Off course scenary is very important, IMO.  The best example of this in my experience occurred last summer.  I played a couple of courses in Kauai, one of which wrapped around a shopping center.  The course was relatively treeless, so many holes had a great view of the back of Home Depot and Borders.  

In thinking back, some of the holes were pretty good, but I just couldnt get past the off-course views, or lack thereof.  The price was about half of the other courses, which are oceanside.  even with that, I did and would continue to choose to pay more for the view with comparable quality of architecture hole-by-hole on the more expensive courses.

The two courses I've played the most where I currently live are diametrically opposite re. views off the course.

One is surrounded by mostly a depressed area of town, with badly maintained housing and city streets on most views. It's where I was a member for 7 years, and am now back after a two-year stint at the other.

The "other" is located on a lake, and is easily the prettiest course in town. You can see the lake from every hole, and there's only one short section wehre housing of any kind is visible on the other boundary. The houses there are relatively new, and attractive McMansions.

I LOVE the course with crummy surroundings, and detest the pretty one.

To me, the views are almost completely irrelevant.

Although I did take that photo of Dornoch when I had the chance.

Ken

I agree with Pete Lavallee. I think it's possible to separate the experience from an architectural analysis. And, if I'm not mistaken, that is Pat Mucci's position, too.

It is similar to being able to appreciate quality GCA even if the temporary course conditions are not optimal.

As an example of the former, the eighth at Pebble Beach didn't suffer architecturally from the building of the monstrosity of a mansion built on the hill in the distance. It actually helps the caddy tell the uninitiated where to aim. (The garbage Bin doors)

And on the flipside, a course like Southern Dunes' (Haines City Fl.)architecture is compelling enough to ignore the surrounding repetitive housing.

You guys are evil.  Truly, truly evil.

You do realize Mucci and I (with Kalen assisting on my side) had a 15 page thread on this very issue not more than a few months ago... and you want to rehash it now, now, when finally the dust is clear and we came to at least some grudging acceptance of each other's positions?

I must stay clear... must... but man I can't help it....

To Adam and Pete - you have Mucci's take basically correct, but just do realize that a certain Tom Doak disagreed very directly with him, and now you if you take this side... Doak said a very basic function of architecture was to maximize great views when they are available, and mimimize bad views as much as possible without otherwise affecting play.  So yes, scenic views very much do play into architecture.  Even Mucci came to accept this, btw..

Our disagreement was about how views affect play, or not.

And we sincerely do NOT need to rehash that again.

Now as for Matt's questions, I'd of course say views do matter, very much so.  Even for you architectural purists, hell just take it as an assessment of how the architecture works or not vis a vis how Doak described this.  That's part of the architecture.   As for me, far more concerned with golf courses and how much fun it is to play them than any silly assessment of pure architecture, of course views matter.  When they're nice, they're a bonus.  When they suck, they're a negative.  If they don't exist one way or the other, it's neutral.  Seems pretty simple and obvious to me, since one doesn't play this game with his eyes closed and has a lot of time in between golf shots.

TH

Huck,

That was what I thought when this thread popped up too.  I was envisioning 5 more pages of P Mucci and you going toe to toe again.  

Back on topic...we are all people of emotion and feelings, even though my wife claims to the contrary.  This just doesn't turn off when we hit the links.  The reality is, we are affected by our environment in at least some small way.  A panamoric view of the coastline like 7 or 8 at Pebble would overwhelm almost anyone, even a slightly jaded person as myself.  And for others if they are inspired by views of homes, hotels, or industrial factories, then more power to them.  Its what makes people different and adds the color to life.

To try to convince ourselves otherwise that these things don't affect us in some way is just nonsene...unless you are Mr. Mucci.  

P.S. Huck, I'm always available to provide supporting screen shots and arials, just let me know  

Matt:

Well, there's no doubt that off-course views might get overvalued by some.  I just do believe that to declare that they absolutely cannot and should not have ANY role in a golf course assessment is rather silly.

Once again, I'd say it goes like this:  bonus for good views, negative for bad, neutral if none exist, never giving all that much value one way or the other, keeping in mind that the course and the playing of the shots is the meat and potatoes of the assessment... so call the views the dessert.

Can't see anything wrong with that.

TH

Matt:

I'd venture to say it's the opposite in here:  most assessments DOWNPLAY scenery far more than they should, as purists focus too much on what they see as the "architecture."  But perhaps in the rating world, you're correct.

And in any case, well... the courses in the nation's heartland don't have an ocean, and don't generally tend to have scenery that most find obviously beautiful.  Such is life.  They don't get the obvious bonus.  But some manage to overcome this just fine... for example I've clearly stated my opinion of what I find to be the greatest course on this planet - and it's nowhere near an ocean.  It's in Mullen, Nebraska and perhaps you've heard of it.  

 I think you hit the nail on the head anyway re the king and the queen.  Courses are where they are.  Such is life and golf.

TH

Rick:

I guess that explains why so many who wax poetic on the Augusta of "today" have simply missed the boat on what the course was originally intended to do.

To answer the original questions, the scenery that's in view when you're playing a golf course matters immensely. I play golf with all my senses engaged and vision is the one with precedence. Now as for how much the scenery matters in evaluating the actual architecture of the course, there are two answers depending on how the question is intended.

If you want to talk about "shot values" or "difficulty" or "challenge" or the details of how one plays particular shots then the scenery only matters in as much as scenic elements are also in play or acting as hazards. So there are certainly many technical discussions you could have about particular holes at Cypress Point or Pebble Beach in which the scenic features matter not at all. Discussions such as how to play conservatively or aggressively on a certain approach shot or whether slopes on a certain fairway favor one kind of strategy over another would be much the same if one were talking about a course a thousand miles inland.

But if you want to talk about what makes Cypress Point a great golf course, then darned right you'd better address the issue of scenery. Anyone so focused on his golf game or his score card that he can't realize that an oceanfront view on the Monterey Peninsula is superior to a housing development somewhere in the hinterlands isn't really a golfer. He's an obsessive suffering from an exceedingly impoverished point of view.

I agree that it's a mental and rhetorical error to somehow forgive a golf course's faults between the tee and the hole because it's gorgeously situated. But it's just as big an error to claim that a golf course is somehow magically immune to improvement or detriment by its surroundings.

I agree, if Ballyneal were by the ocean, it would be one of the world's best (if it isn't already).

But, it's not just the views of the ocean that benefit a course--it's the turf, the sea air, and everything that goes along with being by the ocean.  There's just something about oceanside and, particularly, links golf.  This is where Pacific Dunes picks up a lot of points (and, yes, I know it's technically not a links).  

Brent,

I agree with what you're saying.  But I also think your local muni would be a mightly enhanced course if it sat right next to the ocean as well, (unless it case it already does).   Pacific Grove comes to mind, although a few of the holes on the back thru the dunes are very nice.

IMO its an exercise in futility to try to determine how well a course would rate if sitting in a setting like the Monterey Penisula.  Its impossible to seperate the course from its setting and I suspect there are many top 100 courses that would skyrocket up the list if they were positioned such and visa versa.  I guess when it comes to ratings, I guess a big component of it, is to have the good fortune to have a gem peice of land to start with in right spot.

Kalen,

Yes, one of the many reasons I don't discuss ratings. It's hopeless to make sense of an arbitrary combination of different raters opinion on different aspects of a golf course, somehow with the hope of ranking them from best to worst.