[JC Jones]

Quite often we speak of how a great experience, club atmosphere or ambience can have an effect on our evaluation of the architecture of a golf course.  Each time, however, we discuss how the former will artificially inflate the latter.   

Is it a truly direct relationship in that a negative or underwhelming experience can artificially reduce our evaluation of the architecture?

[Tim Martin]

JC- For me that is patently untrue. I have played a number of great courses where I never sniffed the locker room, grill, pro shop or clubhouse. This was because I knew someone who was employed by the club and usually on a Monday. Great architecture is not diminished by going in through the back door instead of the front.

[Adam Clayman]

It's not direct. There's plenty of poor courses built with tremendous views of the Ocean and the like.

It's weak analysis by the individual that can't separate the two, especially, if the person considers themselves knowledgable about gca.

[Jud_T]

When Lawsonia was owned by a religious group that refused to sell beer on the premises it was a negative.  Now that it's run by a religious group that does sell beer, it's a positive...

[JC Jones]

It's weak analysis by the individual that can't separate the two, especially, if the person considers themselves knowledgable about gca.

I agree.  But when the relationship is discussed it is always done in the context of someone over-valuing the architecture because of the experience.  Rarely, however, do we see a discussion of how a bad experience or a double-wide for a clubhouse could potentially have a negative effect on the evaluation of the architecture.

[Peter Pallotta]

JC - some say that it's impossible to assess the architecture independent of the experience (broadly conceived/understood). Some like Adam C argue that it IS possible, at least for those who have qualified themselves to do so. I'd suggest that an under-recognized element/quality of great golf courses is that those courses blur this distinction/dichotomy, i.e. on great courses, the built architecture (including of course the routing) and the site itself and the relationship between the two can't be separated out from the overall experience; they ARE that experience. Maybe it's just at average or good or even very good (but not truly great) courses that the architecture-experience duality manifests itself.  Maybe the duality itself supports -- and is proof of -- the 'direct relationship' you're asking about. In other words, there IS a direct relationship....but not always, only in the vast majority of cases, i.e. those cases in which the appearance of a 'relationship' is present.

Peter

[JESII]

It's frequently suggested that a course is under-regarded because of the company it keeps.

Not exactly to the point of the thread, but how often does Matt Ward say that Ridgewood, or another strong Met Section course, would be much higher rated if it weren't surrounded by giants? Interestingly, he also argues that some of the out of the way courses he likes are under-regarded due to being off the beaten track...

[Jud_T]

It's weak analysis by the individual that can't separate the two, especially, if the person considers themselves knowledgable about gca.

I agree.  But when the relationship is discussed it is always done in the context of someone over-valuing the architecture because of the experience.  Rarely, however, do we see a discussion of how a bad experience or a double-wide for a clubhouse could potentially have a negative effect on the evaluation of the architecture.

In my experience a double-wide for a clubhouse is generally indicative of a positive experience-i.e. the focus and $$$'s are on golf.  Although it doesn't necessarily affect my opinion of a golf course, I always find it a bit disconcerting when there's a large ugly modern clubhouse on an old school course  (Ballybunion?)...but that may be just because in addition to being a GCA snob,  I'm an architecture snob as well.....The experience definitely has an effect, subconscious or otherwise, which is hard to get away from in deriving a truly impartial opinion of a course...I remember paying a pretty penny for a foursome in a charity outing at Rich Harvest Farms and having to change in the toilet as the locker room was off limits.  Not an auspicious beginning, and unfortunately it was downhill from there....

[Cory Lewis]

Is it a truly direct relationship in that a negative or underwhelming experience can artificially reduce our evaluation of the architecture?

I really think it depends in part on your knowledge and experiences with golf architecture.  My wife, who is learning more about golf architecture every day, was influenced by the bad experience she had with a caddie at a particular golf course.  When I asked her where the course ranked compared to others she had played, she gave it a very low ranking because her caddie caused her so much stress she was not able to appreciate and enjoy the course as much.  I would admit that I was guilty of the same thing several years ago at a course in California, but as I have seen more courses and learned more about architecture I have been able to concentrate more on the architecture and not the other aspects of the club.

[Tom_Doak]

JC,

I think it's absolutely true that this works both ways.  In my years as a ratings editor for GOLF Magazine ... with what I considered to be a top class group of panelists from the golf business ... I heard some ridiculous ratings based on this.  The funniest of them was the guy who rated Black Forest in MI ahead of Pinehurst #2, where he had endured a six hour round and been treated shabbily (probably because they made him pay).  It's possible he thought he was buttering me up, but it got him kicked off the panel instead, so maybe he misjudged me.

Playing well is part of the experience, too, and we all know that we tend to overrate courses when we play well.  In fact, I have always held North Berwick back a bit in my rankings because I always play so well there that I'm sure I am overrating it in my mind.

[John Kirk]

JC,

I think it's absolutely true that this works both ways.  In my years as a ratings editor for GOLF Magazine ... with what I considered to be a top class group of panelists from the golf business ... I heard some ridiculous ratings based on this.  The funniest of them was the guy who rated Black Forest in MI ahead of Pinehurst #2, where he had endured a six hour round and been treated shabbily (probably because they made him pay).  It's possible he thought he was buttering me up, but it got him kicked off the panel instead, so maybe he misjudged me.

Playing well is part of the experience, too, and we all know that we tend to overrate courses when we play well.  In fact, I have always held North Berwick back a bit in my rankings because I always play so well there that I'm sure I am overrating it in my mind.

Funny, because my reason for overrating North Berwick when I had my one chance to play it, was the remarkable correlation between the quality of my shots and the nature of the results, a succession of head-scratching "wow"s, while playing on a course that looked innocuously natural.

[Sean_A]

For a guy like me with zippo archie experience, I absolutely try to do a combo of ambience, architecture, beauty and price as an overall idea of what I consider my favourites and what I would recommend.  I take the oerd of very few about architecture because very few know much about what it takes to build a course and then there is the all invasive architectural preference.  Give me some pix anyday over most anybody's poetic waxing of a course.  

Ciao

[George Pazin]

Your thread is almost the exact opposite of what I was expecting, which just goes to show you how strong inference is when reading. I was expecting you to argue that great architecture causes an almost euphoric feeling that raises the ambience/experience element.

I've had great experiences at courses I didn't particularly love - mostly because of the company as opposed to the ambience - but I can't recall having a poor experience that caused me to lower my value of a course's architecture. Guess I'm lucky (yet again).

[Carl Johnson]

If one is careful, isn't it fairly easy to distinguish among the architecture of the course, the maintenance of the course, the "club," the non-course facilities, the "experience" of playing the course, and who knows what else?  But one does have to be careful.  JC brings into focus the importance of being careful to explain what we are talking about or "rating" when we talk about or "rate" clubs and/or courses.

[Eric Smith]

JC (and Jud),

That club with the double wide? I fired a smooth 99 (played terrible) on my only play there, my friends traveling with me hated the place and bitched about it all day (wasn't fun), yet for me it is easily one of my favorites ever played. I think of it as truly one of the modern greats in golf.

I would love to play it again (play better) and enjoy it with some GCA pals (always fun!) who can better appreciate the occasional beat down that this golf course can deliver.

[SL_Solow]

Sorry that I am late to the party.  This is a really good thread JC.  Also a difficult problem.  I am reminded of the criticism that Pebble Beach wouldn't be highly regarded if it wasn't sitting on a beautiful stretch of the Pacific.  But of course it is and part of the architectural puzzle is how to use that beauty and still build a great golf course that also takes advantage of the views.  Note the relative lack of acclaim for Hills' work at Half Moon Bay that also has a great stretch of ocean.  I think that this can work the other way as well.  I think of Smyer's work at Southern Dunes in Haines City Florida.  Inexpensively built on a relatively good site for Florida this is a very well conceived course.  I suspect it was higher rated when there were no houses around it.  Now it is crowded in by (in my opinion) relatively nondescript homes and condos and it feels different and is probably less highly regarded.  But the course and the golf are the same. 

Perhaps the toughest time I have in balancing these issues is when I travel overseas.  The atmosphere in Scotland/Ireland, where the golf is integrated into the community and the courses have a different look and feel than most of those in the US may cause me to overvalue the architecture unless I am very careful.

Which raises another question; is the individual golfer more interested in the quality of the golf/architecture or in the overall experience.  Clearly many in the US have defined the overall experience as including conditioning, clubhouses, staff, food etc which in part explain the country club for a day publics and some of the opulent privates.  But the experience can mean other things like the different feeling you get at a place like Gullane (not to mention St. Andrews).   In evaluating the architecture one must be careful to factor out the externalities.  But in terms of evaluating whether you had a good time, I suspect they count.  So an additional question is, what type of outside factors matter to you?

[Matthew Petersen]

I think it's very possible, but it's also quite possible that people will overly champion a course that lacks natural advantages (ie, "This is a great course and no one pays it enough attention because it's not near the sea" type of argument.)

In the end, I think it's virtually impossible to sort out all the different factors that influence a GCA ranking. Some raters will be aware of their biases, others will think they are but have issues they give in to. A bad day of play, poor weather, a long round, bad company, even how easy it was to get to the course that morning ... all of this plays it's role. the hope is that with enough different sources of input all the various biases balance each other out. Law of averages and all that.

[PCCraig]

Ambience makes a big difference to most golfers, to some I would say it's 50% of their experience. I heard a co-worker say he really enjoyed Bollingbrook GC because "the course was in great condition and that clubhouse is so nice for a public course!" Personally, the clubhouse was way overdone by a local mayor who used public funds to build a nice place for him and his buddies to hang out and the golf course stinks.

For me, I actually preferr a very minimal clubhouse and other "experience" things: food, pools, housing, etc... and have always said that I think golfing nirvana would be a club with a world renowned golf course and a hut for a clubhouse with just enough room for a bathroom and a fridge for the beer. Heck, just throw a fingerprint reader on the door and you wouldn't even need to hire a pro.

There is a high end club in South Carolina that when it was first built had a gravel road entrance, no homes, a "clubhouse" that was big enough for a couple couches/bar/fireplace and opened up in the back to the range. It was perfect! But in recent years they have built a very big (for the size of the membership) clubhouse that is barely used but is needed if they are going to sell their 100 or so homesites.

[Dan Herrmann]

Put it this way.  I'd be extremely happy to play PV if the clubhouse was a double-wide trailer.  But keep in mind that I grew up playing munis in Buffalo that had painted bowling pins as tee markers! 

[SL_Solow]

I am with you guys; I don't need all the bells and whistles.  But does there presence hurt your experience (other than in the pocketbook)?  Does it impact on your rating?  as to the tendency to overrate courses that lack natural advantages, this goes back to the question, oftenn asked, whether the good architects are that good because they get the good sites?  Clearly good ground is a great advantage although we all know of circumstances where great sites were underutilized.  But I don't think we are rating architectural effort, we are rating golf courses.  I am sure there are plenty of 2nd tier courses where the architect got a lot out of the land but didn't have the budget to do more or the propeerty didn't have more to give.  Great work but not a truly great course can result.

[Tom_Doak]

I don't think seeing the clubhouse at Friars Head would change my opinion of the course at all.

I used to take a fair bit of pride that Pacific Dunes earned it's rankings while operating out of a (very nice) double-wide, and I doubt the completion of the clubhouse there has affected anyone's thugs about the course.  Indeed, we located the clubhouse mostly out of view fro the course so that it would have the least effect.

[Dan Herrmann]

Hey - I liked that "rustic" clubhouse at PD!

I really did....  To me, it was more proof that Bandon Dunes is "all about the golf".

[Tim Bert]

JC (and Jud),

That club with the double wide? I fired a smooth 99 (played terrible) on my only play there, my friends traveling with me hated the place and bitched about it all day (wasn't fun), yet for me it is easily one of my favorites ever played. I think of it as truly one of the modern greats in golf.

I would love to play it again (play better) and enjoy it with some GCA pals (always fun!) who can better appreciate the occasional beat down that this golf course can deliver.

A double wide and a course that delivers a beat down.  This sounds like the kind of place that would make you grill your own dinner after a long day of golf.  Definitely not for everyone!

[Anthony Gray]

   Another great topic Jason.Golf is an experience.That experience includes much more thasn just 18 holes.That is one thing that makes courses like like Cruden Bay,The Old Course,Bandon,and PebbleBeach amoung others so fun to visit.Its not the architecture that keeps 'em coming back,its the total experience....I forgot one,Los Cabos.

   Anthony

 

[Jud_T]

I'm not sure I understand the "look what he did with such a mediocre site" overrating concept.  IMHO the thing that clearly influences people the most is water views.  Aside from where it actually comes into play, I think it's very difficult for most people to put this element aside and take a hard look at the course (i.e. the Dumb Blondes,  Old Head, Torrey, etc...)

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()