Resolved: "Memorability" is a terrible criterion to judge a hole / course

[Mark Bourgeois]

Jason, by our working definition memorability is not a function of one's memory and therefore in many respects the "memorability" of a hole / course / feature should not change with experience...BUT: one's own sensitivity to memorability can change with heightened awareness and understanding.

Essentially this point, that experience may be required to see the greatness, buttresses the argument that memorability is a bad criterion. The memorable is the enemy of the subtle. Like pouring ketchup over a fine cut of meat, memorability smothers one's palate. Like this:

"Memorable" is what you remember, but that particular criterion is why so many golf holes today are overdesigned ... because another pretty bunker will make the hole more memorable, even if it doesn't make it better [and might make it worse].

This is to my point about the memorable being the enemy of the subtle but goes further.

RESOLVED: not only is memorability a terrible criterion to judge greatness, ironically it may enable insipid design.

[Tim_Weiman]

We rarely forget good to great holes and are more likely to forget mundane, uninspiring holes.

Patrick:

I'll accept that YOU rarely forget good holes, but I will not accept that the average golfer or the average rater is equally blessed.

We all know that on the best courses, it takes two or three visits to really soak them all in.  The first time you go to Crystal Downs, you'll remember the wonderful 1st tee shot, the ruggedness of 5-6-7-8, the severity of the 9th and 11th greens, and the wildness of the 17th hole [good or bad].  The second time, you'll realize how much more severe the greens are than you remembered, and you'll start to notice some of the other holes.  But it is the third or fourth time before you realize that the most "mundane" holes on the course [#2 and #15] are NOT mundane at all, and in fact would be the best hole on many other courses.  I think you are fooling yourself if you would call those holes "memorable" in the way most people think of it, but they are very important to the overall quality of the course.

"Memorable" is what you remember, but that particular criterion is why so many golf holes today are overdesigned ... because another pretty bunker will make the hole more memorable, even if it doesn't make it better [and might make it worse].

Tom,

Actually, for me #15 was the most memorable hole from my first visit to Crystal Downs. I remember standing on the tee thinking it looked pretty mundane, but something told me Mackenzie had a trick up his sleeve. Sure enough if you walk forward and study the landing area - which you really can't see from the tee but think you can - you find all sorts of trouble lurking.

That to me was quite memorable, though probably not the way most people usually think of the word.

[Don Mahaffey]

I know I have had very positive experiences where I did not remember every detail later, even immediately afterward.

When I was young I surfed a lot and some of the best sessions I ever had, where it all came together, great waves, perfect water, good friends to enjoy it with, special location...it felt like I'd get lost within the participation of the experience and later if someone had been taking photos or friends would bring up a certain wave, some of it would come back, but I did not remember every great wave.

I have participated in some athletic contests where I didn't remember what had really happened until later while watching film. These were often the most important contests with high emotion. When immersed within an activity I'm not sure memorability should be a consideration of determining quality.

I have felt that way on a few golf courses as well, where I have lost track of score, hole number...just playing and enjoying the experience.   

With repeated play, it becomes much easier to analyze, if that is what I'm trying to do. But anymore, I'm looking for that course that takes me away from analyzing features or architectural quality and just makes me feel like I want to play golf.

[Eric Smith]

But anymore, I'm looking for that course that takes me away from analyzing features or architectural quality and just makes me feel like I want to play golf.

May I join you, sir?

[BCrosby]

Mark says:

"... That experience may be required to see the greatness, buttresses the argument that memorability is a bad criterion. The memorable is the enemy of the subtle. Like pouring ketchup over a fine cut of meat, memorability smothers one's palate."

In most contexts "memorability" can be replaced by "photogenic".  There was a thread a year or so ago about how important it has become in recent years that holes be photogenic. Because those are holes that are shown in magazines, websites (including this one) and brochures.

Holes that rely on contouring or subtle changes in elevation or that play with your depth perception are by their nature less photogenic and thus get less media attention.

Which is to say that how well a hole looks up in a photograph is not a good predictor of its architectural quality. Indeed, it might be a counter-indicator.   

Bob   

[Jud_T]

I'd say great holes are often memorable but memorable holes aren't necessarily great.  Any severity or great views are memorable.  Subtlety is often great.  So no, it's not a good criteria, unless of course you're looking to sell physical golf magazines.

[Frank Giordano]

I'm sure memorability isn't, alone, sufficient as a guarantor of greatness.  But I don't think it can be dismissed as irrelevant or terrible.  Personally, I have experienced individual holes that not only disrupted my sleep on the night after I played them, recurring often enough to keep me awake and talking to my tape recorder to help me retain the pleasure they gave me.  Number 5 on Pinehurst #2 and #5 on Colonial and #15 and 16 at Cypress Point still live in my memory with the kind of vividness that at first and always thereafter marked them as exceptional, superior holes.  In only a very limited sense was my experience of these holes analytical or intellectual.  As Louis Armstrong claimed about the difficulty of defining or analyzing Jazz, you'll know it when you hear.  And you'll remember it long after you've heard it and even forgotten the name of the composition or the performer.  "Satin Doll" holds that place in my memory.  Surely the quality of the composition has a good deal to do with its memorability.  Finally, what a great gift our memory is for us, to permit us to recover, in moments of thoughtful tranquillity, the pleasurable emotions we encounter in the experience of great art.

[Mac Plumart]

I really think Jud touches on a great point.  And that is everyone has different tastes and agendas.  

Owners and publicists need to sell the course.  A photogenic and instantly memorable hole allows them to do that.

One and doner's or resort guests might not ever be able to play the course enough to appreciate subtlety.

Members of a private club should be able to play the course/holes enough to appreciate subtle greatness.  Tom's post on Crystal hits this point in an excellent manner.

And finally, everyone has different tastes.  I think Pinehurst is an amazing course and damn near every hole is good/great.  I thought that after my first play, but appreciated it even more after my 2nd play.  Some disagree.  I think every hole on NGLA is, at least, very good, but a lot of people focus on only a few holes.  

[Jason Topp]

Jason, by our working definition memorability is not a function of one's memory and therefore in many respects the "memorability" of a hole / course / feature should not change with experience...BUT: one's own sensitivity to memorability can change with heightened awareness and understanding.

Essentially this point, that experience may be required to see the greatness, buttresses the argument that memorability is a bad criterion. The memorable is the enemy of the subtle. Like pouring ketchup over a fine cut of meat, memorability smothers one's palate. Like this:

"Memorable" is what you remember, but that particular criterion is why so many golf holes today are overdesigned ... because another pretty bunker will make the hole more memorable, even if it doesn't make it better [and might make it worse].

This is to my point about the memorable being the enemy of the subtle but goes further.

RESOLVED: not only is memorability a terrible criterion to judge greatness, ironically it may enable insipid design.

Mark:

After playing an utterly forgettable course in Florida last week, I cannot agree with the resolution.

Most great holes are memorable.  Take a look at Ran's eclectic course on this site, or any other eclectic of great holes and most of the holes are going to be memorable.  Of course, memorability alone does not do the trick.  There are plenty of crappy holes that are memorable as well.

I find myself chided by the words of William Shatner 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaB_G1WNT70

 

[Mark Bourgeois]

Take a look at Ran's eclectic course on this site, or any other eclectic of great holes and most of the holes are going to be memorable.  Of course, memorability alone does not do the trick.  There are plenty of crappy holes that are memorable as well.

Down here in my parents' basement I checked out Ran's list and noticed this quote:

Eclectic lists can bombard the golfer into sensory overload....I tried to piece together a course that wouldn’t overwhelm the player’s sensory perception...

So thanks for directing me to comments supportive of the resolution!

[Andy Troeger]

Personally, I think memorability and interest are very similar when it comes to GCA. Holes can also be interesting but not good, at least the way I use the term. I do agree with those that have stated that there are some memorable holes that are quite awful. Fair point against memorability.

However, we aren't talking about whether memorability is the ONLY criterion the judge a course. We are discussing whether it has a place at the table. Combined with other considerations (perhaps determining the quality of the holes!), it makes for a very reasonable thing to consider. There are plenty of aesthetic courses that aren't all that great, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider the view when judging a hole or course. Great designs with bad conditioning don't totally exclude conditioning as a criterion that has some level of merit. I personally enjoy some courses from the comfort of a cart (blasphemy!) but still think walkability is important. Most memorable courses are usually pretty good courses overall, in my experience. I'll live with a less-than-perfect correlation in this case.

[Sven Nilsen]

Memory is as subjective as greatness.

There are guys who can remember every hole they've ever played.  On the other end of the spectrum, there are guys who can't remember a single hole on a course they played earlier that day, no matter how much they liked it.

Memorability as a criteria is the double hazard of the already subjective ratings game.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark: have you ever had what you might, in an exalted mood, refer to as a 'transcendent' experience on a golf course? Was there a course or a golf hole that, say, in its beauty and naturalness and design and rightness, almost took your breath away -- a golf hole/course that, in the context of the game, was a peak experience for you, a transcendent experience? And if so, do you remember it? 

Peter

[Mac Plumart]

Mark: have you ever had what you might, in an exalted mood, refer to as a 'transcendent' experience on a golf course? Was there a course or a golf hole that, say, in its beauty and naturalness and design and rightness, almost took your breath away -- a golf hole/course that, in the context of the game, was a peak experience for you, a transcendent experience? And if so, do you remember it? 

Peter

This touches on a great point.  Reminds me of Don's post earlier.  After a round like that, I struggle to remember all the specifics.

My first round at Royal County Down was like that.  I was in awe from the first hole and it wasn't until somewhere around the 13th hole (or so) that I came down from this high and began to realize where I was and what was going on.  It was a transcendent experience.  Luckily, I got to play the course a few more times before my trip was over and it really wasn't until my 3rd round that I began to piece all the holes together in specific order.

You could make the argument that the specifics weren't memorable my first round...and to some that is a negative.  I disagree.  It was  like being in an ecstatic trance.  The whole of the course was more powerful than any one specific place in time on the course (read hole or shot).  The entire experience was amazing...it was not a time for analyzing the holes shot by shot, angle by angle.  Therefore, the memorability of the specific holes was murky.

HOWEVER, after a few more plays and studying yardage books, photos, and writings about the course...I could piece each and every hole together and critically analyze them.  Even though the specifics weren't memorable after my first play, I knew the course was amazing.  And after taking the time to revisit my round(s) there and study the holes, not only was the experience incredible...but the holes and shots top-notch as well.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

We rarely forget good to great holes and are more likely to forget mundane, uninspiring holes.

Patrick:

I'll accept that YOU rarely forget good holes, but I will not accept that the average golfer or the average rater is equally blessed.

Tom,

I'd totally agree with respect to the average "golfer"

The average "rater" is supposed to be more sophisticated, more credentialed.................. in theory.

But, I'd tend to agree with you with raters as well..

Early raters were akin to "political appointees".
Their credentials were mostly as "players" or as "positioned" within the golfing world.

I don't know that "raters" would be considered "students of architecture" as I consider many on this site to be.

We all know that on the best courses, it takes two or three visits to really soak them all in.  The first time you go to Crystal Downs, you'll remember the wonderful 1st tee shot, the ruggedness of 5-6-7-8, the severity of the 9th and 11th greens, and the wildness of the 17th hole [good or bad].  The second time, you'll realize how much more severe the greens are than you remembered, and you'll start to notice some of the other holes.  But it is the third or fourth time before you realize that the most "mundane" holes on the course [#2 and #15] are NOT mundane at all, and in fact would be the best hole on many other courses.  I think you are fooling yourself if you would call those holes "memorable" in the way most people think of it, but they are very important to the overall quality of the course.

The first time I played Newport, I fell in love, archtecturally, with the 5th hole.
When I relayed my strategic fondness for the hole to others, some indicated that it was a nothing hole and that they couldn't understand how I could possibly like that hole compared to so many others.

So, I understand different perspectives.

"Memorable" is what you remember,

But, isn't it the distinctive architectural features that make your remember that hole ?

but that particular criterion is why so many golf holes today are overdesigned ... because another pretty bunker will make the hole more memorable, even if it doesn't make it better [and might make it worse].

Again, I understand your point, but, doesn't that boil down to the ability to discern window dressing from architectural - strategic values ?

It seems that many equate "photogenic" with architectural qualities, with the "photogenic" presentation being what they remember.

So, I understand your points.  Maybe I was giving the raters to much credit

[Tom_Doak]

Maybe I was giving the raters to much credit

I didn't think we had confined the discussion to raters, but yes, that was my point.

When there were 300 new courses being opened every year, Ron Whitten used to send his panelists a quick summary of each course to help them decide what they might want to see.  He would note when courses had a hole with a split fairway, or other features he found memorable, as if trying to hint to his panelists where to go and what he thought was memorable about each course [which you wouldn't have to do, if you thought your panelists were all good judges].  I realized as soon as I read it that the write-up was helping to cause architects to design more features like split fairways, because they would be noted by Ron and his panelists, making the course more memorable ... and more over-designed.

[Jud_T]

Not to digress entirely from the question at large, here's the problem (as I see it this morning)

1.  Ratings sell magazines, memberships, pricey tee times and ad space.
2.  Many raters only see courses once.
3.  Memorability and it's subsets, difficulty, risk/reward, extreme features, water hazards, aesthetic bunkers and (last but certainly not least) views, leave a more indelible first impression than subtlety and "easier", less penal holes that cater more to the golfing public at large (10+ hdcps).
4. Owners, developers, and salesmen want #1.
5. The average less sophisticated member/player values ratings in lieu of experience and knowledge gained over an extended period of time.
6.  This leads to a chicken and egg phenomenon.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Well, in this case rankings and rankers probably just reflect the problem. They don't create it. I suppose they could be criticized for perpetuating it.

Broadly speaking of the arts and design worlds, I think works of "anti-memorability," or should I just say unmemorable works -- wait, I mean "unmemorable" works, hope that makes sense -- I think those have ALWAYS struggled in the popular marketplace. Many stories of books, music, and movies that took a long time to find their footing, sometimes after the author was dead and gone.

But the problem is perhaps more acute today. Specifically to golf, the soaring costs of golf in recent decades increase the likelihood of "one and done" rounds. Yet public / resort golf depends on positive comments from the hit-n-runners. So I think a sort of doom loop arises where selection bias -- clients hire designers whose designs cater to one-n-doners and produce "memorable" designs -- mixes with golfers' desire to get their money's worth. Golfers are paying more so they want more. They don't want a round of golf, they want a "life experience."

So their expectations get freighted with a lot of crap. I think this explains why so many walk off Pinehurst #2 disappointed, griping about the expense and about it being overrated. Golfers infer...something...about the architecture from the price they pay. They expect fireworks.

If you could run an experiment where you stripped away a golfer's a priori knowledge about #2, then dropped him down there and told him the greens fee was $20, here you go and head on out..."caddies?! No, we don't have those"...I bet he would have more positive comments. Not comments like "wow, amazing...one of the world's best"...but positive.

So unless / until costs come down, I guess I see little hope for the greatness of the subtle, of the sublime, to have much chance in the marketplace. At least in the public-access marketplace. There are the examples of Coore and Crenshaw's private designs, maybe Doak's too but I don't have any experience with Doak's private designs. It is interesting to see where C&C's designs appear in the rankings when there's no ocean nearby...assuming they appear in rankings at all.

Apologies for the long post, didn't have time to write a short one.

PS Mac and Peter, I won't ask you to submit urine samples. Seriously though, experiences like that very rarely have to do with the architecture and are about the moment, the weather, the ocean views, the way the sunlight filters through the trees at certain times, etc -- in my personal experience. I accept yours may be different.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Well, I suppose rankings and rankers could take some blame for the problem insofar as rankings reward "memorability" and as course builders seek designers who can get their courses into said rankings.

[William_G]

I think memorability is a good factor in in enjoying the game of golf. Memories do provide the elixir to help your current round be more special than the last.

However, as Don, kind of said, the problem arises with "judging", which inherently could be considered detrimental to your enjoyment of the game. When looking to judge your past experiences, what you remember may not be as important as what you actually experienced, whether you remember it or not.

[Mac Plumart]

Well, in this case rankings and rankers probably just reflect the problem. They don't create it. I suppose they could be criticized for perpetuating it.

Broadly speaking of the arts and design worlds, I think works of "anti-memorability," or should I just say unmemorable works -- wait, I mean "unmemorable" works, hope that makes sense -- I think those have ALWAYS struggled in the popular marketplace. Many stories of books, music, and movies that took a long time to find their footing, sometimes after the author was dead and gone.

But the problem is perhaps more acute today. Specifically to golf, the soaring costs of golf in recent decades increase the likelihood of "one and done" rounds. Yet public / resort golf depends on positive comments from the hit-n-runners. So I think a sort of doom loop arises where selection bias -- clients hire designers whose designs cater to one-n-doners and produce "memorable" designs -- mixes with golfers' desire to get their money's worth. Golfers are paying more so they want more. They don't want a round of golf, they want a "life experience."

So their expectations get freighted with a lot of crap. I think this explains why so many walk off Pinehurst #2 disappointed, griping about the expense and about it being overrated. Golfers infer...something...about the architecture from the price they pay. They expect fireworks.

If you could run an experiment where you stripped away a golfer's a priori knowledge about #2, then dropped him down there and told him the greens fee was $20, here you go and head on out..."caddies?! No, we don't have those"...I bet he would have more positive comments. Not comments like "wow, amazing...one of the world's best"...but positive.

So unless / until costs come down, I guess I see little hope for the greatness of the subtle, of the sublime, to have much chance in the marketplace. At least in the public-access marketplace. There are the examples of Coore and Crenshaw's private designs, maybe Doak's too but I don't have any experience with Doak's private designs. It is interesting to see where C&C's designs appear in the rankings when there's no ocean nearby...assuming they appear in rankings at all.

Apologies for the long post, didn't have time to write a short one.

PS Mac and Peter, I won't ask you to submit urine samples. Seriously though, experiences like that very rarely have to do with the architecture and are about the moment, the weather, the ocean views, the way the sunlight filters through the trees at certain times, etc -- in my personal experience. I accept yours may be different.

Mark...the first part of this post is absolutely spot on, IMO.

As far as your comments at the end, I totally disagree.  In my case, if you have all the non-architecture stuff (weather, views, etc) and not good architecture...I am turned off by it.  I can think of many courses that fit that bill.  But to be in that ecstatic type of golfing trance, I absolutely need the course/holes to be excellent.  Again, I could name a few courses where I've felt this way.  But because the ENTIRE EXPERIENCE was incredible, perhaps overwhelming, I may not have perfect recall of every hole until I can review the course with a yardage book, photos, etc.  Some here might say this reflects on the courses memorability and, therefore, the courses quality.  I disagree.


But again, the first part of your post is totally spot on.  Particularly this part,

But the problem is perhaps more acute today. Specifically to golf, the soaring costs of golf in recent decades increase the likelihood of "one and done" rounds. Yet public / resort golf depends on positive comments from the hit-n-runners. So I think a sort of doom loop arises where selection bias -- clients hire designers whose designs cater to one-n-doners and produce "memorable" designs -- mixes with golfers' desire to get their money's worth. Golfers are paying more so they want more. They don't want a round of golf, they want a "life experience."

So their expectations get freighted with a lot of crap. I think this explains why so many walk off Pinehurst #2 disappointed, griping about the expense and about it being overrated. Golfers infer...something...about the architecture from the price they pay. They expect fireworks.

[Lou_Duran]

Debate.

What is memorability?  Seriously, a definition might be helpful.

Is the ability to remember each or even most holes a function of the course or the player/reviewer?  Maybe some of both?

I can think of several highly ranked courses which I've played more than once that I can't remember the majority of holes (certainly not their sequencing) in some detail without referring to my notes.  My friend Matt Ward can not only describe a specific hole at Dallas National that we played years ago, but also remembers what clubs he used and where I hit my shots.  I also have known some raters who didn't take notes and couldn't remember where they played a week before.  And, departing from issues of memory to perception, how many of are acquainted with gca enthusiasts who "see" Redans, Cape Holes, Dells, and Biarritzs all over the place.  Perhaps our collective judgment is aided by the rule of large numbers and this thread is essentially moot.   

[Charlie_Bell]

I think memorability is a wonderful way to judge a hole or course, but it doesn't necessarily reflect architectural merit.

I don't get out much, but among the few notable courses I've played are Winged Foot West, Sleepy Hollow, and The Creek Club.  I suspect most experts would rank their merit in that order, but for me their memorability ranks in reverse order.  It's a function of the uniqueness of individual holes -- their look, challenge, and quirk -- and the overall distinctiveness of the course.   

[Mark Pavy]

Some very interesting points.

Personally, my focus is more on the features, subtleties and nuances that are in play ie they are part of the shot selection equation. I appreciate a wonderful seaside vista just like any man, but when I approach the ball, start my pre-shot routine, formulate a plan to solve the puzzle, complete an accurate visualisation of starting line, trajectory, intermediate apex, landing point etc, climaxing with the swing execution and anticipation and marvel of a ball soaring off into a 3D space........I ain't thinking about a seaside vista!

Sure, I remember the views, but I prefer to remember the "puzzles".

[Jud_T]

Here's the perfect example to prove the point-  templates.  I can distinctly recall every Biarritz I've played because it's of a very specific type,  but that tells me nothing about the relative quality of each.