[Doug Siebert]

Carnoustie seems to be a better example to consider.  According to the raters and those responsible for deciding where the Open gets played, it is a great course.  But I see a lot of people here and a lot of people I know who have travelled to Scotland who don't like it much at all.

There are a lot of reasons given -- too tough/penal, rather uninspiring views outside the course to say the least, the usual complaints about the lack of lushness and greenness of links courses, etc.  I think it qualifies more as a course many or at least a good number of people do not like versus TOC.  Aside from the conditioning complaint which is all too common for visitors from the US who don't "get it", I think the main reason it takes some people a few visits to really appreciate TOC is that it is just so different and confusing from what they are used to.

The fact most people who don't like TOC initially do eventually like it separates it from Carnoustie which I think is probably mostly a love or hate at first sight kind of course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason Topp,

I don't think a 51 % vote against, eliminates a course from greatness.

The question is, who's qualified and registered to vote ?

[Jason Topp]

Jason Topp,

I don't think a 51 % vote against, eliminates a course from greatness.

The question is, who's qualified and registered to vote ?

So Patrick - do you disagree with Mackenzie's definition?

[jeffwarne]

If by "most people" you include all golfers , then I would say yes, a golf course can be great if most people don't like it.

It would depend on their past experiences/background/education--and who they played with.

If you flew 100 random  golfers from my home town (where they have a pretty famous course)
 blindfolded  to NGLA ,and told them it was a public course on Long Island)
in July with it playing firm and fast (particularly if it were a hot dry summer)
60-80 % would say it was no good and burned out.

If they played their criticisms would be.
#1 too short, goofy green
#2 too short, blind, green sloped away
#3 the poster child of goofy for them\
#4 green won't hold
#5 They'd probably like (other than the second shot is blind) as a par 4, if par 5 they'd say too short
#6 too short, goofy green
#7 too short, unfair bunker in middle of green approach
#8 bunkers in middle of fairway caught their "perfect drive"
.......... need I go on.

Even "somewhat sophisticated" club golfers were making such comments 10 years ago, prior to the recent rediscovery and popularity of classic architecture 10-15 years ago.

Yet NGLA is one of the greatest courses in the world.

Different strokes for different strokes.
GCA participants aren't most golfers.

[John Mayhugh]

Jason,
Of course I was tongue and cheek but I sincerely think that for most people..even the "enlightened ones" on this site...maintenance conditions account for a much higher percentage of that equation than is realized...I think therer are a few great golf courses around that have maitenance conditions that people don't like and thus they do not care for the course.JMO
Mike

How much does conditioning contribute to greatness?
What if Augusta dropped the Masters, opened to the public, and conditions were comparable to some marginally maintained muni?  How far would it drop in the rankings?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason Topp,

I don't think a 51 % vote against, eliminates a course from greatness.

The question is, who's qualified and registered to vote ?

So Patrick - do you disagree with Mackenzie's definition?

His definition of what ?

And, what is that definition ?

[Jason Topp]

Jason Topp,

I don't think a 51 % vote against, eliminates a course from greatness.

The question is, who's qualified and registered to vote ?

So Patrick - do you disagree with Mackenzie's definition?

His definition of what ?

And, what is that definition ?

From my post above:

I would argue that in order to be considered great, a course need not, indeed probably should not be free from controversy.  I recall Mackenzie providing a definition something along the lines of "pleasurable excitment for the greatest number of golfers."  That sounds somewhat pornographic to  me, but it is the best explanation I have read.  

Under that definition, if most people do not enjoy the course, it is impossible for a course to be great.   If there is a better definition, I'm interested in hearing it.

[Dan Kelly]

Jason --

Note that Dr. M. said "golfers," not "people."

Not every person who plays golf is a golfer.

Wouldn't you agree?

Dan

P.S. I think the title of this thread should have been "Can a course be great if." (Emoticon omitted.)

[Tom_Doak]

Dan:

I would agree that not everyone who plays golf is a golfer, but I would be surprised if Dr. MacKenzie meant his quote to be seen in that context.  He was one of the only golf architects who wrote about the importance of golf to society and civilization as a whole, and I believe if he was alive today he would think harder than most about how golf relates to environmental issues.

Don't forget, MacKenzie more than others expected really great architecture to be met with strong skepticism on some fronts.

[Dan Kelly]

Don't forget, MacKenzie more than others expected really great architecture to be met with strong skepticism on some fronts.

Tom --

Thanks.

Do you expect that "strong skepticism"?

Do you get it? If so, when, where, how -- and from whom?

Dan

[Tom_Doak]

Dan:  

Whenever I build a severe green, I know there are people who are going to decry it.  That's why I spend a lot of time around each of them trying to imagine all the shots around the green and how they can be managed.  

What people object to most is if there is a spot around the green where there is no chance of getting up and down.  I don't think there's anything wrong with that, once in a while -- if it was a lake, nobody would object, so why object to a spot defended by contour and gravity?  (Especially if it can be avoided easily if you are thinking on your approach.)

There was also a thread the other day about the approach shots at Stonewall, to which I think you contributed.  Again, I had no doubt some of those would be controversial.  Some good players insist they always ought to be able to aim straight at the flag for their approach shot; some even claim that right when they've hit a tee shot to the wrong spot.  They are probably never going to like my work, because I'm out to show them the error of their ways.  In fact I'm getting some of the same criticism right here, right now about the 16th at Pacific Dunes -- on the thread about Coore & Crenshaw's worst holes, no less.

I am sure that some of these decisions I've made, make my courses less popular than Tom Fazio's in the eyes of many GOLF DIGEST panelists.  But that's okay, I'm trying to do something different than what they expect.  At the same time, I see plenty of work by other architects where the shot demands on the player exceed those that I present, and I wonder what they are thinking!  

[Jason Topp]

Dan:  

Whenever I build a severe green, I know there are people who are going to decry it.  That's why I spend a lot of time around each of them trying to imagine all the shots around the green and how they can be managed.  

What people object to most is if there is a spot around the green where there is no chance of getting up and down.  I don't think there's anything wrong with that, once in a while -- if it was a lake, nobody would object, so why object to a spot defended by contour and gravity?  (Especially if it can be avoided easily if you are thinking on your approach.)

There was also a thread the other day about the approach shots at Stonewall, to which I think you contributed.  Again, I had no doubt some of those would be controversial.  Some good players insist they always ought to be able to aim straight at the flag for their approach shot; some even claim that right when they've hit a tee shot to the wrong spot.  They are probably never going to like my work, because I'm out to show them the error of their ways.  In fact I'm getting some of the same criticism right here, right now about the 16th at Pacific Dunes -- on the thread about Coore & Crenshaw's worst holes, no less.

I am sure that some of these decisions I've made, make my courses less popular than Tom Fazio's in the eyes of many GOLF DIGEST panelists.  But that's okay, I'm trying to do something different than what they expect.  At the same time, I see plenty of work by other architects where the shot demands on the player exceed those that I present, and I wonder what they are thinking!  

Tom - do you buy Mackenzie's definition of a great course or would you define it differently?

[Tom_Doak]

Which definition do you mean?

[Jason Topp]

Tom - this is from memory so it may not be exactly correct but it is pretty close:

I would argue that in order to be considered great, a course need not, indeed probably should not be free from controversy.  I recall Mackenzie providing a definition something along the lines of "pleasurable excitment for the greatest number of golfers."  That sounds somewhat pornographic to  me, but it is the best explanation I have read.  

Under that definition, if most people do not enjoy the course, it is impossible for a course to be great.   If there is a better definition, I'm interested in hearing it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom - this is from memory so it may not be exactly correct but it is pretty close:

I would argue that in order to be considered great, a course need not, indeed probably should not be free from controversy.  I recall Mackenzie providing a definition something along the lines of "pleasurable excitment for the greatest number of golfers."  That sounds somewhat pornographic to  me, but it is the best explanation I have read.  

Under that definition, if most people do not enjoy the course, it is impossible for a course to be great.   If there is a better definition, I'm interested in hearing it.

Jason Topp,

That's not a MacKenzie quote, that's someone else's recollection of an alleged quote by MacKenzie.

Could you obtain the actual quote by Mackenzie ?

Thanks

[Joe Hancock]

Tom - this is from memory so it may not be exactly correct but it is pretty close:

I would argue that in order to be considered great, a course need not, indeed probably should not be free from controversy.  I recall Mackenzie providing a definition something along the lines of "pleasurable excitment for the greatest number of golfers."  That sounds somewhat pornographic to  me, but it is the best explanation I have read.  

Under that definition, if most people do not enjoy the course, it is impossible for a course to be great.   If there is a better definition, I'm interested in hearing it.

Jason Topp,

That's not a MacKenzie quote, that's someone else's recollection of an alleged quote by MacKenzie.

Could you obtain the actual quote by Mackenzie ?

Thanks

Pat,

 MacKenzie is but one voice. He wasn't the sole voice of expertise in the field of architecture, although he is and was rightfully highly regarded.

What conditions, definitions, or expert opinions would you use to explain greatness?

Thanks,

Joe

[Brock Peyer]

Jason, I didn't take the time to read all of the responses but I would consider Tobacco Road a great course but in my group of 12, I think 9 would never play it again if they had a choice.  Greatness can and is often misunderstood.

[Jason Topp]

Jason Topp,

That's not a MacKenzie quote, that's someone else's recollection of an alleged quote by MacKenzie.

Could you obtain the actual quote by Mackenzie ?

Thanks

From a Golf Illustrated, April 1926 essay titled "Pleasurable Golf Courses, The Effort to Eliminate Luck Has Made Many Bad Courses"

"I also venture to suggest that a pleasurable course is synonymous with a good one.  No course can give lasting pleasure unless it is a good test of golf.  I also submit that no course can be really first rate unless it appeals to all classes of players."

Later he states "A first class course like St. Andrews is pleasurable to all ages, all sexes and players of all handicaps."

[Doug Siebert]

Tom Doak,

I'm curious....when you say that you spend a lot of time while building a more severe green and imagine all the shots around it and how they can be managed, who is the target golfer you are imagining as being able or unable to get up and down from a given spot?

Are you thinking of a typical bogey golfer if he gets lucky and hits one the way he imagines it for once, a scratch or plus handicap who has a good short game, or are you into Phil and Tiger territory (I'm guessing not the latter, since you have said many times you don't design your courses with the top pros in mind)

I haven't yet played one of your courses, something I hope to rectify at some point in the next couple years (the more you build, the better my chance of doing so I suppose) but I guess in a way I'm a bit disappointed to hear you say this.  Yeah, I can understand that some golfers will bitch and moan if they find themselves in a place where they have no hope of getting it up and down, but its their own damn fault for A) missing the green and B) missing it in the wrong spot.  I've got no sympathy for them at all.

Just today I played my home course and on the second hole hit my approach into what I felt would be a pretty darn difficult spot to get up and down.  I was mentally berating myself the whole way to the green thinking about how I didn't stop to consider with the difficult pin position I needed to stop and think about where I could and could not miss.  Had I done so I would have played the shot differently and hopefully not ended up where I was.  But purely my fault for not considering this before hitting my approach!

Where I ended up, the hole was 10 feet above me on a 15 yard shot, running away, with 15 feet to work with, a following wind and the grain of the grass going against me and no upslope on my lie to help.  I figured it was maybe 1 chance in 30 to get the ball within 10 feet, and I'm pretty damn good with a lob wedge, especially with the really difficult shots that  make me think and/or invent something.  I played the risky big-swing-wide-open-face shot trying to put it close, bringing with it the possibility of leaving it short with the possibility of double, and pulled it off just like I imagined, leaving it 6 feet above the hole and managed to barely touch the putt starting along the right line and watched it dawdle in.  I feel a lot more satisfaction pulling off an up and down on something like that where I'm sure 99% of golfers would have no chance of doing so aside from pure blind luck.  That's what makes the game fun for me, not shooting a low score!

[Adam Clayman]

Doug, What specifically did he say that disappointed you?

The duality of your post has me confused. You describe yesterday's situation  and conclude that you're not about score. I get that. BUT, you clearly were satisfied with your heroic shot and it's concequence was likely a lower score.

BTW, the situation you describe sounds just like Tom's 6th at Ballyneal. This is one of Tom's more controversial greens (not really but formulaic thinkers made a stink).

I had the same situations this week twice. Both on Axland and Proctor courses. I was fifty fifty.

BTW, if you ever get to Denver I'd love to facilitate popping your Doak cherry.

[George Pazin]

Doug, judging by my one experience with Tom's work at The Rawls Course, I don't think you have anything to worry about or be disappointed with.

[Peter Pallotta]

Remember that stereotypical question from philosophy class, i.e. If a tree falls in the forest and no one's there to hear it, does it still make a sound?

That freaked me out the first time I heard it. Later, I settled the question for myself. "Yes, it does".  That sound doesn't require an outside presence (or human concepts) to give it life or make it real; it exists and is a fact independently of either.

Maybe the analogy holds. How about if I asked: "Can a golf course be great if no one PLAYED it"?  I think we'd all say yes to that. The great and true and long-lived principles of golf course architecture would still be manifested there for all to see, even if no one ever saw them. (True, that golf course might not be around for very long if no one played it, but that's a different question.)

I think we either assume that the principles of great golf course architecture exist, and can exist independently of any specific course and/or the judgement of any specific golfer or group of golfers, or we don't.  If we assume that these principles do exist, and believe them to be manifest in a specific golf course, why would the judgements of even most golfers affect that course's essential greatness? If we assume that these principles don't exist, the question becomes basically meaningless: the concept of greatness would simply be a moveable feast, wholly dependent on whatever judgements a golfer or group of golfers chose to apply on any given day.

Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Peter

Edit: To put it differently: is a Tom Doak "10" a great golf course only because Tom and most of the 1500 of us here think that it is? If I left this discussion board and came back 20 years from now to find that all of you had decided that, say, Pine Valley was not a great golf course, I'd be ashamed of myself if I suddenly started agreeing with you.

[JESII]

I thought it was a prerequisite...well then people should at least have to explain what it is they think is great about it...

I was basically trying to say the same things Peter just did in an infinitely more lucid way...

Yes!

[Dan Kelly]

Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

It's a very fine story. You *should* stick to it.

I'd love to be able to revive Dr. MacKenzie just for a few moments and ask him: Do you disagree with anything Dr. Pallotta has written?

I would guess he wouldn't.

Who knows? He might have written something like what you wrote, and the editors of Golf Illustrated ran out of space (or patience) and reduced it to: "I also venture to suggest that a pleasurable course is synonymous with a good one.  No course can give lasting pleasure unless it is a good test of golf.  I also submit that no course can be really first rate unless it appeals to all classes of players."

Such emendations happen. I've seen them with my own eyes -- and done them with my own hands. Which is why I never trust that what has been published in any periodical is exactly what was written -- unless I wrote it myself.

[Peter Pallotta]

Dan
is that what you call a "corn dog" in your line of work?

Editors aside, I'm pretty sure Dr. Mac would've written more succinctly, and in a more practical vein. But I'm assuming  that he believed in foundational and unchanging architectural ideas/ideals.

Peter

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()