Is Memory A Reliable or Valid Criterion?

[Ira Fishman]

When I was young, I could remember every hole of every course for many years after I played it. The last ten years, not so much. I find myself having more positive opinions of courses where I can remember all, most, or perhaps many, of the holes even after one or two plays. I played Lahinch seven years ago, but have clear memories of every hole. I played PH 4 nine months ago, but cannot remember any hole distinctly.


Is memory just a reinforcement of first impressions or a valid criterion for evaluating the merits of a course?


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

Well it depends on whose memory . . .


I do not remember golf courses nearly as well as I used to, either.  There's just too much information up there now.  But I tend to remember anything really worthwhile or different, so while I can't tell you about every hole on the courses I saw five years ago, I can probably give you an overall view of how good they are.


In the golf course boom before the financial crisis, I did think that a lot of courses were built with features designed to be memorable, whether or not it made them play well:  ie., "there's a split fairway on #4, a bunkerless par-4 on #8, and a Biarritz green at #10."  A course like Winged Foot or Gullane #1 would score low on memorability if that's the way people remember stuff, and indeed that's the way rankings have been going for years now.  North Berwick = high memorability.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ira -
I think memory is certainly a valid criteria for *meaning* -- personal, subjective, and of the spirit.
And in turn, I think 'meaning' is a valid criteria for evaluating the merits of a course.
Peter

[John Emerson]

For me, this is usually what helps me differentiate what is good and what isn't good.  It is all subjective of course.  But the number of holes, features etc of a golf course I remember after I am done usually is a good indication.  This definitely is not always true, but many times it is.  For example, I could remember a random golf hole if I had a good laugh or something like that during my time on that hole.  It may stink architecturally speaking, but I remembered it because of the company.

[Thomas Dai]

I seem to be able to remember most courses I’ve played going back decades pretty well, hole by hole for a great deal of them. Where I tend to lapse is usually a sequence of 2-3-4 similar holes, almost always par-4’s over flatter land, where I might recall them or some of them but not in the correct order.
Holes have a habit of changing though, a new bunker here or one removed there, that type of thing.
Some courses or holes however, may well be best forgotten!
Atb

[Sean_A]

My memory for courses is fading somewhat. Although I never remembered all the details, just general stuff or things I found cool. But, remembering a lot about a course has never been high on my list of reasons to think it's good. Hell, memories are all we have either way.

I find it difficult for courses to stand out as noticeably better than other run of the mill good courses, especially as the modern conditioning ideal is not something which impresses me very often. I see few outside the 5-6 Doak range. That may be by design when I get down to it because  greatness often doesn't impress.

Ciao

[Steve Lang]

    
Memory,


Yes valid, less so reliable... though i can remember first course played with my dad in 1961, Collins Park, Toledo... i got to play from about 100 yds into the hole.  As I learned from Brad Klien at a Golfweek raters outing a long time ago, its the take-away memory that matters. 


I have fond memories of many courses and play and perhaps most, the unfinished business if ever given a second chance to play.

[Ira Fishman]

Well it depends on whose memory . . .


I do not remember golf courses nearly as well as I used to, either.  There's just too much information up there now.  But I tend to remember anything really worthwhile or different, so while I can't tell you about every hole on the courses I saw five years ago, I can probably give you an overall view of how good they are.


In the golf course boom before the financial crisis, I did think that a lot of courses were built with features designed to be memorable, whether or not it made them play well:  ie., "there's a split fairway on #4, a bunkerless par-4 on #8, and a Biarritz green at #10."  A course like Winged Foot or Gullane #1 would score low on memorability if that's the way people remember stuff, and indeed that's the way rankings have been going for years now.  North Berwick = high memorability.

NB is a good example of my question. I played it twice only last year so that does make the memory fresher. I loved the course. But I played Kingsbarns on the same trip and can remember only a few holes (a couple positive and a couple negative). It was my least favorite course on the trip. I assume I replay courses I like in my head which is why I remember them better.


Ira

[Gib_Papazian]

I am both blessed and cursed with an aspy video disk in my skull, so I tend to remember most courses with abnormal clarity and recall. That stated, the most memorable run in two distinct flavors:
[/size]
[/size](1) Unexpected love-at-first-sight layouts, with a healthy dose of quirk, variety and chutzpah - the kind of delightful surprise where you want to run straight from the 18th green back to the 1st tee, and (2) Architectural train wrecks so laughably bad they make Casey O'Callaghan look like Harry Colt - just as everyone remembers a fabulous blind date with equal facility as the chick with the tongue ring who puked in your Porsche.
[/size]
[/size]Even years later, I can still describe most every hole at Eagle Point, outside Medford, Oregon - just as I can recall each architectural imbroglio at The Ranch in San Jose, primarily because there are some things so bad, you cannot unsee it, no matter how much time has passed.
[/size]
[/size]
[/size]
[/size]