[Mark Bourgeois]

Debate.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Debate.

Disagree.

Uniqueness tends to generate memorability, mundane tends to eradicate memorability.

Boring clones aren't what makes for good to great golf holes.

Distinctive, challenging and fun holes do, and they tend to be packed with "memorability"

[Andy Troeger]

Disagree.

I've yet to see a good feature/hole/course that wasn't memorable. I will go all the way to the other extreme, however, as I would rather see bad but memorable features than boring ones.

[Garland Bayley]

Are the holes at Pinehurst #2 memorable? Many here opined that they were not. Yet Tom Doak gave the course a 10!
I don't think it is Tom's criteria.

[Andy Troeger]

Pinehurst #2 is a good example of where I'm coming from. The holes aren't particularly memorable IMO, and I'm not a big fan.

[Mac Plumart]

Agree.  Memorability is a terrible criterion to judge a hole/course by, as many factors outside of the course/hole have an impact on what you remember and why.

How many times did you play the course?  
When was the last time you played the course?  
Did you play other courses on the same day?  
Did you play other courses on the same trip?  
How many other courses did you play on that trip?  
How close together where the rounds?  
Did you drink alcohol or partake in any other foreign substances?
How much did your drink/take?
How was the weather?  Was it rainy/cold?
How well did you play?
Were you sick?  Did you have a headache?

I could go on and on.  

The quality of the course and hole is the way to look at it, not whether you remember everything about it or not.

[John Kirk]

OK, not to be a jerk about it, but how can tell the quality of a golf hole if you can't remember it?

You're welcome.

[Mac Plumart]

 

[Mac Plumart]

Ok, if you can't remember anything about the golf course you just played...you shouldn't be trying to judge golf course quality.

 

[Garland Bayley]

OK, not to be a jerk about it, but how can tell the quality of a golf hole if you can't remember it?

You're welcome.

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.

[hhuffines]

#2 becomes very memorable if you give it enough time.  It's supposed to be an examination of your game and that's one reason I like it so much.

[Andy Troeger]

Mac,
Assuming you have a reasonably decent memory, those other things don't matter if the course is really memorable. As a criterion, it shouldn't be a test of your memory, but the interest of the features of the course.

[Mac Plumart]

As a criterion, it shouldn't be a test of your memory, but the interest of the features of the course.

Agreed.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Andy has hit on a working definition of memorable: not tied to your own personal powers of memory. Rather, containing features / elements / whatnot that the individual considers "memorable." Depending on his abilities of recall, he might not even remember the "memorable."

Can anyone name a hole (or course) he considers great that he does not believe to be memorable? Or a hole considered by many as "great" that he does not find memorable? Or a hole he now considers great after multiple plays that at first he did not find memorable?

[Terry Lavin]

It's certainly a valid way to help form a personal opinion of a course. If, upon reflection, the holes tend to blend and don't stand out in your mind, it might not be your cup of tea. As for the raters, I'll leave it to them to decide if it's a valid criterion as raters tend to not be my cup of tea. 

[John Kirk]

Ok, if you can't remember anything about the golf course you just played...you shouldn't be trying to judge golf course quality.

 

I suppose your short term memory has to function for long enough for evaluation purposes, say an hour after the round is sufficient.  

 

Some great courses are very hard to fully appreciate with only one round of play.

[Mac Plumart]

Can anyone name a hole (or course) he considers great that he does not believe to be memorable? Or a hole considered by many as "great" that he does not find memorable? Or a hole he now considers great after multiple plays that at first he did not find memorable?

14 at NGLA get overlooked a lot and I think it is a great hole.  Many people talk about 3, 4, 17, 18 after their first few plays.  But, 14 is excellent.

5 at Pinehurst.

4 at The Golf Club.  Hardly anyone talks about it after their first play, but the angles you need to create to attack that green are vitally important...but it takes a few plays to grasp that.


I could come up with many more.

[Mac Plumart]

Some great courses are very hard to fully appreciate with only one round of play.

John, I totally agree with you on this.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Are the holes at Pinehurst #2 memorable?

YES

Many here opined that they were not.

Of those who so opined, how many have actually played the course ?

Did anyone who has played the course opine that it wasn't memorable ?

Yet Tom Doak gave the course a 10!


Could it be that amongst other things, it's "memorable" ?

I don't think it is Tom's criteria.

Who's criteria is it ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pinehurst #2 is a good example of where I'm coming from. The holes aren't particularly memorable IMO, and I'm not a big fan.

Andy,

I can see how someone might say that about the 1st and 2nd holes due to some similarities, but, after # 2, there sure are a lot of memorable holes on that golf course.

Did you not find #'s 3, 4 and 5 not memorable ?

8, 9 & 10 ?

15, 16, 17 & 18 ?

11, 12, 13 & 14 ?

6 & & ?

[Mark Pavy]

How can you judge a hole/course if you can't remember it?

Whilst working on the iViewGolf project we discussed this topic at great lengths. What makes a memorable hole? What makes a great hole? Are they one and the same?

Recently I came across this article/video, http://www.iflscience.com/brain/watch-chemicals-turn-memories-first-time-has-ever-been-recorded .

The last paragraph reads," Singer noted that an increase in stimulation correlated with increase in synaptic activity in the predicted location".

This correlates with our studies as to what most people would consider a great or memorable hole- specific stimulation for the golfing mind. It also gives a logical reason as to why developed golfing minds prefer links style courses over parkland, if you're familiar with 3D modelling and point cloud data, you'll understand that more data is required to render a links vs parkland. Each and every time a golfer faces a shot, the brain is asked to solve a puzzle, the more data points and factors, the more stimulation, the more memorable.

The development of the golfing mind is a topic for another discussion, but does reveal certain patterns, an above average intelligence was observed in developed golfing minds- ie the type of person that appreciates golf course architecture. Anyone want to argue this point??

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark - I have an excellent memory for text, but a terrible memory for golf holes. The only golf holes I tend to remember -- where they came in the routing, how I played them, their features and challenges and interest -- are the outstanding holes....

Peter

[Mac Plumart]

Let's go next level...

Peter, what makes them "outstanding" in your mind?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Is memorable the enemy of subtle? What are examples of subtle features / holes that are both great and memorable?

[John Kirk]

How can you judge a hole/course if you can't remember it?

Whilst working on the iViewGolf project we discussed this topic at great lengths. What makes a memorable hole? What makes a great hole? Are they one and the same?

Recently I came across this article/video, http://www.iflscience.com/brain/watch-chemicals-turn-memories-first-time-has-ever-been-recorded .

The last paragraph reads," Singer noted that an increase in stimulation correlated with increase in synaptic activity in the predicted location".

This correlates with our studies as to what most people would consider a great or memorable hole- specific stimulation for the golfing mind. It also gives a logical reason as to why developed golfing minds prefer links style courses over parkland, if you're familiar with 3D modelling and point cloud data, you'll understand that more data is required to render a links vs parkland. Each and every time a golfer faces a shot, the brain is asked to solve a puzzle, the more data points and factors, the more stimulation, the more memorable.

The development of the golfing mind is a topic for another discussion, but does reveal certain patterns, an above average intelligence was observed in developed golfing minds- ie the type of person that appreciates golf course architecture. Anyone want to argue this point??

Many of the highly acclaimed modern courses are complex designs, both wide and undulating, which supports your statement.  I certainly felt stimulated the first time(s) I played links golf.  Thanks for the article link, too.

Mark, I remember a few years ago Brad Klein wrote an article which championed Coore/Crenshaw's use of subtle undulation and mounding.  You only need a broad 12-18" mound to deflect balls.  Holes like that are probably easier to remember if that subtle bump affects your play, but I think most of the guys here, while in "golf architecture mode", notice and appreciate that stuff.

I'll point out that Peter Pallotta and Tom Doak have often cited the 8th hole at Crystal Downs as a personal favorite.  That is a wild and complex hole.  I once saw GCA Eric Terhorst hit a very reasonable chip shot from just left of the green to a center pin.  The ball was going just a little too fast as it passed the pin, and trickled off the front of the green...and then picked up speed.  His next shot was a 65 yard pitch from the fairway.  Is that memorable or is that great?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()