that requires laying back on the tee.  Followed by a very long shot to a teeny target that is pretty much carry the entire way.

I firmly believe that if this hole were built inland somewhere and the large chasm over the ocean were a swamp that this hole would get roundly dismissed as a bad golf hole.  Remember combine a blind tee shot with a layup, followed by long approach over a swamp.

But because the hole is where it is in Pebble Beach with the ocean, views, seals barking, amazing ambiance, etc the hole is seen by many as one of the finest on the course and even the world.

In the end, I concur with Huck's basic premise.  All we can evaluate is what is there in front of us.  Is it bad architecture or good architecutre?  I can speculate, but what would that mean?

I too believe its one of the finest golf holes in the world.  If it were inland somewhere near a swamp, I likely wouldn't feel the same way.

[Kirk Gill]

Tom, one of the things I said earlier I truly believe when it comes to the role of views, and that is that the more you play a course the less effect the views have, and then you're left with the course itself. Needless to say, the more spectacular or out-of-the-ordinary the views are, the less their effect will drop off over time (like that view of RCD ! Whew !)

What I wasn't thinking about when I posted that is the opposite side of the coin, the ugly surrounds like the McMansion Valley effect, and whether or not over time the effect of those less-than-stellar views might also drop away. I know that there are courses I've played that seem over-run with housing (the back nine of Lone Tree, for instance) and the enjoyment of my round and my feelings about the course were definitely affected negatively. I don't know that I tend to go back to those courses enough to really know if my problems with the surrounding views would diminish with repeat play, but I'm guessing they probably would !

[Tom Huckaby]

Kirk:

I think you make a great point in that the effect of views would necessarily diminish over time, and I do believe it would work in both directions.  The good thing is - I think - that a I think it would take a LOT of plays for a view like that at RCD or those at Cypress or Pebble or the like to ever get fully taken for granted; but that awful views would indeed get ignored after awhile, particularly if the golf was interesting.

My home course has this to some extent... some nice views, some not so nice, with the latter not mattering any more as they tend to occur next to some of the more interesting holes in terms of how they play!  In fact, oddly enough, the nicer views are paired with the less interesting holes... Hmmmm... I wonder if this was intentional or accidental?

TH