When all the analyses are complete

[John Kavanaugh]

I can make the same argument for any recently built Fazio course in the country.

John--Is Victoria included in that 'recently built Fazio' statement?

Pat-- You are correct that this is a intellectual conversation about the desirability of a given course. However, that desire at some point must meet financial reality. I desire to play Pebble Beach, however, the reality is, until I find a way to play for around $50, I will never play.

Fazio is the architect at many great clubs where there are members that I would enjoy meeting.  Because I get to play Victoria any day I choose it stubs my intellectual desire to seek out his other designs.  This is an intellectual choice based 100% on architecture because if ever invited to any of the great clubs he has recently built I would probably go for other reasons.  This in no way makes any of the courses less great on their own individual merits.

Please note that unless an intellectual choice has the risk of being incorrect it no longer is based on intellect.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I have no desire to play Sand Hills because I feel I have been there, done that at Ballyneal. 

You can't make a legitimate comparitive analysis if you haven't seen one of the courses you're trying to compare.

This is not an economic decision or because of how much I would enjoy the round. 

I'd agree that it's not an economic decision, but, you can't quantify how much you'd enjoy the round until you actually play it.

My lack of desire is entirely an intellectual one based on architectural facts.

That's absurd.
You have NO architectural facts about Sand Hills since you've never seen or played Sand Hills. 

This does not make Sand Hills any less of a great course.

Those who have played it are aware of its merits.
Those who haven't played it ..... aren't.

I can make the same argument for any recently built Fazio course in the country.

That's why judges throw cases out of court, because they have no merit to their argument, no basis to go to trial.

And remember, "ignorance" is no excuse under the law.... or in golf course architecture   

[Patrick_Mucci]

JKM,

"Desire" and "affordability" are distinct from one another.

When I walk off the 18th green of a golf course, whether or not I want to play it again depends upon my visceral reaction.

The more intense the reaction is, the greater the sense of immediacy is.

When I walked off the 18th greens at Maidstone, Hidden Creek and others I knew that I wanted to go right to the first tee and play another round.

At Maidstone, I did and it caused my host and me to be 4+ hours late for a large Bar-BQ he was having at his house.

At Hidden Creek, the onset of darkness prevented me from going right to the first tee.

The fact that a course may be far removed from my home, difficult to get on or expensive has no impact on my visceral reaction and my desire for repeat play.  Those are extraneous factors that have nothing to do with my inate desires.

And, I relate those desires to the architectural merits of the golf course, irrespective of how I played,  how I got there and whether I can return.

[John Moore II]

Pat--Yes, I agree they are distinct from each other. However, I can say that it might be like "wow, I really loved that place and wish I could play every day.....but...for $XXX its doubtful I will ever play again"   In that way, I feel that the desire to play again, for some, may be restrained. Also, the cost could affect the 'value' of the architecture. My personal expectations of the architectural merits of the course go up as cost goes up. Pine Needles may not have the same appeal to me if I had to pay $200 to play each time instead of my current $0.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JKM,

Doesn't that remove the evaluation of a golf course from a purely architectural context to a "value perceived" context ?

[David_Madison]

Pat,

Mostly "yes" but not always. Here's a pairing of courses that might prove your "rule" wrong:

Bethpage Black has wonderful architectural merits, but I don't know that I'd want to play it over and over. It just beat me up, a real battle that might be fun every so often but not too often. Sleepy Hollow, on the other hand, was just a blast to play and while clearly having architectural merit is not in the same realm as Bethpage. But I could see myself wanting to play it over and over.

[JESII]

isn't the true test of the merits of any golf course the desire to replay it repeatedly, as often as possible ?

Pat,

I am such a golf junkie that most any course (in its own vacuum) would create a desire to play it repeatedly, as often as possible...I think the truest test of the architectural merits of any course is its ability to conceal its secrets for as long as possible (in terms of years and repeat plays)...I am sure you learn something new about Garden City or NGLA each time you play them, no?

[John Moore II]

JKM,

Doesn't that remove the evaluation of a golf course from a purely architectural context to a "value perceived" context ?

Not exactly. Certainly the great courses would stand alone and not be a 'well that wasn't worth the money' course. But lesser courses may be. Currently I find myself insulated from the price aspect of it. Every course is worth $25. But for say, $250, you expect to be thoroughly impressed with the course you play. If not, you surely will feel like the architecture or some other part of the experience wasn't worth the price paid. I certainly feel that the architecture of a course can be evaluated by itself. However, most people likely cannot evaluate a course in such a way, totally apart from cost and other factors.
--Pinehurst #2--Great course? Absolutely. Worth $350? Absolutely not (to me anyway)
--Pine Needles-- Very good course, certainly. Not worth $200 to me.
--Tobacco Road-- Very good course, not worth $125 in season to me.
At some point, perceived value comes into play. Park Ridge in Lake Worth, FL I thought was a fantastic design. It also had a great price, $35. Had that price been $100, I might not say it was so great. The greatness of the architecture stands by itself, but the desire to return depends on other things.
--Pebble Beach--If the desk clerk, pro shop staff, bag attendant and starter were all rude, your caddy was late to the tee, turf and playing conditions were not ideal, and it took 7 hours to play...all for $450, you may see the greatness in the architecture, but would the desire to play again immediately be there??

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick -

I think a better or more telling question is:

"Of all the courses that you wish you could play as often as possible, which course DO you play most often?"

From your posts, you seem to play a variety of courses, many of which are considered great. Which course amongst those do you play most often -- and what do you think that choice suggests about what the ultimate consideration is for you, when all the analyses is done?

Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Mostly "yes" but not always. Here's a pairing of courses that might prove your "rule" wrong:

Bethpage Black has wonderful architectural merits, but I don't know that I'd want to play it over and over. It just beat me up, a real battle that might be fun every so often but not too often.

Maybe you're playing from the wrong tees.

BPB from the back tees isn't for amateurs.

Sleepy Hollow, on the other hand, was just a blast to play and while clearly having architectural merit is not in the same realm as Bethpage. But I could see myself wanting to play it over and over.

Could distance/yardage be the deciding factor ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick -

I think a better or more telling question is:

"Of all the courses that you wish you could play as often as possible, which course DO you play most often?"

The one that's local, my home club in NJ which is less than 15 minutes away from my office/home.

From your posts, you seem to play a variety of courses, many of which are considered great.

Which course amongst those do you play most often

The one that's nearest to me

-- and what do you think that choice suggests about what the ultimate consideration is for you, when all the analyses is done?

"consideration" and "desire" are two different things.

What you and the others fail to grasp, amongst other things, is the distinction between "desire" and "availability"

One's a function of convenience/distance/access, the other, pure desire.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JKM,

Doesn't that remove the evaluation of a golf course from a purely architectural context to a "value perceived" context ?

Not exactly. Certainly the great courses would stand alone and not be a 'well that wasn't worth the money' course. But lesser courses may be. Currently I find myself insulated from the price aspect of it. Every course is worth $25. But for say, $250, you expect to be thoroughly impressed with the course you play. If not, you surely will feel like the architecture or some other part of the experience wasn't worth the price paid. I certainly feel that the architecture of a course can be evaluated by itself. However, most people likely cannot evaluate a course in such a way, totally apart from cost and other factors.
--Pinehurst #2--Great course? Absolutely. Worth $350? Absolutely not (to me anyway)
--Pine Needles-- Very good course, certainly. Not worth $200 to me.
--Tobacco Road-- Very good course, not worth $125 in season to me.
At some point, perceived value comes into play. Park Ridge in Lake Worth, FL I thought was a fantastic design. It also had a great price, $35. Had that price been $100, I might not say it was so great. The greatness of the architecture stands by itself, but the desire to return depends on other things.
--Pebble Beach--If the desk clerk, pro shop staff, bag attendant and starter were all rude, your caddy was late to the tee, turf and playing conditions were not ideal, and it took 7 hours to play...all for $450, you may see the greatness in the architecture, but would the desire to play again immediately be there??

You're confusing quality with quantity, based upon what the public will pay to play.

Is Wynn Golf course, architecturally worthy of $ 500 green fees ?

The cost to play a golf course and the architectural merits of a golf course do not enjoy a direct relationship.

It's not a money issue, it's not a convenience issue, it's a visceral issue.

[David_Madison]

Pat,

Length may be part of it, but it's not the sole determinant. If it was, Firestone, especially years ago when even the pros wore out their 2-irons and fairway woods on it, would be considered one of the greats. I only played BPB once and that was from the back tees. To me much of what made BPB something special was the "battle" aspect of the round. When I got done with that battle, I wanted to take a nap, not trudge back out to the first tee. Yet the course really was something special and I'm about ready to do battle with it again (but not from the tips!) I'm not sure it would be quite so interesting playing it from tees that provided similar approach lengths as I experienced at Sleepy Hollow, Garden City, or Mid-Pines. This last group has a quirkiness going for it that makes me want to keep going round and round. Maybe the truly greats balance out the the two elements, the battle aspects and the quirkiness/uniqueness.

[John Moore II]

Pat--I've never played the Wynn, but given the fact that its situated behind a casino in the middle of a large city, I seriously doubt the architecture is worth $500. Thats not the point. The point is, the architectural connection to a great course is dependant on the architecture itself. The real desire to return is dependant on other things, accessibility and cost being the major two in my book.

[JESII]

JKM,

The desire to return should not be affected by those things...actually returning may.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

You "Get it"

JKM,

You don't.

[John Moore II]

Pat--of course I don't get it, I don't agree with you. Anyone who doesn't agree with you in inherently wrong, its just a fact. Do you really post these things for discussion or to simply try to prove yourself right and everyone else wrong??