Damn the Torpedoes

[Mike Leveille]

In Matthew Mollica's thread on Lost Farm (Pictorial), he was kind enough to post some photos of what appears to be an amazing new golf course at Lost Farm.  In doing so, he went on to state that he was aiming not to spoil the mystique of each person's first visit to Lost Farm, which was the prompt for this thread.

At the outset, let me say thanks to Matthew for posting these photos for all of our enjoyment.  That said, I'd be interested to know what some of you feel is the best way to approach your first visit to a highly anticipated course.  Do you like to see as many photos and read as much is possible about the course, or do you like to go in "blind" so you form your own impressions and have a bit of a wow factor when stepping up to the tee on a new and amazing hole?

I know that, personally, I prefer the latter approach, as on a number of occasions I have studied a course online before playing it for the first time, only to feel slightly let down when I actually played the course.  That said, I rarely have the willpower to pass over these threads with photos of new courses, like Lost Farm, as they are so compelling.

I always ran into the same issue when growing up with new album (yes, I'm old) releases from my favorite rock bands.  While I enjoyed hearing the pre-release of a track or two on the radio, there was something special about buying a great album, sound unheard, from one of your favorite bands, and taking it home for a listen on your stereo.  I still remember the day when I bought Tom Petty's Damn the Torpedoes, without having heard any of the tracks on the radio, and just about wore out the vinyl the first day playing it over and over.  It absolutely blew me away (and still does to this day), and I think part of the reason why is that I had not heard sneak previews of any of the songs on the album.

I'm not at all suggesting that people stop posting these photos, as I think they are of great value, I'm just curious as to what approach others prefer when visiting a course of potentially significant GCA interest for the first time. 

[Harvey Dickens]

I want to know everything I can and see every picture possible. It just heightens the anticipation for me. 

[Mac Plumart]

If I am going to play a great course for the first time, I study it like crazy before I play it.  Odds are I am not going to be able to play it again and again at the drop of a hat, so I feel I need to make the most out of my limited experiences with it.

Perhaps the biggest reason for me doing this is based on my experience with Donald Ross courses and their subtlety.  I've found that I've missed a lot of these disguised nuances on my first play(s) and now if I am going to take the time and travel to play a real quality course, I don't want to overlook a key strategy decision or a subtle quirk due to my ignorance of the course.  

[Tony_Chapman]

Mike -- That's a hell of a post right there. I read all sorts of stuff on here about the courses I know I'll never see (Pine Valley, Merion, NGLA, you know the drill), but the stuff I have a chance on I tend to say away from until after I go (like Sand Hills and Ballyneal). I followed the threads and profiles a little bit, but really soak it up when I get back. But, I love this place and seeing all the pictures, that's for sure.

[Adam Clayman]

Mike, You appear to be describing the difference between an intellectual approach, studying it ahead of time, and, an emotional one, by feeling the course (or album) fresh. It's completely individualistic. I'm a feeler. All I really want to know, is how to get there. Sure, a few more facts won't cloud my judgement, but, there's too much minutia to learn everything you can about a great course. If I did, I suspect I'd be letting my intellectual side, block the emotional side from being able to feel it.

[Peter Pallotta]

Adam - good post, and I understand exactly what you mean. But in my one experience of a great course (Crystal Downs) I found myself reading everything I could about it beforehand, and trying to find as many pictures as I could. Partly I wanted to get in the mood; partly I wanted to extend the experience; but mostly, I didn't want any surprises when I got there. Then I got there and found the course full of surprises!!

Peter

[Mike Leveille]

Adam, I think your take is right on.  For me, if I am going to play a course of interest and will only be able to play one round, I would probably prefer to know as much as possible so I do not miss anything.  On the other hand, if I will have the opportunity to play multiple rounds on the same course, I would prefer to go in blind and learn the course myself rather than have someone else's photos or narratives tell me in advance what I am or am not supposed to like.  That said, I find the photos and threads on GCA.com too addictive to stick to my principles on many occasions.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

I've said it before many times here, and made a post on Matthew's thread to the same point, but I would prefer that he leave some things to be discovered later.

My reason is not an old album, but my trip to the UK in 1982-83.  Some of the biggest wow! moments for me on that trip were seeing a place like Cruden Bay totally blind, having only ever seen one photo of the course beforehand; or St. Enodoc and Pennard, which I had never seen any pictures of at all.  Those were some of the most exciting days I've ever spent on a golf course, and I sure haven't experienced anything similar lately.  But I'm certainly NOT going back to Matthew's thread any more, in the hope that when I get back to Barnbougle one of these days, there is a chance I will have that same sort of experience once more before I die.

As an architect, I feel even more strongly about it.  Just in the first ten or twenty posts on Matthew's thread, there was a lot of speculation about whether Lost Farms surpasses Barnbougle, just like there is all sorts of speculation about whether Old Macdonald is better than what's already in Bandon.  What I can tell you for certain, is that all of us as designers would prefer those decisions be made by people AFTER THEY HAVE PLAYED THE COURSE, instead of making up their minds on the internet before they have even arrived.

[Adam Clayman]

Peter, As Tony points out, one can't help but peruse the information available on this site. It really is amazing. And, as you pointed out, it really didn't do much, to prepare you for all of that greatness at CD. Probably because before you get there, there's no context. Just words of descriptions and opinion. On great courses there's so much that pictures and words can not and will never capture or convey.

Mike, It helps to have a faulty memory, or at least, moderation and balance in how much you desire to learn before hand. Heck, I've toured a few courses that I stopped at Nine, just so I could have some surprises, if and when I do come back to play the course.




  

[Steve Strasheim]

Thanks for the thread, it's got me remembering the old days before the Internet when I first started playing when traveling. It was an entirely different experience then having not studied the course for hours online and seen dozens of images with at least as many reviews.

Honestly, I think it was more exciting in the old days. It's sort of like discovering a gem on your own, instead of being a follower.

I can remember buying a golf magazine in London and deciding on St. Melion based on the ads in the back for golf vacations. Or, taking notes out of a Golf New Zealand book in an Auckland bookstore to find courses like Waireki to play. In those days, I would decide where to play after I arrived at a location. It was more of an adventure than these days where you can almost play the course on a computer before you even arrive.

[Mac Plumart]

Tom...

Just because someone listen to others thoughts and opinions and/or studies and reads about a course doesn't mean they have made up their mind before they play it.

I read a lot about Sawgrass, listened to many people rave about it, and I was PUMPED to get there and play it.  And after playing it, I am not interested in going back.  I didn't enjoy it.  It wasn't for me.  Now, I thought the holes were good, the shots thrilling, I scored well, I love Pete Dye...but the course was a little too tricked up for me.  17 is goofy...16 was great, 18 was great...but other holes just weren't my style.

Conversely, I studied up on Harbour Town, was hesitant to go due to negative comments made by people I know, but I LOVED it.  It is one of my favorite courses and I anxiously await going back to try to figure each holes  strategy out.  

So I think if you approach the research process an open mind and play the course while paying attention to your real emotions, you can get a real good personal assessment of a course and avoid a biased approach.

At least that is my take.

[John Moore II]

I can certainly agree with this. I just got to thinking about it. The first real top tier golf course I played was Eagle Point in Wilmington. To me, its still my gold standard for 'best' golf course. I was fairly stunned the whole way around. Same when I went to Golden Horseshoe and Mattaponi Springs. The wow factor was less pronounced at Pine Needles because I had walked nearly the entire course during the 2007 Women's Open. I think that would be true of playing places like TPC Sawgrass, Pebble Beach, or ANGC which we are able to see on TV quite a bit. Certainly, I think, it is more fun to play a golf course with very few preconceived notions of what you are getting in to. Makes it more of a surprise when something really extraordinary happens, like the uncanny view from the 16th tee at Golden Horseshoe looking down at the 16th green and seeing a sweeping view of the 17th hole in front of you.

[Tom_Doak]

Mac:

No, you don't necessarily make up your mind before playing the course by reading all about it, but you probably bias your perspective on it one way or another.  For example, most of the people who play Old Macdonald this year will already be biased in that they already have a favorite course at Bandon Dunes, and some of them will want to see that favorite vindicated.

The ridiculous part is that nowadays many people will walk away from a brand-new course feeling DISAPPOINTED somehow, which means they formed unrealistic expectations of the course before they ever saw it.


John:

Exactly.  By contast, I was disappointed when I saw Golden Horseshoe, because the par-3's there were lauded so highly in an old GOLF Magazine book I had read on the Best Courses You Can Play.  There was no way they could live up to my expectations, especially since, by then, I had seen places like Merion and Pine Valley where the par-3's blow away those on ANY course you can play.

[Chris DeNigris]

I'm in the max prior photo camp..it definitely whets the appetite. Also, as good as the photos are (and many are really good) they never quite capture the magic that you eventually feel.  Actually standing on the teebox and looking down the fairway, approaching each green from different angles than you've seen in 2D, inhaling the aromas...you can't get all that in a pic- even one of Aidan's...That experience can't be spoiled.

[Eric Smith]

I don't believe there is an absolute. 

This thread reminds me of the time leading up to to the release of Star Wars: Episode I.   There was an incredible spoiler site called supershadow.com where this guy had everything, well before the release of the movie and the book.  I was a slave to that site!!

It seemed the story was going to be well worth the wait...16 years!!  Unfortunately the movie never lived up to my expectations.  No way was that supershadow's fault.  Thank goodness he gave his readers a heads up on Jar Jar.  That would've been way too unfair to be blind sided by.

Bill McBride has shared his story of learning all he could about TOC before his first round there.  It seems that worked well for him.

[Peter Pallotta]

If human beings were able to refrain from our near constant judging and comparing and ranking of experiences and people, every moment on every course would be like the first dawning of a new day, no matter what we'd seen or read about it before hand. But it's a one in a million kind of person who seems able to curb those tendencies. And, of course, what in god's name would happen to Golf Digest if the rest of us managed it too?  

[John Moore II]

John:

Exactly.  By contast, I was disappointed when I saw Golden Horseshoe, because the par-3's there were lauded so highly in an old GOLF Magazine book I had read on the Best Courses You Can Play.  There was no way they could live up to my expectations, especially since, by then, I had seen places like Merion and Pine Valley where the par-3's blow away those on ANY course you can play.

I still think about those par 3's at Golden Horseshoe. I've said it a few times before, but I think that individually, they are each very good. But when taken together, they are less than outstanding because they are all so similar. Even with that being said, I still greatly enjoyed the course and thought it was very, very good. But I had not heard the par 3's were outstanding, except for from my playing partner that day. As a set, I don't think they are that good. Certainly where the sum of the whole is less than the individual parts.

[David_Tepper]

And I thought this thread was going to be about Tom Petty!

[jonathan_becker]

I am in the camp of wanting to know.  Although, one can go crazy constantly looking for new information.  

Once I had finally booked my first trip to Bandon (11/10), I wore out this website and many others looking for everything I could find.  Old Mac and PD could have pushed for a restraining order against me.  

My main reason for looking is that I don't necessarily prejudge what holes are great and what aren't based on photos, I'm just looking for the different types of playing options and the difficulty of the shots that I'm going to face.  Getting the ball in the hole is still a major priority for me.

On the contrary point, playing the Dunes Club in New Buffalo was the biggest surprise of my life for being blind (although, I played horrible on the first nine and +1 the second nine  ).  I had moved to Chicago in 2004 and soon after was invited to play.  All I knew was that it was 9 holes and that it was supposed to be sweet.  Well, it was exponentially more than a pleasant surprise and I remember saying to my buddy Larry after we played the first 9, "Hey Larry, are we dead?"  

[Sean_A]

For the really big name courses which I have always dreamed of playing I am not bothered if I see pix of it before or not.  I saw plenty before I ever saw pix of courses and I have seen a few after pix became the norm once joining this site.  I certainly wouldn't study the pix unless I am looking for something specific.  I don't think I saw many pix of Pinehurst #2, Kiawah (I didn't even know the 17th was a water signature hole!) or Merion, but enough to know the basic score.  Merion still blew me away because of how the entire course comes together.  To me, its the ultimate in the total being better than the parts.  The other two didn't make nearly the same impression, but some of that has nothing to do with the courses and everything to do with other details that have become important to me over the years.  Bottom line, a really good course should still make an impression even if your first experience of the course was tainted by pix.   

For the lesser greats (in my eyes), hell yes I wanna see pix.  The pix help me decide if I will ever bother giving the place a go.  There are many a well known course I have no desire to play because of pix I have seen.  Of course this sort of approach can backfire, but I have to use something to decide how to use a defined golf budget.  I am willing to take a flyer if in the area, but not so much if I have to travel specifically. 

So far as discovery like Tom D, it has been far and few between that took my breath away when I didn't know much or wasn't expecting it.  Pennard was certainly one of the courses and it doubly surprised me because I had been around the block and couldn't believe folks weren't talking about this course.  As some of you know, I joined the club at the turn of my second game there and have been a member since.  North Berwick, Ballybunion, Lahinch, Brora and Perranporth are most of the others.  My bigger unexpected "discovery" was how the game was played in then UK and how lean and mean the courses were.  My only experience of lean and mean previously had been on not terribly exciting courses.  It was astonishing to me to find lean and mean for world class courses and to realize that the L&M aspect was one of the big reasons they were world class.  It forever changed my thinking of what golf is about and how important the turf and the care of the turf is to creating the best golf courses.  Honestly, it was like someone switched on a light and I discovered an entirely new wing of my house.  That was a great feeling and I recall it really hitting home at Hoylake after coming back down from Scotland.  That must have been 1991, the same year I started playing the game again after a ten year hiatus.   

Ciao         

[Mark Bourgeois]

Why is it almost impossible to gaze directly at the Grand Canyon and see it for what it is-as one picks up a strange object from one's back yard and gazes directly at it? It is almost impossible because the Grand Canyon, the thing as it is, has been appropriated by the symbolic complex which has already been formed in the sightseer's mind. Seeing the canyon under approved circumstances is seeing the symbolic complex head on. The thing is no longer the thing as it confronted its discoverer; it is rather that which has already been formulated-by picture postcard, geography book, tourist folders, and the words Grand Canyon. As a result of this preformulation, the source of the sightseer's pleasure undergoes a shift. Where the wonder and delight of the Spaniard arose from his penetration of the thing itself, from a progressive discovery of depths, patterns, colors, shadows, etc., now the sightseer measures his satisfaction by the degree to which the canyon conforms to the preformed complex. If it does so, if it looks just like the postcard, he is pleased; he might even say, "Why it is every bit as beautiful as a picture postcard!" He feels he has not been cheated.

But if it does not conform, if the colors are somber, he will not be able to see it directly; he will only be conscious of the disparity between what it is and what it is supposed to be. He will say later that he was unlucky in not being there at the right time. The highest point, the term of the sightseer's satisfaction, is not the sovereign discovery of the thing before him; it is rather the measuring up of the thing to the criterion of the preformed symbolic complex.

Seeing the canyon is made even more difficult by what the sightseer does when the moment arrives, when sovereign knower confronts the thing to be known. Instead of looking at it, he photographs it. There is no confrontation at all. At the end of forty years of preformulation and with the Grand Canyon yawning at his feet, what does he do? He waives his right of seeing and knowing and records symbols for the next forty years. For him there is no present; there is only the past of what has been formulated and seen and the future of what has been formulated and not seen. The present is surrendered to the past and the future.

[Mike Leveille]

Mark:

Your Grand Canyon post articulates my thoughts much more eloquently than I could ever hope to do, whether it be with respect to natural wonders, golf courses, vacation spots, etc.  I have the same thought every time I go to some school performance for one of my daughters, as I look around at the hordes of parents recording the entire performance.  I understand the desire to record the moment for future memories, but it sure seems to take away from the enjoyment of the performance itself in the present.

Mike

[Mark Bourgeois]

Mike,

But the sightseer can recover the Grand Canyon in any number of ways, all sharing in common the stratagem of avoiding the approved confrontation of the tour and the Park Service.

It may be recovered by leaving the beaten track. The tourist leaves the tour, camps in the back country. He arises before dawn and approaches the South Rim through a wild terrain where there are no trails and no railed-in lookout points. In other words, he sees the canyon by avoiding all the facilities for seeing the canyon. If the benevolent Park Service hears about this fellow and thinks he has a good idea and places the following notice in the Bright Angel Lodge: Consult ranger for information on getting off the beaten track-the end result will only be the closing of another access to the canyon.

It may be recovered by a dialectical movement which brings one back to the beaten track but at a level above it. For example, after a lifetime of avoiding the beaten track and guided tours, a man may deliberately seek out the most beaten track of all, the most commonplace tour imaginable: he may visit the canyon by a Greyhound tour in the company of a party from Terre Haute-just as a man who has lived in New York all his life may visit the Statue of Liberty. The thing is recovered from familiarity by means of an exercise in familiarity. Our complex friend stands behind his fellow tourists at the Bright Angel Lodge and sees the canyon through them and their predicament, their picture taking and busy disregard. In a sense, he exploits his fellow tourists; he stands on their shoulders to see the canyon.

Such a man is far more advanced in the dialectic than the sightseer who is trying to get off the beaten track--getting up at dawn and approaching the canyon through the mesquite. This stratagem is, in fact, for our complex man the weariest, most beaten track of all.

It may be recovered as a consequence of a breakdown of the symbolic machinery by which the experts present the experience to the consumer. A family visits the canyon in the usual way. But shortly after their arrival, the park is closed by an outbreak of typhus in the south. They have the canyon to themselves. What do they mean when they tell the home folks of their good luck: "We had the whole place to ourselves"? How does one see the thing better when the others are absent? Is looking like sucking: the more lookers, the less there is to see? They could hardly answer, but by saying this they testify to a state of affairs which is considerably more complex than the simple statement of the schoolbook about the Spaniard who discovered the Canyon and the millions who followed him. It is a state in which there is a complex distribution of sovereignty, of zoning.

It may be recovered in a time of national disaster. The Bright Angel Lodge is converted into a rest home, a function that has nothing to do with the canyon a few yards away. A wounded man is brought in. He regains consciousness; there outside his window is the canyon.

The most extreme case of access by privilege conferred by disaster is the Huxleyan novel of the adventures of the surviving remnant after the great wars of the twentieth century. An expedition from Australia lands in Southern California and heads east. They stumble across the Bright Angel Lodge, now fallen into ruins. The trails are grown over, the guard rails fallen away, the dime telescope at Battleship Point rusted. But there is the canyon, exposed at last. Exposed by what? By the decay of those facilities which were designed to help the sightseer.

Mark

[jeffwarne]

Thanks for the thread, it's got me remembering the old days before the Internet when I first started playing when traveling. It was an entirely different experience then having not studied the course for hours online and seen dozens of images with at least as many reviews.

Honestly, I think it was more exciting in the old days. It's sort of like discovering a gem on your own, instead of being a follower.

I can remember buying a golf magazine in London and deciding on St. Melion based on the ads in the back for golf vacations. Or, taking notes out of a Golf New Zealand book in an Auckland bookstore to find courses like Waireki to play. In those days, I would decide where to play after I arrived at a location. It was more of an adventure than these days where you can almost play the course on a computer before you even arrive.

I don't see how buying an old golf magazine or finding an old book are any different than using the internet.
They just take longer.

Most people don't have the time for an "adventure" and certainly don' want to waste time at a total clunker because of a good ad.
I love how even the most obscure courses in the UK/Ireland have websites with wonderful pictures and visitors policies.
There are so many, you really don't have to worry about being overrun by tourists and there is still plenty of opportunity for adventure.
I don't study the pictures for strategy when playing the holes later, but rather to get an overall feel/look of the place.
We'd all love to go on multiple month long wandering adventures, but in the real world, having the internet allows one to adventure every night, and actually visit the ones that strike one's fancy in a logical sequence-leaving room for the occasional whimsical visit.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike -

Mark B is going to star in a re-make of "My Dinner with Andre".  He's gonna play Wallace Shawn, I'm gong to play the handsomer and more successful one, I forget his name.

The funny thing about Mark is that he actually really knows and understands golf course architecture! He just adds his epistimology and phenomenolgy here and there, mostly to show off.

"It may be recovered as a consequence of a breakdown of the symbolic machinery by which the experts present the experience to the consumer."

Yes, indeed. A hundred years worth of machinery in America, with this site amongst the latest iterations/add ons.  No wonder I'll never understand what Behr meant by permanent architecture - my thirst for knowledge has made me incapable of experiencing it. (The double edged sword, eh?)  Maybe, as much as some might hate to admit it, the freshest eyes of all are those of the 'average golfer'. Unfortunately, he doesn't say too much, and when he does we don't really listen; we pat him gently on the head like we would an eager but misguided child.

Peter