[Tim_Weiman]

Pebble Beach sits right down the road, but it isn't Cypress Point. Oakmont lies across the state, but sure wouldn't be confused with Merion. Kingston Health is a wonderful place, but doesn't remind me of Royal Melbourne. Ballybunion is nothing like Royal County Down. St Andrews sure doesn't evoke Muirfield. And, of course, Shinnecock, despite being right next door, doesn't at all resemble the National. And, so on.


So, it got me to thinking. Do you of the world's truly great courses resemble one another? Or, is uniqueness, a critical element in greatness for golf courses?

[Joel_Stewart]

To me, Olympic, San Francisco, Harding Park and even Lake Merced are all similar.  Granted all of these courses are within walking distance of each other but they are all parkland courses, close to the ocean with the same type of grass.

[Sean_A]

I think of Sunny Old, New, St Georges Hill and Swinley as very similar courses....all great, but not terribly distinguished from each other.  In fact, I wouldn't say Alwoodley is distinguished from this group either.  If you want something different and great for heathland than Walton Heath is the course.


For me its easier to identify links as more distinguished.


Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

To me, Olympic, San Francisco, Harding Park and even Lake Merced are all similar. 

SFGC is NOT similar to the others, which is why it's the one great course in the bunch.


I agree with Sean that many of the heathland courses struggle to establish a character of their own.  That's also true of the parkland courses back east -- Winged Foot West's only character is that it is so much more relentless than the others.


Having a character of its own is probably THE most important qualification to me in making a great course.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Every sui generis course is not great but every great course is sui generis.

Each great course brings a unique and special value to the global collection of course arch, so that if one were wiped permanently from the planet never to be replaced nor rebuilt, the total value of golf course architecture would be diminished.

[Sean_A]

Every sui generis course is not great but every great course is sui generis.

Each great course brings a unique and special value to the global collection of course arch, so that if one were wiped permanently from the planet never to be replaced nor rebuilt, the total value of golf course architecture would be diminished.

Thats a pretty tough standard.  I would say I know of ~40 great courses in GB&I.  Using your standard that number would probably be reduced by at least 15 courses. 


Ciao

[Tim_Weiman]

To me, Olympic, San Francisco, Harding Park and even Lake Merced are all similar. 

SFGC is NOT similar to the others, which is why it's the one great course in the bunch.


I agree with Sean that many of the heathland courses struggle to establish a character of their own.  That's also true of the parkland courses back east -- Winged Foot West's only character is that it is so much more relentless than the others.


Having a character of its own is probably THE most important qualification to me in making a great course.

Tom,


That is my view as well. If a course doesn't have its own unique character, the distance I'm willing to travel to see it is much less.

[Josh Tarble]

Every sui generis course is not great but every great course is sui generis.

Each great course brings a unique and special value to the global collection of course arch, so that if one were wiped permanently from the planet never to be replaced nor rebuilt, the total value of golf course architecture would be diminished.

Thats a pretty tough standard.  I would say I know of ~40 great courses in GB&I.  Using your standard that number would probably be reduced by at least 15 courses. 


Ciao

Sean,
I think that's fair, considering Tom only rated 12 courses as 10s and another couple dozen as 9s.  That's what I'd argue is truly great...truly world class.  Mark's comment seems pretty apt when put in that context.

[Sean_A]

Jeepers Josh, 35 courses out of 30,000 is a very small number.  Mind you, 100 courses isn't much different in the big scheme of things.  I guess if great or world class are the standards...I am interested in much more than that...which is okay because I have always held that there is very little difference between good, very good and great.  The difference could literally be one bad or excellent hole.  Its not that much to get worked up over. 


Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Every sui generis course is not great but every great course is sui generis.

Each great course brings a unique and special value to the global collection of course arch, so that if one were wiped permanently from the planet never to be replaced nor rebuilt, the total value of golf course architecture would be diminished.

Thats a pretty tough standard.  I would say I know of ~40 great courses in GB&I.  Using your standard that number would probably be reduced by at least 15 courses. 


Ciao

There are many courses that have a character of their own, that aren't necessarily top-50 courses.  Kington, to name one that you're fond of.  I guess this thread started out to be about the greatest of the great, but after those, I'd rather know more about the ones with unique character than the ones that are just very good with no faults.

[cary lichtenstein]

lots of unique course well worth playing.

[Keith Phillips]

Tim, I'm not sure I understand your premise...when you say "Pebble Beach sits right down the road, but it isn't Cypress Point." etc. are you saying 'Cypress Point is better??? Or that they both good but just 'different'?

[Tim_Weiman]

Keith,


I only intended to point out examples of courses usually considered among the world's very best but are so different in character even in cases where they are in such close proximity.


Pebble and CP strike me as quite different in character as do Shinnecock and NGLA to cite some obvious examples.

[Sean_A]

Every sui generis course is not great but every great course is sui generis.

Each great course brings a unique and special value to the global collection of course arch, so that if one were wiped permanently from the planet never to be replaced nor rebuilt, the total value of golf course architecture would be diminished.

Thats a pretty tough standard.  I would say I know of ~40 great courses in GB&I.  Using your standard that number would probably be reduced by at least 15 courses. 


Ciao

There are many courses that have a character of their own, that aren't necessarily top-50 courses.  Kington, to name one that you're fond of.  I guess this thread started out to be about the greatest of the great, but after those, I'd rather know more about the ones with unique character than the ones that are just very good with no faults.

Tom


Sure, no arguments there.  There is a lot to be said for individual character, but I don't really buy there are only 35ish great courses in the world. 


Ciao


Ciao

[David_Elvins]

Tim, Tom, Sean,

i broadly agree with all of you however it is worth pointing out that uniqueness only matters to anyone who plays a lot of golf courses. 

I recently had a rather opposite experience, playing a course that I really liked except for the fact that I felt like I had played almost all the holes before on the architect's other courses.  How do you rank, rate or recommend this course.  To a local golfer looking for a home course it is a strong recommendation.  To a well travelled golfer its a very weak recommendation.  Unless the well travelled golfer has not seen much of this architects work, then its a strong recommendation again. 

[Mark Bourgeois]

David

I disagree and your answer contains the reason why: truly great, truly great, courses inspire imitations and even outright copies (of features, holes, routings, etc).

Because they are sui generis (and great) they are wellsprings of design ideas.

And so even if you're not well traveled, even if you haven't played the great, you've "played" the great.

Mark

[Peter Pallotta]

It is humbling to think that, in our creative work, it may be our so-called limitations, mistakes, compromises, and unintended consequences that end up contributing to greatness; and that when it comes to gca specifically, it is the so-called constraints of the site itself that engenders the very uniqueness that is so prized. It is challenging to ponder the notion  that when we feel most 'free' we are in the greatest danger of repeating ourselves incessantly, and that it is within a given set of boundaries that we can best shine. With each passing year I am more impressed with the wisdom of the Navajos -- who purposely weaved a mistake into their otherwise perfect blankets so as 'to let the devil out'; maybe it was the devil of so-called perfection that they were releasing.

[Tim Fenchel]

It is humbling to think that, in our creative work, it may be our so-called limitations, mistakes, compromises, and unintended consequences that end up contributing to greatness; and that when it comes to gca specifically, it is the so-called constraints of the site itself that engenders the very uniqueness that is so prized. It is challenging to ponder the notion  that when we feel most 'free' we are in the greatest danger of repeating ourselves incessantly, and that it is within a given set of boundaries that we can best shine. With each passing year I am more impressed with the wisdom of the Navajos -- who purposely weaved a mistake into their otherwise perfect blankets so as 'to let the devil out'; maybe it was the devil of so-called perfection that they were releasing.

Excellent stuff, sir.

[Tim_Weiman]

Guys:


One particular architect's work seems like it should fit into this discussion: Pete Dye.


I'm tempted to say Dye's work has a "sameness" quality to it. But, if one goes to Kohler, WI, you won't come away thinking Blackwolf Run is similar to Whistling Straights. Nor, if one goes to South Carolina will you come away feeling Long Cove is just like Harbour Town. Nor would either be mistaken for the Ocean Course.


But, then, if you travel from Florida to California you just might question whether the Stadium Course was worth the trip after already playing Sawgrass.

[Kalen Braley]

On the flip side of the spectrum there are also some Doak Os that are also unique.
 
There is a 9 holer here in Utah that's built into the side of a mountain that I guarantee is one of the most unique courses you will ever see or play.  Some of the shot requirements and routing features are just downright crazy.  And to boot the yardages on the tee boxes and card are way off, so you never know how long something really is.  Its one of those course that is so bad....that's it good.
 
I've always wished I could get a GCA contigent to come to UT for one of the yearly events, and we'd certainly include it just for the madness factor.
 
Kalen

[Tom_Doak]

Tim, Tom, Sean,

i broadly agree with all of you however it is worth pointing out that uniqueness only matters to anyone who plays a lot of golf courses. 

I recently had a rather opposite experience, playing a course that I really liked except for the fact that I felt like I had played almost all the holes before on the architect's other courses.  How do you rank, rate or recommend this course.  To a local golfer looking for a home course it is a strong recommendation.  To a well travelled golfer its a very weak recommendation.  Unless the well travelled golfer has not seen much of this architects work, then its a strong recommendation again.

David:


The whole premise of The Confidential Guide is that the course you describe should not be ranked very highly, because chances are you've already seen it before, so it's not worth traveling for.  It will get points on the Doak scale for quality ... it sounds like a 5 or a 6 based on your description ... but won't rise higher than that because it's not special.


If a person had never seen another course by that architect, then it might be worth playing for them, but the same could be true of almost any course by any architect whose work they hadn't seen. 

[Sean_A]

So, at the risk of being shouted down...great courses as defined by Doak 7 or higher which are distingushed


TOC (loads of stuff)
Dornoch (greens)
Muirfield (bunker placement)
Co Down (bunker look)
North Berwick (funk)
Sacred 9 (routing, compact design)
Castle Stuart (space)
Walton Heath Old (proper heathland)
Ganton (bunker placement)
Lytham (# of bunkers)
Notts (section on and around hill)
Brancaster (penal holes)
Kington (no bunkers, mounding)
Pennard (lumpy lay of land style) On second thought not all that different from Perranporth.

I am thinking that at least in the case of Lytham the distinguishing feature isn't very good.  I might argue the same for Muirfield...with 150 bunkers its hard not to get placement right and the sand is the only thing which makes Muirfield stand out. I am not sure Co Down really deserves to be distinguished for haory bunkers.  in other words, anything remotely gimmicky about bunkers should be a fail.

Ciao

[Tim_Weiman]

Sean,

For me Royal County Down certainly comes across as having its own unique character.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pebble Beach sits right down the road, but it isn't Cypress Point. Oakmont lies across the state, but sure wouldn't be confused with Merion. Kingston Health is a wonderful place, but doesn't remind me of Royal Melbourne. Ballybunion is nothing like Royal County Down. St Andrews sure doesn't evoke Muirfield. And, of course, Shinnecock, despite being right next door, doesn't at all resemble the National. And, so on.


So, it got me to thinking. Do you of the world's truly great courses resemble one another?
 
Tim,
 
You're thinking of tennis courts
 
Or, is uniqueness, a critical element in greatness for golf courses?
 
No, uniqueness, in and of itself, is not the critical element.
 
Courses by CBM/SR/CB, AM, DR, AWT all had common strains in one form or another.
Call it style, but, many of those courses attained greatness despite the lack of absolute uniqueness.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

For me Royal County Down certainly comes across as having its own unique character.

Tim


Therein lies the problem with your theory.  Everybody will have different ideas of distinguished (not surprising).  I don't see anything about Co Down except for the famed eyebrows which really sets it apart from Machrihanish for instance.  Does this mean Co Down isn't very special...not to me it doesn't.  Courses are as much a whole as they are individual holes or features.  Uniqueness does not mean great and courses don't have to exhibit unique features to be great...not imo anyway. 


Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()