"A course has to look good before it can be good."

[Niall C]

"A course has to look good before it can be good."
A quote from Michael Moore on another thread. Is it true ?

Niall

[Peter Pallotta]

It's certainly pithy.   

Yes, one could argue that a pleasing form bespeaks a satisfying function.
 
But reverse Michael's statement and you have an equally valid sentiment i.e.  "A course has to be good before it can look good" -- the traditional argument that form follows function.

What that means, that mutually contradictory statements are both true, I have no idea.

Perhaps I should fall back on what I believe is the "answer" to 95% of all questions ever asked on gca.com: The Old Course.

Peter

[Sean_A]

But reverse Michael's statement and you have an equally valid sentiment i.e.  "A course has to[/size]be[/color][/size] good before it can [/color][/size]look[/color][/size] good" -- the traditional argument that form [/color][/size]follows[/color][/size] function. [/color][/i][/b]
[/size][/color][/i][/b]
[/size]Pietro[/color]
[/size][/color]
[/size]This is exactly what I was thinking.[/color]
[/size][/color]
[/size]Ciao[/color]

[Martin Toal]

Well, it is probably largely true that a course has to look good to be good, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder and to some a bright green course with large white sand bunkers and lakes of azure blue water looks good, and to others a crumpled canvas of seemingly randomly distributed clumps of gorse and heather strewn brownish and green looks like heaven. I think it is hard to know what looks good until you have played enough variety of golf to know what plays well according to your particular preferences, so it may become a circular argument.

[Thomas Dai]

I'm reminded of Sam Sneed's alleged comment on first seeing TOC and the alleged response - something about an old abandoned golf course!


atb

[Niall C]

Peter/Sean,


I don't really see where looks equates to either form or function. When trying to think of a course that disproves Michaels statement I thought of maybe Carnoustie. In terms of form, Carnoustie is all about the turf and the strategic as well as penal layout of the course. From that it functions exceptionally well (IMO) as a golfing challenge. I suspect many would agree with that but not sure many would also agree that it's a bonnie looking course (although some of us would).


Niall

[Peter Pallotta]

Niall - in my mind I had the many fine (and near great) English courses that Sean profiles in these pages, ones that with very little pomp and circumstance invariably offer a solid and traditional and engaging and challenging golfing/playing experience, with all the angles and options and variety and strategies that a golfer would want and need. And when I think of how understated and draped-over-the-land these courses look, in short, how lovely they are, I find myself certain that it is their simple and primary focus on "function" that is what gives them such a pleasing "form".
Peter

[Jon Wiggett]

Thomas,

you beat me to it. TOC does not look much of anything yet is one of the greatest courses on the planet. I would argue that many good designs get lost in the bling of eye candy. Whistling Straits would be a good example of this.

Jon

[Rob Marshall]

Thomas,

you beat me to it. TOC does not look much of anything yet is one of the greatest courses on the planet. I would argue that many good designs get lost in the bling of eye candy. Whistling Straits would be a good example of this.

Jon

A pro once told me that TOC was like looking at a driving range and that if it was in the states you wouldn't pay $25 to play it. I've never seen personally seen it in person.

[Jon Wiggett]

Thomas,

you beat me to it. TOC does not look much of anything yet is one of the greatest courses on the planet. I would argue that many good designs get lost in the bling of eye candy. Whistling Straits would be a good example of this.

Jon

A pro once told me that TOC was like looking at a driving range and that if it was in the states you wouldn't pay $25 to play it. I've never seen personally seen it in person.

And yet Rob it gets it fair share of players from the US who pay way more than that to play it. I would say that if you can see the full quality and greatness of a course on the first viewing then it is not that good. For me if you appreciate the golfing qualities of a golf course more with every round then it is a course that offers substance over aesthetics. If however the opinion of a course drops with each round the opposite is true.

Jon

[Kalen Braley]

Thomas,

you beat me to it. TOC does not look much of anything yet is one of the greatest courses on the planet. I would argue that many good designs get lost in the bling of eye candy. Whistling Straits would be a good example of this.

Jon

A pro once told me that TOC was like looking at a driving range and that if it was in the states you wouldn't pay $25 to play it. I've never seen personally seen it in person.

And yet Rob it gets it fair share of players from the US who pay way more than that to play it. I would say that if you can see the full quality and greatness of a course on the first viewing then it is not that good. For me if you appreciate the golfing qualities of a golf course more with every round then it is a course that offers substance over aesthetics. If however the opinion of a course drops with each round the opposite is true.

Jon

Courses that are highlighted and regularly shown on TV as "courses where the pros play" will likely rarely have an issue with lack of people showing up and wanting to fork out big bucks for it. I can't think of an example where this is the case?
 
 For example Torrey Pines, what is it $200+ to play the south course now?  I wouldn't pay $100 for it, but plenty still will as the tee sheet always seem to be full.

[Jon Wiggett]

Kalen,

maybe you would not pay $25 to play TOC and maybe you do believe it is low quality golf only able to charge high fees because of TV exposure. Rob's post was about a pro saying Americans would not pay $25 to play TOC and my reply was to prove the fact that was not the case. You are correct that many courses on the pro tours attract big buck even though they are of dubious quality but that was not the point I was making.

Jon

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,

maybe you would not pay $25 to play TOC and maybe you do believe it is low quality golf only able to charge high fees because of TV exposure. Rob's post was about a pro saying Americans would not pay $25 to play TOC and my reply was to prove the fact that was not the case. You are correct that many courses on the pro tours attract big buck even though they are of dubious quality but that was not the point I was making.

Jon

To further qualify my last statement, I didn't mean to imply that I wouldn't pay more than $25 to play TOC.  I would gladly play the going rate should I ever get the chance to play it.
 
I was only trying to say that for some courses, the simple fact that its on TV alone means the course can charge a lot more than they could otherwise....and used TP south as an example.
 
P.S.  I do have many golf friends who would never pay the going rate at TOC, but then again, I couldn't convince most of them to pay $60 to play Wine Valley, (a doak 8 course in my book) which was only a couple of hours away.  In my experience, most golfers just don't care that much about playing a premium location...they just want to play golf, and if the local stuff is cheap and available, they usually won't think to stray much further.

[Mark_Fine]

Most here have chimed in the same but go play some of the great links courses in the British Isles and then see if you feel the same way about a course having to look good to be good!  Again, it looking good is a very subjective thing. 

[Jeff_Mingay]

Speaking of subjectivity .. I think Royal Lytham and St. Anne's is a beautiful course, and a fine test of interesting golf. Many years ago, legendary L.A. Times golf writer Jim Murray described the course as looking very similar to a "vacant lot in Cleveland"!

[Mac Plumart]

This is a frustrating concept, in my opinion.

To me the line implies this question, "does the course need to be immaculately manicured to be great?"

And this is such a terrible mindset to have. And unfortunately many people have that mindset.

A great course is about strategic hazards, interesting challenges, and variety. Not the creation of an immaculate lawn and garden type of setting.