Best Golf Course Logo

« **Reply #75 on:** July 24, 2002, 07:27:33 PM »

Mike Cirba, et.al.,

You're under the spell of the golf course, with a full blown case of HERO worship.

If you were in an airport, and you were a tennis player, unfamiliar with golf, and you saw people wearing golf shirts from all of the clubs mentioned, are you going to tell me that you would look at the Sand Hills Logo and say, "WOW, now there's a really neat and DISTINCTIVE logo.
Come on, you must be kidding.

I've seen so many neat logos on golf shirts and the first thing I do is ask the individual wearing the shirt, where the logo is from. I have NO predetermined knowledge of the golf course it represents, but the LOGO itself, is great.

You're being influenced by the golf course,
not the GRAPHIC DESIGN and UNIQUENESS OF THE LOGO.

« **Reply #76 on:** July 24, 2002, 07:43:25 PM »

Wow Pat, you are really missing the point here.

Ok, I'm easy, it's fourth and long and the kicking team is coming out. You're right, the logo itself is all that matters, not what course it comes from. We are indeed judging art, I guess.

I don't think any of us who praised the Sand Hills logo did so for its graphic design or uniqueness really - we praised it because it evokes all that it should about a great golf course. If it didn't, any of us would say so, as I keep saying about Pebble Beach (great course that I do worship, don't like the logo).

I really don't see why this is so difficult to understand and why liking the logo equates to hero worship... but the kick is away and it's your ball.

TH

« **Reply #77 on:** July 24, 2002, 07:49:04 PM »

Pat,

Just because someone loves a course & the logo, you think it's hero worship? Come on!!!

When I said before about you need to play the course to comment about the logo, it was very toungue-in-cheek refereing to your stance on not allowing comments about a course w/out playing.

The whole idea that one would challange someone's opinion on what they thought looked cool for a logo is somewhat laughable. I for one think the GRAPHIC DESIGN and UNIQUENESS OF THE LOGO are screaming at you in the SH. There ain't no animal, there ain't no golf item, there ain't no plant life. Just a cool font tied together.

I for one think the Bellewoood logo pretty obnoxious, but I ain't going to come down on those who do.

I like this, you like that so be it. Let's play another 18!!

« **Reply #78 on:** July 24, 2002, 09:44:43 PM »

For a number of years after Crooked Stick opened, the club had as a logo a rendering of a crude golf club made from a tree branch (crooked stick) with the words "The Stick" printed below. Pretty neat.

As to another Indiana golf landmark, the French Lick logo is not nearly as exciting as one might imagine.

« **Reply #79 on:** July 24, 2002, 09:56:36 PM »

The green and yellow squirrel from The Country Club (Brookline) is very simple and classy. Everything about The National, including its logo, is tops with me.

Best modern course logo: The hummingbird swirls from Castle Pines and the bull with the clubs from Stonewall (tie).

Simplicity is the key (Shoreacres and Sand Hills get high marks for this reason). Any logo which tries to depict a scene (e.g., The Merit Club) sucks.

« **Reply #80 on:** July 24, 2002, 09:57:55 PM »

Also, one I forgot to add:
Nantucket Golf Club with a bending flagstick in the wind is very good.

« **Reply #81 on:** July 24, 2002, 10:53:22 PM »

Tom Huckaby,

You admit that the logo is indicative of a great golf course, but you don't know that, and the LOGO couldn't evoke any feelings about the golf course unless you're preinformed and predisposed, and that taints or influences your opinion regarding the LOGO. Without that information, the LOGO on its own is bland.

Other LOGOS mentioned need no additional information to meet the neat/cool test, they speak for themselves.

The branded look only has significance if you understand far more about the club, its location and its history.
It's simply, as John f put it, a font, to the stranger.

John f,

I understood the tongue in cheek nature of your post, and I think we all realize that the whole subject matter is subjective

Tom Egan,

Another neat thing about Crooked Stick's LOGO is the history behind and associated with it.

It would be nice to discover the history behind all of the logos mentioned above.

« **Reply #82 on:** July 24, 2002, 08:29:37 PM »

How about BEARPATH with the bunker, green, and flagstick forming the bear's face, mouth, and eyes? Brilliant.

« **Reply #83 on:** July 24, 2002, 08:37:32 PM »

Pat M.:

We will obviously disagree on this one. To me and nearly everyone else that plays there, the brand makes sense because the only commerce in the most desolate part of America is the cattle trade. It works at Sand Hills and wouldn't work anywhere else.

If I designed a course in Florida and had a railcar as the logo you'd say it was stupid. And you'd be right. Use the same graphic for Pete Dye G.C. and it becomes appropriate. But you'd still say it is stupid because matching the design of the logo to the character of a club shouldn't affect commentary on just the logo.

Maybe I've got it backward and you'd say the railcar logo for a Florida course is good, in which case it would still be good in W.V.

Merion's wicker basket is either a lousy or wonderful logo. Several voted for it here. But - in my opinion - it would look ridiculous at a course that had 7' yellow flagsticks with "finish line" checkerboard flags.

No matter what I say or anyone points out you will believe the SH brand a la the multitude of neighboring ranches is not a good logo.

Take a plaid pattern to Italy and brag to your paesanos that it is the Mucci family design. You'd get a lot of strange looks. Go to Scotland with the same swatch and call it the McMucci crest and you'll have friends for life.

« **Reply #84 on:** July 24, 2002, 08:39:00 PM »

Quote

Tom Egan,

Another neat thing about Crooked Stick's LOGO is the history behind and associated with it.

It would be nice to discover the history behind all of the logos mentioned above.

If the history behind the SH brand isn't meaningful, why is the history of the logo at Crooked Stick relevant?

« **Reply #85 on:** July 24, 2002, 08:43:19 PM »

Quote

If you were in an airport, and you were a tennis player, unfamiliar with golf, and you saw people wearing golf shirts from all of the clubs mentioned, are you going to tell me that you would look at the Sand Hills Logo and say, "WOW, now there's a really neat and DISTINCTIVE logo.
Come on, you must be kidding.

A naked silhouette of Anna Kournikova would look odd on a tennis shirt, and certainly wouldn't be a "great" logo. Yet it WOULD BE a conversation piece.

The NBA logo isn't a "great" logo, but it probably does get elevated to a higher stature when fans of the game realize it is of Jerry West. Does anyone ever ask, "Who dat?" Probably not.

« **Reply #86 on:** July 25, 2002, 07:17:09 AM »

Pat M:

John Conley has explained this perfectly re the Sand Hills logo. If you don't get this, then game over, no need to discuss further. YES, the logo is great because the course is great. I simply take that as a given, for the reasons John gives...

Your take on this really amazes me... it is so fundamental and obvious, I think... But hey, to each his own!

TH

« **Reply #87 on:** July 25, 2002, 09:38:33 AM »

I played at Merion and like the logo but one of the people I was playing with didn't buy a shirt in the shop because he thought the log was 'crap'.

And, really it is on it's own, but this is Merion so I think the log is great.

Just the same as Sand Hills, the logo is great because it is Sand Hill. The picture I took is fantastic, not because of the sunrise but because of the logo and the sunrise together. That's the whole point of a logo. Not only should it look great but it should mean somthing as well.

Brian.

« **Reply #88 on:** July 25, 2002, 10:24:04 AM »

John Conley,

You stated,
"to me and nearly everyone else that plays there.."

And that's my point, the evaluation of the LOGO is only in the context of having played the golf course, the LOGO doesn't stand on its own, when the viewer hasn't played the golf course or doesn't know anything about it.

The SH LOGO only derives its appeal through the playing experience, the golf course.

My statement about the history of LOGOS was unviversal, not limited to one club, or exclusionary to any one club.

Brian Philips,

I mentioned above that the entire discussion was subjective.
Each individual has their own taste, their own idea of what they find attractive or unattractive about a logo.

Philadelphia Cricket Club
Canterbury
Preston Trail
Pinehurst
Boca Rio
Garden City
Pine Tree

Tom Huckaby,

I can't believe that you really feel that Sand Hills' LOGO, without any knowledge of the golf course is great ?

« **Reply #89 on:** July 25, 2002, 10:33:29 AM »

Quote

Tom Huckaby,

I can't believe that you really feel that Sand Hills' LOGO, without any knowledge of the golf course is great ?

I must be the worst writer in the history of the English language.

OK, here's my fourth try. No Pat, the logo is great because it evokes a lot of the reasons why the golf course is great. Standing alone on a tennis shirt with no knowledge of Sand Hills GC, it is just a brand and could just as well be a logo for a cattle driving company. But the fact is, it's a logo for a golf course and for anyone that knows the course, it is indeed very cool. And for these reasons, yes, the logo is "great". To me, anyway. If they had a logo with big blaring SAND HILLS GOLF CLUB in 20 point type over a self-produced fake crest, the logo would patently suck, no matter how great the golf course is.

I've said several times that disconnecting these logoes from the courses they represent is to me very silly. I am not a judge of art. I like the logoes for what they evoke, which are golf courses.

I believe I made this very plain.

Is the Clorox diamond (our logo) a great work or art? Hell no. But we believe it conveys what we want to convey about our company, and thus we like it, and have won awards for it. If you saw it on a golf shirt though it would be quite stupid, to anyone other than me that is!

I hope this makes better sense. To me these really are simple concepts... It continues to amaze me you miss them and I can only blame my poor writing skill.

TH

« **Reply #90 on:** July 25, 2002, 10:46:18 AM »

Tom Huckaby,

I now understand and it sounds like we are in agreement.

What is interesting is the number of hits to this thread.

« **Reply #91 on:** July 25, 2002, 10:59:42 AM »

Very well - thanks, Pat! And yes, it's curious to me also how much interest there is in logoes... Of course, maybe it's not so curious, given how every time I play golf with folks who participate here the "logo battle" is a great part of the fun!

TH

« **Reply #92 on:** July 25, 2002, 11:07:53 AM »

Nobody likes Taconic's purple cow, huh?

I don't remember if there's an udder on the rendering, or not.

Would it make the logo better if there was or wasn't an udder?

Is the quality of the golf course effected by the presence or lack of an udder on the cow in the logo?

Does this question deserve serious debate?

« **Reply #93 on:** July 25, 2002, 11:15:17 AM »

Pat:

We are talking on a thread about "Golf Course Logos". It is pretty hard to comment on how they'd stand alone.

« **Reply #94 on:** July 25, 2002, 11:30:07 AM »

I have to agree with Pat on this one...the Sand Hills logo is just not that good as a logo alone...I find the S as it sits at an unnatural angle to be too long when compared to the H. I also don't see it being used as a brand for livestock because after repeated heating and cooling I think the connection between the S and H would become fagile and lead to poor identification in the case of a lost bovine. This would not prevent me from buying a shirt because the course is great.

« **Reply #95 on:** July 25, 2002, 11:53:09 AM »

Chipoat --

So long as the course didn't have an udder-shaped bunker ...

« **Reply #96 on:** July 25, 2002, 12:07:28 PM »

Chip - I agree with you.

I thought that the purple cow was the Williams mascot, and not part of Taconic's logo.

« **Reply #97 on:** July 25, 2002, 01:36:22 PM »

Years ago, Preakness Hills CC had a reasonably attractive LOGO, a little busy but okay.

One day a registered letter arrived from an attorney for a club in Florida, claiming that Preakness Hills had copied their LOGO, and demanding that we change our LOGO. No one had ever heard of the club, nor seen its LOGO.

Rather than negotiate or fight the alleged copying charge, the club decided to create a new LOGO. Months and months of work went into the process and finally, after input from many sources, and the decision by those chosen to embark on the task, a new LOGO was adopted.

It has to be one of the ugliest LOGOs ever created.
No one would buy a shirt for the purpose of displaying this LOGO, and pro shop sales of shirts displaying the new LOGO took a nosedive. If it wasn't for bad taste, some people would have no taste at all.

Now, years later, we're about to design a new logo, some of us are hopeful that a simple but elegant LOGO will be designed and adopted. BUT, time alone will tell.

« **Reply #98 on:** July 25, 2002, 02:19:25 PM »

Following up on rhobbs' question: is there a different Seminole members logo vs. outside guest logo, and, if so, what is the difference?

« **Reply #99 on:** July 25, 2002, 02:58:17 PM »

Bill,

To my knowledge the logo that appears on the merchandise in the Pro shop is the same.

I don't know if there is a special order logo reserved for members, but I haven't seen a distinction.

Perhaps certain items are restricted to Member orders, like license plate brackets or club Jackets.

News:

Patrick_Mucci

THuckaby2

John Foley

Tom_Egan

SGD

SGD

Patrick_Mucci

John_Conley

John_Conley

John_Conley

John_Conley

THuckaby2

Brian Phillips

Patrick_Mucci

THuckaby2

Patrick_Mucci

THuckaby2

ChipOat

John_Conley

JakaB

Dan Kelly

SPDB

Patrick_Mucci

Bill Wright

Patrick_Mucci