[Tim Pitner]

Walkability is WAY over-rated on this site relative to everyone else's view of golf that I play with who isn't a member of this site.

Mac,

I'm surprised no one took you to task for this comment.  I agree that walkability isn't often valued highly among non-reflective golfers.  And I'm not dogmatic about walking--some courses are effectively unwalkable even if walking is technically permitted.

But for so many reasons--time, money, space, the environment, returning to the spirit of the game, etc.--walkable golf should be the future, at least in the U.S.  Which isn't to say it should be the only form of golf, just that it should be the default standard, not the other way around.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Guess I'm the one doing all the overrating - walkability and the ability to play a course with one ball are two of my most important criteria. And I love template holes, both in real life, and theoretically.

George,

I find the "ability to play the course with one ball" to be one of the most over rated criterion ever posited.

Pine Valley
Pebble Beach
ANGC
NGLA
WFW
Shinnecock
Oakmont
Seminole
CPC
Pacific Dunes
GCGC

Are just a few where the golfer may lose a ball, two or three.

That criterion would seem to eliminate any water hazards, any OB and any other features like gullies or steep drop offs and heavy rough, in other words a rather benign course absent a high degree of risk.

On this site, I think being open-minded and willing to love all flavors of golf - loving both Thai food and steak and potatoes - are the most overrated characteristics of posters. Not sure what that correlates to on golf courses.

Let's see now Patrick. Can one not play one ball around TOC without hitting it OB, into a water hazard, into a deep gully, or into heavy rough.
Garland,

I didn't see TOC listed amongst the eleven (11) courses I cited.

But, to answer your question, yes, one can, and may likely, hit the ball OB at TOC on a number of holes.

I also have to wonder why one could not play one ball around the original Pine Valley, ANGC, and Oakmont.

It would seem that you've never played Pine Valley, ANGC and Oakmont.

At Pine Valley, not losing a ball is a major accomplishment.
Holes like # 5, 6, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 gobble up more than their share of balls.
As to ANGC, forgetting the OB on the front nine, losing a ball on # 11, 12, 15 and 16 is quite easy.
Many golfers at Oakmont don't get to the second tee with the same ball, so I don't know where you're coming up with your claim.


You can have very testing shots without OB, ball swallowing water hazards, deep gullies, and heavy rough.

Would you cite five where the risk of disaster looms large ?

The only people requiring these features seem to be weak willed better players that can't stand the pressure of someone recovering from a poor shot and having the temerity to tie them on a hole.


Then why did the great architects of the world craft them ?  ?  ?

The features have nothing to do with golfers, weak willed, strong willed, better players or worse players.
It's the architect who forges the challenge, not the golfer.
Crump, Ross, AWT, MacKenzie, etc., etc..

How strong is your will Patrick?

Others could probably answer that question better than I, especially my physicians.
With less than 5 % of patients surviving one of my illnesses, the answer to your question should be self-evident, in golf and in life.

[Garland Bayley]

Patrick,

My mistake in mentioning Pine Valley. I was thinking about how open it was when it was created before all the trees grew back, I completely forgot about the ponds. DUH! 

The problem is not to get around every round without lost ball problems. Lost balls happen. However, I believe the places I mention in their original forms instead of the ponded, overgrown versions we see now would make it possible to get around most rounds without lost balls.
That is opposed to many dark ages target golf, "heroic", nutso courses.

"Then why did the great architects of the world craft them ?  ?  ?"

Because there is a market for them. See my previous reference to those who get upset by someone making recoveries. They don't want someone hitting it 50 yards offline, but recovering to halve a hole. Turns out at my club that is why many resist removal of trees. They want the person who hits it offline to be penalized for it. Also why they don't want hazards in the middle of a hole, because that is where they play.

I believe you to be strong willed. But, couldn't resist applying the needle.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

My mistake in mentioning Pine Valley. I was thinking about how open it was when it was created before all the trees grew back, I completely forgot about the ponds. DUH! 

Garland, ditto ANGC 

The problem is not to get around every round without lost ball problems. Lost balls happen. However, I believe the places I mention in their original forms instead of the ponded, overgrown versions we see now would make it possible to get around most rounds without lost balls.

That is opposed to many dark ages target golf, "heroic", nutso courses.

The "heroic", "nutso" courses, in my mind, tend to be those that need to make a publicity splash in order to gain membership.
Some golfers revel in announcing that their course is devilishly difficult.
There was almost an arms race to see which course can be made more difficult

"Then why did the great architects of the world craft them ?  ?  ?"

Because there is a market for them.

The eleven (11) course list is a list of courses that are easily marketed.
I think architects try to forge a disinterested challenge that favors no one particular golfer.
Now there are exceptions, like Sebonack, Pine Valley, ANGC, PGA West and others where there was an intend to produce a special or difficult course

See my previous reference to those who get upset by someone making recoveries.

But, they aren't the ones forging the challenge.
Recoveries are so random in the amateur world that I don't see the objection to them that you do.

They don't want someone hitting it 50 yards offline, but recovering to halve a hole.

Long and wrong guys seem able to recover from 50 yard offline shots because they have the power required to do so.

Turns out at my club that is why many resist removal of trees.
They want the person who hits it offline to be penalized for it.

That's not an uncommon objection.

Also why they don't want hazards in the middle of a hole, because that is where they play.

Centerline features/hazards are alien to many golfers, convincing or educating them otherwise is a difficult task.

I believe you to be strong willed. But, couldn't resist applying the needle.

Understood.
Like a good attorney, I knew you knew the answer to the question before you asked it.

[JC Urbina]

Minimalism

Over used and over stated.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland, ditto ANGC 
...

What ponds did ANGC have when it was new? It had a shallow creek that even I could hit out of.
RTJ ruined it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Garland, ditto ANGC 
...

What ponds did ANGC have when it was new? It had a shallow creek that even I could hit out of.

Garland,

There was a significant water hazard on what are now #'s 11 and 12.

# 5, 6, 13. 15, 16, 17 had water hazards that were not shallow to the point that you or anyone else could hit out of them.
RTJ ruined it.

[jeffwarne]

Garland, ditto ANGC 
...

What ponds did ANGC have when it was new? It had a shallow creek that even I could hit out of.

Garland,

There was a significant water hazard on what are now #'s 11 and 12.

# 5, 6, 13. 15, 16, 17 had water hazards that were not shallow to the point that you or anyone else could hit out of them.
RTJ ruined it.

and #1

[Garland Bayley]

Garland, ditto ANGC 
...

What ponds did ANGC have when it was new? It had a shallow creek that even I could hit out of.

Garland,

There was a significant water hazard on what are now #'s 11 and 12.

# 5, 6, 13. 15, 16, 17 had water hazards that were not shallow to the point that you or anyone else could hit out of them.
RTJ ruined it.

As you can see by the original course show in

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/georgia/augusta-changes/index/index_20110217

I was 100% correct in saying there were no ponds on the course.

The pictures there cannot demonstrate it, but I remember players playing out of the small branch creek on 13, 15 etc. I remember thinking I could make that shot. Besides, with the size of the creeks in play on the original, it would be easy to find your ball in the water, with the possible exception of the creek in front of number 12.

[Peter Pallotta]

I think the most over rated course attribute on this site is its design.  I think that much of what repeated plays at a beloved course reveals to us has less to do with the architect's work than it does with the qualities of the site in its natural state, with changing weather/wind patterns, with the vagaries of shot-making for every individual golfer, shot by shot and round by round, with happenstance and randomness, with good and bad choices regarding maintenance, and with the deeply interested but gentle gaze that love itself produces in us. I think that every architect who has a solid and personal understanding of/insight into the fundamental principles of good giolf course architecture and who is dedicated to making these manifest on the ground should be thanked for the gifts they give us; but I think said architects are responsible for less than half of the design, i.e. less than half of what we experience on their golf courses.   

Peter

[George Pazin]

Well said, Peter. That's sort of what I was getting at a couple weeks ago when I said the lost lesson of The Old Course was its lack of structure/plan for each hole, but you said it better.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Garland,

The water hazard left of # 11 was not a shallow, narrow hazard where you could find your ball.

And, the notion that you find every ball hit into narrow, shallow creeks is preposterous.

I've lost more balls this year in a creek that's barely 3 feet wide and 1 foot deep

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

The water hazard left of # 11 was not a shallow, narrow hazard where you could find your ball.

And, the notion that you find every ball hit into narrow, shallow creeks is preposterous.

I've lost more balls this year in a creek that's barely 3 feet wide and 1 foot deep

So what? That creek would catch a very small fraction of the balls that RTJ's pond does.
You could putt into the stupid pond that's there now.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Garland,

The water hazard left of # 11 was not a shallow, narrow hazard where you could find your ball.

And, the notion that you find every ball hit into narrow, shallow creeks is preposterous.

I've lost more balls this year in a creek that's barely 3 feet wide and 1 foot deep

So what? That creek would catch a very small fraction of the balls that RTJ's pond does.
You could putt into the stupid pond that's there now.

Garland,

# 16 is a terrific hole, an improvement versus the very short original when you consider the venue is the site of a Major which tests the best golfers in the world.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

The water hazard left of # 11 was not a shallow, narrow hazard where you could find your ball.

And, the notion that you find every ball hit into narrow, shallow creeks is preposterous.

I've lost more balls this year in a creek that's barely 3 feet wide and 1 foot deep

So what? That creek would catch a very small fraction of the balls that RTJ's pond does.
You could putt into the stupid pond that's there now.

Garland,

# 16 is a terrific hole, an improvement versus the very short original when you consider the venue is the site of a Major which tests the best golfers in the world.

The pond on #16 makes it a terrible hole. It tests the players abilities to stick a tee in the ground a second time. Even I can do that.
However, lengthening it for the best players can be considered somewhat appropriate.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Garland,

How is # 16 at ANGC a horrible hole ?

Could you detail the reasons.

How many times have you played it ?

[Tom_Doak]

I think the most over rated course attribute on this site is its design.  I think that much of what repeated plays at a beloved course reveals to us has less to do with the architect's work than it does with the qualities of the site in its natural state, with changing weather/wind patterns, with the vagaries of shot-making for every individual golfer, shot by shot and round by round, with happenstance and randomness, with good and bad choices regarding maintenance, and with the deeply interested but gentle gaze that love itself produces in us. I think that every architect who has a solid and personal understanding of/insight into the fundamental principles of good giolf course architecture and who is dedicated to making these manifest on the ground should be thanked for the gifts they give us; but I think said architects are responsible for less than half of the design, i.e. less than half of what we experience on their golf courses.   

Peter

Good answer!

Of course, my goal in golf course construction is to be responsible for more of it than you can tell.    But, you are generally right, as Bill Coore says, the architect always gets more credit than he deserves.

[Terry Lavin]

Minimalism

Over used and over stated.

Overstating the understated?  Heresy!

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

How is # 16 at ANGC a horrible hole ?

Could you detail the reasons.

How many times have you played it ?

It has an artificial pond. You need no more reasons that than. If you want to hit multiple shots from the tee into a pond, you can go to the driving range. They even have driving ranges with island greens so you don't have to go to ANGC or Sawgrass to dunk balls.

Whether I have played it or not is totally irrelevant. You should be smart enough to know that.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Garland,

How is # 16 at ANGC a horrible hole ?

Could you detail the reasons.

How many times have you played it ?

It has an artificial pond. You need no more reasons that than.

So, # 12 at ANGC, #'s 5 and 14 at Pine Valley, # 8 at Seminole and # 13 at NGLA are all horrrible holes because they play over an artificial pond ?

One of Crenshaw's favorite holes is # 16 at GCGC which, has an artificial pond adjacent to the green.

If you want to hit multiple shots from the tee into a pond, you can go to the driving range.
They even have driving ranges with island greens so you don't have to go to ANGC or Sawgrass to dunk balls.

What about going to Pine Valley, Seminole and NGLA, should one go to a driving range instead ?


Whether I have played it or not is totally irrelevant.

I disagree, I think it's critically relevant.
You want to analyze and categorize a hole that you've never played, based solely on one factor, that it plays over an artificial pond.
A pond, that was formerly a stream that was dammed to form the pond.

When a beaver creates a dam and turns a creek into a pond, is that an artificial pond, unlike one found in it's natural state ?

You should be smart enough to know that.

I think I'm smart enough to recognize that you shouldn't pass judgement on a hole that you've never played

[Garland Bayley]

I think I'm smart enough to recognize that you shouldn't pass judgement on a hole that you've never played

It's my judgement and you have no control over it. Your value system is not my value system, so you have no idea what I should or should not do. I could write a whole list of things you do that you shouldn't do, but clearly you would reject them as you have for almost every poster that has written about what you shouldn't do.

Therefore, you gain nothing by telling me I shouldn't pass judgment about this hole other than a minute enhanced chance for a tee time there, because you know I will never be trying for one myself.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Garland,

Then, let me quote Charles Blair Macdonald.

"I do not believe any one is qualified to pass on the merits of any one hole, let alone eighteen holes, unless he has played them under all the varying conditions possible-varying winds, rain, heat, frost, etc."

Your evaluation of a hole you've never played is close to worthless.

And, your assertion that any hole played over or around an artificial pond is "horrible" is clearly contradicted by just some of the holes I listed.

Pine Valley, long regarded as the # 1 course in the world, without a single weak hole, has four (4) holes that play over or around an artificial pond, two (2) of which are par 3's where play is over the artificial pond.

Seminole has five (5) holes that play over or around artificial ponds, one (1) of which is a par 3.

Surely, even you are capable or recognizing the folly of your assessment and criterion.[/color]

[Greg Tallman]

Designed by...

Too many on this site prejudge, both negative and positive,  based on design credit.

[Garland Bayley]

Patrick,

The game of golf is one of hit your ball, go find it, and hit it again until you get the ball in the hole.

Do you not agree?

Unfortunately, human foibles seem to sneak into evaluating this game. Humans seem to like water features they find in nature, so the go about creating water features next to their homes, etc. Face it. They just can't do it as well as the almighty. Furthermore, their emotions get the better of them when it comes to evaluating such things. In the eye of some beholders, these features are wonderful. In the eye of other beholders they may be truly abysmal. I wonder how they fair in the eye of the almighty.

But back to golf. These man made water features interrupt the game. It is no longer hit your ball go find it, and hit it again. It is hit your ball; begin loop while last ball hit has disappeared in an artificial pond drop a ball and hit the new ball; end loop; find last ball not hit in artificial pond; and hit it again.

I can turn the beautiful game into a mindless endeavor.

So it seems your folly is you let your emotions get the best of you and degrade the game for any emotional appeal you may find in water features. Why it seems you clearly think Pebble Beach is a better course because of its proximity to water, then if it was not near water.

[Alex Lagowitz]

while not a course attribute, I feel courses in general are overrated based on architect.
I often myself wonder in a specific course was built today by nicklaus or the likes if we would rate it as high.

Sticking more towards the OP, I would say GCA overrates the ability of shotmaking.  People always say, "I want to have to hit low shots, high shots, draws and cuts."
I think a good golf course does not necessarily force one to hit shots.  I have played fun, good golf courses where I hit driver wedge the entire day, yet still thought the course to be testing by its greens.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()