Grade your openness

[Ran Morrissett]

I know a couple of members of the Ross Society who are the happiest when they are playing a (surprise!) Donald Ross course. Nothing brings them more satisfaction (a trip to Sand Hills, Pebble, you name it) than finding some relatively obscure hidden Ross gem in New York somewhere.

They have next to no interest in playing modern courses; they are both busy professionals and in their limited time, they elect to find and play Ross courses.

And to that, all I can say when you find that kind of passion is, that's WONDERFUL.

Of course, there is a lot more to golf course architecture than just Donald Ross. There are courses like Dye's PGA West monster with 15-20 foot deep bunkers, a bunkerless Royal Ashdown Forest, class nine hole courses, a course like Paul Turner's Painswick with a par and yardage of who knows or cares what, a sub 6,000 yard Cape Arundel with no irrigation, Whistling Straits where a Mt. Everst of dirt was moved, a minimalist's dream like Wild Horse, a flat course like Dick Wilson's masterpiece at Pine Tree vs. Jim Engh's mountainous Sanctuary GC, a one-off like Oakmont, etc.

In short, the range within golf course architecture is nothing shy of staggering.

My question is: how open are you to different kinds of courses that are done well?

Yes, we all have preferences - such is human nature. Many prefer links golf the best, some worship heathland golf, some find a tree lined Medinah to be close to their ideal. We have favorite architects (where we undoubtedly give the course a few extra points because because of who did it) and conversely, we have least favorite architects to the point where some people would rather work at their desk all day than play any course by architect X.

Can you put aside such biases? Are you open to trying something different and if its cool, recommending it to your friends? If you answer "yes", name a specific example of such a different course that others question but that you champion.

This question stems from re-reading Ron Whitten's interview where I came across the question of "What qualifications make for a good panelist?" with the answer being "Open-mindedness, plain and simple. No preconceived notions. No attitude that he's figured out everything about golf architecture and is simply searching for the course that best fits his (or her) mold."

A brilliant answer, it seems, immaterial of whether you are a panelist or not, and one that has really stuck with me.

Cheers,

[Tim_Weiman]

Ran,

I'd rate myself low on your openness scale.

Much as I might like to be more "open minded", I still come back to the belief that as a rule classic era architecture is more interesting.  It's probably the result of growing up in the NY Metro area combined with spending my first 10-15 adult years as a golf architecture student either across the pond or visiting classic courses here in the States.  Now all I want to do is visit Melbourne for another fill of the old masters.

Did I go through a period of checking out modern stuff?  Yes, I did.  Basically, it just confirmed my original impressions.

I could hardly care about meeting Ron Whitten's criteria for a rater.  I just want to go enjoy more of what I already like.

As for the modern guys, only those whose work reminds me of the oldtimers is really of serious interest.  I don't mind saying my preference is for places like Stonewall because it seems like it was done a long time ago.

[RJ_Daley]

I'm wide open to new ideas.  If I weren't, I'd never leave Wisconsin and I'd O.D on a steady diet of my own weekly regular course (Brown County) and travel down the road to Lawsonia.  While I could be perfectly happy about that, I make evry effort to try new stuff.  I played a new course in November that is totally manufactured and some would turn up their nose at the idea of where it is (middle of nothing in particular, dairlyland) and by an archie that doesn't get too much praise here, called The Creeks at Ellingson, by Bob Lohmann.  I'm here to tell you it is first rate.  Likewise, while I heard disparaging remarks about Tobacco Road as "goofy golf", I felt very open minded, and again found much to recommend it.  Many traditionalists and classical look lovers like the hairy lipped bunker style.  However, while I might favor those like found so naturally around the blowout bunker styles of the sand hills, I also greatly appreciate a crisp edged nicely shaped/sculpted bunker like we saw in Galea's pictures of Talking Stick, or what we see at Riviera.   One aspect however that I am closed minded about, is unnecessary use of rock walls, ledges and RR ties within 100 yards of a greesite where none of said material could work just fine!  I hate it when that happens

[RJ_Daley]

But, I didn't answer the question exactly.  I'd rate my openness at about a "B+" with that little chink in the armour about the rock ledges and all...  But, I would much rather play then describe a course and take pictures of it to share with folks that depict things I liked about the course than assign some vague and non-descriptive grade points to it.  Because, B+ or 8 or 9.1 doesn't tell us nothing in particular about myself or a golf course.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

On a 3*** Michelin scale I give myself 4**** because my very occasional snippy slips of ("it ain't Dornoch") are completely overwhelmed by those moments such as my first time at Merion when, on the 12th (I think) I uttered the immortal words:  "What wicker baskets?"

[Chris Kane]

If it is a MacKenzie design and has been kept true to its original design intentions, then it is a 10 on the Doak scale without another look.

Apart from that, I'm always looking for a new course to rave about.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I agree that open-mindedness is important, but there does seem to be certain traits great golf courses (past and present) possess even as new fads come and go. I don't blame the Ross (or Fazio fan) for seeking out his courses, as long as they are not always impressed with what they find - perhaps an example of both closed and open minded. I'm not sure the more you play and observe courses of all types/eras that you may actually become more closed minded or at least begin to form a difinitive idea of what you personally like/dislike. I think that is a good thing. If you are too open minded (ie, easily impressed) aren't you prone to Golf Digest's constant elevation of the newest bold design - which many times is disgarded as passe a few short years down the line. And I wonder how condusive GD's rigid criteria is to true open mindedness -- the make up of the panel and the criteria seems to promote difficulty above strategic interest. But then again maybe I'm closed minded about the importance of strategic interest.

[Ed_Baker]

As a direct result of participation on this site, I have gone from a completely closeminded F to possibly a D plus, which not so coincidentially pretty much mirrors my academic achievments during my forced travels through the hallowed halls of learning.

I at least take the time to go and play new courses now, I even posted a favorable review of one on here last summer, Charter Oak by RTJ Jr.
But I must admit that I still am more likely to cast a jaundiced eye, or, more accurately a hyper-critical eye on newer courses.

Best new course that I played last year was Carnegie Abbey in R.I. by Donald Steel. (Although I still prefer Point Judith and Newport for similar sites and Eastward Ho! is still the best by a long way.)

[John Foley]

My openness has increased dramatically the deeper I get into this site and the books on golf architecture. When I first started getting into architecute it was from the new course only view. Whenever I traveled I would look to play a new course, to see what the new architects had done. Now I'm looking at the old, golden age designers and their work much much more.

Kind of backwards to most.

[Ran Morrissett]

This month is going to be a record for GCA.com in terms of page views - plenty of folks are tuning into the site.

One group that checks in from time to time are the architects themselves. However, few of them post.

When asked why, the answer that I get back the most often is "What's the point? Most of the regulars have already determined what they like/dislike and their bias precludes them from considering something different. Besides, I already know how they will respond." They wish there were more people like RJ Daley but they perceive Tim's candid response as the norm and they don't want to push uphill against the preference for the old style.

Any comments? Can the discussion group - in general - be  stereotyped? And if so, is that necessarily good or bad by definition?

[redanman (Guest)]

Shall we say open to the point that when I discount those things that unfairly influence others I become accused of being biased.

I am hard on everyone.  Sometimes I stress the positives, sometimes I emphasize the negatives.  I am quite secure in my opinions. Believe it or not I can love a tree lined course (And I don't mean my home club Lehigh), for example.

I'll let others decide, if they feel they need to grade my "openness".  Only I know my final grades for most places.  I'll add that I feel that there are only three or four opinions on this board free of major biases or preferences.  We can all improve our openness.  I work actively at it by seeking out certain courses and architects.

"That's my opinion......." A famous GCA doyen[/i}

[THuckaby2]

I'll vouch for Mr. Goodale.  His only "closed-mindedness" comes in a discussion of one's no.1 favorite course world-wide, and what the hell he's a member at his choice.  He can be forgiven.  Beyond that, I'd have to say he's in a group of several comprising those tied for 2nd most "open-minded" person on this site (BillV, you're in there also!).

Yours truly is the most.  Sorry, case closed.  I have no preconceived notions because I'm a member nowhere, a complete vagabond.  Oh, I do get "dazzled",  but that can happen anywhere... In the past year, I was as impressed by aspects of very public, ranked by no one Barona Creek as I was at intensely private, ranked by everyone National and Shinnecock and Cypress.  I often don't know who the architect is at a course, and rarely care all that much until discussing it afterward.  My only preference/bias is toward playing the game rather than studying too much.  But that doesn't close my mind....

As for this site and pre-conceived ideas, well... I'd say there is a certain "dogma" and preference for the classical over the modern, but to me that's ok.  

But if I were a Jeff Brauer or Todd Eckenrode, I'd tread lightly and get really thick skin, that's for sure! Those guys and the other archies who do brave this site impress the hell out of me.

TH

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

There does seem to be a stereotype - it is common complaint that this group speaks with one voice and has a definitive taste/bias. Personally I don't see it, sure there are some who might fall into that catagory - including myself - but there is certainly plenty of disagreement and divergent views. Isn't that the point of a discussion group, a place were people of differing views can present their case. If we all agreed it wouldn't be much of a discussion.

If a golf architect is uncomfortable or unable or unwilling to express their opinion or point-of-view because there might be disagreement or criticism, it makes me wonder how strong their convictions are in the first place. I'm sure there might be some who say who needs the abuse or the hastle, but I beleive it is useful to be pressed in your views, it forces you to refine and sometimes ammend your ideas. And isn't there a difference between disagreement and closed mindedness. If someone has diffinitive opinions or tastes that doesn't necessarily mean he/she is not open-minded or unwilling to listen to or to accept other ideas or viewpoints.

The blanket complaint that regulars have already determined what they like/dislike and their bias precludes them from considering something different is very vague -- what are specific examples of designs that are different that would not be accepted by this 'group'.

[Craig Van Egmond]

As a public golfer I would say my level of openness is fairly high out of necessity.  I have been fortunate to play some private courses, like Crystal Downs (Thanks John and Mike) and Essex with the Mingay clan, but for the most part my golf experience is a public one.  In the recent months I have played a couple of 9 hole courses, several munis, some resort courses and several CCFAD.  

This site and the ones before it have raised my level of awareness for the classics and what could be the future classics. I recently played my first Todd Eckenrode course and look forward to playing more. I also look forward to playing more Mike Devries courses, a Gil Hanse course, Mike Young, Jeff Brauer and maybe a Tony Ristola someday. I love playing golf and I love playing new golf courses, there's nothing like walking up on the first tee and seeing what adventure may take place.

Are there courses I used to play starting out 10 years ago that I no longer want to play? Sure, mostly because of pace of play issues and not architectural ones though.  I learned to play the game on a 9 hole course with no bunkers, it was the perfect course for me, it was simple and cheap and I could play after work 3 or 4 times a week. They later ruined it by butching it up by making it an 18 hole course.

My home course is Newcastle in Bellevue, WA and is the highest priced course in the state of Washington.  Is it worth the high price?  I wouldn't pay it. But is it a good course? Very much so, I would say a solid 6 on the Doak scale. The more I play the course the more I have come to appreciate the way it plays. It is on the site of an old landfill, with no trees and gets very windy up there. The course plays very hard and firm, requires you to be able to hit fades and draws, offers risk/reward, has blind shots, uphill/downhill par 3's etc. The course rewards good play and will punish poor play maybe sometimes too severely. The course also has the best drainage in the state and is playable year round.  While for some the course represents the bad things about the CCFAD fad, there is some fine golf there and that is the bottom line for me.

[THuckaby2]

Well said, Craig - much better than I did, that's for sure.  But you and I are two peas in the public course pod.

Speaking of open-ness, I just got named to be an NCGA course rater, so I damn well BETTER be open!  It's either that or see ya to this gig.

TH

[Ed_Baker]

Nice post Craig, "there is some fine golf there,and that's the bottom line for me."

That should be the bottom line for all of us, that's why they build the damn things isn't it? The more all of us get in to the subject of architecture, the easier it is to lose sight of why we play the damn game in the first place. I know I am guilty of "paralysis by analysis", sometimes I'm so absorbed in what I'm looking at, that I forget to hit shots, I have walked right past my ball!!! Ridiculous.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom H

I give you 2**, Grasshopper.  Next time you wangle your way onto a great course try to NOT read everything and anything that has ever been said about that course by writers alive and/or dead and just enjoy the experience, with just your own senses, for what it is.

Cheers

Rich

[Lou Duran]

Not long ago I had this same discussion with a gca who was aware of this site.  He had come to a conclusion very similar to the one noted by Ran ("mind already made up, why bother").  Just as there is media bias, the core of this group seems to have a marked predisposition toward the old.  Since we are dealing with tastes and preferences, there is nothing wrong with this.  The only downside is that it may needlessly limit our own learning and playing experiences.  After all, for all the charges levied against Fazio and Nicklaus on this site, it is doubtful that they have lost a single job as a result, or changed their design philosophy.  Both gentlemen have done excellent work and some not so good.  An objective review of the Masters' portfolios would show some variability, without considering the reasons why some of their work NLE.

While we are on this self-analysis mode, doesn't the site seem to be a little insular to some of you?  One can almost predict who will respond to a thread not so much by the subject matter, but by who originates the post.  Is the "Treehouse" at times a not-so-open clubhouse?

BTW, I consider myself to be relatively open in terms of architecture, though I tend to have strong preferences for playing conditions (firm, fast, light rough, trees on the wide periphery, walkable).  I like to think that whether I am playing a C&C, Rees Jones, or Tillinghast course, my appreciation for and evaluation of the work will be based on the playing experience and not on whose signature is on the canvass.    

[THuckaby2]

Ahhh, but that's where you're wrong, Rich.  I had read "Scotland's Gift" YEARS before I finally saw NGLA.  And you seriously think I didn't simply enjoy that day?  My constant cheek-breaking smile didn't attest to that?

Same thing went for the round at Cypress.  Ask Mr. Papazian re my attitude there.  Crystal-pure enjoyment.  The fact I had read Geoff's book (well before I had any hope of actually playing there) just added to the experience.

Nope, sorry, you have me sorely wrong here.  It kinda surprises me too.

Here's the kicker:  I read NOTHING about Dornoch until after I returned from my first trip there.  After the first time around, in mist rain, I BEGGED to be allowed to go out again, with barely two hours of light left.

That better?

I steadfastly maintain FIVE stars on the three-star scale of open-ness.  And if there is anyone on this earth who purely enjoys a round at a great course more than me, he must be on some golf-enjoyment-enhancing substance.

Stubbornly,

TH

[Doug Wright]

Ran,

I'm definitiely open to a variety of architecture, old and new, and I've got the goat track bag tags to prove it! Of course, no one can be as open as His Royal Openness Tom IV

As to a course that I'd recommend to my friends even though it's got zero or minus Doak points, I'd say Denver's City Park. The holes run like this: llll , it's surrounded by busy streets, people walk or run through the course, conditioning is marginal and etiquette generally is too but I like it in a macabre way. It has great tiny greens, some of which are almost unplayably sloped   It has four different and interesting par 3s, including a very short one and a long one that even Matt Ward would have trouble getting a GIR on due to the miniscule green.   Plus it's 10 minutes away, it has a great view of downtown and the animals across the street at the zoo make a helluva ruckus. Yeah sure my buddy almost got mugged there, but otherwise what's not to like? So here's to openness in GCA and on GCA.com.

All The Best,

[THuckaby2]

Well said Doug.  And I like the title.  But bear with me, I was just in a mood to try and be the BEST at something and dammit, this seemed to fit the bill.

Please do realize that I understand how patently full of shit I am!  

TH

[SL_Solow]

Tom; I have seen a couple of references to your acting as  a course rater in Northern California.  I do the same for the Chicago District.  We rely heavily on the USGA guidelines which are quite formulaic and leave only small margins for individual taste and judgment in an effort, I suppose, to achieve a degree of consistency.  Is it different out west?  It is a means of providing a service to the game and to see and maybe play courses but its not the most creative process in which I have been involved.  Its not like rating for the magazines.

[THuckaby2]

SL - we are EXACTLY the same as our Chicago brethren in this noble effort.  Let's call us Raters with a capital R, as opposed to all the riff-raff in here who do it for magazines!

Oooooh, I'm askin' for it there....

It is indeed very formulaic and the purpose is just to come up with course rating and slope.

TH

[THuckaby2]

By the way, via separate email, my Golf Conscience Mr. Goodale has explained to me the wisdom of his post here (at my request) and I humbly capitulate - my brief reign as King Open-ness is over.

 

'Tis true, to be truly open and have no preconceived notions, one cannot really "study up" on a course before one gets there.  I am guilty as charged.  Such study does indeed create a "pre-conception" no matter how pure one strives to be.

Damn.  But Rich in his wisdom also did say neither way was better or worse... So I can live with it.

The education continues.

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

Ran:

I sure don't intend to discourage architects and other golf industry reps from participating on this site.  To the contrary, I'd like to see it happen more.  For that reason, I'm much more inclined to write something in support of an unpopular modern architect (e.g., Fazio) than waste my time with something praising the oldtimers.

But, I share the sentiment expressed by Tom MacWood.  The classic era architects ARE pretty tough to compete with, especially if your goal is a Top 100.

We don't bash all the modern guys.  Witness our response to TD, C&C, DeVries, Hanse, etc.  

My hunch is that architects would be respected more here if they posted from time to time.  It sure hasn't hurt the guys who do.  Has it?