Post GCA:Have your tastes changed?

[David_Elvins]

Pre GCA I thought that every course with narrow fairways and thick rough was horrible.

Post GCA I can now understand that Merion  is not horrible.  

I like that GCA has broadened my horizons.  

[BCrosby]

I'm also becoming more convinced that some of the great architects' work actually benefits from them NOT being so involved -- that the guys who built those courses for them helped add variety so that they didn't repeat themselves so much.  Previously, I had just attributed that to the construction equipment available back in the day.

Let's hope that Mike Young doesn't see this thread. It's never fun when his views are confirmed. 

Bob

[Peter Pallotta]

Bob - ha! Mike's been rolling that same rock up that same hill for a long time. Maybe now it will finally stay up there on top, and Mike can rest...

Very interesting quote, and realization and place to be. I think hacks (writers, architects, actors, musicians etc) get to that place very quickly, prematurely, jumping ahead to that place out of laziness or contempt or ego before having learned, practiced and perfected the previous steps. The good ones sometimes never get there, staying (justifiably) proud of their style and of their body of work and seeing no reason to change. The very good ones get there honestly, organically, over time, based solely on their own personal creative trajectories. Nice to witness the process.

Peter

[Jason Thurman]

I think I've learned more about why certain courses hold their appeal longer than others. I've certainly learned more about different styles of golf. My experience is quite contrary to others, as I seem to have expanded my tastes to include flavors I didn't even know existed before. I still enjoy a lot of the work of RTJ and his disciples, and I still really like Nicklaus courses, but I'm not even sure I realized there were courses like Erin Hills, The Prairie Club, and Kingsley before I knew about this site.

My top end has broadened since joining GCA. My 25 favorite courses are primarily courses I've played since I joined the site. Would I have loved them if I never joined GCA? Definitely. Would I have played them if I never joined GCA? Doubtfully. I used to just seek decent places to play when I traveled, usually via Google. The GCA search feature takes some finessing to work correctly, but it makes a wonderful travel agent.

As a result of playing all these great courses in the last two years, a lot of courses I used to love have moved much further down my list. However, I still love them just as much as I used to, and there are a multitude of "Doak 3s" or worse scattered all over the area I grew up that I still love to return to and play. Rationally, I'm now better able to explain the things I love about them and don't love about them. But emotionally, standing on the first tee at Wild Turkey Trace in Lawrenceburg, KY will always stir in me great memories. Throwing all my father's Pinnacles in the lake at 8 while he teed off. Swallowing a bug while flying down the cart path down to 14 fairway and my father circling back to get lemonade from the cooler to wash the taste out. My grandfather's heart attack on that same 14th tee during the last round of golf he walked (don't worry, he finished the round and played many more in carts, some with an LVAD and others after the transplant). My first sand save at 9. My father's slice on the first tee laying the seeds for my parents' divorce. I still love playing those off-the-beaten-path farmland courses and trying to understand how they can excite the people who grew up on them in the way that Wild Turkey Trace will always excite me a bit, no matter how many great course notches I put in my belt.

[Jud_T]

It's an interesting question.   I suppose in some ways my tastes have narrowed and broadened in others.  I'm less likely to work to play a top 100 course that I'm fairly confident isn't going to be "up my alley", but I'm more likely to seek out "lesser" hidden gems that I wouldn't have previously.  I've gotten spoiled in the sense that I probably play less golf as I'm pickier about where I play and the conditions I'll play in, but I may be driving an hour to play an unheralded Langford for $35 instead of paying $100 to play a CCFAD that's on all the ranking lists and down the block.  I now know what I like and why I like it, which saves time, money and aggravation.  I don't really understand the "I'll play any wet clay dogtrack as long as I've got good buddies and beer" mentality.  Life is too short to play lousy golf courses.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

The best thing about having joined GCA is the huge camaraderie and genuine warmth of its other members. I have met, and played golf with, so many wonderful people. They have been incredibly generous hosting me on inaccessible clubs in the States and Continental Europe, they have also generously hosted my offspring abroad. They have cheerfully put up with my increasingly dismal play and several have actually agreed to play with me more than once! That is generosity of a major kind!

I am not sure I have changed my opinion of golf course architecture as a result of my GCA experiences as I've always had a positive outlook when playing a golf course. I am always looking for the good things, not the bad ones. Very rarely do I find a course with absolutely nothing to commend it.But to play a course for the first time with a knowledgeable GCAer who can point out so many interesting architectural features during a round is one of life's great treats.

Thank you to all who have helped enlighten me and given me such wonderful companionship!

[Ian Andrew]

I began in on GCA in 1999.... (also the same year I attended Archipalozza)
 It was through both that I eventually had the epiphany, "What I'm building for him is not good enough for me." It was the year I decided I had to leave, but that took six years for the circumstance (financial mainly) became appropriate for my family.

I spent the next six years seeing over 100 truly significant works (some new/most old). I also sought out every architect who's recent work I admired and I spent time with every one of them asking questions and gaining insights.

Then in 2006 I questioned everything I believed in (by choice).

I spent three straight years reading, researching and blogging about that. Since I was willing to open up to anything, it allowed me to change some of my philosophy on design. It got me more interested in emotions, particularly through reading people like Max Behr. But even more importantly it changed my views about "what else" - beyond design  - was required to achieve truly great rather than really good. The devil was in the details. It turned out to be the other 50% ... not the other 10%.

so 15 years later ...

I would hope my thoughts on architecture are little better articulated.

[BCowan]

This is such a great thread.  My tastes have been broadened a bit and I have a better understanding of why I do or don't like something.  I am more interested now in hearing about and playing gems and under the radar courses from word of mouth.  Learning about golf arch in other cultures have been very eye opening.  I have become to appreciate wider corridors and lines more than in my younger days.  Discussing penal, strategic, and heroic is rather fun...   

[Chris DeToro]

I think my tastes have actually broadened.  In the past, I would rely on the means available to me, like GD rankings, to help decide where I should play and what "good" is.  GCA and the course reviews and threads have really opened my eyes to the great work that exists around the world.  Course-wise, I still like the same courses, however, I'm much more likely to seek out courses that most people may never have heard of or don't get the press that another does.  I'm also of the opinion that every course and architect, whether beloved or not, has some attribute or highlight that makes it worthy of existing so why not try it out? 

[Lou_Duran]

I'm also becoming more convinced that some of the great architects' work actually benefits from them NOT being so involved -- that the guys who built those courses for them helped add variety so that they didn't repeat themselves so much.  Previously, I had just attributed that to the construction equipment available back in the day.

It has always seemed a bit peculiar to me that we place great importance on the number of days the architect spends on the site- "working in the dirt"- while at least two of the gca.com Greats (MacKenzie and Ross) seldom spent more time on a project than those we routinely revile for "mailing it in".  Though I enjoy and respect Ralph Plummer's work in Texas- the man designed and built every one of his many courses save for the last one- his courses share most important characteristics and can be somewhat repetitive (in the Fazio sense- critics claim his courses are too alike).   I attributed this to the similarity of his sites and mostly meager budgets, but Tom's post makes sense: while he took input from other others, by and large he was the sole designer and final decision maker on all his projects.

As to the topic, this site has encouraged me to play more broadly and it has made possible the introduction to people who have expanded my horizons considerably.  The book references and the participation of industry folks has been great.  While one has to sift hard sometimes for a few kernels, they are definitely there.  "Fairness" is less important to me, though I am not sure that building serendipity into a course is a desirable objective (the game is difficult enough as it is and Mother Nature does that already).

My tastes have changed to some extent as a result of having better information.  In my case, I like to think they have been broadened, understanding that today's architects are the best educated, have the greatest depth and breadth of experience, and are working with far superior tools in a vastly more difficult design, development, and construction environment than their predecessors.  This doesn't minimize the accomplishments of the ODGs; to the contrary, it increases my appreciation for their best work which survives at such a high level today.  It does help me put into perspective the so called "connector holes", tight/potentially dangerous conditions (and the trees which may have been planted to alleviate the problem), long walks around wetlands (which in the "old days" would have been summarily drained and played over), and routings which seem not well connected because other objectives took precedence.  

[Kevin_D]

Good thread.

I would say that for the most part, my tastes are the same, though I couldn't articulate why before. Things like very long green to tee walks, obviously unnatural features, and overly penal design never appealed to me. And I also generally found myself preferring older courses to newer ones, and think the whole concept of having strategic options is inherently appealing, even if not recognized as such while playing. But admittedly I used to think that it was my fault that I didn't like some courses because they were too hard for me. Now I have a bit more confidence to think/say if I don't like a course because, say, the fairways are too narrow or carries too demanding (though the former gives me a lot more trouble than the latter).

One other way my tastes have changed is that I have begun to have an appreciation of links-like golf. I say "links-like" because I still haven't played a true links course yet, but I have played Shinnecock, Sebonack, Pinehurst #2 and the Streamsongs, so gotten a taste. Interestingly, I find these courses way more challenging than parkland courses. I'm just not used to dealing with that kind of wind yet. Conversely, I played Merion shortly after the Open last year, and while difficult, I didn't find it to be the "torture test" many described here. I guess it's just because I grew up caddying on and playing parkland courses, so thick rough isn't that big a deal for me. That said, I do like the links-like courses (even if I don't generally play well on them), and am hoping to play Bandon later this year, and take a trip to Ireland next year.

[Jim Sherma]

I'm also becoming more convinced that some of the great architects' work actually benefits from them NOT being so involved -- that the guys who built those courses for them helped add variety so that they didn't repeat themselves so much.  Previously, I had just attributed that to the construction equipment available back in the day.

It has always seemed a bit peculiar to me that we place great importance on the number of days the architect spends on the site- "working in the dirt"- while at least two of the gca.com Greats (MacKenzie and Ross) seldom spent more time on a project than those we routinely revile for "mailing it in".  Though I enjoy and respect Ralph Plummer's work in Texas- the man designed and built every one of his many courses save for the last one- his courses share most important characteristics and can be somewhat repetitive (in the Fazio sense- critics claim his courses are too alike).   I attributed this to the similarity of his sites and mostly meager budgets, but Tom's post makes sense: while he took input from other others, by and large he was the sole designer and final decision maker on all his projects.

As to the topic, this site has encouraged me to play more broadly and it has made possible the introduction to people who have expanded my horizons considerably.  The book references and the participation of industry folks has been great.  While one has to sift hard sometimes for a few kernels, they are definitely there.  "Fairness" is less important to me, though I am not sure that building serendipity into a course is a desirable objective (the game is difficult enough as it is and Mother Nature does that already).

My tastes have changed to some extent as a result of having better information.  In my case, I like to think they have been broadened, understanding that today's architects are the best educated, have the greatest depth and breadth of experience, and are working with far superior tools in a vastly more difficult design, development, and construction environment than their predecessors.  This doesn't minimize the accomplishments of the ODGs; to the contrary, it increases my appreciation for their best work which survives at such a high level today.  It does help me put into perspective the so called "connector holes", tight/potentially dangerous conditions (and the trees which may have been planted to alleviate the problem), long walks around wetlands (which in the "old days" would have been summarily drained and played over), and routings which seem not well connected because other objectives took precedence.  

Lou - great post. You have stated a lot of my feelings better than I could have. I still have a bias towards classic parkland courses but understand modern architecture much more thanks to GCA (I cherish my Links experiences in Ireland and Scotland but lack of access makes them a rare treat fpor me).  My understanding of what I am looking at has improved and being able to put so much more into context is intellectually satisying. I also have been motivated to travel more for golf and my trips to Scotland and Pinehurst have been very educational and I am not sure that I would have made the trips if not for the background and motivation provided by my participation here.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff,

GCA.com and its predecessor traditional golf.com haven't really changed my taste in golf architecture, perhaps because my interest in the art form predates these websites by about 30-40 years.

I was anxious to purchase Dan Jenkins' "The Best 18 Golf Holes in America" in 1966 because I was already fascinated by golf courses. The book just made realize I would need to travel a lot if I wanted to see not just the best in America but also the best international courses.

There were modern courses I had an interest to see.  Wild Dunes, for example, was a big deal when it open. Ditto for Harbor Town and others. But, always my real interest was the old classic courses, perhaps because I grew up  and went to high school and college in the New York/Philadelphia area.

What fascinated me the most from the very beginning was the routing plan. That always struck me as the most important aspect of being a golf architect. And, I always wished I could have seen famous courses before construction started and it was just native land.

Truthfully, championship courses were always an interest of mine - I grew up not far from Winged Foot - but discovering little gems that nobody ever talked about was also wonderful. Dooks might be my favorite example.

Again, all in all, GCA has had little to no influence on my taste in golf architecture, but if I was ten years old today like I was when Jenkins' 18 Best book was published it might.

[BCowan]

I want to ask the question, ''Have some of us overlooked good architectural and fun features in our younger days dismissing courses  due to their lack of lesser maintenance?  Have your tastes changed is a great thread.   

The Jeff Warne 12 box checklist from another thread

"Low key great fun"
"resists scoring for good players, yet your grandmother and 7 year old son can have a blast"
"Driving and approach width provided and preferred angles important"
"Interesting ground game"
"greens with lots of tilt that provide both curling super fast putts and correspondingly solid strike demanding uohill putts"
"variety of shots and premium on execution"
"variety of lengths and clubs used"
"firm and fast"
"exposed to wind"
"water views"
"Arble test"-clubhouse proximity and intimacy
"1897 pedigree"

 ''Every hole there presents an abundance of choices on how best to tackle it, and a typical hole will see 4 scratch players hit 4 different shots into a green more often than not.''

I've been doing some thinking the last few days, haven't found anything in my youth that checks all 12 boxes yet

[Keith OHalloran]

I want to ask the question, ''Have some of us overlooked good architectural and fun features in our younger days dismissing courses  due to their lack of lesser maintenance?  Have your tastes changed is a great thread.   

The Jeff Warne 12 box checklist from another thread

"Low key great fun"
"resists scoring for good players, yet your grandmother and 7 year old son can have a blast"
"Driving and approach width provided and preferred angles important"
"Interesting ground game"
"greens with lots of tilt that provide both curling super fast putts and correspondingly solid strike demanding uohill putts"
"variety of shots and premium on execution"
"variety of lengths and clubs used"
"firm and fast"
"exposed to wind"
"water views"
"Arble test"-clubhouse proximity and intimacy
"1897 pedigree"

 ''Every hole there presents an abundance of choices on how best to tackle it, and a typical hole will see 4 scratch players hit 4 different shots into a green more often than not.''

I've been doing some thinking the last few days, haven't found anything in my youth that checks all 12 boxes yet

You are looking for a course from your youth with an 1897 pedigree? Did you grow up on Chicago Golf Club?

[BCowan]

Keith,

   Toledo CC and Ottawa Park GC are the only 1897 tracks in the town that I grew up in.  OP is very cool though, but doesn't check all the boxes. 

[cary lichtenstein]

My taste in courses has never changed. I tried to understand from CGA what I was missing from some of the users threads.

I am sure that its true that there r "courses for horses" and those that fit my eye and ball flight rank higher than those that don't.

[Bill Brightly]

My tastes have absolutely changed. Prior to joining GCA ten years ago I would have been classified as a typical low handicap US country club golfer who judged courses by the quality of the greens (how fast and smooth did they putt) how well manicured the course was, how challenging it was, and "what was the length from the tips?" I knew practically nothing about the history of golf course architecture.

I had just been asked to serve on our club's board and the president started talking to me about restoring our course as Charles Banks had built it. He started to explain who the connection to Macdonald and Raynor and he told me to research NGLA. and a few other courses. That night I went on line and gca.com came up time and again. I read every profile of the MacRaynors in the course by country section, and then became hooked on the DG.

Of course I became a huge fan of Macdonald, Raynor and Banks, and was saddened by how little Banks actually remained at our course. (Thankfully we are putting it back hole by hole, one or two holes per year.) But my education about gca grew in so many ways, I don't know where to start. I became a huge fan of Tillinghast, realizing that he was rarely given great sites but did a masteful job, especially with his green complexes. I beame a fan of Doak and C & C (neither had done much in the NYC area) and found reasons to go play their courses. I later expanded that to try and learn about the courses that working archtects who post here like Jeff Brauer, Ian Andrew, Kelly Blake Moran, and others. I became a fan of minimalism but still love the contrast that Raynor courses provide; I like the Big World Theory. I never really understood all the talk about width and angles, until I attended the GCA Boomerang and got to play Royal Melbourne and the light bulb went off in my head OK Mackenzie, I GET IT NOW! I have made several trips to Ireland and Scotland as well as Bandon Dunes and truly love links golf, even though it kicks my ass.

The education I have received on GCA has been amazing. When I play with my single digit friends who whine about the greens not being fast enough, the bunkers not consistent, etc. etc. I have to check myself and remember that I was like that ten years ago...

[HarryBrinkerhoffDoyleIV_aka_Barry]

[REMOVED]

[David Davis]

Jeff,

Good question. Has GCA changed and or enlightened me and my tastes in golf courses in some way...


 - I found GCA shortly after I played Cypress Point. Cypress was a moving experience. It was the best course I have ever played. Now that I've had the wonderful experience of seeing many of the world's great courses, Cypress is still head and shoulders above the rest for me but I realize that's due to the overall experience and not just the golf course.

- I've learned a lot both online from the posts and wealth of knowledge and from meeting so many members of the Treehouse in person. That part is by far the best and has made me such a huge fan of internet dating for golf nerds. I too have seen many courses that I might not otherwise have visited. Courses that I would not have found on world ranking lists.

- I thought I liked links golf. I learned that I simply love it and even though I have had the honor of playing some of the best parklands which I also love I would very much find myself at home and be happy to bring out my days in a place like St. Andrews or North Berwick or even Bandon for that matter.

- I've learned that I need the architectural aspect of the game and appreciate it very much as it gives me something to fall back on when I'm trying to not go crazy by being such a hack. I want to be good at this game, can't seem to let go of the ego that drives my will to fight for good scores and results even when traveling and playing a different course every day and struggling to take it all in. Evaluate the course and design, figure out strategy and then try to play well. I'm impressed by many of you that seem to be able to do this.

- I realize I'm influenced by the fact that the best courses in the world are all very difficult courses and I really like difficult and challenging golf from a personal aspect though it's starting to irritate me slightly to see really tough courses placed on really great sites that could of been really great courses all because the architecture was so poor.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I am 55. I first played Painswick as a 13 year old junior in 1973 and absolutely loved it, over the next 10 years I must have gone back and played it with a 100 different people. Most of those people I took there thought I was stupid (nothings changed). I played Boat of Garten in the early 70s and that was the sort of course I loved. As I got better and nearer scratch I wanted fairer bounces, better surfaces and bunkers raked. From a fairly early age I wanted to create golf courses and I wanted to create broken ground and mimic old mining works and quarry type features. I don't think my taste has changed that much so I like much of what I see on GCA, I like the stuff Tom Doak does and Coore & Crenshaw.....the biggest thing I have learned from this site is that this way/ideas here is usually the minor opinion and not the way to do it.

I think that successful golf courses still need good conditioning, people like striped fairways and the biggest of all people love water. The problem with converting people to minimalist concepts is that the minimalist golf course with good conditioning is not actually cheap to play or maintain.

[BCowan]

This is a great thread. I'm curious if anyone's tastes have changed more then once after being on GCA? Does one go through a certain architect fix then get tired of it and get into something else?