Is slumming with the "good" an acquired taste?

[Peter Pallotta]

Poster X goes on and on about value for the money and tier-3 courses and 'greatness being over-rated' -- but he's played the Old Course and Dornoch and just about all the other greats in GB&I

Poster Y suggests a visitor play and appreciate Pacific Grove and Half Moon Bay -- but he's been a welcomed guest at all of America's great & classic courses, and has long been a member of Olympic, which for me is the best U.S. Open venue ever

Poster Z travels yearly to the most far-flung bits of the British Isles to play unknown and ridiculously unkempt 9 holers -- but he lives on Long Island, for an outsider the very epicentre of North American golf, and has played the most exclusive clubs in the country 

And of course our Beloved Leader is the epitome of slumming, and even dresses the part!

See what I'm asking?

Is truly appreciating the "good" primarily a function of having had your fill of the "greats"?  Is slumming with the merely "good" a luxury that many of us have not yet earned?

And if so, what does that say about how we experience and rate golf course architecture? Is it, in truth, more about what we feel we're *lacking* than it is about what we actually *need* in a golf course? 

Just like we don't even think about eating a great meal when we've just finished having a huge dinner, is it only when that sense of lack has been satisfied that we begin to feel/know it wasn't all that important in the first place?

But/and, if it "wasn't all that important in the first place", why are we as a collective so obsessed about great courses, and the question of what makes a great course, and what great course is just about to open, and with playing the great courses?

P.S. - and if Tom D comes on here and says that good/great is 'all a matter of opinion anyway', it will settle the question for me once and for all and actually prove my point!

I'd bet a lot of money that this notion he's been pawning off on us about "opinions" hadn't even occurred to him until at least decade *after* he'd written his famous first book

   

[John Kavanaugh]

Everyone you describe rates courses for publication. Did you ever read Webster's essays on slang?

[Sean_A]

Pietro

I wouldn't say I have had my fill of the "greats".  I would say that my tolerance level of the hassles and cost involved with many of the "greats" has been pushed close to breaking point.  I certainly wouldn't call what I do a luxury, its more of a preference.  In my case, a few issues collided at the same time which really hastened my current outlook.  One of the issues was a determination to look at what exists in the ground rather than look for things I appreciate in architecture.  I think looking at Colt's work in more detail taught me that some of the time, when an archie of his calibre was involved in the design, the difference between great and good can add up to not much. Much of the time the design elements are just about the same.  It can come down to what I call a grandiose site compared to a decent site.  Grandiose may come in the form of heathland or links, but what they invariably share is a sense of place and enough space to showcase the design by using the space.  When you play some of Colt's lesser works the designs can be more functional to fit a fairly restricted amount of space. Depending on one's PoV, one might say the site is cramped or one might say it is incredible what was achieved on such a small site.  I usually take the latter PoV because I greatly admire the problem solving aspect of getting the holes, house etc into a property.  While not a Colt course, it is one reason why I think Worlington is such a great course....its pure form meets function design. 

So yes, in my case slumming with good is an acquired taste, but one that is informed by what is great. The funny thing is, I now believe my idea of great is now being informed by what is good. 

BTW...yes, I am bored with all the new course openings. That isn't to say that the work isn't superb, just that so many of the courses look so similar.  Its probably more accurate to say I am bored with naturalism. To be honest, I think for many guys on the play the new course circuit it is down to habit.  But to be honest, it also habit for me, its just that I tend to seek out old courses.   

Ciao

[Mike_Young]

Peter,Ever thought about substituting the word "women" for "course"?   Greats are over rated.

[jeffwarne]

Poster "Z" is not a rater JK


and yes to some degree I agree with the premise of the thread that most who seek the hidden gems have of course played many of the greats, but I don't think you can put any in one box.
I routinely turn down 90% of invitations to "Top 100/iconic" courses, many/most of which I've not played, just because it's not really what I like to do, as with "Top 100/major/iconic" status often goes the trappings of........edit-I'll just leave it at that.
I'm an exception, no doubt having logged 80% of my domestic non competitive rounds at a 9 hole muni over the pat 15 years whee I pay green fees every time, while being comped at "Top 100's"


In my case I'm seeking a much more low key, relaxed experience, with minimal interaction with all the otehr nonsense that so many people seem to care so much about (lockerooms, caddies, conditioning, lunch, bling,etc,)
My three favorite trips of the last 20 years have been my 9 holer Maine trip, Donegal and recently to northeast Scotland.




I'm just over the whole "show" that golf has become at so many places, and am grateful that there are so many places that are still about golf, and not all the other trappings.
Along the way I have discoverd that the golf in these uncluttered places often is remarkable, but I'm not sure one can take the word of someone who regularly plays a crabgrassed 9 holer with greens running at 5,...on purpose.


To each his own...and GCA is an incredible source for all places great and small

[Ira Fishman]

Peter,


Unlike Jeff, I probably would not turn down an invite to a top course, but only on two occasions have I sought one out--CPC (successful) and Old Town (not successful).  So I have played only a few of the top US privates.  I have played several great US public courses and several of the top GB&I courses.  But my including lesser ranked or less famous courses on our overseas trips is not a function of having my fill of great courses--there are still too many of those that I want to play at least once. We just enjoy links golf and find that one can have a wonderful experience on a course looked over by the US tour operators.


Having said that, everyone's decisions to some extent depend upon the image one wants to project even if we are not fully conscious of it.  In my case, I do get a kick of mentioning Kilspindie or Golspie to members of our club who book GB&I trips around the famous courses because it is a bit of reverse snobbery.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

I probably would not turn down an invite to a top course, but only on two occasions have I sought one out--CPC (successful) and Old Town (not successful still working on it). 

[Tom_Doak]

P.S. - and if Tom D comes on here and says that good/great is 'all a matter of opinion anyway', it will settle the question for me once and for all and actually prove my point!

I'd bet a lot of money that this notion he's been pawning off on us about "opinions" hadn't even occurred to him until at least decade *after* he'd written his famous first book

I had to dig out a copy of the original, 1988 edition to check myself before responding.  The "Introduction [and disclaimer]" states very clearly throughout that these are my personal opinions.  The money quote is at the end of the third paragraph:  "But please don't misunderstand:  these are just my opinions, and I'm not saying that mine carry any more weight than your own."


Of course most people skip the Introduction. 


As to your premise, I pretty much agree.  The part that you left out is that no one is going to take, say, Jeff's opinions of little courses in Ireland as seriously, if he had not also played enough of the anointed great courses to know what one of those looks like.  And anyway -- sad but true -- most people start on their quest by ticking off as many of the top 100 as they can, before it starts to dawn on them that there are other courses they wouldn't put in such a list, but they enjoyed just as much.  That's why it hurts my brain so much when Americans do a Troon - Turnberry - Muirfield - St. Andrews - Carnoustie - Dornoch trip and buzz right past all of the great and more authentically Scottish courses in between.


I also share your frustration about the way new courses are considered [actually, I would guess it frustrates me much more].  For too many people, the only question that matters is whether or not a new course is "great" enough to make a top 100 list, as if there was really that much room at the top.  I have never for a second expected a place like The Loop or Stone Eagle to make the top 100 lists, but they are some of my best work, and every bit as surprising and enjoyable as Golspie or Gweedore or Welshpool or any of the other courses that are suddenly anointed here as true golf experiences.


It's a shame that we can't just appreciate them all for what they are.  I do think posters X, Y and Z manage to do that, and hats off to them.  In the end, my wife is correct -- The Confidential Guide would have been a much better book without the numbers.  [It's too bad I didn't know her back then.]

[Ira Fishman]

I probably would not turn down an invite to a top course, but only on two occasions have I sought one out--CPC (successful) and Old Town (not successful still working on it). 

Tom,


LOL.  I have bid on Old Town on a couple charity auctions, but it got too pricey even for a good cause.  Pretty much gave up when
our Pro who is an officer in the Carolina PGA could not get us on despite a valiant effort.


Ira

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, gents -- very good posts, with insights/experience that are new to me.
(Tom: damn, I'm continually writing checks that my ass can't cash!)
I was particularly struck by Sean's comments on Colt's work, and how good vs great is often wholly site-dependent -- and how sometimes an appreciation of the 'architecture' (fitting the pieces beautifully together in a cramped space) outweighs an appreciation for the 'course'. (That distinction is one that I've often thought about.)
The discussion also reminds me of two friends who have each written several non-fiction books. Neither enjoyed particularly good sales when writing about subjects of deep personal interest; but then both had their best sales with books about a) Neil Young, the famous rocker, and b) the famed Canada-Russia '72 hockey series. And they both shared with me their realization, i.e. when writing about popular/famous people and events, their work was already half done, i.e. they didn't have to try to *get* the reader's attention and interest (as with more obscure subjects), they already *had* it (already built in and based not on their talent but on their subject-matter).
So if you replace writing's "popular/famous" with architecture's "seaside/sand" it might work in about the same way.
   

[Tom_Doak]

The discussion also reminds me of two friends who have each written several non-fiction books. Neither enjoyed particularly good sales when writing about subjects of deep personal interest; but then both had their best sales with books about a) Neil Young, the famous rocker, and b) the famed Canada-Russia '72 hockey series. And they both shared with me their realization, i.e. when writing about popular/famous people and events, their work was already half done, i.e. they didn't have to try to *get* the reader's attention and interest (as with more obscure subjects), they already *had* it (already built in and based not on their talent but on their subject-matter).
So if you replace writing's "popular/famous" with architecture's "seaside/sand" it might work in about the same way.
   

Yes!  Or you could just start talking about the Biarritz and the Redan, like many young golf architects [and GCA Discussion Group participants] tend to do . . .

[MCirba]

A lot of what Jeff wrote about avoiding all the BS trappings and just slinging a bag over your shoulder and taking a walk while striking a pebble with a stick towards targets really resonates with me.  (He didn't quite say that but that's what I heard.)


I agree but I also play courses through the spectrum and top to bottom of the Doak Scale because 1) it's fun, 2) I'm not sure how anyone eating only filet and lobster can fully appreciate how much better they are than (insert really bad, awful-tasting food of your choice here).


In looking over the 16 new courses I've played this year, I've assigned Doak Scale scores as follows;


4, 10, 2.5, 5, 2, 4.5, 8, 7, 6.5, 6, 5, 1.5, 5.5, 4, 6, 8


Yeah, I know the Doak Scale doesn't allow half points but I find them useful.


Of courses played this year I played prior, the only one I played multiple times this year is probably a 3, simply because I can get there in about 20 minutes from my remote house in the middle of nowhere.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ha
As I say, you're essentially sophisticates now slumming with us rabble!
I'm actually *looking forward* to all the 'BS trappings' and 'nonsense bling'.
I took up the game late and so haven't played the game all that much, but I've already had plenty of 'just slinging a bag over your shoulder and taking a walk'. 
Now I want me some of those high powered shower heads and lobster bisque! 

[Sven Nilsen]

Some of my favorite threads on GCA involve the variety of public options that get thrown out when Poster A asks the group where they should play when in City B.

[Thomas Dai]

A lot of what Jeff wrote about avoiding all the BS trappings and just slinging a bag over your shoulder and taking a walk while striking a pebble with a stick towards targets really resonates with me.  (He didn't quite say that but that's what I heard.)
I agree but I also play courses through the spectrum and top to bottom of the Doak Scale because 1) it's fun, 2) I'm not sure how anyone eating only filet and lobster can fully appreciate how much better they are than (insert really bad, awful-tasting food of your choice here).

+1 to the above.
It’s pretty easy to forget sometimes that the grass isn’t necessarily greener over the hill and how fortunate you are to play where you usually play.
Atb

[Peter Pallotta]

And totally coincidentally (or is it?) just today GOLF on-line has a new article by its panel of raters entitled “Five of the best courses you’ve probably never heard of”. It includes Formby, Sweetens Cove, the Dunes Club, Brora and Beau Desert.
Apparently it’s aimed at those who are looking for under the radar gems to tell their friends about — because, as I well know, even better than *playing* an under the radar gem is telling your friends about it.
Especially if it’s public.
And is barely maintained.
With sheep.

[Ira Fishman]

P.S. - and if Tom D comes on here and says that good/great is 'all a matter of opinion anyway', it will settle the question for me once and for all and actually prove my point!

I'd bet a lot of money that this notion he's been pawning off on us about "opinions" hadn't even occurred to him until at least decade *after* he'd written his famous first book

I had to dig out a copy of the original, 1988 edition to check myself before responding.  The "Introduction [and disclaimer]" states very clearly throughout that these are my personal opinions.  The money quote is at the end of the third paragraph:  "But please don't misunderstand:  these are just my opinions, and I'm not saying that mine carry any more weight than your own."


Of course most people skip the Introduction. 


As to your premise, I pretty much agree.  The part that you left out is that no one is going to take, say, Jeff's opinions of little courses in Ireland as seriously, if he had not also played enough of the anointed great courses to know what one of those looks like.  And anyway -- sad but true -- most people start on their quest by ticking off as many of the top 100 as they can, before it starts to dawn on them that there are other courses they wouldn't put in such a list, but they enjoyed just as much.  That's why it hurts my brain so much when Americans do a Troon - Turnberry - Muirfield - St. Andrews - Carnoustie - Dornoch trip and buzz right past all of the great and more authentically Scottish courses in between.


I also share your frustration about the way new courses are considered [actually, I would guess it frustrates me much more].  For too many people, the only question that matters is whether or not a new course is "great" enough to make a top 100 list, as if there was really that much room at the top.  I have never for a second expected a place like The Loop or Stone Eagle to make the top 100 lists, but they are some of my best work, and every bit as surprising and enjoyable as Golspie or Gweedore or Welshpool or any of the other courses that are suddenly anointed here as true golf experiences.


It's a shame that we can't just appreciate them all for what they are.  I do think posters X, Y and Z manage to do that, and hats off to them.  In the end, my wife is correct -- The Confidential Guide would have been a much better book without the numbers.  [It's too bad I didn't know her back then.]

Tom,


Proximity to a famous course that is accessible to the public probably affects why newer US courses do not get as much in way in visits even when they are very strong and enjoyable. Dormie (until it went private again) and Tobacco Road clearly benefited from proximity to PH2 just as I suspect Spyglass and the Links at Spanish Bay benefit from proximity to Pebble Beach. Would we have played Brora and Golspie if they were not close to RD?  Probably not.  Kilspindie if it were not close to NB? Because there are so few "clusters" where newer US courses are near top ranked courses other than at destinations such as Bandon, Streamsong, or Sand Valley, I think it makes it more difficult for them to attract attention.  Were Crystal Downs easy to access, everyone on this Board would play the Loop.


Plus links are so different with such wonderful names that they do have their unique attraction.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

In looking over the 16 new courses I've played this year, I've assigned Doak Scale scores as follows;

4, 10, 2.5, 5, 2, 4.5, 8, 7, 6.5, 6, 5, 1.5, 5.5, 4, 6, 8

What was the 10 you hadn't played before?

[MCirba]

Ha
As I say, you're essentially sophisticates now slumming with us rabble!
I'm actually *looking forward* to all the 'BS trappings' and 'nonsense bling'.
I took up the game late and so haven't played the game all that much, but I've already had plenty of 'just slinging a bag over your shoulder and taking a walk'. 
Now I want me some of those high powered shower heads and lobster bisque! 

Peter,


I grew up playing ramshackle public courses with greens running about 2 on the Stimpmeter.  You also had to walk uphill in both directions and trudge through pits of burning excrement to even navigate those dreamscapes. 


Seriously, they weren't much.  In high school we did get to play a few of the local private courses when we'd play economically privileged prep school teams.  Here was our home course, still in existence lo these many years later, thankfully.


https://skylinegolfcourse.net/


The first "Top 100" course I played came about a decade later and was the Concord "Monster" in upstate NY, back in the day when the top 100 was an outgrowth of GD's "Toughest 100".


I've been unbelievably fortunate over the years to have played many wonderful and architecturally noteworthy courses but there is also something in the simplicity and even modesty of these lower-budget courses available to all that I find refreshing as the game becomes increasingly costly, needlessly complex, and economically stratified.

[MCirba]

In looking over the 16 new courses I've played this year, I've assigned Doak Scale scores as follows;

4, 10, 2.5, 5, 2, 4.5, 8, 7, 6.5, 6, 5, 1.5, 5.5, 4, 6, 8

What was the 10 you hadn't played before?

Oakmont.


Wow.   Audacious.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike, all -
kidding aside, I don't think slumming with the merely good a bad thing. In fact, at the heart of my OP (and reference to 'truly appreciating' the good) lies my assumption that thoughtful people are able to value & recognize great *golf* -- wherever they may find it -- much more than I do, precisely because they've played plenty of great *courses*.
P     

[Tom_Doak]

thoughtful people are able to value & recognize great *golf* -- wherever they may find it -- much more than I do, precisely because they've played plenty of great *courses*.
 

Absolutely.  Most people don't know what to say unless there is already a ranking they can second.  And few have the guts to anoint an unknown course as "great" before they have established their own credibility with the conventional choices.


Crystal Downs is a great example of that.  Thirty years ago, very few of the members would have identified it as "great".  It was just a summer club for them, and most of them were members in St. Louis or Indy or Chicago or Detroit, but not so much members of the elite courses - I think they only had one member from Oakland Hills, for example.  So they were in no position to make pronouncements of how great the course was; they needed people like me and Ben Crenshaw to show up and tell them what we thought of it.


Of course, once it got on that path, it had MacKenzie and Maxwell and all those unique holes on the front nine going for it, and it went from nowhere to the top 25, instead of "the merely good".  And as much as I love the place, I wonder if it would really be rated above Brora, if it wasn't for that pedigree.  [Don't get me wrong -- I think it's better -- but I don't think that others would have been so convinced.] 

[Tim Martin]

And totally coincidentally (or is it?) just today GOLF on-line has a new article by its panel of raters entitled “Five of the best courses you’ve probably never heard of”. It includes Formby, Sweetens Cove, the Dunes Club, Brora and Beau Desert.
Apparently it’s aimed at those who are looking for under the radar gems to tell their friends about — because, as I well know, even better than *playing* an under the radar gem is telling your friends about it.
Especially if it’s public.
And is barely maintained.
With sheep.

Peter-What you are describing is a a dare to dream scenario for the hipsters. Adding drones, dogs, (preferably of the short haired hunting variety) trestle sticks, and a strategically placed mashie niblick are always a nice addition for a Instagram shot. These guys excel at “staging”.

[Thomas Dai]

Crystal Downs is a great example of that.  Thirty years ago, very few of the members would have identified it as "great".  It was just a summer club for them, and most of them were members in St. Louis or Indy or Chicago or Detroit, but not so much members of the elite courses - I think they only had one member from Oakland Hills, for example.  So they were in no position to make pronouncements of how great the course was; they needed people like me and Ben Crenshaw to show up and tell them what we thought of it.

Of course, once it got on that path, it had MacKenzie and Maxwell and all those unique holes on the front nine going for it, and it went from nowhere to the top 25, instead of "the merely good".  And as much as I love the place, I wonder if it would really be rated above Brora, if it wasn't for that pedigree.  [Don't get me wrong -- I think it's better -- but I don't think that others would have been so convinced.]

This is a very good point.
Many courses don’t realise how good or how special they already are. And the merit of many of these has fortunately been highlighted herein and elsewhere over the years.
Some courses/clubs however, do have a tendency towards hyper-inflated thoughts of how grand and important they consider themselves to be
Atb

[Jeff Schley]

So much for me is about playing with my Dad/Brother.  When I have time to play it is usually with them and have a spirited game just about anywhere in a friendly competition. I do love playing great historic venues, but I'll quote the movie into the wild at the end....."happiness only real when shared."