[Mark_Fine]

In the January 26th issue of Golfweek, Brad Klein (who I have the upmost respect for) does a nice review of The Slammer & The Squire Course.  He goes through his 10 point review of the different categories that Golfweek uses to assess a course and ends up with about the same overall opinion as I did when I reviewed the course two years ago.  He gives it a 4.5.  However, it is quite apparent (its even mentioned in the article title) that the lack of "ambience" had the major influence in his overall low rating.

Golfweek is supposedly known for focusing on the "architecture" when they study courses and GD got hammered on this site years ago for adding "ambience" to their review criteria.  Does Brad's article validate that ambience is an important part of the golf course after all?    

Everyone finally agree    
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

No, it's just his opinion, and he could be wrong !

[Tim_Weiman]

Mark:

I don't know if Brad Klein's article "validates" that ambiance is an important part of golf architecture.  It is probably just a matter of common sense.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat and Tim,
I just found it interesting because I remember all the posts on the topic when GD introduced the criteria into their evaluation process.  My personal opinion has always been that like all the other aspects a golf course design, ambience plays some role.  

If you still beg to differ, so be it.  At least the Burger King that is replacing Ben's Porch at Sand Hills won't have any  influence on your perception of the course.  I hear the only difference from an architecture standpoint is that you now just play a little cut shot off the "flame broiled whopper" sign into #18       Yes I'm just kidding, for now at least  

Mark

[TEPaul]

This isn't any validation of the way the other magazine rating panels evaluate architecture in my opinion if ambience is much a part of it. Doesn't matter to me if it was Brad Klein who said it.

Golfers don't play "ambience" that I know of but if the rating panels want to include that as a reason for an enjoyable day or experience, then fine!

I'd like to see these rating panels and magazines rate the architecture of golf courses first which I don't think they're doing that great a job of, and second I'd like to see them explain to the reading public what that actually means in the context of a course's architecture which I don't think they're doing at all, and never have.

You know, if a course is #1 tell us what it is about its architecture that makes it #1 and if another course is #15 tell us what it is about its architecture that makes it #15 and not #10 or #1 or even #100--this kind of thing is educational if its architecture were talking about!

The trouble with these magazines is they're saying something, claiming something and they're not doing it--or they sure aren't explaining it--not even to their own panelists apparently!

[Matt_Ward]

MarkF:

Ambience is a factor -- it's just not the first consideration on my list. Give you an example -- when you go to the movies what do you go for? I go for the film -- first and foremost. If the seats are nice that's a plus -- it'a also a plus for good popcorn and some decent raisinets and all the other goodies.

But, if the film stinks all the candy and side issues don't really come into play.

Ambience on the course is about the periphery -- not the central core. Don't get me wrong -- it's a factor but the architectural merits of the actual course -- the individual holes and how they work in unison together is what I look for first.

Hope this helps ...

[Mark_Fine]

I just wish someone would define what a great golf course is to me.  I get so confused    You think you have it figured out then you see ambience get tossed into the mix!  One guy says it's important another says it's not another says it has some role but not a major one??  I think next time a play a new golf course I'm just going to focus on, heck I don't know what I'm going to focus on  
 
Tom could you please tell me how to properly evaluate a golf course?

[Matt_Ward]

MarkF:

I know you posed your question to Tom Paul, but I'd like to try to answer it when I evaluate a course. A quick list below ...

1). Does the club promote usage of all or most of your clubs?Some clubs allow you to succeed when using only a small number of clubs. The great ones test you across the board. However, I do believe the great courses require high dexterity with the driver and putter -- first and foremost.

2). Do you have to work the ball or have the ability to shape shots (i.e. high to elevated targets, low at times, etc.)? A superior routing does not allow you to get comfortable with just one type of ball flight.

3). Do the holes provide options from which you the golfer must decide? Great courses always make you think -- do you wish to be cautious or bold? You decide correctly and you are rewarded. Conversely, if you fail there is a penalty.

4). Does the club reward / penalize proportionally to the manner in which you succeed / fail to execute? Courses with water on both sides of numerous holes fail this test as does holes with OB popping up everywhere.

Hope this helps ...

P.S. The ambience you mentioned is also something I take into account because just like dessert there must be something that gives you added juice beyond the main entree.

[Tim_Weiman]

Guys:

I'm trying to find a way to comment on this without sounding offensive, but can you imagine 95% of the people who play golf thinking ambiance is not an important part of a golf course?

Don't we sound too much like we think we know something about "golf architecture"?  Don't we sound too much like we think we know how to "rate" golf courses?

[ChipOat]

Unless I'm missing the point, are we discussing whether ambience should be considered in rating the merits of a course?

I think you REALLY have to know a course well in order to be able throw out ambience as something that effects your judgement.

Example #1 - Merion's ambience is, to most people, subtle enough (to be polite) that the course isn't in a lot of people's top 10.  I promise you - the more you play it, the more you're able to appreciate it's design purity.

Example #2 - 95% of the people I know prefer Pine Valley to Merion.  If Merion's layout was in Pine Valley's setting and Pine Valley was a "family" club, would that still be the case?  I doubt it.

Example #3 - I can't get a single NGLA member to even put Merion in the same league as National.  Having played both a bunch, the ambience of NGLA doesn't color my opinion.  Not true of the National guys that get only 1 or 2 rounds at Merion.

Example #4 - I have experienced the same problem with Garden City Golf Club members as #3 above.

Example #5 - I can tell you from personal experience that it's impossible not to go ga-ga over Augusta the first time you play it.  I hope to see what it's like the 2nd, 3rd and 4th times someday.  However, the truth is that #'s 13 and 15 are both layup 8 iron second shots for me, #3 isn't all that tough when the greens are "normal" and #17 has a stupid tree in the way of my tee shot.  How would I rate Augusta after half a dozen rounds FROM A DESIGN PERSPECTIVE?  I sure hope I get the chance to find out!

What's the point?  I think ambience hits EVERYBODY first - only a couple of really spectacular holes usually make it onto most people's design radar screen the first time out.  Until they get used to the sea air, the view, the history, the years you've been waiting to play there, etc., how can anybody look at the golf holes with cool, detached objective judgement?

Whether we should or shouldn't, how can it be helped without a number of rounds to put the ambience, or lack thereof, in perspective?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()