[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan Kelly,

That's an interesting point about Sand Hills.

Do you think it has anything to do with the remote nature of the site ?

I can honestly state, that over many years, I've rarely met an individual who told me, upon returning from Vegas, that they lost a lot of money.

Do you think anyone, venturing that far, and  having to take various means of transportation, upon returning, is going to admit that the trip was a mistake or that the course wasn't that good ?

Certainly, a rater can't point to the ease of the green to tee walks.

[Andy Troeger]

I've found myself to be fairly consistent with courses on repeat plays. A lot of the places I play are one-shot deals, so its important to really make the effort to be observant. I take a lot of photos, especially on courses I think are good to great, so that I can replay features in my head after a round instead of relying on my memory. I often change my mind some between leaving the course and actually putting it onto my list given some critical examination, but normally I don't change my mind too much on subsequent plays.

I've not done this long enough to know what might happen 10 years later, however. I suspect my tastes might change and grow more sophisticated, which may affect things more than they do now.

I also try NOT to even keep a scorecard when rating a course, unless I am playing with someone who prefers playing a match of some sort. Its too easy to let good/bad breaks or shots influence things. I always try to watch how the others in my group handle things, so if I shoot 73 or 93 I at least have some other points of reference as to the actual challenge and strategy of the course.

[John Kavanaugh]

I've found myself to be fairly consistent with courses on repeat plays. A lot of the places I play are one-shot deals, so its important to really make the effort to be observant. I take a lot of photos, especially on courses I think are good to great, so that I can replay features in my head after a round instead of relying on my memory. I often change my mind some between leaving the course and actually putting it onto my list given some critical examination, but normally I don't change my mind too much on subsequent plays.

I've not done this long enough to know what might happen 10 years later, however. I suspect my tastes might change and grow more sophisticated, which may affect things more than they do now.

I also try NOT to even keep a scorecard when rating a course, unless I am playing with someone who prefers playing a match of some sort. Its too easy to let good/bad breaks or shots influence things. I always try to watch how the others in my group handle things, so if I shoot 73 or 93 I at least have some other points of reference as to the actual challenge and strategy of the course.

Andy,

Thanks for the post.  It took me a while but I finally got it that raters work when they play.  

[BCrosby]

Dan -

I've always thought that courses like TOC or Sand Hills, courses that rely on contour as an important strategic element are - for that reason - harder to appreciate the first couple of times through. Contour is a hard thing to assess in a single round. It's usually complex and hard to recall.

Unlike in your face stuff like bunkers, water, trees and rough.

Courses that rely on more on contour are the kind of courses that are most likely to grow on you.  They are harder to understand the first couple of times around.

Bob

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I feel lucky to have played about 70 of the top 100 in the US once, much less multiple times, so having the opportunity to change my mind is rare. I suspect thats the case for most, as perhaps 0.0001% of golfers are so well traveled.

I have had a change of mind on the few occaisions. I think there can be several external reasons, including course exposure (Pinehurst  after hosting a few opens) or personal memories (career best as mentioned, or playing a great course with you son, dad, whatever for the first time)

But, for the 1500 devotees of this site, or any golf architect who continues to study the craft, I think it can change as we get personal exposure to more courses, and as our gca knowledge increases and/or goes through phases of likes and dislikes.

For me, Pinehurst No.2 went from okay in the 70's to great by the 90's.  They did restore some of the wire grass, but I also think I knew more about architecture, Ross, etc. through books and study.  

Recently, I played Hazeltine and Peachtree again.  I had recalled Peachtree as a mundane course, but last spring I liked it more.  I began noticing that RTJ had some great internal green contours, scale, and some neat stuff around the greens I had never given him credit for. (I knew he had large rolling greens, but I was studying exactly how he did it in more detail this time)

On the flip side, I loved the non traditional Pete Dye (vs. "standard" RTJ) look back in the 70's.  Now, having seen it more, I liked Long Cove and Harbor Town less on second plays - HT made LC look sadly overshaped, and I liked the HT gimmicks like U shaped greens less this time (and I am not against gimmicks, but is HT 9 as good as CD7?).

While I really don't keep a rank list in my head, if I did, Peachtree might have vaulted 100 spots,  LC went down maybe 50 and HT about 25.  Hazeltine stayed off my top 100, but I did come away with a new appreciation for RTJ and the course.

I actually think your opinions in a revised "Confidential Guide at 55 rather than 25" might be quite different if you made the same tour, with many courses changing up or down a few notches on the Doak scale.  While your self exposure to much of the world's best set your philosophy strongly, its hard to believe that your opinions haven't changed as you have seen and created more.  I think it should have changed, or you are in peril of going stale as a designer!  

I sense from your posts that your philosophy is constantly being tweaked, although I might be reading between the lines a bit on things like backing off "tough golf" a bit (how natural is that when getting older?)  

Doesn't life experience change relative opinions for all of us?

[Rich Goodale]

I don't think I have ever played a course that I thought on first play was "top 100" which, on reflection and/or replay I thought was grossly over or under "rated."  Of course, as Barney has wisely said on another thread, there are several hundred potentially top-100 courses in the world, maybe even 500-1000.  Arguing about whether or not XYZ should be ranked #78 or #578 is really a mug's game.

Where it gets interesting is with the 20-40 courses that are clearly in 6-sigma territory.  Of the 20 or so of them I have played, only 5-10 are securely there, in my opinion, and after reflection and/or replay.  The truly great ones can stand up to scrutiny--even detailed crtiicism from knowledgeable and neutral observers.  The nearly great hold onto their high rankings more through reputation, eye-candy and rater conformity than merit, and supporters far too often resort to the answer, "Well, just because......" when trying to defend their merits.

Rich

[John Kavanaugh]

Rich,

Potentially, smotentially...There are actually multiple hundreds of courses that are ranked in the top 100 on some list or other.  I would like to see a list of the top 100 lists.

[John Kavanaugh]

I recently played for free with a rater who is not a rater for the top three magazines.  He is a rater for a newspaper...God, I love free golf more then Jesus as can be proven by my tendancy to skip church for a comp.

[Jeff_Brauer]

John,

If you are speaking of our round with Lou D, I suspect your opinion accounts for the persistant lightning we experienced that day, and your reluctance to continue playing in those conditions.

[John Kavanaugh]

John,

If you are speaking of our round with Lou D, I suspect your opinion accounts for the persistant lightning we experienced that day, and your reluctance to continue playing in those conditions.

Nice...I missed the connection.  My business deal that motivated the trip came out perfect which may prove that at least the devil was happy.

[Jeff_Brauer]

John,

If you are speaking of our round with Lou D, I suspect your opinion accounts for the persistant lightning we experienced that day, and your reluctance to continue playing in those conditions.

Nice...I missed the connection.  My business deal that motivated the trip came out perfect which may prove that at least the devil was happy.

What's the old saying?  "The road to hell is paved with Barney's asphalt?"

Well, something like that.

[henrye]

But what I'd like to ask is, how many of you have actually changed your opinion of a course so substantially after a second visit, that it went from "not great" to "one of the top 100 courses in America" in your mind?

I'm not sure this has ever happened for me.  My experience is that the very best courses seem to get even better the more you get to know them ... on the third or fourth visit, you realize that even the weakest hole on the course is pretty darned good.  But, it's much less often that a course I thought was just okay reveals itself to be something much greater.  A great course has to have a fair number of great holes, and how do you miss a great hole the first time around?

Just wondering if experience proves the rule, or tears it to shreds.

I find that generally, the more I play a course, the more I see its merits - but the reverse can be true as well.  Others have stated the reasons, but for myself the clearest example of going against the grain has been Cabo Del Sol.

I first played the course the year it opened and was absolutely blown away by the scenery & conditioning.  There is no question those items influenced me heavily.  On subsequent visits I have been much less impressed and on my last visit, just over a year ago I found myself enjoying the much less celebrated Weiskopf course more.

By no means am I saying the course is not a wonderful experience and it has always been my #1 recommendation in the area.  It's just that on repeated play, I found myself less enthused instead of more.

[Dan Kelly]

What's the old saying?  "The road to hell is paved with Barney's asphalt?"

I wish Joe Hancock had said this. I could have made it my signature line!

[Bill_McBride]

Wayne and Chris:



Ninety percent of restoration projects are just expensive plastic surgery.

Tom,

You may well be right on this but I can assure you that Rees Jone's work at MPCC was nothing short of brilliant.

Bob

And from what I've heard, Mike Stranz's work as well.  MPCC has apparently been well served in its restoration / remodeling projects.

[Adam Clayman]

Peter, I wouldn't be so fast to assume all those on that panel have forgotten more than you know. Geoff S. has pointed out that only 20-30% of the panelists observations were GCA related.

Wayne, To the extent the panelist is just another golfer, you are right. Their score will likely affect the way they feel. However, there are exceptions as I'm sure you've witnessed.

[John Kavanaugh]

The thing I like about the Golf Magazine panelists is that when they prioritize where being a panelists fits in their golf world it is ranked rather low.  I would say they look at courses as either architects, players or writers first depending on their respective expertise.

[Peter Pallotta]

Adam - thanks, that's interesting. I wasn't trying to be modest: the list of panellists is an impressive one to me, and whatever the panellists chose to focus on (gca related or not) doesn't change the fact that they've played/seen many of those top courses and many others besides, as players, architects, writers and experienced panellists. But the 20-30% statistic IS very surprising to me. I wonder if that doesn't have a least a little to do with the tendency I described in my post, i.e. the tendency of experts to perhaps overvalue that which they've already determined to be great (and thus giving them permission to focus on more peripheral matters). But I think you're making a different point here, and probably a very good one...I just don't know.

Peter
By the way, you know on that other thread, where you didn't know whether to cry or not. Just to be clear, I was hoping to make you laugh....but I think I have a kind of depressive sense of humour.

[Andy Troeger]

Andy,

Thanks for the post.  It took me a while but I finally got it that raters work when they play.  

John,
I wouldn't call it work by any means, its too enjoyable for that, but I try to make the most out of every experience certainly.

[Doug Siebert]

My experience a few years ago in late October at Macrahanish confirms Pat Mucci's point.

First day, in a clammy semi-drizzle, never seeing the course before, no caddy, I needed the bunnies on 17 and 18 to break 100. Hated the course.

Three days and three rounds later, in improved weather, I took 20 strokes less. Loved the place.

The next summer, I stayed in St. Andrews for two months. The difference between my best and worst rounds at TOC was 23 strokes! If the highest had been my only round, it would have been difficult to summon much reverence for the Old Course.

Why?  I have played Prestwick twice, and shot 95 the first time and 102 the second.  On that second visit I shot 77s the day before on a windy day at Turnberry and the day after at North Berwick.  My high scores at Prestwick were a combination of tough conditions, poor play and stupid course management.  But I love the place, it is one of my most favorite courses.  And it'll keep me coming back every time I visit Scotland, if for no other reason than to prove to myself I'm at least capable of playing bogey golf there!

[James Bennett]

Apologies to Bob Crosby - this is an edited version of his post.


I've always thought that women like my wife or my first love, women that rely on "contour" as an important strategic element are - for that reason - harder to appreciate the first couple of times that you meet them. "Contour" is a hard thing to assess on a first date. It's usually complex and hard to recall.

Unlike in your face stuff like clothes, hair, makeup and their voice.

Women that rely on more on "contour" are the kind of women that are most likely to grow on you.  They are harder to understand on the first couple of dates.




Now, if I could just understand what "contour" means with regard to women, I might nearly be there to understanding my beloved wife.  Nearly.  I do know that I have changed my mind on a number of women over time, as I have understood them a little more.

James B

[BCrosby]

James -

Great stuff. And yes. Absolutely. As with golf courses, so with women. Contours matter.

In both cases contour often requires a bit more due diligence to fully appreciate.

But when you've done your diligence, when you've put in the extra time and effort, the pay-off can be mind-blowing.

Which is why we love them both.

My only caveat to the above is that the contours of a woman are easier to recall than the contours of a golf course. But maybe that's just me.

Bob

[Pat Brockwell]

Right on James,
I know that when I scored on the first outing I was less inclined to want a second.  The ones that get under your skin take some getting to know.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I agree with your general premise.   There are those who say you need to play a golf course X-number of times in X-varieties of weather conditions, etc., to make a valid informed judgement.

I would defy those folks to name me one course that they've played where there rating scale number (whatever rating they choose to use) moved more than 1 point either way upon repeated playings.

Personally, I've made return visits to courses just to see if they were as wonderful or dreadful as I originally imagined, because my take may have been outside the norm of general public or "insider" opinion.  

In every case, return visits only solidified what I believed to be true originally.  

I think a large part of it is simply looking.   These days (probably because I suck), I tell people that I go to look at and "see" golf courses and oh...I'll also hit a ball around while I'm there.   But, the focus is on the former.  

[scott_wood]

if anyone witnessed as I did Monday, Mike's tee shot off # 1 at Teugaga....you would strongly agree with his assertion  "I see the WHOLE course" ..

most GCA types would quickly decide that the "strategic route" off #1 tee would be to the left side to make the approach to the raised, dogleg right green easier......Mike thought otherwise, and proceeded to evaluate/inspect the area occupied by the wonderful par 3 #7, and quite possibly the shortish # 8 ...all the while bearing that wonderful smile of his...  

[Mike_Cirba]

if anyone witnessed as I did Monday, Mike's tee shot off # 1 at Teugaga....you would strongly agree with his assertion  "I see the WHOLE course" ..

most GCA types would quickly decide that the "strategic route" off #1 tee would be to the left side to make the approach to the raised, dogleg right green easier......Mike thought otherwise, and proceeded to evaluate/inspect the area occupied by the wonderful par 3 #7, and quite possibly the shortish # 8 ...all the while bearing that wonderful smile of his...  

Scott,

Do I have to teach you everything about strategic golf??

I can't believe you haven't figured out (after multiple playings) that the perfect way to approach the 1st green is from near the 7th tee.   Because of the counter left- to right tilt of the green on the left-hand quadrant, it provides the perfect backstop to come in from the far right hand side of the golf course.   Are you observant or not???

Did it really require a duck-hooking, first-timer to show you the way???

I suppose you played it in the mundane way, not recognizing Donald Ross's genius along the way??

Am I doing a good impression of PATRICK or do I have to start using COLOR!?  

Great seeing you this week!   Now, where's my half of the Blackjack winnings??  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()