Does UNfamiliarity breed contempt .....

« **on:** December 08, 2006, 10:45:52 PM »

when discussing golf course architecture ?

In discussions involving on Merion, Pine Valley, Aronomink, Seminole and other courses it seems like a good deal of the discussion is hampered by a party's or parties unfamiliarity with the golf course.

It's been said that noone is qualified to pass on the merits of any one hole, let alone 18 holes, unless they have played them under a variety of conditions.

Is the lack of first hand experience leading to many of the misunderstandings with respect to the architecture, the qualities and the playability of a hole ?

« **Reply #1 on:** December 08, 2006, 11:02:00 PM »

« **Reply #2 on:** December 08, 2006, 11:11:05 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on December 08, 2006, 10:45:52 PM

when discussing golf course architecture ?

Is the lack of first hand experience leading to many of the misunderstandings with respect to the architecture, the qualities and the playability of a hole ?

With 18 pages and counting on the Merion thread, I'd have to say YES...definitely. I can't imagine any member of this discussion group that would have or has had the opportunity to actually play Merion, to make some of the arguments that have been made.

Is there any substitute for actually playing or studying a course first hand? All the study of old photos and analysis of written word will never cause the 3rd green at Merion to morph into a Redan.

« **Reply #3 on:** December 09, 2006, 02:09:47 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on December 08, 2006, 10:45:52 PM

It's been said that noone is qualified to pass on the merits of any one hole, let alone 18 holes, unless they have played them under a variety of conditions.

Wouldn't that mean a fair amount of the Confidential Guide is invalid?

« **Reply #4 on:** December 09, 2006, 05:56:57 AM »

Quote from: John_Conley on December 08, 2006, 11:02:00 PM

No.

John,

That one word response does not do much for the view that you raters have very little depth to your analysis.

I just posted this on the other thread:

Quote from: Mike Sweeney on December 09, 2006, 05:46:37 AM

My first trip to GCGC, I fell in love with the clubhouse and atmosphere more than the course, and my view was somewhat similar to Mr Finnegan. Second time around changed my view, and it is now one of my favorite places - golf course and club - to spend a day.

After two plays can I give it a Doak rating, sure. Have I ever jumped into detailed discussion of GCGC? No (to paraphrase you.

)

« **Reply #5 on:** December 09, 2006, 06:08:51 AM »

Quote from: Jim Nugent on December 09, 2006, 02:09:47 AM

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on December 08, 2006, 10:45:52 PM

It's been said that noone is qualified to pass on the merits of any one hole, let alone 18 holes, unless they have played them under a variety of conditions.

Wouldn't that mean a fair amount of the Confidential Guide is invalid?

Jim,

Do you think Tom Doak thinks Stonewall is still an "8" after building some of the course that he has built in the last few years? I love the book, but it has some flaws. Despite my attempts to keep Tom level headed here on GCA, he sent me one of the original red cover books autographed and I reference it frequently.

I think this goes back to the old which is better the green committee or the architect (with no real history at the club) in choosing a restoration direction. The answer is, it depends and probably the best solution (or discussion in your reference) come from collaboration.

« **Reply #6 on:** December 09, 2006, 06:48:34 AM »

Pat:

There's no question at all you're referring to one Tom MacWood. So, my answer to your question would be an unqualified yes. If he had ever seen any of those courses you mentioned that he's critiqued in detail there's little question in my mind that most of these threads would be either unnecessary or about ten times shorter than they are.

I wouldn't even think of conducting a detailed analysis or critique of any golf course I'd never even seen and I know you wouldn't either. But obviously there are a few on here who believe they can do what no one else can---eg be completely familiar with a golf course, its history and evolution without even seeing it.

That kind of thing is a tremendous waste of time and should cease on here, in my opinion.

« **Reply #7 on:** December 09, 2006, 02:46:57 PM »

TEPaul,

No, I didn't have anyone in mind.

I was just reflecting on the many threads where someone has never seen the golf course, let alone played it, yet they offer their opinions as expert opinions.

As JSlonis indicated with respect to Merion, if the people taking certain positions were familiar with the holes, the land and the club, they'd probably adopt different positions.

Is there a viable substitute for lack of person experience ?

« **Reply #8 on:** December 09, 2006, 03:04:37 PM »

Pat. I don't agree that one has to play a hole numerous times under various conditions to form an opinion about it. I would say, however, that the more one plays or studies a hole, the more informed the opinion is likely to be.

I have found that after playing a hole only once, or even only seeing one on TV, that it can spark an opinion or have an emotional or sensory impact. (Maybe I'm exaggerating, but I hope you get my point.) Should one keep those opinions/emotions contained or participate in a discussion where they may be interested and/or inclined?

Lastly, a studied GC architect is likely to give a more informed opinion of a hole after only seeing it once than an average golfer who might have played the hole 100 times.

« **Reply #9 on:** December 09, 2006, 03:36:35 PM »

Quote from: HenryE on December 09, 2006, 03:04:37 PM

Pat. I don't agree that one has to play a hole numerous times under various conditions to form an opinion about it.

I would say, however, that the more one plays or studies a hole, the more informed the opinion is likely to be.

Doesn't that reinforce the original question ?[/color]

I have found that after playing a hole only once, or even only seeing one on TV, that it can spark an opinion or have an emotional or sensory impact. (Maybe I'm exaggerating, but I hope you get my point.) Should one keep those opinions/emotions contained or participate in a discussion where they may be interested and/or inclined ?

Sparking an opinion ? Certainly.
Having a sensory or emotional impact ? Certainly

But, what's the value of those opinions, especially those derived from watching TV, which is typically limited to one, two dimensional, angle of presentation ?

Certainly the more data that's available, especially from first hand experience, the more informed the opinion will be.
And, absent first hand experience, how informed and valueable will that opinion be ?[/color]

Lastly, a studied GC architect is likely to give a more informed opinion of a hole after only seeing it once than an average golfer who might have played the hole 100 times.

In general and in theory, perhaps, but, I feel that artistic people have an inate ability that transcends repetition or structure. Some have keen powers of observation, while others are obtuse or dense, or both.

As Matt Ward stated, "you can look at the presentation of a meal all you want, but, until you taste it, eat it, you don't have any idea as to its quality, its merits"

I think that's mostly true in golf as well[/color]

« **Reply #10 on:** December 09, 2006, 06:28:52 PM »

Being that the premise of this website is the discussion of architecural merit, along with the ideal that there is no "perfect" golf course nor architect, I can see why people contribute to threads when they have no reference or experience if only to add more fuel to the fire

That being said, I think that it takes A LONG time to truly understand a design in all of its entirety... I've played Outlaw at Desert Mountain well over 100 times, and every time I find something new and neat to try (next time). Because of that, I feel that I can offer some insight to the design that many cannot. But as far as Merion, Pine Valley, etc... One of these days the invitation will come, and I will play, and I will smile... And maybe, after more than a few rounds, I will have something of value to contribute. Until then, I'll keep reading the posts from those that know, as they truly do give those of us who have not played to better understand both the design and the ideas behind the design of these classic gems !!!

« **Reply #11 on:** December 11, 2006, 03:22:52 PM »

Tony Peterson,

Suppose you were invited tomorrow.

How much do you think your architectural focus would be diverted by your first time experience ?

How much of your focus would be devoted to PLAYING rather than observing the architecture ?

« **Reply #12 on:** December 11, 2006, 03:56:30 PM »

Unfortunately, many on this website have not had the opportunity to really see first hand many of the courses that are discussed here. I've been fortunate to see a few. But invariably the conversations always seem to come back to about 10 courses that are ultra-exclusive and mostly in the New York or Philly area where I would guess a large number of the participants do not live so visiting them just to walk around is almost an impossibilty, let alone to play. So I agree that detailed analysis of a course that you have not ever visited might be difficult to support, but a lot can be accomplished by research and studying routing plans and photographs (from the ground and air) to contribute to a conversation.

I have purposely avoided the Merion thread, so I have no idea if this post is coming from that. But I find the attitude that you cannot discuss a golf course intelligently without actually visiting the grounds to be absurd and very elitist. To think so eliminates much of the discussion that should happen on this site and would make it stale and probably just devolve into a series of threads about why National isn't ranked higher and who doesn't "get it" and the always present grousing about the changes at Augusta for that given year. If we can't talk about courses that most of us will never see then I fail to see the point of even coming to Golf Club Atlas.

« **Reply #13 on:** December 11, 2006, 05:47:03 PM »

Chris,

Have you read Charles Blair MacDonald's "Scotland"s Gift" ?

« **Reply #14 on:** December 11, 2006, 05:50:09 PM »

Quote from: Chris_Clouser on December 11, 2006, 03:56:30 PM

If we can't talk about courses that most of us will never see then I fail to see the point of even coming to Golf Club Atlas.

Chris,

How can you talk INTELLIGENTLY about a course you've never seen ?

« **Reply #15 on:** December 11, 2006, 07:49:44 PM »

Patrick,

Yes, I've read CBMs book. Actually many passages, three times at least. But not in varying conditions, so does that count?

As has been said by me and someone else, you can do a lot of research and studying the course before you get there in this day and age with the numerous possible sources from the internet to magazines. You can know a lot about a course without ever playing it. So yes, you can talk intelligently about it. Especially if you have seen it played in some form, such as a tournament. But I did not ever say that this would substitute for ever seeing the course first hand. In all instances that would be preferable.

« **Reply #16 on:** December 11, 2006, 07:56:21 PM »

The one thing I will say is that the best (and most important thing I have ever done to help me understand and appreciate golf architecture) is to see and play hundreds of great golf courses around the world. Books are fabulous and photos are great but there is no subsitute for seeing a great golf course in person. And the more you see of one course (especially if it is a good one) the better.

« **Reply #17 on:** December 11, 2006, 08:57:19 PM »

the one thing i can not understand is how a gca can make suggestions to a golf course without ever playing the golf course. this seems to happen all the time. am i missing something. how can these uys see how the holes play just by walking the property. can they really understand all the different playing options under differing conditions?

« **Reply #18 on:** December 11, 2006, 09:17:59 PM »

TV can be dangerous when trying to get the nuances of a course. I've watched the Heritage at Harbour Town quite a few times, but until I actually played the course I had no clue just how tiny the 18th green looks from the fairway (or generally just how small it is!). Its one heck of a tough hole for anyone not on the PGA Tour, even if the fairway is 100 yards wide!

« **Reply #19 on:** December 11, 2006, 09:18:07 PM »

Patrick...

You questioned one's ability to discuss a course not played. I would say it's foolish (and totally unfounded) to take a position as to the merits (or lack thereof) without having first hand knowledge. On the other hand, questions from a totally unsullied, interested student might be more usefull than from someone who has many personal rounds.

Racetrack George's question regarding a GCA making "suggestions" or even more without playing the course really struck a chord. Mr. Ross is credited with many, many designs which were truly "mail in" designs. He never even visited the course. Some of these are very, very good; some are better than OK, and a few are not very good at all. The best seem to be where he took a very personal interest.

Jamey

« **Reply #20 on:** December 12, 2006, 11:04:08 AM »

Patrick/Racetrack George,

I feel your opinions are valid, however playing the great golf courses is not the easiest thing to do for most people. I wouldn't hold it against a student of golf course architecture if they haven't played Augusta from commenting on the strategies, as they don't exactly take tee times. I do think that someone should have at least walked a golf course in order to start a discussion, and yes, I'll yield that only playing a golf course (more than once) will allow someone to discuss the details with any authority.

I have been lucky enough to play some of the great golf courses, and I make an attempt to walk any others that I can. In 1995, I made the road trip with my brother to watch the US Am at Newport CC, and in both '95 and '04 I bought weeklong passes to the US Open to enjoy Shinnecock. I would have no problem commenting on any hole on that golf course, having walked the properties many times and seen the best in the world tackle them. I don't think that my opinions on either should be discredited because I haven't played them. Again, I'm not the type to make too much noise on this site (A, I just joined and B, that's not my style), and I would defer to someone who disagreed with my opinion that has played either course many times.

You won't see me participate directly on any threads on a golf course that I haven't played or walked, and therefore, I only read the posts on such places as NGLA, Merion, and Cypress. Being a student of the game, I have an appreciation of these places, and I'm aware of the quarry hole, the back to back par 3's, and the redan hole, etc.

I just think that this site is a great educational tool for some who are trying to gain a little knowledge and appreciation, and even if someone hasn't played the great courses, they may have a worthy opinion and it shouldn't be immediately discredited on the grounds that they haven't played in the Jamboree at Augusta.

Mike

« **Reply #21 on:** December 12, 2006, 11:19:42 AM »

Michael Ryan,

I think you and Jamey need to reread the opening post on this thread.

Unfamiliarity with a golf course is used in the context that the individual has never experienced it, first hand.
That they've neither played or walked it.

Walking a golf course can give the individual first hand knowledge of the golf course. The topography, angles, etc, etc..

But, until you step up on a tee, can you really get a feel for how the hole sets up ? Whether its comfortable or uncomfortale ?

To understand architecture, don't you need to view it from the golfer's eye ?

Isn't that what the architect intends ?

Isn't that what he designs for ?

And, don't repeat visits broaden one's data base ?
Don't repeat visits increase familiarity and provide more insight ?

I watched The Masters on TV for 40 years, but, until I actually visited ANGC I didn't really have a good grasp on the architecture and how it integrated with the golfer.

That was only obtained through first hand experience.

TEPaul and Wayne Morrison have played and walked Merion an inordinate amount of times. Whose familiarity and credibility is greater when it comes to understanding the topography, someone who's been there 200 times, or someone who's played it twice, or drove past it or walked in in a gallery ?

« **Reply #22 on:** December 12, 2006, 11:29:52 AM »

Patrick,

I did read the posts, you should re-read my first line, where I state that I feel your opinion is valid. I just felt the need to remind everyone that there can be some thoughtful discussion from someone who has walked a property and has an appreciation for the game and the architechture.

Maybe my reply should have been addressed to just Racetrack George, as his post writes off anyone who hasn't played a course being unsuited to comment. I think he is being pretty short sighted, and his tone just comes across pretty elitist to me, as most of the courses discussed repeatedly are "closed shops".

We each make an effort in our own way to appreciate this great game and the courses, I would hate to see someone's opinion on any thread immediately met with an answer of "have you played it". Goes against what I perceive this website to be about.

« **Reply #23 on:** December 12, 2006, 12:20:08 PM »

Patrick, if you don't feel that we're qualified to discuss Augusta, then why do you persist in starting threads about it, when you know that very few of us have played there?

« **Reply #24 on:** December 12, 2006, 12:27:34 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on December 09, 2006, 02:46:57 PM

TEPaul,

As JSlonis indicated with respect to Merion, if the people taking certain positions were familiar with the holes, the land and the club, they'd probably adopt different positions.

Is there a viable substitute for lack of person experience ?

The two components that are very difficult to understand without firsthand experience are wind and contour. These elements have the greatest impact on actually playing the course but neither shows up well in pictures or on television.

News:

Patrick_Mucci

John_Conley

JSlonis

Jim Nugent

Mike_Sweeney

Mike_Sweeney

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

henrye

Patrick_Mucci

Tony Petersen

Patrick_Mucci

Chris_Clouser

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

Chris_Clouser

Mark_Fine

D_Malley

Andy Troeger

Jamey Bryan

Michael Ryan

Patrick_Mucci

Michael Ryan

Chris Kane

Jason Topp