[Tom_Doak]

One of the subjects on the rankings threads is whether votes get "stale" after a certain number of years, and whether a panelist ought to play a course in order to rate it.

Those who say yes insist that you can only truly judge a course after playing it.  (Some even go further and insist this takes multiple plays in various wind and weather conditions!)

Perhaps.  But what I'd like to ask is, how many of you have actually changed your opinion of a course so substantially after a second visit, that it went from "not great" to "one of the top 100 courses in America" in your mind?

I'm not sure this has ever happened for me.  My experience is that the very best courses seem to get even better the more you get to know them ... on the third or fourth visit, you realize that even the weakest hole on the course is pretty darned good.  But, it's much less often that a course I thought was just okay reveals itself to be something much greater.  A great course has to have a fair number of great holes, and how do you miss a great hole the first time around?

Just wondering if experience proves the rule, or tears it to shreds.

[Mike Sweeney]

I fell in love with Garden City as a place on the first visit, and thought the course was very good. Second and subsequent visits, the course equaled the place.

I played San Francisco GC at the end of a dream trip and my swing was dead. If I ever play it again I am guessing that I will have a higher opinion of the course.

Same with Baltimore CC, very good course round 1. "What did I miss' I thought during round 2? It is much better than some of the famous NY Tilly courses.

Ran and yourself seem to have similar minds, not all of us are wired the same way.

[CHrisB]

Tom D,

Doesn't this depend on things like maintenance practices or whether restorations/revisions are undertaken?

I could see people's opinions of Yale swaying on whether they have seen it before/during/after some of the bunker work and changes in maintenance practices that have occurred there over the past 10 or so years.

And I imagine there would be some who would consider including Yeamans Hall in their ranking after seeing the restoration work that you did there several years ago, where they perhaps might not have before.

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

Certainly if golf courses have undergone renovations or restorations, it would be important to replay a course in order for a review to have any meaning.  I would think a panel that cared about accuracy would insist that previous ratings on a course that has undergone a significant reworking of the course or maintenance practice ought to be re-rated.

I rarely give myself the opportunity to change my mind if the initial impression is just fair.  There are too many courses to see and too little time to devote to bother with one that doesn't inspire at the outset.  

I whole-heartedly agree that courses that seem outstanding at the outset often reveal more greatness over repeated play.

Have you ever thought a golf course that made a strong initial impression became less and less interesting over repeated play?  The way some architects design photogenic signature holes that are actually architecturally dull or clones of other holes elsewhere would seem to allow something like this to occur, especially with players that are just beginning to delve into architectural appreciation.

[Tom_Doak]

Wayne and Chris:

I've consulted on about twenty courses, and done good work in restoring them all -- but there are only maybe two of them where I think our work has actually pushed the course a point or two higher on the Doak scale.

I know everybody here is gaga about restorations, but to my mind, a course either has it or it doesn't.  Yes, if someone has really messed up a course like Yale, or neglected one badly like Yeamans Hall, then maybe it lags in the rankings until they reverse direction.  But did some of the bunkers at Yale not looking right, really make that much difference in the true merits of the course and how it played?  I still had it rated pretty highly based on the routing, the greens, and the guts (but not the maintenance!).

Ninety percent of restoration projects are just expensive plastic surgery.

I do agree that the phenomenon is more likely reversed ... that a course which excites at first glance turns out not to be so interesting over time, or you start to see the faults more clearly and put them in perspective.  That is exactly why most new courses start high in the rankings and then move down on repeated exposure, whereas only a handful of courses (like Sand Hills) have started in the rankings and steadily moved up.

[Gerry B]

Just played The Country Club for the 3rd time a couple of weeks ago - went there with an open mind as i did not feel it was worth the accolades during my 1st two visits and finally "got it" this time.

[John Kavanaugh]

The first time I went out to play The Warren course I took a look at the first hole and this and that and went home to take a nap instead.  I just recently was forced to play the course because I had mandatory kill time before an appointment and found the course to be quite beyond horrible.  I was wrong in my initial judgement and apologize to any who may have been influenced by my first report.

I also first played Hulman Links in Terre Haute some 30 years ago and thought it may be the worst course I had ever seen.  Just a couple of weeks ago I went back, after a visit now and then in between, and found they had removed thousands of trees that should have been removed during initial construction.  I went so far to say to a friend recently that the course is (in the context of Terre Haute) Butler National routing with Olympia Fields greens. (two courses I had played that week)  I would now put it top ten in Indiana and a nudge in front of The Warren.

[Phil_the_Author]

On my first visit to Pinehurst #2 I walked away thinking that it was a cow pasture, which it was. Now I must explain. It was in the early '80's and the course had half of each fairway literally plowed up because of a disease that was attacking the turf.

Maybe it is because of how annoyed I was that they were so free to accept my money when the course should have been closed, or maybe I just genuinely don't see what is there, but despite what I've seen since then, I've never been able to see it as anything more than a mid-tier course, and certainly, and this is obviously only IMHO, nowhere hear a top 10
course.

[Powell Arms]

Interesting question, and I think my experience with the Ocean Course at Kiawah may be a scenario where a course went from being something so-so to soething special after a few rounds.  I played the course five times between 1993 and 1997, and each time I left feeling that it was overly penal.  In many ways, it was a relentless course (to borrow a phrase from another thread).  As an example, perfectly struck balls would roll through a dogleg ten yards too far and be lost in fescue.  It's valid to ask why I kept coming back, and the answer is that I felt I needed to like the course, simply because it was thought of so highly by experts.

I played the course again earlier this year, and now do agree that it is a very special course.  Two significant changes were made in the intervening period.  First, a caddie program was instituted.  In the mid-90's, caddies were not available.  Second, Dye did some remodel work to add some rough to soften the relentlessly penal nature of the course.  

I think both were significant improvements that make a great routing now a wonderful golf experience.

[Mike Nuzzo]

I don't think I need to play a course to asses it appropriately.
I remember/see more course details walking vs. playing and focusing more on my individual shots.

I do find that if my opinions have changed over time it is because I've visited so many great courses - the others would tend to drop a bit - my tastes have matured.

I also think I can base my interest in traveling to visit a course via pictures - while not as accurate as playing in multiple winds, I feel it is close enough based on my limited schedule.  There are lots of details that stand out - like the pictures of the new course in Idaho.

[Bob_Huntley]

Wayne and Chris:



Ninety percent of restoration projects are just expensive plastic surgery.

Tom,

You may well be right on this but I can assure you that Rees Jone's work at MPCC was nothing short of brilliant.

Bob

[Mark Arata]

Tom, I am not sure how much surgery you performed at Atlantic City CC, I never got to see the original layout, but what is there now is pretty spectacular.....one of my favorite courses.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I would imagine that a critical factor is the sensory perception on the part of the rater.

I would have to question the rater's ability to discern if he didn't like the course on his first visit, but liked it on subsequent visits, or vice versa.

While I haven't experienced any radical departures, I did make subsequent adjustments in my assessments.

[Larry_Keltto]

What about the Old Course? I haven't played it -- shame on me -- but I recall a quote that went something like, "If someone who just played the Old Course for the first time says they loved it, then they're lying."

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom
I think Wayne M has it basically right. But I think it's quite  important that someone like you is asking the question in the first place. Here's why:

I think the more one knows and loves a subject, the more there exists the subtle tendency to overvalue that which is undoubtedly great.

At least, that's what I find for myself in the couple of areas I know well. That is, in the spirit of truth let's call it, I find that I need to guard against assigning greatness and meaning and purpose to every single note or lick played by my favourite clarinetist, or to every character or bit of dialogue from my favourite playwright. I've done it much too often in the past, and it's a very easy habit to fall into.  

The irony, for lack of a better word, is that I only have to guard against this tendency in regards to those artists who have almost immediately (and then very consistently) demonstrated that they're the very best at what they do.  

That's because it's only the recognition of their greatness that calls forth from me the effort to listen or read very deeply and carefully in the first place; and only with that recognition and effort comes the tendency to expect another example of greatness at every turn. And that expectation is a double-edged sword.  

In other words, I'm aware that it's my very love for these artists that may blind me to their occasional missteps. And it's out of respect for these artists that I have to guard against doing them (or me, or truth) a disservice by ignoring or glossing over those missteps.        

To get back to gca (sorry for the ramble): I'm someone who takes the GOLF Magazine list pretty much at face value, meaning that I assume each of the panelists has, to varying degrees, forgotten more about golf architecture than I'll never know. So, I assume that even if the rankings are not exactly in the right order, the 100 courses listed are probably very close to the 100 best courses around.  

In that area, I don’t have to be careful, or fight the tendency I describe. Only a true gca expert can recognize all the wonderful and varied manifestations of talent; but then, only the true expert runs the risk of imagining/assigning greatness to even the most modest of achievements, and of trying to convince the masses of what he believes.

So, yes, I do think it's important that the gca experts check in every once in a while to try to see if they’re not overvaluing that which is undoubtedly great.

I think that, in the spirit of truth, the extra effort is worth it.
 
Peter  

[Tom_Doak]

Interesting answers all.  A couple of people have hinted how a good or bad initial round can skew one's opinion of a course for a long time forward ... which is a good reason not to play a course just once, but is not really a good reason to play it at all.

Mark A:  The routing of Atlantic City is fairly similar to what came before, but a lot of contouring work was done in the fairway -- the course was much flatter from tee to green originally, which meant it also had some drainage problems.  We also rebuilt all of the greens -- there were five or six where we preserved the pre-existing hole and so we also preserved the contours of those greens, but the other 13 are completely new.  It was a very good course previously, but I hope we did more than plastic surgery there.

Larry:  A lot of people lie about their true feelings on The Old Course.  It is certainly one that will grow on you as you play it more, but it is possible to love it the first time you look around -- the greens and bunkers are clearly like no other course you will ever find.  It's just hard to appreciate the full strategy of it the first time out, because there is so much going on, and the visibility of the hazards and contours is often poor.  You really have to have a map of it in your head, and not many people can do that the first time around.

Peter:  I understand what you're saying, and it's certainly true of me as well ... I hold Pete Dye and Bill Coore and Tom Fazio to a very high standard, because I know what they're capable of.  Actually, I hold everybody to a very high standard.    But a lot of people don't; they just assume that anything built by a big name is automatically worthy of respect, and that most people are not worthy enough to critique it.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I think TOC is one of those courses which doesn't reveal everything the first time out.

Many who play A golf course, only see it in the context of their play on that day.

Take the 3rd hole at Sebonack.
Is someone who duck hooks their drive going to appreciate the entirety of the hole ?
Is someone who hits a big banana slice going to appreciate the entirety of the hole ?

Most golfers have tunnel vision when it comes to playing a hole and viewing it in a global perspective.

I think CBM's comment on repeat play is valid, although, I don't know about the extreme heat, cold and rainy part.

[David Lott]

My experience a few years ago in late October at Macrahanish confirms Pat Mucci's point.

First day, in a clammy semi-drizzle, never seeing the course before, no caddy, I needed the bunnies on 17 and 18 to break 100. Hated the course.

Three days and three rounds later, in improved weather, I took 20 strokes less. Loved the place.

The next summer, I stayed in St. Andrews for two months. The difference between my best and worst rounds at TOC was 23 strokes! If the highest had been my only round, it would have been difficult to summon much reverence for the Old Course.

[Mark_F]

I know everybody here is gaga about restorations, but to my mind, a course either has it or it doesn't.  

How does this explain Kingston Heath then?

KH was in the 70s or 80s, until Graeme Grant rebuilt a couple of greens, chopped down a few trees and restored some bunkers.

The routing and most of the holes are all the same, aren't they?

[Darren_Kilfara]

What about the Old Course? I haven't played it -- shame on me -- but I recall a quote that went something like, "If someone who just played the Old Course for the first time says they loved it, then they're lying."

TOC is a course most people love for the history and the atmosphere the first few times around, not the architecture. In my book I argued that there are three phases to the average golfer's TOC experience, this being the first. Second is frustration, once you start hitting into random bunkers and feel like the course is a bit of a con because you don't yet "get" the strategy involved. Last comes exhiliaration, once you come to grips with the location of everything, begin discovering new strategic lines of play (whether by accident or on purpose) and realise that just about every slope and bunker on the course seems to have a useful raison d'etre. It took me between 8-12 rounds to get to stage three; the process may take longer for others, but I'd be really surprised if someone can get that far in much less time.

I'm perfectly willing to accept at face value any golfer's declaration of love for the experience of TOC at first sight. I'm much less inclined to believe such declarations of love for the course itself until he's come to know the course well enough to take aim at every shot without a caddy and think strategically for himself.

Cheers,
Darren

[wsmorrison]

Pin positions the day of play can influence less observant players.  There are so many examples of this but take for instance the 3rd green at Merion is one of the great greens in golf.  If the pin is in the front and the golfer plays close to the pin, they may never see the demanding contours and slopes of that green.  To not putt over those slopes is truly a shame.  By the way, the Neil Regan school of challenge putts overcomes this very issue.

On a hole by hole basis, less is taken in especially if the course ranker is playing for a score as well as checking out the course.  Like Tom D, I believe that a rankers score that day unfortunately does have an effect on their subjective evaluations.

[Darren_Kilfara]

Like Tom D, I believe that a rankers score that day unfortunately does have an effect on their subjective evaluations.

FWIW, Herbert Warren Wind described this phenomenon in general terms - i.e., for all golfers, not just rankers - over 40 years ago in his wonderful essay about Royal Dornoch, if memory serves; somehow, I doubt he was the first writer to do so.

[Dan Kelly]

I do agree that the phenomenon is more likely reversed ... that a course which excites at first glance turns out not to be so interesting over time, or you start to see the faults more clearly and put them in perspective.  That is exactly why most new courses start high in the rankings and then move down on repeated exposure, whereas only a handful of courses (like Sand Hills) have started in the rankings and steadily moved up.

I understand the first phenomenon -- but not the second.

I don't understand why Sand Hills steadily moves up.

Is it really getting better? Hasn't its greatness been obvious from Day 1, to anyone qualified to judge golf courses? What could possibly have been revealed to the various ranking panels' members, through repeated exposures, that they shouldn't have been perfectly capable of imagining the first time they laid eyes on the place?

[Darren_Kilfara]

Is it really getting better? Hasn't its greatness been obvious from Day 1, to anyone qualified to judge golf courses? What could possibly have been revealed to the various ranking panels' members, through repeated exposures, that they shouldn't have been perfectly capable of imagining the first time they laid eyes on the place?

I think you'll find an element of peer pressure is involved here. I can imagine a rater not putting his neck on the chopping block and calling some course among the Top 5/10/20/100/whatever in his personal list for fear that his opinions will stand out in the absence of a coalescing consensus.

[John Kavanaugh]

Saying that Lakota Caynon is top ten is not healthy for your card.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()