If everyone likes a golf course, is it a great one?

[Kalen Braley]

I get the Cypress Point selection, but then again how do we measure everyone who played it?  I'm guessing there is at least a handful of people who thought it overrated and not suited to them.

[Andrew Carr]

If there was a golf course that was thoroughly enjoyed and appreciated by every single golfer who ever played it, would it in your opinion be a great golf course? Would it, for you, be so almost by definition?

Peter's question was that it was thoroughly enjoyed and appreciated by every single golfer who every played it...not every single golfer 

But I agree with your point in that very few will get the opportunity.  As the sign on the 17th Tee states:

"Gentlemen, I suggest that we pause for a moment. Admire the beautiful view. Count our blessings.  Very few of us are privileged to pass this way."

[John Kavanaugh]

If there was a golf course that was thoroughly enjoyed and appreciated by every single golfer who ever played it, would it in your opinion be a great golf course? Would it, for you, be so almost by definition?

Peter's question was that it was thoroughly enjoyed and appreciated by every single golfer who every played it...not every single golfer 

But I agree with your point in that very few will get the opportunity.  As the sign on the 17th Tee states:

"Gentlemen, I suggest that we pause for a moment. Admire the beautiful view. Count our blessings.  Very few of us are privileged to pass this way."

If I were to read those words anywhere with the exception of a tramp stamp I would walk in.

[Alan Ritchie]

I was one of those 'out of towners' when I visited San Diego albeit not for the express reason to play the course.. would certainly not place it in the 'great' category and wouldn't feel the need to play it again if I were to be in the city.  nice as a one off to play the holes you see on TV, especially 3, 13 and 18 but that's about it for me.

[PCCraig]

No. I don't think a course can be considered great unless it's at least a bit controversial.

I remember reading that Dr. Mackenzie was disappointed at the lack of controversy surrounding Cypress Point.  I'm not sure if that's true, but with regards to CPC, it is clearly both great and lacking in controversy...unless you count there position against the PGA Tour on Membership Policy in the 90s...

What about the 18th hole?

[Jim Hoak]

As I saw written somewhere--Since golf is a game, isn't most fun and great the same thing.  We are dealing with a game--a game we love, but still a game.  Not life and death.  Fun=good/great.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, gents. Some random but perhaps related questions/thoughts:

1. What's the matter with some of you guys, haven't you ever heard of Lennon's hit song "Imagine"?  Or is it that you actually just prefer posts to be "all there in front of you"?   

[If so, my "Top 10 Publics that Straddle the Ontario-Quebec Border" list is coming up shortly]

2. See Jay Mickle's post, i.e. "My home course is enjoyed and appreciated from beginners to a US Open champion, still it warrants only a Doak 7. Perhaps we need new standards that are a bit more relevant to the average golfer."

3. Some of us (including me) tend to complain about 3/4 sets of tees, and then we turn right around and praise courses that (with an assist from multiple tees) are able to provide challenge and fun to all levels of golfers (just like Dr. Mac said). Presumably the latter is a much-valued "good" -- so how much of the former/ "bad" can you live with to get it?

4. Is greatness measured, for you, by the stratospheric heights that a course might achieve 6 or 7 or 8 times/holes a round, or by merely exemplary/excellent work consistently, throughout the entire course?

5. For the most part, my tastes usually don't run alongside what's popular -- and maybe that's exactly why I should question that bias and ask whether "the full parking lot" and "torrey pines" aren't indeed legitimate measuring sticks for greatness.

6. I have long maintained that "The Old Course" is the correct answer to every question ever posed on here. Now it may have hit a stumbling block, as folks who know more than me say that not everyone thinks its great. Ah, but did everyone have fun and find a challenge there?

Just some thoughts, I have enjoyed reading yours   

[Andrew Carr]

No. I don't think a course can be considered great unless it's at least a bit controversial.

I remember reading that Dr. Mackenzie was disappointed at the lack of controversy surrounding Cypress Point.  I'm not sure if that's true, but with regards to CPC, it is clearly both great and lacking in controversy...unless you count there position against the PGA Tour on Membership Policy in the 90s...

What about the 18th hole?

That is a valid point.  The 18th does spark controversy.

For what it's worth, I'm in the camp that the proposal for the 18th to be a par 5 starting with the walk over the bridge would be better but I like the 18th as is.   It's a solid hole that has some of the deception that the 4th has.  It is also to MacKenzie's ideal, a hole that looks harder than it is and for that alone I like it.

But again for the context of this point even Cypress has some controversy.

[BCowan]

If your definition of great was a course enjoyed and appreciated by all than, of course. That however is not the general standard. My home course is enjoyed and appreciated from beginners to a US Open champion, still it warrants only a Doak 7.
Perhaps we need new standards that are a bit more relevant to the average golfer. 

Jay,

Some of us are fighting to have their heads examined.  Rome wasn't built in a day

[Tom_Doak]

4. Is greatness measured, for you, by the stratospheric heights that a course might achieve 6 or 7 or 8 times/holes a round, or by merely exemplary/excellent work consistently, throughout the entire course?
[size=78%]  [/size]

Peter:


I don't know about the rest of your questions [well, except I'll vote "no" on the "parking lot test"], but I'm happy to answer the one above.


Real greatness, for me, requires something out of the ordinary.  Merely exemplary/excellent work for 18 holes, happens relatively often nowadays, but that is not enough to make a great course.  That's just "goodness."  You don't have to hit the stratosphere 8 times a round, but you've got to get high enough to get into orbit.

[David_Elvins]

I don't really care what everyone else thinks.  I'd still want to make up my own mind.


However, your question sort of assumes that I'll like it, too, if "every single golfer who ever played it" includes me.

But isn't your  paradox of proportionality really saying that the ideal course provides enjoyment and challenge for the greatest number of golfers?

[David Stamm]

Concur with Kalen about Torrey.  When I was a city resident, it was worth the $25 I paid about 100 times to play. Now at $200? No f**king way.

I love walking around there. It's a beautiful property. I just took my daughter there for her first tournament. She loved. It didn't hurt that Brandt Snedeker gave her a game ball on Friday during his round......

......but a great course it is not. Solid and non offensive? Sure. But great is thrown around way too much with many course descriptions.

[John Kavanaugh]

Concur with Kalen about Torrey.  When I was a city resident, it was worth the $25 I paid about 100 times to play. Now at $200? No f**king way.

I love walking around there. It's a beautiful property. I just took my daughter there for her first tournament. She loved. It didn't hurt that Brandt Snedeker gave her a game ball on Friday during his round......

......but a great course it is not. Solid and non offensive? Sure. But great is thrown around way too much with many course descriptions.

One of a handful of public courses in the world where a father and daughter could have such a wonderful day. Maybe in 20 years she will think it is worth a few bucks to play the course and think of you. Great, you decide.

[Mike Hendren]

If there was a golf course that was thoroughly enjoyed and appreciated by every single golfer who ever played it....
Peter
 

I think this is a false premise given your inclusion of "appreciated."  I doubt more than 1% of golfers appreciate golf architecture, whether objectively or subjectively.
 
As for the real question, Donald J. Ross made a great career out of designing golf courses that were not great, but enjoyable.
 
I'm not sure a golf course can be enjoyable by all unless it's sole defense is on and around its greens, a hallmark of Ross' work.
 
Mike
 
 

[Tom_Doak]

But isn't your  paradox of proportionality really saying that the ideal course provides enjoyment and challenge for the greatest number of golfers?

I don't know.  Did it?  I am open to golf courses that don't appeal to everyone.


Also, popularity is a weak test.  I think great golf courses should include a hole where even very good players are perplexed and don't quite know what to do, because it tests their creativity and their reactivity.  But that's never going to be popular.  Indeed, the crazy thing about someone invoking Perry Dye's test of the "full parking lot" is that his dad was the one who taught me about making good players deal with uncomfortable situations.

[Kalen Braley]

Not that TD needs any defending on this one.

But this statement he made in his Paradox thread, seems to be the essence of what the paradox is:

The paradox is that good players need to be challenged, and bad players need a way around that doesn't cost them too much; but if you design a course strictly to punish bad shots proportionately, you get just the opposite of that.  Solving that paradox is what golf course architecture is all about.

Just because a lesser play can get around the course reasonably well doesn't necessarily mean they will enjoy it as much as an easier course.

And likewise, if a good player is challenged often, also doesn't mean they will enjoy it either compared to a flat, featureless course that is "fair" and they can go low on.

[Peter Pallotta]

I understand that architects, working for clients on specific projects/sites, sometimes work under constraints of one kind of another.  But I assume that, like writers or carpenters or stone masons or actors, they want (or should want) to do the very best work they can, every time out. They don't want to use excuses and aim/settle for mediocre or average work; instead they want to strive for and achieve excellence, and in their heart of hearts they would love to create (and to be known for creating) something great. Well, if that's true, isn't the first step in trying to create something great an understanding/conception of where such greatness lies? [You need to know what your target is and see it clearly before you have any chance of actually hitting it, no matter how good a marksman you are.] Hence this thread. I know that it is a hypothetical, and that a course that appeals to and challenges everyone is a product of my imagination. But the question was/is whether that unanimous appeal is the "target" -- that which an architect should strive for in his pursuit of excellence.  I'd assumed that most could answer "yes" or "no" to that.
Peter   

[Patrick Scanlan]

I think a lot of it has to do with intent. If the designer went at the site with a unique and committed vision, then yes, that course would very well be great. However, were the architect (if even such a term could be correct in this application) contented with just plunking down holes that turned out to be a rip-roaring good time, I think it would be a definitive "no."


Harry Potter is not a great work of literature, as it was intended to be a children's story, and maybe something of a parable. However, that doesn't mean I am not an unabashed fan of it.

[Kalen Braley]

I understand that architects, working for clients on specific projects/sites, sometimes work under constraints of one kind of another.  But I assume that, like writers or carpenters or stone masons or actors, they want (or should want) to do the very best work they can, every time out. They don't want to use excuses and aim/settle for mediocre or average work; instead they want to strive for and achieve excellence, and in their heart of hearts they would love to create (and to be known for creating) something great. Well, if that's true, isn't the first step in trying to create something great an understanding/conception of where such greatness lies? [You need to know what your target is and see it clearly before you have any chance of actually hitting it, no matter how good a marksman you are.] Hence this thread. I know that it is a hypothetical, and that a course that appeals to and challenges everyone is a product of my imagination. But the question was/is whether that unanimous appeal is the "target" -- that which an architect should strive for in his pursuit of excellence.  I'd assumed that most could answer "yes" or "no" to that.
Peter   

Peter,

I think every profession, regardless of what it is ..is fundamentally the same when it comes to how dedicated they are to their craft.

10% at the top - Really care about their work, are super passionate about it, and you get their best on everything they touch.
80% in the middle - Are some combination of caring sometimes, but mostly there to show up, put it in cruise control, get the job done, and collect a check.
10% at the bottom - This group is either in the process of being fired, or really should be doing something else.

Doesn't matter the profession.....doctors, businessmen, retail worker, engineer, you name it...

[Joe Lane]

Hi Peter et al.,


I love this question! I’d add that Joe Zucker contributes a great deal when he compares the question to other art forms: to my mind, what that means is that what Peter’s question is really asking is, “should we treat golf architecture like other kinds of form, or not?” Because so far as I know, in all other forms of aesthetic effort consensus approval is a definite artistic failure, not a success. What that suggests is that the definition of “greatness” in art generally is that which provokes strong opinion, not that which provokes tepid admiration.


In that case, then a definition of “great golf course” that signified “everybody likes it” would weaken the case of golf architecture for inclusion as a serious aesthetic endeavor. But then that simply raises another question: are the aesthetic standards of other art forms just wrong? Or is golf architecture simply not as worthy as other forms of art? I hesitate to affirm either one of those—which means that Peter has posed a really, really excellent question that bears a great deal of thought!

Joe

[Lyndell Young]

I equate it more to food, everybody likes Cracker Barrel and the parking lot stays full. Take the critics choice French restaurant and most people would not enjoy.Which restaurant would be considered great?

[Peter Pallotta]

Well thank you, Joe. As per my post above, the only reason for starting a thread that asks what the 'target' is vis a vis the creation of a great golf course is because the legends of the past have already told us what it is, as in Dr. Mackenzie's:

“A really great golf course [italics, mine] must be a constant source of pleasure to the greatest possible number of players. It must require strategy in the playing as well as skill. It must give the average player a fair chance and at the same time, it must require the utmost from the expert."

That certainly sounds as if in his designs Dr Mac was 'aiming' for a course that every golfer would enjoy and be challenged by, and that he thought this was where greatness lay.  And it seems that most architects ever since have tried to honour that goal, and have taken it for granted that a course that every golfer/skill set can enjoy and be challenged by is the ideal.

Do we agree? Is that the ideal?

And, do we think that those design quality/elements that have been touted since Mackenzie's time as keys to manifesting this ideal/greatness -- i.e multiple sets of tees, wide fairways, few trees and even less water, random/disproportionate penalties, contoured greens-- actually lead to or are reflective of said greatness?

I know -- the answer is obvious, both because of the wonderful courses being created today and because Dr. Mackenzie said so. But that's why the question is worth asking (again and again, even), i.e. because the only questions worth asking on a discussion board like this are those that question/challenge the prevailing wisdom and consensus opinion.   

Peter

[Charlie_Bell]

Point taken, Lyndell, but Cracker Barrel?   I can name 20 chains I like more than CB:  Five Guys, Burger King, Subway, Wendy's, Pizza Hut, IHOP, Friendly's, Taco Bell, Bertucci's, California Pizza Kitchen, Arby's, Wayback Burgers, Olive Garden, SouPlantation, Ruby Tuesday's, Applebee's, TGI Friday's, Panera Bread, Pizzeria Uno, McDonald's...

[Sean_A]

4. Is greatness measured, for you, by the stratospheric heights that a course might achieve 6 or 7 or 8 times/holes a round, or by merely exemplary/excellent work consistently, throughout the entire course?

Pietro


For me, greatness could be measured (achieved?) by either of your above scenarios.  Though, I think it would be harder going the excellent work consistently route because I highly value the unusual holes, the holes where average to poor land was used brilliantly, holes which have unusual or even outlandish shaping (dare I say not trying to mimic nature?) holes which generally cause controversy and (very importantly) quite subtle holes which over time reveal themselves to be much more than filler only after players wonder why they card so many bogeys on such a seemingly innocent hole. 


The real problem with using the stratospheric heights approach is if there are more than one or two holes which are not up to the mark.  There are plenty of courses loaded with the characteristics I list above which don't deliver over 18 holes or go ott with the concepts and therefore lose an important balance..Perranporth is a course like this which comes to mind.  I love it, but think the land is a bit too unruly for truly great golf.


This next point is huge, greatness is OVER-RATED.  Creating a great course isn't necessarily the best thing to strive for.  Using Perranporth again, to create a great course on that site would probably require some of the character of the land being knocked about and that would have an impact on the unusual character of the holes...I think a negative impact because there are so few Perranporths on this earth and plenty of great courses.  This was the essence of my discussion with Ian Andrew a few years ago re Pennard and why I fear suggested changes for the 16th.  Pennard is about character and every time a bit of character is removed the course is that much less of what it could be.  Are the changes good for the character of the course or merely "updating" Pennard to the codified thoughts of modern golf?     


Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Greatness IS over-rated.  The idea that every single project should set out with the same goal, and such a lofty goal, is anathema to the spirit of the game the Scots invented, which was only about having a good game across the land available.  Just because even the famous old courses in Scotland have sold out to the visitor who will pay $300 doesn't mean EVERYONE should.


Though I am generally more in the camp of MacKenzie, and concern myself with making my golf courses challenging and fun for the broad range of golfers who pay to play them, I don't believe that's the only way to do it.  There are a lot of great courses which came about with the goal of challenging the best players -- starting with George Crump's Pine Valley.  There's nothing wrong with such a project, provided they can attract enough really good players to support them.  The only problem with building a tough course is, if that's what you're resting your case on, you have to be constantly vigilant about strengthening the course so that somebody doesn't go build a tougher course next door, and take all your members away.  Many of the courses that used to be in the top-100 lists on the basis of their difficulty twenty years ago -- Butler National, Point O'Woods, etc. -- have been pushed aside by newer, longer, more severe courses.


Sean, I agree with you about Pennard, in general ... I am very wary of taking away the rugged and unrefined spirit that makes it special.  When some members say their goal is for it to be the best course in Wales, I have to tell them I don't think they should try to make it conform better to what people think greatness is.  But I think that's a much larger question than the 16th green, whose right half didn't even exist when I first saw it in 1982.