[Peter Pallotta]

It says so much, and yet so little. But I highlight it because I have found over the years that:

1. All manner of posters -- gca-experienced and less so, professionals and amateurs, purists and big-worlders -- use it, and in a positive sense.
2. Said posters use it to refer to greens, and surrounds, and hazards, and options/strategies, and terrain.
3. It is used to reference these elements (and this quality) on just about all good-to-great courses where it seems to apply (to more or less a degree), whether in the U.S. east coast or west or south, whether in regards the most highly regarded GB&I courses or the more modest ones of the English inlands, whether in Canada or throughout Australia.
4. It seems to be a quality that all great courses have in common, classic or modern, naturalist or stylized

It is a word that means "able to keep ones interest".  The great courses keep us interested, and interested throughout the round. (The poor to mediocre ones simply don't.) And it is fascinating (not to say interesting) how many different ways this can be accomplished -- from a Sand Hills or Ballyneal on one hand to a Fisher's Island and NGLA on the other; from an Oakmont here to a Dornoch there; from a Cypress Point to an Augusta.  

At any rate, I know I'm just stating the obvious-- but it just became obvious to me.

Peter

[Ian Andrew]

I gave up the word classic in 2006 after Ran suggested I use a more meaningful word.
I realized at that moment classic was too generic because of overuse.

I guess interesting is going to be next ...  
that may be far more complicated to replace.


I will try and find more appropriate descriptions of what I see and feel.
I find this subject interesting, doh! ... I mean ... intriguing.

:  )

[David_Elvins]

It is a word that means "able to keep ones interest".  The great courses keep us interested, and interested throughout the round. (The poor to mediocre ones simply don't.) And it is fascinating (not to say interesting) how many different ways this can be accomplished -- from a Sand Hills or Ballyneal on one hand to a Fisher's Island and NGLA on the other; from an Oakmont here to a Dornoch there; from a Cypress Point to an Augusta.  

At any rate, I know I'm just stating the obvious-- but it just became obvious to me.

Peter

Peter,

Nice post, what I find more interesting is people who don't think a golf course is any good but admit it is interesting. 

Sometimes people get so tied up in the specifics of what makes a good or great golf course they forget the basics.  And being interesting is as basic as it gets IMO. 

[Tom_Doak]

I have been known to tell our clients on consulting jobs that we are not trying to make the course easier or harder, we are just trying to make it more interesting.

[Joe Bausch]

Interesting, Peter.

[Jonathan Mallard]

Another word to avoid is actually. As in:

Does the modifier 'classic' actually add to the description of an interesting course?

[RJ_Daley]

I actually think that 'interesting' can apply to classic, modern, quirky, minimalist, big budget, and all other genre you can think of.  I agree 'interesting' generally is a positive characteristic.  Yet, 'uninteresting' can be both negative and off putting, along with boring and a waste of time. 

[Peter Pallotta]

It's a conundrum. When we went to an under-grad art exhibit by a pretentious acquaintence and the art was as incomprehensibly bad as we feared it would be, we might say, just to say something polite: "wow, you do some very...*interesting* work". But (as David suggests), if folks like Ian or Tom use the same word, we not only know that it's a *compliment*,  but we also have a strong sense that we know exactly what Tom or Ian *mean*. And yet, what *do* they mean?
Peter

Jonathan -- oh, oh, I just realized that I actually use that word all the time! I think I like the extra syllables in a sentence, but you are right, ie there is no excuse for it actually.

[Terry Lavin]

Only a truly disinterested individual can be counted on to determine if a given course is truly "interesting".

[Peter Pallotta]

Only a truly disinterested individual can be counted on to determine if a given course is truly "interesting".

Very nice! Elegant and pithy, and possibly even *true*!

[Gib_Papazian]

Interesting - in a golf context - is not usually interesting unless it is inspiring.

Mr. Spock used the term "interesting" quite often.

"Interesting" can also be used to describe salmon flavored ice cream.

The Tree of Life is an "interesting" movie.

[Jim Nugent]

Peter, your post intrigued (I would have used that other word until you brought this up) me enough to look up synonyms and antonyms for "interesting."  Synonyms on Thesaurus.com include alluring, compelling, beautiful, impressive, absorbing, captivating, riveting, exceptional, and many others of similar ilk. 

Antonyms include boring, dull, disgusting, ordinary, repulsive, unexciting, ugly etc. 

Whatever the precise meaning, interesting sounds a lot better than its opposite. 

     

[Steve Okula]

Only a truly disinterested individual can be counted on to determine if a given course is truly "interesting".

Very nice! Elegant and pithy, and possibly even *true*!

"Very" and "nice" are two of the most insipid words in the English language.

[Ally Mcintosh]

It is a word that means "able to keep ones interest".  The great courses keep us interested, and interested throughout the round. (The poor to mediocre ones simply don't.) And it is fascinating (not to say interesting) how many different ways this can be accomplished -- from a Sand Hills or Ballyneal on one hand to a Fisher's Island and NGLA on the other; from an Oakmont here to a Dornoch there; from a Cypress Point to an Augusta.  

At any rate, I know I'm just stating the obvious-- but it just became obvious to me.

Peter

Peter,

Nice post, what I find more interesting is people who don't think a golf course is any good but admit it is interesting. 

Sometimes people get so tied up in the specifics of what makes a good or great golf course they forget the basics.  And being interesting is as basic as it gets IMO. 

This is good, David. I agree

[Thomas Dai]

Maintaining interest vrs becoming boring. I did a thread a while back about how often folk can play the same course whilst maintaining interest. Variety, spice of life and all that. Can't find the thread unfortunately.
atb

[Jason Way]

One of the things I like the most about the snobbishness of this community is that we applaud "interesting" designs, and we deride those that are "contrived".  We are basically saying, "We want you (the GCA) to be original and high-quality enough to keep our attention, but we don't want to catch a single whiff that you are trying too hard about it."

That is a high standard for the praise of "interesting", and it's a standard that I think is worth maintaining.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jason - yes, that's an excellent distinction. And indeed that unforced and even unselfconscious quality that maintains interest without drawing undue attention to itself is difficult to achieve. I would despair of it ever being achieved, except for the fact that it often was and is achieved, and in so many varied ways. (The gca equivalent of salmon flavoured ice cream is not one of those ways.)
Peter

[Sven Nilsen]

There's a tangential relationship here to the objective v. subjective debate that pervades this site.  By saying something is "interesting," you are really covering both camps.  You're saying there's something there that was worthy of your time, and that you believe others will feel the same way.

But its just vague enough to let people draw their own conclusions from their own experience. 

Any more subtle and you'd have to be subliminal.

Sven

[Joe Hancock]

Sven,

So your saying that the phrase "that's interesting" might be the equivalent to the very Southern "bless your heart"?

Joe

[Sven Nilsen]

Joe:

If "bless your heart" is meant to be ambiguous, I'd agree.

Sven

[Mark Fedeli]

It says so much, and yet so little. But I highlight it because I have found over the years that:

1. All manner of posters -- gca-experienced and less so, professionals and amateurs, purists and big-worlders -- use it, and in a positive sense.
2. Said posters use it to refer to greens, and surrounds, and hazards, and options/strategies, and terrain.
3. It is used to reference these elements (and this quality) on just about all good-to-great courses where it seems to apply (to more or less a degree), whether in the U.S. east coast or west or south, whether in regards the most highly regarded GB&I courses or the more modest ones of the English inlands, whether in Canada or throughout Australia.
4. It seems to be a quality that all great courses have in common, classic or modern, naturalist or stylized

It is a word that means "able to keep ones interest".  The great courses keep us interested, and interested throughout the round. (The poor to mediocre ones simply don't.) And it is fascinating (not to say interesting) how many different ways this can be accomplished -- from a Sand Hills or Ballyneal on one hand to a Fisher's Island and NGLA on the other; from an Oakmont here to a Dornoch there; from a Cypress Point to an Augusta.  

At any rate, I know I'm just stating the obvious-- but it just became obvious to me.

Peter

In Grounds for Golf, Shackelford uses "humorous" to describe the interesting features found on great courses. I've always liked that way of putting it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()