Familiarity breeds respect

[Ian Andrew]

Mark Twain said, “Familiarity breeds contempt. How accurate that is. The reason we hold truth in such respect is because we have so little opportunity to get familiar with it.”

The interesting thing in golf is that the opposite often applies. The more familiar we are with the course - the more we have gone down the road of discovery - the more respect we end up having for all the subtleties and nuances of the layout. St. Andrew’s may offer the greatest example of this. The first pass often leaves the visitor wondering what all the fuss was about, but the continuous playing of the course and experimentation with different types of approaches in order to solve its riddles leaves us profoundly respectful of the architecture.

Often we make decisions upon what are the greatest or not so great courses we have seen based upon one visit. Is this fair? Can we see all the subtleties in one pass? Will we always place to high a value on our own home course due to familiarity? Can a ranking system work when many judgments are placed upon a single visit? Just curious to other people’s thoughts.

[Tom Huckaby]

Ian:

Very interesting questions.

I'd say at GREAT courses, familiarity does breed respect and love and admiration.  But at many many others, familiarity does breed contempt.  

Regarding how this works out for the rating world, I'd say that the universe of courses that would get assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY better after multiple playings has got to be pretty small.  Oh sure, TOC is a good example.  But how many others are there really?  Most great courses for which familiarity would breed respect, love, admiration ALSO would seem to receive a lot of that after one play.  And given that it's wholly unrealistic to expect the rater world to assess things ONLY after multiple playings, well... just how large of a weakness is this really?

TH

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:

I've always felt that a ranking system based on first impressions is dangerous, but mostly because so many golfers are influenced in their opinion of the architecture by how they played that day.

I think that for most very good courses, it can be assumed that you will like them even more once you get to know them, and moreover that you will be enticed to get back and know them better, so the course you've seen only once suffers slightly in that regard until you get to know it better.  (It's only the geniuses who play Seminole or Pinehurst or St. Andrews once and pronounce it terribly overrated that you have to worry about.)

I think what Tom says is also true, there are a lot of courses you would like even less if you went back ... but for most of them you have already decided never to go back!

[Kirk Gill]

And the question is, how does this affect the designer? If ratings and word-of-mouth opinion based on a bunch of single visits are the criteria for judging the worth of a golf course, do the designers, perhaps even unintentionally, design courses that lack the kind of subtlety and nuance that repeated play reveals in favor of eye candy and unsubtle design elements that can be easily appreciated on one visit?

[Tom Huckaby]

TD:

I don't disagree with any of that.

I just have to ask though, how much of an issue really is this in the ranking world?  That is, how many courses would get ranked significantly better in a system in which ratings were allowed only after multiple plays? And also, let's hope the "geniuses" you list are few and far between... and that their assessments get canceled out by the volume of right-thinking raters (which I believe to be the case).

But perhaps even more importantly, how realistic is it that such a system could ever be put in place?  

This seems to me like an angels dancing on the head of a pin type discussion... but those are often fun, so what the heck.

 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

I agree with your analysis, it's not feasible for the rankings to be done any other way.

I do think that architecture suffers somewhat because everyone building new courses feels pressure to make a huge first impression.  

Few courses which finish fourth in the Digest "Best New" awards ever rise any higher because the panelists have dumped them and are on to the latest best new.  Architects understand this and that's why there aren't many young ones who are playing the subtler notes on the scale.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom D:

That's it!  Yes, many of the Best News do seem to come and go, for these reasons.  Well said.  The ones that have staying power are the ones with subtleties.

But just like so many other aspects of life, it must be tough to avoid the immediate gratification in favor of the long-term gain.  Such is golf's quandary these days.

TH

[wsmorrison]

Tom H,

Who is building subtle greens or approaches these days?  I am not asking rhetorically, I don't get to see many new courses because I am too busy studying the classic ones for various projects.  

Subtle greens, which can be considered as interplays of slope rather than large internal contouring, doesn't seem to represent a majority of courses in the classic era and even less so today.  I think subtle features are more appropriate for private clubs where a long learning curve can be appreciated by members and offer home course advantages as opposed to overtly contoured greens that may be more suitable to public/resort courses or as eye candy to sell new privates in a competitive market.

There is something appealing watching people unfamiliar with subtle interplays of slope scratch their heads after misreading a 20' putt by about 6'.  There is less self-doubt about overt contours.  When the challenge is easily seen in internal contouring and the task readily presented, there is a lot less confusion and interest.

Please don't get me wrong, I like courses with contoured greens, including some oldies but goodies and moderns I have seen.  But as a member of a private club, I like the challenge offered by subtle greens with some contoured greens for variety.  I prefer that to a routine challenge where all greens are heavily contoured.  

[Tom Huckaby]

Wayne:

I am far from an expert as I too don't see all that many new courses.... but it seems to me that Coore & Crenshaw tend to build more subtle greens than those with massive contours. Doak also does build some greens with massive contour, but plenty of subtle ones as well.  Pacific Dunes is a good example of this.  I know Rustic's greens aren't exactly massively contoured either, so count Hanse/Shackelford in this group.  See a pattern developing?  

But your thoughts pertaining to courses geared toward members playing a lot over the long haul do make great sense to me as well.

TH

[wsmorrison]

Oh aye, the pattern is recognizable; thankfully  

[Tommy Williamsen]

 
There are many courses that take time to grow on you.  I think Royal North Devon is one that grows on you.  The first time through you might think, "fascinating, but what is the big deal about it?" The more you play it the more you understand the nuances that make it great.

Baltusrol Lower, Pinehust 2, Royal Liverpool, and Baltray grow on you with time.

There are also some that knock you socks off the first time because of the beauty.  That first trip around you might be so distracted that you miss the brilliance of the design. The second time around you love the beauty but are astonished that you missed the greatness.  Royal County Down, Cypress Point, and Ballybunion, have been examples for me.

Then there are some you think are great the first time but changa\e your mind the second and third time around.  Pebble Beach, Tralee, and Old Head were like that for me.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

I find that even quite ordinary courses - plenty of local courses - very often grow on me with greater familiarity.  Bad holes become worse, bland holes remain uninteresting, but a little slope on this green, a well-sited bunker there, a charming vista through a gap in the trees or a shot made more intimidating by my ever-increasing ineptitude - these all grow on me with greater exposure to them.  It doesn't make them great courses, but it increases my sense of anticipation during the round.

I played Broadstone for the first time in 8 years last week.  Before that I had played it in the era of Dunlop 65s and Bob Charles left-handed clubs, late 60s or early 70s, I suppose.  I looked forward to the top-class holes immensely (7th, 13th and 14th) and they did not disappoint, being every bit as exciting as I had expected.  But one or two holes I had previously rather underestimated turned out to be far better than I had remembered (4th, 6th, 11th) and one I had thought rather makeweight in the past turned out to be a cracker (10th).  Other holes, such as the 1st, 5th, 15th and 16th, came up fresh as a daisy.  However, the 18th, which I remembered as being rather lacklustre, turned out to be even more uninteresting than I anticipated - in fact rather a let down to an otherwise rejuvenating round.

[wsmorrison]

Rare indeed are the courses that knock you over the first time you see them and continue to amaze and offer new insights over repeated play.  Courses that I consider in such a rarefied group include:

The Old Course (absolutely loved it the first time around)
Merion East
Shinnecock Hills
Pine Valley
Royal Dornoch
Indian Creek
Oakmont
Huntingdon Valley
Rolling Green

[Ian Andrew]

Tommy,

I like the examples you gave in your response and I think you illustrate the value of multiple playing. You can break it down into four basic categories of feeling after at least one additional playing.

1.   Like it even more than I did the first time
2.   It’s great, but not as special as I first thought
3.   Like it much less
4.   Boy did I miss this one the first time and now I fully appreciate the course

The last category is often the most important. We occasionally fail to get it – know matter how clever we are or think we are – occasionally circumstance gets the better of you when you play there. For example, I don’t get Royal Troon’s greatness, but I’ve played in the rain each time with wind always coming from the south. Is there a chance that weather and circumstance has interceded in my judgment? Or is the course really not as good as other people feel it is.

I’ve spent a great deal of time trying to get to know Walter Travis. In a conversation with Bruce Hepner recently I pointed out that after nearly 10 years of this quest I’m now more confident than ever that I don’t know enough. I’ve managed to always find new contradictions or new ideas to blow holes in any ability to suggest a design style. Familiarity has only brought me…….more questions. Are courses similar, the more you think you know about them, the more you really don’t?


Wayne,

Merion East is the best example of a course that you grow even further in awe of. I've played it twice and walked it in both directions. Each time I have left, I shook my head in wonder of how close to perfect the routing and architecture is.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Ian, What you say about Travis is what I feel about what I know of Herbert Fowler - he doesn't seem to have any trademarks, yet he always seems to come up with something very special and very individual.

I hear what you say about Troon, and I think many would say that while it is a very decent test of golf (particularly the run in from the 10th when it's played into the wind) there are some very ordinary holes on it (1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 12th, 14th, 16th, 18th).  I personally detest the 9th, but that is probably because I have always played the hole badly.  I really look forward to the 5th, 7th and 8th on the way out and 13th and 15th coming home, but that is not enough to make it great in my view, I'm afraid, but who am I to judge?

[Doug Siebert]

Ian,

I don't think there really are four categories, there only way you can like or dislike a course a LOT more than you did the first time you saw (your categories 3 & 4) it is due to something that's out of the architect's control:

- Conditions were off - it was raining or too windy for your liking, or poorly maintained, or rabid kangaroos were roaming the fairways and constantly biting you

- You played really poorly or really well and that got mixed in with your evaluation

- You have good or bad memories of it due to good or bad memories of the trip, the people you were traveling/playing with, the time in your life, etc.

- Your viewpoints on what makes for a good or bad course have matured or changed over time due to seeing more courses or spending too much time on GCA

The only thing that's important is whether the course goes up, down or stays the same in the second and subsequent rounds.  The courses that get the Doak 9s and especially 10s are the ones that just about everyone says they like more every time they play it.  That's why TOC is a 10, not because everyone thinks its a 10, but because even those crazy deluded fools who think its a 5 generally raise their opinions of it if they play it again and again, even though it may still never be amongst their favorites.

These are the courses where there is always more to see and experience.  On the other hand, a course that's flat, uninteresting and always soggy will never offer anything new beyond what is possible by practicing on a driving range and chipping greens, so familiarity with it would definitely breed contempt, if one were so unfortunate as to be forced to play it again and again.

[Ian Andrew]

"I don't think there really are four categories, there only way you can like or dislike a course a LOT more than you did the first time you saw (your categories 3 & 4) it is due to something that's out of the architect's control:

Doug,

I have to agree and disagree with you here.

Your right usually playing conditions can have an influence. Playing Meron the week of member guest was not as much fun as playing it under normal (albiet still difficult) conditions.

But I ask you, have you not been out to a new course and really enjoyed the first play - the scenery or aesthetics really catch your attention - then returned and found that the experience was almost exactly the same? The shots similar and the demands almost repeating themselves - the scenery doesn't quite have the same impact.

[Lloyd_Cole]

I find that even quite ordinary courses - plenty of local courses - very often grow on me with greater familiarity.  Bad holes become worse, bland holes remain uninteresting, but a little slope on this green, a well-sited bunker there, a charming vista through a gap in the trees or a shot made more intimidating by my ever-increasing ineptitude - these all grow on me with greater exposure to them.  It doesn't make them great courses, but it increases my sense of anticipation during the round.

MR

I was about to make a similar comment.
I play most of my local golf on courses that are mediocre at best and yet I still enjoy their challenge and the more I play them the more I find that they do improve, in my mind, with study.
I was thinking recently of our public 9 hole course - Beaver Brook - and what I could do to improve the course if the owner allowed me to try. I realised that the first 3 holes required nothing but improved drainage that would improve the conditioning and bring the ground game into play...

[Willie_Dow]

Ian, this is a big thought !

Evolution of a golf course is - forever - !

But lets try to keep the same architect one chose in the beginning.  

Too many of us are given ideas given from within which try to outdo the original concept !

Willie

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ian Andrew,

"I don't think that any one is qualified to pass on the merits of any one hole, let alone eighteen holes, unless he has played them under all of the varying conditions possible--varying winds, rain, heat, frost, etc."

[Doug Siebert]

"I don't think there really are four categories, there only way you can like or dislike a course a LOT more than you did the first time you saw (your categories 3 & 4) it is due to something that's out of the architect's control:

Doug,

I have to agree and disagree with you here.

Your right usually playing conditions can have an influence. Playing Meron the week of member guest was not as much fun as playing it under normal (albiet still difficult) conditions.

But I ask you, have you not been out to a new course and really enjoyed the first play - the scenery or aesthetics really catch your attention - then returned and found that the experience was almost exactly the same? The shots similar and the demands almost repeating themselves - the scenery doesn't quite have the same impact.

Sure, I've played a new course for the first time and enjoyed the day due to the scenery or other factors.  But I don't confuse the scenery with my evaluation of the course, or at least I try not to.

Its that sort of confusion of asthetics and rating of the architectural merit that leads to courses like Turnberry being overrated, IMHO.  Turnberry's also a good example of a course where the shots and demands are largely similar every time you play.  The recoveries from almost anywhere around the greens are so easy that you aren't properly punished for missing the green, which means off the tee that the only thing I ever worry about there is hitting the ball somewhere that's findable and playable.  I've made birdies from the wrong fairway twice there, that's just silly.

I'm not saying that there's no role for looking pretty -- Carnoustie would be rated much higher if wasn't situated in the middle of some of the most awful drab urban area that Scotland has to offer.  On the other hand, if Carnoustie was just a bit better, maybe people wouldn't even notice that its surroundings are so awful.  The view from the 17th tee at TOC is pretty pathetic, with fake railroad sheds ahead of you, a garish hotel to the right and a driving range behind, but it manages to rise above all that to be one of the greatest (the greatest, IMHO) hole in the world.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Ian,

Sometimes it can't be helped, but in my travels I try to pick one course and play it 3-5 times, rather than succomb to the checklist mentality.  I would rather play one course five times than five courses one time. Most people I talk to think this is stark-raving mad. (I have not played very many courses!)

Let me ask you a question: would most people be better off not playing TOC at all instead of just once -- or, if they could, playing TOC five times but not playing any other course in Scotland? Why / why not?

Mark

[Sean_A]

Ian,

Sometimes it can't be helped, but in my travels I try to pick one course and play it 3-5 times, rather than succomb to the checklist mentality.  I would rather play one course five times than five courses one time. Most people I talk to think this is stark-raving mad. (I have not played very many courses!)

Let me ask you a question: would most people be better off not playing TOC at all instead of just once -- or, if they could, playing TOC five times but not playing any other course in Scotland? Why / why not?

Mark

Mark

I have always liked the idea of playing two courses many times while traveling, but most prefer a new course nearly everyday.  I organize a links trip every year and compromise; we play what is in my opinion the big gun of the tour twice and the others once.  However, I do insist that if we are going to step on a new first tee virtually every day then a few breather courses must be included.  I don't think its a lot of fun being slapped about by a different championship course each day.  I would prefer the opportunity to learn from my mistakes.  

Ciao

[Ian Andrew]

Mark,

I can only speak for myself, and what I find I need to look at a course.

1. I learn far more if I only walk - and stop and watch. I spent an hour and a half watching approached to the 14th green at the old course - only one player knew how to handle the front pin.

2. If there is more to understand I find booking twice, or walking in addition to playing helps my understanding of the course. I book multiple playings at Tobacco Road instead of trying to take it all in at once.

3. My opinion occasionally does change with repeated visits. I'll confess that I enjoyed the "other" holes at Pebble Beach more than I remembered the first time and my opinion of the course increased.

re: you question about The Old Course - if you wondered what all the fuss was about - my only suggestion would be to play it again.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Courses like women should not reveal their charms on the first encounter.  The challenge for the golfer who plays courses once is discerning those that do from those who don't! I lack that ability.

Mark,

I think that's a great concept, but, isn't it contrary to the mindset of today's golfer ?

A golfer who uses laser range finders, GPS systems, maps, charts and guide dogs to retrieve as much data as possible.

Today's golfer wants total data input starting at the practice range, continuing onto the 1st tee and throughout his round.

How do you overcome that conflict and keep the mystery ?