John Stiles - you have MPCC Shore exactly right.  One of the main purposes of the re-do was to reroute the course to maximize the glorious views in one direction (ocean, Cypress Point in the distance) which were for whatever reason minimized before.  This is indeed a concrete example of how views matter in architecture.

But this of course is not what Matt is asking about - he just wants to complain that courses without views somehow don't get their just due, and that some with views get too much praise.  And to some extent he's right.  But the views exist, so to deny them remains folly...

I'd rather play Torrey Pines than a lot of inland courses with better "architecture".  I'd venture to say I'm in the majority in this viewpoint.  For some reason this viewpoint bugs Matt.  C'est la vie.....

TH

I would rather play Pete Dye GC than Torrey Pines even though Pete Dye is in West Virginia. I think off course scenery does matter whether it is an ocean, stream, mountain, or whatever. I loved the scenery at Prestwick with the train station right there. Great stuff.

And I'd rather play Banff Springs (great mountain views) or Royal Birkdale (no discernible views one way or the other) than Torrey without a doubt as well.  Views remain just a part of the equation, and a small one at that.  And of course when it comes to views, the ocean isn't the only thing that can be a positive.

My contention remains with he who says views have ZERO role at all.  And he knows who he is.  

Scenery matters a great deal to me when evaluating a golf experience.

John - we're on the same page.  The seaside does not provide the only types of nice views, far from it.  And you're right - nice views do not make bad architecture great.  But they can make a poorly designed course tolerable to play, if that makes any sense.

David:  I don't differentiate golf experience from golf course architecture as clearly as the purists do... for me courses are to be played, not studied, and anything that effects one's enjoyment in playing would seem to matter in an assessment of the course.  Thus views do matter in any assessment of a golf course.  Would you disagree with this?  How do you define all this?  And be careful, this is another issue I've battled for pages and pages with certain others about....  

Phil - well, the hope is he's more mature than I am and let's this go.  The GCA world does not need 15 more pages on this from my friend Patrick and me.  So let's hope he either avoids this, or when he does reply, it's of the pithy nature.  He's rather great at that.

TH

At first glance, I thought, not much, but when I remember my times at Wolf Creek and other desert courses, I realize it matters a lot to me.

Ocean views are a bonus to me, but the most important thing scenery wise is that is look like a golf course, as I think of golf courses. Desert courses and tree-lined fairway courses need not apply, in general.

Now I'm off to read why I'm wrong.

Such is life.  Neither is gonna move any time soon.

They'll move sooner than Matt's opinion.

George:

When you see the light on Wolf Creek I'll be sure to change my opinions. Given the reality I will sooner meet Jesus than that happening therefore I''m comfortable in my position on this matter.

Huck:

We agree to disagree.

George:

When you see the light on Wolf Creek I'll be sure to change my opinions. Given the reality I will sooner meet Jesus than that happening therefore I''m comfortable in my position on this matter.

 

Hey, we have something in common: intransigence!

LOL
Kalen, you know if he does reply I'm not bloody likely to just let it go.

I was just perhaps hoping that in the words of Apollo Creed "ain't gonna be no rematch".

But we know how that turned out.

 

Scenery plays as large as role as any factor for me when it comes to evaluating an overall golf experience.  

But from an architectural standpoint, I think you give give props to the designer for how he/she uses the scenery (routing, vistas, etc.), not for merely being blesssed by it.

The perfect opportunity could arise if'n KPV(?) ever gets a life.

Lapurisima V. Sandpiper

The merits of the former are based on the GCA, while the ocean views only cause one to lament with what could've been.

Apart from just being eye candy, I find that sometimes the surrounding scenery can have an effect on play, particularly on putting. Sometimes it is difficult to realize that a putt breaks TOWARDS a nearby mountain or hill, or AWAY from a nearby pond/ocean/wetland/low-lying area. I can't help but think that architects take those things into consideration, and play with my minds-eye. This aside from the obvious effect that the visual appeal of a course and its surroundings have on the "experience" of playing a course. As to ocean-side play, I haven't played the 16th at CPC, but it seems obvious to me that the fact that you're hitting over crashing waves has a greater pucker factor than if the same shot was over a placid wetland. A ball lost in either one would have the same effect on the scorecard, but for those who have played it, would you agree that the effect while standing on the tee contemplating the shot to come is quite different than a shot over a less impressive hazard? And can't that effect have as many consequences on the shot to come as the placement of a bunker or other "internal" element of the course?