Perceptions on architecture

[Ran Morrissett]

Golf Digest told us that Concord GC in Kiamesha Lake, NY was one of the top 50 courses in the country twenty years ago in part because at a staggering 7,200 yards, even the best players couldn't chop it up.

Today, I literally hear nothing about it. Vaguely, I recall it was mentioned maybe twice on this site but that's about it. I assume it still exists (?) but I'm not even sure of that.

What factors could drive such a steep decline in its perception in just 20 years time?

Are our perceptions becoming even more finicky in this fast paced world?

How can owners/memberships protect themselves from getting left with a perceived lemon?

What are the dominate factors/sources that shape YOUR perception of what constitutes good vs bad architecture?

Suppose you play a course and love it even though the vast majority thinks your crazy. How confident are you to go against popular opinion and stick up for it?

[BillV]

Ran

GD's original list was based solely upon difficulty as it was titled something like America's Toughest Courses, and I believe there was 200 courses on the list.

Witness the evolution of that list.  At least bonus points are afforded access to real golf (walking).

[Patrick_Mucci]

RAn,

At one point in time, the Catskills were a destination point, and The Concord, the Monster was the competitive center piece amongst a smattering of golf courses.

It  was  big,  bold and was offered as a challenge to every level of golfer.  It also provided a good caddy program.

For a while it enjoyed a lofty position, and a lot of attention.
But, as the interest and condition of/in the hotels and the Catskills evaporated, so did the desire to play the golf course.  It was too long a ride, prices were ridiculous, conditions deteriorated, you were treated shabily, and interest waned.

Had gambling come to the Catskills, not Atlantic City, I would guess The Concord would have been given a face lift, had money poured into/onto it, and it probably would have retained a relatively lofty position.

There may have also been an evolving  bias against commercial or hotel affilitated courses in the rating process.

But, you provide the basis for an interesting question.

How can Pine Tree,  go from a top twenties course, to off the list, to back again at # 86, when physically, very little has changed in the golf course over the years.  Top twenties is more than a strong endorsement of a golf course.  What happened ?  The  golf course and its values didn't change.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran,

If  I love a golf course, for reasons other than:
I played well
I beat my competitor
I won money

If I love it for the fun I had playing it, or the tactical challenge it presented, or interesting architectual features, despite what others may say, I'll champion that course.

Conversely, if others rave about a course and I just don't feel the same way, I'll say so.

I think it is difficult for one to resist peer pressure, but, based on my defense of Rees alone, this should offer evidence that I''m willing to go against the flow of popular opinion.

[GeoffreyC]

Ran

The Monster at The old/ex Concord Hotel does indeed still exist.  I have not bothered to go and play there in several years.  I do so every so often for a masochistc day of practice using my driver and 3-wood repeatedly.

The course has on its card "The World's Greatest Golf Challenge" although I don't think its true any longer it might have when built. The very front of the forward tees measure 6793 yards.  The championship yardage you quote is measured from 1/3 back from the very front of the tees (course rating 76).  Going back to the back of the tees the yardage is 7672.   The greens are HUGE and water is featured all over the place. It used to be exceptionally well manicured and I remember very little roll on the fairways.  It represents everything uninteresting about playing golf.

Funny but looking back at the card for the first time in a while, it no longer seems so terrifying.

[Ran Morrissett]

Bill,

Golf Digest's original Toughest 200 came out in the 1960s but the Concord was still in the top 50 well after Golf Digest changed the list from "toughest" to "greatest". I suppose  America was still fixated with toughness in 1981/2, though miraculously, Cypress Point had jumped up 50-60 spots to where it was in the their top 10 grouping. Seminole was in the same top grouping, which shows how far their list had evolved, as you say.

Colonial was in the 2nd ten grouping and NGLA wasn't in the top 100.

Pat,

Pine Tree is indeed an interesting case study and in 1981/2, it was in Golf Digest's 3rd ten. I personally believe that the closeness of the housing to the course at Pine Tree has hurt it. A comparable quality housing course built in the 1980s for instance would have the houses much farther back from the holes than was the norm in the early 1960s when Pine Tree opened.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran,

Since I joined, the club has undertaken an extensive perimeter planting program, and many of the houses visible six (6) short years ago, are no longer visible today.

While some houses remain visible the trend to obscure continues.

The precipitous drop can't be from perimeter housing alone, and I am puzzled by the ranking process.

Could it be that the difficulty in the layout could overpower and blur a raters vision ?

[Ran Morrissett]

Pat, In reflecting back on Pine Tree, the one shotters are a weakness, not that any of them are easy (far from it) but I would say that only the 13th is truly memorable.


Getting back to my original post, Golf Digest rankings clearly were important in the early 1980s in shaping public opinion/perception, in part because they were the only ones comparing the merits of one course to that of others. GOLF Magazine hadn't started their rankings yet and GOLF Week's were a long way away. Plus, the internet didn't exist with hundreds of golf web sites and Discussion Groups that could bring people together to discuss such things.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran,

# 2 and # 6 are pretty memorable par 3's, but maybe I'm biased and too close to the situation.

[Will E]

Without the marketing support that the Concord enjoyed in the past it has faded out of memory.

I'll go on record defending the course as more than the Monstrosity that Tom Doak called it.  
The Met Section still uses this course for many of its competitions. I know many Met professionals like the Monster very much. Granted that if one decided to play it from way back it would be a nightmare.
Set up correctly it is a great test of golf, making a player use many clubs. I've played quite a few events on this course and think that if many here gave it an unbiased look today, would rank it as I do as a strong 6.
If you have played it I wonder what you don't like about it. My favorite holes would be 2,8,10,11,12 & 17.
There is plenty variety on this "big" course that you probably wouldn't expect looking at the scorecard.
I'm sure that if it received a face lift and some strong marketing it could make a rebound. The Hotel here probably hurts the Monster too, it reminds me of a mental institution, or a medium security prision.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

The courses of RT Jones and D.Wilson used to dominate the rankings and the Concord fit into the 60's style. Their courses featured lots of water, lots of sand, large greens and were all 7000+ yards. The sameness of these designs fell severely out of favor, perhaps at the expense of a few deserving tracks.

I think the best way to avoid a lemon is to build on an enteresting site and make sure the course takes full advantage of the natural attributes. That and stress variety -- variety of lengths, variety of startegic tactics and a variety of interesting hazards.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shooter,

I'm curious, what did you think of the dogleg right with the tree/trees in the middle of the fairway.

The Concord was the venue for a funny Buddy Hackett scene.

I believe he was the entertainment at the Hotel one summer weekend, and he liked to play golf.  You may recall that carts had to be kept on the cart paths,  and if the ranger saw you do otherwise he took the keys from the cart.

Well Buddy hit a tee shot deep into the woods on the back nine, he went into the dark woods, was there about  five minutes, and then came running out, sceaming LOCUSTS, stark naked.

I too liked the  course, and one didn't have to play the back tees, that was each golfers choice.  And if I remember correctly, they encouraged golfers to play within their means.

[Will E]

Pat,
I'm pretty sure that were discussing the 13th hole, a sharp dogleg right with a group of trees on the corner.
The tee shot demands a choice; either take it right of the trees cutting off about 50 yards, or play it safe to the left and be stuck with a longer iron in. I like the hole. The finishing holes on both nines are rather dull, but I'm with you, this is a very good golf course.
The more I think about this course the more I like it, the greens, while huge have some interesting slopes (#16 and 17 for sure). This is not a stand up and bash it course, it really requires a lot of thought. The only complaint I've heard is that it is brutally tough, never unfair.
It should rank a 7 on the Doak scale. (I might think its an 8 by the morning)

[Jim_Kennedy]

Shooter,
The new owners are dumping 1/2 bil. into the property as a whole. The course conditions have greatly improved already.

I also like this course. I think it has 3 holes that are exceptional, like #4 with it's great setting for the green, #7 with it's blind tee shot and choices offered for the second, & #17 with it's tempting choice from the tee. There are some good holes as you mentioned also.

If I were to fault the course I would say that there is too much of a premium put on long and straight from the tee.
Overall I think this is what hurts the course most.
I was told by some old timers there that the course could be stretched to over 8,100 yds. using some tees that are NLE.
It was definitely built to withstand the onslaught of Pros. For it to regain favor I feel that more variety needs to be added to the driving areas. This would be the best of both worlds. A course that is bearish enough for the bombers and interesting enough for everyone else.
    

[TEPaul]

Wait a minute JimK! The owners are dumping 1/2 BILLION into that entire property?? You can't be serious! That's $500 Million, is it not? What are they doing, building a Pentagon North underground up there, among other things?

If you could persuade them to divert a measily 5-10 million my way we could buy and build one of the great and unique "throw back in time and concept" courses the world has ever seen!

Come on Pal, talk to them and get it for me, you can do it!--nobody would miss or even notice that measily amount. JeesusK, you know what old Senator Ev Dirksen used to say; "You start using words like billion here and there and after a while you're talking some real money!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
I shirt you not! 1/2 bil. to be spent. Check out their website.
A friend of mine who owns a pub in NYC told me almost 2 years ago that this was going to happen, along with the recently approved casino gambling.
The planned development is astounding to say the least.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Wow, you weren't kidding.  Though maybe their plans have become less ambitious as the economy has softened.

http://www.concordresort.com/hotel_info.html

[Mark_Fine]

Ran,
Golf architecture as you know is an art not a science.  To me that means it is subject to varying perceptions and always will be.  I have said many times there are no right or wrong opinions about a golf course.  We may (and do) beg to differ with one another but that's just because we elect to take a different view.  And that view will be influenced by what we have seen or read or experienced in some way.  As our experiences change and expand so do our perceptions and sometimes the can change can be drastic.  However, we are all affected differently.

There is no way I know to "protect" perceptions.  Course owners like everyone else have to live with change and when and where necessary, change with it.  I don't know how many rounds The Concord gets now vs. what it used to get, but that might be one guage of whether the course has become "a lemon" so to speak.  

I've always believed the rankings of courses have had an impact on golf course design.  Some of it has been good, some has been bad.  It will always be that way because any ranking is subject to perceptions.  Trends will come and go and the rankings will flow with them in some manner.  

Personally, I try to keep an open mind when ranking a course and avoid hard and fast (black and white) generalizations.  I try to take it all in and balance my opinions accordingly.  The more courses I see and the more I learn about golf course design, the more my perceptions change and/or are refined.  

How confident am I in my assessments?  Very confident!  They are MY opinions based on MY experiences and furthermore, I know there are no right or wrong answers.  If I you can't be confident given all that, maybe you shouldn't be stating your opinion to begin with!  Best holding your thoughts till you are confident!  

Mark

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mark
Golf is part game, part art and part natural science. The game and science part of the sport are more cut and dried --  you may prefer strategic golf or penal golf or mindless golf or perhaps a combination -- but most golf scholars through the years have prefered strategic golf. The natural part is also fairly clear cut --  man, even if it is subconciously, prefers the natural. The artistic side is always open to subjective tastes from person to person. And as you say, who is to say who is right or wrong. If a number of art scholars believe that Picasso's 'Three Musicians' is landmark work, but your next door neighbor prefers the rug 'Dogs playing cards' - who to say who is correct?

[jim_lewis]

Tom:

I know lots of golfers and lots of scholars, but I never imagined that there exists any "golf scholars". How does one come to qualify or be recognized as a golf scholar? Do you have to read alot, play alot,  have some articles/books published, study a lot of pictures, design a few courses, be dead, spend time in Scotland, or a combination of some or all of the above? Who gets to decide if one can legitimately call himself a "golf scholar"?  Can you name some golf scholars? Heck, I might be one and not know it. It would look good on my resume!

[Rich_Goodale]

It is very conceivable to me that 30 years from now our successors (and maybe even some of us!) will be reading the archives of this DG and be scratching their heads in a similar manner to how some of us react when looking at the old GD ranking lists with its Concords, Firestones and Shoal Creeks at the forefront.  Who is to say that Shadow Creek (or even Fazio's new Pebble Beach course, or even The Bridges!) will not be the Picasso of 2030 and routings of Fisher's Island and NGLA and Merion confined to the dog mats that we put in front of our fireplaces in our twilight years?

I'm neither so wise nor so arrogant to think other than what Mark has expressed, i.e. that all we have to offer on this site are opinions, and not absolute truths.  That's why the site is so much fun.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Jim
A scholar would be someone who has done advanced study in the field of golf architecture; a person who has studied the subject a great deal. Study may include playing, designing and seeing great golf courses, as well as reading, contemplating and discussing the subject thoroughly. I would also include production of works of scholarship that express the scholars findings. I'd put Horace Hutchinson, Bernard Darwin and Tom Simpson in that group, and modern day scholars would include Klein, Morrissett and Doak. No one call himself a scholar, that designation comes people like you and I, would you agree with my assessment of those individuals I just mentioned?

[jim_lewis]

Tom:

I'll buy the criteria you suggest.  Ran and Brad are the only guys you mentioned that I know personnally.  I guess Brad qualifies as a "scholar" since he has a Phd.. Somehow I can't get used to the idea of Ran being a scholar.  Afterall, he went to UNC. I never met a scholar from UNC. Wait, maybe MJ and Dean Smith are basketball "scholars".

In any case, you have convinced me that I don't qualify because I never "produced any works". BS probably doesn't count, anyway.

By the way, How about Whitten?

[Jeff_Lewis]

I think what we have learned about the rankings over time is that they are done by human raters, using imperfect criteria in sample sizes of questionable statistical merit. But these people do have something going for them.  They care a lot about architecture and they see a lot of courses. As has been stated previously on this site, small gradations in these rankings are truly without meaning. 15 or 21. 60 or 80. Who cares.
We have also learned not to overreact to first time rankings. Most of the time, the cream ultimately rises to the top, and the lure of the "new, hot" course or architect fades. Essentially, I figure that any course that has EVER been ranked is worth a look,  and we can all decide for ourselves if we think it is a "top 100" course. Ran, I also think it is a heck of a lot easier to stick up for a perceived lemon than it is to try to tell people that the Emperor has no clothes.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Jim
I would defintely include Whitten - in fact a lot of modern day golf architectural study is a result of his great efforts.