[Mike_DeVries]

What makes for the best golf?

1 Great architecture?  
2 Great playing conditions?  
3 Great atmosphere / ambience?  
4 Great camaraderie?  
5 Great piece of land?  

What is the most important feature for you and why?

Happy Holidays,

Mike

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Mike,
1 and 5.
I say this because then I will truly enjoy the game.

Not so much 2, I am not against hard and fast, but chewed up greens drive me mad.

I could happily play golf alone so therefore 3 and 4 do not matter as much, though I do love the camaraderie of the game.

I cannot think of a course with great architecture that I did not enjoy.

One thing that would contribute that is not on your list is the pace of play for me.

[Lou Duran]

All are important.  1. & 5. are closely aligned and at the top, followed closely by 2., then 4., and 3.   A great piece of land makes architecture all that much easier and less costly.  A great course is much more enjoyable if it is conditioned properly (the maintenance meld often discussed here).  Having a good group of guys to compete with improves your game and makes golf a greater game.  If the club has a pleasant atmosphere and ambiance, all the better.  Incorporate great scenary in 5. and mild weather conditions in 2. and you have heaven.  

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

I always place a great value on the land a site has -- in my mind it's probably worth 50 percent of any total I set in rating a course.

I agree with a number of others that dead-flat land is usually nondescript unless man's hand is overly applied to create an "articifial" look that's clearly out of place. Even in saying that I must say that it's always interesting to see architects work with such sites because at times they can come up with interesting results -- a good example being the recently opened work of Ron Kern at Purgatory Golf Club in Noblesville, IN.

I don't believe one needs land that is located near a body of water to be great -- I think the land you had with The Kingsley Club is simply first rate in terms of the contrasts between the front and back nines.

Great architecture is clearly important because it still takes a person with knowledge of golf to put together 18 holes that work in combination with what the land offers and not opposed to it.

Finally, firm and fast playing conditions are always something I like to see, but I also realize that time of year and where the course is located will clearly have an impact on this aspect happening.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
Unless my answer falls under the heading of playing conditions, I would say that #1 on my list would be pace of play and I don't mean speeding around a course so I could pat myself on the back for being a fast player.
Give me a course where spacing allows for no waiting at any tee and I am a happy camper. This is only an ideal though in our area we are very lucky to have some underutilized but very good courses where waits are not the norm. I feel that every category you mention fares no better than second if waiting interrupts the flow of the game.

Having said that I will answer your question:

#2 Camaraderie- I'd rather spend a few hours with friends on a mediocre course than several hours with mutts on a great course. No regrets for that statement, either.
#3 Architecture- I'd rather spend a few hours with friends on a great course than several hours on a mediocre one.
#4 Atmosphere- I'd rather spend a few hours with friends on any course where I was made to feel welcome than at any track where I felt unwelcome.  
#5 Land- I'd rather spend a few hours walking:) with friends if possible. I have to use a cart on more severe topos.    
#6 Conditions- The first time I played Yale in the mid 1980's the conditions were not too good and a couple of the guys I was with groused about them. Now, it is surely better to play a great course in great condition but I will accept less than great maintenance on a course w/ superb architecture over a perfectly maintained example of archi-torture.

[Rich_Goodale]

1.  
2.  
3.  
4.  
5.  

[ed getka]

Mike,
 1, 5, 4, 2, 3. I agree with the above posts that pace of play is an absolute priority after the architecture. I drive over an hour to play Stevinson Ranch in solitude rather than suffer for 5 hours plus on the local courses. In the past a lot of my golf was solo, but meeting and golfing with some of the GCA guys in the past months has certainly elevated #4 on my list. It has been such a blast to golf with people interested in golf course architecture and to learn more about a subject I'm interested in.

[Neal_Meagher]

Mike,

By far and away the quality of the land upon which the golf course sits determines all else.  Yes, with great fleets of Cat scrapers running amok on the landscape it is possible for one to make up a landscape, yet somehow it just isn't the same.

When great architecture collides with a great site it is expected that a great result will happen.  However, the missing ingredient is the quality of the owner or owner's of the course.  They are the arbiters of the final result and the good ones do let the great architecture happen.  When all of these factors meld together with a superintendent who knows what he is doing, then it is almost guaranteed that the camaraderie will occur.

The Golf Club outside of Columbus comes to mind when considering all of these factors.  Also, pools, club drop-offs, cart vixens, headphone wearing "greeters" and tennis courts are superfluous non-sequiters that do not belong on the grounds of a proper golf club.  IMHO.

Oh, you forgot one VERY important factor for what makes for the best golf: quality and quantity of single malt scotches available.

[TEPaul]

Just look at that #1! That will do me just fine, thank you very much, and I promise the thought of rating won't even be in the back of my mind!

[cbradmiller]

Mike, assuming the land is good, with a good smart owner/developer, why shouldn't we expect to have it all? Why do there have to be trade offs? Can a truely great club be put together when total project costs are over $15MM? It may be that at this level ones chance of getting great members is limited by pure economics, many of the best potential members of new clubs are already members at 1-3plus others thus further limiting interest when cost of membership gets expensive (regional term)

This makes me believe that the most important factor is a great owner/developer, Ran, Geoff S, TomP are you guys there! This type of project, assuming good-great land would allow the first 4 to fall neatly into place, including pace of play.... There is that project on the east end of LI that fits this to a tee, with the exception of project economics and cost.

[TEPaul]

Brad:

Sure, like Neal says, when good owners/developers and good architects combine and are on the same page good things are probably going to happen. We've seen a good deal of it in the last five to ten years. Let's not forget that, a lot of good things have happened and probably will continue to since if and when these things tend to happen and build to a critical mass you might be in the beginning of a trend and when you have a trend you might even have an era if there's real validity to the ideas and principles. Sometime trends and even an era can happen without particularly valid ideas and priniciples, I guess, but when you do have them things should likely be more enduring.

There's no doubt to me things are happening in a different way these days, certainly not everywhere but in lots of places--there is a renaissance in the kind of architecture we admire going on now. To a greater or lesser degree the stars align in various clubs or projects--including what the membership turns out to be. Because of the wide variation in the economics of it all things can be different and maybe even the very best of them might struggle for a time (like even Pine Valley did) but they'll make it and they will endure and get the notice they deserve--it's inevitable.

[Will E]

This should be easier than the BCS
#1 in a landslide, great architecture has proven beyond a doubt that it can overcome any of the other four choices. We are blessed with some fine property here in Michigan. Have you ever walked off of a course and said, "wow, what a great design here, it's too bad the property can't live up to the architect's work"?  I've walked off too many "great pieces of land" thinking what could have been if the architect had a clue.
Mike, your work at Kingsley is a great blend of a good design built on a good piece of land. I've been lucky enough to play it with some great people, the atmosphere there (if you can find it) is stunning, and the conditioning is super.
I do have a few suggestions though ...

[Ran Morrissett]

Great architecture, far and away.

Great conditioning, ambience, camaraderie can come and go on a monthly or even round by round basis.

A great piece of land marred by indifferent architecture irrates the heck out of me as a lost opportunity.

But great architecture can salvage poor conditioning, lack of ambience, and even a 5 hour round - just look at Bethpage Black's allure through some very trying conditions.

[Mike_DeVries]

Some interesting thoughts, particularly the points on pace of play and owners.  I think pace of play, and/or its perception, is important and will fall in line with the proper design and program/club requirements and it can destroy golf but can't elevate it.  Owners have influence on all 5 points and their support or denial of certain ones can affect the golf.

As for my choices, great architecture takes priority (big surprise, huh?!?)    Follow it up with superb land and playing conditions, because with those it is hard to have not have fun, and if you are having fun, the camaraderie and atmosphere will be stupendous, and you usually won't care how long it took because you will just keep on playing until it is dark or you MUST leave.

[Mike_DeVries]

I typed ? ! ? and got the   symbol -- too many symbols I don't know about!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()