The common thread in greatness

[Ben Sims]

Ah yes, the predictable yet pointless "calling out" of a course that's accepted by all to be great because of one "rule" it has broken. 

Why don't we can this nonsense and accept that both Cypress and Pine Valley are pretty good and move on to the genius written in post 32.

[Rory Connaughton]

Jim,

 What was described to me matches your description of what was right of 2.

[George Pazin]

I have asked a few members of top clubs what their first impression/thought of their course was, and what their last impression/thought was.  

Each one has answered differently to include things like culture, ambiance, intimacy, subtlety.  But the common thread I am starting to see is this.  Only the best courses have had the comment made that they are as enamored with the course now as they were the first time they played it.  That in years in of membership, they are no closer to fully understanding the course than they were on day one.  

In the end, a course must hold interest over the course of time.  It isn't en vogue or du jour or forgotten, it's timeless.  That's a 10 in my book.  

Indeed there is genius within this simple and short post!

Seriously, I'd probably define greatness in a golf course as continually interesting. I would have meant that in the sense of one shot after the next within one round, but when coupled with Ben's point above, it takes on a whole new level - not just shot after shot within a round, but shot after shot within a lifetime of plays.

-----

I suspect David Elvins was just prodding everyone with a controversial statement.

[David_Elvins]

I suspect David Elvins was just prodding everyone with a controversial statement.

To a degree, but not for the sake of being controversial.  

i have always been intrigued that when you look at the threads that join the great courses, there are several threads that clearly bypass Pine Valley, such as absense of man made water hazards and absesne of repeated significant forced carries.  

I would suspect that the true answer is, as Tom Doak states, that you can't define greatness by categories, but there has always been a suspicion that PV might get a free pass where other courses may not.  

[Peter Pallotta]

JC  - thanks for starting this thread. I can't think of many subjects more relevant than this on a site dedicated to discussing great architecture.  I have only played one Top 100 course, and it was a top 10 course. I liked the Par 3s on that course a lot - where/when the came in the routing, what they looked like, what they asked of me.  Later I learned fom a much more experienced player (who is very familiar with that course) that folks rarely mention the Par 3s there.  My point being that it was the whole of the course that made those Par 3s and the rest of the holes enjoyable. I do really believe that trying to deny any potential 'flaws' when talking about greatness is a mistake - in that those 'flaws' are part and parcel of the whole.  Someone once told me that the word "art" comes from the German word for "trick" -- and I think the flaws on any great courses are part of what makes the trick/art work.  Ever play a modern course that moves indistinguishably from one non-flawed hole to the next? Not that I want to criticize that - it takes a look of skill to create a good course; but a focus on something higher than just avoiding flaw to make a great one.

Peter

[Jim Franklin]

"There is still a forced carry to get to the "fairway" on #16. It may be fun, but to penalize PV for forced carries and not CPC doesn't make sense is all I am saying."


Jimbo Franklin:

No it really doesn't make sense and either does the person who was penalizing PV for forced carries! 

Thanks Tom, I am glad we agree (as usual) .

[Joe Hancock]

I once asked a musician friend of mine what the difference between a really good singer and a great singer was; He said "attitude".

I don't know if that's expound-able or not, but it sounds good to me.

Joe

[Kevin Pallier]

Kevin,

Back to this thread, you saw many great courses last fall.  Some were 10's, per Tom D, some were not and some were not in the Confidential Guide.  Nevertheless, which, of the ones you saw, did not meld the design to the land and have the requisite routing and variety?  And, were any of those more fun than the ones you considered to be "great"?

Thanks

JC

As you mention - I was indeed fortunate last fall to see all of the US Doak 10’s in the CG or otherwise (save for Pinehurst and Crystal Downs). All of them were also 10’s in my book as well.

I also saw a range of other “great” courses that were either on the cusp above or a few rungs below that standard + others still that weren’t even in that league . Each as to their own in terms of their definition and scale of “greatness” and my few sentences try to summarise mine particularly for those at the top of the tree.

Two courses that stood out for me as being immeasurably “fun” and also should be included in a discussion of the “true greats” were Old Macdonald and Fishers Island. They were both worth the effort to get to and I could only dream of going back to either one of them in a heartbeat.

[Mac Plumart]

Here it is...

"my fundamental belief is that the greatness of a golf course is NOT a matter of ticking boxes off someone's list, but more a matter of getting the most out of a piece of property, and adding to the collective greatness of golf."

from Tom D's prior post.  Write it down, keep it in your files, and refer to it often.

Perhaps we could analyze this statement itself to learn a thing or a million.

[Dan Herrmann]

What do all of these courses have in common such that despite their obvious differences, they can all be considered "great" (whether by one man or the consensus)?

The best use of angles anywhere.

[Mac Plumart]

Perhaps those courses don't have anything in common except the they succeeded in...

getting the most out of a piece of property, and adding to the collective greatness of golf.

[JC Jones]

Mac,

You know I love you but I have to tell you that the phrase you now hold so dear is completely and utterly meaningless.

Please tell me how you or anyone knows whether a course a) got the most out of the land or b) added to the greatness of golf (whatever that may mean)?

[Mac Plumart]

JC...

I've played a number of courses that have without a doubt got the most out of the land.  Canterbury is my most recent example of  seeing that.  146 total acres.  Amazing golf course.  I think we all know examples like this.

How did it add to the greatness of golf?  Dude, if I have to tell you how NGLA added to the greateness of golf (or Pinehurst #2 or Merion, etc, etc, etc) then there is no help for you!

[Colin Macqueen]

JC and Mac,
"my fundamental belief is that the greatness of a golf course is NOT a matter of ticking boxes off someone's list, but more a matter of getting the most out of a piece of property, and adding to the collective greatness of golf."

I have just popped these words into my collection of good phrases to have in my minds eye as I think about golf course architecture!  I think a holistic approach allows one to take on board nebulous statements such as the above. Has the golf architect not got the most out of the land when one feels comfortable and HAPPY playing on it? The greatness of golf is again, I think, when one feels that the golf has been benefited by the addition of the particular course to the collection.

Colin

[DMoriarty]

Most have sandy soil.    

Either Macdonald or MacKenzie was involved with over half the old ones at some point.

____________________________

There is still a forced carry to get to the "fairway" on #16. It may be fun, but to penalize PV for forced carries and not CPC doesn't make sense is all I am saying.

CPC 16 has a forced carry of a bit over 100 yards from the back tee.  If one is adamantly opposed to forced carries, then I suppose one could criticize CPC for this.   With the amount of time MacKenzie spent explaining it, it seems it was definitely something he considered.  

I was under the impression Pine Valley had more forced carries and much longer forced carries.  Is this not the case?  

If a course has more forced carries and they are longer then surely there is no hypocracy in criticizing this course more than a course with fewer and shorter forced carries.  Or am I missing something?

[Rick Shefchik]

I once asked a musician friend of mine what the difference between a really good singer and a great singer was; He said "attitude".

I don't know if that's expound-able or not, but it sounds good to me.

Joe

My first thought was, this is perfect.

My second thought was, I've played a few courses with a nasty attitude.

I'll attempt to expound this way: A great course has a compelling attitude.

Singers, too.

[Brian Freeman]

What do all of these courses have in common such that despite their obvious differences, they can all be considered "great" (whether by one man or the consensus)?

The common thread to me is all are designed to play firm and fast with wind a key design factor.  Merion might be the only exception on the wind.

Royal Dornoch is the only one of these I have played, so I'll comment a little further based on my 3 rounds there over a 30 hour period a month ago.

The prior comment on the short par 4s there is spot on - they give the round flow as they are perfectly placed along with the par 5s to give the round balance.  #1 is the textbook "firm handshake" with an incredible setting - my buddy felt it was his favorite 1st hole anywhere and I had a hard time arguing with that. Then 3 difficult holes, all tough pars, then the 5th as another short par 4 before 3 more difficult holes to score a par, then the 9th as essentially a half-par par 5, then the 10th, which despite being under 150 yds I never parred, tough par 4 in 11, then another strategic half-par par 5 on 12, then another solid par 3, then arguably the toughest par 4 on earth followed by another perfectly placed short par 4 before 3 difficult par 4s over 400 yards to finish.

My second observation is the variability of the test - a dream course to members that I imagine plays a million different ways based on pins and conditions.

My final observation I had was the subtle nature of the challenge.  The scorecard does not overwhelm you.  On nearly every hole (with the clear exception of Foxy, maybe the 18th as well), birdie is a fair expectation under reasonable winds with 2 properly struck shots.  Yet, even on the easier holes, one can easily slide into double bogey range with poor decisions or execution.  The old lady has horns if you cross her - but she seduces you back again after she beats you up.  And the high rough, the firm and fast turf, and winds are the key tools she uses to accomplish that.

I'll leave it to others better qualified to gauge how those qualities carry over to the other courses on the list.

[JC Jones]

JC...

I've played a number of courses that have without a doubt got the most out of the land.  Canterbury is my most recent example of  seeing that.  146 total acres.  Amazing golf course.  I think we all know examples like this.

How did it add to the greatness of golf?  Dude, if I have to tell you how NGLA added to the greateness of golf (or Pinehurst #2 or Merion, etc, etc, etc) then there is no help for you!

I find it interesting that you chose fore your example of maximizinzing the use of land, a non-consensus great course.

Then, not only did you not explain how it added to the greatness of golf, you proceeded to use a strawman argument.

So, I am still waiting for an answer to my question.

[Mac Plumart]

JC...

I love this type of discussion.  I have learned a great deal.  But in all honesty, I got it now.  I clearly see the common thread of greatness.  I will watch you all discuss this further if you wish.  Some like to debate on this site for debates sake, I seek to learn.  And like I said previously, I know the answer to the question you have asked.  Therefore, for my purposes I see no further need to debate it.

[Tony Ristola]

As a note, Pinehurst #2 has a water hazard sans flowing water; more like a glorified bird bath. I've always wondered why they never filled it in. It looks out of place.

Greatness in buildings or music is driven by individuality, quality, mass appeal due to being individual and having quality materials, techniques, and attention to detail. Greatness is almost indescribable through words. It's certainly not describable through mathematical formula's.

In golf the same applies. These courses are far from banal, from the standard mechanized, technocrat fare, are easily identified by those with some knowledge and they exude a sense of place. They have a story to tell, and offer a series of holes that largely defy monotony both in sequence and character.

When it comes to excellence and sense of place I often think of Harbour Town. The fairways are flat, and with what seems like little dirt moving Dye created something of interest, fun and beauty that reflects the region. Of his other less heralded courses I'd like to see Country Club of Colorado. Built not long after Harbour Town, on what sounds like similar land but without the glorious trees gracing Harbour Town.

[JC Jones]

JC...

I love this type of discussion.  I have learned a great deal.  But in all honesty, I got it now.  I clearly see the common thread of greatness.  I will watch you all discuss this further if you wish.  Some like to debate on this site for debates sake, I seek to learn.  And like I said previously, I know the answer to the question you have asked.  Therefore, for my purposes I see no further need to debate it.

Mac,

You and I are here for the same reasons.  I still don't know that statement means.

[Keith OHalloran]

Mac,
I also read these posts to learn and that is why I hope you will help me get to the understanding that you have. I still do not really get the "Makes the most out of the land"  point.
For instance, when I read about Sand Hills, I always read that the architects founds hundreds of holes and had to pare them down. I also read how the property had perfect soil and topography. In fact, in my copy  of TCG, Sand Hills had a wonderful review without being completed.
My question is, what does it mean that they made the most of the property?  I assume that it is not akin to Merion making a great course out of a small parcel.
Can you help me with your understanding of this sentence?

[Mac Plumart]

I am currently slammed at work, but I will post on this later tonight.  I am not an architect, but will put my take on this on the site.  Hopefully others will review it and add to it and we can get a really great idea of how to judge that aspect of a golf course.

JC...you've had some really great posts lately.  At least, in my opinion.

[George Pazin]

JC...

I love this type of discussion.  I have learned a great deal.  But in all honesty, I got it now.  I clearly see the common thread of greatness.  I will watch you all discuss this further if you wish.  Some like to debate on this site for debates sake, I seek to learn.  And like I said previously, I know the answer to the question you have asked.  Therefore, for my purposes I see no further need to debate it.

Mac, I think JC just wants something a little more specific - indeed, it seems to be the point of the thread.

As I said on the other thread, I've never been a fan of "I know it when I see it" type of definitions - a bit too egocentric for me, and it implies a lack of fleshed out thinking, imho.

I can accept it when Tom says a course adds to the greatness of golf, but I'd rather hear how...

[Peter Pallotta]

As Bob Crosby might say, each of the great courses of the world is sui generis -- one of a kind, unique in its characteristics.  It is strange to accept that the commonality amongst the great courses is this very lack of commonality - but maybe that's the case. And if so, it's the case because -- and I think this is what Tom D may be getting at -- most of architects involved had as their primary concern not some theoretical ideas about what constitutes greatness but the practical demands of using their skill in concert with the land as it presented itself to create the best golf course possible (thought of as a whole, and based on tried and true principles) -- and then let greatness be thrust upon them (or not) later.  I guess that no top-flight architect has ever wanted any rules or definitions -- even the suppossed definitions of greatness -- to constrain them in their attemtps to get the most out of the land (as they understand 'the most').   

Peter