Broadening your horizons

[Kalen Braley]

You guys can continue to pat yourselves on the back for all your supposed impartiality and search for breadth of experience.  We'll see who's the first to sign up for the GCA outings at Cabot, Streamsong or Dismal Deuce....

Jud,

I think you're still missing a large part of the point.

It doesn't have to be an all or nothing.  You can have 3 days/ 6 rounds for a trip and decide to play 4 rounds at the "featured" course...and still have a day left over with two rounds for other good stuff in the area...even if it isn't as epic as the main attraction.

[Jud_T]

Kalen,

We don't disagree.  My point was it's the main attraction that got your butt on a plane to begin with... 

[Ben Sims]

There is an idea of choice that seems to irk Andy.  I don't know how you can take a clear preference for the architecture of one firm or another and turn it into a lack of variety and experience for a student of the game.  In fact, my argument is that those people that clearly prefer and seek out a certain style are doing themselves a favor in regards to refinement.  Branch out, broaden yourself and and explore?  Sure.  At the detriment of your own happiness?  Uh, no.  

I am clearly biased towards the modern minimalist style and seek it out when I can.  Especially when it involves thousands of my own hard earned dollars to play.  If I am rating for a magazine (whether I pay for play or not), I do what needs to be done to satisfy the requirements of the panel and be as unbiased as possible.  

Cries of fanboy-ism and favoritism may be valid.  But are they relavant?  I don't think the golfing world is waiting with baited breath on the assertions of GCA.com.  So if our collective bias in favor or modern minimalism and classic golden age courses is known and understood, why is it bad?  I'd much rather be known as a member of the forum at GolfClubAtlas than the forums at other golf sites.  It defines my characteristics as a golfer.  Knowledgeble folks in the golf world would know that I am discerning in my favored style of architecture, prefer to walk, like to play relatively quickly, hit different kinds of shots, and don't require a lot of fluff on the golf courses I play; all due to my membership here.

I have developed my bias due in whole to the fact that I have broadened my experience.  Seeing more and more I realize why I have the biases I have.    

[Will MacEwen]

I find myself agreeing with the broaden the horizons perspective, but Jud's last post caused me to check my ownself.

8 ( I think) Bandon trips, I guess about 50 rounds, and I have never seen a blade of grass at Crossings.  In my limited opportunities there, which perhaps aren't that limited, I go all in on the known quantity.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,

We don't disagree.  My point was it's the main attraction that got your butt on a plane to begin with... 

Jud,

This is true...

...however I was generally addressing the contigent that would travel and play 1 course only (6/6 rounds) when other interesting options are in the general vicinity and also worth a look.

Ben,

I get what you are saying in concept, but how do you know you won't like the other stuff if you don't get out there and play them and get a decent sample size from which to draw an actual informed opinion?

[Greg Tallman]

Jud, In all seriousness do you believe your affinity for Tom's designs clouds your vision at times?

Specific case: Bahia de los Sueños. You were effusive in your praise and put it on par with Diamante (and one would assume above The Ocean Course) following your visit to the area. There are few if any, probably including Tom himself, that would place BDLS in that realm. Just curious as to how you would respond. And for the record I rather like BDLS, MUCH moreso than the handful of rater types I have pushed to accompany me up to the site.

[Ben Sims]

Ben,

I get what you are saying in concept, but how do you know you won't like the other stuff if you don't get out there and play them and get a decent sample size from which to draw an actual informed opinion?

Kalen,

I'm not advocating to not broaden.  However, once you've broadened to the extent necessary, why fool yourself into thinking you need to subject yourself to stuff you don't like?  My wife doesn't need to keep forcing raw tuna down her gullet to reinforce her dislike for sushi.  Same with me, I don't need to play Lakota Canyon to back up the opinion of Engh work I reinforced at Sanctuary.  

Once you know, you know.  Broaden yourself sure.  But don't fool yourself into wasting your time.

[Jud_T]

Greg,

Perhaps.  But I never rated it ahead of Diamante, I simply said it's more suitable for my feeble game as an everyday club.  Also one has to look beyond the meager amenities at one vs. the killer setup at the other.  Although frankly the on course food and drink at Diamante are not easily dismissed...

[Sean_A]

I would like to stop and thank Richard Choi for inviting me to join him at Sahalee for a round he purchased at a charity auction.  Given the Ted Robinson and Sahalee bashing on this web-site I otherwise would have missed out on a wonderful walk in the park on a good golf course in a beautiful indigenous setting.  My horizons were indeed broadened and there are worse ways to spend four hours than spanking the golf ball around in the company of my friend Rich.

Mike

Bogey

For me this is the crux of it all.  I will pick a place to hang out on holiday and plan to play a few games of golf.  So naturally, if invited somewhere I am inclined to take up the offer even if the couse may not be on the short list of wanna sees.  There is something lovely about an invite which makes my day especially when its so rare to be able to accept.  In this way it is down right easy to skip other courses in the area worth playing.  They all can't be played and I have no desire to do so.

Ciao  

[Greg Tallman]

Greg,

Perhaps.  But I never rated it ahead of Diamante, I simply said it's more suitable for my feeble game as an everyday club.  Also one has to look beyond the meager amenities at one vs. the killer setup at the other.  Although frankly the on course food and drink at Diamante are not easily dismissed...

Meager is being kind and killer perhaps understated but I was basing on pure golf. I don't see BDLS even close in terms of interest and enjoyment though it has its share of really good holes (3,8,9,11,12,16,18). No amount or quality of bean soup, sushi, candies, beers, sodas, special themed waters or beautiful serving chicas is going elevate it to the level of a few course already here in Cabo but if Tom's name and reputation entices a few to follow the trail and end up in the area... we'll take it.

[Mike Hendren]

I had the great fortune of attending MucciFeat last fall.  To take advantage of largely fixed travel costs I wanted to play a couple of other courses.  As a huge Ross fan I was fortunate to play Plainfield.  Beyond that I really wanted to see more work of Banks or Raynor having had my appetite whetted locally by Lookout Mountain and Black Creek as well as Milwaukee's Blue Mound.  I chose Forsgate and Knoll West. - arguably a couple of B listers in that otherworldly region.   While I too like the lay-of-the-land stylings of the post-modernists and old dead guys, my archtectural world was absolutely rocked by those two courses, neither of which will sniff a top whatever list.   I can't fathom having missed either.  The thrill of discovery and epiphany drives my architectural wunderlust.  There is a surprising amount of architectural brilliance out there on the less celebrated golf courses - it's often just mixed in among some pedestrian or watered-down stuff as well.

Mike

[Phil McDade]

Kalen,

We don't disagree.  My point was it's the main attraction that got your butt on a plane to begin with... 

Jud:

But Andy's main point (by which George frames this argument) seems to be this: Would you forego a round at Course X, that you've played and/or know to be terrific/very good, for a round at Course Y that you perhaps haven't played, and probably know little out, or doesn't carry X's reputaion? That, to me, is the crux of the argument.

When I went to Dunaverty, I probably gave up on having one more go-around at Machrihanish, as my travel plans took me out of the area the next morning. But I'm glad I did it. Machrihanish was perhaps the primary course on my 10-day intinerary to Scotland 12 years ago (your get-on-the-plane to RCCC argument ), but I'm glad I passed up one final round there to see the quirk and whimsy (and views!) of Dunaverty.

[Kalen Braley]

Ben,

I get what you are saying in concept, but how do you know you won't like the other stuff if you don't get out there and play them and get a decent sample size from which to draw an actual informed opinion?

Kalen,

I'm not advocating to not broaden.  However, once you've broadened to the extent necessary, why fool yourself into thinking you need to subject yourself to stuff you don't like?  My wife doesn't need to keep forcing raw tuna down her gullet to reinforce her dislike for sushi.  Same with me, I don't need to play Lakota Canyon to back up the opinion of Engh work I reinforced at Sanctuary.  

Once you know, you know.  Broaden yourself sure.  But don't fool yourself into wasting your time.

Ben,

Fair enough, and I certainly wouldn't advocate sushi ramming again and again when one hates fish!  

But I would also say, limiting oneself to only one sample can also not be indicative of ones overall style.  I can tell you with 100% surety that if Beechtree were the only Doak course I had played that I certainly wouldn't travel far to seek out his other stuff (if I only had that one data point to go on).  While its a better than average course (or was I should say), it was certainly no world beater.  Thankfully I've played other of his courses and very much like what I've seen in addition to that.

Kalen

P.S.  I"ve played 4 of Engh's courses to date and I found Sanctuary to be my least favorite of the group.

[Jud_T]

Phil,

A fair point.  I'm certainly not averse to playing some off-the-run gems as opposed to simply bedpost notching the top 100 lists.  However, I need to have read something interesting or had a reputable recommendation generally rather than simply sampling everything randomly from the buffet. (anyone who's ever worked in a restaurant should know that buffets are a petri dish of leftovers and disease and are to be avoided at all costs).  For instance, Bogey's NJ trip above seems right up my alley.  Ben said it more eloquently than I could have.  Pretty sad for an old English Major (save it JC  )....

[George Pazin]

Lots of good answers. I think Ben and Jud probably come closest to why I feel the way I do about Andy's thoughts.

For me, it comes down to limited resources, those being primarily time and money. I'd rather play with the people I want to play with, and golf on the courses I really want to play, than add courses others think I need to see to broaden my horizons.

I play golf for a lot of reasons. Ranking or rating isn't one of them, won't likely ever be. I don't need to see certain courses to feel like I've seen it all and learned whatever from it.

I'm not just a Doak BB, I'm one of the founding members. In some cases, literally. But guess what? I have little or no desire to play Rock Creek CC or Tumble Creek, from what I've seen. I'm sure they are great courses, but they're likely not what I'm looking for in a golf course, at least in the sense of committing my resources. And I did commit a good bit of my resources to a dream on the other side of the world. I did it because I believed in Tom and I believed in Greg. I'm not sorry I did it, though in the long run, it was probably better for me that my investment was returned.

When I get down to Texas, I'll be playing WP and WP only. When my time is up there, they will be trying to drag me to a car while I struggle to hang on to the porch. (Someone might want to reinforce those beams, btw.)

Do I regret the courses I've played and thought were only so-so? Not at all, I was playing golf, and in virtually every instance, enjoying the company of good friends. I don't think they really added a great deal to my thinking about golf, either, but maybe they did add in identifying what I don't like.

[Jim Colton]

I seem to recall once upon a time Andy T was as close to a Jim Engh fanboy as we had on this site. I wonder if broadening his horizons to see a lot of top work - both classic and moderns -- has changed his view on Engh's design career.

I tried to broaden my horizons on a recent trip to Colorado - played an Engh, Nicklaus and C&C on bookends around 3 days out at Ballyneal. In one case, I regret going there altogether - the opportunity cost of one round there wasn't worth it and if anything trying to broaden my horizons only made me appreciate Doak's work even more. But the other two were definitely worth playing and I'm glad we did.

I have nothing against the guys not named Doak or C&C and wouldn't thing twice about seeking them out if folks I trust like Andy say they are worth a visit. I can't speak to the Rock Creek/Gozzer thing that was the premise to his statement - there could be other forces at play (access differences, RCCC did have a Ren Cup which many GCAers were probably at, etc).  I try to judge the course by the course, keeping who built it out of the equation. But it so happens those guys tend to build golf courses with the characteristics that I value highly, therefore the chance that I'll like them is high. Like somebody else mentioned, my golfing days are a scarce resource - probably only 15 days a year, so I want to make sure I get the most out of them. Even one dud is a wasted opportunity.

[Andy Troeger]

Going to have to save most of my commenting for later...obviously my general position is already known.

I'm not really talking about skipping Bandon Crossings on trips to Bandon. I didn't play Old Works or the CDA Resort Course when in the Idaho/Montana area myself--I fully understand limited resources and time. I'm a graduate student! I also understand wanting to play courses that appeal to you personally--we all do that except maybe those folks with the time and money to play every great course around the world. That's not reality for me, or many of you.

I wish this site had more Fazio fans. I don't have a good resource to find out which of his courses (or Dye's or Nicklaus, etc.) are worth seeking out because we rarely discuss them in any detail. Instead we have our 10th photo thread on Ballyneal. I've always wished for more variety here.

Jim C.--being an Engh fanboy here is easy compared to most. I still like his stuff much more than most here, but only Black Rock (EDIT: forgot about Tullymore!) is in my top 50. A couple of his courses dropped some after 2nd thought, but not generally. I think Lakota is woefully underrated.

More later...

[John Kavanaugh]

I tried to broaden my horizons on a recent trip to Colorado - played an Engh, Nicklaus and C&C on bookends around 3 days out at Ballyneal. In one case, I regret going there altogether - the opportunity cost of one round there wasn't worth it and if anything trying to broaden my horizons only made me appreciate Doak's work even more. But the other two were definitely worth playing and I'm glad we did.

OK, you either hated Sanctuary or Castle Pines.  Which was it?

[George Pazin]

John, your answer is on the "Your Last Ten" thread.

[Jim Colton]

John, your answer is on the "Your Last Ten" thread.

George, I was grading on Tom's scale, not mine. Or at least my interpretation of how Tom would score the ones that weren't in his book.

[George Pazin]

Does that change the answer?

Andy, there are plenty of Fazio fans and threads on here, you just need to look a little harder, maybe prompt them a little.

[Andy Troeger]

What does "add more value" mean?

Cheers

Mike,
Add more value to me means more detailed information and discussion of courses other than the ones we talk about regularly here. As George added in his last post, they do exist, but I think we'd benefit from more discussion of these places. In fairness, I've seen photo threads at times on a number of different courses by other architects and always read them, but don't post if I haven't been there to have something worth adding. Unfortunately, those threads disappear quite quickly. Just look at the hits Mark S. has gotten on his different photo threads of late--some stay on the front page for days and a few quickly went into the night.


I don't think we agree, but I don't think is a one-size-fits-all type of thread.

[Andy Troeger]

Its interesting reading responses to think of how becoming a rater has perhaps influenced my view on this topic, but I'm analytic anyway. There's multiple angles to this, but I'll willingly admit that I love visiting new places. I enjoy the thrill of stepping on a new tee and finding out what's in front of me, whether its at Pine Valley or Arroyo del Oso in Albuquerque. Given limited resources, I spend the vast majority of them checking out places that are new to me. Finding a new favorite to me carries more appeal than discovering a different nuance of something I've seen before. Others see it totally the other way and to each their own.

I also feel a sense of responsibility as a rater to see a breadth of courses, both geographically and architecturally. I think you have to know the bad and mediocre to appreciate the good and the great. If you're not a rater, then this doesn't apply. I also find that my tastes continue to evolve the more different places I play--I'm not confident enough in my own judgement to say that I know exactly what I like to the point that I'm willing to give up the rest. After playing 5-10 Fazio designs I thought he was just ok, had I given up then and avoided his stuff I'd have missed Victoria National and Gozzer Ranch, now two of my favorites. What's enough of a sample to say that an architect is good or bad? I've seen 9 Art Hills courses--I'm not actively seeking #10, but one of these times I'll give Hawkshead a shot when back in South Bend.

I have no issue with those of you that are fans of certain architects or styles. To each their own, keeping in mind that Bandon Trails, Rock Creek, and Pac Dunes are among my favorites anyway. I do think you sell yourself short, however, if you think you've got this whole architecture bit figure out. Maybe you truly have, but if so, you're far more in tune with your inner golfing self than me.

[Phil McDade]

For me, it comes down to limited resources, those being primarily time and money. I'd rather play with the people I want to play with, and golf on the courses I really want to play, than add courses others think I need to see to broaden my horizons.

George:

One of the things I discovered during my solo trip to Scotland was that the big-name courses, which I studiously avoided, were filled with groups of Americans and Europeans, playing rounds of golf on all the name courses. I played round after round with local Scots during my trip, and on one occasion a minister from California who was doing as I was -- touring the country alone, meeting up with new friends, enjoying the local flavor. I think those unplanned, serendipitous meetings on the course are the rounds I recall most fondly. Of the 20+ rounds I played over there, I had only one real dud, and the 9-hole course was in a setting that was so spectacular I pretty much just enjoyed the walk.

[George Pazin]

Andy -

I'm the exact opposite - I don't care about finding new courses, I'd rather enjoy courses I've enjoyed in the past unless I am offered the opportunity for something special. And I don't think I have architecture figured out, but I do think I have a really good grasp of what I like and would enjoy. Playing Sheep Ranch has far greater appeal to me than playing Bandon Dunes or Trails, for my own personal reasons.

Phil, Andy -

I don't define special by rankings or big names. There are a lot of courses that I'd rather play than the name courses, particularly if I were going overseas. And I'd rather spend a week at one place, with maybe a day trip or two, than run from one big name to the next, trying to squeeze in 10 top tens in 7 days or something like that.