Ballyneal is the best modern design on the planet. Discuss.

[Tom_Doak]

.... It's amazing what people can come up with to justify their love.

Ahhhh, therein lies the rub...


I think most people decide what a course is after playing it, often times even just once. Then every thought thereafter becomes an exercise in confirming what they felt/saw. I think it is the rare individual - on here, in rankings panels, writing for mags, whatever - who plays a course, thinks about it, plays it again, thinks about it again, walks it, thinks about it, etc etc, before coming up with a conclusion.


There's a practical reason for this - most of us simply don't have the time or resources to to take the latter approach.


But that's all the more reason to seek those who do the former, read their thoughts, think about them, evaluate them in the context of your experiences, etc etc.


Most life is about two things: denial and confirmation bias.


You can quote me on that.

I will quote you on that.


And you can quote me on this:  there are lots of people who have made up their mind about a course before they even tee off, and it's confirmation bias all the way around.


I don't think that's true of Ballyneal.  The people who like it best are those who have played it the most.

[Matt MacIver]

I don't think that's true of Ballyneal.  The people who like it best are those who have played it the most.

Well, isn’t that just homer-ism bias?  Many people at my course think the course is all-world because they know it so well and can defend all the weaknesses and identify the micro undulations. 

[John_Cullum]

I get you as far as topography, but the isolation factor is identical between Sand Hills and Dismal River, and practically as much at Ballyneal

No, not really.  Yes, you can see a couple of buildings and a hog farm from the highest points at Ballyneal, and not at Sand Hills or Dismal.  [And you see the clubhouse at Dismal from the Red course.] 

Interesting. I never really noticed that. Certainly you are correct.

[Tim Martin]

I don't think that's true of Ballyneal.  The people who like it best are those who have played it the most.

Well, isn’t that just homer-ism bias?  Many people at my course think the course is all-world because they know it so well and can defend all the weaknesses and identify the micro undulations.

Matt-I agree and would say that is true of many courses where folks have memberships and play a lot of rounds. You don’t hear a lot people say of their home course “You know the more I play it the more I hate it.”

[Kalen Braley]

Seems to me that some confuse preferences with quality in conversations like this.


For the life of me, I don't get Country music in any way, shape, or form. I've tried it, will even admit a few Garth Brooks songs were catchy, but other than that, its very much in the "I don't like it" category for me.


But it doesn't follow that its crap, or less than, or inferior...its just not my cup of tea.

[Joe Zucker]

Seems to me that some confuse preferences with quality in conversations like this.


For the life of me, I don't get Country music in any way, shape, or form. I've tried it, will even admit a few Garth Brooks songs were catchy, but other than that, its very much in the "I don't like it" category for me.


But it doesn't follow that its crap, or less than, or inferior...its just not my cup of tea.

I've thought about this concept a lot recently (outside of golf architecture) and decided that the English language does not have a word for this idea.  There is no word that means "I recognize the quality of something, but do not prefer it".


Comparing Ballyneal to Pacific Dunes is splitting hairs and the courses are broadly similar in style, so I'm not sure this concept is perfect for this situation.  However, in comparing Sawgrass to Scottish courses, a person could reasonably say they prefer one to the other, while noting the quality is high in both.

[Tom_Doak]

I don't think that's true of Ballyneal.  The people who like it best are those who have played it the most.

Well, isn’t that just homer-ism bias?  Many people at my course think the course is all-world because they know it so well and can defend all the weaknesses and identify the micro undulations.

Matt-I agree and would say that is true of many courses where folks have memberships and play a lot of rounds. You don’t hear a lot people say of their home course “You know the more I play it the more I hate it.”

Sure there is homerism ... by Sand Hills members as well as Ballyneal members as well as those from your home club.  But I hear this a lot more out of Ballyneal than I do for most of my other courses - a dozen of which are private clubs - so I don't chalk it ALL up to homerism.


And anyway my response to George (which you highlighted without the context) was to draw a contrast with the sort of people who'd already decided it's place in the world before they'd ever played it at all.

[Ben Sims]

I’m fond of Ballyneal. But not for any profound reasons or subjective comparison against other modern courses. It’s actually much simpler than that. I find almost every shot I’ve hit there to be compelling and fun. It asks plenty of me from a challenge perspective, but never so much that I’m not enjoying the round. Without being hyperbolic, I think it’s perhaps the best illustration of what Renaissance Golf Design can do.



I’m not pretending that my opinion on Ballyneal is objective. All of my closest friends in golf have some sort of close connection to the club in one way or another.  Maybe the best compliment I can give Ballyneal is that of all the courses I’ve played, I want to be a member there the most. Is there any higher praise?

[Jeff Schley]

I'm here now and just finished our first round.  Going to play twice tomorrow and really like the layout.  Learning to read the greens on approaches and chips as there always seems go be a funnel side. 


Facilites are very nice and accommodations are great.  Just played prairie dunes yesterday and heading to dismal river tomorrow night .  Thinking of joining one of the three so looking forward to the comparison .  Of course there is more factors than just what course is best.  So far I prefer prairie dunes as my dad has trouble walking so ballyneal is tough on him .  Stay tuned.

[George Pazin]

I’m fond of Ballyneal. But not for any profound reasons or subjective comparison against other modern courses. It’s actually much simpler than that. I find almost every shot I’ve hit there to be compelling and fun. It asks plenty of me from a challenge perspective, but never so much that I’m not enjoying the round.

I find this deeply profound.


Perhaps it's because it's basically how I personally judge courses.


I think that also makes me a bit of an example of my own thoughts on confirmation bias....

[Emile Bonfiglio]

I just returned for 3 days at Ballyneal and have nothing but the most positive of things to say about the course. I purposely didn't study any of the holes or routing prior to the trip because I wanted to experience it with virgin eyes, I loved the experience as it unfolded before me. The course is magnificent, the vibe of the club is as chill or neat as you want it to be. There is nothing more I could want from my first time at such a well documented location.


One member of our group said, as we stood on the tee of #4, "I don't know what they've got at Sand Hills, but I've got a hard time believing it is better than this."


In that moment, it was the best course in world to me. Perhaps the next time I play Pacific Dunes with my kids on a sunny windless February day then that course will be the best in the world to me.

[Jerry Kluger]

I believe that most members at most clubs come to realize that there is one preferred way to play each hole and that is their goal each time they tee off.  On the other hand, at Ballyneal there is no prescribed method of playing each hole.  Nearly every time I've played it we played a game where low score on a hole gets to pick the tee on the next hole.  How many courses has anyone played where you enjoyed playing it no matter which tees you played.  There is also no question that there is no set way which you must play each hole as there are so many options of how you can play it. 

[JC Jones]

I believe that most members at most clubs come to realize that there is one preferred way to play each hole and that is their goal each time they tee off.  On the other hand, at Ballyneal there is no prescribed method of playing each hole.  Nearly every time I've played it we played a game where low score on a hole gets to pick the tee on the next hole.  How many courses has anyone played where you enjoyed playing it no matter which tees you played.  There is also no question that there is no set way which you must play each hole as there are so many options of how you can play it.

This can be done at any course.

[Peter Pallotta]

I don't know if JC is right or not, but if he is it casts Ran's desire to create a website dedicated to the frank discussion of quality golf architecture in a different light. Sand Hills, your local muni, my local home course, The Loop, Garden City, the width of Mammoth Dunes, NGLA -- what does it matter? Every course, if JC is right, allows you a variety of 'options' (which means 'choices', which means 'strategy'). And, according to many here, as long as there's no water, few trees, and you can never lose a ball, every golf course is 'fun' too -- though some are more/less fun than others. (Reminds me a bit of 'Animal Farm': "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.") If Ran only realized all this 15 or so years ago, he'd never have had to go to all the bother of creating this website. And even before that: those poor slobs who laboured over the World Atlas of Golf and gave such detailed descriptions of/explanations for the very best examples of golf course architecture -- they just didn't know that it just didn't matter! It makes me wonder: if JC is right, and if he and others know that he's right, why are so many trying to gain access to the top/most private clubs, or limiting their play to only the 'top 100' type courses? If we can get the same fun and options just about anywhere, is seeking 'the best' mostly just a status symbol and a bit of belt notching? If we can't separate out the architecture from the course/experience/scenery (especially during 'match play'), what have we been having 'frank discussions' about all these years?

Peter
 

[Jerry Kluger]

JC: I am not a long hitter yet I have played Ballyneal all the way back as well as forward and in both cases I had options of how to play each hole so I could make a competitive score - most other courses would not give me a prayer of playing against a longer hitter from the back tees.  So many courses make you hit it to point A and then to point B and if you don't then you are facing a very tough situation with no options.

[Sean_A]

Pietro

Who dares to be so dogmatic as to purport that only highy strategic courses (or holes for that matter) can be world class?   

BTW...I disagree with JC.  I don't believe that most come to realize there is one best way to play a hole.  I think most come to realize there is one best way for them to play on any given day. 

BTW 2..I have yet to play a course I thought was too easy.  I am more likely to proclaim a course uninteresting long before I think it too easy.

Ciao

[Mark Pritchett]

I believe JC was referring to players being able to choose where to tee off from on each hole, which can be done at any course. 


Was Ballyneal inspired by Double Eagle to forgo tee markers?

[Tom_Doak]

I believe JC was referring to players being able to choose where to tee off from on each hole, which can be done at any course. 


Was Ballyneal inspired by Double Eagle to forgo tee markers?

I had forgotten that Double Eagle didn't have tee markers.


I don't remember how we decided not to have them there.  I'd suggested it to a couple of clients over the years.  Rupert O'Neal was just far enough removed from golf to decide it was a cool idea.

[JC Jones]

My 9 year old son plays par 3s at 100 yards, the par 4s at 125 and the par 5s at 150.  The idea that the ability to drop your ball from anywhere and play the game is something unique to Ballyneal is ridiculous.  The no tee marker thing was done at Double Eagle, Dunes Club and other places prior to Ballyneal; but, its just a re-formalization of the informal way in which the game has always been played.  So whether you're a kid or an 85 year old mother-in-law, you don't need to go to Ballyneal to have fun playing.

[John Kavanaugh]

You can't play Ballyneal without going to Ballyneal regardless of the fact you can play golf just about anywhere.

[JC Jones]

You can't play Ballyneal without going to Ballyneal regardless of the fact you can play golf just about anywhere.

No doubt about that.  But, the type of golf people are talking about playing at Ballyneal as one of the reasons why Ballyneal is great, is not unique to Ballyneal.


It'd be nice to hear why, architecturally, Ballyneal is the greatest modern design in the world.  I have no doubt it is a very good golf course that is very fun to play (with the exception of Black Forest and Charlotte Golf Links, every Doak course I've played has been on the spectrum of good to phenomenal).  But so far I've heard that the width is awesome because it creates strategic decisions, but its not so wide that it sucks (like Mammoth Dunes) and that most people cant remember individual holes but they had fun playing the course.


Everything else is irrelevant.  Being a favorite place to go play golf and being the best modern design in the world aren't necessarily the same thing.

[Kalen Braley]

JC, I'll take a quick stab.


1)  First and foremost - Variety.  I know people often claim every hole is different on a course, but this is really actually true at Ballyneal, just a terrific mix of variety that holds your interest on every hole in terms of length, shot requirements, strategy, ways to play it, etc.
2) Remoteness - Yes its not quite as remote as Sand Hills, but it still ranks right up there as a cool/neat experience. We didn't get to stay on property overnight, but would have loved too and played again the next day.
3)  Lack of structured tees - Perhaps its just mental, but there is something different about not having any tees and literally picking your spot. It really gets the creative juices flowing.
4)  Fun - I've only played a handful of courses where after playing the 18th, I immediately want to go right back to the 1st tee. We only had time for 27 holes on the day I was there, and we only took 4 clubs when we did the 2nd nine and it was a blast!
5)  Greens - Outside of maybe Pasatiempo, i'm scratching my head to think of a more diverse and interesting set of greens both when considering strategy on the approach and when on them.  7 and 8 alone are almost worth the trip.

[JC Jones]

JC, I'll take a quick stab.


1)  First and foremost - Variety.  I know people often claim every hole is different on a course, but this is really actually true at Ballyneal, just a terrific mix of variety that holds your interest on every hole in terms of length, shot requirements, strategy, ways to play it, etc.
2) Remoteness - Yes its not quite as remote as Sand Hills, but it still ranks right up there as a cool/neat experience. We didn't get to stay on property overnight, but would have loved too and played again the next day.
3)  Lack of structured tees - Perhaps its just mental, but there is something different about not having any tees and literally picking your spot. It really gets the creative juices flowing.
4)  Fun - I've only played a handful of courses where after playing the 18th, I immediately want to go right back to the 1st tee. We only had time for 27 holes on the day I was there, and we only took 4 clubs when we did the 2nd nine and it was a blast!
5)  Greens - Outside of maybe Pasatiempo, i'm scratching my head to think of a more diverse and interesting set of greens both when considering strategy on the approach and when on them.  7 and 8 alone are almost worth the trip.

I'll take 1 and 5 as being to the architecture and 2-4 as being to other stuff.


1 is a great example of what I think makes for great architecture.  A course that requires a variety of shots and poses a variety of challenges is always going to be better than a course that requires driver plus mid-iron flighted to the pin.  So, the more variety and strategy, the better.


2 is another great example.  Diverse greens (not just push ups or just punchbowls, or just 3 tiered roughly round circles) makes for a fun round.  While some places have diversity, interest and restraint though, other places are over the top with several greens that are borderline-unputtable.  A 3-putt should be in play on every hole, a 1-putt should be too....

[Kalen Braley]

JC,


Fair enough, I will certainly agree that 1 and 5 are directly attributable to the architecture.  But 2 certainly adds to the experience.  Just like the town "adds" to TOC and the ocean "adds" to Pebble.... and they are inseparable.


While 4 is certainly very subjective to me and my preferences, #3 I think certainly helps. While I can't recall a lot of the tee box placements, I suspect there are at least some like the far left and back tee on 1 that introduces a completely different twist on the hole.

[Mark Pritchett]

Funny to think of all the clubs and courses spending so much money on renovations and restorations to move up in rankings when they could save a boatload and achieve better results just by scrapping their tee markers.