Aronomink:It's a great course and is in the process of being restored by Ron Prichard to total Rossness along with a conditioning plan by Dick Bator. It has always had a reputation of hit it hard, harder and hardest--not the most inspiring theme.

Tom,

Aronimink? Hmmmm...

I wonder if over the past 8 years, you may have changed your thinking on this one.

I would like to think it is mostly repeating tree lined courses which fail to inspire me....

On a grand scale that would include Sahalee, Medinah, Oak Hill, Baltusrol.

On the other hand....the trees and bunkering at Olympic Club excites me.

Same thing with Riviera, Oakmont and SFCC....hell, even Cog Hill has some neat bunkering.

Treelined is by far my least favorite golf medium.

   

Oakmont
Mid Ocean

Carnoustie

      After having played a number of Scotland's best, this was a letdown.  Challenging, yes. Inspiring, No.

Carnoustie

      After having played a number of Scotland's best, this was a letdown.  Challenging, yes. Inspiring, No.

I also found Carnoustie uninspiring, but it may have been the 45 degree, 40 mile an hour conditions which kept me from fully appreciating the experience.  Since I also found Winged Foot to be a bit uninspiring for a great course, let's look at two similarities:

Both courses are relentlessly difficult.

Neither course features beautiful long range views.

Chip:

But how can you possibly take that setting away?  It exists... even in a pea-soup fog, it's still there and still cool.  In good weather it rather puts the "i" in inspiring.  Given one doesn't rapid fire golf swings as he plays there, one has a lot of time to walk or ride in between shots... that's a lot of time to notice one's surroundings.  

I find arguments like this to be pretty silly.  Yeah, fill the hazard in front of 16 Cypress with toxic waste and it's a lot less cool of a golf hole also.  The same could be said for raining space aliens all over Pine Valley - that would rather ruin the feel.  

So OK, agree to disagree we shall.  I find a lot to love at Pebble Beach, and the setting is definitely part of it.  Note I also find a lot more to love than you seem to about the golf holes, even the ones you call mundane... but that's ah honest disagreement of opinions I can always live with.  What I find hard to accept is the argument that the setting is not part of the course.  It is, unless one plays with his eyes closed.  I gather you join Mucci in playing the game this way.  If so, well I feel for you as much as I pray for his golfing soul on a nightly basis.

This is all in good fun for sure.  But it does make me scratch my head when people make these arguments.

TH

Chip:

I'd concur that Pebble is a polarizing example.  It does have its negatives in terms of price, crowds, awful cart paths... and that's even before you get into the holes that some find mundane.

However, I still disagree about the general.  I can't see how one can separate "gca" from "setting."  If you really want to evaluate gca, shouldn't you also look at what the land was like before it was a golf course... how effective the architect was at maximizing value and minimizing expense... how effective he was at obtaining permits, assuming such were to be obtained... and many other things having nothing to do with the playing of the course, but having a LOT to do with the effectiveness of the "design"??

If you don't do that, you really aren't evaluating design.  

I prefer to evaluate "golf courses."  And a golf course includes its settings and yes, traditions.  If I ran the rankings, I'd likely leave them just as they are, making these count for a small portion of the evaluation.  

To deny they should count at all - or less than they do now - to me seems folly.  It seems even MORE folly to me to say we should emphasize the "merits of the design" even more - because that would have to include the items I listed above... and as a golfer, I could give a rat's ass about any of that.  But it surely is part of the "design"....

One does not play the game with his eyes closed, nor his heart; that is unless he is Pat Mucci.

Do you REALLY want to be equated with him?
 

BTW, Tom Doak has said on here many times that the best designs maximize the views a site has to offer.   Do you want to tell him he's full of shit?

 

If I generalise a bit here, it seems that people are more impressed by the setting than the golf course in itself.

Not sure if you are applying this to me personally.. but if so, well my argument remains that setting and golf course are all part of the same thing, and it's folly to separate them.

I agree with you re Muirfield, btw.  That course inspired me tremendously... and the setting in terms of views anyway was nice, but nothing special.  

TH

Chip:

I'd concur that Pebble is a polarizing example.  It does have its negatives in terms of price, crowds, awful cart paths... and that's even before you get into the holes that some find mundane.

However, I still disagree about the general.  I can't see how one can separate "gca" from "setting."  If you really want to evaluate gca, shouldn't you also look at what the land was like before it was a golf course... how effective the architect was at maximizing value and minimizing expense... how effective he was at obtaining permits, assuming such were to be obtained... and many other things having nothing to do with the playing of the course, but having a LOT to do with the effectiveness of the "design"??

If you don't do that, you really aren't evaluating design.  

I prefer to evaluate "golf courses."  And a golf course includes its settings and yes, traditions.  If I ran the rankings, I'd likely leave them just as they are, making these count for a small portion of the evaluation.  

To deny they should count at all - or less than they do now - to me seems folly.  It seems even MORE folly to me to say we should emphasize the "merits of the design" even more - because that would have to include the items I listed above... and as a golfer, I could give a rat's ass about any of that.  But it surely is part of the "design"....

One does not play the game with his eyes closed, nor his heart; that is unless he is Pat Mucci.

Do you REALLY want to be equated with him?
 

BTW, Tom Doak has said on here many times that the best designs maximize the views a site has to offer.   Do you want to tell him he's full of shit?

 

Tom;

I'm hoping that one opinion doesn't brand me in a negative way...

Also, in terms of Tom Doak, sure - he's DA MAN.

Doesn't mean that I can't remain ignorant and must be a slave to the conventional wisdom.

Chip - you remain cool by me and unbranded.

Mucci has no hope.

 

Tom, I have not played The Lake course since they removed all the trees.  In fact it has been ten years or so since I played it last.  I may have to put it on my list the next time I get to SF.

I too need to play it again, that's for sure.
But what was uninspring before?  Was it just the socked-in, overtreed nature of it?

I'll throw Congressional into the mix.