Acessibility: a criterion for "greatness?"

[THuckaby2]

Rich:

Does architecture in a vacuum REALLY MATTER?  I know we've covered this many times before, but I remain unconvinced.  To me, one does not play with one's eyes closed, ears shut, emotions off.... So is the world's greatest most ingenious golf course design worth anything at all if it's next to a nuclear waste dump and you're treated worse than that while you're there?

I've said this several times before here, but to me EVERYTHING matters and the only people to whom architecture and only architecture should matter are the people in the business, as they might want to assess who is doing the best job...

For the rest of us as golfers, why should architecture in and of itself, dismissing everything else, even be looked at?  What makes a course "great", for a GOLFER, includes EVERYTHING. The setting matters... the experience matters... service matters... hell COST matters... it's all part of the playing of the game.

I'd love a good answer for this... I'm guessing you, Tom Paul, several others might be able to provide such.  I doubt you'll get me to change my mind re this, but I am interested in your thoughts!

Of course you did kind of answer it yourself with "If Mike Keiser and Tom Doak build the world's greatest golf course on the magnificence of Loch Eriboll, but don't let anybody else see it or play it, how "great" will it be?   It's like that "If a tree fell in the forest and nobody was there to hear it would it make any 'noise'?" question from Philosophy 101............."

What does that have to do with "architecture"?

TH

[Dan Kelly]

Does architecture in a vacuum REALLY MATTER?

I'll presume that you mean "vacuum" not in an existential, Philosophy 101 sort of way (of course golf-course architecture doesn't REALLY MATTER -- though, just for the record, that tree in the empty forest surely makes a sound when it falls ... especially if it's a Stupid Tree!), but in a Golf Course Rater's way.

My answer:

It does really matter, and matters absolutely and exclusively -- if architecture is what you're rating, ranking, describing, comparing-and-contrasting.

If what you're rating, ranking, describing, comparing-and-contrasting  is the total experience of spending a few hours at a place and playing the golf course there, architecture still matters -- just not to the exclusion of other things.

Seems to me that -- here, at least, if not in those monthly magazines -- we should be able to keep from getting confused about what we're talking about, from thread to thread.

What are the magazines rating, ranking, describing, comparing-and-contrasting: golf courses -- or golf experiences?

[THuckaby2]

Dan:  my take is it doesn't matter at all if you're talking rankings, ratings, or just playing the game.  The question remains:  what makes a course "great?"  To me, EVERYTHING factors into this and you might pigeonhole it by calling it "experience" as opposed to "architecture", but to me that's silly.  As I say, one doesn't play with one's eyes closed, etc.

Discussing "architecture" to me means the design of the course, its strategies, etc.  That's great, but that's just one aspect of what's happening when one plays golf.  If one wants to assess that, fine, but to me it continues to be only ONE piece of the puzzle, one that's most important to architects, designer and developers... and I am none of those!

I hate the comparisons between the magazine rating systems, even more so now that I'm a part of it.  To me they each do a ranking, they each do it differently, they each have some value.  But in my opinion, obviously all factors that go into the playing of the game and enjoyment of the time spent DO MATTER for rankings, or at least they should, unless the magazine doing such is the "Journal for Golf Course Architects."  If it's meant to be for people playing the courses, then yes, everything does matter.

I can't see any reason why it shouldn't.

TH

[Jim_Kennedy]

Why get stuck on the criteria used in the ratings?  
The mags identify and enumerate all the differing characteristics and blend them into their "winner", why not use this same info to determine what is the "greatest" course for you? The only way rankings make sense is on a personal level anyway. If it's just the factors pertaining to the architecture that floats your boat or you just wish to see which course ranks highest in this regard, the numbers are there for you to make that determination, and so on......  

[THuckaby2]

I'm with you Jim, absolutely.  I didn't make this query as pertains to rankings - I was just trying to answer Rich's question, which is really just "what makes a course great?"  As you say, if a ranking by a magazine proves this for someone, great.  But greatness is in the eye of the beholder.

I'd assume that Dan Kelly made this connection because I am on the course rating panel for Golf Digest magazine.  But in that role, I just answer the questions given - we have very specific criteria we are asked to assess golf courses on.  That's a totally separate issue from what makes a golf course great... I happen to think Golf Digest does a very good job of answering this through our criteria, others disagree, this is all fine.  There are many ways to get at this "greatness" issue.

But please understand I am NOT asking this question in any "rating" or "ranking" context.  Each ranking system asks its own questions and gets its own answers and each are valuable.

No, my query here is if you ask the "great/not great" question, then again, why shouldn't EVERYTHING be part of the answer?  Why should it be limited to "architecture"?  This is also what I meant by architecture "in a vacuum."

TH

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
Ask yourself this question: What is a "great" golf course. How are you identifying "greatness"?
Once you get past the routing, the shot values, and all the rest of the values associated with the architecture what remains are values relative to the experience. I am not trying to belittle any ranking system I am just saying that it's not hard to identify the class to which each value belongs, either architecture or experience. All the various systems are subordinate to their respective criteria and therein lies the dilemma.
I am of this mind, when you use experiential criteria to determine greatness as it applies to golf courses then you are more likely heading toward a "greatest places to play" than you are a "greatest courses" list.  

[Doug Siebert]

MarkF,

I don't know what the "average dues" are for a course in Great Britain, but they can be pretty steep.  When I was at Prestwick in 1991, my dad and were told the initiation fee there is 100,000 pounds!  The waiting list is so long, men will put their son on it when he is born, and he'll be able to join around the time he's 40 (if my dad had done that, I'd still be waiting)  Its possible our legs were being pulled, but that course does have a lot of history behind it, so I guess I wouldn't be surprised if it was true.

TEPaul,

Dornoch as remote?  It certainly isn't easy to get to, but at least if you want to visit Loch Ness you have a good excuse for what to do afterwards.  Now Machrihanish on the other hand, what the heck is there out there?  It was on my short list of courses I wanted to go to on my trip last year, but I couldn't make it work, the drive in the rain from Carnoustie to Turnberry was fun enough, I couldn't see doing a trip more than 2x as long, two days in a row, just to play there.  We ended up doing North Berwick instead.  Which worked out nicely for me since I couldn't resist walking up to the top of the Law and checking out the whale's jawbone.  Must have been a bitch to drag that thing all the way up there!  If I knew there was stuff like Loch Ness or the Law in the Machrihanish area I might find the drive more worth it, otherwise I'll have to save it up for sometime I'm travelling with someone who can share the driving.  My dad's getting a bit old to drive on the wrong side of the narrow roads in Scotland, or perhaps I'm getting too old to not to fear for my life when he's behind the wheel there.

[THuckaby2]

Tom,
Ask yourself this question: What is a "great" golf course. How are you identifying "greatness"?
Once you get past the routing, the shot values, and all the rest of the values associated with the architecture what remains are values relative to the experience. I am not trying to belittle any ranking system I am just saying that it's not hard to identify the class to which each value belongs, either architecture or experience. All the various systems are subordinate to their respective criteria and therein lies the dilemma.
I am of this mind, when you use experiential criteria to determine greatness as it applies to golf courses then you are more likely heading toward a "greatest places to play" than you are a "greatest courses" list.  

Jim:  this really all semantics.  See, I too make the differentiation between a "greatest place to play" and a "greatest course" - I just think of it in a different way.  For me, the former would be what golfers care most about (or should if they play the game), the latter should be only the realm of those in the business, to assess who's doing the best job.  So for me, it's a fun exercise to try and assess the "greatest course", but it really doesn't matter as I am not in the business.  The former DOES matter, as playing the game means a lot to me.

I've used this example before here and I shudder to do it again because my experience was apparently so unique and singular, but I was treated like absolute dirt at Chicago GC.  I won't get into the details AGAIN but believe me, it was not a pleasant round.  So how great is that golf course, for me?  Yes, the design of it may well be genius.  But what does that matter if the playing of it was awful (and believe me, it was).  The same can be said for a great course that's in horrible condition - as they say about Apache Stronghold these days.  How great can the course be if its unplayable?

This is what I'm getting at - EVERYTHING DOES MATTER.  Let the architects debate who did the better design.  That is indeed ONE PIECE OF THE PUZZLE.  But everything else does matter if you are playing the game of golf.

Oh well, you say potato, I say potahto - let's indeed call the whole thing off.  I do appreciate the attempt - this is a very interesting discussion for me - but I've never been able to get anyone to see the logic of this before, nor has anyone else ever dissuaded me from my logic, which seems so elementary to me...

This is all in good fun.

And it has NOTHING to do with rankings, by the way.  It does have everything to do, for me, with what makes a golf course great.  And to me, it's just basic and elementary that the design is indeed just one piece of the puzzle.

TH