News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Bart Bradley

  • Karma: +0/-0
How much should context matter in evaluating courses?
« on: March 15, 2013, 09:42:47 PM »
Should the context in which the course was built be a large factor in evaluating the quality of a course or should the focus be on simply evaluating the course as it currently exists/plays?

I am just going to sit back and see what I can learn from your responses.

Bart

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How much should context matter in evaluating courses?
« Reply #1 on: March 15, 2013, 09:46:25 PM »
Bart,

What do you mean by context? IMO the only thing that can be judged is the course that's in front of you.
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: How much should context matter in evaluating courses?
« Reply #2 on: March 15, 2013, 10:03:46 PM »
Context is always a factor.  Whether it should be or not, I guess is up to the individual.

For example, Pine Valley was built as a course for very good players.  Because that was the mission statement from day 1, it generally gets a pass for being unplayable for the average golfer.  Not many other courses get that same pass; we bemoan other courses as "too severe" or "a slog", but never Pine Valley.

Some people include "history" and "the experience" as pieces of the golf course; I choose to ignore those factors.  Others try to ignore the setting of the course, whereas I think that's a big part of what makes a golf course great.

Andy Troeger

Re: How much should context matter in evaluating courses?
« Reply #3 on: March 15, 2013, 10:15:32 PM »
My initial reaction is that context doesn't matter, but it depends on how you define context. To me the setting is an integral part of the course, so I wouldn't call it context. That includes whether the course is in a housing development or a really cool area of dunes or near water.

History and the clubhouse and all that might affect the experience (or ambiance to use the GD term), but I don't find that as important as many others do.  The intent of the designer or the club itself is pretty irrelevant to me--I often don't know the intent so its not really for me to evaluate it. I think all the golfer can do is look at what is on the ground currently. No woulda, shoulda, coulda...

Tom,
Not so sure about that Pine Valley example--there are a lot of severe courses that are highly regarded. I think Pine Valley works because there is sufficient width to give the golfer a fighting chance. I shot a huge number on the front nine there, but it was generally self-inflicted.


Tyler Kearns

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How much should context matter in evaluating courses?
« Reply #4 on: March 15, 2013, 10:19:58 PM »
I've never understood why people would choose to disregard the setting when it comes to evaluating a golf course. To expand upon Tom's response, many great views offered by golf courses are as a direct result of the architect's routing. Being able to incorporate desirable views to enhance the overall experience certainly falls under the golf architect's purview and should not be discounted. As an example I think of the extra tree clearing Stanley Thompson undertook (I believe off course property!!) at Capilano so that players could see downtown while teeing off the first.


Joe_Tucholski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How much should context matter in evaluating courses?
« Reply #5 on: March 15, 2013, 10:46:28 PM »
Should the context in which the course was built be a large factor in evaluating the quality of a course or should the focus be on simply evaluating the course as it currently exists/plays?

I am just going to sit back and see what I can learn from your responses.

Bart

From my perspective the context in which the course was built should not be a factor.  The factor should be the current context of the course.

There are a number of things that may occur through history (residential encroachment, highway intrusion, erosion, shifting of the earth, improvements in technology, loss of maintenance budget, greens committee fiddling...) that can change the course, for the better or worse.   My opinion of a course will be based on the current context, not what it once was or can be.

Jaeger Kovich

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How much should context matter in evaluating courses?
« Reply #6 on: March 15, 2013, 11:30:42 PM »
Some of the most confusing courses to me in terms of where the fit in todays rankings are some of Pete Dye's courses. Between how we know them from TV, stadium effects, shifting business models and time, Harbor Town, and TPC Sawgrass are hard for me to place along with some of todays modern courses. Both of these were 2 of the most different courses when built, but now theres a whole bunch of tpc courses and nobody ever expected either course to become huge destinations, rather than the 1 week a year they were bult for.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: How much should context matter in evaluating courses?
« Reply #7 on: March 16, 2013, 06:46:07 AM »
Some of the most confusing courses to me in terms of where the fit in todays rankings are some of Pete Dye's courses. Between how we know them from TV, stadium effects, shifting business models and time, Harbor Town, and TPC Sawgrass are hard for me to place along with some of todays modern courses. Both of these were 2 of the most different courses when built, but now theres a whole bunch of tpc courses and nobody ever expected either course to become huge destinations, rather than the 1 week a year they were bult for.

Very true of Harbour Town.  The small greens helped make the course famous; the pros loved them.  So, it got busy, and then the small greens became a liability in terms of maintenance.  If you had been to Hilton Head in 1971, you'd understand that it was difficult to imagine they would be playing 60,000 rounds a year there.  It was still a real backwater of a place.

Michael Whitaker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How much should context matter in evaluating courses?
« Reply #8 on: March 16, 2013, 07:53:26 AM »
I think courses have to be evaluated in the context of the constituency for which they were created. Tom's example of Pine Valley is a good one, but all courses have a "target market" and should be evaluated as to whether they serve their purpose. I'm not taking about overall greatest here, but whether or not a course is excellent at what it is supposed to be. A well executed muni that is interesting and clever can be just as much an achievement as a world class "championship" course. I'm often reminded of the achievement that Wild Horse represents when I play some of the new over bunked, over complicated courses that get a great deal of attention and rankings. A course does not have to be overly difficult to be great. I think too often we give courses too much credit for being difficult  and not enough for being clever and fun.   
"Solving the paradox of proportionality is the heart of golf architecture."  - Tom Doak (11/20/05)

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: How much should context matter in evaluating courses?
« Reply #9 on: March 16, 2013, 07:59:37 AM »
I think courses have to be evaluated in the context of the constituency for which they were created. Tom's example of Pine Valley is a good one, but all courses have a "target market" and should be evaluated as to whether they serve their purpose. I'm not taking about overall greatest here, but whether or not a course is excellent at what it is supposed to be. A well executed muni that is interesting and clever can be just as much an achievement as a world class "championship" course. I'm often reminded of the achievement that Wild Horse represents when I play some of the new over bunked, over complicated courses that get a great deal of attention and rankings. A course does not have to be overly difficult to be great. I think too often we give courses too much credit for being difficult  and not enough for being clever and fun.   

Michael (if that is your real name):

This is a good distinction, and yet a tough one.  The magazine rankings make no distinctions for context ... and so we get clients who ask us to build a great resort course that will also be highly ranked, when the rankings are based more on difficulty and wow factor than on playability and fun factor.

A lot of people accuse us of over-designing courses for the target market, but part of the "context" is that clients are asking for courses that will be highly ranked, too.

Bart Bradley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How much should context matter in evaluating courses?
« Reply #10 on: March 16, 2013, 08:12:06 AM »
I think courses have to be evaluated in the context of the constituency for which they were created. Tom's example of Pine Valley is a good one, but all courses have a "target market" and should be evaluated as to whether they serve their purpose. I'm not taking about overall greatest here, but whether or not a course is excellent at what it is supposed to be. A well executed muni that is interesting and clever can be just as much an achievement as a world class "championship" course. I'm often reminded of the achievement that Wild Horse represents when I play some of the new over bunked, over complicated courses that get a great deal of attention and rankings. A course does not have to be overly difficult to be great. I think too often we give courses too much credit for being difficult  and not enough for being clever and fun.   

Michael (if that is your real name):

This is a good distinction, and yet a tough one.  The magazine rankings make no distinctions for context ... and so we get clients who ask us to build a great resort course that will also be highly ranked, when the rankings are based more on difficulty and wow factor than on playability and fun factor.

A lot of people accuse us of over-designing courses for the target market, but part of the "context" is that clients are asking for courses that will be highly ranked, too.

What factors should be used in rankings that are not used now?  What factors are used in rankings that should not be considered?

Bart

Jonathan Mallard

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How much should context matter in evaluating courses?
« Reply #11 on: March 16, 2013, 08:25:36 AM »
I think courses have to be evaluated in the context of the constituency for which they were created. Tom's example of Pine Valley is a good one, but all courses have a "target market" and should be evaluated as to whether they serve their purpose. I'm not taking about overall greatest here, but whether or not a course is excellent at what it is supposed to be. A well executed muni that is interesting and clever can be just as much an achievement as a world class "championship" course. I'm often reminded of the achievement that Wild Horse represents when I play some of the new over bunked, over complicated courses that get a great deal of attention and rankings. A course does not have to be overly difficult to be great. I think too often we give courses too much credit for being difficult  and not enough for being clever and fun.   

Michael (if that is your real name):

This is a good distinction, and yet a tough one.  The magazine rankings make no distinctions for context ... and so we get clients who ask us to build a great resort course that will also be highly ranked, when the rankings are based more on difficulty and wow factor than on playability and fun factor.

A lot of people accuse us of over-designing courses for the target market, but part of the "context" is that clients are asking for courses that will be highly ranked, too.

What factors should be used in rankings that are not used now?  What factors are used in rankings that should not be considered?

Bart

Value of advertising committed to the publication.

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How much should context matter in evaluating courses?
« Reply #12 on: March 16, 2013, 08:31:22 AM »
I think courses have to be evaluated in the context of the constituency for which they were created. Tom's example of Pine Valley is a good one, but all courses have a "target market" and should be evaluated as to whether they serve their purpose. I'm not taking about overall greatest here, but whether or not a course is excellent at what it is supposed to be. A well executed muni that is interesting and clever can be just as much an achievement as a world class "championship" course. I'm often reminded of the achievement that Wild Horse represents when I play some of the new over bunked, over complicated courses that get a great deal of attention and rankings. A course does not have to be overly difficult to be great. I think too often we give courses too much credit for being difficult  and not enough for being clever and fun.  

Michael (if that is your real name):

This is a good distinction, and yet a tough one.  The magazine rankings make no distinctions for context ... and so we get clients who ask us to build a great resort course that will also be highly ranked, when the rankings are based more on difficulty and wow factor than on playability and fun factor.

A lot of people accuse us of over-designing courses for the target market, but part of the "context" is that clients are asking for courses that will be highly ranked, too.

What factors should be used in rankings that are not used now?  What factors are used in rankings that should not be considered?

Bart

Let's break down Digests criteria:

1. Shot Values
How well does the course pose risks and rewards and equally test length, accuracy and finesse?


seems like accuracy and length get a lot more play than finesse.

2. Resistance to Scoring
How difficult, while still being fair, is the course for a scratch player from the back tees?


Obviously the most controversial criteria here, but I'm not sure it's even good if we're just talking about Championship venues.  When did everyone get such a boner over fairness?  Oh yeah, when medal play was put on a pedestal...

3. Design Variety
How varied are the golf course's holes in differing lengths, configurations, hazard placements, green shapes and green contours?


OK, I can live with this one

4. Memorability
How well do the design features (tees, fairways, greens, hazards, vegetation and terrain) provide individuality to each hole, yet a collective continuity to the entire 18?


Vague, but again, I can live with it.

5. Aesthetics
How well do the scenic values of the course (including landscaping, vegetation, water features and backdrops) add to the pleasure of a round?


Now we're getting into some seriously unquantifiable territory.  Some people value pretty and photo ops above all else, yet undeniably the visual setting, routing and peripheral views affect us all in some way.  I would include a natural or indigenous criteria to each of these. i.e. dropping a pond in the middle of the desert wouldn't necessarily be a good thing.

6. Conditioning
How firm, fast and rolling were the fairways, and how firm yet receptive were the greens on the day you played the course?


A significant improvement, but obviously hasn't been taken to heart by the rank and file.  Perhaps they need to add the phrase "ignore color in your assessment".

7. Ambience
How well does the overall feel and atmosphere of the course reflect or uphold the traditional values of the game?


Again, vague.  While an important element, in practice does this put too much emphasis on elite old clubs with tournament history and big old houses above and beyond the course itself?



« Last Edit: March 16, 2013, 08:38:46 AM by Jud T »
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How much should context matter in evaluating courses?
« Reply #13 on: March 16, 2013, 08:57:33 AM »
Those GD criteria are still course/design specific.  i think the only GD criteria that say context are the over $50 and under $50 distinction.  Face it, we equate price with quality, don't we?  I have been pleasantly surprised at lower fees, and tend to be disappointed when paying a lot.

We have discussed whether we should factor in a tough environmental site, but generally concluded that the architects difficulties don't really matter to us, it is just the final product.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Michael Whitaker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How much should context matter in evaluating courses?
« Reply #14 on: March 16, 2013, 12:19:09 PM »
I think courses have to be evaluated in the context of the constituency for which they were created. Tom's example of Pine Valley is a good one, but all courses have a "target market" and should be evaluated as to whether they serve their purpose. I'm not taking about overall greatest here, but whether or not a course is excellent at what it is supposed to be. A well executed muni that is interesting and clever can be just as much an achievement as a world class "championship" course. I'm often reminded of the achievement that Wild Horse represents when I play some of the new over bunked, over complicated courses that get a great deal of attention and rankings. A course does not have to be overly difficult to be great. I think too often we give courses too much credit for being difficult  and not enough for being clever and fun.   

Michael (if that is your real name):

This is a good distinction, and yet a tough one.  The magazine rankings make no distinctions for context ... and so we get clients who ask us to build a great resort course that will also be highly ranked, when the rankings are based more on difficulty and wow factor than on playability and fun factor.

A lot of people accuse us of over-designing courses for the target market, but part of the "context" is that clients are asking for courses that will be highly ranked, too.

Michael it is! I was having fun with another GCA'er who has been playing around with his handle, sorry.

I wasn't thinking of magazine "rankings" in my comment above. Just that we often equate difficulty with excellence, which is too bad. Whenever I hear someone say, "this is a great hole," it usually means a very long and difficult par four. That is one of the things I appreciate about your courses, you don't depend on length to make them "great." Some of your very best holes are short fours and that makes for fun and interesting golf!
"Solving the paradox of proportionality is the heart of golf architecture."  - Tom Doak (11/20/05)

Peter Pallotta

Re: How much should context matter in evaluating courses?
« Reply #15 on: March 16, 2013, 01:18:17 PM »
Bart - I think there's a difference between "evaluating" and "judging" -- the former I see as a specific and in-the-moment and personal reaction/experience, while the latter is a process of reflection in which relative factors (e.g. how the course compares with others, what the courses might've been) are implicit. When it comes to evaluating courses, I think that not only is context unimportant, but so too is "design" itself (if you think of design as a task/craft independent of the whole experience). It doesn't matter to me, in evaluating my experience of this one course, what was there and what wasn't on the natural site, or what limitations (budget, environment) the architect might have been working with, or how well the course was designed, i.e. how well the architect utilized the existing features etc etc; I am just experiencing the course as it actually is. On the other hand, if I was "judging" a course, all that above-noted context and all those factors and all those comparisons and might've beens would be front and centre. I think we spend the vast majority of our time here "judging" courses -- and I guess that's okay. But it's not the only way.

Peter

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How much should context matter in evaluating courses?
« Reply #16 on: March 16, 2013, 08:34:23 PM »
I am just experiencing the course as it actually is


Love it!
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Greg Tallman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How much should context matter in evaluating courses?
« Reply #17 on: March 16, 2013, 08:53:05 PM »
A lot of people accuse us of over-designing courses for the target market, but part of the "context" is that clients are asking for courses that will be highly ranked, too.

Tom, Given the above statement and your intimate understanding of the ranikings process and people I pose the following question:

Do you think you could take a decent/average site and design a course that would be in the dicsussion for a top 100 ranking even though, in your own mind, the land was not as such to yield such a highly regaded course?

Sorry, near impossible answer I know but this is just us GCA strangeniks.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: How much should context matter in evaluating courses?
« Reply #18 on: March 16, 2013, 10:30:47 PM »
A lot of people accuse us of over-designing courses for the target market, but part of the "context" is that clients are asking for courses that will be highly ranked, too.

Tom, Given the above statement and your intimate understanding of the ranikings process and people I pose the following question:

Do you think you could take a decent/average site and design a course that would be in the dicsussion for a top 100 ranking even though, in your own mind, the land was not as such to yield such a highly regaded course?

Greg:

Honestly?  I'm not sure.  And a lot of the reason is buried in the rankings process.

I know what I'm seeing in the results for my own new courses.  What I'm seeing is that my newer courses are compared to the ones I've done that are already ranked.  Is Streamsong better than Pacific Dunes?  Or Ballyneal?  Or Sebonack?  Or Rock Creek?

Well, it's not on a more beautiful piece of land than those others -- strike 1.

And no matter how different I design the course than those others, most panelists already have an idea of what my style is, and all they have to do is find a couple of things that reinforce that idea, and then the "design" is seen as basically equal.  Strike 2.

Can I beat that, and take a mediocre piece of ground and turn it into something better?  I'd like to think that I am a good enough hitter to hit with two strikes.  I'm not out yet.  But if I was able to build something REALLY out of the box and different, I think it would help if I did it under a different name.

And in the meantime, I'm not turning down any of the really good sites.  ;)

Greg Tallman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How much should context matter in evaluating courses?
« Reply #19 on: March 16, 2013, 10:48:00 PM »
A lot of people accuse us of over-designing courses for the target market, but part of the "context" is that clients are asking for courses that will be highly ranked, too.

Tom, Given the above statement and your intimate understanding of the ranikings process and people I pose the following question:

Do you think you could take a decent/average site and design a course that would be in the dicsussion for a top 100 ranking even though, in your own mind, the land was not as such to yield such a highly regaded course?

Greg:

Honestly?  I'm not sure.  And a lot of the reason is buried in the rankings process.

I know what I'm seeing in the results for my own new courses.  What I'm seeing is that my newer courses are compared to the ones I've done that are already ranked.  Is Streamsong better than Pacific Dunes?  Or Ballyneal?  Or Sebonack?  Or Rock Creek?

Well, it's not on a more beautiful piece of land than those others -- strike 1.

And no matter how different I design the course than those others, most panelists already have an idea of what my style is, and all they have to do is find a couple of things that reinforce that idea, and then the "design" is seen as basically equal.  Strike 2.

Can I beat that, and take a mediocre piece of ground and turn it into something better?  I'd like to think that I am a good enough hitter to hit with two strikes.  I'm not out yet.  But if I was able to build something REALLY out of the box and different, I think it would help if I did it under a different name.

And in the meantime, I'm not turning down any of the really good sites.  ;)


So you basically answer no while leaving the door open. I ask the question as I honestly think you are the one guy working today who can accomplish what I ask/suggest though perhaps having to divert from your minimalist roots to do so. Be it simply being revered or an artistic savant. The end game is that the rankings are inherently flawed and you could take advantage of the flaws and biases (location aside) that exist.


Peter Pallotta

Re: How much should context matter in evaluating courses?
« Reply #20 on: March 16, 2013, 10:54:44 PM »
Tom - and that's a shame, I think - and it's the reason I used the language I did, i.e. that for all sorts of reasons (including the prevalence of rankings/lists), most folks no longer seem to realize that they are "judging" courses instead of "evaluating" them -- in other words, that they are comparing courses instead of experiencing them.

As you might know, the first time I play one of your courses will be, well, the first time. But I actually consider myself lucky -- because when I finally get to, say, Streamsong Blue, I will be playing the Blue without any other points of reference or comparison, and so will actually be able to experience it (and, of secondary importance, evaluate it) instead of judging it.

One of the hidden drawbacks of a site like gca.com is that it necessarily encourages judgements instead of evaluations, comparisons (either explicit or not) instead of experiences; it's just plain harder to write and express oneself well without using comparisons and common points of reference, and, ironically, the better travelled a golfer is, the more likely he will be to judge instead of evaluate.  

You and the other architects here need to pay attention to these comparisons, of course, because in a practical and real-world sense, they will affect the bottom line as much as anything else. But I think it is important to remember that the views shared here are 'skewed' towards judgements instead of evaluations, and often don't tell the real story of how a course will experienced by most golfers.  
« Last Edit: March 16, 2013, 10:57:14 PM by PPallotta »

Andy Troeger

Re: How much should context matter in evaluating courses?
« Reply #21 on: March 16, 2013, 11:48:46 PM »
Tom's response raised in my mind a question that doesn't really have an answer...

Would The Golf Club still be seen as one of Pete Dye's best designs if he had built it in 2005 instead of as one of his very first designs? I'm by no means stating that the site was poor for a golf course--but the course certainly isn't as flashy as many of Dye's later works.

Greg Tallman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How much should context matter in evaluating courses?
« Reply #22 on: March 16, 2013, 11:50:59 PM »
Tom's response raised in my mind a question that doesn't really have an answer...

Would The Golf Club still be seen as one of Pete Dye's best designs if he had built it in 2005 instead of as one of his very first designs? I'm by no means stating that the site was poor for a golf course--but the course certainly isn't as flashy as many of Dye's later works.

Great point/question Andy.

My personal opinion is The Golf Club would not receive near the support of completed in the last 5 years. Probably for the wrong reasons.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How much should context matter in evaluating courses?
« Reply #23 on: March 17, 2013, 03:59:28 PM »
Pietro

Interesting distinction between judging and evaluating.  Do you think it possible folks actually do a combo of the two when discussing courses?  I was thinking of the context issue and how placing a course in context is to some degree about trying to experience the course as it was intended to be played.  Impossible to do, but in keeping context at the forefront I was thinking of Brancaster and a few if its iconic holes.  The particular use of water when these holes were designed would have been quite rare if not totally original.  That to me is quite important just as all good original stuff should be seen.  Its a lot easier to copy something than think of it and build it.  So placing those features in context helps the golfer to better experience the course and perhaps better evaluate and judge a course.  I spose its somewhat the same for the history aspect of clubs enhancing the experience of the day.  Sure, nothing to do with the course, but it does have something to do with the experience of the visit and that can be quite important.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Peter Pallotta

Re: How much should context matter in evaluating courses?
« Reply #24 on: March 17, 2013, 04:23:42 PM »
El G

I'm not sure how to answer you, but it's interesting that you should be the one asking. From the many reviews you've posted here, you seem very good at knowing the difference - and very good at evaluating courses as they are/as you find them instead of judging them. Yes, later on or if you're asked questions, you are able to compare/contrast and even rank your favourites, and add factors like cost and convenience and charm/history into the mix. But in the actual reviews, one of the many things that make them so good is that you simply describe --and share your own experience -- of the course: what the challenges are, what the holes ask of you, how you vs your partners played it, particular strengths (e.g. greens) - not in comparison to other courses, but relative only to the other elements of that particular course itself. It feels, in short, that you come to a course and to your review of it with fresh eyes - with eyes intent simply on letting the course be what it is to you and not immediately place it into a broader "golf course architecture" context or "best of" lists.

Peter