[John Kavanaugh]

 do they hate it but feel compelled to say they like it because it’s ranked highly on a list?

The above is all about the guys on this site.  Wait till Bandon IV comes out.

[Lester George]

No, they don't.

Lester

[Andy Hughes]

If you put almost any golfer on CPC 16, or ANGC 12 they will tell you it is a great golf hole.

Garland, I think that is exactly wrong, or maybe right for the wrong reasons.  The golfer you mention would say ANGC's #12 is great because it is ANGC's, not because of any architectural features.  If the same hole was airlifted 30 miles to some muni, I doubt your golfer would still think it a great golf hole.
(btw, I tend to believe this generally about this DG too).

[Doug Ralston]

I think most golfers appreciate greatness. If you put almost any golfer on CPC 16, or ANGC 12 they will tell you it is a great golf hole. However, their degrees of greatness are not so finely tuned. For them, there are a few terrible holes, mostly good holes, and a few great holes. For most here, there is a perhaps 10 or more degrees of quality ranging from super stinker to I'm in heaven.

I think you will find a similar phenomenon with wine drinking.

Garland;

I have to agree completely there.

Have you noticed Thunderbird is sour, and Ripple is too watery for drinking with fish?  

Doug

[Mark Smolens]

Mr. K, you may well be correct, but I've enjoyed reading the posts from afar (Geoff Shackelford sent me here with a link when I was preparing to play Ballyneal last month), and Ran was kind enough to invite me to join in so you'll be forced to deal with more puke-inducing posts in the days and months to come.  Cheers.

[Kirk Gill]

People need to be exposed to greatness to have the ability to appreciate it. How many times have I heard about how Bobby Jones hated TOC the first time he played there? But it was greatness that he'd never been exposed to. He had a mind capable of change, and capable of appreciating what he saw, and it's true, not all people are like that.

Many people on this site have played MANY great courses, but they represent a distinct minority of golfers. Those guys who are happy playing the local muni might never have been exposed to anything else. So is it that they lack the capability to appreciate greatness, or the opportunity to experience it? Or just lack the motivation (or $$$) to seek it out?

[Garland Bayley]

Andy,

All you are saying is that the definitions of great vary. I think that was part of my point. If you airlifted the hole to some ratty muni, I agree they wouldn't say it was great. It has fallen below their threshold of greatness. Whereas, you might say, I miss the conditioning, and the azaleas, but I am almost in heaven.

[John Kavanaugh]

If you put almost any golfer on CPC 16, or ANGC 12 they will tell you it is a great golf hole.

Garland, I think that is exactly wrong, or maybe right for the wrong reasons.  The golfer you mention would say ANGC's #12 is great because it is ANGC's, not because of any architectural features.  If the same hole was airlifted 30 miles to some muni, I doubt your golfer would still think it a great golf hole.
(btw, I tend to believe this generally about this DG too).

What if it was airlifted to Sebonack and had Doak's name on it...would they think it was a great hole then?

[John Kavanaugh]

Let's look at the 12th at ANGC and see just how stupid you think regular golfers are that would not think it is a great hole.  It has water, I think three nice bunkers, close cut chipping areas, a green fast as hell, easy pin placements and hard pin placements.  I like how the tee is cut into the ground and the way the hole sits against the trees.  You have an amazing view of the hole before with a really cool walk between holes.  You hit your shot and go walk across a well built bridge with astroturf that may be questionable.   Who is not going to love it and why do you think you see greatness that others don't.

[Mike Hendren]

I don't appreciate:

Great wine.
Haute cuisine.
Great literature.
Fine art.
Single malt Scotch.

Yet I drink, eat, read and gaze.  Let's face it, the majority are consumers regardless of subject.  

As my dad was fond of saying, "We're all ignorant - just about different things."

Mike

[Garland Bayley]

Bogey,

I would simply guess your definitions of great wine, great cuisine, great literature, great art, and great whiskey are different than others (I am assuming you think some of each are great). Don't confuse expensive with great. And it is very doubtful than anyone could meaningfully challenge your definitions. In fact, with your explanations, they might well agree with you.

I agree wholeheartedly with your dad.

[Andy Hughes]

All you are saying is that the definitions of great vary. I think that was part of my point.

Garland, if I agree with your point, then you must be right!  

I would only add that often what makes people think a hole (or course) is great has nothing at all to do with GCA. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.


John, sorry, you're wrong.

[Adam Clayman]

I've recently had the pleasure of bringing a small sampling of those majority of golfers to a great place. To a man they appreciated it. They may not know why they did, they just did.

[Evan Fleisher]

I think they do, at least on a subconscious level. They might know realize why they love something, but I think they do end up loving it.

And I think they certainly can figure out why they love it, they just don't feel like wasting the time doing so.

I think George hit the nail on the head.  I think that most golfer can/do recognize greatness (at a subconscious level)...but in reality never give it a second thought.

This group here is such a small minority in how we "pick apart" courses, strategies, subtle features, etc. (and I truly mean that in a positive way)...most folks simply want an enjoyable experience for four hours, have a few beers, etc. that all the nuances of a golf course get passed right by.

[Tom Huckaby]

It's #1 for the vast majority of golfers not belonging to private clubs, and #2 for a vocal minority of golfers who do belong to private clubs.

No?

[Kalen Braley]

It's #1 for the vast majority of golfers not belonging to private clubs, and #2 for a vocal minority of golfers who do belong to private clubs.

No?

I'm going with #1 as well.

[Kirk Gill]

I've recently had the pleasure of bringing a small sampling of those majority of golfers to a great place. To a man they appreciated it. They may not know why they did, they just did.

This is what I'm talking about. Optimism as to man. Try it.

[Peter Pallotta]

I'm in the Adam, Kirk, George Pazin camp, i.e. there's lots of ways of appreciating something, and lots that don't involve articulating why (or even being able to articulate why).  

And on the subject of greatness, I still think that it can be and -- as discussed here especially -- is something objective. As Ran writes: "While golf course architecture is a subjective art form, several key tenets have stood the test of time."

It seems to me that those key tenets were part of what Macdonald saw at the great British courses and brought to NGLA (not the holes/templates themselves, but the ideas behind the holes/templates); and those tenets are part of what any young architect learns aboout -- and studies, likely at the great British courses -- as he develops into a fine architect who builds fine golf courses; and those tenets (and the way they're manifested in any particular golf course) are what's behind a golf course getting a "10" or a "9" etc.

In other words, I've read lots of posts here that question whether or not a particular course has all the attributes necessary to be considered great, but I've rarely read anyone questioning those attributes themselves.  It just seems to me that anyone who praises a course or an architect as great is making reference to these objective principles/tenets, consciously or not.

Peter  

[Tom_Doak]

Mr. Kavanaugh:

Where exactly is the easy pin placement on the 12th at Augusta National for the average golfer to attack?  Many muni golfers would have to pick up on that hole before finishing it.

Back to the discussion:

I think a lot of golfers appreciate greatness.  Probably not the majority, but certainly more than the 1% or 3% sometimes cited here.  If 1% = 280,000 golfers, that sounds reasonably close to the number of potential customers Bandon draws from -- they get a lot of repeat play.  But that is golfers who not only APPRECIATE the architecture but can also AFFORD it.

I'm guessing the number of golfers who appreciate greatness is 10% or 20% which is a lot of potential customers.

[Andy Hughes]

I'm in the Adam, Kirk, George Pazin camp, i.e. there's lots of ways of appreciating something, and lots that don't involve articulating why (or even being able to articulate why).  

Peter, I'm sorry, but you've joined the wrong camp  
Yes, there are many ways to appreciate a golf course.  Is it a relaxing place, is the food in the clubhouse scrumptious, are the views of the Pacific or of nuclear power plants, does it have a whimsical water tower, is the conditioning superb, are there lovely waterfalls besides the greens, have their been many tournaments there over the years, will the course provide a notch on the bedpost, maybe even are the holes interesting and fun to play and/or do they have architectural interest?

I have no problem at all with golfers finding pleasure in whatever makes them happy. But I do not believe we can say everyone is entitled to define greatness in any form that pleases them.  For the purposes of gca.com, greatness of a course should have nothing to do with how cold the beers are or what the water pressure in the showers is like.  It all might add up as we evaluate the sum of our experience at a course, but that is not the same as evaluating a course's greatness.

What strikes me as odd Peter is that you later go on to discuss the principles that help to define a course's greatness. I would agree with your point, but doesn't that somehow conflict with what you said earlier? Am I misreading your earlier comments somehow? I feel I must be.

As a thought experiment, let's say Pinehurst #2 is a great course. Some may disagree but let's leave that aside.  People pay $400 to play the course, for a large variety of reasons. Say the course was built today as it currently sits. Is it still a great course?  Would people line up to pay $400 to play it? Some would, because they would see and appreciate the principles you mentioned. Many wouldn't, because what the course currently offers beyond the architecture (history, notch on the bedpost, etc etc), what would add up to 'greatness' for them, would be missing.

[Powell Arms]

Many wouldn't, because what the course currently offers beyond the architecture (history, notch on the bedpost, etc etc), what would add up to 'greatness' for them, would be missing.

A great question (pun intended).  If Pinehurst doesnt make you think, ask if Merion, Pine Valley or Oakmont would be recognized as one of the best in the world if opened today in anytown, usa?  I think it is very difficult for almost everyone to divorse the history from the golf course.  I know it is for me.

[George Pazin]

What strikes me as odd Peter is that you later go on to discuss the principles that help to define a course's greatness. I would agree with your point, but doesn't that somehow conflict with what you said earlier? Am I misreading your earlier comments somehow? I feel I must be.

I think you are misreading him. I think he's saying you can see and feel greatness without necessarily being able to immediately explain why you feel that way. In other words, the principles that lead to greatness can be observed without enumerating them.

Can't really comment on #2, have only seen it on the tube.

[George Pazin]

Many wouldn't, because what the course currently offers beyond the architecture (history, notch on the bedpost, etc etc), what would add up to 'greatness' for them, would be missing.

A great question (pun intended).  If Pinehurst doesnt make you think, ask if Merion, Pine Valley or Oakmont would be recognized as one of the best in the world if opened today in anytown, usa?  I think it is very difficult for almost everyone to divorse the history from the golf course.  I know it is for me.

The very success of Sand Hills, Ballyneal, the Bandon courses, etc., would seem to imply that it isn't necessary to have history to be appreciated.

I can tell you that when I first started studying Oakmont, I feared that I would learn it was overrated, particularly by those of us in the Burgh, who naturally want to celebrate our little corner of the world.

After spending a great deal of time there, I think it's underrated. Actually, I think the design is very underrated. It is simply a work of genius. It inspires me to seek out the Merions and Shinneys of the world, because if they are as good or better, they must be just unbelievable.

[Powell Arms]

Many wouldn't, because what the course currently offers beyond the architecture (history, notch on the bedpost, etc etc), what would add up to 'greatness' for them, would be missing.

A great question (pun intended).  If Pinehurst doesnt make you think, ask if Merion, Pine Valley or Oakmont would be recognized as one of the best in the world if opened today in anytown, usa?  I think it is very difficult for almost everyone to divorse the history from the golf course.  I know it is for me.

The very success of Sand Hills, Ballyneal, the Bandon courses, etc., would seem to imply that it isn't necessary to have history to be appreciated.

I can tell you that when I first started studying Oakmont, I feared that I would learn it was overrated, particularly by those of us in the Burgh, who naturally want to celebrate our little corner of the world.

After spending a great deal of time there, I think it's underrated. Actually, I think the design is very underrated. It is simply a work of genius. It inspires me to seek out the Merions and Shinneys of the world, because if they are as good or better, they must be just unbelievable.

George,

I agree, and perhaps that suggests that a lot of golfers appreciate architecture, but just do not articulate it or, as was stated above, are rating on a three point scale not a ten point scale.

[Andy Hughes]

The very success of Sand Hills, Ballyneal, the Bandon courses, etc., would seem to imply that it isn't necessary to have history to be appreciated.

George, I think that's certainly a fair point and I would agree history is not needed for a course to be appreciated. But I am not sure being appreciated necessarily means a majority of those playing are appreciating architectural greatness.  

And really, would it not be fair to say there are lots of successful courses that are not gca-great but enjoyed by many nonetheless? In the final analysis that is surely more important.

Also, interesting that the 3 places you mention all are rather 'linksy'; rather new and exciting or at least a novel experience for most Americans.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()