Two Random and Unrelated Questions

[Rob Bice]

Does your appreciation of a feature largely depend on whether or not that feature is natural or the result of earth moving?

Do you view rankings first and foremost as a way to measure courses against one another, i.e. this course is better than that course because of x, y and z?

[Rory Connaughton]

It does not matter to me whether the feature is natural or the result of earth moving as long as it is relevant to the various ways in which a hole may be played and well executed.  Virtually every bunker on every parkland course is the result of earth moving and there are a lot of great ones.

Rankings are not particularly useful to me. Actually seeing a course in person is optimal for making one's own subjective determination as to whether it is superior to another.

[Rob Bice]

Thanks Rory.  I probably need to clarify a few things.

1.  The first question was intended more for small hills, valleys, contours, etc.  I heard a specific story whereby a greenside hill was criticized when it was thought to be mand made but then lauded when it was later found out to be part of the natural terrain.  This from a very well respected golf architecture fan.

2.  Seems there are a lot of ranking lists on this site.  I thought it would be interesting to understand whether most rank a course against itself with special attention given to the apparent constraints and opportunities of the land.  Courses would be a given an independent score and then the "rankings" would sort of fall out when the lists are compiled.  Or do most play a game similar to what is being done right now with the template holes?  This hole/course is better than that hole/course, etc.

[George Pazin]

1.  The first question was intended more for small hills, valleys, contours, etc.  I heard a specific story whereby a greenside hill was criticized when it was thought to be mand made but then lauded when it was later found out to be part of the natural terrain.  This from a very well respected golf architecture fan.

Tom Doak shared a story on here about a certain thoughtful poster who loved a feature on one of his courses, but was somewhat disappointed to learn it was man made. I think the course in question is Lost Dunes. Someone else can share the full story, if they remember it better.

[Michael Goldstein]

1.  Man made features are OK provided they fit with the landscape and are not over engineered.  Case in point, Kinloch where every single feature was man made yet the course looks entirely natural (except the greens).  At the other end of the scale, Dundonald Links.

2. I don't think rankings are about pitting one course against another.  It is easy to differentiate one of the very best courses in the world from, say, one that sneaks into the top 100.  But when you start trying to compare courses in the same league you are splitting hairs.

[Sean_A]

I can love man made and natural features equally, but a natural feature has more chance to really wow me.  I have aways been most concerned by which natural features archies use and which are discarded.   

I use rankings as one way to decide where to play.  Its fun that some discussion can occur because of rankings and sometimes I learn cool things.  Usually I use the discussions to find out the sneaky favourites of folks and why.  I am fascinated with lists of favourites, but not so much lists of best courses.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

1.  The first question was intended more for small hills, valleys, contours, etc.  I heard a specific story whereby a greenside hill was criticized when it was thought to be mand made but then lauded when it was later found out to be part of the natural terrain.  This from a very well respected golf architecture fan.

Tom Doak shared a story on here about a certain thoughtful poster who loved a feature on one of his courses, but was somewhat disappointed to learn it was man made. I think the course in question is Lost Dunes. Someone else can share the full story, if they remember it better.

George:

The feature in question was the mound at the left front of the second green at Lost Dunes -- a pretty severe feature.  My friend did not like it and asked why we created it.  I told him we didn't, and he then did an about-face and decided he loved it, even though it was the very same mound.

Adding a further layer to the story, while the mound was there when we started the course, I'm sure it was not really natural -- it was a remnant of the old mining operation on site, like many of our features at Streamsong in Florida.  To me, it's cool to incorporate those sorts of features in the course, as long as you don't do it as a fetish.  But if someone could create the same sorts of features in their shaping work, more power to them.

[Rob Bice]

It is easy to differentiate one of the very best courses in the world from, say, one that sneaks into the top 100.

I wonder if this is true.  As I mentioned in a prior post, I would love to see how people would rank courses if they didn't know the history, architect, etc.  I realize this is impossible but interesting to think about nonetheless.

[Tim Nugent]

Rob, I have little use for lists for the exact reason you are contemplating.  Does the architect of a constrained site with a meager budget do a better job than one who is given a 1,000 acres of Sandhills land and just has to "find" 18-holes?  Without knowing the particulars of the development criteria, one is just judging the final outcome.
As an aside to TD's story RE:#2, I thought it was an interesting commentary on Perception when he pointed it out. But, what I found even more facinating was when he explained the work he did between the tee and green on the following par 3 #3.  I'm sure 99.9% of all who played it (including our GCA group) would have never guessed that it was all manufactured - it looked so natural.

Although I have played many of the "top" courses, I rather like to seek out no-name and un-ranked courses to see if there is anything "off-the-radar". Imagine what one would be missing if they passed on North Berwick "just because it wasn't in the top 100".

[Rob Bice]

Tim,
If memory serves, isn't there something fairly substantial buried beneath the third hole?

Does the best igloo rank higher than an average skyscraper?

[Tim Nugent]

Rob, I recall Tom saying there was something that would have cost a lot more to remove than to just bury.  A good case of Subtraction by Addition.  These are the little things that someone with experience and the ability to think outside the box brings to the table.

Skyscraper or Igloo?  Depends which one you are more comfortable in.  I don't think many Eskimos would be comfortable on the 99th floor but then many Manhattenites probably wouldn't like an icecube with no windows and raw blubber to eat

[Jim Hoak]

1)  It does matter to me whether a feature is man-made or natural--but only a bit in my appreciation of it and in creating the "wow" factor.  I remember being disappointed when I first heard that the giant dune/bunker to the left of 18 at Pacific Dunes was created by Tom Doak, but I still thought and think it is phenomanal.

2)  I think that ratings are only good for arguing about--and selling magazines for the publisher.  But they are fun.

[Gary Slatter]

1 features:  if they fit I don't care when they were made
2 rankings, lists:  I enjoy viewing all of them, sometimes even sought out one that was ranked highly.  However, I only trust my own lists and personal rankings.