How important is breadth of experience?

[Scott Warren]

I've been wondering about this for a while. Two separate questions I guess, but they meld into one idea I have been curious about.

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

For instance, if a person has lived their life in Surrey/Berkshire and knows the great courses in the heathlands really well, is he likely to gain anything substantial in his appreciation and understanding of those heathland courses by travelling to play the great links courses, the great parkland and ocean courses of the US, the Melbourne Sandbelt etc? Does the experienced gained have any impact on his ability to appreciate, perhaps even measure and compare, the courses of the London Heathlands?

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?

[Philippe Binette]

I think you need to see a wide variety of courses to see what you like and what you don't... what works and doesn't work

If you've only seen one style, you might get stuck in that style

[Mac Plumart]

Being kind of in the position you've discussed (new but learning), I think experience is very important.  It gives you the ability to put things in the proper context. 

The more you've seen (assuming you pay attention and try to educate yourself about the varying aspects of golf and golf course architecture), the better you can place things in their proper place.

[TEPaul]

Scott:

If I'm understanding your two questions correctly I think understanding most all the styles all over the world throughout the evolution of golf architecture is pretty crucial.

As to the most significant courses and architecture of the Heathlands, I feel they are the best examples of a truly important link in the history and evolution of golf architecture in two fundamenatally important ways;

1. They were the first attempts INLAND to recreate (actually construct) some of the most important principles and facets of the original linksland courses that were largely natural land formations.

2. They were the basic architectural model from which golf courses INLAND all over the world, and certainly including some of the best of the early 20th century American courses, were taken.

I think this can be fairly proven by just tracking the itineraries of some of the men who created some of the best early American courses. It seems many of them visited and studied those significant INLAND heathland courses and their architecture just as diligently as the studied the original seaside linksland courses and their architecture.

The reason for that may be so obvious as to have been virtually unrecorded-----eg those men clearly understood they would be going home and creating courses on INLAND sites like those early significant INLAND Heathland courses.

[Scott Warren]

Thanks Tom.

I had selected the Heathlands as the hypothetical place our golfer had spent his entire life playing just randomly, he could for the purposes of the discussion just as relevently have spent his life playing only on Long Island or in Fife or San Francisco.

But I think the points you make about the heathlands go a long way to making the point that playing and seeing each of these styles of golf is beneficial to your appreciation and understanding of other styles and types of golf courses.

Others may well disagree. I hope they will and it would be interesting to read the counterpoint.

[Peter Pallotta]

Scott -

I think subjectively, it's not important at all; objectively, it's important only to the degree that you need to share your thought with others, and be taken seriously.

I think much discussion and analysis (and bandwidth) has been wasted here because most of us confuse the two. (I have been a prime culprit in this).   As my mother likes to say (it sounds better in Italian): 'We all eat our own bread'.

That is: we experience what we experience alone, and in our own unique way. If I've only ever seen one course, but experienced the playing of it as joyous and challenging and peaceful and aesthetically-pleasing, why in goodness' name should I want to roam the world like a hungry ghost trying to prove/disprove that personal experience, or trying to have it ratified by the opinions of others.

That's a sad state of affairs, it seems to me.

But yes, in the public world of ideas, it's inevitable that a breadth of experience is important, both to establish one's bona fides, and as an aid to comparing shared experiences. 

To borrow a phrase I recently read in another context: "Inside, the spirit; Outside, the word".

Peter

[Scott Warren]

objectively, it's important only to the degree that you need to share your thought with others, and be taken seriously.

I guess that's the degree I was looking to explore.

On your other points, I agree, particularly on the topic of experiencing things singularly and that experience being unique to ourselves.

[George Pazin]

Depends mostly on the person. Some people will see little and yet learn a lot, others will see lots and learn little.

Generally speaking, though, I'd say it really helps to see more.

Here is something wise that Jim Sullivan posted on the Aronimink thread:

I think this course is a great example though of my long held belief that people should not try to voice an opinion of a course for anyone's game beyond their own because no matter how smart you are or how similar our games look, you just don't know what I'm thinking about on the tee, in the fairway or on the greens...it really should be said...what the course makes me think about.

The aggregation of those individual opinions should give us a ranking list.

He was speaking more to playing ability, but I think a lot of the ideas cross over well to this thread.

[Peter Pallotta]

Scott - your insights on and appreciation for the heathland courses seems to me top-flight (and are much appreciated). Would those insights be deepened/nuanced and more useful to ME if you'd also played Pine Valley and NGLA and Old Macdonald and SandHills?  No - I don't think so.  But I guess YOUR ability to compare and contrast courses around the world would be enhanced. The thing is, as a reader and student-from-afar, I really only want and require the former; and, the thing itself - a heathland course like Walton Heath Old - would remain, in and of itself, unchanged.  

Peter

[TEPaul]

"But I think the points you make about the heathlands go a long way to making the point that playing and seeing each of these styles of golf is beneficial to your appreciation and understanding of other styles and types of golf courses."



Scott:

I think so because when your experiences broaden and deepen it becomes clearer to you how to compare and contrast various elements of GCA (to me generally visually) that you'd theretofore liked or not liked for fairly subliminal and unarticulated reasons. It not only helps one understand why he intuitively likes and dislikes certain things but it also helps one understand why others may not feel as he does about a whole laundry list of things to do with GCA. To me that is the foundation of what I've come to refer to as "The Big World Theory."

[Mac Plumart]

What a great thread/topic!

I got cut off on my last post as we had to run to the park to play on this wonderful day.

I think the answer to "how important" it is can only be answered by the individual.  If a person only has ever played one golf course and they love it beyond all imagination, then breadth of experience isn't important.  They've found what they love and they are happy.

If the individual in question is seeking to learn about golf course architecture, its history, it changes, adjustments, growth, etc.  I think "breadth of experience" is vitally important.

When I first started managing money I was inundated with Modern Portfolio Theory, which essentially implies markets are efficient, investing is purely a risk/reward decision.  I personally thought that MPT was a bunch of garbage that academics with little real world experience dreamt up.  But having only a Bachelors degree and little experience managing money, no one really gave a crap what I thought.  So, I went on a quest to gain respect and have the "checks in the box" necessary to have my beliefs/opinions carry some weight.  12 years later, I've have earned the right to use the Chartered Financial Analyst designation, I've got a track record managing money that beats the S&P 500 over almost anytime frame, I developed personal valuation models that seem to stand the test of time and changing markets, I've got market models that also seem very robust, and I've got the test scores and experience to get into many quality Finance/Economics/PhD programs.  So, now when I say MPT theory has its flaws...more people than not, listen.

I think the same might go with golf courses and golf course architecture.  On this site, it happens all the time when disagreements occur that people inevitably say, "have you played course X?".  If not, opinions are dismissed.  If yes, the next question is "how many times?"  If less than the person asking the question, then opinions of the other are seemingly diminished.  And all that is fine and dandy, if people want to have active debates and have ammunition for winning them.  However, I will say that from my life experience simply have 20 years of experience (or playing 1000 golf courses) doesn't necessarily mean all that much.  My friend articulates this theory well when he says, does Joe Schmoe have 20 years of experience or does he have 1 year of experience 20 times over...essentially saying does he learn through his experiences or not.  

Nevertheless, for me the real important piece of the puzzle is having the knowledge and experience to fit all the moving pieces together and have a real understanding of how things began, progressed, went right, went wrong, and what is next around the corner.  To me this is fun and interesting.  But to the next guy it might not be.  So, as I mentioned early...the level of importance regarding breadth of experience is solely based on the weight each and every individual gives it.

[Andy Troeger]

I think it really depends on your perspective and what you hope to accomplish. A golfer can play the same course thousands of times and study it and know it, but they really can't compare it to anything else without having gained experience elsewhere. In order to truly compare golf courses (which is a large portion of what we do here), then the more you have seen the better (assuming of course that you get something out of your visits). I know my tastes have evolved over the course of playing a number of top courses--when I joined this site Crooked Stick and Point O'Woods were the best courses I had played and I thought they must be among the best in the USA. I still think both are very good, but they admittedly don't really compare to the best including Pine Valley and Cypress Point. From my experience, I don't think I realized the importance of breadth of courses seen until I had already improved in that area. I still have a long way to go.

To that note, I see quite a few guys on here judge architects work based on playing a few of their courses. Fazio and Nicklaus have designed hundreds of courses and its really hard to judge their overall work from just playing a few of them. Both of them have courses that make my top twenty but also courses that don't make the top half of my listing. The first of Tom Doak's designs that I saw was Charlotte Golf Links and it took me 10 years to play another--I admittedly wondered what the big deal was until I saw Lost Dunes, Ballyneal, and Rock Creek and gained a better appreciation for his work! I think there's a lot to be said for participation here and reading books and such things about architecture, but there's no subsitute for actually seeing golf courses to gain a better appreciation for the variety that's out there.

[Adam Clayman]

For me, my epiphanies on this subject are always left brained. It's a feeling.  This (definition of pornography) feeling stimulates the right brain too, (for many that's all they get out of it) but, in golf, I think it's best to appease (or ask) the Mind's eye, when forming opinions on quality courses. That applies for the golfer who only plays one course all the time, or a different course everyday.  I'm sure we've all played courses in spectacular settings that has left us less than impressed. And courses that have inspired with less than ideal surroundings.
What that tells me, is  it's not how many courses, but how well the individual is able to get through their experiences with thoughtful, insightful feelings.
There are many who come on this board who seem to have an innate ability to sense the fundamentals and express them.  Then there are those who have their understandings through the writings of others. Either way, it matters very little how one gets their understanding and appreciation of GCA, as long as they get one, and, are open to new ones.  
Just some ramblings from the legume gallery. Have at it.

[Steve Burrows]

As with anything, I think it depends on the intentions of the person involved.  Seeing more golf courses and learning more from them is admirable, if the intentions are noble. However, somewhere along the way, there will be those who are playing courses simply for the sake of playing courses (the term generally used on this site is an "access whore"), and although their experiences are vast, the knowledge or insight gained from these experiences may be decidedly scant.  These are the dangerous people.

Ultimately, it's not as much a matter of having seen more courses than another person (at least from a purely quantitative standpoint), but that their opinions on the subject of design are cogent, or reasoned in some logical manner, on account of any and all of their experiences.

[Andy Troeger]

Steve,
Point taken certainly about the quality of reasoning when it comes to opinions of architecture. Admittedly, some are just better at communicating their thoughts than others and most certainly some get more out of visits to courses than others. Granted, I still believe a great deal of this is subjective, so some people will tend to agree with us more than others.

I have a problem with questioning of anyone's intentions. I'll grant you that people have their various reasons for wanting to play high quantities of courses, but what gives any of us the right to question another's motives regarding the playing of golf courses? I sure don't see those folks as dangerous--just perhaps not very helpful or informative. Now, with all that said, the way some folks go about asking for access is another issue entirely and a much greater issue than the original interest in seeing courses.

[Mac Plumart]

These last few posts seem to touch on the point I brought up about someone having 20 years of experience and someone having 1 year of experience 20 times over. 

Andy said, "A golfer can play the same course thousands of times and study it and know it, but they really can't compare it to anything else without having gained experience elsewhere. In order to truly compare golf courses (which is a large portion of what we do here), then the more you have seen the better (assuming of course that you get something out of your visits). "

Adam said, "What that tells me, is  it's not how many courses, but how well the individual is able to get through their experiences with thoughtful, insightful feelings."

Scott said, "Seeing more golf courses and learning more from them is admirable, if the intentions are noble. However, somewhere along the way, there will be those who are playing courses simply for the sake of playing courses (the term generally used on this site is an "access whore"), and although their experiences are vast, the knowledge or insight gained from these experiences may be decidedly scant. "

I think these are key points.  In fact, even Tom Paul has said in the past that he played golf for years before becoming interested or even caring about golf course architecture.  But once he started to care about it, he appears to have learned a great deal.

And I think Scott's point about the people with 1 year of experience 20 times over (as I call it...or access whores as he calls it) being dangerous, isn't that they are literally dangerous, meaning they will seek to hurt or injure someone intentionally.  Rather he might be alluding to the fact that their opinions might carry some weight to the ignorant masses because they've played a lot of golf courses.  And since they really haven't learned anything and/or tried to learning anything, this influence they have over newbies and those seeking to learn could be dangerous in that it isn't filled with knowledge or wisdom and, therefore, it gives these people misleading or incorrect information off of which they might try to build their knowledge base off of.  Anyway, I suppose I put words in Scott's mouth...so if I am off base, please correct me Scott.  But that is how I took what you said...and, frankly, I agree.

[Jaeger Kovich]

One thing is for sure, its not a negative.

You can definitely do the job without travel, but it seems like the more courses you build, the bigger your interest gets in the subject and naturally you want to go see what everyone else is talking about. So even if you haven't had the travel experience early, if you are around for long enough it is inevitable, and simply poor business not to.... Who wants to hire someone to build them a golf course who has never seen a top 100 golf course, when they can choose from 30 others who have traveled the world for the game?.. Just bad marketing.

[TEPaul]

"In fact, even Tom Paul has said in the past that he played golf for years before becoming interested or even caring about golf course architecture.  But once he started to care about it, he appears to have learned a great deal."


Mac:

I did play a lot of tournament golf for close to twenty years before becoming really interested in golf course architecture. However, I don't believe most can become competent tournament golfers without having a fairly comprehensive intuitive understanding of golf architecture, at least in the context of how it relates to many of the dynamics of risks and rewards.

It also may be somewhat true to say that thinking too much about the ramifications of the golf architecture of a course when one is trying to score his best on it can be something of a distraction. This may be the essence of Pete Dye's now famous remark---"If I can get those guys (he meant tour pros) thinking then they're really in trouble" which is obviously somewhat humorously intended but nevertheless really does have some truth to it.

For that reason alone I may be more into various types of deception in and with architecture than many others are. I feel that is essentially the way of Nature itself and consequently should apply to and be applied to golf course architecture. When I think of that kind of thing as it applies to golf architecture generally I think of that line or lyric----"You take the high road and I'll take the low road and I'll be in Scotland before Ye."

[Jaeger Kovich]

How well traveled was Seth Raynor when we started building courses?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:

I should note that "Pete Dye's now famous remark" was something he said to me, offhandedly, when I was working for him on the plans for the Stadium Course at PGA West.  I used that quote in The Anatomy of a Golf Course and it's been referred to many times since, and I feel a little badly for that, because I never asked if he minded me quoting him on it.


Jaeger:

Seth Raynor was not well-traveled at all, and perhaps not that inquisitive, either.  George B. could answer that better than I can, but I don't know for a fact if Raynor ever looked at ANY golf courses other than the ones he was building.

[Scott Warren]

Scott said, "Seeing more golf courses and learning more from them is admirable, if the intentions are noble. However, somewhere along the way, there will be those who are playing courses simply for the sake of playing courses (the term generally used on this site is an "access whore"), and although their experiences are vast, the knowledge or insight gained from these experiences may be decidedly scant. "

I think these are key points.  In fact, even Tom Paul has said in the past that he played golf for years before becoming interested or even caring about golf course architecture.  But once he started to care about it, he appears to have learned a great deal.

And I think Scott's point about the people with 1 year of experience 20 times over (as I call it...or access whores as he calls it) being dangerous, isn't that they are literally dangerous, meaning they will seek to hurt or injure someone intentionally.  Rather he might be alluding to the fact that their opinions might carry some weight to the ignorant masses because they've played a lot of golf courses.  And since they really haven't learned anything and/or tried to learning anything, this influence they have over newbies and those seeking to learn could be dangerous in that it isn't filled with knowledge or wisdom and, therefore, it gives these people misleading or incorrect information off of which they might try to build their knowledge base off of.  Anyway, I suppose I put words in Scott's mouth...so if I am off base, please correct me Scott.  But that is how I took what you said...and, frankly, I agree.

That was Steve who said all that.

[Mac Plumart]

Oops...that is what I meant.   

[TEPaul]

Jaeger:

That's a good question and point. As good as Raynor may've been or may've become I don't think it is any slight on him whatsoever to mention that of any of the really promininent architects of his era he very well may've been the one who stuck closest to a particular architectural "model" and "style" than any of the rest of his contemporaries.

If that is true to say it probably falls under the old adage----"If it's popular and if it sells, just keep doing the same thing."

Nothing wrong with that, I guess, at least in the opinions of some.


However, I just can't help thinking that if Raynor had lived he most certainly would've been the architect of choice for Cypress Point. His supposed routing of that site is seemingly one of the most sought after and important lost "assets" in the history of golf architecture research and analysis.

His routing of Cypress is one thing but I just wonder what the history and reputation of that course would've been if he had actually built his architectural and particularly bunker style and such on that site compared to what Mackenzie, Hunter et al did there in that vein!

[TEPaul]

"Tom P:
I should note that "Pete Dye's now famous remark" was something he said to me, offhandedly, when I was working for him on the plans for the Stadium Course at PGA West.  I used that quote in The Anatomy of a Golf Course and it's been referred to many times since, and I feel a little badly for that, because I never asked if he minded me quoting him on it."


TomD:

I just can't tell  you how much I appreciate you mentioning that on here or mentioning it at all. I've always been totally into etymology (of words) anyway and now you have provided the etymology of a fairly famous quotation that has most certainly been used and mentioned numerous times all over the place, even on telecasts or whatever.

As I think you know I've known Pete (and Alice) most of my life but ironically it was not really connected to architecture----it was pretty much socially because they were such good friends of my father. Nevertheless, I would have to say, knowing Pete (and Alice), that he would never have any problem at all with anyone mentioning most anything he every said about anything at any time. Matter of fact, I think it all tickles him to death no end!

Haven't you noticed how Pete likes to talk about the things others have said too? For instance, the last time I saw him was at the Senior member/guest at Pine Valley about five years ago. He was being virtually lionized at the cocktail party and I was hanging around the coterie listening to it all and eventually he pulled me aside and told me how much he loved my Dad, and with that he told me a story of a time sitting in my father's house when the phone kept ringing and my father refused to answer it. Pete said he couldn't take it anymore and screamed; "Jimmy, would you please answer the damn phone" to which he said my father said: "It just doesn't sound like it's for me Pete."

With that Pete fell out laughing at PV.

Again, with a quote that has become as well known as that one thanks for mentioning where it originated. With us uber-research geeks that etymology is pretty cool.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:

That's a really funny story because Mr. Dye used to do the same thing ... he wouldn't answer the phone.  [My teenagers don't, either, so maybe they are headed for great things.]

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.