Must Great Architecture Be "Memorable?"

[Mike Hendren]

This question results from Jim Thorton's excellent comments about Pinehurst #2.  

I wonder if we have been seduced by aesthetics - albeit not the waterfall type, placing form over substance.  Donald J. Ross is my favorite architect but his courses tend to look fairly pedestrian, particularly compared to the theatrics, be they natural (i.e., Doak) or man-made (i.e., Raynor).  

I've been criticized by noting that I can't remember the individual holes at Ballyneal after one play, citing the course's seamlessness as its greatest strength.  I think it reflects great architecture and while enjoying it immensely felt no need to look around and study the features.  

Must great architecture be memorable?  

Mike

[Adam Clayman]

I don't recall you being criticized. But to your point, I suspect it's different for different players. Some require multiple plays to remember great stuff that on the surface may be too subtle to stand out after only one viewing. TOC seems to fit in that category, too.

[jim_lewis]

One thing I have learned about golf course architecture is that there seems to be notable exceptions to every rule or theory. Some of the great courses also happen to be very memorable, also some of the worst. Perhaps no course is better or more memorable than Pine Valley. Most people who play the course once can recall each hole in sequence long after. On the otherhand there are some great courses where most players can recall only a few holes after the first play (if they have not see it repeatedly on television). The Old Course at St. Andrews and Pinehurst are two good examples. Heck, I had trouble remembering the first 5 holes at Pebble Beach (still do).

I won't name names but I can think of a few pretty bad courses that were so rediculous that I can remember them vividly.

Conclusion, there may be a slight correlation between memorablility and quality of design, but it is not a very strong one.

BTW, Ran can remember every hole of every course he ever played, it seems.

Jim Lewis

[RJ_Daley]

I know a guy that plays a number of instruments marginally well, by ear.  I think he reads music with piano.  But, he can't ever remember lyrics.  He has a definintely identifiable affinity towards music, yet can't remember the damn words....

Could memorablility of specific features of a golf course post round be similar to still being able to enjoy the play during the round and 'getting it' from a standpoint of 'see it-play it', like it?

[Ally Mcintosh]

If your eye is attuned primarily to great architecture, then "yes"... kinda goes without saying...

If it is attuned primarily to drama, then "no"... not necessarily...

[SL_Solow]

It seems to me that this question comes back to our numerous discussions over the years related to the "wow" factor in architecture.  Clearly, memorability is enhanced by dramatic features, whether they are natural, e.g the mountains at Banff or manufactured such as the numerous artificial waterfalls we discuss ad nauseum.  I suggest that memorability, whether it comes from physical beauty or novel strategies is always a plus.  The problems occur when it becomes more important than the underlying golfing values of the course.  Thus a course like Hidden Creek gets underrated by many because it lacks overt drama notwithstanding the fact that it is a collection of well conceived, interesting and challenging holes.  Meanwhile, courses long on beauty like Arcadia Bluffs which, in my view, have less interesting golf, are pushed too high. So my conclusion is that good golf trumps memorability and, with respect to Pinehurst, I believe there is some very good golf.  The ideal is good golf with memorability.  Examples abound.  The most difficult task is to create a great course where there is nothing memorable in the natural setting.  The most disappointing course are those built on sites where it was possible to build the ideal combination but the architect failed to realize the site's potential.

[Terry Lavin]

I think the short answer is "yes", but it doesn't have to be immediately memorable.  I have played many courses that underwhelmed me at first, but which grew more estimable with more play.  Eye candy, likewise, is a blessing but surely is a curse at times.  A steady diet of eye candy and little more, will leave you sick to your stomach.  Spanish Bay is Exhibit #1 in this regard.  The eye candy on some courses is a main attribute, but can overwhelm on certain holes (Whistling Straits comes to mind here).  Other courses are vexing and beguiling and slow to reveal their mysteries, but in the end, the architecture must be memorable or else you aren't really talking about the architecture, you're talking about the scenery.

[Ally Mcintosh]

but in the end, the architecture must be memorable or else you aren't really talking about the architecture, you're talking about the scenery.

Exactly Terry...

[Bill_McBride]

My personal yardstick has always been memorability.  If I can't remember every hole very clearly, it can't have been a truly top course.

Or else confused by something like teeing off on #10, which I did the first round at Sandwich last year. 

[Jud_T]

How are we defining memorability? To some it's the ocean views, dramatic water holes, service, clubhouse, conditioning, etc.  To others it's the subtle nuances of the design that only reveal themselves over time to the decerning eye.  What are the most instantly memorable courses? Old Head? Tobacco Road? Haven't played either, but I'm not sure this is the type of memorability yardstick I'd endorse as signifying what's the best in GCA....

[Ally Mcintosh]

Jud, could you tell me in detail about Old Head's holes that aren't on the coast?

Memorability of 18 individual holes... On every great course, you should have that...

...It obviously depends on how good your memory is though... I find myself in the Ran camp which my part time golfing friends find amazing... Like most on here (I suspect), I could describe every shot I played the day before in detail whereas they can hardly remember what course they played...

[Jud_T]

Ally,

I haven't played Old Head as I stated, and frankly don't plan on it anytime soon.  Maybe it wasn't the best example to illustrate my point.  My point is the ostentatiously dramatic or scenic versus the seemingly ordinary but subtly strategic...

[Sean_A]

Like a few have mentioned, I do think great architecture must be memorable, be it over one or ten plays.  The problem is, all architecture is memorable for the guy with a good eye and memory so it memorability doesn't count for much.  I look for distinctiveness and variation in individual elements/holes and how the course hangs together in its rhythm including the walk.  It isn't often I can't recall all 18 holes of a course, but if I can't I assume the opposite of Ace.  I think there must be so much good stuff that I can't take it all in while trying to play a game. 

Ciao

[Joe Hancock]

My personal yardstick has always been memorability.  If I can't remember every hole very clearly, it can't have been a truly top course.

Or else confused by something like teeing off on #10, which I did the first round at Sandwich last year. 

I like your criteria, even though it isn't the same as mine. Honestly, memory isn't my strong suit anyway.

My yardstick is "fun". I might remember a course for the joy that I experienced moreso than whether I remembered the course hole by hole, feature by feature.

Of course, a par 3 that requires a 185 yard driver always helps......

Joe

[Jim_Kennedy]

Said another way, the quality and maturity of the product are of greater importance than memorability. Ross' best work always seems to be a target, but that's most likely because the hardest part of making a judgement is deciding when less is more, or when it's just less.

[Adam Clayman]

There are so many factors that go into a persons evaluation. Most prominent is their mindset at the time of playing. If the person is there with a free mind, with an interest in the architecture, I think they will remember most of it, good or bad. But, I know that there are days on the golf course where mind is elsewhere. Golf is rather amazing in this way. I can recall having miserable days trading. So miserable that my brain physically hurt. Playing golf would cure that. And I highly doubt the quality of the GCA (or the golf) had anything to do with the cure.