Architectural Snobs?

[Mike Hendren]

When someone inevitably complained about a golf course, my dad's patent response was "It's a better golf course than I am golfer."

Are we missing something if we don't play the mundane designs every now and then, or are they just a waste of time?

Mike

[Tom Huckaby]

EUREKA!

Well-asked, friend Hendren.  This is one of my pet peeves of this site.  I do really believe that one can't know greatness unless one can put it into context; that is, if all one does is a rota of Shinnecock-NGLA-Sebonack, well his golf life would be great, but I wouldn't rely on him to assess any course other than those three, and would be ESPECIALLY leery of any other course he denigrates.

I do find a feeling in here often denigrating courses that to me are very, very good... Sure, they're not NGLA, but they're also damn well not Santa Teresa.

CAVEAT:  I also do think that for assessment purposes, it is enough to come from a history of playing "mundane" courses to be able to put great-good-bad into proper context.  But that context is important.

As for going back and playing such now, well... my take is one would have to be REALLY into this whole "assessing/rating/reviewing" thing if one does this.  Why eat hamburger when you can have steak?  Just remember also hamburger is all some of us have to eat, most of the time.

 

TH

[Steve Curry]

The quality of critical assessment depends greatly on the depth and breadth of knowledge from which it comes.

I have found some very valued images and experiences at "mundane courses"

Steve

[Steve Lang]

 

play is play,..  

play with your 13 yr old nephew or son or daughter and seen through their eyes.. its a great game thing.. getting the ball in the hole.. the venue is second issue

  i guess it matters how you value your time or how important you think you are.. we get snobby when the background (venue) is more important than the game we play or can play

i don't see any waste in walking in the outdoors for several hours except if its cold and rainy..

[RJ_Daley]

Mike, I'm not sure how you categorize mundane designs.  But, if they are the Doak 3-4s, well isn't that what most of us play most of the time when we are home?  Don't even the larger % of our GCA afficinados here who belong to private clubs belong to clubs that have more or less middle of the road course designs?  I feel lucky that my public home course is about a 6+ (which is pretty good) and held all but two players over par in our recent State Amatuer.  

I think a good point is made though, if the fellow that belongs to an outstanding club with excellent design or plays regularly at a public course of high merit, could get a little jaded as to what the mundane out there actually entails.  Then, if the mundane design can resist scoring and challenge a fellow that regularly plays a top quality course, then I guess the only thing we could conclude is the golfer is mundane...

[Dale_McCallon]

I think we should have some regional GCA outings at some of these mundane courses to see what we can learn.  

Bogey your dad seemed like a brilliant man to me--all courses are better than my golf game.

[Pat_Mucci]

Mike,

The "challenge" is the inherent heart of the game, not the venue.

Where the "challenge" occurs is a matter of geography.

But, when the "challenge" is made more interesting through creative architecture, it becomes more appealing.

And, don't forget that one of the key, if not the key elements in the challenge is ........ the wind.

[Lou_Duran]

Great thread.

By Pat's assessment, we are very blessed here in Texas where the wind blows regularly.   It also helps that the state is relatively properous and course designers are finally able to work with decent budgets.

Young Tom's hamburger/steak analogy is an interesting one, though I find it rather curious coming from a guy more accustomed to menus with at least two digits by each item and no decimal point.

Admitedly, I ordinarily prefer a nice filet to a greasy hamburger, although a steady diet of the former would likely be very boring.  Mixing in hamburgers, pizza, a little Mexican, lots of Italian, etc. just makes things all that more interesting and enjoyable.  It also does wonders for one's discernment.

Huck's response to Bogey's provocative query brings something I've thought about to mind.  What is more enjoyable and appreciated: a hamburger done with care and served attractively and enthusiastically, or a filet mignon thawed in the microwave, flipped over a few times on the grill, and plopped on a plate indifferently?

 

[Tom Huckaby]

Lou:

Very well said, and well... you got me.  

A proper mix is indeed the best, and most fulfilling, way to do this, both with food and golf courses.

And yeah, I talk hamburger, but get steak way more than I deserve - in all aspects.

 

In any case, great question at the end.  I'd have to say the well-prepared hamburger takes the day without a doubt.  Taking this to golf courses is very interesting... and my take is that the greatest architecture in the world doesn't make for a great day unless it is well-prepared and one can play on it.  Thus wouldn't a round at Santa Teresa under cool firm and fast conditions and perfect greens* be better than a round at Apache Stronghold as it is today?

More food for thought, pun intended.

TH

* - I fully realize it never gets that way at my home course, but work with me here.

[Mike_Young]

Mike H,
FLW did not design/build my house.  Some local dude did it and maybe yours was by a local dude.  I think my town has only one or two "architectural pedigree" worthy houses.  But we have a lot of very good houses.  Everyone knows the "architectural pedigree" home but do they know what they like about it?  No, they are told what they ike about it.  
I do think there are architectural snobs just as there are golfers who have to have the specific shirt or ball but when I try to figure how many are architectural snobs or even care about architecture, it is miniscule.  I mean out of 20,000,000 golfers in the States and only 1500 sign up for this site of which maybe 500 participate....well it takes us right back to the core of this golf business and why we have some of the problems we have today.  17,000 course in this country of which maybe 2500 are class A courses.  the majority of golfers in this country play because they love to play and maybe once or twice during a season they have the opportunity to play a "big time" course.  And when that time comes the name of the architect can be a big influence just like when they buy a new driver or putter or balls.  Do they know anything about the architecture?  Probably not but they do know that they have been told, via marketing efforts, that it is good and so the spiral continues.
I really think that most of architectural snobbery is like a wine or cigar expert.  For many I could change the contents of the bottle or change the cigar wrapper and they would still  tell me how great it was.  
.00075 is the percentage of 20,000,000 golfers in this country that participate in this site.  Those .00075 have a true and sincere interest in architecture whether we all agree or not.  And that is good.

[Sean_A]

I must admit to falling into this snobery trap once in a while.  Really, if you ever find me nitpicking over the merits of The European Club as I did some time ago on this site, please call me on it.  Sometimes I do talk rubbish.

Ciao

Sean

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Shivas - you are right to avoid the 63 La Tache.  63 was a very poor year in Burgundy and even DRC magic wouldn't overcome that.  It was a fine year for Port, however.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Sometimes I do talk rubbish.

Ciao

Sean

The only honest man on GCA?

[john_stiles]

Well, let's see, locally I played Dead Horse Lake (5 times or more), Knoxville Municipal (2), Pine Lakes (2), Whittle Springs and one or two more.  And I enjoyed the golf.

None of these would be considered great golf courses but each has some feature that I appreciate and remember upon returning.

But, I will admit, that when traveling, I try to avoid these 'types' outside my local world.  On a trip, I will go down through the information on GCA, input from friends, etc. to avoid playing any such tracks outside my local area.  

And if GCA types visit my area,  I will steer them away from these local venues as well.

So, I am definitely a 'trip' GCA snob.

You are missing something if you haven't at least tried all the local courses.

[Brent Hutto]

Are we missing something if we don't play the mundane designs every now and then, or are they just a waste of time?

I can't speak for everyone on this forum but for my part I'm not likely to run short of rounds played on mundane designs.

If I have a "snobbery problem" w.r.t. golf architecture, it's that I'm constantly tempted to spend scarce time and money taking advantage of the opportunities the guys around here have afforded me to play fine courses. It's one thing to play at a Doak-scale "7" course instead of my Doak-scale "2" home course one Saturday morning. It's a whole 'nother thing if travelling to and playing that "7" is traded off against half a dozen rounds on lesser courses.

As Bogey's father would say, it doesn't take much of a design to provide me with four hours of sheer delight. What I have to constantly keep perspective on is the question "How many rounds with my buddies at Santa Teresa is a round at Cypress Point worth?". Obviously, the answer is a big number but there is a limit to that ratio somewhere, right?

Would I be willing to not touch a club for the next twelve months in exchange for a day at Shinnecock and NGLA? In all honestly, the answer is no. Six months? Maybe a tougher call. Three months? Now we're talking, sign me up. I suspect that a true Architectural Snob wouldn't have nearly the same answer to that question as I do.

Then again, maybe that Snob has more golf game than me or Mike's dad...

[Sean_A]

Jeepers Brent.  You are on an entirely different plane than myself and I am not sure which of us has enough fuel to land.  There is no way on God's Green Earth that I would lay down the clubs for three months for an opportunity to play Cypress etc.  As you wrote earlier, there are plenty of the fish in the sea.  You did coin that phrase no?

Ciao

Sean

[Tom Huckaby]

Aye, Brent, this is the rub.

I believe damn near all of us have finite amounts of time and resources to devote to golf.  Interestingly, Ed Getka and I had a neat back and forth about just this in the "Callippe Preserve" thread.

Ed is an architecture snob.  I mean nothing derogatory about that.  But he does save all of his golf for courses at which the architecture pleases him.

Me?  I'm an architecture homeless person.  I'll play anywhere and everywhere and of course the better architecture is preferred and sought out, but it's usually secondary to just playing the game PERIOD.  And I also have likely as finite amounts of time and resources as anyone here; my take is if I get the hall pass to play, I'm gonna play, wherever it can be worked out.  Great course?  Fantastic, I'm stoked.  Crappy course?  Fantastic, I'm a little less stoked but at least I get to hit the ball.

So we get to the heart of the matter:  how much would I trade for the Cypress Point round.  Interestingly, I have been faced with exactly this, a few years ago.  The funds were limited and in good conscience I did have to devote zero additional funds to golf for a good long whike if I was gonna do Cypress.

That good long while lasted less than a month.  My conscience wasn't so good after all.

God I love playing this game.

But you architecture snobs fascinate me.   How can you NOT PLAY when such the chance is proffered?  

TH

ps to Sean - we are two peas in a pod, brother.  

[Brent Hutto]

I sort of picked "three months" out of the air but that sort of seems doable. Then again, the only times I've put the clubs down for longer than a fortnight were seven weeks (in 1999) and five weeks (August, 2005) so maybe three months would be longer than I could stand it. I've got it...we can design an "Architectural Snobbery" scale.

For how many weeks of prime golf season would you be willing to not touch a golf club or a golf ball, set foot on a golf course, watch golf on TV or read a golf-related book or magazine in return for an entire day spent playing the architectural gem of your dreams?

I'll give myself a score of 12 weeks.

Sean, can I put you down for 5 weeks?

Mr. Hendren? Huck? Anyone?

[EDIT] OK, I've got Huckaby down for 4 weeks and Ed Getka for a full year, 52 weeks.

[JESII]

This is probably snobbery in asking the question but...


Do I get to control the conditioning of the course? pick the day? pick my foursome, threesome or onesome?

[Sean_A]

Brent

I gulped at five weeks even!  Are we talkin a lay off in winter or summer?

Ciao

Sean

[Tom Huckaby]

Brent - I should have added also that that 4 weeks was kinda forced... my next real chance to play sans marital suicide did occur four weeks later.

 

[Brent Hutto]

Do I get to control the conditioning of the course? pick the day? pick my foursome, threesome or onesome?

Oooh, another dimension. Since I made up the scale, I'll say yes you get to pick the day and you only have to play if the conditioning is to your liking. But we'll put an asterisk by your score if you insist on control-freaking the setup.

Are we talkin a lay off in winter or summer?

It has to be prime golf season (which in England I've heard was a certain Thursday afternoon in late July this year).

[JESII]

Okay,

I've never been to The Old Course so that would be my choice.

I would pay 5 or 6 weeks of golf free living if I could play there in the morning after walking the course the prior evening and the course would be firm and fast with a nice wind (not a gale, but 20 mph).

[Dan King]

I don't know if it is snobbery or not. In my old age I've become much pickier about where I spend my money. I work reasonably hard for my money and I don't like to give it to places I don't feel deserve it.

I've seen the Ranch. I walked it with friends who were playing there. I would make sure not a single dimes comes out of my pocket to give to that course. I believe it isn't just a bad course, but it is way overprices and bad for golf. So I don't play there.

I've seen plenty of bad and mediocre courses in my life. I'd rather spend the few days I golf on better courses.

Though I would be thrilled to plat Santa Teresa again. It has been years since I played there and always have had a sentimental spot in my heart for it. (That's a hint TomH)

Brent Hutto writes
For how many weeks of prime golf season would you be willing to not touch a golf club or a golf ball, set foot on a golf course, watch golf on TV or read a golf-related book or magazine in return for an entire day spent playing the architectural gem of your dreams?

I'd gladly give up six months or so of playing golf or hitting balls for a day on an architectural gem, but then I'm not so willing to give up the Golf Channel and all my golf-related books, magazines and Web sites. Those I'd only be able to give up while I was actually playing the course.

Dan King

Money really isn't everything. It is was, what would we buy with it?
 --Ziggy

[Craig Van Egmond]

Tom H,

         You touched on one of the reasons why Ed Getka is my hero, his focus on quality over quantity.  Ed realizes is a busy guy and wants to maximize his golf time. He realized that he is not going to get 75-100 rounds of golf in and wanted the most out of the 15-25 times he does play. And he's fine with that.

        I mostly fall into the quantity camp.. i just wanna play.  On my best year I played 81 different golf courses. I am fortunate we have a low cost and well maintained muni course here and I still get to play the occasional classic course.  Playing these lesser courses gives me an appreciation of these great courses.

      I often wondered if I was a member of a great course if at sometime I would become jaded and not appreciate what I have.