[jeffwarne]

How much does it have to do with the achitecture of the original course one is exposed to?
(even if the "buggee" is unaware that that's the reason they've been smitten.)

[JMEvensky]

Zero.

If you don't get hooked by the game itself,no amount of good architecture will help.All good architecture can do is drive the hook in deeper.

[Pete Lavallee]

Interesting question Jeff. I grew up playing a course that was half Ross (the other half was lost to freeway expansion) and half 1960's architecture. When it came time to build a new 9, the owners demanded a "Championship Course". They got what they wanted, 3 par 4's in excess of 460 yards, 3 in excess of 440 yards. We all knew the old holes were more interesting and fun to play with persimmons and balatas. No mention of Ross was made back then in the 1970's; they tout his lineage a great deal today. So even with 9 holes that could only be classified as a slog, the other 9 kept bringing me back and indeed gave me the bug!

[PCCraig]

I would say pretty much zero. Inhad quite a few friends who grew up on fantastic golf courses, but they took the architecture around them for granted.

[jeffwarne]

Zero.

If you don't get hooked by the game itself,no amount of good architecture will help.All good architecture can do is drive the hook in deeper.

I  disagree.

I see no reason why anyone would get hooked topping the ball into ravines over forced carries, walking 200-400 yards between holes, losing balls in wetlands, brush, and native grasses.(but it must happen occasionally -as you say-from the game itself)

there's a certain romance and charm to a subtley designed course on a mature piece of property that a poorly conceived course can't match (particularly in a housing development)
I'm guessing a novice player can sense the difference and get hooked more easily in the more subtle enviroment...

[JMEvensky]

Every "hooked" guy I grew up with started playing on goat tracks.We're all still playing,and we're all just as hooked.

Nowadays,we usually get to play good architecture.But if we all had to go back to the goat tracks,we'd still play.I think the playing trumps everything--including the playing field.

I wish like Hell that I'd grown up playing at CPC or RCD.Maybe then I'd see a greater correlation between early course appreciation and getting hooked.

[Emile Bonfiglio]

based on the goat tracks and runways I was exposed to playing as a young boy, I'd say very little. Undoubtably as I grew in the game, the desire to experience better courses with more unique designs grew as well.

[Dan Herrmann]

Zero.

I was hooked as a teenager on William Harries municipal courses, none of which would be in anybody's top 5000 list (except for mine), and enjoyed every minute.

[jeffwarne]

Zero.

I was hooked as a teenager on William Harries municipal courses, none of which would be in anybody's top 5000 list (except for mine), and enjoyed every minute.

I guess I didn't explain myself well.
I'm not implying one needs to learn at NGLA or Cypress Point, just that one can get hooked on a playable course with subtle basic features(even a goat track) more so than one wants to learn to play a course where a ball could be lost on any swing (Housing course, modern fescue wonder,) or on a course that's a bitch to walk
My guess is that many of us enjoy returning to those "goat tracks" where we got hooked much more  than many of the crappy ultra hard modern courses that have been built in the past few years.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()