[Sean_A]

Ira - and that's really good too, even if you hadn't used an analogy so close to my heart. But just to say: while I *knew* that Hawkins' Body and Soul was a masterpiece the first time I heard it (heck, the first time I heard the first eight bars), I could know it with such certainty/authority only because I'd listened to many hundreds of hours of jazz music and many dozens of sax solos before hand. Might your experience with Lady Day and God Bless the Child by similar, or was it different?
Btw, just for you:
Lady Day and Pres (and others) together:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TaPIyo51cr4

I find myself going back to this video fairly often. Thanks.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Of course you are right. But I think we also evaluate courses against our ideals. And for that you don't need to see hundreds of courses.

That's not even about the golf course.  It's just a treatise about your ideals.  I hate it when people do that instead of looking at what's in front of them.

[Sean_A]

Of course you are right. But I think we also evaluate courses against our ideals. And for that you don't need to see hundreds of courses.

That's not even about the golf course.  It's just a treatise about your ideals.  I hate it when people do that instead of looking at what's in front of them.

I am not fond of it either, but I find myself doing it at practically every course I visit where trees are present or rough is allowed to grow. I don't much see the point in acting like these issues don't seriously impact the quality of the course and my enjoyment. It's much easier for me to look past indifferent features if it isn't a rampant situation.

Ciao

[Adam_Messix]

For most courses I think the answer is yes if you take enough time to look around and not rush through the round. 


However, my experience is that the truly great courses get better the more times you play it and the just misses do not.  There is the more easily visible stuff like different hole locations and wind.  You see more subtle vagaries and angles of play the more you play the best of the best.  I have learned something new every single time that I have played National Golf Links and Royal Melbourne West.  That is what separates them in my mind.

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean, Ira -
I transcribed Lester Young's solo. Technically speaking, it is very simple to play -- even I can play it! But to conceive of it, to make it up on the spot, at that moment for that song and with the way Lady Day was singing and phrasing it, all while following that burly solo by the always excellent Ben Webster, and all in Pres' poignant and tender tone and timbre -- well, that's one in a million. (He was one of Benny Goodman's favourite musicians; hearing Pres playing a battered old metal clarinet once, but playing with such melodic inventiveness and lyrical charm, Goodman gave his own clarinet to Lester right on the spot.) That's why Billie Holiday nicknamed him Pres, for president of the saxophone, while he gave her the name Lady Day. I think she tried to sing like he played, and he tried to play like she sang. To your point about bringing our own ideals / sense of absolute (rather than relative) greatness to the table: I have to admit - I'd think that I'd call that a perfect performance even if I'd never heard another one before. And I think there were/are architects whose genius sometimes manifested not in the complexity of their ideas but in how they found a feature or golf hole or routing that fit the moment-land perfectly. And I suppose I'd like to believe that, if I can across an example of that kind of perfect moment, I could recognize and appreciate and 'evaluate' it despite the fact that I've seen so few great courses.

[Tim Gallant]

Ally - and that is a very good rejoinder to Ulrich's very good counter-argument. I'd just suggest that your posts (like many others in this thread) seem to think evaluation is an 'absolute' rather than 'relative' term / process / judgement, as if we can play a course (once or several times) and evaluate it 'purely', as a one-off, *on its own merits*, and without reference (consciously or not) to any or all the other courses we've played.
I just don't think it works that way. The 'relative value' of a course is what we're actually evaluating (whether we realize and intend it or not), and that's why I likely wouldn't be very good at it, ie because I only have 100 courses and only 1 of the Top 10 to 'compare' it to
instead of 1000 courses and all 10 of the Top 10
It isn't seeing a course 'once' that's the problem, it's not seeing enough *other* courses, even once, that's the problem.
 

Peter,


Tom wrote about this weeks ago, but that's why the Doak Scale is interesting (or similar rating criteria). There could in theory be 50 9s, or 150. One isn't predicated upon the other, which I quite like and means you don't muddy evaluation with ranking, which many do.


That's why I think it's so thrilling to see a true new course, where no one has set preconceived expectations, and made comparisons - it's there for you to evaluate it based on its own merits.

[Thomas Dai]

If a course is a 10 and it's then restored/renovated (or whatever 'r' word one wants to use) does it afterwards become an 11? (or 10.1 etc)?
Or looked at another way, if a 10 course needs any 'r' work done then maybe it's not really a 10?
atb

[Kyle Harris]

Absolutely. And you can also re-evaluate it on subsequent plays.

You'd have to be dead to not evaluate it on one play.

[Ronald Montesano]

We have five senses. We interact differently, with greater or lesser profundity, with one more than the others.

Taste, Hearing, Vision, Touch, Smell

We assess a song with hearing, but also touch. If we are present in its live performance, we add vision to that evaluation, but just for that performance.

We appraise food with taste, but also smell, vision, touch, and even hearing.

Why do we do these things? We cannot restrain our senses from doing what they do, unless we have an agenda that demands such restrictions. We interpret without hesitation, without deflection, even without compunction, because that is the human way.

How do we play a golf course? Some play with no thought beyond the strike, the trace, the movement, the reaction of the ball, the result and the consequence. These are the players, the golfers. They don't can't explain golf, but they know it when they see it. Others play with an eye toward preserving what they encounter. These are the artists, the photographers, and the creative writers. More play with a mission of grading on a scale. They have been tasked, professionally or personally, with holding each course against another, against a few, against all the others.

I hope that these words contribute to the canon of this thread. I hope that these words contribute to the canon of this thread.

[Mike_Young]

Sure you can evaluate a course in one visit but is it a good evaluation.  Evaluations are only as good as the evaluator.  AND IMHO it is a subjective matter and not an objective matter.  For instance, not many people can block out maintenance conditions when evaluating even when they think they can.  And even more than maintenance..most can't block out the architect name...so choose carefully the evaluator you listen to...there are some spankers out there. ..

[JMEvensky]

Sure you can evaluate a course in one visit but is it a good evaluation.  Evaluations are only as good as the evaluator.  AND IMHO it is a subjective matter and not an objective matter.  For instance, not many people can block out maintenance conditions when evaluating even when they think they can.  And even more than maintenance..most can't block out the architect name...so choose carefully the evaluator you listen to...there are some spankers out there. ..

I see it the same. If an architect or someone fluent in the language is doing the evaluation, I'm more interested in the opinion. A lay person most likely only sees the golf course through the prism of his own game.

[SL_Solow]

Peter, As usual, when analogizing jazz and golf, you speak my language, particularly when talking about Lady Day and Prez.  But I take exception to your suggestion that anyone would recognize their brilliance together.  Anyone with an appreciation for the art form is likely to respond as we do.  However, there are those who do not "like" or appreciate jazz.  The subtlety of the interplay between the tenor accompaniment and the vocal improvisation is lost.  Thus they may evaluate a performance on the first hearing but the evaluation lacks any substance.  It is valid for them but there is no consideration of the work on its own merits.  They just don't like jazz.  Similarly, there are golfers with fixed views of what is "good".  They can evaluate many courses after one play (maybe even before) because they have preconceived notions of what is good.  Candidly, so do a lot of us who all but automatically diss work by certain architects because of their style rather than examining each course as a separate entity and before considering any constraints inherent in the project. As to the larger question, of course one can evaluate a golf course on one play and too often it is the only chance we get.  But multiple plays in differing conditions will yield a much more fulsome understanding and evaluation.  I suspect that the better the course, the more this holds true.  I also believe that the best evaluators are able to see in their mind's eye what a course would play like in different conditions and thus their first take is closer to a final evaluation than many others.

[Peter Pallotta]

Shel, +1 on the entire post, and I think the most important point you raised is the impact on evaluations of bringing fixed / preconceived notions of what is good to the table. My goodness, does that ever *not* happen?

[Paul Jones]

Some courses yes, some no.  Links courses sometimes need multiple rounds, especially if/direction of the wind.

[Paul Rudovsky]

So lots of people think you can evaluate a course with one play.  Sure you can, why couldn't you.  The question really should be, how accurately/confidently can you evaluate a course with one play?  Let me put this into perspective; if you were asked to play 100 different courses (each one time), could you accurately and confidently list them from best to worst in numerical order?  Good luck with that   [/color]That is basically what most of the Top 100 lists reflect as very few raters play the courses they are rating more than one time.


Mark--Frankly, I have tried to rank courses ...most of which i have played multiple times...on a 1-100 ranking and failed at it...because day to day my mood and likes/dislikes [/size][/size]change (not wildly...but enough to move the rankings a little).  [/color][/size]But IMO that does not invalidate the ratings process.  There reason is the law of large numbers...and the number of rankings that are used to come up with a magazine's rankings.  No question playing a course multiple times refines one's thoughts...and in rare occasions can change them drastically.  But the reality is that golf takes about 3-4 hours per round, most of us have other responsibilities for most of our lives (I have been lucky to have been retired since 2008 with the means to travel and a wife who enjoys accompanying me on interesting trips...she plays as   well...) but even though I have played almost 1400 golf courses that is only about 4% of the world's courses...and I don't have the time to play them all multiple times.  Very very few can play most of the great ones and play them all multiple times.  [/color][/size]What the rating panels do is collect a reasonably large number of panelists whose "patterns" of play are most likely very varied and in the aggregate between all the panelists there is coverage of close to all real candidates over multiple rounds.  [/color][/size]That said, it obviously is important that the quality of the panel members is high...a large panel of golfers who have little understanding of the game will most likely produce an awful list.[/color][/size]Lots of very interesting thoughts and messages in this thread.[/color][/size][/font]

[Sean_A]

People mention it, but I have a case in point. Porthcawl has forever been a course I thought was good, but not special. Yet, I continued playing it over the years and in the past few years it seems to have clicked with me. Trying to see courses with fresh eyes each time has paid off for me because I now know Porthcawl is an excellent course. It's only taken 25+ years to come to that conclusion.

Ciao

[Tim_Weiman]

Recent thread talked about this but to say it again, the best golf courses need to be studied multiple times to be learned.  I don’t think any architect would be happy for a golfer to come off their course after one round and say they figured everything  out their first time around    It would be ok to say you loved it but that is another matter.  As I said last week in a thread, Bobby Jones walked off The Old Course the first time he played it and called it a cow pasture (he hated it).  It became his favorite golf course in time and he modeled Augusta after it.

Mark,


The story of Bobby Jones playing St. Andrews for the first time is very well known, but I wouldn’t put too much weight on it. The Old Course is a pretty unique course that lends itself changing perceptions, perhaps more than any other course.


I would say one can rate a course on the Doak Scale, for example, on the basis of one play, though it somewhat depends on how well traveled one is at the time of one’s visit to a particular course.

[Mark_Fine]

Tim,[/font]
[/color]As I said earlier, you definitely can evaluate a course after one visit but remember even a half point difference (7 vs 7.5) can impact whether a course is in the Top 100 or outside the Top 200.  Hard to be that accurate in just one trip around a golf course.   .[/size][/font]

[Colin Christman]

I imagine the best evaluation would come with the passage of time, across many rounds in different seasons and conditions. Pragmatically, though, we often find ourselves at a place of tension between that ideal and the reality that many courses we get to experience but once. In truth, there's always the additional tension that we are only ourselves, and the best evaluation would also come from players with differing playing skill, playing style, and aesthetic and golfing preference.


By the time I finish a single round, I'll have an opinion of a course. On the one hand, I'm cognizant that further play or a different perspective may cause my feelings to change. On the other hand, I can't think of too many courses where contempt turned to love or love to contempt.


I'm also not a rater. As interesting an experience as it would be, it probably also ignites the critical faculties. If and when I get the chance to play a "notable" course, I'm primed to enjoy it as a novelty and treat. I am not looking too hard for fault.

[Sean_A]

I imagine the best evaluation would come with the passage of time, across many rounds in different seasons and conditions. Pragmatically, though, we often find ourselves at a place of tension between that ideal and the reality that many courses we get to experience but once. In truth, there's always the additional tension that we are only ourselves, and the best evaluation would also come from players with differing playing skill, playing style, and aesthetic and golfing preference.


By the time I finish a single round, I'll have an opinion of a course. On the one hand, I'm cognizant that further play or a different perspective may cause my feelings to change. On the other hand, I can't think of too many courses where contempt turned to love or love to contempt.


I'm also not a rater. As interesting an experience as it would be, it probably also ignites the critical faculties. If and when I get the chance to play a "notable" course, I'm primed to enjoy it as a novelty and treat. I am not looking too hard for fault.

How often do you feel contempt for a course? I can't honestly think of a single incidence of such.

Ciao

[Jeff Schley]

I have played many courses once, much fewer multiple times. We play for our own enjoyment do we not? Not to bore people with our own opinions, in an effort to convince them to match our own. As long as we are giving opinions  , the argument that someone would only listen to another opinion of a course if they played a course more than once is asinine.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()