Cult Courses, Architectural Wastelands, and Serious Criticism

[Tom_Doak]

Challenges like that appeal to me because A) opportunities are good and B) I'm confident in my problem solving skills to come up with something unique and cool. Curious if those opportunities appeal to more established architects, however? Does the challenge of solving a unique problem offset the limitations that come with taking on the work?


Makes me think of Frank Llyod Wright's Usonian homes. In 1937 Wright's friend Herbert Jacobs challenged him to build a home for $5,000. Wright hit on something cool and wound up building several dozen of these middle-income homes on unusual and inexpensive sites. I believe there's even a planned community of them somewhere in New York.

Blake:


I was thinking mostly of some of the very-low-budget places I have seen in the far reaches of my travels, where they probably didn't pay much to any architect, established or not.


Some of those things DO appeal to me, but there is something of a food chain in this business and I would hate to take that sort of work away from someone who needs it.

[Ira Fishman]

Cannot the concept of the canon apply to other spheres? It requires enough qualified critical assessment if it is to work, but theoretically there is no reason why it should not be deployed in any area of human activity.

I suppose the magazine rankings are an attempt to establish "the canon" of golf architecture, but as has been noted, it would be much easier to agree upon if newish courses weren't allowed.  Instead, there is a concerted push to put new courses into the list to keep the debate raging.


Also none of the rankings do much in the way of qualified critical assessment.

Correct. Which suggests that there is insufficient true critical assessment of golf architecture to evolve a canon. But it does not deny its theoretical possibility.

Adam,


What is your canon?


Ira

[Steve Lang]

I want to give this a bit more thought but I have 2 quick observations.  First, regarding the music analogies I tend to think of the architect as being closer to a jazz musician than a rock musician or a classical musician. The jazz musician can write his own music or he can take the chord structure of a standard and improvise to make it his own.  Similarly, an architect can take themes that have been used by others and, depending on the property and his/her particular tastes and talents, improvise and make something that is uniquely theirs.  This ability to take something familiar and make it your own is a special talent both in jazz and in GCA.  It is distinct from playing a "cover".


Second, the great period for serious criticism was in the Golden Age when there were fewer "rules" and the architects were trying to figure out what made a course great.  Less history, fewer preconceptions, and a smaller industry made for greater freedom in analysis.  When the turn to "minimalism" came, it was a rejection of several decades of thought and an attempt to return to some of the Golden Age verities.  The problem is, just as in the Golden Age, there remains significant disagreement as to the validity/identity of the "verities".  I really don't think the ratings try to address this issue notwithstanding their criteria.

  SL_  I like these thoughts and agree that jazz really starts with a framework that quickly moves to full improvisation, but only repeating itself to be commercial.  The best rarely play the same thing or same way twice, it depends on how they feel and find a pocket to groove in, I see the gca or shaper making his way as fits the site  terrain from tee to green to tee etc., playing/carving the slopes akin to modulating between scales.  Each site's problems are there to be reconciled, like resolving a scale starting on the dominant 5th degree, is that a mixolydian template with a ii versus iii or something from CBM?


Cover bands and classical musicians have to play all the right notes, else they're not being authentic.  They may have high degree of skill, but can't get outside the box of expectations.   


Peter P., one needs to seek truth and knowledge, the qualitative and quantitative to make imaginary determinants in the complex domains

[John Kirk]

PS - as to the musical references mentioned above, would restorations, renovations, changes etc etc to existing golf courses be akin to ‘covers’ of songs?

No, those would be akin to remastered versions.
 

[Ronald Montesano]

Ran doesn't profile sh!te or banal courses. Ran doesn't interview anyone but rock stars. Would we continue to read if he did?

[Tom_Doak]

Ran doesn't profile sh!te or banal courses. Ran doesn't interview anyone but rock stars. Would we continue to read if he did?

Actually you learn a lot by seeing what not to do.


Plus, even a lot of great courses have a poor hole or two.  Ran's reviews just skip over them.

[John Kirk]

The architects have a superior understanding of golf course design and maintenance.  Still, I feel the domain of criticism belongs with the people who play the game.  They build them, and we tell them how much we like them.  Granted, much of what I’ve learned about golf architecture starts with the architects.  Over forty years of golf I’ve played something like four to five thousand rounds, including rounds at about a quarter of the two hundred or so best courses in the country.  My experience is probably about average among this esteemed group of analysts.  After playing so much golf, an experienced player can interpret how a golf course will play by simply looking at it.   As long as I offer simple observations based on that experience, while freely sharing my personal biases for certain types of shots, I can make thoughtful contributions to frank commentary.

John-I appreciated the entire post but wanted to drill down on this paragraph and the first couple of sentences in particular. I sure think that golf architecture is an art form inasmuch as the pure pleasure and range of emotion that particular holes and courses evoke. You wrote and I quote “Still, I feel the domain of criticism belongs with the people who play the game”. Anyone that has spent any amount of time on this site has learned much from industry guys and most especially from Tom Doak’s participation. That said some “hobbyists” just might have played enough courses and seen enough different architectural styles to render a reasonable opinion. I don’t think it’s necessary to completely understand the design/build process to offer an informed judgement on the finished product. The rub is that opinions will sometimes run contrary to those who profess to know the most. Frank commentary is then in the offing.

Hi Tim,

The golf course is certainly an artistic creation, but it also serves as a playing field for a game.  As a group, they are beautiful.


The majority of regular contributors are "hobbyists" like you and me, but most of us have devoted more than 10,000 hours to playing and practicing golf, the time investment that Malcolm Gladwell deems necessary to achieve mastery of a subject.  Together with our regular group of builders and designers, the players offer valuable feedback.  The players/consumers also bring expertise in a wide variety of unrelated disciplines, from all around the world. 


GCA maintains an admirable camaraderie.  We have the world's leading authority on golf course design, and dozens of talented design professionals who happily offer their lifetime of knowledge.  And there's lots of regular guys like you and me who have been playing golf and logging into GCA every day for decades.


It seems "serious criticism" is hard these days.  I believe the problem is a distrust in the motivations of the people offering negative feedback, a defensive reaction to a perceived threat.  It's a public relations issue.  To your comment, I never felt like having an opinion that was "contrary to those who profess to know the most" was discouraged.  In my experience it was having opinions that conflicted with the desires of people with a personal, financial or professional interest in a specific project.  I'll say this, though.  Every time I did shoot my mouth off, I was allowed to do so.  There are times when I wish somebody would've asked me to stop sooner.


Regardless, the mission statement is for frank commentary.  That's the goal.  If GCA isn't capable of serious criticism, then no social networking site is capable.

[Tom_Doak]

John-I appreciated the entire post but wanted to drill down on this paragraph and the first couple of sentences in particular. I sure think that golf architecture is an art form inasmuch as the pure pleasure and range of emotion that particular holes and courses evoke. You wrote and I quote “Still, I feel the domain of criticism belongs with the people who play the game”. Anyone that has spent any amount of time on this site has learned much from industry guys and most especially from Tom Doak’s participation. That said some “hobbyists” just might have played enough courses and seen enough different architectural styles to render a reasonable opinion. I don’t think it’s necessary to completely understand the design/build process to offer an informed judgement on the finished product. The rub is that opinions will sometimes run contrary to those who profess to know the most. Frank commentary is then in the offing.

Tim:


For what it's worth, I agree with you and John and others here who have said that feedback from golfers is just as important as what "expert" designers might say.  It's shocking how little chance most of us in the business have to get back to our own designs and enjoy them, much less spend enough time there to sort out whether the holes all work as we intended.  [Spending a whole week watching the Tour players tackle Memorial Park was the longest I have spent on any of my courses post-opening in ages.]  In the end, golf courses are meant to be played, and how they play is the ultimate review.


By the same token, I doubt that anyone who plays one of my holes one time is going to understand it as well as I do.  The best feedback I get on my courses is generally from members who have played the holes a lot -- enough to know if the shot their buddy hit was a fluke, or something replicable.


Also, sometimes someone here suggests a fix that just doesn't work for some technical reason, and I do feel obliged to point out those instances, whether on my own courses or someone else's.  There are factors beyond our control, that most people would never be aware of, and this is a good place to learn about those.  These factors do not invalidate the criticism that the 18th at High Pointe was a bad hole, and I should have found a different way around it; but everyone should understand how that kind of mistake happens, and that it's not always easy to fix.

[Rob Collins]

A couple of things that struck me in this thread are the discussion of truth and Tom’s acronym.
Here’s another acronym: KISS. I contend that the reason Sweetens survived and now thrives is because of the underlying architectural integrity of the golf course.  It’s natural to get distracted by the hype, the social media machine, etc., but Sweetens did something this year that no other American course can claim: we sold every available weekend tee time in a seven month span in 31 minutes. Every single one. The rest of the weekday tee times quickly followed, and the course is sold out in its entirety until sometime in November. People are flocking from all over the country to do loops on the course primarily because it asks unique and varying questions each and every time around. For the vast majority, it never gets old, and most are assured that it will challenge in a new way with each loop. While we are enjoying the current state of affairs, our reality now was most definitely not always the status quo.  Patrick and I used to lament in the early days that there were more clouds in the sky on a bluebird day than there were golfers on the course.  But, we repeatedly doubled down, knowing in our hearts that if enough people saw it, it would eventually become a sensation, and it did. It is also easy to dismiss much of the hype as a byproduct of the well-known investor group.  Of course, that has drawn attention to the golf course, but the majority of the critical acclaim that the course enjoyed was written prior to that partnership.  Regarding the concept of truth, it is Michael’s truth (and other posters on this thread) that the golf course doesn’t reward shotmaking in the way he thinks it should (among other criticisms).  It is also the truth of countless others of all playing abilities and varying degree of architectural acumen with whom I have spoken or played golf that the exact opposite of these criticisms is the truth, and I think this point touches on one of my main goals for the course from before we started construction: I’m far more interested in what the course is asking you and the impression it gives after your 100^th or 1,000^th loop than what you see on your 1^st, second, third, or fourth.  It is worth noting that I know that the course has this staying power and effect on others, for I have seen it too many times with my own eyes for it not to be the truth. To sum up, I came to realize that a thread I wrote on Twitter a year ago during the March Madness tourney by Golf Digest is relevant to the discussion.  Here it is:
 
Here’s a pic of me, my brother, & my dad on the 18th @PinehurstResort #2 during my Dad’s 75th bday celebration in 2007. That day is one of my favorite memories of him, & my architectural world changed that day too.
Every course we ever work on will have the lessons of @PinehurstResort #2 baked into it. It has had a profound effect as any in the world on my understanding & practice of architecture. So, it’s fun to see our debut effort in the Elite 8 against #2 in the @feedtheball tourney.
I’m wishing our friends @PinehurstResort good luck in the match today! If you haven’t played Sweetens, here’s a photo of the 7th green. This is but one example of the influence of #2 on Sweetens. And, if you haven’t seen Pinehurst, you need to get there ASAP!
I believe that @PinehurstResort #2 is one of the few perfect golf courses I’ve ever seen. It’s simply not possible to put a better course on that piece of ground. That perfection provided an inspiration for us at Sweetens.
Our hypothesis at Sweetens was that if you execute every tiny detail on the course & leave none behind that the sum of the details would lead to a special final product. I’m proud of our grind & determination in the face of immensely long odds & what we created.
It’ll be fun to see what happens & whether Sweetens wins or loses, I love that it made it this far. I’m also deeply thankful for the people who have supported the course through the years. Having said that (using my best Larry David voice), go vote!
PS/ As a postscript, I’d like to address the @feedtheball framing of this matchup & the underlying implication by some that the popularity of Sweetens is more a result of “group think” & less about substance. First, SC did not become an international golf destination by accident.
SC became a destination without the benefit of indoor plumbing, food and beverage service, & overnight lodging. None of this would’ve happened without a golf course that asked widely varying & distinctive questions of the golfer (architecture).
This architecture is the result of thousands & thousands of hours by a dedicated & talented team that refused to let even the smallest detail go. It was the hours that were invested in 2011/12/13/14 when no one was looking that laid the foundation for what Sweetens has become.
For Derek to dismiss this as a black & white issue of popularity v. architectural integrity is totally unfair. Every minute we sweated & toiled to create that course was because of inspiration that was derived from Pinehurst & other places that dared to pursue perfection.
Whether you like Sweetens or not (and the intention was for it to be polarizing), isn’t the point. The bottom line is that Sweetens never lets you sleep on a single shot, while allowing you to approach and recover in a multitude of ways.
And it does all of this in a unique & uncommon way, which is no easy task given that all architecture is borrowing or learning from something that preceded it.
...and we will take those accomplishments to our graves. In sum, to write it off as a popularity contest or group think betrays the monumental effort required to create the course in the first place. Win or lose, Pinehurst touches me in a way that few others do. Sweetens is another.
PPS/ I think that the @coorecrenshaw work at @PinehurstResort amounts to the greatest renovation of all time. It’s my favorite work on one of my very, very, very small handful of favorite courses in the world. Thank you for the inspiration & much respect to all involved there.

[Tim_Weiman]

I think, given the site and constraints, the golf course is terrific. I think the par-3 holes hold up incredibly well to almost anything you find on a new C&C or Doak course.

My appreciation of WP9 though does come from the entire experience, though. How can it not...small clubhouse/patio, no carts, quick play, interesting golf course, for less than $20 in a metropolitan area?

The first bit there is a very good critique, it's specific and it invites comparison.  The part about the atmosphere is fine, but seems to outweigh the first bit for too many people.

Tom,


As I expressed in a thread about a year ago, I came away from my first and only visit to Winter Park a big fan.


Was it the “architecture” that impressed me? Not really, though there a couple pretty good par 3s.


What makes the Winter Park 9 noteworthy is just how pleasantly it fits into the community. You get a sense of wishing you could live nearby and experience it on a regular basis.


Just as there should be more places like Common Ground, I’d like to see more Winter Park 9s.

[Tim_Weiman]

While there are certainly cult/niche courses out there, it goes beyond that to cult designers and even cult design takes or positions within GCA. 


Initially, while Sweeten's is certainly one of the darlings of social media, I was able to play it back in 2015 when it was relatively unknown. I certainly didn't know anything about it when I stepped out of my car.  I was supposed to play Lookout Mountain that day when we were rained out and found out that SC was open.  I went around three times and enjoyed it a lot.  Variety, character, formidable vexing greens, yet difficult to lose your ball and multiple ways to attack the holes.  I saw it as nine holes that could be as fun or as challenging as you wanted them to be and not once during those 27 holes did I have a boring shot.  It was the passion project of King and Collins, both of whom likely thought that might be their only opportunity to showcase their craft in the way they wanted and expressed it in detail throughout. 


I've wondered before, however, why a place like the Skyway course at Lincoln Park, 20 minutes from Manhattan, doesn't get similar social media treatment.  It's nine holes as well, created from a former Superfund site and is wonderfully firm and fast with wind being a factor more often than not.  It doesn't have the visual panache of SC but there isn't a public course around that plays the way it does.  Its affordability, accessibility and walkability, not to mention its location, make it worthy of a lot of attention.  Yet it doesn't have that cult status or social media pilgrimage worthy title.  My guess is this is because it doesn't need any of that.  Because of its location, its tee sheet is pretty much booked day in and day out.  It addressed an overwhelming demand in that area and is essentially accomplishing its purpose.  Corica Park South falls into this similarly, yet I imagine there are some other issues at play there. 


I see cult or niche as another word for trendy.  If one goes to Winter Park or SC and posts photos of them at the course or whatever, that will get validated a lot more than if that same person posts photos of Skyway.  Inherently, it's easier for that person to heap praise on the trendier places, which validates their troubles getting there and the experience they had.  In turn, it's easier for that person to critique Skyway because there won't be so much blowback from the masses.  This applies the same way in rankings and even exclusivity of access. 


Part of this is the individual.  Someone above essentially claims that you shouldn't be able to offer critiques of courses unless you know what you're talking about.  I know a lot of people who, even if they do have criticisms of a course or outright don't like a course, will not communicate it at all because they fear they might be missing something, or "don't get it."  Conversely, it's much easier to criticize what's trendy to criticize because there's safety in numbers.  You're much more likely to hear how Rees Jones is terrible than you are Gil Hanse.  My position is trends and social media have a lot more to do with that than we'd like to admit.  So in terms of if there's any serious criticism of course architecture, most of I see is what I'd call "safe takes."  Rees Jones is a butcher, Tom Fazio is generic with no substance, anything decrying trees or rolling back the ball, etc.  There are exceptions, of course, Tom Doak on this site will offer some interesting input from time to time and I really think Derek Duncan's podcast asks a lot of interesting questions about the state of GCA that should be discussed a lot more.  I've always tried to offer criticism in my reviews instead of avoiding it, for what it's worth.  But in addition to magazines avoiding critical pieces, you don't hear a lot of designers getting critical of each other, other projects, or their past projects.  I'm sure there's a lot of politics there and it's certainly a business but there' s a lot of protecting the field.  So what are you left with?  The guys who do know what they're talking about won't get critical of their colleagues, most major media won't go there, all because of the risk built into going against the grain.  [size=78%]  [/size]


In terms of cult/niche/trendy courses not mentioned yet, it's a long list.  Some of them deserve the accolades.  Some of them, because of a more wide spread proliferation of information, have been "discovered" by the general public.  I'd put Seth Raynor in general in this category. Some other courses off the top of my head that fall along these lines not mentioned yet I'd put Aiken Golf Club, Goat Hill, Santa Anita, Triggs Memorial and Wilmington Municipal.  I'm not addressing the merits of any of these but these and it's a small sample size.  Why are they niche or cult depends on the place.  Some time it's that sense of discovery and journey.  Perhaps, like me at SC, it's that unexpected surprise factor.  Or maybe it's simpler than that; they're courses offering really good golf that don't receive the attention many think they should.


As for rankings, they're important for certain reasons.  They are not important with respect to whether I should like the course or that the higher ranked course is "better" than those below it, but they foster discussion and attempt to put some, well, structure I suppose into the whole thing.  As someone above mentioned, rankings are all over this site and elsewhere.  Functionally, they've helped me figure out some courses to check out in an unfamiliar area.  I suppose those who know enough to ignore them can consider them trash but there's an entire group out there that have to start some where and it's helpful as a general guide in that respect. 


I wished it would be possible to play courses like a blind bourbon tasting.  The most revered or popular bourbon rarely wins out and the taster is left judging each sample on its substance alone.  Like anything else, there's a lot of other factors that typically influence one's assessment of a course, whether it's a podcast, social media, rankings, cults or even what they've seen on television. 

Chris,


You address quite a few topics in this post. Let me just briefly highlight Wilmington Municipal. It is a great piece of property in terms of topography and soil conditions. The course also offers a lot architecturally, especially the way greens are located to take advantage of the topography. Great course, IMO.

[Sean_A]

A couple of things that struck me in this thread are the discussion of truth and Tom’s acronym.
Here’s another acronym: KISS. I contend that the reason Sweetens survived and now thrives is because of the underlying architectural integrity of the golf course.  It’s natural to get distracted by the hype, the social media machine, etc., but Sweetens did something this year that no other American course can claim: we sold every available weekend tee time in a seven month span in 31 minutes. Every single one. The rest of the weekday tee times quickly followed, and the course is sold out in its entirety until sometime in November. People are flocking from all over the country to do loops on the course primarily because it asks unique and varying questions each and every time around. For the vast majority, it never gets old, and most are assured that it will challenge in a new way with each loop. While we are enjoying the current state of affairs, our reality now was most definitely not always the status quo.  Patrick and I used to lament in the early days that there were more clouds in the sky on a bluebird day than there were golfers on the course.  But, we repeatedly doubled down, knowing in our hearts that if enough people saw it, it would eventually become a sensation, and it did. It is also easy to dismiss much of the hype as a byproduct of the well-known investor group.  Of course, that has drawn attention to the golf course, but the majority of the critical acclaim that the course enjoyed was written prior to that partnership.  Regarding the concept of truth, it is Michael’s truth (and other posters on this thread) that the golf course doesn’t reward shotmaking in the way he thinks it should (among other criticisms).  It is also the truth of countless others of all playing abilities and varying degree of architectural acumen with whom I have spoken or played golf that the exact opposite of these criticisms is the truth, and I think this point touches on one of my main goals for the course from before we started construction: I’m far more interested in what the course is asking you and the impression it gives after your 100^th or 1,000^th loop than what you see on your 1^st, second, third, or fourth.  It is worth noting that I know that the course has this staying power and effect on others, for I have seen it too many times with my own eyes for it not to be the truth. To sum up, I came to realize that a thread I wrote on Twitter a year ago during the March Madness tourney by Golf Digest is relevant to the discussion.  Here it is:
 
Here’s a pic of me, my brother, & my dad on the 18th @PinehurstResort #2 during my Dad’s 75th bday celebration in 2007. That day is one of my favorite memories of him, & my architectural world changed that day too.
Every course we ever work on will have the lessons of @PinehurstResort #2 baked into it. It has had a profound effect as any in the world on my understanding & practice of architecture. So, it’s fun to see our debut effort in the Elite 8 against #2 in the @feedtheball tourney.
I’m wishing our friends @PinehurstResort good luck in the match today! If you haven’t played Sweetens, here’s a photo of the 7th green. This is but one example of the influence of #2 on Sweetens. And, if you haven’t seen Pinehurst, you need to get there ASAP!
I believe that @PinehurstResort #2 is one of the few perfect golf courses I’ve ever seen. It’s simply not possible to put a better course on that piece of ground. That perfection provided an inspiration for us at Sweetens.
Our hypothesis at Sweetens was that if you execute every tiny detail on the course & leave none behind that the sum of the details would lead to a special final product. I’m proud of our grind & determination in the face of immensely long odds & what we created.
It’ll be fun to see what happens & whether Sweetens wins or loses, I love that it made it this far. I’m also deeply thankful for the people who have supported the course through the years. Having said that (using my best Larry David voice), go vote!
PS/ As a postscript, I’d like to address the @feedtheball framing of this matchup & the underlying implication by some that the popularity of Sweetens is more a result of “group think” & less about substance. First, SC did not become an international golf destination by accident.
SC became a destination without the benefit of indoor plumbing, food and beverage service, & overnight lodging. None of this would’ve happened without a golf course that asked widely varying & distinctive questions of the golfer (architecture).
This architecture is the result of thousands & thousands of hours by a dedicated & talented team that refused to let even the smallest detail go. It was the hours that were invested in 2011/12/13/14 when no one was looking that laid the foundation for what Sweetens has become.
For Derek to dismiss this as a black & white issue of popularity v. architectural integrity is totally unfair. Every minute we sweated & toiled to create that course was because of inspiration that was derived from Pinehurst & other places that dared to pursue perfection.
Whether you like Sweetens or not (and the intention was for it to be polarizing), isn’t the point. The bottom line is that Sweetens never lets you sleep on a single shot, while allowing you to approach and recover in a multitude of ways.
And it does all of this in a unique & uncommon way, which is no easy task given that all architecture is borrowing or learning from something that preceded it.
...and we will take those accomplishments to our graves. In sum, to write it off as a popularity contest or group think betrays the monumental effort required to create the course in the first place. Win or lose, Pinehurst touches me in a way that few others do. Sweetens is another.
PPS/ I think that the @coorecrenshaw work at @PinehurstResort amounts to the greatest renovation of all time. It’s my favorite work on one of my very, very, very small handful of favorite courses in the world. Thank you for the inspiration & much respect to all involved there.

Rob, thanks. I particularly appreciate the thought of a course being perfect for a property...even though I don't believe in perfection. But the thought conveys to me the same message as nearly perfect. Although I don't believe I have seen a course I would call nearly perfect. Is perfect your truth or one of many truths?

Ciao

[Chris Mavros]

While there are certainly cult/niche courses out there, it goes beyond that to cult designers and even cult design takes or positions within GCA. 


Initially, while Sweeten's is certainly one of the darlings of social media, I was able to play it back in 2015 when it was relatively unknown. I certainly didn't know anything about it when I stepped out of my car.  I was supposed to play Lookout Mountain that day when we were rained out and found out that SC was open.  I went around three times and enjoyed it a lot.  Variety, character, formidable vexing greens, yet difficult to lose your ball and multiple ways to attack the holes.  I saw it as nine holes that could be as fun or as challenging as you wanted them to be and not once during those 27 holes did I have a boring shot.  It was the passion project of King and Collins, both of whom likely thought that might be their only opportunity to showcase their craft in the way they wanted and expressed it in detail throughout. 


I've wondered before, however, why a place like the Skyway course at Lincoln Park, 20 minutes from Manhattan, doesn't get similar social media treatment.  It's nine holes as well, created from a former Superfund site and is wonderfully firm and fast with wind being a factor more often than not.  It doesn't have the visual panache of SC but there isn't a public course around that plays the way it does.  Its affordability, accessibility and walkability, not to mention its location, make it worthy of a lot of attention.  Yet it doesn't have that cult status or social media pilgrimage worthy title.  My guess is this is because it doesn't need any of that.  Because of its location, its tee sheet is pretty much booked day in and day out.  It addressed an overwhelming demand in that area and is essentially accomplishing its purpose.  Corica Park South falls into this similarly, yet I imagine there are some other issues at play there. 


I see cult or niche as another word for trendy.  If one goes to Winter Park or SC and posts photos of them at the course or whatever, that will get validated a lot more than if that same person posts photos of Skyway.  Inherently, it's easier for that person to heap praise on the trendier places, which validates their troubles getting there and the experience they had.  In turn, it's easier for that person to critique Skyway because there won't be so much blowback from the masses.  This applies the same way in rankings and even exclusivity of access. 


Part of this is the individual.  Someone above essentially claims that you shouldn't be able to offer critiques of courses unless you know what you're talking about.  I know a lot of people who, even if they do have criticisms of a course or outright don't like a course, will not communicate it at all because they fear they might be missing something, or "don't get it."  Conversely, it's much easier to criticize what's trendy to criticize because there's safety in numbers.  You're much more likely to hear how Rees Jones is terrible than you are Gil Hanse.  My position is trends and social media have a lot more to do with that than we'd like to admit.  So in terms of if there's any serious criticism of course architecture, most of I see is what I'd call "safe takes."  Rees Jones is a butcher, Tom Fazio is generic with no substance, anything decrying trees or rolling back the ball, etc.  There are exceptions, of course, Tom Doak on this site will offer some interesting input from time to time and I really think Derek Duncan's podcast asks a lot of interesting questions about the state of GCA that should be discussed a lot more.  I've always tried to offer criticism in my reviews instead of avoiding it, for what it's worth.  But in addition to magazines avoiding critical pieces, you don't hear a lot of designers getting critical of each other, other projects, or their past projects.  I'm sure there's a lot of politics there and it's certainly a business but there' s a lot of protecting the field.  So what are you left with?  The guys who do know what they're talking about won't get critical of their colleagues, most major media won't go there, all because of the risk built into going against the grain.  [size=78%]  [/size]


In terms of cult/niche/trendy courses not mentioned yet, it's a long list.  Some of them deserve the accolades.  Some of them, because of a more wide spread proliferation of information, have been "discovered" by the general public.  I'd put Seth Raynor in general in this category. Some other courses off the top of my head that fall along these lines not mentioned yet I'd put Aiken Golf Club, Goat Hill, Santa Anita, Triggs Memorial and Wilmington Municipal.  I'm not addressing the merits of any of these but these and it's a small sample size.  Why are they niche or cult depends on the place.  Some time it's that sense of discovery and journey.  Perhaps, like me at SC, it's that unexpected surprise factor.  Or maybe it's simpler than that; they're courses offering really good golf that don't receive the attention many think they should.


As for rankings, they're important for certain reasons.  They are not important with respect to whether I should like the course or that the higher ranked course is "better" than those below it, but they foster discussion and attempt to put some, well, structure I suppose into the whole thing.  As someone above mentioned, rankings are all over this site and elsewhere.  Functionally, they've helped me figure out some courses to check out in an unfamiliar area.  I suppose those who know enough to ignore them can consider them trash but there's an entire group out there that have to start some where and it's helpful as a general guide in that respect. 


I wished it would be possible to play courses like a blind bourbon tasting.  The most revered or popular bourbon rarely wins out and the taster is left judging each sample on its substance alone.  Like anything else, there's a lot of other factors that typically influence one's assessment of a course, whether it's a podcast, social media, rankings, cults or even what they've seen on television. 

Chris,


You address quite a few topics in this post. Let me just briefly highlight Wilmington Municipal. It is a great piece of property in terms of topography and soil conditions. The course also offers a lot architecturally, especially the way greens are located to take advantage of the topography. Great course, IMO.

Hey Tim, it was certainly a longer post than normal for me.  I'd really like to get to Wilmington to check it out.  I've heard nothing but good things about the courses I mentioned and would like to see them for myself.  I grew up fairly close to Santa Anita and have played it several times.  It's worth checking out for sure. 

[Jason Thurman]

• As a guy with two English Lit degrees, I can appreciate a canon's ability to provide a little conversational direction when you meet someone else who appreciates literature. But it's not really necessary in a field as narrow as golf course architecture. There are more books at my local library than there are golf courses in the world.
• I love Bob Dylan more than most, which is why it's hilarious to me when old guys try to use him as a trump card to prove that nobody's any good at writing songs anymore, or whatever they think their point is. "Pop music today is a joke!" yells the Boomer as the hook implores him to "Sit down... be humble." Anybody who really thinks Bringing it all Back Home is objectively better than Folklore has frogs inside their socks. Isn't there a Dylan song about times changing or something?
• This thread calls out the issue of lack of serious criticism. I'd call out that it hasn't stimulated any real criticism among its replies, although it has stimulated some wild tangential thought. I just want to call out Rob Collins' post. I played Sweetens during grow-in, 8 years ago nearly to the day. More and more, that cold morning feels like the closest I ever came to falling in love with a band in a club and watching as they became stars over the years. I posted about it at the time. I'll see if I can find the thread. I would humbly suggest that it offered some real criticism. It was based on my experiences playing a ball over the growing-in course with a group.  I don't think criticism is that hard to drum up, but I do think it requires you to really think about the golf, and not just fall back on tropes, rules of thumb, and a fear of disagreeing with the published "right answers."
• Honestly, if I think about it, we practically never discussed "quality" in a university-level English Literature class. Certainly not "relative quality" - there was never a discussion at the end of a semester where we ranked the 15 books we had read.  Meanwhile, that feels like the only damn discussion that ever happens around here sometimes. The simple step might be to stop worrying so much about whether this course or that course is "better," and worry more about the elements of the architecture that influence a given course's character, central challenges, themes, etc. I love the thumbs up/down system, but that was just a way to summarize Gene and Roger's takes, not the entire conversation.

[Tim Martin]

The original Confidential guide was written by Tom Doak with the bulk of the critiques based on a one time play and it is purported that some courses were not seen in their entirety. That means more to me now than it did when I first picked it up. I’m a fan of the volume because it’s ballsy and unfiltered but the best part for me was learning of the existence of courses that I was previously unaware of as opposed to the critiques themselves.

[Tom_Doak]

The original Confidential guide was written by Tom Doak with the bulk of the critiques based on a one time play. It is purported that some courses were not seen in their entirety while others were seen “over the fence”.

There were maybe 10-20 courses in the original book where I stopped short of walking all 18 holes for some reason -- usually because they were quite busy and I would be getting in the way.  It's possible I missed a cool hole on one or two of those.  But if I hadn't seen it all I would have been much more general in my critique.


There were zero courses that I posted a review of that I only saw "over the fence" -- there were a few that I drove up, took one look, skipped and did not review -- so whoever "purported" that is a liar.

[Tim Martin]

The original Confidential guide was written by Tom Doak with the bulk of the critiques based on a one time play. It is purported that some courses were not seen in their entirety while others were seen “over the fence”.

There were maybe 10-20 courses in the original book where I stopped short of walking all 18 holes for some reason -- usually because they were quite busy and I would be getting in the way.  It's possible I missed a cool hole on one or two of those.  But if I hadn't seen it all I would have been much more general in my critique.


There were zero courses that I posted a review of that I only saw "over the fence" -- there were a few that I drove up, took one look, skipped and did not review -- so whoever "purported" that is a liar.

Tom-I amended my post to remove the “over the fence” comment. I’m happy to hear that wasn’t the case.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Started to think of a sound bite answer while drinking coffee (and Baileys!) Sunday.  Why aren't there serious criticisms of golf course architecture and/or courses? Perhaps, and I hate to say this, the field just doesn't deserve it, in the bigger picture, not here?


Of course, most critiques and even fields of critiques begin with true believers and passionate people, which I believe pertains to Whitten, Klein, Doak, and a few others.  And, that is how it generally is.  That said, the field is relatively unimportant, if you go by how many it really affects (10% of US population at most) and as a result, few do it, and even fewer are held accountable by an irate public.......which tends to NOT increase the reliability/credibility of those critiques.


BTW, Congrats to Rob Collins on Sweetens Cove, it looks like a great project, even if it is out of the box and doesn't please everyone.  That was Mac's definition of greatness, or at least one of them.

[Tim Martin]

This thoughtful post provoked me to chime in with my lingering malaise about the faux criticism posted here. It seems like every day somebody posts a list seeking bit of near triviality. Like:


Best two or three hole loops.
Three or more course clubs.
Best nine hole courses.
Cult following courses.
Tough greens on par 3’s or 5’s.
Greatest courses not named after their location.
Top Ten in Your Town.
Most underrated courses.
Most overrated courses.
Courses where you are allowed to play all day.
Courses you would play every day.   
Best American links.
Faux links courses.
Real links gems.
Best Irish courses.
Best Australian courses.
Great courses nobody ever talks about.
Overly penal courses.
Great courses on indifferent landforms.
Indifferent courses on great landforms.


Don’t get me wrong: I plead guilty to engaging in this rote behavior. Years back I started a few threads dubbed Mister Lister seeking such information.


It just seems that the collective obsession with ranking and rating has turned into perseverating instead of golf architecture perspicacity.


Glad I got that off my chest. What are the highest rated courses that you wish you hadn’t played?  😅

Judge-I think the volume of the types of threads you are lamenting above has some correlation to COVID-19. The boredom that has ensued as a result of societal limitations has prompted even more of what we love here the most-Lists and Rankings.

[Jason Thurman]

I’m with The Judge. We have lost sight of analysis and examination in favor of just jumping straight to rating and ranking.


It’s not a new trend. I’ve had some great discussions of the intricacies of different holes and courses over the years, but it feels like I wade through 100 threads like those Terry points to on the way to each of those nuanced ones.


We far too often confuse “understanding architecture” with “knowing how to parrot the favored lists and Doak Scale ratings of courses.” I once asked a GCAer playing partner what he thought of a course he had played earlier that morning. He replied “It’s a 6.” I can’t imagine a more boring answer. I’d never get such lack of insight from a retail golfer.


Bloom identifies 6 levels of understanding. Traditionally, it goes Knowledge > Comprehension > Application > Analysis > Synthesis > Evaluation. We have a collective bad habit of jumping straight to Evaluation, while skipping the really interesting bits (Application, Analysis, and Synthesis, for me).

[Lou_Duran]

The original Confidential guide was written by Tom Doak with the bulk of the critiques based on a one time play. It is purported that some courses were not seen in their entirety while others were seen “over the fence”.

There were maybe 10-20 courses in the original book where I stopped short of walking all 18 holes for some reason -- usually because they were quite busy and I would be getting in the way.  It's possible I missed a cool hole on one or two of those.  But if I hadn't seen it all I would have been much more general in my critique.


There were zero courses that I posted a review of that I only saw "over the fence" -- there were a few that I drove up, took one look, skipped and did not review -- so whoever "purported" that is a liar.

I have no idea who Tim Martin was alluding to, but on the subject of criticism, I have noted in the past that my copy of the "Confidential Guide" had a rating for the Scarlet course at Ohio State based on what a credible source described as an "over the fence" look.  Specifically, "purportedly", the evaluation was made from information garnered around the mostly fenced-in pro shop area overlooking the 10th tee and fairway, the 18th green and approach, and the 9th green from below grade.  My memory is now less exact on the rest of that communication and what was said about a number of other courses, but the site visit may have included a walk to the starter's shack which would have provided views of #1 tee and a better look at #9 green.


I am not courting controversy here, but if it is me being purported to be a "liar", I suppose that I can reveal my source of that information.  Not being of the kiss & tell type, I'd rather not, but most would deem it to be unimpeachable.


The subject matter does bring to mind the old joke: "You can drink a man's whiskey, have relations with his wife, but never, ever criticize his golf course".  I think that most people believe that they are open-minded and have thick skin.  That has not been my experience.  I've seen previously warm relationships cooled beyond repair due to comments meant in friendly, "open and frank" discussions.  The fact is that we like the +1s a lot.  We have much more affinity for the sycophants than for those willing to offer opinions which counter our "canon".  Even constructive criticism sandwiched between slices of effusive or benign praise is at times met with hostility.


I do like the notion that the malaise is attributed to Covid.  Why not.  Every other excess is.   

[MCirba]

This isn't rocket science.

[Joe_Tucholski]

Places like Pebble and Pinehurst have not only been able to stand the test of time, they've thrived because of it, demanding $500 a round with a constantly full tee sheet. While other high-profile venues from the past 20-30 years have dramatically fallen off in stature.

If Pebble and Pinehurst didn't host PGA events (more importantly US Opens) do you think they'd be able to charge $500/round?


Similarly if Sweetens didn't have youtube/@twitter/#instagram stars making videos or posting photos at the course does anyone think they would be sold out through November?


Which is more important for financial success, good architecture or good marketing?  Both is obviously ideal.

[Ben Hollerbach]

What you say above is very spot on.  The model of my generation is not a sustainable model for many.  And sadly, most of the golfers of my generation base quality via maintenance level which is way out of hand.  What intrigues me about these places is the way they are embraced.  It is sustainable in communities and while there will always be superbly maintained destinations etc, these types of places can be enjoyed by more people and allow golf to continue.   GOOD POST   JMO

At one point in time 9 hole courses greatly outnumbered 18 hole courses in this country and in many ways the game may have been better for it. Then the public was told that 9 holes wasn't regulation golf and you had to play 18. So anything other than 18 was viewed as inferior and not championship caliber. I don't remember who said it, but I recently read a comment about the post war golf boom in the 50's and 60's that said players of that time didn't care so much for how good the course was, they just wanted courses to play. This new batch of courses are embracing their unique position within the game and promoting it as an asset. They don't shy away from being less than 18, they showcase the game in a different light and promote the course as a better playing field for enjoyment. The old guard may view them as breaking the rules, but the public is clearly latching onto their promotion of enjoyment and flexibility of play.

Is that really true for Sweetens? It's in the middle of nowhere and my understanding is that a significant amount of their play comes from non-locals (people driving from places like Atlanta and Nashville, not to mention players stopping by on longer trips to other places).

I could be wrong about that, but if it's true, I think it would be hard to argue it's any kind of community center.

Ed,


By community I wasn't solely speaking of the local population. While Winters Park has directly positioned themselves as the neighborhood course, Sweetens and Goat Hill has worked really hard to tap into a greater golf community. Sweetens is a destination course but it's not just one or two players making the trip, its groups of 8 or more than are driving up from Atlanta to play. Players as Sweetens embrace the low key feel and like to share their experience with all that's playing that day.

[Tom_Doak]

At one point in time 9 hole courses greatly outnumbered 18 hole courses in this country and in many ways the game may have been better for it. Then the public was told that 9 holes wasn't regulation golf and you had to play 18. So anything other than 18 was viewed as inferior and not championship caliber. I don't remember who said it, but I recently read a comment about the post war golf boom in the 50's and 60's that said players of that time didn't care so much for how good the course was, they just wanted courses to play. This new batch of courses are embracing their unique position within the game and promoting it as an asset. They don't shy away from being less than 18, they showcase the game in a different light and promote the course as a better playing field for enjoyment. The old guard may view them as breaking the rules, but the public is clearly latching onto their promotion of enjoyment and flexibility of play.

I agree with all of this, and I think that in general, young architects should seek out nine-hole and short-course projects to show what they can do.  It is much easier on such projects to flaunt the "rules" of design because most of the customers are not so worried about the score they post, which has been the single biggest road block against innovation in design for the last 100 years or so.