Confessions of a recovering golf snob

[jim_lewis]

It seems that the overwhelming majority of the members of GCA appreciate unique and quirky architecture and have a disdain for repetition (unless it is done by Seth Raynor). The problem, as I see it, is that these preferences are often taken to the extreme. I was reminded of this point when I listened to Jay Flemma’s interview of Ran and Tom Doak.
Most of us who hang out on Golfclubatlas.com have traveled extensively and played hundreds of golf courses. We have seen just about all of the different ways a golf hole can be designed, and we have seen some holes repeated by the same architect. We are very alert and disdainful of repetition and really appreciate finding a course or a hole that is unlike anything we have ever seen.

However, we probably represent close to one percent of all golfers. My guess is that the overwhelming majority of golfers will play fewer than 50 different courses in their lifetime. They probably will never know that the 10th hole on their home course has appeared on other courses by the same architect hundreds of miles away. Nor, will they care. They also have not seen enough courses to yearn for something new and different, even unique.

Therefore, I think we should be careful about applying our personal litmus tests when judging courses as if we actually are speaking for most golfers. Uniqueness is great and should be appreciated when we find it, but is not essential for excellence in my view. In fact, many of the unique holes I have seen are not very good, let alone excellent, in my opinion.

I have played and seen thousands of golf holes, and I still appreciate what I like to call “pure golf” holes, even if I can think of a very similar hole somewhere else. I hope all golfers love the courses they get to play, even if they are nothing special. If you like your course, I am happy for you. Same as if you like the painting hanging on your wall that you bought at a flea market, I am happy for you even if it does not suit my sophisticated taste.

Jim

[Joe Hancock]

Very non-curmudgeonly post, Jim. And, a good reminder for us to stay grounded in our responses to thoughts and ideas as others pose them in this forum.

Joe

[Mike_Young]

Most of us who hang out on Golfclubatlas.com have traveled extensively and played hundreds of golf courses. 

Jim

Jim,
With respect,
Do you really think most on this site have played hundreds of golf courses?  Maybe a few but I don't hink may people have played a hundred courses much less "hunreds"  cheers...

[jim_lewis]

Mike:

Do you mean to tell me that Ran is allowing people on this site who are not well traveled experts?? Name one!!

I assume you are ok with my claim that most golfers will not play 50 courses in their lifetime.

[archie_struthers]

Gotta refuse to publish my played list for a couple of reasons but surely have played well,over a hundred courses. You might be surprised at how many on board have done so Mike . I know it's a lot ,  but !

[C. Sturges]

Jim,

As you pointed out, GCAers are not the norm when it comes to travel and playing many courses.  I would bet the majority have played 100-300 courses.  I think many try to play better courses than not.
I would also say you are pretty close on the number of courses the majority of recreational golfers play.  Most play there home course, if that is a muni or a country club.  They will then play a couple others with buddies, or tournaments, and on there one or two golf trips.  These trips going to the same places most years.  I have a group of friends who go to the same place and play the same courses every year.  They could play other courses, but they like knowing the course and the experience.
Over the last couple years I have been trying to play all the courses in Northeast Ohio, this brings in a lot of very low quality courses from a GCA perspective.  My friends all ways say that they want to play, until I tell them it is a 30-45 minute drive and they start dropping out and ask why we don't play this or that course that is closer.  Or why we don't play such and such course because of the cost.  These are the average golfers.
They have no to very little interest to drive a couple hours to play a course that might be closing, unlike 7 other GCAers who hoped to the chance on a cold December day.
We are not the norm, and that is ok with me and why I cherish GCA and its members!
As a count, I played 98 new courses last year, really wanted to get to 100, but Mother Nature said NO.
chris

[Ken Moum]

Most of us who hang out on Golfclubatlas.com have traveled extensively and played hundreds of golf courses.  

Jim

Jim,
With respect,
Do you really think most on this site have played hundreds of golf courses?  Maybe a few but I don't hink may people have played a hundred courses much less "hunreds"  cheers...

Aww, Mike, I'm not so sure.

I've hardly been ANYWHERE, and a few years ago I tried to make a list of all the courses I've played and came up with something like 200-250.  I have the list but it's not in AZ where I currently sit.

And I've played about 90% of my golf in Minnesota, North and South Dakota.  Maybe Kansas as well.

I'd make this claim, however.... I'd guess I have played more nine-hole courses than anyone on GCA.com.

I just made a quick list of nine-hole courses I've played and got to 47, although it might be short a few. FWIW, 35 of them were/are in Minnesota and South Dakota.

I bet I am also the only person here who's played four golf courses with in-the-air out of bounds. IOW, if the ball flies on the wrong side of a marker pole, it's OB regardless of where it lands.

Ken

[astavrides]

I'd make this claim, however.... I'd guess I have played more nine-hole courses than anyone on GCA.com.

I just made a quick list of nine-hole courses I've played and got to 47, although it might be short a few. FWIW, 35 of them were/are in Minnesota and South Dakota.

Not even close to the most. Unless you are only counting full length, not par 3 or executive, 9 hole courses. In which case, I'd have to count.

[Greg Taylor]

I would say the commercial reality regarding golf courses trumps architecture every time...

It's fun to talk about the courses we all enjoy (or not so much) and debate the minutiae but the reality is that for most people it's leisure activity where cost in the primary driver.

If you ask 99% of golfers what a "redan" is, you wouldn't get an answer. And when told most would be respond with complete indifference when told about Nth Berwick...

How they play, how far home, the cost and the price of a pint afterwards are the primary considerations.

[Chuck Glowacki]

I am still trying to get off Long Island (does Shelter Island count?, or Fisher's?)

[Brent Hutto]

I tried to add it up once and made it to some number like 60, 70, 80, whatever it was. Nowhere near a hundred and that's included a couple dozen totally undistinguished pasture-with-flags type local tracks back before I encountered golf course snobbery.

So with that caveat I'll say if I encountered a hole exactly like the 4th at Ganton on every course I play for the rest of my life, my take on that would be "Man, what a fun hole to play" every single time. Or the 10th at Deal or the Foxy at Dornoch. I'm not talking about "templates", just holes that I've seen half a dozen times and know to be as fun as any hole could possibly be.

Any more, my golf snob phase has sort of burned itself out all together. I am quite happy to play reasonable quality, somewhat interesting courses as often as possible. And most of my long-distance travel for golf is more about experience cool climate grasses and linsky turf as finding new and better "holes" that are novel.

But even when at my golf snobbiest I never had that addiction to novelty that seems to underlie some of the real hardcore GCA'ers. I really do get the impression that short of a Cypress Point type experience maybe, some of you guys are just not going to enjoy even the most cunningly designed, perfectly executed bit of GCA perfection beyond the first or second time playing. NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT. I certainly understand why few people would even consider my own preferred itinerary of camping out and and playing one course five or six times over period of three days and calling that a golf vacation.

[Sean_A]

I think folks may be confusing issues.  There can be a wide gulf between what guys think are the best courses (and they may joyously expound on that til the cows come home), the courses they prefer and courses that are good enough to have a bit of a kick around with mates.  All examples are good and valuable in their own way. That said, I am sure most would rather have a kick around with good mates on a good course rather than a not so good course...no?  To me, there is no question that good/interesting/unusual (whatever) architecture adds to the enjoyment of the day...where is the snobbery in that?  Why is it snobbery not to hand over money for a course that doesn't add anything to the party?  Seems like good sense to me.

Ciao

[Brent Hutto]

For my part I'd define "snobbery" as being completely unwilling to play a course that some large majority (say 95%) of golfers in the world would think is a perfectly fine place to play.

That said, I don't know that I ever quite rose to the level of "golf snob" by that definition although I was pretty close there for several years.

Addiction to novelty is to my thinking a separate affliction that can be confused with golf snobbery. Or maybe it's just the next level that can be added to your basic snobbery. As in not only being unwilling to play perfectly OK courses that fail to meet some arbitrarily high standard but being unwilling to play even the best courses in the world more than a time or two before ennui sets in.

P.S. I will admit to a certain highly specific type of snobbery on my own part. I find myself in recent years extremely resistant to playing any round of golf using a golf cart and fairly resistant to using a caddie. I'm not saying I outright refuse to play anywhere I can't walk and carry or push my own clubs but it's certainly to the point where I won't forego a walking round elsewhere in favor of a riding round on a putatively nicer course.

[jeffwarne]

The ironic thing is being a snob saves you gobs of money and often leads to uncrowded venues-as well as a much more authentic and enjoyable experience
win-win-win

and your friends will often surprise you by loving the place once given permission
Everybody needs a starting oint and that point is often PGA venues they saw on TV, but most embrace an improvement in their experience, especially if it's cheaper, more rewarding and a better product

[jim_lewis]

I never meant for this thread to turn into a discussion of how many golf courses we have played. Let me try to make my main point more clearly.

This group as a whole, and many individual participants, are among the most prominent "opinion leaders" on the subject of golf courses and golf course architecture. Ran, Tom Doak and Brad Klein are three of the most influential thinkers on the subject alive today, and there are several others here. Your opinions influence architects, club owners and managers, journalists and the many golfers who view this site. By extension, those opinions also influence the people we discuss golf courses with.

When you have traveled extensively, played many of the great courses, and "seen it all", it is very understandable that you might reserve your highest praise for unique, novel, unusual, quirky, memorable, etc.  I have no problem with that. All I ask is that we not forget to appreciate high quality courses that are none of the above. There are many, but the one I am most familiar with is Pinehurst #2. None of the adjectives I mentioned fit #2, but it is still one of the world's great courses.

It seems to me that younger generations these days (most all are younger than me!) are attracted to new, bold, exciting, even outrageous whether in movies, music, entertainment or golf. I hope we will not feed that infatuation by undervaluing the "pure golf" courses.

[John Kavanaugh]

By the time you look at all the pictures and read the links to other sites there isn't much time for original thought.  I wish Facebook could be Facebook and we could get our GCA back.

[BCrosby]

"When you have traveled extensively, played many of the great courses, and "seen it all", it is very understandable that you might reserve your highest praise for unique, novel, unusual, quirky, memorable, etc.  I have no problem with that. All I ask is that we not forget to appreciate high quality courses that are none of the above."

Well said Crusty.

Bob

[archie_struthers]

If you talk about great food, the mundane diners and fast food restaurants might never enter the equation. Yet your experiences there give you an appreciation of really good stuff. so your experiences at nine hoters, muinis and world class clubs all mold your ideas about GCA and the golf experience

[Brad Wilbur]

There are varying levels of golf snobbery.  While growing up mostly in south-eastern South Dakota, I tried to play most of the various courses in the tri-state area.  I did, however, look down my smallish (golf-wise) nose at the courses which had sand greens, and considered them not worthy of investigation.  Now, forty years later, having played from Brora to Punta Mita, I wish that I had been willing to try playing on sand greens.  Sometimes our perceptions incorrectly change our opinions from unique to bleak.  

[Jud_T]

Jim,

I think the focus of many here on good ground for golf, good turf, golf that is fun for for the average player and not just the low markers, walking, strategic design that offers a variety of approaches beyond connect the dots aerial golf and a focus on the golf itself and not primarily the views, exclusivity, tournament history and luxury frills of courses/clubs does a huge service to offset the drivel that most golfers are fed by the mainstream press.  If this comes with a dollop of jaded world-weariness and emphasis on uniqueness and quirk, I for one am willing to live with it.  Also as mentioned uniqueness and quirk can often be found at a reasonably priced, accessible course within driving distance which may be more fun and better value than the local CCFAD that the average hack is currently playing.  

[Ken Moum]

I'd make this claim, however.... I'd guess I have played more nine-hole courses than anyone on GCA.com.

I just made a quick list of nine-hole courses I've played and got to 47, although it might be short a few. FWIW, 35 of them were/are in Minnesota and South Dakota.

Not even close to the most. Unless you are only counting full length, not par 3 or executive, 9 hole courses. In which case, I'd have to count.

Well, none of those are shorter than about 2700 yards, most were close to or over 3,000.

I think I've only ever played one executive course, and I forgot about it when I was counting.

But I am interested in how many you've played.

[Paul Jones]

I have two different thoughts...

1. I am not a golf snob if I am playing with friends or a 4-ball,member-guest tournament. 

2. I am a snob as I wont pay to get on an airplane to play an average course (Doak 3).

Myrtle Beach is a great example - I have never been, but planning a trip now with a group of friends.  I was told golf is average to good, but not great.

I am also planning a trip to the Northeast, but I am traveling alone and meeting a friend and playing some really good to great courses.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

While I love golf courses and have played more than half of the world's top 100, etc. some of the best golf experiences come from meeting new people on the golf course.

As a teenager, growing up in a lily white suburb, I recall getting paired with an elderly black gentleman who reminded me a lot of my own grandfather.  It was a small dose of reality in that situation.  Fast forward to last year, when I actually closed a deal playing golf with strangers in China, and having a blast doing it.  (Actually, probably the key to that was I wasn't really sure who I was playing with, didn't know that they had an immediate golf project in mind, and just went out to have fun)

And, all the thousands of nice (and a very small scattering of not so nice) people I have met in between on a golf course probably contributes more to the fabric of my life than the check marks on that top 100 list.

[Peter Pallotta]

The life cycle of the snob is a fruitful area for discussion. Perhaps where each of us finds ourselves on that cycle/spectrum -- i.e. embryonic snob, child-snob, the dreaded teenage snob years, the succesful snob, and finally the disillusioned snob -- goes a long way in detemining our opinions and judgements about the courses we play/want to play. But for those to be fully conscious opinions, we need to be aware of our particular place on the cycle, and refrain from either 'talking above our station' or 'looking down our noses' at the less mature. Jim has clearly come full circle. Me - I'm a meta snob, beyond good and evil as it were and thus beyond caring. (Not really, but it was fun to write.)

Peter

[BCrosby]

"Me - I'm a meta snob."

You mean a snob about snobs? Let me mull on that for a little while.

Bob