Gil Hanse - Why the Love?

[Chris Johnston]

"Hm? "Objection." "Overruled." "Oh, no, no, no. No, I STRENUOUSLY object." "Oh. Well, if you strenuously object then I should take some time to reconsider.".  Couldn't resist timing for the "A Few Good Men" quote 

Back to the subject and the discussion...

I'd love to hear more about Gil and his work, and I'd love to hear less about David's problems.   

Anyone know if/when Gil is starting the new course at Prairie Club?  Having seen the site, it's very special and a course belongs on it. 

Anyone in the know about the theme, concept, and playability of the Olympic course?

I haven't had the good fortune to see Rustic, but the comments here put it on my list.  Sounds like great fun!  Any course you guys can compare it to to give us an idea?

[John Kavanaugh]

Chris,

I just played 36 at Pinehurst #2 and would prefer a weekend at Rustic. Hole for hole, shot for shot they are equals.

[Mike Hendren]

Chris,

I just played 36 at Pinehurst #2 and would prefer a weekend at Rustic. Hole for hole, shot for shot they are equals.

Barney, your preference is certainly your preference, but I'd like the benefit of your analysis to back up such a bold claim.

Bogey  

[DMoriarty]

Chris,

I just played 36 at Pinehurst #2 and would prefer a weekend at Rustic. Hole for hole, shot for shot they are equals.

Well at least JakaB is no longer pretending to be sincere.

[Jud_T]

You could have 2 1/2 weeks at Rustic for the price of 36 at #2, but who's counting...

[Peter Pallotta]

Jud - that raises the very interesting question of (for lack of a better term) 'qualitative utility'. Can anyone (would anyone?) measure the relative amount/degree of enjoyment and pleasure he gets from 10 rounds at course x (a very good course) versus 2 rounds at course y (an outstanding course).  

But that question -- if it is indeed interesting -- is for another time and place.

Peter

[John Kavanaugh]

Pinehurst has a special every winter called 2 for $252. You get lodging, breakfast and a round on #2 all for $252. This is very comparable to what it costs to play Rustic.  Like I said on another thread, I spent more on caddies than I did on golf.

[Jud_T]

PP,

Here you go.  Rustic coming in at #4:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,54921.0.html

[Alex Miller]

PP,

Here you go.  Rustic coming in at #4:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,54921.0.html

That was a fun thread! Thanks again for that, Jud. The order jumps around later in the thread, but I've got to say that even though I'm not into "lists" that was one of the better ones I've seen.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jud - you, sir, are a very intelligent person!

Peter

[DMoriarty]

One complicating factor when considering what Peter calls "qualitative utility" is that studies show that people tend to believe that the more expensive the product, the higher the quality.  And they actually get more physical pleasure and/or benefit out of the more expensive product, even when the products are otherwise identical.  It even works this way with medicine: http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-expensive-placebos-work-better-20150127-story.html

What does this mean in terms of golf courses?  Well it is tough to apply it directly because golf courses are all somewhat unique, but in theory it means that, all else being equal, golfers will consider a course with a $400 green fee to be better and more enjoyable than a course with a $50 green fee, even if they were comparable or even identical.  

So while Jud's list is very interesting and informative, it quite possibly underestimates the true "qualitative utility" of the affordable courses because the deck is stacked against them in the initial rating process.  

As a real world example, I recall a long discussion I had a with a rater on the way to play Rustic one afternoon.  He was in town to play a very high end private in Orange County the next day, and he was lamenting the fact that it really wasn't fair for a low cost public course like Rustic to have to compete head-to-head in the ratings with high budget, "class" projects like the one he would be seeing the next day.  In his mind the "class" course just had too many advantages such as unlimited budget, and a course like Rustic couldn't possibly compete. The trouble was, he had not yet even seen the high end "class" course, yet in his mind the quality comparison was a forgone conclusion.

Likewise, how about the comparisons between Pinehurst and Rustic, including Alex Miller's brave new thread on the subject?   Does anyone really think that anyone can consciously or unconsciously ignore the prestige of Pinehurst #2 when considering the quality of the course?  Hell, I've never even played Pinehurst #2, and I am convinced it must be a whole lot better than Rustic.   I am sure Alex will do a great job of it, though, but it is tough to understand why we like what we like.

[David Stamm]

One complicating factor when considering what Peter calls "qualitative utility" is that studies show that people tend to believe that the more expensive the product, the higher the quality.  And they actually get more physical pleasure and/or benefit out of the more expensive product, even when the products are otherwise identical.  It even works this way with medicine: http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-expensive-placebos-work-better-20150127-story.html

What does this mean in terms of golf courses?  Well it is tough to apply it directly because golf courses are all somewhat unique, but in theory it means that, all else being equal, golfers will consider a course with a $400 green fee to be better and more enjoyable than a course with a $50 green fee, even if they were comparable or even identical.  

So while Jud's list is very interesting and informative, it quite possibly underestimates the true "qualitative utility" of the affordable courses because the deck is stacked against them in the initial rating process.  

As a real world example, I recall a long discussion I had a with a rater on the way to play Rustic one afternoon.  He was in town to play a very high end private in Orange County the next day, and he was lamenting the fact that it really wasn't fair for a low cost public course like Rustic to have to compete head-to-head in the ratings with high budget, "class" projects like the one he would be seeing the next day.  In his mind the "class" course just had too many advantages such as unlimited budget, and a course like Rustic couldn't possibly compete. The trouble was, he had not yet even seen the high end "class" course, yet in his mind the quality comparison was a forgone conclusion.

Likewise, how about the comparisons between Pinehurst and Rustic, including Alex Miller's brave new thread on the subject?   Does anyone really think that anyone can consciously or unconsciously ignore the prestige of Pinehurst #2 when considering the quality of the course?  Hell, I've never even played Pinehurst #2, and I am convinced it must be a whole lot better than Rustic.   I am sure Alex will do a great job of it, though, but it is tough to understand why we like what we like.

Conversely, sometimes we can oversell the quality of a course because it was a "bargain". I admit to being guilty of this from time to time. But I live in SoCal, so it's bound to happen on occasion.

[Jud_T]

DM,

Exhibit B for your theory,

JaKa also thinks Lawsonia, at #8 and $59 to walk, is a Dogtrack.

[John Kavanaugh]

DM,

Exhibit B for your theory,

JaKa also thinks Lawsonia, at $59 to walk, is a Dogtrack.

More of a Dogmatrack. The quality of its architecture does not outweigh what I must give up to play there.

[Jud_T]

DM,

Exhibit B for your theory,

JaKa also thinks Lawsonia, at $59 to walk, is a Dogtrack.

More of a Dogmatrack. The quality of its architecture does not outweigh what I must give up to play there.

Your preconceptions?

[John Kavanaugh]

Jud,

No, I grew up playing a L&M course which is an exact duplicate of Lawsonia so it bored me. In addition I do not appreciate the culture of the club, even though I hear that has relaxed. I only speak for myself and have earned the right to own my opinions. I went there and played alone fully expecting to love the place. I left shocked at my level of disappointment.

[Peter Pallotta]

David - thanks. With post no. 135 you have just given me entre into the dark, secret coven of the cynical modern day developer.
Peter

[Jud_T]

Jud,

No, I grew up playing a L&M course which is an exact duplicate of Lawsonia so it bored me. In addition I do not appreciate the culture of the club, even though I hear that has relaxed. I only speak for myself and have earned the right to own my opinions. I went there and played alone fully expecting to love the place. I left shocked at my level of disappointment.

So let us know what this other mysterious cookie cutter course is.  There's hundreds of folks who'd be keen to see it.

[Eric Smith]

Jud,

I believe JK grew up playing a Langford in Vincennes, Indiana.

[John Kavanaugh]

Jud,

I believe JK grew up playing a Langford in Vincennes, Indiana.

Yes, when I started playing it was a nine hole L&M course who at one time is rumored to have had Archie Simpson as a head pro. Of course things change from 1968 and the course now is a bastardized 18 hole layout. A Google Earth view will show the old bones of the original nine. That being said I wouldn't recommend anyone playing it either.

[Mac Plumart]

As a real world example, I recall a long discussion I had a with a rater on the way to play Rustic one afternoon.  He was in town to play a very high end private in Orange County the next day, and he was lamenting the fact that it really wasn't fair for a low cost public course like Rustic to have to compete head-to-head in the ratings with high budget, "class" projects like the one he would be seeing the next day.  In his mind the "class" course just had too many advantages such as unlimited budget, and a course like Rustic couldn't possibly compete. The trouble was, he had not yet even seen the high end "class" course, yet in his mind the quality comparison was a forgone conclusion.

Likewise, how about the comparisons between Pinehurst and Rustic, including Alex Miller's brave new thread on the subject?   Does anyone really think that anyone can consciously or unconsciously ignore the prestige of Pinehurst #2 when considering the quality of the course?  Hell, I've never even played Pinehurst #2, and I am convinced it must be a whole lot better than Rustic.   I am sure Alex will do a great job of it, though, but it is tough to understand why we like what we like.

Excellent, David.  So true. 

In regards to the concept your touch on in your first paragraph, I saw that same thing a few years ago at Kingsley/Crystal.  People were gaga over Crystal before anyone even put a tee in the ground.  They'd already decided it was amazing.

(FYI...I haven't read much of this thread at all...but liked the concept David was talking about)

[Sean_A]

David & Mac

No doubt I agree with you, but in the real world when one is perceived to have slighted a sacred cow he gets tapped on the shoulder. Mark P has been driven to distraction with my thinking that Muirfield isn't anything close to a 10 and not top 10 GB&I 

Ciao

[Joel_Stewart]

If you saw his interview this morning you would understand the love.

Is there an architect that is as well spoken as Gil Hanse?

[Jim Bluck]

While I have not played enough Hanse courses to comment on the quality of his work, I will say the his reputation in the industry is impeccable.  I've heard that he's pleasant, cooperative and easy to work with.  I think that goes a long way.   

Bingo JR.  These attributes are so important to the overall experience of committing oneself to an individual or company for a construction or renovation project.   Good guys don't have to finish last every time....great work Gil

[Matthew Hauth]

I haven't played a course that he's the original designer of, but I will say what he did to Waverley Country Club in Portland was a great improve IMHO. The green complexes that he adjusted were something that's been needed. The sixth green in particular had basically one pin position... The course is much more playable for the general membership but also can punish the aggressive low handicapper. I am a big proponent in tree removal such as Gil completed at Waverley. I just wish a few more memberships would be open to it for the betterment of the courses...