How much does off course scenery matter to you ?

[Ron Farris]

Does OFF COURSE matter in design?

While playing Sutton Bay I ask my playing partner after the round(s) if he had given any thought to the beautiful river views.
He said that he was so focused on his game and the golf shots at hand that he never really considered the views, except from the clubhouse.  He may have been distracted from the fear of snakes in the rough, the wind, or other elements.  I told him to hit it in the fairway next time and enjoy the views.

Another gentleman who I spoke to recently played the course.  He liked it a lot, but made an interesting comment that without the river views it wouldn't be such a great course as it is today.

I found both comments to be very interesting.  Personally I give consideration to the views outside of the holes, but the holes themselves receive architectural and design considerations that are more important to me than the views.  

[Rick Shefchik]

Re: Sutton Bay,

I actually have to side with Matt Ward to the extent that I don't the think the river makes Sutton Bay a better golf course. I do think the experience of playing Sutton Bay is greatly enhanced by the fantastic views of the river valley, but the only way the river affects the course is geologically. The holes tend to slope in that direction, sometimes dramatically. In a couple of spots, the land has literally slid towards the river -- The Missouri Breaks in action.

That said, I don't know if I'd be as eager to make the six-hour drive from the Twin Cities if Lake Oahe weren't there. I'll never be the kind of golfer who can traverse that stunning layout without looking up to frequently enjoy the scenery, and consider it an integral part of my enjoyment of the course.

[Tom Huckaby]

Again let's not get carried away with this.  I don't think anyone would maintain that views alone can make a golf course; they can make a bad course tolerable, but that's about it.  The crux of the matter does remain the shots to be played.

So yes, the holes themselves and the design considerations therein are more important - absolutely.  My beef continues to be with those who say views don't matter AT ALL.  I believe Rick S. did a fine job of assessing how they do matter at Sutton Bay.
I also do continue to think Tom Doak is right in his statement about how views are considered in design.

TH

[George Pazin]

This topic is begging for a Tom P "golf is a great big game" type of wrap up (but I don't think I can do it justice, so I won't try).

The interesting thing about views to me is how different people are in their preferences. The most recent issue of Golf Digest has the breakdown for Oakmont's ranking, and it ranks way down the list in aesthetics. That's completely bizarre to me, as one glance at Oakmont is enough to get my blood pumping, as much as Pebble, Cypress, Sand Hills, or anywhere else. In the wise words of Bill Coore, "This looks like golf."

Desert golf, on the other hand, is flat out ugly to me, generally speaking. The desert itself can be beautiful, but the golf just reeks of that goofy calendar about toughest holes you haven't played, which I think is well beyond velvet paintings in terms of ugliness.

To each his own, I guess.

[Tom Huckaby]

To each his own for sure, George.  I do believe as many people find beauty in the desert as find none such at Oakmont.  Many golfers play the game for things other than just hitting the shots, that's for sure.  For a purist architecture nut, I can't imagine greater beauty than that found at Oakmont.  But for those with a broader view, well... let's just say I understand the beauty found elsewhere far easier.

In any case, I'll tell you what can and should wrap this up: an acknowldgement that scenic beauty plays SOME role, and it's silly to deny it completely.

I'm not holding my breath though that it comes from the one main dissenter.  Let's remember too that he acknowledges that on-course beauty has a role, but says off-course views do not.  I continue to find it odd the walls he puts around golf courses, but like I say, to each his own.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

Dr. V:

Yes, I think it's normal to become immune to the familiar.  For example, our friend Jon McCord raved about the giant redwoods at Northwood in Monte Rio, whereas I see them as nothing but big things in the way of my golf ball.  And that's because living where I have my whole life, redwoods are pretty normal fare.  But to those who've never seen them, they hold an incredibly beauty for sure.

Good point re seaside climate... that's my favorite for golf as well.  Hadn't though of that at all.

In any case, I'd agree with your first statement.  I'd just add perhaps that you won't get chicken soup from chicken poo by adding good scenery, but it might make the poo not smell so bad.  And a fine meal will taste great whether one eats in in his car on I-5 or at a lovely table alongside the shore in Carmel... the latter might just get a bonus thought because of the setting.

As you can see I love this topic.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

I get that Dr. V.  It's an interesting take.

I just don't think most American golfers want to see home, or find comfort, when they go to Scotland.  Au contraire, they go there to see what they can't at home and more different, the better.  And the same thing goes for Scots going to Myrtle Beach and raving about it, as we hear they do.

SOME golfers will find comfort in the familiar, for sure... But I think among those willing to go that far and spend that kinda money, these would be a small minority.

TH

[George Pazin]

They might not want familiarity consciously, but I think a nice level stance does a lot to aid the subconscious.

Just to be clear on the desert v. Oakmont thing, Huck, I'm not saying either side is right or wrong. To me, aesthetics are similar to food - wholly dependent on the individual, no real right or wrong.

Unlike Pebble v. Oakmont, where there is clearly a right and wrong.

 

[Rick Shefchik]

I think weather is a small but not insignificant element of this discussion.

When you play most of your golf on Midwest parkland courses, you know the heart of the season will be made up of humid, hot -- at times stinky hot -- days. I can hear the cicadas and feel the sweat dripping into my eyes as I type this.

I don't find those conditions pleasant, and I associate them with a certain visual style of course. Not that parkland courses can't be beautiful -- they're tough to beat in the fall, really -- but I can't remember many rounds in high summer that made me love the course I was playing on.

[Tom Huckaby]

George:  I got that completely.  There is no right or wrong.  I was just speculating as to which types might prefer each... and trying to explain that either way, it just goes to show even more clearly that views matter.

And re the second part, I remain open to the possibility.  I'll certainly be watching in a few weeks.  I just do continue to believe that for what I want out of this game, the answer is also very clear.  But one does never know, and to learn is to live.  

Now as for a nice level stance... hmmm... I also don't think that aids the subconscious for many travelers to Scotland.  In fact I think it's just the opposite... too many of those and one starts to think "I can find this at home, why the hell did I come all this way?"  I continue to believe that most travel to see what's different, and this is a large part of what makes links golf different.

Kinda like the take most have about the clubhouse at Kingsbarns... "it could be in Cleveland"....

TH

[Jim Colton]

This topic of scenery instantly made me think about Sandpines, which has 2 giant, unsightly water towers overlooking the closing holes on each nine.  Certainly the owners at Sandpines thought it adversely impacted the course...they've tried to build a giant clubhouse to block the view of these eyesores, but as this picture shows, they weren't completely successful.  Does it take away from the golf course?  Maybe a little bit.  If anything, it makes the course a little bit more memorable (maybe not in a good way, just more memorable), since it stood out enough for me to take the picture.

[Joe Perches]

Desert golf - always a refresher to me.  As unnatural as golf in the desert is, four or five rounds in the late winter early spring is as good as a big fat Gin & T. But as with the drink analogy, more than that it gets a little fuzzy and not something I particularly like.

Anyone else have these sorts of feelings about the matter?

Normally, I find desert golf suits me just fine.  You easily imagine yourself in an oasis surrounded by sand.  I did play a mountainside desert course that was somehow off-putting to me, not for the golf, but for the scenery.  This course had a most expansive view of the surrounding desert.  The stark contrast of the lushness of the course, off on a slope where it was difficult to imagine the location as an oasis, and the views of the bleakness of the desert and hillsides somehow made me queasy.  It was one of those "this place could shrivel and blow away" presentiments.

[Tom Huckaby]

You travel in different crowds than me.  I think only those who can afford such stay in those hotels.  As for the courses, my experience is that SOME tend to complain about the quirkier courses, but those are the ones who never should have gone to Scotland in the first place.  I find more who "get it" than who don't.

I once went with a group of 12, we travelled in a Perry-like van, and of the 12 really only one acted as you say they "all, it seems" do. I've also talked to a lot of Americans making the trip and found only a small minority acting this way.  Oh, they do exist... But I continue to think they are the minority, not the rule.

TH

ps - apologies, the line re the clubhouse is yours and proper attribution should have been given.  It is a common general sentiment, that's all.

[Matt_Ward]

In terms of off-course scenery I just returned from the Vancouver / Whistler area of BC and have to say few spots can match the mountains / water and all else you encounter there.

The Chateau Whistler layout is for the most part as described by a number of people who were good enough to send me their comments prior to me playing there.

I have to say the absolute drop-dead beauty can in so many ways mask a course that is good in spots but also quite repetitive in others. The off-course scenery provides a great cosmetic boost and can many times provide built-in "brownie points" for an overall assessment.

Whistler is indeed an incredible place for any outdoor enthusiast. I even snowboarded on my last day in the morning before getting an afternoon game at the course. In fact, the skiing lasts until June 3.

I can only hope a future design can provide a good bit more than its utter dependence on the incredible off-course views.  

[Mark_Fine]

Matt,
I just saw this thread as I was in CA.  Forrest and I are working on a course out there that was designed around "long range off course views".  Robert Hunter selected the site for that very reason.  One of our jobs is to not only restore/enhance the bunkering and other internal features that have tired over the years, but to bring back many of the great off course views of San Francisco Bay, The Golden Gate Bridge, Wildcat Canyon, and the San Fran city skyline.  I've said this in the past and I will say it again now, off course views can be very much a part of the golf architecture and a good architect knows this well.  

When I'm at Sand Hills, I love looking at all the distant "golf holes" miles off the golf course.  When at Cherry Hills, I much prefer looking at the snow capped rockies (as Flynn wanted) than at the back of an on the property cottonwood tree.  Forrest and I just played Cypress last Wednesday.  I don't think I need to say much more about off course views    They are yet another aspect of great golf courses that can and do make a difference.  There are always exceptions (Old Head comes to mind)!
Mark

[John Kirk]

I agree, if Ballyneal were by the ocean, it would be one of the world's best (if it isn't already).

But, it's not just the views of the ocean that benefit a course--it's the turf, the sea air, and everything that goes along with being by the ocean.  There's just something about oceanside and, particularly, links golf.  This is where Pacific Dunes picks up a lot of points (and, yes, I know it's technically not a links).  

I agree with this.  I also agree with David Ober, who said that scenery matters a lot to him.  In general, a quick survey of what are considered the world's best golf courses seems to indicate that scenery     is very important to the typical golf evaluator.

During much of a typical round of golf, I am taking in the view, looking at birds and animals and trees and flowers.  I highly prefer a course which has preserved the native environment in which it resides, and tend to downgrade the typical American parkland course for that reason.

Sand Hills is spectacularly beautiful, and that is undeniably a big part of its appeal.  Although Ballyneal does not sit by the ocean, it possesses a highly unusual environment, quite different from Sand Hills.  There are fewer great long range views.  Less grass and more flowers in the dunes.  Unusual and natural and amazing in its own right.

As discussed before, Pacific Dunes has the benefit of widely varying topography.  There are lumpy holes like 1, 7, 9, and 16, and much flatter holes like 3, 4, 12, and 15.  That's a unique characteristic which is hard to beat.  Also, if Ballyneal were built next to the ocean, I suspect Mr. Doak would have routed the course a little differently to take advantage of more long range views.  Many holes at Ballyneal run through tall dune ridges, and you couldn't see the ocean on many of the holes the way they are designed.  

[Andy Troeger]

I agree, if Ballyneal were by the ocean, it would be one of the world's best (if it isn't already).

But, it's not just the views of the ocean that benefit a course--it's the turf, the sea air, and everything that goes along with being by the ocean.  There's just something about oceanside and, particularly, links golf.  This is where Pacific Dunes picks up a lot of points (and, yes, I know it's technically not a links).  

I highly prefer a course which has preserved the native environment in which it resides, and tend to downgrade the typical American parkland course for that reason.
 

John,
This might be a reach, but I wonder if this might be more because that's just your preference in terms of aesthetics than the true naturalness of it. Some parkland courses are obviously artificial, as are some faux-links courses, but many established ones look like many other natural parks in the Midwest and are just as "natural" as some of these other courses based on their specific environments. Their environments just might not be quite as spectacular in some cases

I agree with you though and especially out west have come to appreciate courses where you can see for miles. A course like The Broadmoor in Colorado combines some of the best of both worlds with some amazing views of the mountain, the course itself, and then out to the east/south.

[Tom Yost]

I know this thread is getting old, but I have a question about the criteria used in some of the common course rating/ranking systems:
 
- Do the magazines that publish course rating/rankings (such as Golf Digest, Golf Week, etc.) include any off course considerations such as clubhouse, restaurant, practice facilities, parking lot, etc... ?

- What about the Doak scale?  Same question - are ANY criteria other than hole-by-hole architectural qualities considered?

Thanks!
Tom

[Tags:]

Tags: