[James Boon]

The “Your Favourite 20 in England” thread finding its way to the first page again got me thinking about the number of times one manages to play a course and how that impacts upon your opinion...

Many factors can change your opinion of a course: how you played, the weather, the condition and set up, pre determined ideas about what is ahead of us. But by the time a second days play comes along we will have had a chance to mull things over a little more.

I like to think I can be impartial and keep a clear mind so that such factors don’t influence my opinion, but unfortunately I’m human and not Vulcan...

For instance, the first time I played Woodhall Spa I loved it. I finished work early whilst visiting sites nearby, played well and it was a glorious afternoon, the course was quiet and full of wildlife. I played it again recently, the weather wasn’t quite so spectacular and my game wasn’t bad, and on discussing the course in great detail with fellow GCAers on the day, it was clear to me that it wasn’t as impressive as I remembered. Still a good course, but it dropped right off my favourites list.

On the other hand, I played Golspie many years ago as a kid and wasn’t all that fussed. A few decent links holes and interesting heathland like holes but other than that nothing special? However I played it again last year and loved it! Those are course I’ve managed to play more than once.

Of those I’ve only played once, I wasn’t impressed with Royal Porthcawl at Buda but I suspect a fellow GCAer had built my hopes and expectations up so much. However I regularly find myself thinking of the place and keen to return. I’m also clearly taking things a little easier with these opinions, age and experience no doubt, as I played Kington once a couple of years ago and enjoyed it. I feel I will really love the course, but am keen to get back before praising it too much or falling in love!

To be clear, I’m talking of a days golf hear, so if you played 2 rounds in one day the odds are that a lot of outside factors will be the same, but feel free to argue that point.

So, how does that effect ones list of favourite courses? Or top courses, I’m not fussed. It’s just clear to me that there are lots of courses we will have played only the once due to location, access or cost, that make our top lists but are we really sure they belong on only one days experience?

Lastly, one for the raters? Should you be able to rate courses on only one days experience or would it be better to hold that opinion or quantify it at least, until you have returned?

Cheers,

James

[jeffwarne]

Great post
all very good points.

That said, it all come down to do you and your group enjoy playing 8 courses once, or 4 courses twice?
or a mix of both styles.

I'm not that interested in rating or evaluating a course, but as you said we all have a feel for a course after we play it, even if only once.
I certainly have my favorites though and several are based on one play which I hope to keep changing

[Brent Hutto]

James,

I'm not sure I can think of a course that really seemed amazingly good from a one-time play-n-run but then disappointed upon subsequent plays. All of my all-time favorite courses were very close to that status after one round.

And unfortunately I can't really think of a lot of examples of courses that disappointed me on first play but I returned again in the future to get to know them better. So many courses, so little time, for better or worse I only seem to repeat the the courses that really grabbed me right off the bat.

Perhaps I form snap judgments too easily. Didn't Chet Baker used to sing a song about that?

[Carl Rogers]

I admit to be being not good at it the first time around because I grind too hard on my game.  After 4 rounds at Mid Pines, I am getting a good handle on it now.

[Mark Bourgeois]

 It depends on the course and the person. Most courses today are designed for the first-timer to see just about all there is. Subtlety is dead.

Generally speaking, links courses will "change" the most as they can play quite differently from day to day and from season to season.

Another generality is the greater the course the less you'll get it after one play. But that's a tautology and furthermore, most people only know a course is great because somebody else told them before they ever laid eyes on the place. 

[Peter Pallotta]

James -

I've noted that Sean A, who has played many of the courses he profiles many times, over many seasons, over several years, often raises the differences he finds in those courses from summer and winter or from when they are in 'good nick' or not. And it seems that the differences he notes are, in one sense, significant -- he will enjoy a given course much more under one set of conditions than another. And yet -- and it would be good to have Sean comment -- it seems that he can still see/appreciate the essential course (its architecture, quality etc) independently of these conditions. Perhaps that's a testament to the kinds of courses Sean tends to play -- many of the publics I play around here don't seem to me all the more interesting or challenging or fun regardless of when I play them. Maybe it's only very good courses that have enough "true feel" for a golfer to notice in the first place, and enough that, even under differing conditions, that essence comes through.

Peter

[Brent Hutto]

Peter (and Mark),

It depends on how you define a "good" or "great" course. As Mark said, it's a bit of a circular definition. If you value courses that will let you experience something in your 30th round that you would never had even thought to look for on the previous 29 occasions then finding such a course will lead you  to praise it. Of course.

Some people, no shit, actually like a course they can play two or three times and feel like nothing is going to surprise them 30 plays later. They chalk what we tend to call "subtlety" up to "local knowledge" or even "unfairness". These aren't people who will deem The Old Course as being "great" whether they play it once or play it 100 times.

An extreme example is blind shots. I'm cool with a couple or three or four blind tee shots in a round maybe even the odd blind approach shot on an "Alps" hole or something. But even some folks with otherwise sterling GCA beard-puller credentials have opined that they prefer there to be some place you can play from (on say a potentially blind approach) that gives you some kind of view of the green. Yet there are others for whom a whole bunch of blind shots practically guarantees they will deem a course very good or even great.

[Jason Thurman]

The answer depends on the person. There are plenty of people with great eyes for architecture whose evaluation I will consider even if they only played the course once in a scramble while drinking in the rain. There are other people who can play a course 20 times and still not grasp its basic essence.

I do think one's impression after a single round is just as valid and valuable as their impression after multiple rounds. For instance, James, if your plays at Woodhall had been reversed, and you had played your first round in poor weather and listened to GCAers dissect the course but still returned later and found it on a perfect day and really enjoyed it, your perspective after the second round may have been quite different than it is now. I don't necessarily believe that one evaluation is more "correct" than another. My evaluation of a course may go up or down after multiple plays, but the evaluation after the first play is still valid and based on a set of real observations and a genuine reflection of how enjoyable that first play was.

Frankly, considering how many GCAers have recently offered critiques of courses without ever even setting foot within 100 miles of the property, the value of a review after a single play is higher than ever in my book.

[Brent Hutto]

My own Fazio touchpoint is Sage Valley. There's probably more secrets to be uncovered during the 10th round at any randomly chosen UK links course than at Sage Valley. It does seem to be pretty "out in front of you". But I can't imagine playing there a couple hundred times as a member and getting bored. If the terrain, the visuals and the shots to be played are compelling enough I have no particular need to still be figuring out a course after many, many rounds.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Brian

Not to rob James's perspective but my experience with WS, playing it four times over a weekend, was the drives and green complexes felt more similar and less distinctive with each play. Veering dangerously into making simplistic commentary, I will say the greens have a lot of subtlety in them and take some figuring, but, at least after four plays, the charms of those subtleties did not carry great appeal. Not to say it's a bad course -- no, I feel strongly it is not and would not complain were it a short drive from my house -- just that my attraction to it waned with each play, in contrast to my experiences playing, say, The Alwoodley.

Mark

PS congrats working in an RCP reference.

[Brent Hutto]

I've heard that was a nice course. Wonder if anyone around here could get me on there... ;-)

[BCrosby]

Holding weather constant, on playing a course multiple times I "see" things I literally had not seen before. Some of them are physical, things that should be as obvious as bunkers. ("Where did that bunker come from?") Things like contouring are less obvious and harder to "see" first time around.

Both are real features of a course that someone more observant than I doesn't miss, I assume. But you play golf with the observation skills you have.

What often distinguishes a good course for me is after finally "seeing" the tangible, physical things I should have seen earlier, I begin to see the more intangible architectural thinking that went into the hole. (I say "distinguishes a good course" because sometimes, even after multiple plays, I can't discern any architectural thinking at all.)

But when I have learned a hole and its architecture comes together for me, it's magic. When that happens it's a reminder of why golf architecture is so damn fascinating.

Bob

[Jon Wiggett]

James,

I think that the better the quality of the GCA at a course the more you have to play the course to really, really get it. The best example of this for me is TOC which I have played over 40 times though sadly not in the last 10 years. I was not overly impressed with TOC the first time I played but the more I played TOC the better it became to the point where it is by far the best course I have played. The only other course I have had this at to almost the same degree is Kilspindie which is just a blast to play regardless of the weather and how I am playing.

I suspect it is would be very rare to find a good course that you can truly appreciate at the first play.

Jon

[Sean_A]

I think I get a decent handle on a course after one or two plays.  It really helps when I am in a 4 ball and get to watch more shots.  This last visit to St E and Perranporth I had a very good look about playing by myself in no hurry (very rare for me).  St E didn't throw up much in the way of surprises, but P'porth sure did and this was maybe my 5th or 6th go. Its such a wild site that new stuff is bound to jump from nowhere.  Plus, it makes a big difference what time of year it is.  I recall my first time at P'porth in the winter and you could hit the ball practically anywhere, find it and hit it again. Thats not so much the case in summer as the course is significantly narrowed by rough and keen conditions.  If folks really want to see UK courses at their best they should visit in late September early October.  There is still an element of keeness, but courses are also widening out with the rough dying back.  Of course, the best conditioned courses ofter great golf in the winter.  This to me is by the far the major advantage of links and some heathland courses.  There is definitely some sacrifice in terms of green speed and fairway keeness, but the extra space and still quite dry conditions more than make up for it. 

Pietro

I think very good architecture nearly always rises above conditions. That said, a good course in great nick (very rare) is a match for nearly any great course in decent nick (very common). That isn't to say conditions are the be all and end all, but to make the architecture sing, its important. Architecture and maintenance go hand in hand.  This is all pie in the sky stuff for the most part, but when it does all come together that few times a year its magic. 

Ciao

[Brent Hutto]

Sean,

I have pretty much settled on mid-September instead of late June for my UK trips. Mostly to save $300-$500 on airfare but the dry conditions typical of that time of year bring out the "keenness".

[Mark Chaplin]

So many factors affect my opinions:

The place I'd go back to tomorrow before any other I've played is NGLA. I played it with 3 good mates, the lobster was perfect, sank a couple of the local cocktail and shot mid 70s which was satisfying.

Had I been a single shooting 90 in the rain would I hanker a return so much??

[Josh Tarble]

Can I get a feel for a course and the "essence" of a club in one play?  Yes

Can I figure out the best way around a course and all the subtleties?  No

[Brent Hutto]

Can I get a feel for a course and the "essence" of a club in one play?  Yes

Can I figure out the best way around a course and all the subtleties?  No

Exactly.

I think your first statement is generally true of all courses, with very few exceptions. And the second question may be four or five rounds or it may take a lifetime, depending on the course.

[Adam Clayman]

One feeling that's easily true, after one go, is whether there's enough interest to want to tee it up again.

[Tom Kelly]

I find I am usually far more likely to under-rate than over-rate a course on the first visit, so it is very rare that I go back to a course and I'm disappointed or then lower my opinions of it after the second or third visit.

There is the odd course though that I will struggle to pin down after just one visit. I will probably get it in the rough ball park of a "ranking" to the rest of the courses I've seen but really I would like to go back to make a real solid opinion of them. They are often the more visually subtle/blander (for want of a better word) courses I struggle with but I love subtlety in design so usually they do alright on the repeat visit!

[Mark Pritchett]

Frankly, considering how many GCAers have recently offered critiques of courses without ever even setting foot within 100 miles of the property, the value of a review after a single play is higher than ever in my book.

Thank you for saving me the time to write the above. 

[Phil McDade]

I'm much like Thurman on this one -- I think greatness can be discerned with a single turn around a course, much like a singular piece of music (see The Pretenders, debut album) can be assessed as great the first time around.

Interestingly, I've come to appreciate some courses a lot more after having played it once, then going back to study it in depth (and walking it, instead of playing it). This course comes to mind: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,44430.0.html ... a Golden-Era Langford that I don't think I really appreciated the first go-around, in part because I was turned off by a goofy routing choice, and was looking for things in a Langford course that weren't there. Returning a few years later, I came to appreciate what a good course it was, particularly a great set of greens that I somehow didn't notice as well the first time.

[Adrian_Stiff]

No right answer here. Some people can get a true feel for a course on one play and some can't. Some are so wrapped up in their golf they see almost nothing. Some see every hump and hollow and are more interested in the course than their own game. I know plenty of courses pretty well that I have never played.

[Michael Essig]

Having recently played 13 courses in 14 days, of which I had only played 2 previously - Old and New Courses at SA - I can say that you definitely have a feel for the course on one play.  However, that feel is not intimate; that takes repeated plays in my opinion.

To have a more intimate feel for a course, I think you have to play it when you are playing well and playing badly.  Playing well, all courses are not that hard, because I am hitting fairways and greens.  When playing poorly, whether self-inflicted or by Mother Nature, a different character of the course is revealed.

When do I know I don't like a course and never will? When I am driving well, hitting my irons well, putting reasonably, and scoring badly.  That means ball are struck solidly and straight, but bad things happen at the other end: finding hidden bunkers, unreceptive greens and no way to run it up.  THINK THE CASTLE COURSE!  Did not like it at all.  Despite one play, I think I had a pretty good feel for what that place is all about.  Will never go back.

[John Kavanaugh]

Some people have a line a crap that leads you to believe that they have a true feel after one visit.  They who play the most courses understand the fewest.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()