To Play Or Not To Play? - That Is The Question

[Sean_A]

The culture of playing newish courses isn't prevalent in the UK like it is in the States for obvious reasons.  Brits largely miss out on the hype/expectation/joy/disappointment of playing the new courses on the block.  Dan Herrmann stated he has avoided Rees courses because of comments on this site.  As one who wants to play good courses no matter who designed them I found this comment strange.  Unless of course one is well versed in Rees and doesn't care to drop whatever it costs when other options are available.  It just so happens that since joining this rowdy bunch (I never made the connection before) I discovered that I am very fond of many courses that James Braid was involved with (in fact, I am a member of two), but I still don't seek out courses by Braid.  I seek out courses with good reputations either locally, nationally or internationally.  

I understand that many of you play some courses because of "work".  Try to drop that hat for the moment.  Out of curiosity, how many folks play/avoid a course because of what they think of the archie (based on prior experience), what mates have said about an archie or what they have read about an archie?  

Ciao

Sean

[Mark_F]

Sean,

Not really because of the architect, but I have never had any desire to play either Royal Troon nor Turnberry.

There seems to be something very unappealing about the former, and uninteresting about the latter.

Especially with Macrihanish just down the road.

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

Absolutely I do choose to play some courses and pass on others based on who designed them.  There are some architects whose work is pretty repetitive, and I'm not going to see one of their new courses until I've heard from several sources that it is really different from their other stuff.  I try not to make judgments in advance, but most of the reason I go to new courses is in the hope of seeing something different, and with some architects that is a pretty hopeless mission.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Sean,
      I play most of my games on courses built before 1940. It's not only my preference, I find that many of the people I take with me enjoy them more, i.e., shorter, less do or die, etc.. I choose the rest of the courses I play by word-of-mouth recommendations, or by architect.
     You "...discovered that (you are) very fond of many courses that James Braid was involved with  but you "don't seek out courses by Braid". You do "...seek out courses with good reputations either locally, nationally or internationally"
     Although I think that most people choose by good reputation, etc., I also feel that it's valid to choose between the available architects, you would not(probably) be sad if you searched out more of Braid's work, so why not do it?
     Knowing the brand saves wasted time, money and energy.



     

[Mike_Cirba]

I love to play them all, irrespective of archie.

There is something to be said for variety, and even for those architects who have a stereotypical style, it's interesting to me to see how it comes out on different pieces of terrain.  

That being said, I also reserve the right to be critical of work, and of an architect's work generally.  But, it's quite possible to enjoy oneself even if you think the course you're playing is dreadful.  I find golf courses endlessly fascinating, even the not so good ones.

I also don't believe it's really possible to understand how great some courses are until one also has played their fair share of courses ranging from horrid to pretty decent.

[George Pazin]

Out of curiosity, how many folks play/avoid a course because of what they think of the archie (based on prior experience), what mates have said about an archie or what they have read about an archie?

I will absolutely play a course because of the architect. To me, it's no different than choosing to read a book by an author you are familiar with.

I think sometimes people are so caught up with PC treatment of architects that they don't fess up to completely reasonable behavior.

My time is highly restricted, in terms of when I can play and how far I can go to seek something out. It is completely reasonable to me to seek advice from others whose opinions I value and respect for where to spend my time.

[Tom Huckaby]

I was about to go on a tirade here against basing all judgments on WHO a course was done by as opposed to WHAT it is....

But the wise Mr. Cirba sums it all up far, far better.  Just put me down for what he said.

TH

ps - love the tag-line, hadn't seen that before... I just hope to god people remember that was said in the context of the great game of marital negotiation for golf!  

pss - crossed with George.  Note my tirade would have been against NOT playing a course because of who did it... Seeking out courses done by certain architects, hell that's normal and fun.

[George Pazin]

I also don't believe it's really possible to understand how great some courses are until one also has played their fair share of courses ranging from horrid to pretty decent.

This is a great statement, but I wonder how many on here actually play anything remotely approaching horrid.

Additionally, if one isn't a rater and is only seeking to learn, I don't see a problem with confining one's choices.

It's kind of like being discriminating in the older sense of the word.

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

I feel 100% certain about very few things.

I am 100% certain I have played golf courses that could be classified as "horrid", by any connotation of that word.

For Bay Area veterans, I put before you:  Thunderbird GC, San Jose, CA (NLE).  That's just one.

As for picking and choosing, as I say I have nothing against that - I doubt Mike does either.   We are neither Tom Doak nor Matt Ward.  We have lives outside of playing thousands of golf courses, sadly.

 

[George Pazin]

pss - crossed with George.  Note my tirade would have been against NOT playing a course because of who did it... Seeking out courses done by certain architects, hell that's normal and fun.

I can tell you there are plenty of courses I will avoid, simply based on posters' opinions, photos share on here, etc. I'm not a rater, my time is my own, I pay my own way and if I miss something, well, I can live with that. It's not my job to see every course made by every architect, or even a Wardian sampling of every architect, so that I can comment on a course or architect, to try to match the rigorous guidelines of another poster.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Sean,
Personally, I'd rather take a shot at driving to play, say, a Donald Ross 'brand' course someone spoke highly of (even if  it has new paint and the motor's been souped up) rather than take my chances on driving to one built by (insert 'brand' name here).
 

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

You missed my point - understandable because I really didn't state it well.

My point is this:  NOT playing a given course just because of who the architect is, with no other information taken into account, would be silly.  The day I do that is the day I end it all.  I doubt you'd ever do that either.  Of course one might avoid any given course for all the reasons you state. But avoiding it just because it was done by _________, that's what I find very silly.

TH

[George Pazin]

I don't care what you say, I'll never play a course designed by Tom Huckaby.

 

Sean -

I understand your point and I think it's fine, I just think sometimes people go so far out of their way to sound like they're being fair that it gets a little silly. What the heck does it matter if I never play a Rees Jones course, or anyone else, for that matter? I'm one little guy in the Burgh, I'm not Ron Whitten. (Of course, I'm getting bigger by the day, but that's another story.) If I never played a Tom Doak course, it'd only be myself I was penalizing (of course, I already have, and I can guarantee you I will seek out more, based on what I saw).

[Tom Huckaby]

I don't care what you say, I'll never play a course designed by Tom Huckaby.

 

A wiser statement has never been made in this forum.

Interestingly though, you assume such don't exist... Wrong-o!  The problem is, they tend to be even more ephemeral than most courses.  That is, mine rarely last more than three days - the length of the annual family camping trip.  Oh yes, the creations do happen at such.....

 

[Glenn Spencer]

If it is Ross, Raynor, Tillie, Dye, Doak, Mack or someone like those guys, I am playing it no matter what. I usually end up playing somewhere because I hear that is good. Negative remarks usually don't scare me away from a course because if I have decided I want to play it, then I want to play it. Positive, certainly does send me there though. Olde Stone is a good exmaple for me, I was invited to join a couple of groups there and I don't want to go because it is Hills. I don't want to play it, because I am sure it sucks, but there is a 1 in 158 chance that I might not hate it. I hear it is so great and all that, but I think I am going to sit this one out. If I lose out, I lose out.

[Tim Pitner]

I think George Pazin's analogy to reading a book based on its author is very apt.  There are certain authors whose work I will actively seek out.  If they come out with a new book, I will buy it.  Conversely, there are authors who I avoid.  I won't read their books unless I'm persuaded by sources I trust that this new book is a significant departure from their previous work.  Of course, there are also authors I don't know much about, who haven't published much before, etc. whose books I'll give a try if they sound interesting.  

The same is true for me for golf courses.  There are courses I seek out because of the architect and (sorry Tom Huckaby) there are courses I will avoid because of the architect.  I don't see a problem with this.  As George said, there are only a limited number of courses I will play in a year.  Why would I want to play a course designed by someone whose work I don't generally enjoy?  Like authors, the work of golf course architects tend to have certain characteristics.  You can change the site (or in the author's case, the subject), but the underlying characteristics will still be there.  Now, I'm not so dogmatic that I would refuse to play any of X architect's courses, but I may avoid them if I can.  

[Tom Huckaby]

Tim:

No need to apologize to me; my point is against the dogmatic.   While I personally would never avoid any course just because of who the architect is, I can certainly understand those who would do so.  What I can't understand is being SO dogmatic as to NEVER play a course just because of who designed it - which you say you wouldn't do.

So we're cool.

 

TH

[Tim Leahy]

I think an architects history can give you some idea of if you will like a course or not. I have had bad experiences with Johnny Miller courses and would be hesitant to drive out of my way to play one. But the rule may not always hold, I loved a Keith Foster course, Dark Horse, and rushed to the opening of his next course in the Sacto area Morgan Creek and thought it was just horrible and had very few of the characteristics of his previous course. So it may be more like famous chefs, what the chef has to work with and your personal taste may prevail over the name.

[Glenn Spencer]

Tim:

No need to apologize to me; my point is against the dogmatic.   While I personally would never avoid any course just because of who the architect is, I can certainly understand those who would do so.  What I can't understand is being SO dogmatic as to NEVER play a course just because of who designed it - which you say you wouldn't do.

So we're cool.

 

TH

I said nearly the same as Tim, so I will say why I said so. If I have played 10-15 courses by someone and didn't like any of them, including what is thought of as his best work, why would I want to go and see a new version? I don't like prison movies, so I don't watch them, no matter what the critics say about them. Is this the same or not?

[Tom Huckaby]

Glenn:

Your take makes obvious sense.  Those who play a lot of golf courses by the given architect can certainly look at it this way, and should.

What seems silly to me is basing a course choice on an architect when one HASN'T had that depth of experience.

That is, never playing a course by _____ because you hear all his courses suck.

Me?  I'd go see for myself.  But then again, I will - and do - play anywhere, and I neither worship nor demonize architects.  I'm into playing the game of golf, secondarily into the courses on which one plays... who designs them is WAY down on my list of interests.

TH

[Glenn Spencer]

My fault Tommy, I clearly must have misunderstood. I can offer this then, I agree with what you are saying completely. I can't in my immediate recollection remember playing a Fazio or a Rees Jones, but I did tour Belfair and I thought it looked great and I really wanted to play the West course. Wait, I did play Berkeley Hall and I think those are Fazio, anyway if I haven't played it, I would certainly give it a shot once, probably try it a few times, but if I play their best and didn't like it, it might be a bit more judicious the next time.

[Tom Huckaby]

Glenn - no hassles man - I figured we were closer to copacetic on this than we were different.

 

I just weep for what's being done to poor Jordan Wall... he has seriously drunk the kool-aid, and it's poisoned his young mind.

TH

[Glenn Spencer]

Most of those characters get a pass in my book anyway, because I can't keep them all straight. George Fazio, Tom Fazio, Arthur Fazio, Rees Jones, Trent Jones, Trent Jones Jr. Bobby Jones.

[Glenn Spencer]

Yes, he is never going to like anything, I am afraid.   If the guy doesn't tee it up at Cypress, Pine or NGLA or a Doak track, he is going to think that it sucks.

[Tom Huckaby]

Yes, he is never going to like anything, I am afraid.   If the guy doesn't tee it up at Cypress, Pine or NGLA or a Doak track, he is going to think that it sucks.

Come to think of it, the way things are going, before long those WILL make up 99% of his golf diet.  So perhaps there is great method to his seeming madness?

TH