Is there a common thread when underwhelmed by greatness?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Bill,
Back at post #58 I explained to Mike that Casper got the idea for playing the hole from watching Hogan do his preparations for a tournament in San Diego.  Casper said that he watched Hogan check out every angle to the various positions on the green and it was this tactic, i.e., the total interface with and the immersion in the architecture that prompted him to play it that way.

I had no luck convincing him either. 

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,
Back at post #58 I explained to Mike that Casper got the idea for playing the hole from watching Hogan do his preparations for a tournament in San Diego.  Casper said that he watched Hogan check out every angle to the various positions on the green and it was this tactic, i.e., the total interface with and the immersion in the architecture that prompted him to play it that way.

I had no luck convincing him either. 

Mike's saying Casper's play means it was bad architecture.  I'm not.

[Adam Clayman]

Bill,

   I can't think of a better way to judge great architecture than when it gets an accomplished player to play away from the hole. What is architecture for if it doesn't effectively tempt players into hitting a shot with a small chance of success?

   I would say Casper's course management was good and the architecture of the hole was bad.

Mayday, This is off the charts wrong. It's great because it tempts and it's great because there's better ways to tplay the hole than the small percentage. This appears to be an aerial assault mindset embedded too deep to extricate.

Mike, I hope I'm coming off as either nice or stupid. But it does appear that you have this strict notion of what greatness is. I'd vote against that. (inside joke don't bother trying to figure it's meaning)

BTW, Wasn't it Casper who also use to putt down the walking path on the 7th at Pebble?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Would you say that good architecture on a par three , at a minimum, requires players to go for the green?


Not at all.
You fail to properly context Casper's play.
He was competing in a MEDAL play tournament.
Those familiar with the hole know how easy it is to make a double bogey or worse.
By playing short, and chipping up, at the worst, Casper was going to make a bogey, and with his exceptional chipping and putting skills, most likely a par.

A similar decision has to be made just three holes later, on the par 4 6th, a very short par 4.
Do you go for the green with driver, or lay back with 3-wood, 4-wood, 2-iron, 3-iron, 4-iron, or 5-iron ?

The decision is influenced by a number of factors, including the desire NOT to make double bogey or worse

If a competing golfer opts for minimizing his risk of making a big number, why is that bad architecture, no matter what par the hole may be ?

If an accomplished player in a major championship sees no risk/reward benefit to going for a par three green I see that as bad architecture.

He did see it and understand it, as do I and many others.
It's you that doesn't see it and understand it because you're myopically focused on making a par 3, completely losing sight of the likely probability that he could make 5 or worse. 

He couldn't win the 1959 Open on that hole, but, he COULD LOSE THE 1959 OPEN ON THAT HOLE, and that's what you fail to see.

It would seem as though you don't understand medal play golf.

 I'm upset that you only deigned to give me a one word answer.

I was pressed for time

[Matt Day]

Two years ago I was on a tour of golf courses with some Aussie supers and one of the tour stops was Pinehurst.

We only walked it so that would have had an impact but many of the group were underwhelmed by number 2 from what was on offer from the tee. I think we had built our expectation levels to such a high level that it was unrealistic, based on the exploits we had seen on tv of Payne and Campbell.

Having said that I personally would have liked to spend more time taking in the whole Pinehurst experience as we only really scratched the surface.

The flip side of that was that the day before we had a half a day to spare and we ended up at Tobacco Road. That was a highlight for me, totally unknown to  nearly all of the group yet we walked around in amazement.

[mike_malone]

 Pat,

   It certaintly is true that one approaches architecture differently in medal play than match play. All I'm saying is that I believe the architecture is less effective when the player chooses to not go for a green on a par three. This is not criminal just not at the level of a great course.

[mike_malone]

 So, I would say after all of these comments that the common thread is that the advertised great course fails to meet our own expectations for greatness.

[Joe Hancock]

So, I would say after all of these comments that the common thread is that the advertised great course fails to meet our own expectations for greatness.

Mike,

I would say that "a" common thread is as you stated.

Ed Getka hasn't chimed in. Ed has stated many times that he has, over the years, learned who to trust for recommendations based on shared preferences. Sometimes we are told how great a place is, but it comes from someone with a different set of criteria. I think the Ed Getka rule reduces the possibility of a letdown.

Joe

[Sean_A]

Pat,

   It certaintly is true that one approaches architecture differently in medal play than match play. All I'm saying is that I believe the architecture is less effective when the player chooses to not go for a green on a par three. This is not criminal just not at the level of a great course.

Mayday

I am not sure I understand this.  I can understand employing different strategies between medal and match, but I don't see how the architecture is approached differently.  Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but I don't really see how archies can design for one type of game or another.  The architecture just is.  Its golfers' abilities which make some courses more desirable for one type of game or another.  That said, from my perspective, I never draw any distinctions between a good match or medal course.  I either like courses or I don't.  If I like them, the courses are fine for any type of game.  If I don't like them, the courses are still fine for any type of game, its just that I am not interested in playing the course regardless.

You seem to place a lot of stock into what Casper did at that tourney.  Why?  I am often faced with shots I don't care for and go for it anyway - what have I got to lose?  Its very different for a pro playing for money, titles and fame.  I think all courses need that shot or two which most players don't like.  Controversy is good for a course if it is well measured. 

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

   It certaintly is true that one approaches architecture differently in medal play than match play. All I'm saying is that I believe the architecture is less effective when the player chooses to not go for a green on a par three. This is not criminal just not at the level of a great course.

With today's long driving golfers, do you feel the same way about drivable par 4's ?

What about easily reachable (in 2) par 5's ?

Are these holes architecturally defficient because a PGA Tour player in a Major Medal Play competition elects NOT to go for them ?

[mike_malone]

 Sean,

    I interact with the architecure differently when my opponent is right there and I can see what he is doing or where I stand in the match. This affects how I deal with the challenges presented by the designer. In medal play the score is for the whole 18 not hole by hole so a different relationship with the architecture takes place. I can imagine Casper's choice in medal play. But I still say on a par three this is not a reasonable option if the hole is designed well.

   So it isn't the archie it's the player that changes.

[mike_malone]

 Pat,

   no

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
You've staked out a position here that is mostly indefensible. It might have some merit if, and it's a big if, a reasonable segment of the field also chose the lay-up option because they felt the challenge presented by the hole was either overwhelmingly hard or just plain stupid architecture.
That was not the case, there is not one person in any account of the story that I can find who could understand why the heck Casper was laying-up on that hole, and no one else followed his lead.
 
I applaud your determination, but occasionally we find a 'bad apple' in our cache of beliefs. It's better to be rid of it before it taints the rest of the bunch. 

Merry Christmas

[mike_malone]

 Casper's tactic is a metaphor for my feelings about WFW. Metaphors break down when subjected to need for specific arguments. My most specific argument for WFW being just a very good course lies in the lack of variety and interest for the drives early in the round.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

    I interact with the architecure differently when my opponent is right there and I can see what he is doing or where I stand in the match. This affects how I deal with the challenges presented by the designer. In medal play the score is for the whole 18 not hole by hole so a different relationship with the architecture takes place. I can imagine Casper's choice in medal play. But I still say on a par three this is not a reasonable option if the hole is designed well.

   So it isn't the archie it's the player that changes.

Mayday, yes, I seem to be in the minority in not caring if a course is best for medal or match and what that means for the architecture.  To me, I like, or I don't.  Which game I play to make this decision is irrelevant.  I can't imagine thinking a course is great for medal, but only mediocre for match.  This sort of thinking is alien to me. 

So far as Billy goes, I would take the opposite view as you.  To me the fact that a guy can envision not going for the green of a par 3 as a better play speaks volumes the architecture - especially if a pro does this.  Why?  Because Casper was capable off pulling off the tee shot in question.  When it is dubious architecture is when an option is not left available for the guy who can't hit the required shot. 

Ciao

[Jim_Kennedy]

Casper's tactic is a metaphor for my feelings about WFW. Metaphors break down when subjected to need for specific arguments. My most specific argument for WFW being just a very good course lies in the lack of variety and interest for the drives early in the round.

Mike,
I'm driving around in western Massachusetts looking for an old course that I had wanted to see, but I forgot to bring the directions with me, so I stop at a roadside farm stand to see if they know where it is. I ask the two young women standing there but they don't know, then one of them turns her head and yell's out a name. A woman comes out of a doorway down at the other end of the building and starts walking towards our little knot. She looks tall and big boned, like Rubens preferred 'em, and she's fighting her clothes a bit. I'm not overwhelmed.
When she stops a few feet in front of me I get a look at her eyes and I am instantly mesmerized by them. Never one to be nonplussed in the company of women, I find that I am either stepping on my tongue or it is tied up in a huge knot and has lodged itself in my throat. It will not work well.
My ears are still OK though, and I can hear the giggles from the two young ladies when I finally mutter something that vaguely sounds like a question. The Eyes smile back at me and ask for a repeat. Clearly, she has seen this reaction before. I finally come to my senses and manage to say the name of the golf course, and she gives me perfect directions in return..........

OK, there's my metaphor. Sometimes your underwhelmed by what you see at first but by the time you're done you realize that what initially appeared as deficiencies are more than compensated for by the total package, turning the simply good into the much rarer great. 

Happy New Year.

[JC Jones]

The common thread is quite simple, subjectivity.  We constantly feel the need to objectify things in our modern society; a relevant example are the golf course rankings by various publications.  But the truth is, we can't objectify everything and I think personal taste is one of those things. 

Its not an issue of being underwhelmed by greatness, its an issue of just not liking the golf course as much as someone else does.  They think it is great, you don't.  That doesn't mean you are underwhelmed by greatness because the course is not great, to you.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying Sand Hills is a better course than Pine Valley or that Winged Foot West is not in your top 100 courses.  You are capable of determining what you like and dislike and that determination is subjectively yours.

Now, what drives your subjective likes and dislikes is an entirely different discussion but if you are asking what the common thread is, it is the subjective human.

I am reposting this because apparently none of you read it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

 Pat,

no.



Then why should the 3rd hole at WFW be deemed architecturally flawed because one golfer, out of thousands that have played in big tournaments at WFW over the last 50+plus years, decided to lay up in order to remove a big number from his score in a medal play competition ?

How do you feel about the hole where Lon Hinkle (sp?) played in unusual fashion at Inverness

[mike_malone]

 Pat,

   I have never played Inverness so I can't comment on Hinkle. But, I have played many courses where one can use the wrong fairway. In those instances where the architect designed the approach to handle this possibility I have deemed that good architecture.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

   I have never played Inverness so I can't comment on Hinkle. But, I have played many courses where one can use the wrong fairway. In those instances where the architect designed the approach to handle this possibility I have deemed that good architecture.

Mayday,

On what holes, on what courses did the architect design the approach to handle coming into the green from another fairway ?

[Matt_Ward]

Bill McBride:

You could not say it better, "4 for 4 pars is a testament more to his course management that anything to do with the architecture."

So much of what is tied to Winged Foot / West is the unassailable reality that many people don't have the goods to handle such a course so instead of admitting as much -- they fall back and say they were "underwhelmed" -- when in reality they were overwhelmed.

Mike Malone:

Help me to understand how the architecture of the 3rd at WF/W is "bad." Maybe you might have heard about how Hogan was famous for saying that if his ball landed anywhere near the left side of the green at #11 at ANGC that he missed the shot -- that playing away from the green was much preferred because he could then eliminate the dreaded six possibility and still give him a good shot at making a par.

Mike, you proclaim that no such course can be considered great when it has such "glaring weaknesses." Under that line of thinking - the same would then apply to ANGC and quite frankly plenty of other courses too for that matter.

I'ld also like to know where you would place WF/W among the courses you have played in the metro NYC area? What courses in this area do you see ahead of it.

Mike, plenty of people dismiss WF/W dismiss the layout because they get their ass kicked when playing it. That's why so many readily embrace junior league versions of the course with QR and Fenway.

Mike, you also mention the lack of interest from the drives early on -- you must have played a far different hole than ones such as the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, etc, etc. They each require a high degree of both placement and power to then approach the target in question.

Matt Day:

Can fully appreciate your group's lack of awe with #2 simply from walking the course. Unfortunately, golf is not just about walking alone it's about seeing and playing golf shots and then seeing what comes from that when such shots hit the ground. #2 will never be the eye-popping wonder of say a Cypress Point or Shinnecock Hills. The land is subdued and frankly Ross was smart enough not to get carried away and create the theme park design in that unique setting.

[mike_malone]

 Pat,

   I grew up playing a course where going down the other fairway was reasonable because it was much shorter. Hpwever, the approach was over some trees and bunkers guarded that side. So, theire was a risk/reward to it. There are many other examples, in fact, practically every  place where holes are parallel.

   Matt,

  All I'm saying about #3 WFW is that it isn't a great hole because the width of the green and the flanking bunkers  for a par three of that distance can get one to see the option of laying up as viable. I don't see this as optimum.


     As I said, I believe that the relative flatness of the early holes dims the brightness of the course. The angles people speak of come from the maintenance not the terrain. I guess I'm used to the varied terrain around Philly. Even our modest poblic courses have more interest off the tee.

      I have only played Plainfield , BPB, and NGLA. I would place WFW behind Plainfield and NGLA for enjoyment of the architecture.

  As to # 11 ANGC, I haven't played it but Hogan's statement would make me think about the limited strategy on that approach because of the pond. Maybe it is a weak hole


 

[JESII]

  All I'm saying about #3 WFW is that it isn't a great hole because the width of the green and the flanking bunkers  for a par three of that distance can get one to see the option of laying up as viable. I don't see this as optimum.


 

Mike,

How about #5 at Pine Valley with respect to the criteria above?

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

Very, very few courses have 18 bulletproof holes -- WF/W doesn't but it comes very close in my mind.

The 3rd is a tough hole because of the narrow spacing you mentioned. Casper sized up the situation and simply opted to play short and attempt to get up'n down with each of his four attempts. It worked for him. Mike, the same can be said for those who decide to go for the lay-up at CP's 16th hole. It's the same situation and no one says the 16th at CP is a weak hole if a player goes that route.

Mike, let me say this -- the "relative flatness" of the early holes only serves to highlight the design elements that Tillie provided. It's no less the case when a director opts for black and white instead of color. With black and white you are free of the distractions that color can provide -- you then can fully concentrate on the acting. WF/W doesn't have the kind of rolling terrain seen with other Westchester County courses. If you played them -- notably Westchester CC you would then be playing something akin to what you are used to.

Mike, what makes WF/W so great is that it succeeds marvelously INSPITE of the land itself -- which runs counter what one normally gets. The West does have movement off the tee - but it doesn't have the dramatic flair you see with other courses in and around Westchester and even the ones you see in the Phila area.

Mike, let me say this again -- many don't like WF/Wnbecause the  course just beats them up and therefore opt for other similar but junior-sizesd versions like QR and Fenway.
     

[mike_malone]

 Jim ,

   I think # 5 at Pine Valley is easier to run up in front than #14 at Rolling Green.


    Matt,

     I never let how I play affect my view of a course. I recall that I putted exceptionally well that day and was told the greens were fast. I was October. The rough was tough because it was the fall before the Open.