[Matt_Cohn]

Tom Doak stated this in another thread:

"It is no coincidence that so far I'm 3-for-3 in designing one of the top 50 courses in the world on an oceanfront setting, and 0-for-20 in hitting that target without the oceanfront setting."

Is this clear evidence that the ratings are flawed, and that raters (and golfers) are overly influenced by the sensory, mostly aesthetic, experience of oceanfront settings?

Is it clear evidence of just how big a deal an oceanfront setting and the accompanying sensory experiences really are?

Is it evidence that Tom needs to start stepping up his game when he's further than shouting distance from the Pacific Ocean?   

What's going on here?

[cary lichtenstein]

I saw Tom's thread this AM, and after thinking about it, he's right.

Even though the water really doesn't come into play on the vast majority of ocean holes, people are drawn to the views of the water in the background.

I've heard it many times when my wife and I were paired with others.

Funny, sometimes I don't even see the ocean, but that is usually on repeat plays, when I take it for granted.

Of course, the 3 best ocean holes are Pebble Beach 7 and 8, and Cypress 16.

[Adam Clayman]

Matt, I don't think you can call ratings flawed because of the influence of a compound that comprises 87% of our bodies.
 

[John_Conley]

Is this clear evidence that the ratings are flawed,

It's clear evidence people like playing alongside the ocean.  Plus the elements are more varied.

[DMoriarty]

"Flawed" may not be the right word.  But whether ratings admit it or not, they weight certain factors and characteristics much differently than I would.  So Ratings are not necessarily a place I would look if I were seeking out the best golf courses.    If there are 50 golf courses in this country better than Ballyneal, I would be very, very surprised.

[Joel_Stewart]

I wouldn't say the ratings are flawed since the #1 course is Pine Valley.  #1 on the modern list is Sand Hills.

I do think a body of water, can bring another element into the rankings, such as Augusta.

[Matt_Cohn]

Is it clear evidence of just how big a deal an oceanfront setting and the accompanying sensory experiences really are?

Sounds like the early returns are for Option #2...

[Jim Nugent]

In the Golf Magazine world rankings, around 20 of the top 50 courses are not on a major body of water.   About 33 of GM's top 50 U.S. courses are land locked. 

In Tom's CG rankings, about half the courses that got "10" are not on a major body of water.   That's including Pinehurst. 

[Sean_A]

In the Golf Magazine world rankings, around 20 of the top 50 courses are not on a major body of water.   About 33 of GM's top 50 U.S. courses are land locked. 

In Tom's CG rankings, about half the courses that got "10" are not on a major body of water.   That's including Pinehurst. 

Jim

Yeah but how many courses in the world are built on major bodies of water compared to the rest?  I think the water courses do very, very well in the rankings game.  And to be honest, perhaps they should do better.  Many of the courses on water have good playing conditions with wind as a factor.  These elements tend to help designs shine. 

Ciao 

[JWinick]

An ocean site is an expensive site that a developer believes can become a great golf course.   However, it is typically a constrained site.   You will find much of the greatest architecture on difficult, but aesthetically pleasing sites.   When a project is difficult to build, there is usually strong contraints which promote more thoughtful development.   On a large scale, compare the architecture of New York v. Houston.

New York has some of the greatest buildings in the world, but it is universally regarded as the most difficult place to build.  Not only are their severe land constraints, but the zoning process is extremely restrictive.  Houston has no zoning and virtually unlimited land.   It is universally regarded as one of the ugliest cities.

Mr. Doak has a point, but is it possible that he's just a little more  thoughtful and careful on a spectacular site? 

[Andrew Summerell]

Golf started by the ocean & it's still the best place for it. What's the big fuss.

[David_Elvins]

An oceanside course is more likely to have the other elements of a great course than an inland site -sandy soil, undulating topogrophy, wind, etc, its not just the ocean that leads to its high ranking.

[Jonathan Cummings]

TD - here's an example counter to what you conclude.  All 90-some of the Hawaiian golf courses are within sight of the ocean, most with breathtaking settings.  They are almost all forgettable from gca standpoint.

JC

[Tom_Doak]

Jonathan:

No, I think Hawaii helps prove my point.

On the three courses I've done alongside the ocean, I was given unrestricted access to the waterfront property, and golfers eat that up.

In Hawaii, most courses have a single par-3 along the ocean, and sell the rest of the waterfront for real estate.  And they are punished in the rankings for that.  If a course in Hawaii had four or five holes along the ocean it would be ranked up there with Cypress Point.

JWinick:

I really don't think we work any harder when we're next to the ocean -- although it's possible that we are in a better frame of mind than when we are in some other less beautiful locations.  In the three particular examples, we've had a lot of great land to work with, and that accounts for some of it,  but not all.

[Jason McNamara]

New York has some of the greatest buildings in the world, but it is universally regarded as the most difficult place to build.  Not only are their severe land constraints, but the zoning process is extremely restrictive.  Houston has no zoning and virtually unlimited land.   It is universally regarded as one of the ugliest cities.

First, any other American city loses in a comparison with NYC.  But for a downtown which didn't see its first skyscraper until the 70's, Houston has an I.M. Pei, two by Phillip Johnson, and a couple from SOM.

Second, are you comparing Manhattan itself with all of Houston?  Sure, cut out the outer boroughs, plus the fact that most of the port facilities are now in NJ, and of course that's even more lopsided. 

Now, how many of those greatest buildings in Manhattan (and they are great, absolutely) pre-date the huge re-vamp of NYC's zoning laws in the early 60's?  Rockefeller Ctr, Chrysler Bldg, the NYPL, Empire State Bldg, Pan Am Bldg (yeah, Houston doesn't have a Gropius building), Lever House, Seagram Bldg, the Guggenheim, the Post Office, the Met, the UN HQ if you want to include that....  What great NYC architecture post-dates the more restrictive zoning laws?  The WTC - is that the exception that proves the rule?

Anyway, all of this is to say it seems to me that Manhattan's collection of great buildings comes mostly from a stunning concentration of wealth. 

Otherwise, what David and Andrew said.

Btw, I think Houston does have one zoning law:  Every strip mall must have a nail salon.

[Bill_McBride]

One reason oceanside courses are so highly rated is that many of them are links courses!

There is a high percentage therefore of fast and firm courses, plus a high quirk factor.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt,

Maybe it's an indicator that the land by the sea (existing or past) is the ideal land for golf, and that the land, not the architect dictates the outcome.

[Matt_Ward]

I concur with David M in regards to the standing of Ballyneal. Place an ocean next to the property and the place would be even higher that it is now. Nonetheless, it's still a great layout and of equal standing, in my mind, to Sand Hills.

The same can be said for Black Mesa.

Too many raters base observations on elements that are within eye range but are not tied directly to the actual holes they are playing. The sensory is indeed about the broadest canvass and not the contribution made by the smaller elements linked directly to the playing of specific holes at the course itself.

Let me put things differently -- how much a role does the Pacific Ocean play in regards to the overall standing of Pacific Dunes? Take the ocean away and would the course still be seen as highly as it is. I have serious doubts on that one.

What Doak's comments make me wonder, more than ever before, is the belief that water-oriented sites (especially those with oceans or comparable sized H20 bodies) get bonus points simply because of the location -- irrespective or not on whether that H20 body has any direct connection to the course itself.

David E:

You mention wind as a basic ingredient of courses close to the ocean but I can name numerous inland sites where wind is a big time factor -- try the southern or northern plains of the USA as a one example. Plus you can include cities like Las Vegas -- which has to be one of the windiest major cities in the USA year round.

Pat:

In regards to your last comment -- although not tied to me personally -- I can name a few key courses where the architecture -- not the land itself -- made for a solid experience. Winged Foot is one classic example where the land itself is secondary and frankly quite mundane (especially when compared to other Westchester County locations). Tillie triumphed inspite of the land itself with two fantastic layouts.

[John Kavanaugh]

To say that Doak has built 3 of the top 50 courses ever in the world is as ludicrous as saying that Fazio has built 14 of the best courses in America since 1960. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt Ward,

The answer to one of your questions/issues is simple.

From a housing perspective (Condo, house, apartment building, etc,. etc..)

Which real estate is most prized, real estate on the ocean or inland ?

The value of the ocean can't be underestimated.

[Tim Pitner]

To say that Doak has built 3 of the top 50 courses ever in the world is as ludicrous as saying that Fazio has built 14 of the best courses in America since 1960. 

John,

Do you think Doak has built more than 3?

Commenting on Doak's courses is a little tricky because he actively participates here.  (If he didn't, his courses might get more praise than they already do).  I haven't played Barnbougle or Cape Kidnappers, but I will say that, IMHO, Pacific Dunes and Ballyneal are both better courses than Lahinch and there aren't 50 courses in the world better than Lahinch.  So, if Barnbougle is in that class, then Doak would have at least 3 and he may have other candidates too.   

[John Kavanaugh]

It was not my intent to insult Doak by saying that I doubt if he has created three of the top fifty golf courses ever built in the world.  I would not have a problem with an art critic saying that either Warhol, Wyeth or Pollock created one of the 50 greatest paintings of all time but believe anyone would scoff at the thought of including three of any one of those single artists.  Doak is a leading architect in a specific genre spanning a very short period of time and to say his work is so far above all the architects before him is insulting to anyone but the casual fan of the game and their work.

[Jason Connor]

One reason oceanside courses are so highly rated is that many of them are links courses!

There is a high percentage therefore of fast and firm courses, plus a high quirk factor.

That was my thought. As a website full of traditionalists, and the tradition is that the game is played by the sea on the links, maybe it just means the raters are more traditionalist than we thought.

[Matt Kardash]

I don't think this thread really says anything that we don't already know. Most oceanside courses benefit greatly in the eyes of golfers because the ocean is nearby. The sad part is the fact that most of the time these courses don't even have the ocean in play.

In general it is hard to objectively rate a course because we are always influenced by current trends in what is deemed "good architecture". These days Doak and Coore's minimlaist style is what's hot, so courses with shaggy bunkers and low profile greens are getting some attention. However, a day will come when cutting edge design will be something different, and how a course is rated will probably reflect that.

One thing that won't change though is that an ocean setting goes a long way on boosting a courses rating, whether the course deserves it or not.

[Joe Bentham]

Inland places like Ballyneal, Sandhills and Black Mesa do not lack for scenery.  Are they ranked higher then they should be because of how pretty they are?  They can't be evaluated sans their scenery any easier then a seaside course can.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()