Ian:

Very interesting questions.

I'd say at GREAT courses, familiarity does breed respect and love and admiration.  But at many many others, familiarity does breed contempt.  

Regarding how this works out for the rating world, I'd say that the universe of courses that would get assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY better after multiple playings has got to be pretty small.  Oh sure, TOC is a good example.  But how many others are there really?  Most great courses for which familiarity would breed respect, love, admiration ALSO would seem to receive a lot of that after one play.  And given that it's wholly unrealistic to expect the rater world to assess things ONLY after multiple playings, well... just how large of a weakness is this really?

TH

And the question is, how does this affect the designer? If ratings and word-of-mouth opinion based on a bunch of single visits are the criteria for judging the worth of a golf course, do the designers, perhaps even unintentionally, design courses that lack the kind of subtlety and nuance that repeated play reveals in favor of eye candy and unsubtle design elements that can be easily appreciated on one visit?

Tom:

I agree with your analysis, it's not feasible for the rankings to be done any other way.

I do think that architecture suffers somewhat because everyone building new courses feels pressure to make a huge first impression.  

Few courses which finish fourth in the Digest "Best New" awards ever rise any higher because the panelists have dumped them and are on to the latest best new.  Architects understand this and that's why there aren't many young ones who are playing the subtler notes on the scale.

Tom H,

Who is building subtle greens or approaches these days?  I am not asking rhetorically, I don't get to see many new courses because I am too busy studying the classic ones for various projects.  

Subtle greens, which can be considered as interplays of slope rather than large internal contouring, doesn't seem to represent a majority of courses in the classic era and even less so today.  I think subtle features are more appropriate for private clubs where a long learning curve can be appreciated by members and offer home course advantages as opposed to overtly contoured greens that may be more suitable to public/resort courses or as eye candy to sell new privates in a competitive market.

There is something appealing watching people unfamiliar with subtle interplays of slope scratch their heads after misreading a 20' putt by about 6'.  There is less self-doubt about overt contours.  When the challenge is easily seen in internal contouring and the task readily presented, there is a lot less confusion and interest.

Please don't get me wrong, I like courses with contoured greens, including some oldies but goodies and moderns I have seen.  But as a member of a private club, I like the challenge offered by subtle greens with some contoured greens for variety.  I prefer that to a routine challenge where all greens are heavily contoured.  

Oh aye, the pattern is recognizable; thankfully  

I find that even quite ordinary courses - plenty of local courses - very often grow on me with greater familiarity.  Bad holes become worse, bland holes remain uninteresting, but a little slope on this green, a well-sited bunker there, a charming vista through a gap in the trees or a shot made more intimidating by my ever-increasing ineptitude - these all grow on me with greater exposure to them.  It doesn't make them great courses, but it increases my sense of anticipation during the round.

I played Broadstone for the first time in 8 years last week.  Before that I had played it in the era of Dunlop 65s and Bob Charles left-handed clubs, late 60s or early 70s, I suppose.  I looked forward to the top-class holes immensely (7th, 13th and 14th) and they did not disappoint, being every bit as exciting as I had expected.  But one or two holes I had previously rather underestimated turned out to be far better than I had remembered (4th, 6th, 11th) and one I had thought rather makeweight in the past turned out to be a cracker (10th).  Other holes, such as the 1st, 5th, 15th and 16th, came up fresh as a daisy.  However, the 18th, which I remembered as being rather lacklustre, turned out to be even more uninteresting than I anticipated - in fact rather a let down to an otherwise rejuvenating round.

Tommy,

I like the examples you gave in your response and I think you illustrate the value of multiple playing. You can break it down into four basic categories of feeling after at least one additional playing.

1.   Like it even more than I did the first time
2.   It’s great, but not as special as I first thought
3.   Like it much less
4.   Boy did I miss this one the first time and now I fully appreciate the course

The last category is often the most important. We occasionally fail to get it – know matter how clever we are or think we are – occasionally circumstance gets the better of you when you play there. For example, I don’t get Royal Troon’s greatness, but I’ve played in the rain each time with wind always coming from the south. Is there a chance that weather and circumstance has interceded in my judgment? Or is the course really not as good as other people feel it is.

I’ve spent a great deal of time trying to get to know Walter Travis. In a conversation with Bruce Hepner recently I pointed out that after nearly 10 years of this quest I’m now more confident than ever that I don’t know enough. I’ve managed to always find new contradictions or new ideas to blow holes in any ability to suggest a design style. Familiarity has only brought me…….more questions. Are courses similar, the more you think you know about them, the more you really don’t?


Wayne,

Merion East is the best example of a course that you grow even further in awe of. I've played it twice and walked it in both directions. Each time I have left, I shook my head in wonder of how close to perfect the routing and architecture is.

Ian,

I don't think there really are four categories, there only way you can like or dislike a course a LOT more than you did the first time you saw (your categories 3 & 4) it is due to something that's out of the architect's control:

- Conditions were off - it was raining or too windy for your liking, or poorly maintained, or rabid kangaroos were roaming the fairways and constantly biting you

- You played really poorly or really well and that got mixed in with your evaluation

- You have good or bad memories of it due to good or bad memories of the trip, the people you were traveling/playing with, the time in your life, etc.

- Your viewpoints on what makes for a good or bad course have matured or changed over time due to seeing more courses or spending too much time on GCA

The only thing that's important is whether the course goes up, down or stays the same in the second and subsequent rounds.  The courses that get the Doak 9s and especially 10s are the ones that just about everyone says they like more every time they play it.  That's why TOC is a 10, not because everyone thinks its a 10, but because even those crazy deluded fools who think its a 5 generally raise their opinions of it if they play it again and again, even though it may still never be amongst their favorites.

These are the courses where there is always more to see and experience.  On the other hand, a course that's flat, uninteresting and always soggy will never offer anything new beyond what is possible by practicing on a driving range and chipping greens, so familiarity with it would definitely breed contempt, if one were so unfortunate as to be forced to play it again and again.

I find that even quite ordinary courses - plenty of local courses - very often grow on me with greater familiarity.  Bad holes become worse, bland holes remain uninteresting, but a little slope on this green, a well-sited bunker there, a charming vista through a gap in the trees or a shot made more intimidating by my ever-increasing ineptitude - these all grow on me with greater exposure to them.  It doesn't make them great courses, but it increases my sense of anticipation during the round.

MR

I was about to make a similar comment.
I play most of my local golf on courses that are mediocre at best and yet I still enjoy their challenge and the more I play them the more I find that they do improve, in my mind, with study.
I was thinking recently of our public 9 hole course - Beaver Brook - and what I could do to improve the course if the owner allowed me to try. I realised that the first 3 holes required nothing but improved drainage that would improve the conditioning and bring the ground game into play...

Ian Andrew,

"I don't think that any one is qualified to pass on the merits of any one hole, let alone eighteen holes, unless he has played them under all of the varying conditions possible--varying winds, rain, heat, frost, etc."

Ian,

Sometimes it can't be helped, but in my travels I try to pick one course and play it 3-5 times, rather than succomb to the checklist mentality.  I would rather play one course five times than five courses one time. Most people I talk to think this is stark-raving mad. (I have not played very many courses!)

Let me ask you a question: would most people be better off not playing TOC at all instead of just once -- or, if they could, playing TOC five times but not playing any other course in Scotland? Why / why not?

Mark

Mark,

I can only speak for myself, and what I find I need to look at a course.

1. I learn far more if I only walk - and stop and watch. I spent an hour and a half watching approached to the 14th green at the old course - only one player knew how to handle the front pin.

2. If there is more to understand I find booking twice, or walking in addition to playing helps my understanding of the course. I book multiple playings at Tobacco Road instead of trying to take it all in at once.

3. My opinion occasionally does change with repeated visits. I'll confess that I enjoyed the "other" holes at Pebble Beach more than I remembered the first time and my opinion of the course increased.

re: you question about The Old Course - if you wondered what all the fuss was about - my only suggestion would be to play it again.