The common thread in greatness

[Brent Hutto]

For me it's usually making the difficult, breaking 6 or 8 foot putt when I've missed several already.

Yeah, after that third putt slides by the hole the 6-footer for double bogey is a killer!

[JESII]

I guess my point was that those are the shots that (when they happen...) make me feel better about the game and one characteristic of a great course to me is one that results in several difficult, yet makeable, putts...the more chances I have, the more likely one will bounce in...

[Brent Hutto]

I was just funnin' with you...your point is totally one I agree with. Any round of golf is likely to offer a couple of more interesting than usual shots. The very best courses can offer that many times per round.

For me it translates to interesting contoured green complexes because given my ballstriking non-ability the difference in "interesting" and "no chance to pull it off" is a very fine line from 150+ yards. But even the trickiest little double or triple breaking putt or shot around the green offers a 18-handicapper something to really engage with because there's no reason he can't (once in a great while) put it in the hole.

My second choice is an interesting Cape hole or a bonus if I can just skirt a fairway bunker or some other enticement on a tee shot. Same reasoning, for a player of my level at least with the ball teed up and a big old 450cc driver in my hands I can launch the ball out there and hope for the best. Approach shots from the fairway or rough, even if interesting, are too likely to be something I skip in favor of just making contact and trying to keep the ball between me and the hole.

So by my theory everyone ought to appreciate interesting greens, most people ought to appreciate interesting driving holes (at least if they're playing from tees that make the interesting part in play) and better players can best appreciate interesting "second shot" courses.

[George Pazin]

For me, the great courses ask questions beyond "What's my yardage?" and "Where do I drop?"...

They encourage thoughtful play by having favored avenues of approach, and they accommodate misses by offering challenging recovery shots.

And they tend to be pretty as well, even if it is ways not commonly accepted.

[Melvyn Morrow]

George

Is that not a game called Golf

Melvyn

PS I agree with you 100%

[George Pazin]

George

Is that not a game called Golf

Melvyn

PS I agree with you 100%

Indeed it is, and it is played too infrequently...

[Adam Clayman]

The only thing I'd add to this is something Brad klein said at the Mountain ridge outing, and Peter has touched on it a couple of times early in this thread.
 "A sense of place"

[George Smith]

George...

I read this post of yours awhile back and have been thinking about it ever since.

Can you think of a few aspects of the courses you are refering to that made you feel like a better more complete golfer after playing them?

I have poked around trying to give voice to the pictures I have in my brain of the great courses I have seen and played. I haven't found the words easy to come by. Like Potter Stewart, I could cop out by saying I may not be able to define it but I know it when I see it but that is much too trite. The best my poor powers can conjure is to compare a great course with a great poem. To paraphrase Samuel Johnson's description of a poem, a great course unites pleasure with the truth. Seeing the truth about the dirt and learning the truth about oneself through the medium of 18 flags stuck in the ground must be the ultimate compliment that could be paid an architect.

Tha's the best I can do.

[Mac Plumart]

George...no worries.  Perhaps Jeremy did it for you on another thread as he described Seminole...

To me, Seminole is an absolutely brilliant golf course.  Seminole truly requires you to maintain razor sharp focus for every shot.  I think this really is Donal Ross' masterpiece.  The use of the dune that runs through the property is amazing in that it is was the primary feature with which Ross had to design around, and he did so brilliantly.  With its location right on the ocean, the wind is as critical to the design as the layout itself.  I love that they forgo lush conditioning in favor of firm and fast play.  It is a little brown and that's exactly how they want it.     The green complexes are genius in that they don't necessarily look at first to be very difficult, but require absolute precision.  The routing is virtually perfect and it is a wonderfully natural walk. It is an understated golf course and it is easy to understand how it may not blow people away that are looking for more "wow" factor.  To me, it has as much "wow" as anywhere i have ever played, but you need to allow yourself to see it.  The subtleties make the golf experience at Seminole somewhat of a chess match.  Add on the history and tradition of the club, and it ranks very high in my opinion.


Also, Mike Nuzzo's wonderful article fully supports your belief with his "Challenge-centric" golfer category.

http://www.mnuzzo.com/pdf/GAV5.pdf

Clearly, your thoughts were spot on for at least a portion of the golfing world.

[Mac Plumart]

I've got another common thread that I'm pretty darn sure is a necessity for greatness.

DRAINAGE!!!

[Mac Plumart]

A quote from Ben Crenshaw regarding Bill Coore from Tony Dear's article on  Cyber Golf.

 "Bill is extremely well-versed in all aspects of golf course architecture," says Crenshaw, "but I would say his greatest asset is his ability to assess the raw land and find the best routing for the course. He studies the land from every possible angle and takes so many things into consideration, like drainage, wind, topography, land forms and foliage. It's a difficult task no matter how good the land. But Bill is one of the best, if not the best, at it."


I think this might related directly to what Tom Doak said about getting  all you can from a piece of land.

[JC Jones]

Mac,

I think that certainly adds some clarity although I'm not any more satisfied with the phrase "getting all you can from a piece of land" now than I was back when I started this thread.

I'm still searching for the common thread but perhaps it is an endeavor without end.  Sometimes they are great just because they are.  As a professor of mine used to say, "it is like a fish in the milk."

[Mac Plumart]

I hear you JC, but I, respectfully, disagree.  I think there are common threads.

I don't think a course can be great unless the land is great.  And I don't mean ocean views.  Rather I mean the opposite, in that you can't have a "great" course where the course isn't the primary focus.  Think neighborhood golf courses where the housing and roads get all the good land and the golf course is left with garbage.  I think a great architect can make something good out of this, but not great.

Also, I think you need a great team.  From the owner, to the architect and his team, the club members, the greens committee, the super...all of them have to be focused with the same vision.

From there, I think you need to get the routing right.  I think that is akin to getting the most out of the land.  This is where every course will be different due to the obvious difference inherent in the land.  But you need that thing to drain, you need to be aware of wind patterns, percipitation levels, soil types, etc.

I think there are more...but on those items I am certain they are key ingredients.

EDIT...I think these items can take years to get right.  Think of CBM looking for the land to put the National on.  Think C&C routing Sand Hills.  Shoot, think how long it took for someone to pull the trigger on building a course in the Sand Hills.  Mr. Dear's article said that he was aware of that area in the 70's, but it took to the late 90's to build Sand Hills. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

JC
Tom Doak mentioned 50 or 60, and I'd guess that if you polled Ron Whitten or Brad Klein or any other critic of note you'd uncover a complex batch of criteria, some similar - some not, that they use to identify greatness. That gets me to thinking that a great course must be multi-faceted, and that complexity (not of "parts", but the whole) could be seen as the common thread that they possess. Without it a course would not be able to meet, or ideally, transcend, the various constructs of greatness by which it is identified, either in past, present, or future cultural climates.




 

  

[Ally Mcintosh]

Taking non-specific client briefs and no restrictions on the land parcel, I'll give a simplistic overarching view that 50% of greatness is down to the nature of the topography and the soil (i.e. the site - probably 25% each) and that 50% is down to the architect, the construction, the agronomy and the team.... Of that, maybe half is down to routing and half is down to detail, strategy and finishing of which half of the latter (i.e. 12.5%) is down to green design...

[Mac Plumart]

Perhaps another nuance imbedded in this common thread of greatness is a total commitment by owners and members to creating and maintaining greatness.

Previously, I mentioned, "Also, I think you need a great team.  From the owner, to the architect and his team, the club members, the greens committee, the super...all of them have to be focused with the same vision."

But, I would add another nuance to that...total commitment of all those players to the course.  Perhaps, especially the owner(s).

[Mac Plumart]

Perhaps another nuance imbedded in this common thread of greatness is a total commitment by owners and members to creating and maintaining greatness.

Previously, I mentioned, "Also, I think you need a great team.  From the owner, to the architect and his team, the club members, the greens committee, the super...all of them have to be focused with the same vision."

But, I would add another nuance to that...total commitment of all those players to the course.  Perhaps, especially the owner(s).

Scratch "Perhaps" in my first sentence.  It should read like this...

Another nuance imbedded in this common thread of greatness is a total commitment by owners and members to creating and maintaining greatness.

[Sean_A]

I have been through the thread and can't find any mention of originality.  Do folks think this is important that part of greatness is to see a course as distinctly apart from other courses?  For instance, I think North Berwick gets called great because of its iconic holes.  These holes are enough for most people to give a pass on the less than impressive aspects of the design.

Ciao

[Pete Blaisdell]

Diversity , flow and playing options. Add that to a membership that CARES and you get a 10. A little history and deserved aura doesn't hurt , either.

[Mac Plumart]

I remember when Mike Sweeney made this post…

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,50207.msg1177366.html#msg1177366

And it stuck with me.  

I think that studying the great clubs and their history can give clues as to what it takes to become truly great.  Sure, on this site we focus on golf course architecture…but I truly believe that is only a piece of the puzzle.  And, perhaps, THE key component is a dedicated leadership (as I’ve previously mentioned).

I took Mike’s advice and got my hands on the Pine Valley history book.  Of course, I studied their beginning BUT I really studied hard on how they handled The Great Depression.  Interestingly enough, they discounted initiation fees (waived them in some instances), made deals on dues,  offered lower dues for younger members, allowed guest play, and they fought as hard as they could (and looked into each members situation on a case by case basis) to keep as many members as they could.  They basically did whatever it took to ensure the club survived.

The absolute kicker for me, which shows the pure dedication to the club was the fact that William deKrafft (the club’s Treasurer) PERSONALLY GUARANTEED a floating rate loan in 1930 to ensure the club’s viability!!!!  In the words expressed in the book about Mr. deKrafft from the club’s members, “He saved us.”