[Mike Hendren]

Can golf architecture be "good enough" for most of us with having to be "great?"  Stated otherwise, don't you enjoy a solid 7 as much as a perfect 10?

Mike

[Sean_A]

Can golf architecture be "good enough" for most of us with having to be "great?"  Stated otherwise, don't you enjoy a solid 7 as much as a perfect 10?

Mike

Bogey...I think a 7 is a great course!  I am more than happy playing an interesting 5/6.  I could do a lot worse than Kington, Perranporth, Goswick, Welshpool, Cavendish, Aiken, Corballis, Southerndown, Reddish Vale, Reigate Heath, Cleeve Cloud, Leckford Old etc etc.  Greatness is over-rated, but necessary...if ya know what I mean.

Ciao

[Niall C]

Great is an ideal to try and attain to and while in a Scottish context very few courses reach that ideal, there is not many that I’ve played that haven’t had some great golf even if they aren’t great overall. So, even though they aren’t great doesn’t mean they aren’t fun and worth playing but neither does it mean you shouldn’t try and attain the best you can.

Niall

[jeffwarne]

Big fan of the forgotten 4-5
though I usually personally rate them much higher than that, often higher than the big guns due to all of their entrappments.
Northwest is a great example


But the well known "great" courses do tend to keep the belt notchers busy (and elsewhere) so I fully support their existence

[John Kavanaugh]

Hard to beat a member/guest at a great course. With so little time left to enjoy ourselves it's a bit of fun to take part in the best life has to offer.

[Kevin Neary]

Isn't "great" a relative term, however? Shouldn't we be evaluating golf courses on the basis of the land present, rather than comparing it to other courses? If a "7" is the best a course can be on a given parcel of land, then it most certainly is "good enough," and I would hope is enjoyable.


In broader terms, it is rather the company one is with, rather than the architecture itself, that the average golfer enjoys. I would have to imagine, at least for the average golfer, it's the company that matters, rather than the course.

[Joe Hancock]

I was thinking the same thing, Kevin. I’d rather golf with great company on a bad course than golf with bad company on a great course. The game is as much about bringing people together in a positive way as it is about belt notching and expounding and extolling....

[John Kavanaugh]

While this may be hard for some of you to hear…From my experience the members of great courses tend to be pretty good company to keep.

[Joe Hancock]

While this may be hard for some of you to hear…From my experience the members of great courses tend to be pretty good company to keep.

Then all the better.

[Kalen Braley]

I was thinking the same thing, Kevin. I’d rather golf with great company on a bad course than golf with bad company on a great course. The game is as much about bringing people together in a positive way as it is about belt notching and expounding and extolling....

Joe,


While that's almost always true, I think the more realistic scenario is:


Play a bad course with good buds
or...
Play a great course with people you don't know where its polite, but not much interaction and you mostly keep to yourself.


P.S. Dont know if I'm lucky or not, but I can count the times on one hand where I got stuck in a group where I couldn't wait for it to be over cause they were intolerable.

[Joe Hancock]

Kalen,


As posed, Bogey is asking our opinion (no right, no wrong) about what we need to be happy playing golf. John needs more than I do from the course, and that’s OK. You haven’t been lucky, you’ve just decided who you were golfing with more often than not.

[John Kavanaugh]

Joe,


I made friends at the GCSAA convention after all the crap I have spewed on here for years. There is something about a true love of golf that defies not enjoying the company of anyone with the same interest. At a great club it goes without saying. It ain't like the dog food isle at Walmart. No matter how much you love your dog.

[Michael George]

Hopefully, all of us would prefer the company of family and good friends.


However, back to the original question - I think it depends on the land in which the course sits.  I will take solid architecture on great land rather than great architecture on flat or over undulating land.  That feeling of being out in nature on a great site is just more important to me than the difference between solid and great design.   


When you get great architecture on great land (ala Sand Hills)....that is what makes all of us love the game as much as we do.

[Kalen Braley]

Michael,


Are you saying you'd much rather play Sand Pines, OK course on great land/location over something like Chambers Bay?

[John Kavanaugh]

How do you ever join a new club if you are worried about leaving old buddies behind? Or take a new job, or move to a nicer home, or grow up for that matter?


Let's do away with great hotels and restaurants while we are at it. Should make for some interesting golf trips. Bada bing bada boom, Comfort Inn and the local muni.

[Mike Hendren]

Michael,

Are you saying you'd much rather play Sand Pines, OK course on great land/location over something like Chambers Bay?

No, why introduce "OK" into the discussion?  I haven't played Sand Pines but given the grief it takes on here, I'm guessing it doesn't quality for the 5/6/7 that I had in mind.  How about Chambers Bay and Tacoma Golf & Country  Club?  A toss up. 

An example:  Brora and Royal Dornoch - a toss up.  Another:  Black Creek and The Honors Course - a toss up. 

Is the only difference bragging rights and the need to buy merchandise?

I have become a Moraine apologist, but nobody's interested that I've played there.

Hey girls and boys, how about your toss-ups?

Bogey

[Kalen Braley]

Michael,

Are you saying you'd much rather play Sand Pines, OK course on great land/location over something like Chambers Bay?

No, why introduce "OK" into the discussion?  I haven't played Sand Pines but given the grief it takes on here, I'm guessing it doesn't quality for the 5/6/7 that I had in mind.  How about Chambers Bay and Tacoma Golf & Country  Club?  A toss up. 

An example:  Brora and Royal Dornoch - a toss up.  Another:  Black Creek and The Honors Course - a toss up. 

Is the only difference bragging rights and the need to buy merchandise?

I have become a Moraine apologist, but nobody's interested that I've played there.

Hey girls and boys, how about your toss-ups?

Bogey

Sorry Bogey,


I should have specified, I was asking the other Michael... 

[Jake Marvin]

"Great" architecture is "unnecessary," but it can sure make up for a whole lot of other shortcomings. Or at least, that's my synthesis of what I've read above.

[Jeff Schley]

Great architecture is "unnecessary," but it can sure make up for a whole lot of other shortcomings.

I like this.  As a former coach, I liked the phrase: "enthusiasm is like a good coat of paint, it covers up a lot of mistakes."

[Michael George]

Kalen:


In answer to your question, the architecture must be solid.  It cannot be poorly designed.  I don't care how good the land is if the architecture sucks.


In essence, I guess what I am saying is that there are some very highly regarded golf courses that only have solid architecture, but they are put in that class because of the land.  Meanwhile, there are plenty of wonderfully designed golf courses that aren't highly regarded (even though the architect did an amazing job), because the land is boring (excluding historical courses that can overcome this due to their history).   

[Sean_A]

Michael,

Are you saying you'd much rather play Sand Pines, OK course on great land/location over something like Chambers Bay?

No, why introduce "OK" into the discussion?  I haven't played Sand Pines but given the grief it takes on here, I'm guessing it doesn't quality for the 5/6/7 that I had in mind.  How about Chambers Bay and Tacoma Golf & Country  Club?  A toss up. 

An example:  Brora and Royal Dornoch - a toss up.  Another:  Black Creek and The Honors Course - a toss up. 

Is the only difference bragging rights and the need to buy merchandise?

I have become a Moraine apologist, but nobody's interested that I've played there.

Hey girls and boys, how about your toss-ups?

Bogey

Bogey


Brora/Dornoch is a good example.  How bout Valley Links/Dunluce....ooooh. Eh...how bout Corballis/Portmarnock?  Mid Pines/#2?


Ciao 

[Mike_Young]

Good architecture is more necessary than  great architecture is unnecessary.   Playing a good solid course with in a comfortable environment is much more fun to me than a golf trip to great course where people fly thru them so they can play two a day...if all was grear the game would be gone...

[Tommy Williamsen]

The quality of the course has become more important to me in recent years. I really do not want to spend much time playing an uninteresting course. I live in a little golf/ski resort in the VA mts. The course isn't awful, maybe a 5, but I don't think I played it a dozen times last year and only when some guys "demanded" I played. I used to just love hitting a golf ball and didn't care much about the course. I wish I could go back to that, but I can't. The course doesn't have to be "great", whatever that is, it just has to hold my attention. It seems fewer and fewer courses do that.

[Ira Fishman]

The quality of the course has become more important to me in recent years. I really do not want to spend much time playing an uninteresting course. I live in a little golf/ski resort in the VA mts. The course isn't awful, maybe a 5, but I don't think I played it a dozen times last year and only when some guys "demanded" I played. I used to just love hitting a golf ball and didn't care much about the course. I wish I could go back to that, but I can't. The course doesn't have to be "great", whatever that is, it just has to hold my attention. It seems fewer and fewer courses do that.

I agree. The downside of getting to play some very good courses (they do not need to be great) is that mediocre courses do little for me.  I would rather go to the range to get the enjoyment of hitting balls.


Ira

[Jeff_Brauer]

I agree with Mike Young on this one.  By human (ranking) nature, we all tend to put one above another, or as he says, if everything is a 9, there are no 10's, right?


The same thing has happened to individual courses, trying to eliminate less spectacular holes.  Thinking PGA West for one example.  Each one is engineered to be visually spectacular, but after a while, the all run together.  Few would consider a bland hole in this day and age to make the holes around it stand out.


And, I have agreed with this from day one on this site.  For your everyday course, muni or affordable club, 7 architecture really is 10 architecture, i.e., form follows function. And part of that function is speed of play, easier maintenance, playability, etc.  For those who need examples, what TD did at PD or any of his other destination resorts would not be applicable at Common Ground, so he designed it with his target audiences.  Which of course, could be defined as great in its own context.


For that matter, sites matter to great architecture.  One reason Torrey Pines or Sand Pines are not liked is the sites are 10 and the designs really don't even get to 9 or 8 on the scale.


So, it is certainly situational, but like Mike says good is more a requirement to enjoyment than great.  As architects, I wonder if the old saying of "Don't let perfect be an impediment to good" applies?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()