[Matthew Mollica]

We all read course reviews here, in magazines, and hear them from our mates. Many of us go into great detail in preparing a review of a course we have just played. Especially when it's a prestigious layout, or one where we've been waiting to play for a long time.

My questions are -
 
How much can be gleaned from one tour around a course?

How much is missed on the 'maiden voyage' over 18 holes?

How seriously do you take a review generated by a single round on a course?

Keen to view your responses...

Matthew

[Philippe Binette]

From one round, you don't see much, unless somebody is there to show you up what is to see, like the chance I had last year playing a lot of great course with Tom Doak. And still, all you can really catch is the spirit of the place.

When I visit a course by only walking it with a couple of balls in my pocket, I feel like I catch more stuff than playing the course because I have more time to look around.

Playing a course is cool, because it's tough tu study it in the same time.

Best format if you don't have a lot of time: one walk to look, and then playing a round

[mike_malone]

 I used the line "first trip" to qualify the limitations that come from a single visit.

    I believe that the impression one gets from the first play usually holds true for your overall opinion. Second looks provide more detail but rarely change the bottomline view.

    I was alerted to the greens at Bethpage and so was observing them intently.

     I am not able to judge a course by walking and not playing. The playing of the game is what it is all about.

[wsmorrison]

"I am not able to judge a course by walking and not playing. The playing of the game is what it is all about."

Wrong again, Mike.  For the overwhelming majority, the playing of the game is what it is all about.  But the ignorant masses that can't tell a Raynor from a Flynn let alone a Ross from a Flynn are content in their ignorance and play for various reasons.  They follow golf rankings and let others do the thinking for them.  The majority want to play great courses and tell their friends about their access to these courses; the notch on the gun sect.

If you really want to understand the architecture, and at times I think you do, Mike, then you have to study the courses in detail.  Playing the game is a great deal of fun and a huge passion of mine.  But if you want to get the best understanding of golf architecture, then you have to study the course without distractions.  Mike, you have aspirations to be the head of a greens committee.  Well, to do the best job on such a committee and make recommendations for changes to the course, you simply have to have a better understanding of golf architecture.  Playing the game isn't what it is all about if this is your goal.  Then all you are is another Scuderi (not that there's anything wrong with that)but you could be much more effective with a stronger understanding.

[A_Clay_Man]

You never get a second chance to make a first impression. (the worst justification for flower beds I have ever heard)

However, I have golfed plenty of holes, that at first glance, seemed rote or mundane. But, after subsequent visits, the hole shows it's soul.

I recently golfed a course, cart path only, in an hour and twelve minutes. I did not hole out on just two holes. I don't believe any future visits would change the features on the course, and especially, the contours on the greens.  Or lack thereof. Is my opinion therefore wrong? Never. But it can change.

[Phil_the_Author]

MIke,

Matthew's questions were - "My questions are -
How much can be gleaned from one tour around a course?
How much is missed on the 'maiden voyage' over 18 holes?
How seriously do you take a review generated by a single round on a course?"

Now you wrote, "I was alerted to the greens at Bethpage and so was observing them intently."

Your critique then of Bethpage's greens was not from "one tour around a course" as it was based upon pre-concieved beliefs about them that were in your mind, by your own admission, but more from what you expected to find.

[mike_malone]

  Philip,
   
     I am well aware of the limitations of preconceived ideas.That is why I said I had them. But,in the case of Bethpage's greens it is visually obvious that many of them lack interest. My "intently" meant I was trying to undermine that "preconceived " notion through observation. If one is aware of biases they can work to overcome them.


   Wayne,

       I think you need to switch to decaffeinated coffee. How can you argue that I don't know my own capabilities. You are starting to sound like my wife. I was not generalizing;that is why I used the word   "I".

[rgkeller]

"For the overwhelming majority, the playing of the game is what it is all about.  But the ignorant masses that can't tell a Raynor from a Flynn let alone a Ross from a Flynn are content in their ignorance and play for various reasons.  They follow golf rankings and let others do the thinking for them.  

Golf is a participatory sport, not an art gallery.

There is no better example of letting others do their thinking that the slavish devotion of certain self proclaimed cognoscente to the courses of designated designers.

[wsmorrison]

Mike,

Where have I argued about your capabilities?  I don't know them very well.  However, on another thread I spoke of the need to study a golf course carefully and not simply by playing it.  In my mind they are incompatible and one cannot do both.  By your own statement, you judged your capabilities when you said you couldn't judge a course by walking and not playing.  You felt that playing was what is all about.  I disagree but never indicated what your abilities are.

If I'm starting to sound like your wife arguing your capabilities, they are surely not the same capabilities  

By the way, I hate the taste of coffee, decaffeinated or not  

[wsmorrison]

rgkeller,

You are absolutely correct.  The sport of golf is participatory.  But an understanding of architecture or other artistic endeavors does not come from the act of playing the sport or participating in the art form alone.  It comes from additional academic and field studies.  Playing the sport gives you a perspective of the architecture based upon your own abilities.  It is obvious to me that the spectrum of golfers is rarely considered.

The rest of your post and the quote are lost on me completely.  What are you trying to say?

[Steve_ Shaffer]

From Ron Whitten at www.golfdigest.com/courses on this very topic:

"One of the more legitimate criticisms of Golf Digest's course ranking surveys is that they're based mostly on first impressions, so the lists are dominated by big budget courses with lots of special effects that overwhelm the senses. Were he alive today, goes the argument, Donald Ross, who specialized in subtleties, wouldn't fare very well in a Golf Digest survey.

While I agree with the first statement, because glitzy courses often do appear at the top of our Best New Course rankings, I disagree with the second argument. Donald Ross has plenty of courses on America's 100 Greatest.

The criticism is probably more valid when leveled against an individual golf course critic, like me, for instance. I admit I often pass judgment on a design after only one round, although I try never to issue an instant opinion. I try to tour the course again without clubs to further study it, often photograph it for future reference and sometimes talk to the designer or others about it. But I don't much rely on the opinions of well-meaning club members, who may have played their course a thousand times, but know it mostly in terms of how it fits into their own particular games.

In a perfect world, it would be great to linger at every course for a week or more, to learn its nuances during a dozen rounds, but that's not realistic in today's world of continuous deadlines. It's an occupational hazard that I rarely get to play a course more than once, so I pay attention to the course, not my score, during each round.

I mention this because I am about to pass judgment on a new Bob Cupp design, Old Orange Golf Club at Verandah in Fort Myers, Fla., after just one four-and-a-half round of golf on it, plus a bit of postgame study of its blueprints....

At first blush, Old Orange is just another flat Florida housing development course. But the more I look back, the more I like its subtleties. I bet if I were to play it again, I'd discover a few more. And a few more during a third round, and a fourth and so on. That's the mark of a very good golf course design."

[tonyt]

I'd rather a fair person's opinion after one round than their opinion having never seen it. If multiple plays became a minimum benchmark, too many intelligent viewpoints would be lost, in favour of in some cases, a less qualified viewpoint from somebody who's only advantage could be more frequent play.

Among my circle of friends, there is one who's viewpoint I would prefer after a 10 minute walk in places than another in our group who had spent a week there. And in time, we all get to know a scribe's or reviewer's style and preferences, and so that familiarity assists us in reading their thoughts and knowing what to make of them. So it is fine to correctly assume that multiple play will reveal much more and allow for variation in conditions as well. It makes for a more knowing review. But a one night stand will still give me a better idea of how good she is in bed than if I'd never had her.

And don't forget, many readers or users of the review will themselves only get a chance to either never play it, or play it once. So the nuances revealed in a multi-play review may be less useful at times because the reader won't experience the more in depth writings multi-play has established because they haven't multi-played themselves.

[Mike_Cirba]

How many courses have any of us markedly changed our opinion about on a second or third playing?  

I'm talking realizing that you've missed the mark entirely.  C'mon...be honest.  Not many, I'd bet.  

This whole thing that one has to play a course a million times to get the flavor of it is so much crap.  If you go out there and actually look, instead of focusing on the card and pencil, you can get 80-90% of it on first blush.  

[HamiltonBHearst]

I am not a rater so I would not know how to judge a course but it seems many of the raters were much more enthused about Hidden Creek after a second go round.

[Andy Levett]

We all read course reviews here, in magazines, and hear them from our mates. Many of us go into great detail in preparing a review of a course we have just played. Especially when it's a prestigious layout, or one where we've been waiting to play for a long time.

My questions are -
 
How much can be gleaned from one tour around a course?
 I think you'll get a gut feeling that won't be wrong

How much is missed on the 'maiden voyage' over 18 holes?
Heaps. But the wise one time visitor will still get it right even if he doesn't know why he got it right.

How seriously do you take a review generated by a single round on a course?
Depends on the reviewer.

Keen to view your responses...

Matthew

[cary lichtenstein]

With a few exceptions, I think you do get 80%+ from the first playing.

[Jim_Coleman]

This may be the most important thread ever created on this cite.  At least one great golf course has been saved from an insane, 14 handicap, amateur architect wannabe who has no idea what he is talking about.  We have learned that Mayday wants to be a green committee chairman.  Unlike our Red State President, who's been inarticulate enough to camaflage his agenda so that his handlers can implement it, Mayday's been outed!  My print button is almost worn out from creating a "Mayday dossier" for future cross examination of this loon.  Green committe chairman?  Tom Delay has a better chance of becoming president.  Oh oh.

[wsmorrison]

Jim,

I hope what is written for this group stays with this group.  I think it is clear to anyone that knows Mike a little well knows that he is passionate about Rolling Green and has the best interest of the course in mind.  With that passion comes the responsibility to do a thorough and thoughtful job of it.  This requires a serious architectural study of the course and others for a proper perspective.  Now a Pete Scuderi is equally passionate about the golf course.  His perspective is as one of the better players in the club.  He knows this and represents well the interests of the low handicappers.  But in my mind, the committeeman that serves the membership best does it not from an understanding gleened from his play but an understanding of how the broad spectrum of golfers play the course with the underpinning being a strong knowledge of architectural principals.  

I don't have a regular game at RGGC--there are fewer and fewer members that want to be around me    I play with a range of golfers including 83 year old Bob Kramer, my kids (when few others are around), local and national amateurs, pros, GCAers, my mother-in-law, friends and family.  This perspective is invaluable when considering possible alterations to the course.

As to Mike, it is a free country and his aspiration to head a committee at RGGC is to be commended.  At least he is willing to put out the effort and put up with the headaches of dealing with that crazy membership.  I admire him for his willingness to put himself through it all.  He is abler than many and has the potential to be a lot better.  I'm all for it.  Of course, I'd have to leave the club in that case  

[HamiltonBHearst]

Way to go Jim.  One personal attack and a veer into politics.  Very impressive.

[mike_malone]

 Chad Lewis,tight end for the Philadephia Eagles, was asked what he thought of the pregame promo on ABC which showed a woman dropping her towel to reveal nakedness and jumping into the arms of Terrell Owens,star receiver for the Eagles.
   
   He said something like" The Redskins have a strong team ".

[Tommy Williamsen]

When I can I will play a new course with another GD Panelist.  We will invariably hit two tee shot and shots into the green from different angles.  The dilemma is that when I am play well I will sometimes miss a subtlety that I could only have picked up by playing the hole many times.  For instance I played a course the other day that I had played years ago.  We got to a short par four and I remember hitting a good drive a dn second shot and making an easy three.  I had failed to notice other pin plaacements that had devlish overtones and a way to run up the ball onto the green from the tee for big hitters.  It was much more enjoyable and offere a risk reward for longer (read that younger) players.

[Matthew MacKay]

After a recent walking tour of a course that I had previously played, I'd put myself firmly in the camp that believes that one can glean much more from a walking visit than by playing.  In my mind I was able to play the rounds of both a scratch and bogey player without having to worry about a 4 foot putt or holding up the group behind.  My view of that particular course was altered significantly.

[Jim_Coleman]

    Boys, lighten up.   Mike knows I'm (half) kidding.  I'd hjave written sooner, but I was investigating golf architecture in the Dominican Rep.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()