[Ross Waldorf]

Richard Choi's Golf Digest public course thread got me thinking about what people value in a golf course, and I thought I'd just start a thread on this question:

The GCA crowd is always going to be annoyed that a course like Rustic Canyon doesn't make the top 100 public course list in GD. As someone who always plays there and loves the place, I know it bugs me. But when I think about rankings, I always ask myself this: If on consecutive days, a person played Trump National LA (haven't done it myself) and Rustic Canyon, which one would get a higher ranking?

Most of the people who frequent this site are probably going to prefer Rustic, I'd guess. But what about everyone else? Let's assume that Trump has some fun holes with at least a bit of architectural interest here and there (never mind the waterfalls), so it's not just utterly stupid with a good view. So is the setting, or the perceived conditioning advantage, or the more glitzy style of the place (and I mean the design of the course, not the ritzy clubhouse) just going to cause most people to prefer a course like that? Even a more experienced rater-type player?

[Adam Clayman]

Ross, Anyone who says they speak for groups of others should be cryt doon.

The answer to your question lies in the individual. Some are easily influenced by superfluous B.S. and others are not.

[Doug Ralston]

Adam, the problem may be in what each individual sees as 'superfluous'. I personally like a course that makes me laugh, that challenges me, and that IS a beautiful place to spend my time. The golfing qualities of the course are likely lost on me anyway. I want a joyful experience.

Doug

[Ross Waldorf]

Adam,

Yep, that certainly makes sense. I suppose I'm trying to get at a larger point, rather than rehash a debate about people that don't "get it" with a course like Rustic, or Wild Horse (which I only know about through this site).

For example, I tend to like designs that make me think, but most importantly, that have a really high fun factor. Keeps me interested. The stuff that I've encountered at Rustic over the last 7 years has never gotten boring. I just love the place.

But -- if you like terrain with more obvious contour, as in elevated tee shots, or fairways that roll up or down or across hills, let's say, then Rustic might seem a bit tame (I'm talking in big generalities here, I mean 16 drops a TON from tee to green, so it's not like the place is anything like flat). Or if you are a fan of carries over water, same thing.

I suppose where I'm really going with this is that Rustic is a hard course to really get with limited play, and a lot of the things that seem subtle, or might escape a player with one or two plays, become much bolder and more obvious as you get familiar with the place. It's a sensational golf course to play over and over.

Now if you compare that with a course like, say, Bethpage Black (which I have played quite a few times) the contrast is an interesting one. Bethpage is just a "wow" experience right off the bat, and what makes it so certainly isn't superfluous -- the place is just absolutely top notch from pretty much any perspective. But it is obviously bold -- in style, in size, in difficulty. It makes a great first impression. Perhaps a course like that is a better comparison for the point I'm try to make -- pardon me for the run-on thinking.

So for the less architecturally-observant player (but one who is still not necessarily susceptible to superfluous B.S.) to dish out the ratings kudos , does a course just have to be bolder and more plainly impressive than Rustic might seem to be on first glance? And if so, how much does that influence the way contemporary architects think about the courses they design? Thanks in advance for any commentary on the subject.

[Andy Troeger]

Ross, Anyone who says they speak for groups of others should be cryt doon.

The answer to your question lies in the individual. Some are easily influenced by superfluous B.S. and others are not.

I'm with Doug here--some people's "superfluous B.S" is exactly what is considered "inspiring" by others. Everyone has their right to look for different things when enjoying a golf course.

[Adam Clayman]

Ross, It's a matter of supplying what have become known to me as core principles. These fundamentals, when present, create the interest and the fun.
 Waterfalls, who's locker you're next to, who you got paired with, just how well the head pro strokes your ego, or who owns the course, are the types of superfluous BS I was referring to. Excellent conditioning could also qualify, if it's on an uninspired design that blows the skirt up of masses or those less likely to care if they are being marketed to versus golfing on an exceptional design.

[Damon Groves]

Ross, Anyone who says they speak for groups of others should be cryt doon.

The answer to your question lies in the individual. Some are easily influenced by superfluous B.S. and others are not.

I'm with Doug here--some people's "superfluous B.S" is exactly what is considered "inspiring" by others. Everyone has their right to look for different things when enjoying a golf course.

Sadly, many golfers and rates for Golf Digest are inspired by the BS stuff and think a course like Trump Natl LA is a great course. I am not one and think there is no comparison between Trump and Rustic from the architectural side of things as well as others but you will always have people that like the waterfall BS and we just have to put up with them. They are the same people that think Trump is a classy guy when in reality he is a self promoting blowhard with as much class as my 375 brother who shows up to my Dad's country club in a Hawaiian shirt, huge shorts, and white golf shoes with black socks. Nothing but polish on him.

[Andy Troeger]

Adam,
I think your comment about core principles is a good one--the thing is that to a point I think even those of us that profess to be interested in architecture have differences in their personal "core principles." Its not one-size-fits-all, in my opinion at least.  At the same time I can see a little more about where you are going with the "BS" stuff. I'm sure those things probably influence the ratings more than I'd like to admit.

[Adam Clayman]

Andy, I disagree about there being personal core principles. The ones I'm referring to appear to be inherent in the design and construction of many great golf courses. Regardless of era. Sure, there are different shades of grey, but when a course obviously follows the wrong model, or lacks any intelligence behind the placement of features, a  personal belief won't stand the test to defend it as being quality. The Wolf creek discussions are to point. Matt pigeonholes anyone who doesn't like it as a golden age stuck in the mud. He is in err.

i.e. The one hole at Wolf Creek that was closest to having CP's (like the freedom and the randomness of natures of influence) is being changed because the lowest common denominator doesn't like it. It was the first par three, either the second or third hole, with the semi blind volcano like green. Go figure?

[Andy Troeger]

Adam,
Just going to agree to disagree on this one--most of your post is so vague that its hard to comment. I care if a course is fun to play, however its designed, much more than if it has "the freedom and randomness of natures of influence." I do think there are core principles that make a course fun, and I would guess some of them overlap with your core principles, but I'll take a wild guess and assume some differ too.

[Matt_Ward]

I always chuckle at such wonderful terms as "core principles" because often times it's definition can be as wide as the Grand Canyon.

Andy's right on target -- "core principles" become an exercise in which people often times see the "one true way" in being the only "acceptable" version of what golf design must be.

I don't doubt extra items -- non design related aspects -- are often thrown into the bowl. Some of these have already been expressed -- but there are facilities that cannot be created with a "classical school of thought" premise 100% of the time. A golf course in the southeast portion of Nevada will always be manufactured to be a golf course. Wolf Creek has its weaknesses but the sum total does provide a wonderful diversion that is far from boring.

[Dan Herrmann]

Don't forget the price-quality ratio.

I'd play any of the Bandon courses any time for >$200.

But I'd only play Bulle Rock in Maryland once every three years for its $150 green fee.

And Ron Pritchard's Presidential Course at Hickory Valley is a king in this thought process - $38 to walk on the weeknds and a lot of fun with some very nice design.

[Sean_A]

Don't forget the price-quality ratio.

I'd play any of the Bandon courses any time for >$200.

But I'd only play Bulle Rock in Maryland once every three years for its $150 green fee.

And Ron Pritchard's Presidential Course at Hickory Valley is a king in this thought process - $38 to walk on the weeknds and a lot of fun with some very nice design.

Dan

I am with you and with Matt - sort of.  Because there are so many different ways to skin a cat, I don't really think there is a shit load of difference in design quality when we are discussing the Best Of courses.  For sure there is some and for sure it is subjective, but many more times than not, these high end places are going to struggle to offer any sort of decent value (and there is where Matt would depart from me).  Which of course means we generally get to see less of these courses.  Its a vicious circle.  Guys like Matt are saying multiple plays are necessary to give a decent rating, but then guys like Matt are subed in some way.  So of course, they generally don't care about the cost.  For my tastes, I am much more happy to hear about the courses which are a good value and still good quality considering the price.  Otherwise, what is the point of these annual rankings?  They barely change from year to year - we already know which courses the experts think are best - now what are the courses which deliver value and quality?  That isn't to say that the Pinehursts of the world can't make these lists, it still down to personal opinion about what good value is, but I bet I would find out a lot more about interesting courses that would suit me just fine.  Like I said before, why do we need an annual rehash of the same 90 courses with a 10% interchange?  Stupid really.

Ciao

[Dan Herrmann]

Sean - Ding! Ding! Ding!

[Matt_Ward]

Gents:

The issue with the ratings is that public courses are grouped in some sort of huge grouping with the likes of Pebble Beach, Pinehurst #2 , Whistling Straits -- charging an arm and leg to play them. You then have courses which are equally fascinating in their own right like Black Mesa, Wild Horse, etc, etc, which are favorites here and elsewhere but generally don't draw the big time news flow that the others I just mentioned do.

Sean: I do care about the costs side of things because it where the sheer bulk of people can really experience some sort of quality golf design without taking out a second mortgage to do it.

More info on this front would be a real plus for a fuller range of people. I don't doubt the greatness of PB, Pinehurst #2 and a number of the other top tier expensive layouts but getting info on the side of things you mentioned would be even more helpful and certainly more appreciated.

[Adam Clayman]

That explains a lot.  Back before the quality of this DG was altered core principles were the link between the oldest courses and the newest. Quality withstanding. You have every right to insult and belittle me but in truth these CPs are not mine. They belong to the intellectually honest. You know those who know health care can, and, should never be a right.

[Matt_Ward]

Ross:

Experienced eyes can see beyond all the window-dressing. Unfortunately, I see so much of the Digest listing as being nothing more than a poll from people who likely see the trappings rather than the architectural integrity and overall depth.

An experienced rater should be able to weed out the irrelevant and see what lies at the core of the architecture.

The omission of a Rustic Canyon and Wild Horse are two glaring examples.

Conditioning, at least for me, is a secondary item for concern and I think most experienced reviewers understand the context for where it should be placed when looking at any course(s).

Sean:

Lederach is indeed a fine layout and it's one that has helped raise the profile of the woeful Pennsy public golf course scene.

However ...

I don't see the course rising to the level of national prominence. That's not a slap at the course or the architecture there -- it's just that the bar for public golf -- among the ones I've played -- is a bit higher. Plenty of middle of America golf courses get so little fanfare because of their somewhat remote location or because the architect doing the course is not high on the star charts.

Such a situation clearly plays out when you see the same deep pocket places get the attention as the recent Digest ratings proved.

[Sean_A]

Sean:

Lederach is indeed a fine layout and it's one that has helped raise the profile of the woeful Pennsy public golf course scene.

However ...

I don't see the course rising to the level of national prominence. That's not a slap at the course or the architecture there -- it's just that the bar for public golf -- among the ones I've played -- is a bit higher. Plenty of middle of America golf courses get so little fanfare because of their somewhat remote location or because the architect doing the course is not high on the star charts.

Such a situation clearly plays out when you see the same deep pocket places get the attention as the recent Digest ratings proved.

Matt

Its fair enough that you think Lederach doesn't quite make the grade.  I raised the issue in reference to Shepherd's Hollow and Tobacco Road.  I find it difficult to pick an obvious candidate for which is preferred let alone which is best.  However, I honestly don't know because I don't play many top publics.  That said, I am confident that we differ greatly in what we seek and admire.  That isn't to say one is right and the other wrong, only that our opinions differ in what we are looking for.  For instance, I probably the only reason why I wouldn't give Lederach a 1* is because of the walk - I don't like it even though I understand model.  It just so happens that I think this sort of model handicaps the quality of a course because I truly believe that walking is nearly an essential element of greatness.  I am sure there are exceptions to this "rule", but I haven't found one yet.

Ciao

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

The key in making definitive comments is how deep one's portfolio of courses is. If you spend very little time on the top public side it's E-Z to see whatever you do play as being stellar.

I like Lederach a lot and have said so a few times here. The course clearly raised the bar -- along with Morgan Hill -- on the woeful Pennsy public side of the design aisle. Credit clearly goes to Kelly Blake Moran for that development.

However ...

Being among the best in Pennsy is an entirely different level when you stack it up against the best in the USA.

In regards to the elements you prefer -- if you think the walking aspect for Lederach is a tough one than I urge you to skip playing Bethpage Black and a host of other such courses. The walk with those is far more demanding than the Moran layout in Harleysville.

[Sean_A]

Sean:

The key in making definitive comments is how deep one's portfolio of courses is. If you spend very little time on the top public side it's E-Z to see whatever you do play as being stellar.

I like Lederach a lot and have said so a few times here. The course clearly raised the bar -- along with Morgan Hill -- on the woeful Pennsy public side of the design aisle. Credit clearly goes to Kelly Blake Moran for that development.

However ...

Being among the best in Pennsy is an entirely different level when you stack it up against the best in the USA.

In regards to the elements you prefer -- if you think the walking aspect for Lederach is a tough one than I urge you to skip playing Bethpage Black and a host of other such courses. The walk with those is far more demanding than the Moran layout in Harleysville.

Matt

While I agree that having a certain number of courses under one's belt helps in making relative comparisons, I also think how one's opinions on what is and isn't good architecture were formed is equally important.  We could talk about architecture until the cows come home, but if I don't think hitting up and down mountains while riding a cart is particularily good design mainly because the terrain is poor and you do, there isn't much common ground.   

I don't mind a demanding walk if it makes sense for the course.  On example may be a hilly course.  It could be well routed and have excellent transitions from green to tee, but hilly terrain equals a more demanding walk - thats life.  What I don't like is poor transitions from green to tee because the terrain is TOO severe or because housing is an issue or because the cart is king.  A course like this will always get a strike against it in my book if this is the case and it doesn't matter to me if an archie did the best he could given the circumstances - only the final product matters.  I don't look at courses and ask if the archie acheived the potential for the site mainly because that would take even more work than to play a load of courses.  Very, very few people can pass a totally accurate judgement on this sort of thing outside of those in the profession.  Luckily, I don't really care about that aspect.  Like I said, I only care about the final product.  This is why I think its usually much better to concentrate on the architecture rather than the archie. 

So far as Lederach is concerned, I think it deserves to be in the discussion of Best Of if only because of the bunkering - not that this is all there is to raise an eyebrow.  I have not seen a modern course (and very few oldies) which can match Lederach for the placement of bunkers.  Kelly got the absolute maximum effect from a relatively small number of bunkers.  So much so that one would swear that the number is far higher.  Again, whether the course is good enough to be Best Of, I don't know and likely will never find out.  In the end it doesn't really matter because I am happy to give Lederach my business (and recommend it)and that is what its really all about.

Ciao   

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

A person needs a portfolio to serve as a reference point. Those with less courses will base their final outcomes on such a limited sampling size.

I don't doubt the qualities of Lederach -- on the Pennsy side especially for public courses. But, when you take that standing and extrapolate a national position that's a far different level and needs some serious depth to throw forward.

In regards to your preferences for walking I can understand that, however, I don't throw under the bus those courses that had land sites which cart usage is part of the package when playing there. My only qualifier is that such cart usage is not the ESSENCE of what it takes to play golf there.

No doubt you are right to extol the bunkering aspect of Lederach but the sheer totality of any course goes far beyond that dimension. Your comments were meant on a national standing of courses -- that is what this thread was about.

[Eric_Terhorst]

Sean:

A person needs a portfolio to serve as a reference point. Those with less courses will base their final outcomes on such a limited sampling size.

Matt,  memory fails--how many courses have you seen in England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and Northern Ireland?   How many of Harry Colt's--to pick one well-thought-of-around-here-ODG--designs have you seen? 

You like to knock the "high holy priests" of the Classics, but it's hard to disagree with your point that a person needs a portfolio to serve as a reference point, and I'm just curious about yours.  Thanks!

[Sean_A]

...I don't throw under the bus those courses that had land sites which cart usage is part of the package when playing there. My only qualifier is that such cart usage is not the ESSENCE of what it takes to play golf there.

Matt

"Throw under the bus" is an extreme description of my what I wrote.  Lets just say, that if a course isn't designed for walking for whatever reason (I don't consider a 6 mile hike designed for walking) then it will have to be one hell of a course for me to rate it highly. 

Ciao   

[Matt_Ward]

Eric T:

I've been overseas for less than my total time here in the States but I have had the opportunity to have played the main suspects that often engender high praise here and elsewhere. I respect greatly the contacts I have made in Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales for the invaluable info they have provided on where to play. Many of them have done a fantastic job in educating me about such courses when making travel plans. I have also come to believe that "across the pond" courses do receive a spike from American visitors who see such courses as the holy grail. While true in cerain particular instances that cannot be automatically applied in all the cases though.

Among Colt's courses I've played my personal favorite is Portrush / Dunluce. I loved the place but I can't stand how narrow they play the fairways and then have the audacity to have hay-like rough / gorse sitting just a few feet from where the fairways are. It amazes me how courses in the States are subject to rightful ridicule when doing this but the favored sacred cows across the pond are not. The architecture from Colt was well done and doesn't need the element of heavy rough to bolster the design in my mind.

Another quick example of a solid Colt design is his work at Royal Porthcawl in Wales. Does get mentioned from time to time but otherwise flies considerably lower on the radar screen than it should in my mind. Revisions were certainly made over the years but the overall routing and diversity of holes makes for a grand time.

Eric, you missed my point completely on the "high holy priests." It was written in regards to the people who see "classic" golf as the only "one true way" in which design can be brought forward. There are those here on this site who see classic designed golf -- generally courses from the 1920's and even earlier -- as the base line by which all golf must spring from in order to receive high marks. While I respect such efforts I don't see the need or desire to be so dogmatic about it or to believe that modern golf design when done well is so far below that standard.

Last point -- Eric, I love the game no less than anyone on this site. If I hear of a place that is really causing excitement you can be sure I've either played it or it's high on my radar screen to visit at some time.

Sean:

That's exactly what you implied -- you didn't use the verbiage I placed upon it -- but the sum total of your remarks is exactly that.

You also saluted Lederach for national consideration. I too enjoyed the course but simply offered my opinion on where it might fare when applied to a national stage.

[Sean_A]

Sean:

That's exactly what you implied -- you didn't use the verbiage I placed upon it -- but the sum total of your remarks is exactly that.

Matt

Hmmm, so if I summarized your beliefs about cart/mountain golf as you give them a free pass on the walking issue is that accurate? 

As I stated before, I think we look for different things in golf design.  Its not a question of right or wrong - just a difference. 

Finally, when are you going to produce your own list of the 100 Best of the USA and say a 50 Best of the World?  I would have a much better idea of what you espouse if you just got down to brass tacks.  I know you have the list - just toss it out.  Its possible that a thread like the Metro NYC could come of it.

Ciao   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()