Should We Be Evaluating Experience or Design?

[Sam Kestin]

I was just reading Thomas Dai's post about how conditioning factors into the way people rate a given golf course--and his suggestion that it might make sense to adjust those effects by factoring in the size of the maintenance crew and/or budget. It made me ask myself what am I evaluating when I look at a particular golf course.

Am I evaluating strictly the theoretical design of the golf course or am I evaluating the real-world experience of playing the golf course?

If I were evaluating the former--conditioning should nearly be a non-factor in how I evaluate the design. I should be assessing the elements and structure of the holes based upon how they would play were they presented in their ideal condition. It shouldn't count against the design of a golf course that its caretakers lack the budget to maintain it properly or have the budget to maintain it at an elite level. Additional non-design elements (like the history/tradition categories that are often reviled) should also be non-factors. It should matter not if the hole I am standing on is where Bobby Jones clinched the 1930 Amateur (and the Grand Slam) or where Tom Watson chipped in to take a one-shot lead over Nicklaus in the US Open or where Tiger chipped in to stop Chris DiMarco dead in his tracks at the Masters.

That having been said--if I were evaluating the experience of playing the golf course it would be foolish to say that those types of non-design factors are not absolutely influential in shaping my opinion. The conditions of the facility absolutely contribute to how much I enjoy a particular golf course. Historical factors like past championship history and my overall familiarity with the property also absolutely influence how much I enjoy playing a particular place. Even non-course factors like ambiance and hospitality shape the quality of the experience as well.

Is one of these two approaches the "correct" one?

Should there be different types of rankings--ones that are strictly design-focused and others that are more all-inclusive of the golf experience at a particular course?

Curious what you all think on this question.

[jeffwarne]

The problems begin when operators attempt to add to the "experience" with mostly silly add ons that some people come to expect-and others find not only detracting,but resent having to endure and worse yet pay for.


But to answer your question-both-even if we won't admit it.


I'm just always amazed when someone who should know better criticizes a modern bells and whistles course then gives it a 6 or 7 --or sings the gem praises of another while giving it a 4 or 5

[Thomas Dai]

Thanks Sam for topping up my original thread, namely -http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,65402.0.html

I have long believed that some courses get more points or are seen as 'better' not because of their design (or initial construction) but because of their surrounds and their photogenicness, although I will admit that playing alongside a beautiful scenic view is more pleasant to the senses than is playing next to a steel works or a chemical plant or the like.

As such I tend to place in my mind an imaginary wall around courses such that what's outside the wall doesn't influence my judgement.

This has led me to consider some otherwise high ranked courses a little more objectively. This consideration, a search for greater objectivity maybe, has also led me to ponder course conditioning, which is essentially (but admittedly not entirely..soil, terrain etc) a function of budget $£ and crew size.

In doing this I attempt to envisage how different a course usually thought of as lessor would be if it had the conditioning (ie budget $£ and crew size) as another more highly thought of similar type/style of course. I hope this reads okay as it's proving a little awkward to word!

That's a sort of summary of where my ideas are currently at. I'm confident others have tried to unscramble this issue as well and am thus interested in the opinions and thoughts of others.

I could name a couple of not-to-dissimilar courses as comparison examples but I will hold off on that pending how the threads develop.

atb

[Peter Pallotta]

Sam - yours reminds me of two other recent posts:
my own, where I mused that it seems that many of the golden age classics were/are judged as 'great architecture' while many of today's award winners are judged as 'great courses'; and
Tom D's, where he suggested that the quality of the 'architecture' at Streamsong is much closer to the quality at Bandon than most people seem to realize
My own bias/perspective is to try to focus on the 'architecture' and try to understand what makes it special -- that's why I'm on gca.com. If I wanted to know only about 'great courses' I could just read Golf Digest or Joe Passov.
I don't think the two terms - great architecture/design and great course - are *necessarily* synonymous 

[Sean_A]

I am in Jeff's camp, but I am more interested in the experience of the day rather than merely architecture.  I always say I don't need to play a course to get the architecture...what the hell fun is that?  The experience, if good, will more than likely involve a good course anyway. 

I am not one to dwell too much on the design for a few reasons.  One, it can be difficult to figure what the design is meant to be about.  These days it seems like courses are going more toward be everything to everybody.  Two, the design may be very connected to the agronomy and climate, both of which I may not know much about.  I play what is in the ground, not necessarily what an archie intended.  Therefore, the conditioning/presentation can be very important to the quality of the course and certainly to the quality of the experience. 

Ciao

[Joel_Stewart]

Am I evaluating strictly the theoretical design of the golf course or am I evaluating the real-world experience of playing the golf course?

I'm assuming you talking about Golf Digest?


Whitten and especially Jerry Trade like the current system and see no reason to change. It's a 50 year old antiquated formula that is ambiguous at best which is probably what they want.

[Tom_Doak]

Nobody rates the architecture in isolation of other factors.  I don't know if anyone should even pretend to try, because many of the other factors [views, weather, conditioning, and even economics] should be apparent in advance and therefore factored into the architectural decisions.


In the podcast we did with Andy Johnson tonight, Eric Iversonvreally hit the nail on the head.  He said it's not about hole s hole looks, but about how it works.  Form separated from function is a useless abstraction.

[Jeremy Blumberg]

Total newbie here, but to me it is impossible to separate "experience" and "design". This was so apparent to me recently when I was fortunate to play Cypress Point Club. There's just no way to separate the experience of being there--the views, the wind (copious on the day I played!) from the astounding design and routing. Take the 13th hole for example--I stood on the tee box with a 30 mph wind coming off the ocean in front and to the right, the amazing bunkering behind the green was framed by a crystal clear blue sky and there this pleasant, sweet-salty scent from the ocean mist just across the 17-mile drive. So, it's hard for me to evaluate that hole with taking my experience away...
And so when it comes to the design--I have no doubt Dr. Mackenzie stood on the area of what would become the 13th tee-box and let his sensory receptors help inform him of his design decision.

[John Kirk]

There's no question in my mind that the course should be, or is, evaluated by the experience of playing the course.

The design of the course is a subset of the overall evaluation.

Kind of reminds me of the day a whole bunch of people we know played Stone Eagle on a 110 degree afternoon.  Not only that, for most people it was their second round of the day.  The course didn't show very well that day.  It took years for the consensus evaluation to stabilize at a higher level.

Likewise, I don't think there's any doubt that Cypress Point would be less heralded if it was 110 degrees outside.  It's less fun to play golf when the weather is extreme.

[Ben Sims]

Form separated from function is a useless abstraction.

Tom,


This quote is so many years in the making. As a whole, the enjoyers of other arts understood this concept long before golfers did. When I listen to someone reduce a golf hole to its essential visual characteristics, I know it's time to pull on the hip waders.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - I'm not understanding you very well.
Of course form and function go hand in hand.
Why else did the term 'eye-candy' come about except to describe those instances when form *isn't* linked to function?
Yes: a good architect utilizes a natural feature or creates a hazard or shapes a green -- ie he designs and builds a course -- so as to provide golfers with interest and challenge and fun in the actual playing of the game.
The 'forms' he has utilized/created are meant to 'function' as essential elements of a specific type of game called golf - one with its own equipment and rules and joys and physical & mental demands.
And if an architect has made consistently fine use of those elements over 18 holes, we call that a good golf course, and (around here at least) say that it's an example of good golf course architecture.
But: if Eric "hits the nail on the head" by focusing on and giving primacy to how a golf hole "works" over how it "looks", it must be because he is able to *distinguish* between those two.
And if he can distinguish between the two -- ie between form and function -- it must be because those two don't always and don't *necessarily* go hand in hand.
Eric can recognize/see it when they don't, and you can see it, and judging from the critical comments I've read here over the years, many posters believe they have seen it many times at Fazio or Nicklaus or Palmer real-estate courses, where they say convoluted and cart-inspired routings serve 'pretty scenery' instead of 'good golf', and where the features and hazards are 'heavy on the visuals' but 'light on the strategy'.
In short, haven't we all judged the 'architecture' for many years, the good (like Merion, Riviera, and The Old Course) and the bad alike?
It does sometimes seem that just recently have we started to say that we should -- and probably only *can* -- judge the 'overall course' and the 'whole experience'. Isn't it possible that, sometimes at least, a coastline is only a coastline, and a sand dune is just an impressive pile of sand?
As I say, other than on a surface level (i.e. I too enjoy 'the experience'), I'm really not understanding this very well. But since the likes of John K and Bn and Jeremy seem to be, it could simply be a late night and fatigue on my part.
Peter

[Josh Stevens]

Design

Of course experience is part of the whole day out, but the problem with Experience is that it distracts us and leads us to overlook and excuse weak design that we might otherwise criticise if the view were not so grand.

The experience at NSWGC is so grand that some of the really stupid design features, such as the entire 3rd hole, are overlooked.

One could perhaps say the same about the whole set of holes at Pebble that are away from the ocean.

If a course is in a shit location, surrounded by industrial decay and crack houses, where the only view of is of the nearby open sewer,  then we can focus on the course.

[Sean_A]

Design

...but the problem with Experience is that it distracts us and leads us to overlook and excuse weak design that we might otherwise criticise if the view were not so grand.

The experience at NSWGC is so grand that some of the really stupid design features, such as the entire 3rd hole, are overlooked.

Is this such a bad way to look at golf courses?  If a course is good enough to be fun without any trappings, why not enjoy the extras?  Why not marvel at the view, beautiful shaping, fine bunkers and great sight lines? 

Pietro

I think the recent concept of "judging" the whole experience is not new at all. Since good writers (and I am thinking of folks such as Darwin, Dickinson, Steel and Pennink) have been expounding on golf courses there has been elements of charm, history or downright wow factor which has nearly always been included their pieces. This is partly why their writing is so good...the writing goes beyond golf...just as some golf courses do. I expect to some degree most archies are shooting to go beyond golf (or reach the highest levels of golf) through the experience architecture. Thus is what I think Tom is getting at...the form is architecure just as is function....both can increase the enjoyment of the experience and the quality of the design.     

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Both

[Mike_Young]

Hmmm....if this question was regarding sex, how would you answer?  Of course that's why they have paper sacks and light switches I guess.   

[Josh Stevens]

Absolutely not, i think experience is a fundamental part of the ...... well, the experience

I play NSWGC perhaps twice a year, and despite the glaring architectural monstrosities, i have a hoot of a time due to the people, the views, the sausage sarnies at the half way hut etc.

But the question is ill-posed.  Should we consider the experience in terms of our own personal preferences of where to play - absolutely.  Should we consider the experience the experience in terms of course ratings - no.

[Matthew Petersen]

Of course we should be careful not to over-rate the experience of certain conditions after one round at a course. But golf courses are built to be played, so if the function is consistently not there then that's a big deal.


There's a course near me that I want to like a lot. Built in a vaguely sand belt style with plenty of holes where a ground game option was provided by the designer. And yet the course always plays so soft that those features are worthless. I've been playing this course over 10 years and it's consistently too soft; the time of year, the weather, none of this means anything. It's attached to a high end resort and "green and soft" is clearly the goal. It's basically pointless to talk about the options for ground strategy that were built at the course because as it plays they essentially do not exist.