How many times do you need to play/see a course to really "get it"

[Matt Bielawa]

There have been a number of threads recently that alluded to the fact that you can't really appreciate certain courses after only playing them once.  I'm thinking of Mr. Mucci's comments about seeing Seminole in a variety of wind conditions, and Jason's comments after playing Canterbury a second time.

Should great architecture be crystal clear to you after one round, or can it be revealed over time...perhaps like some have said about TOC and Pinehurst #2.

From an architect's perspective, how quickly do you expect the player to appreciate what you've built?

[Randy Thompson]

I hope a certain targeted group, gets it in a general sence after the first round but continue with a learning and discovering process for years to come. You also have to accept that there is a large group that will never get it!

[Joe Hancock]

My "get it" is, and should be, different from others' "get it". We all have different experiences with the game of golf that form our "get it-atude".

On that note, I don't the answer to your question. I doubt there is a course that I totally get....too many conditions to consider.

Joe

[Mark Bourgeois]

For me the bigger question is, how do you know if you even get it? The better a course is, the longer it should take to get it. The worst scenario is to think you get it when you don't. I give you hit n runners, drive-byers and those put in a position of rating a course after their one play.

[Eric Smith]

"Getting it", to me, seems an end - a finality to discovery. I would hate to get bored on a course because I "got it", where is the fun in that?  Maybe we can "get it" if we play the same course every day for 5 years? Pretty sure I would enjoy trying that at, say, NGLA!*. To me, I think the thrill of "discovery" is one of the main attributes of a good golf course. In my opinion, the best courses are (or should be) chock full of secrets asking us to find them, one after another. This, I believe,was/ is the intent of the best architects - a simpler task I would imagine when working with interesting ground.

I'm not sure if I will ever "get it" on any course, no matter how many times I play. In my opinion there are simply too many variables in the "getting".

* How much fun would it be to "get" the greens at National Golf Links of America? It is not my intention to boast, but I have been so very fortunate to go around the course four times now and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that NGLA possesses the most deliciously diabolical collection of greens and green sites I have seen or will ever see in my lifetime. Pure genius (or madness?) from Charles Blair Macdonald. Just an endless variety of ways to wreck a scorecard. To those who "get" these greens, my hat's off to you!

[Joel_Stewart]

Interesting question.  If I had to quantify it I would think 60% on the first play? 

I've played NGLA once and figure I only experienced 50% of the course.  I've played Cal Club 10 times and still trying to figure that course out.  Play Olympic once and you'll understand 90%.

[Matthew Sander]

IMHO, the best scenario is when you play a course once and really enjoy it, but you just know that there are countless mysteries left out there. In my playing experience, Pinehust #2 best fits that description. I'm pretty sure I get it, but what I "get" is that there is so much more to "get". Does that make any sense? I didn't think so.

[Jason Topp]

It completely depends on the course.  I believe it would take a number of rounds to have a good understanding of Pinehurst No. 2 or Crystal Downs.  I think you understand most there is to learn on a typical resort course within a round.

I find complex greens the most difficult aspect to decipher in one round.   In such cases the best place to miss is not obvious to the uninitiated.  When approaching such greens, you either blindly follow the advice of a caddie or take your best guess.

[Mark Saltzman]

IMHO, the best scenario is when you play a course once and really enjoy it, but you just know that there are countless mysteries left out there. In my playing experience, Pinehust #2 best fits that description. I'm pretty sure I get it, but what I "get" is that there is so much more to "get". Does that make any sense? I didn't think so.

To me, this is exactly right.

[Ryan Coles]

I think it works only one way. Unfavourable first impression, I don't think is recoverable and rarely softens.

I've played quite a few courses that I came off thinking that was outstanding, but on subsequent plays, thinking wow, I knew it was good but I didn't appreciate first time round, just how good.

The best example I can give is playing a 36 hole venue. First play I found it difficult to separate berkshire sunningdale saunton etc. With each play the superiority of the red, old and east becomes more apparent.

Some people have a remarkable eye for courses and see pretty much all there is to see on one play. Sean Arble springs to mind.

[Tim Martin]

I think it works only one way. Unfavourable first impression, I don't think is recoverable and rarely softens.

I've played quite a few courses that I came off thinking that was outstanding, but on subsequent plays, thinking wow, I knew it was good but I didn't appreciate first time round, just how good.

The best example I can give is playing a 36 hole venue. First play I found it difficult to separate berkshire sunningdale saunton etc. With each play the superiority of the red, old and east becomes more apparent.

Some people have a remarkable eye for courses and see pretty much all there is to see on one play. Sean Arble springs to mind.

Ryan-I am always amazed when someone has that ability to recount each hole in detail after just one play and retain that information for years to come.

[RJ_Daley]

With similar sentiments and opinion to others expressed above, I would say the first question is:  Do you have the prior understanding or knowledge of what it is to "get"?

Assuming you are prepared via prior reading and studying other golf courses, and what goes into the games theory and methods to play, strategy and philosophy of golf course architecture, design-construction, along with some idea of maintenance meld, then you have the threshold understanding to "get" somethings. 

I think you can then have a first impression "get it".  That can be a negative or positive or neutral first impression of whether you "liked it" or not, and that is separate from "getting it".  IMO

But with repeat play, familiarity can breed contempt and still "get why", or familiarity can expand and deepen a love for a golf course. 

I think you can make a qualified opinion of "getting a course" with the threshold prior preparation and study, and when expressing a first impression, you should say it was a one and done experience.  Your ideas can still be spot on regarding a first impression.  But, repeated play at a subject course where you think you want to tell others 'you get it' only enhances your credibility, IMHO. 

[David Stamm]

I've never played it, but I imagine that a lifetime would never be enough to "get" TOC.

[Jason Way]

Love this question Matt.  To me, the notion of "getting it" is inextricably linked to the level of interest that a course provides.  Almost any course needs to be played repeatedly to really get to know it well.  Angles, contours, hazards, green complexes, greens - there is quite a bit to every course.  Factor in wind and weather and the number of combinations (or is it permutations? I could never keep that straight) goes way up. 

If a course possesses high levels of interest, then it makes me want to dig deeper and experience every little detail.  If it does not, then I find myself quickly feeling like I "get it", which is another way of saying, I'm bored.

The litmus test for me is, if I play really well, do I feel like I my work is done (boredom), or do I want to come back for more (interest)?

[James Brown]

I see two dimensions to "getting it."  One part I would call golf IQ and is about reading the course to decider the best ways to score, given your abilities.  The other is about appreciation and how fun you perceive certain aspects of a course to be.  Makes me wonder if the very best players might derive less fun because they can see through the mysteries. 

[Duncan Cheslett]

I think a lot depends on the circumstances of your visit. I play a lot of unfamiliar courses in a competitive situation and find that I am often too focused on (or depressed about) my own game really to appreciate the architecture of the course. I can leave with little more than a 'first impression'.

On a lazy summer evening visit on my own or with a like-minded soul I am far more likely to see things and 'get it'. Even so, I would say that I need 3 or 4 plays to get to know a course. My appreciation of places like Prestbury, Cavendish and Sherwood Forest has been greatly enhanced by multiple plays over the last year or so.

[cary lichtenstein]

On my 1st trip to Scotland, I decided to play classic courses in the British Open rotation 2-5 times so that I would always remember them and really get to know as many nuiances as possible.

What did I learn from this? I loved playing Royal DOrnock 5 times and hated playing Carnoustie twice.

I played Pebble Beach 100 times and loved every round yet I walked off after 9 holes Fort Ord that I hated.

[Phil McDade]

Love this question Matt.  To me, the notion of "getting it" is inextricably linked to the level of interest that a course provides.  Almost any course needs to be played repeatedly to really get to know it well.  Angles, contours, hazards, green complexes, greens - there is quite a bit to every course.  Factor in wind and weather and the number of combinations (or is it permutations? I could never keep that straight) goes way up. 

Jason: My view of "getting it" has a lot less to do with how I might play it, or even the "level of interest" (presumably to me) that it provides.

To me, the nature of "getting it" is trying to figure out what the course (meaning, the architect) is attempting to do. Sometimes it's not much; a course not far from where I live was done by a semi-retired guy who had limited space and basically built a bowling alley course for those learning the game to hack around. That's a pretty easy course to "get" after one play.

But by the same token, I don't think it's all that hard to "get" a course like Blue Mound G&CC, a faithfully maintained Raynor here in Wisconsin. Not too taxing off the tee, on land that's pretty unremarkable -- that's a course that's all about the greens and green surrounds. It would surely take me multiple plays to learn exactly how to take on those greens (nearly all of them sizable, thus with great variety of pin positions) from the tee/fairway, and how to tackle putting them (the greens can easily produce 3 and even 4 putts if you are out of position). But it's pretty easy to "get" what that course is trying to do -- it's testing your ability to hit shots into greens in the proper place, and negotiate turbulent green contours.

In contrast, I think Lawsonia is a more difficult course "to get" - there are elements of blindness, width, and deceptiveness that, along with boldly contoured greens in some cases, and penal bunkering, make it a difficult course to fully appreciate its intentions after just one or a few plays. I go there frequently, at least once a year, and I always seem to learn something new with each play. Maybe that's because I'm more "engaged" with it -- I love playing it, so there is an interest in trying to "get" it that is higher than most other courses I play. But I also think it offers a more complicated design than something like Blue Mound.

[Sven Nilsen]

I am assuming this thread is an offshoot of the numerous rating related discussions taking place.  I thought this question best summed up part of the issue with the ratings game.

Irrespective of any of the magazine's stated criteria, from an architectural standpoint, what exactly is being critiqued?  Is it the way the course played the day a rater saw it, or is it the way it was intended to be played, even if the maintenance meld wasn't ideal.

I'd venture some folks have the ability to play a course under less than ideal conditions and "get" the architect's intent.  My first round at Lawsonia was on a soggy day during a time the course was undergoing a grub infestation.  The first problem couldn't have been helped, and the second may have been beyond control as well.  As disappointed as I was, I could still see that shots that could be played, could figure out where my ball would have ended up if it hadn't plugged, and could imagine how the course would play under ideal conditions.  I felt like I "got" the course immediately, even if what I got wasn't represented by what was happening during my play.

There are other courses I've played under similarly wet conditions that did not leave me with the same feeling of wanting to get back that I had after playing Lawsonia.  I knew instinctively that the course probably wasn't going to be that much more fun even if conditions were better.

I had the same sort of Lawsonia experience at Kiawah.  On the day of my first go around, we had a five club breeze which made half of the holes a brutal test.  Yet I still walked away thinking it was a great course.

So in a world of hit and run ratings, how do you account for this.  Is there a way to construct the criteria to address sub-optimal conditioning?  Can you screen raters who simply could not imagine a course playing as it did when they experienced it?  Or are the standard deviations there to catch not only the outliers, but also those that didn't see the course under passable conditions?

Sven

[Matt Bielawa]

I am assuming this thread is an offshoot of the numerous rating related discussions taking place.  I thought this question best summed up part of the issue with the ratings game.

Irrespective of any of the magazine's stated criteria, from an architectural standpoint, what exactly is being critiqued?  Is it the way the course played the day a rater saw it, or is it the way it was intended to be played, even if the maintenance meld wasn't ideal.

I'd venture some folks have the ability to play a course under less than ideal conditions and "get" the architect's intent.  My first round at Lawsonia was on a soggy day during a time the course was undergoing a grub infestation.  The first problem couldn't have been helped, and the second may have been beyond control as well.  As disappointed as I was, I could still see that shots that could be played, could figure out where my ball would have ended up if it hadn't plugged, and could imagine how the course would play under ideal conditions.  I felt like I "got" the course immediately, even if what I got wasn't represented by what was happening during my play.

There are other courses I've played under similarly wet conditions that did not leave me with the same feeling of wanting to get back that I had after playing Lawsonia.  I knew instinctively that the course probably wasn't going to be that much more fun even if conditions were better.

I had the same sort of Lawsonia experience at Kiawah.  On the day of my first go around, we had a five club breeze which made half of the holes a brutal test.  Yet I still walked away thinking it was a great course.

So in a world of hit and run ratings, how do you account for this.  Is there a way to construct the criteria to address sub-optimal conditioning?  Can you screen raters who simply could not imagine a course playing as it did when they experienced it?  Or are the standard deviations there to catch not only the outliers, but also those that didn't see the course under passable conditions?

Sven

Sven,

I think you hit on the intent of my question better than I could.  It wasn't necessarily from the magazine ratings that caused me to wonder, but more from my own ability to judge what I thought about a course, and whether I really felt I could reasonably offer my own opinions and feedback based upon one time around.

I think there are certain courses where one trip around is more than enough to know whether you think the course is a Doak "7" or a Doak "0," but I think there are other courses where "6's" and "7's" can become "8'" and "9's" as you play them more and more in different conditions along with hitting good shots and poor shots in different locations and experiencing what impact that has on your next shot.

Some of what I was wondering is whether the "acquired taste course" is better or worse than the "love and first sight" course.  And, what causes that?  Surroundings?  How you're playing?  Other?

[Sven Nilsen]

Matt:

Some of my favorite courses are ones that I didn't love initially but after a few plays it felt like I had unlocked a puzzle. 

There was an old thread about the value in studying just one course over and over again.  Someone made the point that it didn't matter what course it was, it was the act of studying itself that made the exercise worthwhile.

Sven

[Paul Gray]

With similar sentiments and opinion to others expressed above, I would say the first question is:  Do you have the prior understanding or knowledge of what it is to "get"?

Assuming you are prepared via prior reading and studying other golf courses, and what goes into the games theory and methods to play, strategy and philosophy of golf course architecture, design-construction, along with some idea of maintenance meld, then you have the threshold understanding to "get" somethings. 

I think you can then have a first impression "get it".  That can be a negative or positive or neutral first impression of whether you "liked it" or not, and that is separate from "getting it".  IMO

But with repeat play, familiarity can breed contempt and still "get why", or familiarity can expand and deepen a love for a golf course. 

I think you can make a qualified opinion of "getting a course" with the threshold prior preparation and study, and when expressing a first impression, you should say it was a one and done experience.  Your ideas can still be spot on regarding a first impression.  But, repeated play at a subject course where you think you want to tell others 'you get it' only enhances your credibility, IMHO. 

What he said.

[Mac Plumart]

"Getting it", to me, seems an end - a finality to discovery. I would hate to get bored on a course because I "got it", where is the fun in that?  Maybe we can "get it" if we play the same course every day for 5 years? Pretty sure I would enjoy trying that at, say, NGLA!*. To me, I think the thrill of "discovery" is one of the main attributes of a good golf course. In my opinion, the best courses are (or should be) chock full of secrets asking us to find them, one after another. This, I believe,was/ is the intent of the best architects - a simpler task I would imagine when working with interesting ground.

I'm not sure if I will ever "get it" on any course, no matter how many times I play. In my opinion there are simply too many variables in the "getting".

* How much fun would it be to "get" the greens at National Golf Links of America? It is not my intention to boast, but I have been so very fortunate to go around the course four times now and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that NGLA possesses the most deliciously diabolical collection of greens and green sites I have seen or will ever see in my lifetime. Pure genius (or madness?) from Charles Blair Macdonald. Just an endless variety of ways to wreck a scorecard. To those who "get" these greens, my hat's off to you!

Love this answer.

To me, great courses have this ability to yield new secrets every time you play it.

[Sven Nilsen]

Guess we need to define "get."

Does it mean knowing the course is worthy of study, or knowing everything about the course so that no more study is needed.

[Mac Plumart]

Sven,

Lots of times it is pretty obvious if a course is interesting and worthy of study, don't you think?

But to truly "get" a great and subtlety nuanced course, you need to play it a lot and try new things and, by doing so, uncover secrets.

That's what I think.