Post GCA:Have your tastes changed?

[jeffwarne]

I read a recent GCAers post about liking a certain course/courses prior to his GCA exposure, but if I'm reading it correctly, he wouldn't choose those same courses on a return visit.
also the "do you like to play golf or the architecture" thread got me thinking.

As I look back, the only common theme I have on the courses I liked is that most were older, subtler, and with room to play.
My favorites pre GCa were such courses Augusta CC, Palmetto,the former Forest Hills in Augusta, Sleepy Hollow, Kebo valley, Goat Hill,Athens CC , Highland Links in Truro, The Creek and dozens of MET Section courses,Mahoney's Point Killarney, and many of the links courses I had encountered on overseas trips.
I returned to the MET Section after a year in south Florida because I hated the courses down there and absolutely loved nearly every course I visited in new York.
Only a few modern courses up to the GCA era had caught my fancy-Caledonia, Long Cove, Legends Heathland come to mind.

I almost never enjoyed modern courses and attributed it to a dislike of housing and artificial hazards.
In fact the shaping and grasslines are what turns me off the most even if i didn't recognize it at the time

I have no problem with houses along the perimeter of a course, and indeed think they can add charm, especially if they are unique and not of a cookie cutter variety or squeezed in with no viable avenue to play wide of them on the other side.

I can't say I ever attributed my love for these courses to something quantifiable like options or strategy, but rather playability.
No doubt I was giving them bonus points for maturity and history, and I always had a soft spot for a course a little rough around the edges on the conditioning side.

Anyway, the greatest thing GCA has done for me is to expose me to many hidden gems and subtle treasures.
Ironically, many GCA faves were the favorites I grew up playing and liking.

Even in the Golden Age we have been experiencing since 1995, I have rarely enjoyed modern courses, even though there have been some amazing architectural efforts. This is due to the fact that it seems nearly every modern course with deep enough pockets to hire a great architect,acquire a great site and grow in a mature look, has so many other bells and whistles (Bag drops, caddies,no yardage markers, fancy clubhouses,snotty members,GMs etc) that I just can't enjoy the courses themselves, the way I enjoy older Golden age courses that often due to economics have less bells and whistles, are kept more simple, and are off most current radar screens.
No doubt there's much less of a show and hoopla when you play these places.

My point is despite learning a ton on GCA, my tastes seem unchanged (though greatly expanded), though I may understand what makes one course more desireable to me than another.
Still nothing better than Palmetto-classic, yet subtle, and simple-a great place to weather the architectural wasteland of the 80's and early 90's
even if I didn't know why.

[Sean_A]

Jeff

As you hint, my tastes haven't really changed, they are more refined now.  I pay a lot more attention to presentation; stuff like cut lines, trees, good turf,  but expectations and desires are always tempered against the green fee.  I can forgive an awful lot for a reasonable green fee, some really interesting and good holes and good views. 

I used to have a check list of the big dogs many years ago.  I guess it ended when I turned 40.  These days I tend to shy away from champ courses not only because of high green fees, but also because most come with the baggage of high rough, bunkers everywhere, narrow fairways - generally a sense of distininguishable design which has slowly been eroded.  I guess its also a case of been there, done that.  Now its much more a case of finding something fun and which leaves me with enough money to buy dinner afterwards.

Ciao     

[Cory Lewis]

Before GCA I didn't have a great understanding of classic architecture.  I knew that I preffered classic design to modern but I didn't really know why.  When I started reading course profiles I feel in love with the idea of the template holes.  I had played 2 Raynor/MacDonald/Banks course in the past but had no idea what I was looking at.  I immediately began seeking out these courses and was very excited every time I played a Short, Eden, Biarritz, etc.  GCA gave me an understanding of what I was seeing and allowed me to enhance my knowledge and enjoyment of the courses.

[Bart Bradley]

Jeff:

My tastes have changed somewhat since I joined GCA, but I think the reasons for that change are a bit complex.  Through GCA and through books that GCA inspired me to read, I have a better understanding of architecture and accordingly have developed a clearer construct about what I like.   The site has also inspired me to go out and play better courses and that has helped to open my eyes to how incredibly different a great course is designed and maintained versus the average courses I used to think were pretty good. 

At least for me, GCA has made my golf life much fuller and more fun.

Bart

[Keith OHalloran]

Jeff,
I am not sure my tastes in golf courses changed. Like you, I have certainly found courses via GCA that I enjoyed, but I would have enjoyed them before GCA, just would not have found them.
What is interesting, and not to thread jack, is that I learned that I do not care about architecture as much as I thought. When I am in my usual foursome, I feel like an architecture nerd when I mention Redan and everyone glasses over.  On GCA, I find myself being the one that glasses over. When I see 30 page attribution threads, or passionate arguments against carts or Donald Trump, I realize that I do not care as much as many people on this site.  It was eye opening to come to a GCA web site to learn you don't really care as much as you thought you did! 

[jeffwarne]

Jeff

As you hint, my tastes haven't really changed, they are more refined now.  I pay a lot more attention to presentation; stuff like cut lines, trees, good turf,  but expectations and desires are always tempered against the green fee.  I can forgive an awful lot for a reasonable green fee, some really interesting and good holes and good views. 

I used to have a check list of the big dogs many years ago.  I guess it ended when I turned 40.  These days I tend to shy away from champ courses not only because of high green fees, but also because most come with the baggage of high rough, bunkers everywhere, narrow fairways - generally a sense of distininguishable design which has slowly been eroded.  I guess its also a case of been there, done that.  Now its much more a case of finding something fun and which leaves me with enough money to buy dinner afterwards.

Ciao     

Sean,
I agree with all that.
The other thing about the baggage of the things you mention is they are usually populated by by blustery tools who contributions to the conversation revolve around green speeds, bunker firmness, fairness,and launch angles .
I really enjoy the random round at an old school scruffy muni, with at least the bones of former architectural merit where I show up with my son, pay my modest green fee, and play with the random characters you meet at such places, rather than the spoiled members you might run into at a club where the priorities and conversations have gone so hideously wrong.

When planning trips involving others, I do have to convince myself to include a few big dog courses, but I never really enjoy them as much as the above experiences ,coupled of course with a few hidden gem privates.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,
I am not sure my tastes in golf courses changed. Like you, I have certainly found courses via GCA that I enjoyed, but I would have enjoyed them before GCA, just would not have found them.
What is interesting, and not to thread jack, is that I learned that I do not care about architecture as much as I thought. When I am in my usual foursome, I feel like an architecture nerd when I mention Redan and everyone glasses over.  On GCA, I find myself being the one that glasses over. When I see 30 page attribution threads, or passionate arguments against carts or Donald Trump, I realize that I do not care as much as many people on this site.  It was eye opening to come to a GCA web site to learn you don't really care as much as you thought you did!  

Keith,
Ignoring nonsense doesn't mean you don't care

Hating golf carts does not by itself make one  care more about architecture, nor does hating Donald Trump.
Carts are just one more way to enjoy the game, and are a part of the game at many/most places.
In fact, courses that are walking only, in all but the rarest of cases, are populated by players and others who share many of the  trappings that I seek to avoid on the less traveled gems I frequent.
a course such as Palmetto with a walking and carrying culture is great, but there is a big difference in a walking CULTURE, and a mandated caddie policy, which greatly drives up the costs, intrusiveness, and formality of the game.

Hating Donald Trump doesn't mean one cares more about architecture either.
In the case of Donald Trump, I like to give credit where it's due.
He was perfect for Doral, but that doesn't mean Doral is perfect for me as a customer.
Anyone who has blinders on because of Trump has missed the retransformation of Doral as an iconic stop on the PGA tour, as well as an architectural rebirth.
Those who don't appreciate, aknowledge, or at least respect the work at Doral, and the GCA ideals that have been reintroduced there (width, strategy, angles, undulation) are not students of architecture, but rather followers of the current fads of texture and style. (and are left looking for the "native" fake sandy dunes and fescue, and wooden flagsticks  )

[Thomas Dai]

Not so much changed tastes, more eyes opened to other opportunities. Education, understanding, interpretation, availability, recommendations etc.
atb

[Peter Pallotta]

J-man

the one thing I know for sure is that my eyes are more open to the potential charms and design-quality of very modest courses (and I do mean modest, not hidden gems). I play quite a few of these courses, and I have learned to see and appreciate how some of them have more (or less) quietly presented yet nonetheless clear architectural principles/merit, e.g. a skyline or redanish type green here, a clever use of angles/dog legs there, a challenging cross hazard here and there. In other words, ironically this site dedicated praising to the greatest architecture/courses in the world has actually helped me appreciate some rn-of-the-mill courses more than I ever had.   

P

[Tom Kelly]

Refined.

[Rob Curtiss]

My tastes have definitely not changed. They have been enhanced for sure.
The write ups and suggestions on GCA have lead me to research courses and architects that I didnt previously know and I look to play those courses now.

[Matthew Lloyd]

I'm probably just echoing what some others have already said, but reading the various reviews, articles and comment threads on GCA has mostly served to reassure me that I wasn't crazy in having the golf preferences that I do -- classic design, walking, etc.  I would also add that GCA has helped change my tastes in the sense that I've become familiar with MANY MORE courses, especially the hidden local gems around the country.

As somebody who isn't able to play very often, I find that GCA is an incredibly useful tool to "golf vicariously" through other people. I almost feel like I've played dozens of courses that I've never set foot on thanks to all the analysis here.

[Terry Lavin]

Sure.  I view this experience as educational and if one is learning anything, I would assume that one's tastes would become more refined.  Doesn't mean that I don't still like places that I used to like a lot, but it does mean that I have a greater appreciation for different types of courses and maintenance melds than I used to.

[Dwight Phelps]

I wouldn't say that my tastes have changed.  Instead I now actually have a semblance of taste.

Previously, I could not define *why* I liked a course that I liked.  Reasons varied from "I played well there" to "I remember that that 36 hole day was a lot of fun", but never any actual analysis as to why I came to those conclusions.

But looking back, I am kind of horrified - I could easily imagine myself passing a course by because it was too brown or simply aiming to the big part of the fairway because it was the big part of the fairway. Yikes

Now, I find myself thinking my way around the course much more - I feel like that thought makes me a better player, and my handicap appears to agree.

Above all, I chalk this all up to exposure - I've been exposed to new ideas (short grass is a hazard, really?), new books (thank you Doak, Shackleford, and MacKenzie - so far) new courses (lived in LA my whole life and just made it out to Rustic last year, not to mention the board's and Ran's course profiles), and some ancient history (the Golden Age).

So I've changed, and now 'taste' is a concept that's actually present for me wrt to golf courses.

[Paul Gray]

Turns out I was right all along and now I know why. 

[Ryan Coles]

Firstly on the question of do I love golf or architecture? Hands down I love golf. Pre GCA and Post GCA.

The golf that many refer to on here is a game of which I'm not familiar. Caddies, being clubbed, having the greens read for me, being told the driving line - I can't think of anything more annoying. I've played foursomes golf for my club near enough every week of every summer and I never read the green for my partner or vice versa. Also, the differences in terms of costs and budgets between UK and US is mind boggling.

In terms of architecture, I love the site and how passionate people are about the game and its courses. Im still at the stage where I struggle to articulate why i like some courses and dislike others. Im still too busy playing rather than analysing. I'm probably on my own but in many cases, I think the role of the architect is often overstated. My view, speaking from a UK point of view, the old guys designed the best courses, by and large because they had the best sites ie links and heaths. Give the new guys a good site and a reasonable budget and invariably they'll design an excellent course. All of the great modern courses have a 'throwback' great site. I got involved in the Doral thread because many idealists were defending the course on economic grounds and going against their published philosophy on design and set up.

As golf clubs are now my trade, I'd like to think I'm more pragmatic than idealistic. I'm equally as interested in the economics of golf clubs as in their design and have also learned a lot from this site on this aspect. In that respect, I would say I'm less wedded to ideals. I see lots of courses that have many features that many idealists on here would turn their noses up at. I see clubs that are good businesses for their owners, provide a lot of pleasure for their members and do a lot of good within their local community that would be rubbished by the GCA purists. To use an example that is local to me and was designed by Adrian Stiff, a club called the Kendleshire. A thriving business that everyone in the area enjoys. Do I think that anyone could have designed a markedly better course with the same budget on that site? No I don't. Would those who post here like the Course? I doubt it.

I've been quite critical of aspects of the games history and some rules on here but I absolutely love the sport. It's given me so much and shaped my life in many ways. Taught me how to behave, how to meet and get along with people and kept me occupied as a kid when in the area I'm from many without a focus end up on the wrong path.

I'm still really a novice when it comes to understanding courses. The first great course I played was Royal Dornoch and it blew me away. Every course since I've held it up against Dornoch and none as of yet are its equal and I've played some great ones. If I was asked to write about the architecture of Dornoch, despite having been back twice since, I couldn't really explain other than I know great when I see it. Hopefully I'm learning from this site what makes it great. Post GCA I don't think taste will change, hopefully just my understanding.

[Bill_McBride]

Ryan, I'm not sure how you can separate playing the game from an appreciation of the design of the fields it's played on. 

I started appreciating the great courses when my dad brought home an early edition of the World Atlas go Golf with its great drawings of the world's finest courses.   Then my dad and I found a board game where you played what I think was supposed to be the best 18 holes.  By then I was really hooked!    Finding GolfClubAtlas 50 years later just continued my enjoyment, but now I met a bunch of enthusiasts with whom I have been lucky enough to play a lot of those famous courses.   

[cary lichtenstein]

Very interesting thread, pretty thought provoking. I think gca caused me to want to learn what I was missing, what Donald Ross had to offer and a number of others. I thought after playing almost 250 of the courses that were on Golf Digest top 100 list at one time or another that I would better understand the greatness of courses like Seminole, etc.

What I learned is that  my taste never really changed even though I came to understand fully what I didn't before.  I am now secure  in my own taste although it does not sync with most on this site.

I also learned that I see golf courses not for anybody but myself, my game, my handicap. I learnt that to argue with anyone about the merits when they viewed it different was stupid for me. Everyone is set in their opinions.

[Ryan Coles]

Ryan, I'm not sure how you can separate playing the game from an appreciation of the design of the fields it's played on. 

An in depth analysis is not conducive to playing the course. Can you imagine playing with or behind sean on one of his photo tours?

[Brent Hutto]

I would not have gone to England in 2006 to watch a friend play in the Amateur at Sandwich if it were not for having read here about the immediately preceding Buda Cup events, which had stoked my interest.

And if I had not gone to England I'm not sure my tastes in golf courses would at all what they are today, rightly or wrongly. After that first day at Walton Heath and then the next morning at Littlestone I'd say my current golf-course perspective was about 80% formed. It has been refined but not changed since then.

[Bill_McBride]

Ryan, I'm not sure how you can separate playing the game from an appreciation of the design of the fields it's played on. 

An in depth analysis is not conducive to playing the course. Can you imagine playing with or behind sean on one of his photo tours?

I have played with him several times.  He is a gent and I'm sure has never held anyone up. 

The reason I like both at once is understanding what's going on can keep you out of the danger zone.   

[Emile Bonfiglio]

Before GCA I didn't have a great understanding of classic architecture.  I knew that I preffered classic design to modern but I didn't really know why.  When I started reading course profiles I feel in love with the idea of the template holes.  I had played 2 Raynor/MacDonald/Banks course in the past but had no idea what I was looking at.  I immediately began seeking out these courses and was very excited every time I played a Short, Eden, Biarritz, etc.  GCA gave me an understanding of what I was seeing and allowed me to enhance my knowledge and enjoyment of the courses.

+1 here, and I also find more interest in how the land looked prior to a golf course resting upon it. Also I used to like Tom Fazio and Reese Jones, but gave that up upon membership here.

[Tom_Doak]

I do find it disturbing that some of the responses say their tastes have "refined," but what they describe seems to be more "narrowed."

The more I see, the more I think that even the best architects tend to repeat themselves a bit too often, so the only way to find something really different is on a smaller course with some unique terrain.  Arrowtown is my most recent example -- I don't even know who built it but I was very impressed.

I'm also becoming more convinced that some of the great architects' work actually benefits from them NOT being so involved -- that the guys who built those courses for them helped add variety so that they didn't repeat themselves so much.  Previously, I had just attributed that to the construction equipment available back in the day.

[Sean_A]

Tom

Sorry to have distrurbed you    I am not sure how else to call it.  I am more refined in that I am picky about where I play.  I am looking for courses draped over the land rather than built on the land.  15 years ago I would have been more focused on the standard man made elements and far less so on the natural elements or the weird earth works type shaping.  I am also much more refined in what I am willing to spend for a game than 15 years ago. 

Ryan - yes, I do hold folks up sometimes, but that is usually due to my slow walking rather than taking pix    While I like to play in reasonable time, I hate to be rushed around a course. 

Ciao

[Sean Walsh]

I've never been a heavy duty golfer. Other sports always got in the way and I lived 20km from the nearest course.  I enjoyed the game but pre-2003 my exposure to top quality course was not extensive.  I'd played Port Fairy, Horsham, Kingston Heath and thought they were all tremendous.  I'd played Rich River, Commonwealth, Yarra Yarra and thought they were good, very good and good respectively. Most of my golf had been played on the likes of Cobden, Hamilton, Valley View and Rich River. Of those all but Rich River are very basic country Victorian courses overseen by one or two staff.

The best way I can articulate any change of attitudes is via a trip I made in 2003.  I joined GCA in either 2004 or 2005. I travelled through Scotland and Ireland and played around 26 courses.  I loved Lahinch, Brora, & County Louth.  Liked very much TOC, Dornoch, Kingsbarns, The Island, Tain, Carne, Enniscrone, Waterville, Dooks, Sligo, Tralee, Cruden Bay & R. Aberdeen. Thought Ceann Sibeal, Nairn & The European Club were good and had little time for Druids Glen. In Hindsight, more exposure to some great courses and the knowledge I have gained through this site there wouldn't be a lot of major changes. TOC would move into the loved category. Waterville would move down a slot and Nairn I'd like to re-visit to see what I might have missed.

The one thing that may have changed for me is that I am even less receptive to an over-manicured course. Formerly it was primarily because a long lush course really hurt my predominantly low ball game. (I've always like the saying "always back self interest, at least you know it's trying") Now I can justify my attitude with the wastage of scarce resources such a setup involves and the fact my experience over the last 10 years has taught me hard ground generally makes for more interesting golf. I've also learnt that adding width or more short grass doesn't make for easier or less interesting golf on a good golf course.  It often means having to think for yourself rather than having the next shot dictated to you.