Multiple plays, a gca lesson over time

[Jason Blasberg]

JK and RJs thoughts on another thread triggered this contrast in my mind so I offer this as a separate thread:


The multiple play issue should be a concern to any serious student of golf course architecture.  Sophistication in design is often subtle requiring multiple plays or walks to fully appreciate.  

I do think that it's relatively easy to under appreciate a great course on the first visit, but I don't think, however, it's likely to over appreciate an average design unless one is impressed with prestigue, social status of club, etc., which means they're not a serious student of gca anyway

Restoration work often plays a central role in this process too.  

For instance, the first time I played Prairie Dunes I knew it was World Class, a true stand out and one of the best designs I'd ever seen.  Since then it's only gotten better, which confirms my first impression.

Engineers, however, took multiple plays over more than a decade and a good amount of restoration work to emerge to me as a World Class.  On the first visit, 13 years ago, I putted off the 8th green into a greenside bunker (the only time in my life that's happened) and I knew I was somewhere unique.

8 years later (about 4 years ago) I played it in an inter-club match and I saw the bones of a great course with incredible greens and green complexes.  At that time, under the name blasbe1, I posted here that ECC was a true gem that with significant tree removal and bunker work could truly shine.

4 years later (this May) I saw the course again and could not believe my eyes.  It was literally transformed with the undulating terrain and bunker complexes once again on display with open views across fairways that give you a true appreciation of the genious routing along and over the ridges and the greensite locations.

4 months later (today) after 35 rounds or so the strategy off the tee vis-a-vis the ridges and contouring is finally imprinted in my mind.  The green undulations are becoming better mastered and green orientation (back to front or front to back) is now mostly known.  Little things still reveal themselves however in nearly every round.

Since Engineers plays so much differently depending upon pin placements, and there are about 6 on each green, the combinations are endless and I'm hitting new shots every round.  

I consider ECC to be World Class and it took about 20 rounds over nearly 15 years to fully appreciate this.  This is because of my education in gca and Tripp Davis' work along with the Club's commitment over time to undue the impact of time and past decisions.  

It's also a course, similar to Prairie Dunes this way, that reveals something new every time you play it.  

Thus multiple plays are often required to fully appreciate greatness, imo.

[George Pazin]

It would be hard for me to agree more with your point, particularly as summed up in your last sentence.

I do think that it's relatively easy to under appreciate a great course on the first visit, but I don't think, however, it's likely to over appreciate an average design unless one is impressed with prestigue, social status of club, etc., which means they're not a serious student of gca anyway

The only tweak I'd offer is that most, if not almost all, people have a certain newness element that boosts a design initally - witness the many courses that are ranked top 100 when first available for ranking, then embark upon a gradual drift down, eventually settling in a certain spot, or sometimes off the rankings entirely.

Then again, many on this site have posited that the members of this site are overly impressed with hairy bunkers....

 

[D_Malley]

if this is true, which i believe it is, then there is one question that must be asked.  How can some of these architects do renovation/restoration work on courses that they have hardley played?  how does a gca accuire the knowledge in such a short time that it took you 15 years and hundreds of rounds to figure out.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jason,
Probably one of the most accurate threads in quite sometime.

The same can be said of the Old Course. same with Friar's Head which has just so much going on--so much to learn from.

[Ed_Baker]

Right on the money Jason, Bravo !!

After 35 years and scores of rounds on some of the great ones in this area I'm still learning from them.

Sometimes even just a maintenance meld change, I mean a real defined and funded paradigm to produce F&F over two or three seasons has brought out some previously overlooked quirk that really adds to the experience.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Jason et al,

Okay, but at what point do you turn into a "homer" who can't see the weakness of a course? To realistically do what you are proposing, you have to be a member or play regularly at a finite number of public courses that fit this profile.

I have a family friend, who is a very good senior player and he absolutely believes that Metropolis CC is the best course in Westchester. He has traveled overseas a bunch, so he does have lots of exposure to a variety of courses.

If you continue to take this philosophy, you will soon be making Mayday the King of Architectural Analysis, and we already know what Flynn course is the greatest!  

I actually agree with my buddy Mayday at times too. I am not sure that Merion is the Top 10 course that the raters make it out to be as I get to see more variety. When I played it often, but with little else to compare with, sure it was a Top Top course.

By the way, with a new baby in the house, you will get lots of opportunity to NOT travel.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Jason, I agee with you all the way. I find the better the course the more you need to see it for its secrets to unfold for you. Actually I always have felt it takes 3 to 4 rounds to really see a course. naturally we rarely get that opportunity.

[Tom Huckaby]

Jason, I agee with you all the way. I find the better the course the more you need to see it for its secrets to unfold for you. Actually I always have felt it takes 3 to 4 rounds to really see a course. naturally we rarely get that opportunity.

Tiger sums this up well, as did Tom Doak in another thread.  Of course the more one can see a course - a great one anyway - the more he learns, the more he appreciates.  But how often does that occur?  Rarely, as Tiger says.

But anyway I post just to also give full concurrence to Mike Sweeney as well... yes Jason, prepare to stay home for awhile.  Oh I do know this well myself....

 

[George Pazin]

Jason et al,

Okay, but at what point do you turn into a "homer" who can't see the weakness of a course? To realistically do what you are proposing, you have to be a member or play regularly at a finite number of public courses that fit this profile.

Mackenzie expressed such concern in his writings when he stated that most can't evaluate their home course objectively. Obviously, it depends on the person. For some people, the repeat plays expose warts as well as beauty marks.

My guess is that the person who can't see the faults in his home course is equally incapable of evaluating another course, regardless of whether he's played it once or 20 times. Some people - probably most people - aren't well suited to analysis.

I'd probably take Tom D's one opinion over my own on my home course, even though I've played it a few hundred times. I don't know 5% of the knowledge base he does.

So, in the end, I guess it all ends up the same - subjective nonsense.

 

racetrack -

I think your point is why most on here prefer restoration to renovation.

[Jason Blasberg]

how does a gca accuire the knowledge in such a short time that it took you 15 years and hundreds of rounds to figure out.

I wish I had 100s of rounds in there, to date I've got about 40.

[Jason Blasberg]

Jason et al,

Okay, but at what point do you turn into a "homer" who can't see the weakness of a course? To realistically do what you are proposing, you have to be a member or play regularly at a finite number of public courses that fit this profile.

I've always been candid about where I have memberships but for me, anyway, I never considered myself a "homer."  A "homer" to me has been at a club a long time and touts it's merits for self-interested purposes.  

For instance, you're a legacy member at a fine course, not great material, but you pump it up b/c it's been your familys club forever and it's not realistic or convienent to join elsewhere, thus, the "homer" syndrome sets in.

I've always played first and joined second.  Today, I would not join a club that I didn't personally rate very high.  Therfore, for the most part, I've formed my initial and significant opinion of a courses gca merits before joining.

I've been very fortunate in that regard for at least 2 reasons: 1) I did not grow up priviledged and so had no club to "walk into" and 2) I've been fortunate enough to come across very unique opportunities so far in life and my gca education has been all the better for them.

Mike, I was a member at Fox Hill (down the road from FH) and at Seawane.  Fox Hill is a good course and Seawane is a very good course but Engineers is a great course that reaches the elite level architectural IMO.  When you've got one of the  most interesting and diverse set of 18 greens in America it's hard not to be a pretty special place.

 

[Mike_Sweeney]

Mike, I was a member at Fox Hill (down the road from FH) and at Seawane.  Fox Hill is a good course and Seawane is a very good course but Engineers is a great course that reaches the elite level architectural IMO.  When you've got one of the  most interesting and diverse set of 18 greens in America it's hard not to be a pretty special place.

 

Okay, and who did the better restoration? Tripp Davis at Engineers who probably saw the course less than a dozen times before the first shovel went in, or your Greens Chairman at Seawane who saw the course hundreds of times before he put the first shovel in.  

As your answer will clearly blow up the theory on this thread, I am waiting for the lawyer to pull himself out of the corner

As JakaB often says, we should evaluate the architects ability to set up drainage first, and all the other stuff second.

[Jason Blasberg]

Mike, I was a member at Fox Hill (down the road from FH) and at Seawane.  Fox Hill is a good course and Seawane is a very good course but Engineers is a great course that reaches the elite level architectural IMO.  When you've got one of the  most interesting and diverse set of 18 greens in America it's hard not to be a pretty special place.

 

Okay, and who did the better restoration? Tripp Davis at Engineers who probably saw the course less than a dozen times before the first shovel went in, or your Greens Chairman at Seawane who saw the course hundreds of times before he put the first shovel in.  

The two are not remotely similar projects and couldn't be different golf courses so the question is irrelevant.  

[Jason Blasberg]

For the record, when did Mike Sweeney become Mike "the thread highjacker" Sweeney?  

[George Pazin]

Okay, and who did the better restoration? Tripp Davis at Engineers who probably saw the course less than a dozen times before the first shovel went in, or your Greens Chairman at Seawane who saw the course hundreds of times before he put the first shovel in.

Obviously you have to have some level of knowledge/competence to begin with, in the area we're discussing.

Using my Tom D/my home course analogy again, I'd trust him to restore my home course better than me, even if he never played the course.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jason,

I think the answer, as in most things in life, is "it depends".

Your question assumes the "all things being equal", which is hardly the case.  

In this case, I can think of folks whose opinion I would take with a grain of salt if they'd played a course 10000 times, and others I would highly value based on a single playing.

I'd also want to understand what experience the person has as a field of reference.   Personally, I think it takes seeing an awful lot of horrible to good ranged architecture to be able to distinguish "great".

[Mike_Sweeney]

The multiple play issue should be a concern to any serious student of golf course architecture.  Sophistication in design is often subtle requiring multiple plays or walks to fully appreciate.  

I consider ECC to be World Class and it took about 20 rounds over nearly 15 years to fully appreciate this.  This is because of my education in gca and Tripp Davis' work along with the Club's commitment over time to undue the impact of time and past decisions.  

Jason,

Let me rephrase. You made the above statement about "20 rounds over nearly 15 years to fully appreciate this (where this = ECC to be World Class).

You know I like the work that Tripp Davis did at Engineers, as I started a thread about it after we played.

I am simply questioning your theory. Clearly Tripp Davis did not have the 20 rounds over 15 years or similar type of exposure, and yet you are more than satisfied with what he did.

I simply adhere to the Cirba Theory of "it depends" on the individual.

[Mike_Cirba]

Viewed another way Jason, how many courses have you played where if you rated it on a 10 scale after your first playing, do you think would move more than 1 point up or down after subsequent plays, no matter how many?

Or, put another way, how many times do you think you'd have to play Boston Golf Club to realize it's a great course?  

[mike_malone]

 I have no idea what Sweeney is saying!


    I had lunch today with a guy that I usually see once or twice a week. He said that a friend of his shot 78 at Morgan Hill on Sat. and on the way home raved about the course. This same friend shot 88 the first time there; called the club and complained so much about the course that they offered him a free play !

  I think he is in that category of people whose opinion Mike Cirba discounts.


     BTW when I compared the photos James Bennet sent me of Plainfield to the ones he took of Rolling Green all I could see were our warts. I hope someday to do a side by side presentation. Thank you ,James.

[mike_malone]

 I am in the camp that rarely changes their first impression, but I totally agree that repeated play reveals  much.

[Jason Blasberg]

The multiple play issue should be a concern to any serious student of golf course architecture.  Sophistication in design is often subtle requiring multiple plays or walks to fully appreciate.  

I consider ECC to be World Class and it took about 20 rounds over nearly 15 years to fully appreciate this.  This is because of my education in gca and Tripp Davis' work along with the Club's commitment over time to undue the impact of time and past decisions.  

Jason,

Let me rephrase. You made the above statement about "20 rounds over nearly 15 years to fully appreciate this (where this = ECC to be World Class).

You know I like the work that Tripp Davis did at Engineers, as I started a thread about it after we played.

I am simply questioning your theory. Clearly Tripp Davis did not have the 20 rounds over 15 years or similar type of exposure, and yet you are more than satisfied with what he did.

I simply adhere to the Cirba Theory of "it depends" on the individual.

Mike:

Perhaps we're not on the same page here.  The only reason why I mentioned Tripp's work on THIS thread is in the context of a dramatic improvement in perception through restoration, over time, directly impacting one's ability to perceive greatness in a design.  

I use ECC as an excellent example of a course where greatness used to not get appreciated on a first play b/ it was obscured by several issues.  This is a stark contrast to Prairie Dunes, for example which just rolls over you immediately, and much unlike the ECC of today which also jumps right out and grabs you.

The point I made with Tripp's work is simply that it has revealed again for more direct observation the routing, terrain and greensites as well as some green size recapturing.  Don't misunderstand me, Engineers is not now a World Class golf course because of the renovation work, it always was and just needed to be revealed.  Something that was not apparent, at least to me, the first time I played it 13 years ago.

The amount of times Tripp played the golf course has nothing to do with this thread.


Cirba, as much as I love him, tends to be spliting middles lately.  In theory, everything in life is ultimately subjective but I do think some designs, like good wine, need time to open and breath and the taste on one's palate will be better 1 hour after the bottle is opened.

This must be the case with all great designs, they must get better with each play because if they don't, they do not contain enough sophistication to be considered great.

Nobody, not even Tom Doak, can fully appreciate all that a World Class course has to offer on the first play or walk around.

[M. Shea Sweeney]

Tommy-

I agree with you about Friars Head. I played it for the first time this summer and was pleased with the golf course but was not blown away like expected. However as I go back and review the golf course in my head and look at pictures I have become more interested with the golf course. Just makes me want to play it again even more.

[Tags:]

Tags: