News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Appreciating Courses More Than Holes
« Reply #75 on: June 06, 2017, 01:24:15 PM »

Garland:


Talking Stick is a great example of what you are talking about.  Yes, some work had to be done ... we've got to make every site drain.  [Peter seems to think this is some new revelation, but all of us in the business have been grilled about "Drainage, drainage and drainage" by our mentors from Day 1.]  Are you saying courses shouldn't be built on such land?

...

The example that I have been using in Westward Ho!. The CG indicates that you weren't exactly pleased with 1, 2, 17, and 18. Would they not be better holes if some money were spent to add the subtle slopes attributed to Talking Stick by Chuck? How can you imagine them better without spending work, i.e. money.

Perhaps the best example I can think of is Friars Head where Bill Coore spent money to rumple a potato field.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Kyle Harris

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Appreciating Courses More Than Holes
« Reply #76 on: June 06, 2017, 01:57:26 PM »
More on this from me later, but I almost exclusively recommend playing a golf course based on the course and not a collection of holes.

The exceptions are more whimsical than noteworthy. Things like the best bunkerless 650-yard Par 5 you'll ever see, etc.
http://kylewharris.com

Constantly blamed by 8-handicaps for their 7 missed 12-footers each round.

Thank you for changing the font of your posts. It makes them easier to scroll past.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Appreciating Courses More Than Holes
« Reply #77 on: June 06, 2017, 02:45:58 PM »
... I almost exclusively recommend playing a golf course based on the course and not a collection of holes.


Absolutely, which is why I never bought the analogy between albums and courses.


Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Appreciating Courses More Than Holes
« Reply #78 on: June 06, 2017, 03:16:42 PM »

The example that I have been using in Westward Ho!. The CG indicates that you weren't exactly pleased with 1, 2, 17, and 18. Would they not be better holes if some money were spent to add the subtle slopes attributed to Talking Stick by Chuck? How can you imagine them better without spending work, i.e. money.

Perhaps the best example I can think of is Friars Head where Bill Coore spent money to rumple a potato field.


Garland:


I wouldn't change a thing about Westward Ho!, if given the responsibility for it.  Those first two and last two holes certainly aren't great, but they have enough backbone to mess up your card if you play them poorly, as I was reminded [again] last fall.  I'm sure someone could make them "better" by moving some dirt around, but they do the job as they are.


But, then again, I'm a minimalist at heart.


I do give Westward Ho! a lower rating on the Doak Scale because of those holes, for what it's worth, but I think they are an important part of the overall "experience" of the course.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Appreciating Courses More Than Holes
« Reply #79 on: June 06, 2017, 03:45:22 PM »
Hypothetical question:  Say you get that long awaited Augusta invite.  Are you going just to play the amen corner holes and make your own mythical back 9 charge?  Or is it more about the course and experience?


I guess my only point in asking this is...perhaps there is no real difference between the holes and the course, the holes are just merely a subset of the golf course...
« Last Edit: June 06, 2017, 04:11:54 PM by Kalen Braley »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Appreciating Courses More Than Holes
« Reply #80 on: June 06, 2017, 04:10:47 PM »


...perhaps there is no real difference between the holes and the course, the holes are just merely a subset of the golf course...



This is well put, and more the way I think about it.  Even the walks between holes come down to the specific holes the architect decided to build.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Appreciating Courses More Than Holes
« Reply #81 on: June 06, 2017, 04:28:03 PM »
Not to be too much of a beard puller on this one, but I kinda compare it to a variant of the quote attributed to Claude Debussy:


"The music is not in the notes, but in the silence between them"

Peter Pallotta

Re: Appreciating Courses More Than Holes
« Reply #82 on: June 06, 2017, 07:38:09 PM »
Good beard pulling, Kalen!
Here's some more:
We say that an 'audience' watches a movie. Now in one sense that audience is real - it exists, it's there, watching a movie. But in another sense, there really is no such entity/being/thing as an 'audience', and certainly no such thing that we could simply and easily define or characterize in a fixed/static way.
This concept we call the audience is actually just 50 or 100 people, all individuals, all different, and all free to come and go as they please at any time.
Those 100 people in the audience might hate the film and start leaving one at a time half way through - and by the end of the movie there might be only 3 people left.
We'd still say that an 'audience' was watching a movie, but in no way will that audience be the same thing/entity as the audience that was there 90 minutes earlier.
In something like the opposite way (though not exactly): there is such a thing as a 'golf course', but to suggest that it is defined/characterized in a fixed way only by the quality and nature of the 18 distinct golf holes that comprise it is to confuse the individual elements for the whole.
There. I have no beard left. It's been pulled away completely!
« Last Edit: June 06, 2017, 07:42:34 PM by Peter Pallotta »

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Appreciating Courses More Than Holes
« Reply #83 on: June 07, 2017, 05:45:06 PM »
Thats a good way to put it Peter.  I think to circle it back around using your analogy, if for example I played Pebble Beach and started jumping around from holes out of order, like playing 1, then playing 13, then 18, etc and on to finish every single hole....the experience won't be the same as playing them in thier normal order.  So even though I played all the same 18 holes, because I didn't so in the prescribed order, its a whole different experience.


I'll certainly take Tom at his word that the space in between holes, and the way in which they are played are just as important as the holes themselves!!

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Appreciating Courses More Than Holes
« Reply #84 on: June 07, 2017, 11:28:59 PM »

But, it takes more money imagination to produce a good hole from flat land than it does from land better suited to the purpose.



Fixed it for you!

"It drives me crazy that my course's fairways are flat as a pancake. When I go to Scotland or Ireland, I am shocked at the contour of the fairways!" Tom Doak's Little Red Book Quotation conveniently provided by Bill Brightly.

How's that for a fix? ;D
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Tim Gavrich

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Appreciating Courses More Than Holes
« Reply #85 on: June 08, 2017, 09:52:03 AM »
I think our perceptions of time and of memory probably have something to do with the way we view this discussion.


Memories are pretty diverse in the way we experience them, right?


Some of our vivid memories are of specific moments driven by the physical sensations we felt in those moments, relative to how our brains were processing and snap-analyzing those sensations. An example might be the memory of a physical fight you got into as a kid.


Other memories are broader because they're of general experiences and the feelings they produced. An example might be the memory of a great dinner you had with a bunch of old friends. You're not likely remembering the actual content of the discussions, but you're remembering the general blissful atmosphere. Now, that in the moment you were experiencing that bliss, you were reacting to/remembering things that were said. So in reflection, it's really a memory of a memory.


I think the same dichotomy applies to this discussion.



When I reflect on the experience of playing a specific, outstanding hole, I'm usually drawing on, variously:
- the experience of deliberating about what club to hit or what line to take off the tee;
- the shapes the various elements of the hole suggested;
- the feeling I had seeing the ball in the air;
- the anticipation of what it might do on the ground;
- the reaction to what it actually did on the ground;
etc.


Whatever those specific feelings I'm accessing may be, they all had in common the temporal condition of taking place inside the sustained action of playing the round (even if those feelings took place on the first tee or 18th green). So they're visceral sensations/memories, because they're experienced in response to the specific action of preparing to play or playing a specific shot. If I'm going to remember them years later, they're going to have to be very significant.


But If I'm reflecting on the more general experience of playing a given course, I'm usually drawing on the feeling I had when the round was over, which is a time when I was necessarily not in the process of preparing to play or playing a specific shot. But, it is a time when all those (and more) sensations bulleted above were much easier to access in my short-term memory. It's harder to remember those sensations the farther in time I get from them, so the general experience of the course becomes the dominant memory-base. It's also easier to hold onto that memory because what you're remembering is not so specific.


In effect, the memory of playing a golf course is a memory of a whole basket of memories, while the memory of playing a hole is a direct memory. The once-removed nature of the memory of the course, I think, means that it's harder to use it as a basis to quantify/rank/judge definitively, and therefore easier to debate.
Senior Writer, GolfPass

BCowan

Re: Appreciating Courses More Than Holes
« Reply #86 on: June 12, 2017, 02:58:56 PM »
  Take Ravisloe as an example- a bunch of really good holes, but the course, in it's current presentation, is significantly marred by the fact that 7 of the last 11 holes are par 4's of very similar length.  Where's the climax?  too early in the round...

   The length on the scorecard doesn't match the change in elevations which are rather modest but significant.  Most of Mackenzie's courses had a length of 6500 and change but played much different then the number. 

    On #8 at Ravisloe yesterday I hit a chippy 6 iron into the wind for my 2nd shot, on the 9th i hit a wedge for my 2nd shot.  Much of the back 9 i hit different clubs.  2 iron off #11.  There is climax, it's just neutered by the soft green presentation and people fixated on a number on the scorecard without taking into account speed slots and nuances that factor into holes length. 

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Appreciating Courses More Than Holes
« Reply #87 on: June 30, 2017, 07:46:23 PM »
 ;D
« Last Edit: June 30, 2017, 07:58:47 PM by Jud_T »
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

BCowan

Re: Appreciating Courses More Than Holes New
« Reply #88 on: June 30, 2017, 08:14:20 PM »
  Take Ravisloe as an example- a bunch of really good holes, but the course, in it's current presentation, is significantly marred by the fact that 7 of the last 11 holes are par 4's of very similar length.  Where's the climax?  too early in the round...

   The length on the scorecard doesn't match the change in elevations which are rather modest but significant.  Most of Mackenzie's courses had a length of 6500 and change but played much different then the number. 

    On #8 at Ravisloe yesterday I hit a chippy 6 iron into the wind for my 2nd shot, on the 9th i hit a wedge for my 2nd shot.  Much of the back 9 i hit different clubs.  2 iron off #11.  There is climax, it's just neutered by the soft green presentation and people fixated on a number on the scorecard without taking into account speed slots and nuances that factor into holes length.


1.  11 is a Par 3, so not, in fact, one of the 7 holes in question and pertinent to the point at hand...
2.  Where exactly is the speed slot on 9 that left you a wedge in (the hole is pretty much dead flat)?  Or was it the 2-3 club wind you must have had or the topped drive on 8 that left you unable to carry the hill and catch the speed slot you so condescendingly mention and left you with a 6 iron?
Ravisloe is a good course with some nice work by Esler, and one of the better public options in the metro area, but nobody should be driving more than an hour to play it, partly because of the rollercoaster ride of holes is much more exciting on the front than on the back.  I know you think it's a gem of major proportions, but the very large Chicago GCA contingent, many of whom have played the course a dozen or more times, would disagree with you and say that if you give it more than a 5 (or 6 if you get a semi-chub over grade inflation) that you're smoking crack...


1.  Your reply is something of a formula and screams rater ideology. The man with the measuring stick.


2.  Please point out where I said 9 has a speed slot?  If anything it's slightly uphill. Yes I had the wind at my back.  8 was into the wind, had a 620am tee time and I didn't flush it to catch the downslope. Besides the wind it shows how foolish it is to go by numbers on a scorecard with golden age tracks. 

 Couldn't disagree with you more, both 9s are extremely good and have very strong parts, whether it's public or private is besides the point.

Whether or not the Windy City gcaers approve of an over 5 rating is another form of GCA group thought.  I don't care if they have played it 50 times, might have been with their eyes closed and lack any fore sight to see how good it is if maintained properly.  All I see from past threads is slower green speeds, not lack of firmness.  Presenration is everything in GCA and the Rav suffers from soft conditions and easing of the poa with water.  Had Rav had a well healed membership which many over value, ud have a different out look, even though u portray yourself as a $30 Langford hipster.

I can go hole for hole and tell u why it's great. Much better then Barton Hills.  Ud think as many times u have played it u could come up with better reasons then par 4's are same length in last 11 holes, when a 15 capper is hitting many different clubs into the greens.  Hell 18 is one of the best drive and pitch holes ive played. If anything the weaker holes are on the front #7 and #1, and they aren't weak holes. 

Many can't admit it's damn good because it's 6300 yads from the tips and it's not a soup club they need to gravel up to access.  :-*
« Last Edit: July 01, 2017, 09:49:48 AM by Ben Cowan (Michigan) »

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Appreciating Courses More Than Holes
« Reply #89 on: July 01, 2017, 04:36:58 AM »

The example that I have been using in Westward Ho!. The CG indicates that you weren't exactly pleased with 1, 2, 17, and 18. Would they not be better holes if some money were spent to add the subtle slopes attributed to Talking Stick by Chuck? How can you imagine them better without spending work, i.e. money.

Perhaps the best example I can think of is Friars Head where Bill Coore spent money to rumple a potato field.


Garland:


I wouldn't change a thing about Westward Ho!, if given the responsibility for it.  Those first two and last two holes certainly aren't great, but they have enough backbone to mess up your card if you play them poorly, as I was reminded [again] last fall.  I'm sure someone could make them "better" by moving some dirt around, but they do the job as they are.


But, then again, I'm a minimalist at heart.


I do give Westward Ho! a lower rating on the Doak Scale because of those holes, for what it's worth, but I think they are an important part of the overall "experience" of the course.

Tom

Very interesting.  So you think the four hole are not admirable, but surely necessary.  Yet, these holes lower the score of the course?  You have to explain this one to me.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back