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

[Mark_Fine]

I would challenge anyone to name a great hole that is not memorable?  ALL great holes, without exception, have some memorable feature that makes them great!

[Frank Pont]

For me the key to great golf is the combination of (Infinite) Variety, Quality and Memorability.

Even a rather bland landscape like TOC has all three elements.

I think on a great golf course a player should be able to go through all the holes in sequence describing them with a short sentence, effectively telling them apart on key differentiating elements

[Sean_A]

Well, if the landscape at TOC is bland archies are in trouble because its the best terrain I know for golf.

Ciao

[Mac Plumart]

I think on a great golf course a player should be able to go through all the holes in sequence describing them with a short sentence, effectively telling them apart on key differentiating elements

Of course!  And with many people on this site, given enough plays of the course, people can do that.  But I truly believe that is not living in reality.  The reality of the average golfer.  And I mean golfer...not someone who plays occasionally. Maybe a 7 handicapper who plays in all his clubs tournaments and travels 4 times a year to play some courses that his friends recommend.  He doesn't read Mackenzie's books, he doesn't frequent GCA.com, he has no idea what a Redan is.  He just plays golf for fun.  I'd bet he couldn't write a short sentence explaining what the key differentiating elements are of the holes on his home course.  Why the heck would he waste his time doing that?!?!?  He could spend his time playing golf or working on his game at the range.  He simply doesn't care about architecture like the few of us on this site do.

But, someone who does care about architecture...5% of the golfing population, maybe...could, after a few plays, write what you suggest.

Here's a fact, that I think gets at some of the points I'm trying to make.  A few weeks ago, I went on a trip.  Played 6 Top 100 courses in 4 days, one play each.  Without studying my notes, looking at a yardage book, or pictures, I can't tell you the precise sequencing of all 18 holes on any of the courses.  Now, mind you, all are Top 100 courses by at least one magazine (most by multiple, if not all of them).  Are these courses not memorable and, therefore, not good?  Of course not!  They were all VERY good, if not great.  I just played too many courses, too quickly, and don't have enough plays on them to fully have them ingrained in my brain forever.  But when I look at my notes and photos, the courses come back to life for me. 

Now...that's me.  A full-fledged golf architecture nut.  Who's read all the golf architecture books, reads this sight several days a week, and has friends who are the same.  Imagine how a non-architecture geek sees golf courses.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I would challenge anyone to name a great hole that is not memorable? 

ALL great holes, without exception, have some memorable feature that makes them great!

I'd have to agree with Mark and would ask all to name a good to great hole that's not memorable.

[JESII]

I believe you have it backwards Patrick and Mark...memorability doesn't make a hole great, it's greatness makes it memorable. There are plenty of terrible holes that I can't get out of my mind...hence "memorability" is a terrible criterion...

[Patrick_Mucci]

I believe you have it backwards Patrick and Mark...memorability doesn't make a hole great, it's greatness makes it memorable.

Jim,

I suspect the kids are continuing to deprive you of your sleep causing your reading compehension skills to plumment, once again.

There are plenty of terrible holes that I can't get out of my mind...hence "memorability" is a terrible criterion...

Loss of sleep causes golfers to hallucinate and have flashbacks to disastrous holes.

Stand on the 17th tee at NGLA or the 15th tee at Friar's Head or the 18th tee at Sebonack and tell me that the holes aren't memorable before you play them, AND after you play them.

Now go take a nap

[John Kirk]

I wonder how the 9th hole on the Old Course at St. Andrews fits into this conversation.  I played it once, enjoyed it immensely, and found it to be very memorable.  I've had several GCA threads prompt me to bring up the 9th as an example of one thing or another.  It is very plain looking, and would not look out of place at a local municipal course.

[JESII]

Ahh yes, many or most great holes are indeed memorable...so are many not so great holes. In your general neighborhood is a course called Minisceongo. When I played a college tournament there 20 years ago they had a par 5 with a tree pretty close to dead center about 90 yards from the green. Not a big deal if there's room to avoid it and this one did...about 5 yards on all sides...

[Mark Bourgeois]

Mark 'n' Mooch:

I hesitate to offer anything out of concern I'll get dragged into a Monty Pythonesque "Dead Parrot" discussion over what constitutes memorable, but here goes.

I give you the 9th at Royal North Devon, a hole Ran lists in his "Dream 18" -- but is one of just 3 holes in that esteemed list he doesn't bother to share a picture -- and a hole Doak listed as one of 18 in the world that deserve to be copied. (He gave it the maximum "!!!" in TCG.)

Here's a pic:

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ahh yes, many or most great holes are indeed memorable...so are many not so great holes. In your general neighborhood is a course called Minisceongo. When I played a college tournament there 20 years ago they had a par 5 with a tree pretty close to dead center about 90 yards from the green. Not a big deal if there's room to avoid it and this one did...about 5 yards on all sides...

Jim,

I had the tree removed, come back and play it again

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
Almost any criteria used to judge the quality or greatness of a golf course can have two sides to it.  For example, great holes need some level of "challenge" to be great but at the same time holes can be far too challenging.  Great holes also need some level of "interest and strategy" but they can also have too much strategy to the point where they are over designed (e.g. The architect has tried to incorporate every known design feature into a single hole).  Sometimes less is more and simpler is better. 

Be clear a memorable hole does not make it a great hole but ALL great holes bar none are memorable for some reason or they would not be great!!

[Mac Plumart]

I think people are talking about different things and the discussion is losing its value.

[JESII]

Ahh yes, many or most great holes are indeed memorable...so are many not so great holes. In your general neighborhood is a course called Minisceongo. When I played a college tournament there 20 years ago they had a par 5 with a tree pretty close to dead center about 90 yards from the green. Not a big deal if there's room to avoid it and this one did...about 5 yards on all sides...

Jim,

I had the tree removed, come back and play it again

Perhaps...does my course record still stand?

If that tree is gone, I'm sure several others are as well...so my 70 is probably 5 back of the current record.

[JESII]

Mac,

Also not wanting to relive a Monty Python sketch I would agree with Mark that we may not all be driving in the same direction.

Can you think of any memorable crappy holes?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mac,

Also not wanting to relive a Monty Python sketch I would agree with Mark that may not all be driving in the same direction.

Can you think of any memorable crappy holes?

Yes,

Tehama has more than it's share, but, the views are great.

[Bill_Yates]

Boy! I totally disagree with the premise of this thread.

To me, the only product of a golf course IS A MEMORY.  Golf courses sell memories. That's it.

[Jud_T]

We're simply arguing over semantics.  If you played a hole with a huge asteroid crater in the middle of it, that would be pretty memorable.  Doesn't make it a good hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

We're simply arguing over semantics.  If you played a hole with a huge asteroid crater in the middle of it, that would be pretty memorable.  Doesn't make it a good hole.

Jud,

What you and the others can't seem to come to grips with is the fact that the category you're discussing, "memorability", isn't confined to the word "memorability".

There's context, printed context explaining what "memorability" entails, just like "resistance to scoring" "walkability" etc., etc..

That you and others are laboring under the notion that the category sits in a one word vacuum is hard for a prudent person to understand.

[Jud_T]

Pat,

If you'll return to the first post, you'll see that Mark didn't specify "as defined by xyz golf rag".  Would you care to propose new language for memorability that you find suitable, or are you happy with the definitions as they stand and are currently implemented?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

If you'll return to the first post, you'll see that Mark didn't specify "as defined by xyz golf rag". 

Then whom is doing the "judging" if not a magazine's raters providing ratings ?

Would you care to propose new language for memorability that you find suitable, or are you happy with the definitions as they stand and are currently implemented?

If a magazine's rating criteria include a category "memorability", I'm content to accept their directive/interpretation of what the word "memorability" connotes.

[David Davis]

I can't remember most of the posts on this thread but I will try not to judge it by that fact.

Yes I strongly disagree. If the hole/course is not good enough to remember then that either says something about your age, amount of drugs you've been taking or simply that it was most likely not that special.

If I finish a round and can't remember all the holes or only half of them, then 9.99 times out of 10 I've looked at the same tee shot and similar hole more times than I care to remember.

I've mentioned it before but Woodhall Spa is a perfect example of this. Sure good course but I'd have to play it a lot to remember the routing after looking at the same tee shot 14 times.

[Tom_Doak]

I've mentioned it before but Woodhall Spa is a perfect example of this. Sure good course but I'd have to play it a lot to remember the routing after looking at the same tee shot 14 times.

But, lots of us think Woodhall Spa is a great course.  So, if it's unmemorable, whose point are you proving?

Or are you just proving that "memorability," like every other criterion suggested to judge golf courses, is in the eye of the beholder?

[David Davis]

I've mentioned it before but Woodhall Spa is a perfect example of this. Sure good course but I'd have to play it a lot to remember the routing after looking at the same tee shot 14 times.

But, lots of us think Woodhall Spa is a great course.  So, if it's unmemorable, whose point are you proving?

Or are you just proving that "memorability," like every other criterion suggested to judge golf courses, is in the eye of the beholder?

Clearly or it wouldn't be rated by everyone top 50 in the world. I'll give another example, Hilversumsche Golf Club. Also a really good course, traditional Heathland course in NL. Really fun to play but not memorable.

To me, lack of variation of holes is a definite min-point.

Do you find Woodhall Spa, for example, great, because of it's variation and memorability?

[Philip Hensley]

Tom once provided Ran a list of (50?, 100?) things to judge quality on. Don't know if it is somewhere in the archives. He mentioned it in one of his posts to a thread.

Does anyone has a link to this? I can't find it through search.