How important is breadth of experience?

[Peter Pallotta]

There are a lot of good posts/points here (and I think TE's post #9 is particularly strong) - and I won't argue with any of it.  But it is striking to me how deeply embedded in the realm of golf course architecture is the concept/practice of comparing and contrasting.  Maybe it has always been thus -- but it does seem to me a shame in some ways. To lessen, say, Plainfield, because it isn't Pine Valley; or Huntington Valley because it isn't Augusta -- especially given the countless thousands of hours of pleasure those courses have given their members for decades.  I understand that 'rankings' is not what this thread is suppossed to be about, but I think it's closer to this subject than many are recognizing.

Peter

[Mac Plumart]

Peter...

I think you make a good point.  And I think your idea of people comparing and contrasting isn't limited to golf courses.  Don't human beings do it (judge) with every thing?  Cars, women, houses, clothes, handicaps, etc. 

But I will add one more point, I think this madness does have some value.  And I think that value is finding better golf courses, perhaps at better prices. 

On this site, and perhaps everywhere, people love to talk about Pebble being over-rated.  Cypress is better than Pine Valley.  Etc.  But at the end of the day, all those courses are amazingly good.  So the value in those discussions is there, just not at a massively high level.  You mentioned Plainfield.  I gather that is an amazing course.  We can argue that it is under-rated like the others I mentioned and I would suspect it is.

But here is the deal, looking, analyzing, discussing, etc...can lead to some real finds.  Longshadow in my neck of the woods is the perfect example.  It is a truly high quality golf course and can be played for $50ish.  But hardly anyone knows about it in Atlanta.  They'll pay $250 to play Great Waters (which is right down the road from Longshadow).  They'll pay $100ish to play Cuscowilla, which again is right by Longshadow.  But they drive right by Longshadow.  They'll drive to Bears Best and pay $125ish to play, but haven't heard of Longshadow.  They are missing the boat, plain and simple.  And if people with "breadth of experience" say good things about it, perhaps others can enjoy it.

I am sure there are other gems out there that people are overlooking.  Our discussion and comparing and contrasting just might lead to a few more gems being enjoyed by others.

[TEPaul]

"Once I was with Mr. Dye and a golf writer and the golf writer asked Pete if he wasn't worried he could be missing a call from a potential client.  He responded that if the client really wanted him, they'd call again."


TomD:

Good one there and let me tell you another one from my father or whatever from years ago. Apparently when Pete was really ramping up into fame in the beginning some clients who didn't know him would call his house (or office) and get his mother on the phone. They would tell her they hoped he could do a course for them but that they hoped he wasn't too busy or too expensive to do the project and his mother would tell them something like----"Oh don't you worry about that, my Petey will do it for you and you don't need to think he will charge you very much."
 
 

[Peter Pallotta]

Mac - yup, again, you make good points. But again, I'd suggest that the very reason people may drive past Longshadow is the desire for a breadth of experience and/or to expand their horizons and/or play the best and/or compare and contrast.  That in some people's eyes (i.e. ours) their CHOICES are flawed, isn't the METHOD and INTENTION the same ones that spawn the question at the heart of this thread?

Peter

That question came out more harsh than I intended. As I say, I can see both sides of this - but those, for what their worth, are the ideas that come to mind for me.  

[Mac Plumart]

Peter...great point.  And you are correct.  I think the gist of what you are saying is that people will drive by Longshadow to pay $250 to play Great Waters because others know Great Waters, others know Nicklaus, and others know that Great Waters is a ranked course.  Their experience will be judged by others to have been superior to Longshadow, so they choose Great Waters, so others will think highly of them.

If this is your point, you are a deep thinker.  Good stuff.  

Actually Peter, I've read your post again and again and I think you might be saying what I've suggested...plus about three or four other things.  Nevertheless, I think they are great thoughts/ideas and excellent food for thought.

[TEPaul]

"But I will add one more point, I think this madness does have some value.  And I think that value is finding better golf courses, perhaps at better prices."


Mac:

Personally, I have always felt if one is really only interested in evaluating and analyzing the quality of golf course architecture stuff like "price" has virtually nothing to do with it. Some courses don't even contemplate such a thing as "price" because they are limited or private to non-members.

However, no matter who you are or where you come from if you are truly interested in the subject of golf course architecture, my experiences indicate anyone really does have a way of transcending those kinds of things and perceived limitations or obstacles but of course also provided one has some modicum of manners and etiquette and commonsense with the ethos of particular clubs and memberships which I'm afraid a few on here don't seem to have and to the unfortunate detriment of many.



I think a perfect example of this lack of manners, etiquette and commonsense involving the ethos of particular clubs and memberships is reflected in this recent remark from Tom Macwood to Brad Anderson on this website on another thread that is as follows:




"Quote from: Bradley Anderson on July 01, 2010, 09:26:12 PM
I'm going to play Merion this fall. 

And when I get out there I'm going to lay my hands on the ninth green and channel the ghost of all the guys who deserve attribution of what is there. I'll let you all know what I discover."


and the response from Tom MacWood:

"Its good to see your sucking up is finally paying dividends......." 

[Mac Plumart]

Tom...

I agree 100%.  But price for many people comes into play for whatever reason.  Some on limited budgets, need to play affordable golf.  While others on principle won't pay more than a certain amount for golf without complaining...a lot of the multi-millionaires I know are this way...oddly enough.

Regardless, price is a factor in our society for many people.  So if we are going to compare and contrast architecture, we can certainly throw in amount of architectural quality per dollar spent...if for nothing else than to add in an extra layer of "debate".

But again, if we are talking purely golf course architectural quality...price is irrelevant...and I agree with you and your comments on this topic 100%.



EDIT...I see you added a little to your post while I was typing.  No comment.   

[TEPaul]

"EDIT...I see you added a little to your post while I was typing.  No comment.   "



I can't say I blame you there, Mac. However, there is a ton of important stuff going on in this vein under the carpet, so to speak, and I think it is always worth the mention. If some, perhaps many, don't begin to pay attention to the potential problems, even if it has nothing whatsoever to do with them at the time, I'm afraid the time will come when they will all wish they had paid more attention to the potential problems (generally on here and generally only with a few on here).  I realize you probably don't want to consider it or  acknowledge it because it doesn't directly have to do with you but unfortunately that stance is not going to ever help resolve it.
 
 
 

[Gary Daughters]

Scott,

To your original point I've gained a greater appreciation for the courses I play on a regular basis for having viewed/played/analyzed faraway courses great and not so great.  I always learn more when I venture about, and it's neat when new perceptions allow me look at what's familiar in a new and positive way.  The more "styles" I see the less inclined I am to get stuck on one to the exclusion of others. 

[Andrew Summerell]

How crucial is it in appreciating golf courses to have seen a wide range of styles, great golf courses in different regions etc?

I believe your ability to appreciate golf architecture has the opportunity to grow the more courses & styles you see & play. This doesn’t mean a well-travelled person automatically becomes an expert, but they have more chance of understanding what they see than a less travelled person.

Playing & studying a few Colt courses will give a person a head start in understanding much of MacKenzie’s work (and the others that Colt directly influenced). Playing Royal Dornoch will help when studying an early Ross course.

The person who has only played in the one area, even if it’s one of the great golfing areas of the world, can only have a limited understanding of golf course architecture as a whole. Even their understanding of their local area will be hindered by their lack of a wider experience.

Similarly, if a widely-travelled golfer arrives in a new region and sets about learning its golf courses, does he carry any benefit from seeing the great courses elsewhere, or is he as "green" as if he had not seen what he has seen in other places?

A widely travelled golfer will have a greater ability to understand what they see in a new region so long as they have assimilated the knowledge from their travels.
   

[Matt_Ward]

Scott:

Some people on this site are very much infatuated with a particular style of design that comes from certain architects. Often times these folks only see "quality" design in such a narrow focus.

One also has to have an open mind to different styles -- for example, a Doak layout is very much different than one associated with say a Jim Engh. They are very talented people but often times the "classic" prone person will gush over the former and see the latter as contrived. I think it's really on the player himself to have a bit more of an elastic element that allows different styles and presentations to emerge. If one's mind is open then it's quite likely you can see the merits in the others. However -- some can't and won't -- they see design in a very limited manner that they believe is the only way to go. So be it -- for them. Groupies exist in design just as they do for rock musicians.

[Kevin Pallier]

I believe your ability to appreciate golf architecture has the opportunity to grow the more courses & styles you see & play. This doesn’t mean a well-travelled person automatically becomes an expert, but they have more chance of understanding what they see than a less travelled person.

Playing & studying a few Colt courses will give a person a head start in understanding much of MacKenzie’s work (and the others that Colt directly influenced). Playing Royal Dornoch will help when studying an early Ross course.

The person who has only played in the one area, even if it’s one of the great golfing areas of the world, can only have a limited understanding of golf course architecture as a whole. Even their understanding of their local area will be hindered by their lack of a wider experience.

Andrew

I concur with your notion.

I think the biggest thing that I've found in my travels - is that it helps me put my interpretation of "greatness" of both architect and course - into perspective.