How much does off course scenery matter to you ?

[Matt_Ward]

There's usually plenty of discussion about ocean view courses and the lament of those far away from such situations is that too much of the hype connected to such courses is really nothing more than added "brownie" points -- especially if such vistas really don't have any meaningful role when playing the course.

The questions are straightforward:

1). Does off course scenery matter and if it does how much of a role should it garner when the actual architecture is analyzed?

2). Do courses with no vistas really suffer because of this and if they do -- then would it be fair to say that both on-course and off-course elements are of equal weight? For example, if Prairie Dunes had an ocean next to it would the course be rated even higher. Conversely, if Pebble didn't would it lose a good bit of its position.

Clearly, the "what if" rationale is purely guesswork on my part and anyone else's for that matter.

However, I often read posts from people and it seems the off-course scenery aspects do matter -- especially if its a body of water -- even more so than a mountain view or other such situations.

Be curious to hear from the group on this.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

You wear your heart on your sleeve when you phrase your questions as such:  "how much a role should it garner when the ACTUAL ARCHITECTURE is analyzed" (my emphasis).

What exactly IS "actual architecture" and what isn't?

For example, is the contouring in the fairways part of "actual architecture", whether they were there to begin with or not?

Everything on a golf course, including how the views off-property are presented, is something that the architect has thought about and decided how to employ.  If you want to eliminate "vistas" as a topic and reevaluate courses without them, you're welcome to try, but for me it isn't a worthwhile exercise because most people can't block them out, and wouldn't want to.

You don't have to be a genius at math to figure out how much an oceanfront site matters.  What percentage of the world's courses are next to the ocean?  (Probably less than 0.1 percent.)  And what percentage of the top 100 are next to the ocean?  25 percent?  But, that doesn't reveal anything about the true merits of those lucky courses, positive or negative.

[Peter Zarlengo]

From the perspecive of landscape architecture views are everthing. They are the easiest and most powerful element in tying design into the surrounding and creating a memorable experience that is well grounded in the genius of a site.

I would guess that courses, or any design for that matter, without well composed views would suffer because of it, but in what respect I'm not sure. I would like to think that the exterior views of a golf course would help tie the golf course to the significant elements of the existing landscape.

I think that the external view that you are talking about are important, but the internal views of the golf course itself can be of equal value.  Sometimes there is nothing prettier than standing on a part of the course and looking out on all of the beauty that the golf course itself has to offer. Especially at the right time of day.

[Gary Slatter]

Probably doesn't matter to me as much as some. I love Royal Lytham, Hoylake, Carnoustie, Scarboro, Beverley, etc and they don't have the best scenery.
Reminds me of my friend Finn Sorenson from Saskatchewan who drove from Saskatoon to Vancouver to play in the BC Open.  When asked how he liked the scenery he said he couldn't see it, the mountains got in the way.

One lifelong interest that I've had is when I go to a new course I look for "staging areas".  I know this site dislikes carts and anything to do with them, but the majority of courses completely disregard what the team running them will need available for "Outing$".  You can understand an older course having limited space but most new ones not only have no room but also have curbs everywhere, trapping water and restricting people. sorry for OT.

[cary lichtenstein]

It's all part of the package. although I don't give much credit to the ocean courses because you can rarely see the ocean on most and even rarer does the does come into play, other than Cypress 16 and Pebble 8, where do you have to cross the ocean in the U.S.?

[rjsimper]

It's all part of the package. although I don't give much credit to the ocean courses because you can rarely see the ocean on most and even rarer does the does come into play, other than Cypress 16 and Pebble 8, where do you have to cross the ocean in the U.S.?

There are actually quite a few examples (though many not nearly that famous of course)

But...crossing the ocean isn't the qualifying factor for "in play" - the ocean is in play on many holes where the player doesn't cross it.

[paul cowley]

Is this some kind of silly trick question?

On and off course scenery adds immeasurably to a round.......especially when contrasted with the lack of it......regardless of the strength or the quality of the course.

Please feel free to pronounce me a dimwit if I am missing something major.

[Kalen Braley]

I'm not sure if mr. Mucci is lurking or not, but can't wait till he mixes it up.  Just after reading this thread I immediately thought of that picture where the Huck blackened out the ocean and beach on Pebble Beach.

For me personally I also think it means alot to the experience of playing the course.  And to answer Matts question, I do believe Pebble would be rated a fair amount lower if it were inland somewhere.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Kalen, me too.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I like to fool myself into thinking that views etc son't make a difference.  But it does.  The Challenge at Manele, for instance, is a good design that soars because of the views and the holes along the ocean.
I played Arklow in Ireland and it was next to some ugly building.  It detracted from the esperience if not from the golf.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Matt Ward, how can you be sure "vistas" aren't brought into play, for example a distant skyline / slope replicated by the outline of a bunker or green on the line of play?

[bbarkley]

During my travels through the UK we stop at Cleveland Golf Links in Redcar.  It is stated that it is the oldest golf club in Yorkshire.  The course is a flat links course which was a blast to play.  The only downside was the awful factory which was obviously built long after the course was well established.  With the play out from town, it was difficult to miss the eyesore.   However once we headed back into town, the "feel" of the round completely changed.  Play improved, and the overall joy of golf, which I constantly am in search of, returned.  The course was not one of my favorite course we played, but it remains in my mind for obvious reasons.  

Heading out from town.....




Heading in to town.....



The enjoyment I recieve from playing golf comes from not only the course I am playing, but the sights, sounds, smells and feel of the golf course.  Not to mention the people I meet and play with.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Matt Ward, how can you be sure "vistas" aren't brought into play, for example a distant skyline / slope replicated by the outline of a bunker or green on the line of play?

Mark
Ross does this on 14 at the Orchards with the whole green complex.

[Lloyd_Cole]

I thought I was in the 'It's overrated' camp and I guess I still am... but playing Royal Melbourne West and then East doesn't do the East any favours, the surrounding properties are omnipresent and add to cramped, hemmed in feel. It's a shame, as there are some great holes, but I admit I enjoyed the round far less than the West, and wouldn't rush back.

[Andy Troeger]

I would agree that while I try not to focus too much on it, certainly it makes a difference. I personally love to be out in the middle of nowhere to play golf and all the better if the course isn't crowded.

The courses that frustrate me the most usually have rows of cookie cutter homes about ten feet apart. As much as I try to be open minded, that's probably the thing I struggle with most visually.

[Pete_Pittock]

I have played too many courses on the ocean. Banff still has my vote.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I have played too many courses on the ocean. Banff still has my vote.

Pete, I have played a bunch of courses on the ocean as well but "Too many"?  I guess I need to get to Banff!

[Andy Troeger]

I'm always amazed at the allure of the ocean for so many people vs some other pieces of property. I think Blackwolf Run River for example is prettier than Whistling Straits. I figured out awhile ago though that I'm a bit odd I guess

The view from #18 green at Black Mesa with a 360 degree panorama of mountains and mesas in all directions (and very little of anything else) has to be one of my top spots in golf.

[Pete Lavallee]

I agree with Pete, there is no better background for golf than Banff and Jasper; although the the tee needs to be moved on Cleopatra to have Pyrmaid Mountian line up perfectly behind the green.

In answer to Matt's question, ther is no doubt that a pleasant backgroud addes greatly to the golfing experience. I've yet to find it contribute to the architecteur.

[Pete_Pittock]

Tommy,
 "Too many" doesn't mean that I don't want to play any new ones. The ocean is still the ocean, but certain junctions still stand out.
 Banff is the best meeting of golf and mountain that I have seen. It sure beats Silvertip. I haven't been to the Alps, NZ, possibly Scandinavia.

[Pete Lavallee]

The cool thing about Banff, is that the mountains are so big and so close that the ball soars against them, covering them up till their apex easily; it' a feeling I've never experience before or since.

At Jasper the mountains are more distant; but Thompson surely worked hard to present them in just the right places.

[Tim Bert]

Well, wait a second guys, there is no better setting for anything than Banff or Jasper.  That goes for meditating, sex, taking an important business call, cracking a beer with your buddies, a walk with your family, reading a book or anything else...

Golf is a great game, but the game is the game.  Scenery is nice, but it's just scenery.  My life is exactly the same if (A) I play golf in mediocre scenery and then, after the round, take a walk with my family in the most beautiful place any human has ever seen or (B) vice versa...

This would seem to imply that you value scenery more than you let on.  While you life is no different in scenario A than in scenario B, I suspect that based on your logic there would be a difference in scenario C and D.

C) You have no immediate family and spend all of your spare time playing golf at a mediocre (or slightly above average) golf course with mediocre scenery.
D) You have no immediate family and spend all of your spare time playing golf at a mediocre (or slightly above averae) golf course with amazing scenery.

I agree with the statements regarding Banff.  It is some of the finest golf available in one of the most spectacular settings on Earth.  I've played a few courses that I prefer, but when combined with the after-golf activities available, there's no place I'd rather be.

[Pete_Pittock]

Tim,
That is why I alluded to Banff in the 30 day resort thread.

[Tim Bert]

Peter, you and I would get along just fine.  Bandon is my favorite golf-specifc destination to date and Banff is my favorite destination.

For the 30 days of golf, I'd probably opt for Bandon in the summer because the long days would allow one to sleep in and still play 36 or get up early and play 54.  Also, the multiple courses would provide more variety.

If the package was 30 days limited to one round per day at the same course, then Banff would take the prize.  I'd be doing a lot of hiking and relaxing after the round each day.

[Bob Jenkins]

My buddy, John Logan. Plays life with a draw which means that a drive on Pacific Dunes 4 is a play among the turkey vultures out over the ocean. I have seen him birdie the hole that way. Victoria Club is the only other one that comes close to a shot over the ocean and the last time I checked, it was still north of the border.

[Tags:]

Tags: