[Larry_Keltto]

Interesting that three of the courses I have found to be the most inspiring have been mentioned: Porthcawl, Lytham St. Annes, and Hoylake.

I nominate Troon for failure to inspire.

[JSlonis]

Aronomink:It's a great course and is in the process of being restored by Ron Prichard to total Rossness along with a conditioning plan by Dick Bator. It has always had a reputation of hit it hard, harder and hardest--not the most inspiring theme.

Tom,

Aronimink? Hmmmm...

I wonder if over the past 8 years, you may have changed your thinking on this one.

[Steve Okula]

I thought Troon was Terrific. I loved every minute of it. I remember a gorgeous, windy, September morning looking at the lighthouse from the first fairway thinking this must be Heaven. Great elevation changes, and some of the most memorable golf holes I have seen, like the postage stamp and the 11th up the railroad line, which was the most fun I ever had making quintuple bogey.

Carnoustie, on the other hand, was a chore, flat and insipid. What is with all those stupid little unplayable ditches parallel with so many holes?

But that's just me.

[Michael Dugger]

I would like to think it is mostly repeating tree lined courses which fail to inspire me....

On a grand scale that would include Sahalee, Medinah, Oak Hill, Baltusrol.

On the other hand....the trees and bunkering at Olympic Club excites me.

Same thing with Riviera, Oakmont and SFCC....hell, even Cog Hill has some neat bunkering.

Treelined is by far my least favorite golf medium.

   

[Tom Huckaby]

Chip:

If you are legally blind, then my apologies in advance.  But assuming you're not, I have to ask you:  do you play this game with your eyes closed?

Why is the majestic and incredible setting at Pebble not a part of the golf course for you?

Do you really think of the course only in terms of "its features in terms of GCA (routing, greens, fairways, contours,etc...)" ?

Why?  Are you interested in it as a design test, or in terms of a site for playing the game of golf?

I'm with Ryan on this.  You have some 'splainin to do.  I'm going to Bandon in a month, third trip there, and yes I am excited.  But if I had plans to play Pebble I wouldn't be able to sleep at night - and I've played there many times as well.

TH

[Greg Tallman]

Oakmont
Mid Ocean

[Tommy Williamsen]

Some of the answers show how jaundiced and spoiled we can get.  Nominated courses, Muifield, Wentworth West, Baltusrol Lower, Oakland Hills, and Hoylake should inspire just because of their history.  

[Walter Bart]

Carnoustie

      After having played a number of Scotland's best, this was a letdown.  Challenging, yes. Inspiring, No.

[Kalen Braley]

Some of the answers show how jaundiced and spoiled we can get.  Nominated courses, Muifield, Wentworth West, Baltusrol Lower, Oakland Hills, and Hoylake should inspire just because of their history.  

History in terms of the tournaments that have been played there, history in terms of how long the course has been in operation, or history in terms of who designed it?

Sharp Park in Pacifica was designed by MacK and it should be an inspiring course, built on an inspiring piece of property. But the reality is after years of neglect and such its relgated to dogtrack status.

[John Kirk]

Carnoustie

      After having played a number of Scotland's best, this was a letdown.  Challenging, yes. Inspiring, No.

I also found Carnoustie uninspiring, but it may have been the 45 degree, 40 mile an hour conditions which kept me from fully appreciating the experience.  Since I also found Winged Foot to be a bit uninspiring for a great course, let's look at two similarities:

Both courses are relentlessly difficult.

Neither course features beautiful long range views.

[ChipRoyce]

Chip:

If you are legally blind, then my apologies in advance.  But assuming you're not, I have to ask you:  do you play this game with your eyes closed?

Why is the majestic and incredible setting at Pebble not a part of the golf course for you?

Do you really think of the course only in terms of "its features in terms of GCA (routing, greens, fairways, contours,etc...)" ?

Why?  Are you interested in it as a design test, or in terms of a site for playing the game of golf?

I'm with Ryan on this.  You have some 'splainin to do.  I'm going to Bandon in a month, third trip there, and yes I am excited.  But if I had plans to play Pebble I wouldn't be able to sleep at night - and I've played there many times as well.

TH

Tom;

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I love the surroundings that Pebble offers! The view of Stillwater cove from the 4th fairway, the view down the beach to Carmel from 10, and the waves crashing below the 7th hole.

Also, as I mentioned there are definately some very good holes and some great shots on that course.

I guess the difference to me is that I would just as soon drink a beer during sunset at each of those vantage points than play most of the holes at Pebble. Another way of saying, if you take away the setting around PB, I think the course starts falling down the rankings quickly.

[Tom Huckaby]

Chip:

But how can you possibly take that setting away?  It exists... even in a pea-soup fog, it's still there and still cool.  In good weather it rather puts the "i" in inspiring.  Given one doesn't rapid fire golf swings as he plays there, one has a lot of time to walk or ride in between shots... that's a lot of time to notice one's surroundings.  

I find arguments like this to be pretty silly.  Yeah, fill the hazard in front of 16 Cypress with toxic waste and it's a lot less cool of a golf hole also.  The same could be said for raining space aliens all over Pine Valley - that would rather ruin the feel.  

So OK, agree to disagree we shall.  I find a lot to love at Pebble Beach, and the setting is definitely part of it.  Note I also find a lot more to love than you seem to about the golf holes, even the ones you call mundane... but that's ah honest disagreement of opinions I can always live with.  What I find hard to accept is the argument that the setting is not part of the course.  It is, unless one plays with his eyes closed.  I gather you join Mucci in playing the game this way.  If so, well I feel for you as much as I pray for his golfing soul on a nightly basis.

This is all in good fun for sure.  But it does make me scratch my head when people make these arguments.

TH

[ChipRoyce]

Tom;

Your concern for my sole is greatly appreciated! I even said when I brought Pebble up as my example that it would most likely be construed as heracy.

I think we've isolated very much the importance of the aesthetic on GLC and the varying opinions of such. Trust me, I love georgeous settings for golf. I also realize I'm pretty right-brained and for some reason separate the physical surroundings from the course when looking the GCA properties of a course.

Another way of saying, if I ran the rankings, I'd de-emphasize the setting and history / tradition of a course in the scoring vs. the merits of its design.

Its funny, I think my single-mindedness of this has been exacerbated by using Pebble as an example here. I think this course is much more polarizing than others due to the criticisms the course recieves on the following aspects:
 - Price
 - Quality of golf vs. the location / view
 - Links vs. Parkland
 - Price
 - History

[Tom Huckaby]

Chip:

I'd concur that Pebble is a polarizing example.  It does have its negatives in terms of price, crowds, awful cart paths... and that's even before you get into the holes that some find mundane.

However, I still disagree about the general.  I can't see how one can separate "gca" from "setting."  If you really want to evaluate gca, shouldn't you also look at what the land was like before it was a golf course... how effective the architect was at maximizing value and minimizing expense... how effective he was at obtaining permits, assuming such were to be obtained... and many other things having nothing to do with the playing of the course, but having a LOT to do with the effectiveness of the "design"??

If you don't do that, you really aren't evaluating design.  

I prefer to evaluate "golf courses."  And a golf course includes its settings and yes, traditions.  If I ran the rankings, I'd likely leave them just as they are, making these count for a small portion of the evaluation.  

To deny they should count at all - or less than they do now - to me seems folly.  It seems even MORE folly to me to say we should emphasize the "merits of the design" even more - because that would have to include the items I listed above... and as a golfer, I could give a rat's ass about any of that.  But it surely is part of the "design"....

One does not play the game with his eyes closed, nor his heart; that is unless he is Pat Mucci.

Do you REALLY want to be equated with him?
 

BTW, Tom Doak has said on here many times that the best designs maximize the views a site has to offer.   Do you want to tell him he's full of shit?

 

[Philippe Binette]

I would have to disagree completely on Muirfield

I said on the Great courses without great holes thread:

Somebody mentioned Pinehurst #2, it's great example. It's not a spectacular setting but it doesn't mean that they are not great holes even if they don't photographed well.

Same with Muirfield, a lot of great holes, no weaknesses in my opinion, but out of the blue most people won't Muirfield as possessing some of the best holes in the world.

I explain something to my friend about St Andrews and North Berwick. My perception was that the holes one by one are great at North Berwick, there are some more spectacular shots etc... but the game is better at St Andrews, how you have to think for 18 holes, how much detail needs to be understood, how the course flows from one hole to the other... it's really a course, a track  

For Muirfield, the same applies as there's not a lot of shots that you'll be dreaming of playing the next morning, but playing against that course, battling out shot for shot for 18 holes must be an awesome feeling.

To a certain extend, Muirfield look more fun in stroke play than in match play (especially if you compare it to North Berwick)

If I generalise a bit here, it seems that people are more impressed by the setting than the golf course in itself.
 
 

[Tom Huckaby]

If I generalise a bit here, it seems that people are more impressed by the setting than the golf course in itself.

Not sure if you are applying this to me personally.. but if so, well my argument remains that setting and golf course are all part of the same thing, and it's folly to separate them.

I agree with you re Muirfield, btw.  That course inspired me tremendously... and the setting in terms of views anyway was nice, but nothing special.  

TH

[Tommy Williamsen]

Some of the answers show how jaundiced and spoiled we can get.  Nominated courses, Muifield, Wentworth West, Baltusrol Lower, Oakland Hills, and Hoylake should inspire just because of their history.  

That said, I nominate Medinah #3, Oakland Hills South, Olympic Lake, and Wentorth West as the biggest disappointments.  I would go back but I think I'd just as soon play Medinah 1 or 2, Oakland Hills North, Olympic Ocean, and Wentworth East.

On the other hand there have been some exceptiional surprises.  Prestbury in Cheshire, Pennard in Wales, Burnham and Berrow in Devon, St. Enodoc in Cornwall, and Formby in Lancashire.  
For me, personally, the place that lived up to its billing the best is Sunningdale, both Old and New.

[ChipRoyce]

Chip:

I'd concur that Pebble is a polarizing example.  It does have its negatives in terms of price, crowds, awful cart paths... and that's even before you get into the holes that some find mundane.

However, I still disagree about the general.  I can't see how one can separate "gca" from "setting."  If you really want to evaluate gca, shouldn't you also look at what the land was like before it was a golf course... how effective the architect was at maximizing value and minimizing expense... how effective he was at obtaining permits, assuming such were to be obtained... and many other things having nothing to do with the playing of the course, but having a LOT to do with the effectiveness of the "design"??

If you don't do that, you really aren't evaluating design.  

I prefer to evaluate "golf courses."  And a golf course includes its settings and yes, traditions.  If I ran the rankings, I'd likely leave them just as they are, making these count for a small portion of the evaluation.  

To deny they should count at all - or less than they do now - to me seems folly.  It seems even MORE folly to me to say we should emphasize the "merits of the design" even more - because that would have to include the items I listed above... and as a golfer, I could give a rat's ass about any of that.  But it surely is part of the "design"....

One does not play the game with his eyes closed, nor his heart; that is unless he is Pat Mucci.

Do you REALLY want to be equated with him?
 

BTW, Tom Doak has said on here many times that the best designs maximize the views a site has to offer.   Do you want to tell him he's full of shit?

 

Tom;

I'm hoping that one opinion doesn't brand me in a negative way...

Also, in terms of Tom Doak, sure - he's DA MAN.

Doesn't mean that I can't remain ignorant and must be a slave to the conventional wisdom.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tommy - I haven't played any of the others you mentioned, but I'm curious as to your feelings about Olympic Lake.  Have you played it recently post-tree clearing?  I haven't but man it looks cool to me.

In any case I'd never say the course failed to inspire me - the tradition and feel alone there is enough for that - but I have argued in the past that at least how it was before, it wasn't really my cup of tea.  I saw it as a long, wet slog requiring too many shots beyond my abilities.  But I've been convinced in recent times that I was being too harsh....

Curious what your thoughts are about the course.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Chip - you remain cool by me and unbranded.

Mucci has no hope.

 

[Tommy Williamsen]

Sean, Sorry about the geographical error.  I'll have to pick Saunton East for Devon.  Bet you thought I'd pick RND. I couldn't live in MN again.  Way too cold, although we have had a cold snap here in MD.  Keep warm.

Tom, I have not played The Lake course since they removed all the trees.  In fact it has been ten years or so since I played it last.  I may have to put it on my list the next time I get to SF.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom, I have not played The Lake course since they removed all the trees.  In fact it has been ten years or so since I played it last.  I may have to put it on my list the next time I get to SF.

I too need to play it again, that's for sure.
But what was uninspring before?  Was it just the socked-in, overtreed nature of it?

[BCrosby]

One of the things this thread flushes out is the ambiguity deep down inside all course ranking systems between those courses that are great tests of golf and those courses that are interesting to play.

It is not clear to me how those two sets of courses intersect. Or how to weigh those factors in a ranking. My guess is that most raters don't know either. In important ways, those courses are apples and oranges.

For example, Muirfield and Carnoustie always rank higher than N. Berwick. But I will go out of my way to play N. Berwick again. I will not do so for the other two.

Bob

[Bill Gayne]

I'll throw Congressional into the mix.

[Guy Phelan]

One of the things this thread flushes out is the ambiguity deep down inside all course ranking systems between those courses that are great tests of golf and those courses that are interesting to play.

It is not clear to me how those two sets of courses intersect. Or how to weigh those factors in a ranking. My guess is that most raters don't know either. In important ways, those courses are apples and oranges.

For example, Muirfield and Carnoustie always rank higher than N. Berwick. But I will go out of my way to play N. Berwick again. I will not do so for the other two.

Bob

Bob,

One thing I am sure of in this great game we play, is that I am never going to judge a course by one round. The only two things I have in common with Robert Tyre Jones, Jr. and Jack Nicklaus is that I did not enjoy the Old Course the first time I played it and I have since grown to love it. What if I had written something about the Old Course before I had played it a second time...it definitely would not have been flattering. I love North Berwick and your point is well taken by me. But I am not sure that I will not go out of my way to play Murifield and Carnoustie, which I have already played three times. I wish I could paly Berwick every day and maybe an afternoon round at Dornoch!

Guy

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()