[Tim Bert]

I have heard this statement made specifically about Crystal Downs more than any other course. It is almost like a mantra of those most familiar with the course. I have no doubt the statement is true, but It seems like this would apply to most ofthe great courses in the world.  Does one really cease to Learn new things after playing the Old Course reportedly?  Does one stop learning at Pine Valley after 50 rounds?  Does Pacific Dunes run out of subtle features to reveal after multiple trips to Bandon?

My question is this:

Are there truly great courses out there where one ceases to learn something new from each round?

As a follow up, if this statement applies to most of the greats in the world, why do we hear it more about Crystal Downs than the others?

[Jon Wiggett]

Tim,

TOC is for me the outstanding example. I have been lucky enoug to have played it around 40 times. I can't recall facing the same shot twice.

Jon

[Tim Martin]

Tim-Good topic. The nuances on the great courses just keep coming at you. I had a putt on the Double Plateau 17th green at Yale over the weekend that I don`t ever recall having before on the back tier and made me think about the approach I had hit and how it ended up where it did quite a bit after the round.

[Jud_T]

Tim,

This is probably the apt reply to why the ground game is essential as delineated in the other thread.  It's also why I'll never join another club with a mediocre course.  5 years and 250 plays in, hitting the same aerial approach shot on the same hole to an uninteresting green becomes tedious. 

[Tim Bert]

Thanks for the responses so far.  I agree with the comments. What I'm really trying to understand is whether or not this statement is true of most world class golf courses. I surmise it is. Can anyone point to a corse they consider to be top 50 or 100 quality in the world where the learning ceases once you've played it say 20 or 50 times?  If so, what course and why do you regard it so highly?

[Brian_Sleeman]

I've made it a few times in reference to the Downs (are all your examples my statements?), but that's the only truly great course I've played enough to make that statement.  I'm sure it is true of most truly great courses, and is a big part of what separates them from the rest of the pack.

[Tim Bert]

Thanks Brian.

I obviously saw your recent comment but I didnt have a recollection of you saying it before. It is certainly possible I've seen you write it before and didn't make the connection it was the same person.

I'm pretty sure I have heard a similar comment attributed to both Tom Doak and Mike DeVries as well, both of whom have seen a nice cross section of the greats. Actually, I am pretty sure I have heard Mike say it. I wish I had thought to ask him the question personally when he mentioned it.

It may simply be a product of their familiarity and fondness with the course and perhaps if they lived in Hutchinson they would say the same thing about Prairie Dunes.

Perhaps they have said it more as a testament to how they know the course is great as opposed to how it differentiates itself from other great courses.

[Joe Leenheer]

I think the frequency in which you play these 20-50 rounds plays a big part in your ability to learn and retain (i.e over 1 year or 10 years) at any coures.  Also your playing ability will determine if you hit the same aerial shot into any green.  (I have a tendency to be a little loose on the tee...so that keeps my rounds interesting!)  Each persons ability to retain is also a factor.  My father can still remember shots hit and rounds played 20 years ago...my memory is not as precise. 

I've had the opportunity to play several top quality courses in my area multiple (10-20) times over the past 5 years.  Each time I return I feel that I know a little bit more about how each course plays, but because of the time in between rounds, I still have "fresh" eyes for the course.  I seemingly always appreciate something new or forgotten on each round.  If I teed it up on any of these courses 20 times in one month...I think I would stop appreciating some of the details/nuances that make each course great and focus more on my round/score.

A follow up question would be...how many rounds until you can start learning at said top course.  I've played Oakmont once...it was ridiculous...I don't remember how to play any shots on any holes and I could only tell you how I played on a handful of them.  The entire experience was too much the first time around.  Stronger than any adult beverage I have enjoyed.  I believe during my next round (fingers crossed) I will be able to enjoy the course in a different light. 
   

 

       

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:

I'm not sure this is ever REALLY true ... I am sure that I've played rounds at Crystal Downs where I failed to learn anything except how bad a golfer I am these days, which is nothing new.  But, I've played it 150-200 times now.  Any course would have to have a pretty flat learning curve by that point, unless you just aren't a good learner.

I think Prairie Dunes would be another comparable course.  And certainly, The Old Course is the poster child for this.  And so is Augusta, and Oakmont as Joe mentioned, and Pine Valley, and Shinnecock, to throw out a few others.  What do those courses have in common?  Complexity.  Severe greens and/or severe hazards.

[Tim Bert]

Thanks Tom

I agree with your comment about complexity.  Would you be willing to list the top 3 or 5 world class golf courses where the learning curve is the flattest from the start?  Do you need complexity to be truly great? And if not what are the things that can help a course become great without complexity?

[Sven Nilsen]

Tim:

Great topic.  I can't speak to CD, as I've never played it and I don't know (or haven't had the conversation with) many people who have played it more than once.

My first thought was how courses look and feel different on repeated plays.  I've had this experience at Barnbougle Dunes, Ballyneal, Kingsley, Bandon Trails and Pac Dunes, to note those that I can vividly remember having that exact thought while playing.  Sometimes its a certain hole, sometimes its a section of the routing, sometimes its a general feel.

There can be a couple of factors that come into play in this process of discovery (including the necessity of multiple rounds):

1.  You're hitting the ball in different spots (can be a factor of course knowledge gained from prior play, i.e. taking the non-obvious line, or just better play on your part).  Important to note that width is a integral aspect of this factor.
2.  You're playing different tees.
3.  The pins are in different sections of the green.
4.  Conditioning is different.
5.  Time of day (courses can look and play differently in the afternoon than they did during your morning round).
6.  Wind changes.
7.  Temperature (not to be underestimated - Bandon Dunes in 40 deg. weather can feel alot different than Bandon at 75 degs.)
8.  Your own mental state (feeling aggressive v. just trying to knock it around, clear-headed v. slightly muddled, etc.)
9.  Varying contours from tee to green (in combination with the other factors listed, perhaps the most compelling.

If you take out the factors based on the quality of your own play or mental state (and assuming we're playing with ideal conditioning), you're left with some key elements in the sense of round-to-round variety:

A.  Courses/holes that offer different looks from different tees (think about the 6th at Kingsley).
B.  Greens with multiple pinnable areas, greens within greens (12th at Ballyneal, for example).
C.  Courses that are playable in varying wind directions (Pac Dunes is a great example here).
D.  Holes that are not runways.  A shot from 150 may not be the same as a shot from 130 other than the fact you're hitting an 8 iron instead of a wedge.

A statistician might be able to crank the numbers on these varying factors, but I doubt any of us would be able to play enough rounds in our life to play each and every hole on a course under each possible combination.

[Sven Nilsen]

Tim:

I'm not sure this is ever REALLY true ... I am sure that I've played rounds at Crystal Downs where I failed to learn anything except how bad a golfer I am these days, which is nothing new.  But, I've played it 150-200 times now.  Any course would have to have a pretty flat learning curve by that point, unless you just aren't a good learner.

I think Prairie Dunes would be another comparable course.  And certainly, The Old Course is the poster child for this.  And so is Augusta, and Oakmont as Joe mentioned, and Pine Valley, and Shinnecock, to throw out a few others.  What do those courses have in common?  Complexity.  Severe greens and/or severe hazards.

Tom:

Even after 150 - 200 rounds, do you still find yourself having to play shots at CD that you haven't faced before?   

[John Mayhugh]

Thanks Tom

I agree with your comment about complexity.  Would you be willing to list the top 3 or 5 world class golf courses where the learning curve is the flattest from the start?  Do you need complexity to be truly great? And if not what are the things that can help a course become great without complexity?

I hope you get an answer to this.  Really interesting questions.

[Sean_A]

Well

I learned something knew everytime at Pennard over a 10 year period.  As with anything to do with shot making, courses which change over the course of the year (soft to very firm) and on windy sites are to me the courses I would look to for a long learning curve; tricky greens and well placed hazards compound the problem, but for sure the problems already exist.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

Even after 150 - 200 rounds, do you still find yourself having to play shots at CD that you haven't faced before?   

Sven:

Certainly, on occasion, I'll hit a horrible shot and visit someplace new; last time out, I topped one off the 11th tee and had to hit my approach from the side of the hill to the right in front of the tee! 

Also, the golf course is always changing subtly; while showing my interns the 7th green a couple of weeks ago, I realized that I can't play the putt around the boomerang on #7 very well anymore, because they have topdressed the bank on the left to the point that it's not steep enough to help. 

And it was so windy on #17 that I actually SHOULD have laid up down in the bottom off the tee, which I have never seen anyone do deliberately, even though it's the easiest way to make a 5 and get out of there.

[Tom_Doak]

Thanks Tom

I agree with your comment about complexity.  Would you be willing to list the top 3 or 5 world class golf courses where the learning curve is the flattest from the start?  Do you need complexity to be truly great? And if not what are the things that can help a course become great without complexity?

Tim:

I'll agree with John M. that those are great questions, although I think each of them is a matter of individual taste.

Great courses where the learning curve is fairly flat?  Where is the list when I need it?

I guess Garden City would be one.  At its core, a very simple design ... you have to learn to deal with the various tilts of the greens, but not to overplay them, so you leave yourself below the hole.  Then there are some nasty pot bunkers you must commit to memory ... but not 300 of them.

On the other hand, some of the simplest-looking courses can be enormously complex.  Look at Hoylake from the last Open there ... most of the players probably just wrote it off as flat and straightforward and spartan, but Tiger Woods looked a lot closer and played it a lot differently than anyone else, laying up on some holes to give himself a different angle or even a different trajectory for his approach.  So, I guess that proves that complexity doesn't have to be about severe greens or 300 bunkers ... but wind and rock-hard ground probably have a lot to do with it.

[George Freeman]

Tim:

Great topic.  I can't speak to CD, as I've never played it and I don't know (or haven't had the conversation with) many people who have played it more than once.

My first thought was how courses look and feel different on repeated plays.  I've had this experience at Barnbougle Dunes, Ballyneal, Kingsley, Bandon Trails and Pac Dunes, to note those that I can vividly remember having that exact thought while playing.  Sometimes its a certain hole, sometimes its a section of the routing, sometimes its a general feel.

There can be a couple of factors that come into play in this process of discovery (including the necessity of multiple rounds):

1.  You're hitting the ball in different spots (can be a factor of course knowledge gained from prior play, i.e. taking the non-obvious line, or just better play on your part).  Important to note that width is a integral aspect of this factor.
2.  You're playing different tees.
3.  The pins are in different sections of the green.
4.  Conditioning is different.
5.  Time of day (courses can look and play differently in the afternoon than they did during your morning round).
6.  Wind changes.
7.  Temperature (not to be underestimated - Bandon Dunes in 40 deg. weather can feel alot different than Bandon at 75 degs.)
8.  Your own mental state (feeling aggressive v. just trying to knock it around, clear-headed v. slightly muddled, etc.)
9.  Varying contours from tee to green (in combination with the other factors listed, perhaps the most compelling.

If you take out the factors based on the quality of your own play or mental state (and assuming we're playing with ideal conditioning), you're left with some key elements in the sense of round-to-round variety:

A.  Courses/holes that offer different looks from different tees (think about the 6th at Kingsley).
B.  Greens with multiple pinnable areas, greens within greens (12th at Ballyneal, for example).
C.  Courses that are playable in varying wind directions (Pac Dunes is a great example here).
D.  Holes that are not runways.  A shot from 150 may not be the same as a shot from 130 other than the fact you're hitting an 8 iron instead of a wedge.

A statistician might be able to crank the numbers on these varying factors, but I doubt any of us would be able to play enough rounds in our life to play each and every hole on a course under each possible combination.

Great post Sven.  I think you could add “E. width”.  I know you mentioned it up top, but I didn’t see it on the bottom and I think that is a very important piece to the puzzle, especially when the fairways aren’t “runways”.

A great example of “D” would be Kingsley #4: you could  have a perfect look from the top of the knob in position A, but a ball that was hit 5 yards right would funnel down into the bowl and be completely blind, even though the yardage would be exactly the same.

[Michael George]

I thought Old Macdonald exemplified this more than any course that I have ever played.  2 rounds while at the resort and I still don't think I know how to play many of the holes on the course and certainly don't know much about the greens.  Listen - I absolutely loved the course.  However, I did wonder how a course with so much nuance would play as a resort course (not regularly played by the same people).   I know that it would take me a lot more rounds to truly learn how to play it, especially with the wind.  

It is actually kind of funny because I think my favorites there were Pac Dunes first and Bandon Trails second.  However, when a friend asked me what course I most wanted to play again, I said Old Macdonald.  Don't ask me to rationalize this contradiction.

Tom - I am sure that you guys had discussions on this issue on Old Mac.  I would be really interested in how you flushed this out.  As always thanks.

[Ronald Montesano]

I think that this topic is interesting for two reasons: intellectual arrogance and quality of play.

Intellectual arrogance is something that this forum can be accused of at times. To pretend that anyone has this great wealth of knowledge (even the successful, professional architects) and experience and can no longer learn things, or chooses to not learn things, about courses, great and average, is hogwash. To then move to the greatness of the course as a barometer for how much can and cannot be learned, is myopic. One might judge "something learned" on a great course to be cooler or more radical than something learned on an average course.

(I'll share something I find myself doing on average courses. It might be named find a new par three. I tend to glance back, across or over at other green sites and ask myself, how great a par three would that be? True, it's not something new about the current course plan, but it is something new about golf course architecture, about a better or lesser angle for an approach or a recovery. It certainly helps pass the time on a lesser course and allows me to walk in the footsteps of architectural giants on greater courses. Remember that Volcano hole photo of the 6th at CCBuffalo that went viral on here a while back? Each time we have a match, I find myself tracing a circle around it, imagining the play from all points along the curve...it's a great intellectual exercise.)

The second point is quality of play. If you are no longer trying new shots (flyer, runner, punch under the wind, half shots with longer clubs), why are you playing the game? To be sociable? Go to a bar or a house of religion or a fitness club. If you don't golf to get better at golf, no matter your age or muscular restrictions, you're betraying the tenets of all founders of sport. Faster, Higher, Stronger...the motto of the Olympics.

Whether I play Delaware Park Meadows or Arrowhead next, I'll learn something new. Whether I play the same course every day for 100 years, I'll learn something new. If that describes a failed learner, we need more failed learners.

[Jud_T]

I thought Old Macdonald exemplified this more than any course that I have ever played.  2 rounds while at the resort and I still don't think I know how to play many of the holes on the course and certainly don't know much about the greens.  Listen - I absolutely loved the course.  However, I did wonder how a course with so much nuance would play as a resort course (not regularly played by the same people).   I know that it would take me a lot more rounds to truly learn how to play it, especially with the wind.  

This is the brilliance of Kaiser vis-a-vis the "retail golfer".  I used to think Bandon Trails #14 was an abomination for a resort course, then I went back and finally figured out how to successfully tack my way around.  It keeps you coming back for more, moreso than green grass, the cart girl, or the signature cocktail.

[Joe Leenheer]

"No course is built to be played once." - I'd like to think I'm the first to say this!

[Bill Brightly]

Thanks for the responses so far.  I agree with the comments. What I'm really trying to understand is whether or not this statement is true of most world class golf courses. I surmise it is. Can anyone point to a corse they consider to be top 50 or 100 quality in the world where the learning ceases once you've played it say 20 or 50 times?  If so, what course and why do you regard it so highly?

While I agree that one of the hallmarks of greatness is that you can continually learn things about the course, I don't think it is a prerequisite to being great. I think there are great parkland courses that may not vary much from round to round, but the design is so good, the options so intriquing each time you play it, that the course can still be great.

I'll use Ridgewood as an example, a course I have played about 50 times, and I'll pick 8 west, one of my favorite par 5's in the world to illustrate my point. (The hole where Sergio came up with the gopher hole rule to get a free drop and have a shot at the green...) It is a big dogleg left that calls for a draw off the tee or real trust in your straight ball, but there are heavy woods on the left, and you are dead in there. If I fade it or simply bail out right, I lengthen the hole significantly and must hit a really good, faded 3 wood to get to mid iron range. A huge oak tree guards the right side of the hole, making a faded second shot the best play for most. If I hit a good drive, I can be aggressive and try to get it near the green, or choose a variety of layup spots. The green is devilish with a steep right to left tilt, so it pays to be aggressive with your second shot to have good chance to attack the pin. Miss the green with your 3rd shot and up and down pars are rare.

I think it a great hole because of the sterness of the challenges required on all three shots, because of the simplistic beauty of the design, and how naturally the hole fits the land. But nothing about the hole "surprises" me. I either hit the shot I need to, or face a MUCH tougher next shot than I would like. I think Ridgewood is full of similar great holes, and I imagine other courses like Merion and Oakmont offer the same challenges that are the major reason for their greatness, not the "surprises" they offer.

[Michael George]

Joe:

There are plenty of courses that are not meant to be played ever - Blue Heron come to mind?
Further, there are a lot of courses that you can play once and know how to play it - Firestone South

I agree that all great courses need to be played more than once.  However, Old Mac is even different from those courses.  The number of options on the course are extensive and the greens have more going on than any other course that I have ever played.  It really is a great design.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()