[Powell Arms]

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.

Just some random thoughts on a rainy day...  In this context, I agree that that course need not be played to be considered great.  However, I do think that you get trapped by the "we" in the priciples of greatness.  The inclusion or exclusion of specific groups in "we" will nescessarily define if the overall course is "great".  And if most people do not like it or respect it, I doubt the course can be considered great.  

In the extreme, if 1500 people love a course and all others do not, is it a great course?  Certainly, it would not be a great course without qualifying the definition.  Those that do not need the qualfier would be those that are truly great.  

[Tom_Doak]

Doug S:

I don't know why you are disappointed, I think we're on the same page.

My "target golfer" for the short game is my former self -- a lowish handicapper with what used to be a VERY good short game.  I would want even a Tour player to have a hard time getting up and down from these spots.  But, I'm not talking about a shot where if you don't pull it off you are into the water on the other side ... I just mean that even the best player may have to sink a 5-10 foot putt for par because his ball will not want to stop near the hole.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Tom
I like the way you put the challenge as 'it's okay some of the time"
I could not agree more.
I think when architects get into trouble is when they have those sorts of areas around greens on nearly every hole., and even on 3 of the 4 sides of the green.
One of the wonders of ANGC IS that it allows for easuer chips on the "safe" side than it does if you choose to go pin hunting .
The same can also be said for the Old Course.
I personally do not the mundane chip shots whenever I miss the green...although it aids in the stroke average......but it is the blend of challenge that shows the premier architects.

[Peter Pallotta]

"Those that do not need the qualfier would be those that are truly great."  

Powell - I think that's right, yes. But I'm think that the reason those courses don't need the qualifier is because the principles of great architecture are clearly evident there. But we're then back to the essence and existence of those principles, and I'm assuming that they can exist independently from any particular course.

Peter    

[Powell Arms]

"Those that do not need the qualfier would be those that are truly great."  

Powell - I think that's right, yes. But I'm think that the reason those courses don't need the qualifier is because the principles of great architecture are clearly evident there. But we're then back to the essence and existence of those principles, and I'm assuming that they can exist independently from any particular course.

Peter    

Add the definition of those principles and I completely agree.  Although by adding that definition I think we might be running in circles.

[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."

These discussion threads are like herding cats:


Do you agree with the standard?  If not, what is your standard?

If you do, I do not believe you can also argue that the perceptions of the unwashed masses inaccurately reflects the quality of a golf course?  

How do:

Oakmont
Shinnecock
Pine Valley
Winged Foot

Fit with this definition?  Are they pleasurable for the 18 handicapper?  

What was Mackenzie's vew of the quality of these courses?  I would think that Pine Valley in particular would pose a conundrum for him because he would admire the course but could not consider it a first class course consistent with his description of St. Andrews.

[Doug Siebert]

Tom Doak,

OK, re-reading what you said again I guess I must have misread it before, you do clearly say that having places where it is impossible to get up and down is OK now and then, which I do agree with.  I guess I was fixated on the sentence about "trying to imagine all the shots and how they can be managed".

I've got nothing against a steady diet of having to make a 5 or 10 footer to convert for par even with perfect short game execution, if I'm missing in the wrong spots.  As for the lake, I don't even have a problem with that if it is a matter of leaving the ball in the wrong spot and being presented with a choice of "try to get close and risk the water" or "play away from the hole avoiding the risk of getting wet and take your medicine"  That makes the choice more obvious, but sometimes making the bold play risks an outcome that is just as bad as hitting into the water, stroke-wise.

Given how good of a putter I hear you are now, I can well imagine you had a scratch or plus handicap short game when you played regularly, even if you weren't quite that good overall.  So it sounds like finding the bad spots around your greens would give me all the challenge I need plus a little more.  Can't wait to give it a try sometime


Adam Clayman,

The point about my 'heroic' shot wasn't that it lowered my score, but that I took on the challenge and succeeded.  If I was all about score, I'd never try that shot, the percentage play would have been to play away from the hole and a bit long, and take my two putt bogey from 30-40 feet.  I'm sure that would minimize my score in the long run because it'd take double out of play.  Anyway, I was even less about score yesterday than I normally am since I hurt my left knee about a month ago and am still sort of gimpy so I knew my final score would not be all that great.  That shot plus a few other really nifty ones are what keeps me coming back, especially when I (literally) limp in with an 87!

[Matt_Cohn]

I say no.

Why should a golf course be so stuck up as to only appeal to a small percent of the population that "gets it"?

Shouldn't a truly great course offer something for everyone - even those who can't add anything more sophisticated than "that hole was fun" or "that hole was pretty"?

Isn't a play like Macbeth great because it's entertaining for the masses, but endlessly sophisticated for the intelligent viewer?

Isn't that what a golf course should be, too?

[JESII]

Percieved greatness is a very subjective, very individual thing...it has nothing to do with majority rules...that a course, or a play, appeals to the majority has nothing to do with its greatness.

[Jason Topp]

Percieved greatness is a very subjective, very individual thing...it has nothing to do with majority rules...that a course, or a play, appeals to the majority has nothing to do with its greatness.

So Mackenzie was full of crap?

[JESII]

Percieved greatness is a very subjective, very individual thing...it has nothing to do with majority rules...that a course, or a play, appeals to the majority has nothing to do with its greatness.

So Mackenzie was full of crap?

"Full of crap"? Not saying that.

I would sign off on..."not quite right on this one"...




How could I tell you what a great course should be, for you?

[Jason Topp]

Percieved greatness is a very subjective, very individual thing...it has nothing to do with majority rules...that a course, or a play, appeals to the majority has nothing to do with its greatness.

So Mackenzie was full of crap?

"Full of crap"? Not saying that.

I would sign off on..."not quite right on this one"...

How could I tell you what a great course should be, for you?

I do not think it is purely subjective. My guess is that if we went through a list of courses that we have both played we would largely reach agreement on which ones could be considered great.  I think defining why that is the case is more difficult.

[JESII]

But to the logical extreme...could an 18 handicapper honestly feel Pine Valley is a great golf course? Pine Valley does not let 18 handicappers play golf, it ties them up in a straight jacket and bashes them over the head in 18 different really cool ways.

Is the majority of the world under 18?
Can I honestly call a Picasso great if I have no clue what I'm looking at? And if I do, does that minimize it's greatness?

[Powell Arms]

I was thinking of this in the context of great not to an individual, but great to the majority.  Any one individual can think any course is great by their own definition and be correct.

[Powell Arms]

But to the logical extreme...could an 18 handicapper honestly feel Pine Valley is a great golf course? Pine Valley does not let 18 handicappers play golf, it ties them up in a straight jacket and bashes them over the head in 18 different really cool ways.

Is the majority of the world under 18?
Can I honestly call a Picasso great if I have no clue what I'm looking at? And if I do, does that minimize it's greatness?

Sure, you can as an 18  (and should) believe PV is great.  Just not playable - if that's your definition of enjoyable, not enjoyable.

[Jason Topp]

But to the logical extreme...could an 18 handicapper honestly feel Pine Valley is a great golf course? Pine Valley does not let 18 handicappers play golf, it ties them up in a straight jacket and bashes them over the head in 18 different really cool ways.

Is the majority of the world under 18?
Can I honestly call a Picasso great if I have no clue what I'm looking at? And if I do, does that minimize it's greatness?

Jim:

I agree with what you are saying.  Pine Valley makes me struggle with Mackenzie's description although it also could be the case that 18 handicappers do enjoy Pine Valley despite how much it beats them up.  I do not know.  

Mackenzie pointedly did not say that a course needed to be easy for all classes of golfer, just enjoyable.  He also bashed a pen and pencil mindset.  Perhaps he would view 18 handicappers having an enjoyable match where one or the other picks up on many holes.  I'm not sure.

[JESII]

I think both of your thoughts tie back to my belief that golf is a game and a sport meant to challenge the golfer to find the best way to get his ball from the tee to the hole in the fewest strokes possible.

Call it the scorecard and pencil mindset, but I have a very difficult time calling it golf when someone goes out on the course to hit random shots at random targets with no actual effort...this is not to say golf need be overly serious, slow, boring or any of the other side effects so often attributed to the card and pencil attitude, not at all. I play fast, I have fun, the guys I play with have fun, but we're trying to get the ball in the hole...and when we are out practicing these different shots, it's in an effort to get the ball in the hole quicker next time...




Powell,

What is it about their round of golf at Pine Valley that most 18 handicappers would appreciate enough to justify calling the course great?

[Jason Topp]

Call it the scorecard and pencil mindset, but I have a very difficult time calling it golf when someone goes out on the course to hit random shots at random targets with no actual effort...

I think you misapprehend the criticism of the scorecard and pencil mindset.  In both match and stroke play the player is trying to get the ball in the hole.  The difference arises because of the consequences of hazards that could be considered unfair - thereby creating pressure to eliminate hazards that are interesting.

To my mind, emphasizing stoke play makes certain hazards less acceptable - such as a bunker in which certain lies could lead to 4-5 shots to escape or an extreme pin position.  

Such hazards cause no problem in match play because they result in the player losing one hole rather than having his entire round ruined.  The player probably deserved to lose the hole if he hit it there.

If one thinks in a stoke play mindset, I believe less interesting courses result.

[JESII]

Fair enough...does a "GREAT COURSE" need to succeed on both fronts? After all, both are accepted forms of golf...

[Powell Arms]

Fair enough...does a "GREAT COURSE" need to succeed on both fronts? After all, both are accepted forms of golf...

I think it could be true that a course is great for matchplay or a course is great for stroke play, and one not necessarily be great in both categories.  If it were, then I think we have identified another level of superiority.

[Peter Pallotta]

Off Matt's post, I don't think a play like Macbeth is great BECAUSE it entertains both 'the masses' and the elite; it's a great play that HAPPENS to entertain both the masses and the elites.  

It was a great play in the 1600s (by all the traditional and accepted and I'd almost say 'eternal' standards and principles of playwriting), when the audience was almost entirely made up of 'the masses', and when plays were one of the few forms of public entertainment.  Has it stopped being a great play in 2007, when 'the masses' don't tend to go to the theatre and when plays are just one of many forms of public entertainment? No, it hasn't.

There ARE strategies and principles of golf course architecture that are so foundational and accepted as to almost say that they're 'eternal truths'.  How else do you explain all the debates and ranking and theorizing that goes on here except to say that, while we may disagree about whether we see those principles manifested in any given/particular course, rarely has anyone ever questioned the principles themselves.

It just seems to me that whether I like/enjoy Pine Valley or not, or whether a hundred or a thousand of my friends like it or not, is irrelevant to the question of its 'greatness'. I've spent months now reading and asking and trying to understand the underlying 'truths' and principles of great golf course architecture. Pine Valley manifests those principles in spades. If the world changed tomorrow and we ALL became lousy golfers and couldn't stand having our heads bashed in at Pine Valley, would it still be great?

I can't understand how we could answer anything but 'yes' to that question.

Peter

[JESII]

Fair enough...does a "GREAT COURSE" need to succeed on both fronts? After all, both are accepted forms of golf...

I think it could be true that a course is great for matchplay or a course is great for stroke play, and one not necessarily be great in both categories.  If it were, then I think we have identified another level of superiority.

"SUPERIORITY" of what over what?

[Powell Arms]

Powell,

What is it about their round of golf at Pine Valley that most 18 handicappers would appreciate enough to justify calling the course great?

I agree, this is all about getting the ball in the hole in the fewest possible strokes.  There are no style points.  

I think Mackenzie's definition is a bit too narrow, especially in the context of PV, a course that was conceived to be a championship test of highly skilled golfers.

That said, I think many 18 handicapers can execute shots, just not consistently, and therefore can appreciate what is required from a shotmaking and strategic perspective to play well at PV.  With that, they can appreciate what makes the course great.  Note that I've walked the course, never played it, and am a 19 index.  

[Powell Arms]

Fair enough...does a "GREAT COURSE" need to succeed on both fronts? After all, both are accepted forms of golf...

I think it could be true that a course is great for matchplay or a course is great for stroke play, and one not necessarily be great in both categories.  If it were, then I think we have identified another level of superiority.

"SUPERIORITY" of what over what?

level of greatness for golf courses - if its great for match play or stroke play, as opposed to a course that really is only great for one

and you're probably correct, a course can really only be great if it is great both both forms of play

The course is then great, without a qualifier, along the lines of posts 47-51

[JESII]

Powell,

I'm in a bit of a bind here because I have stated more than once that just placing the ball on the front apron of all 18 greens at Pine Valley and playing from there is enough to realize what a great course can be. I am sure you would agree based on your walks...

Since this is a different conversation I am allowed to take a different angle (just ask Pat Mucci...)...and you're in this as well Peter...How can I tell you something is great if I cannot fully comprehend its value?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()