News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Peter Pallotta

Re: The problem with Subtlety - Old Mac
« Reply #25 on: April 01, 2010, 04:12:58 PM »
Jed, please excuse this aside. For some reason this thread reminded me of a story that director Frank Capra tells about "It's a Wonderful Life". He says he never recovered from the very luke-warm reception the film originally received in 1946 (by the public and critics alike); he says it shattered his confidence in himself completely. Indeed, during the next 20 years, this multiple Oscar-winning and prolific director made (I think) only or or two more movies, and then left Hollywood for good. And what's especially interesting to me is how he describes his loss of confidence, i.e. he says that for all his best years as a film-maker, he was utterly confident in his directorial abilities/craft, but even more confident in his ability to 'understand the audience' i.e. to understand what worked for a mainstream audience, what they liked and wanted to see. But in 1946, when audiences found depressing and uninteresting what Capra thought was his most life-affirming and best film ever, he lost that confidence forever; he had completely mis-judged what post-war Americans wanted to see, and he found it very hard to live with that. It is sad to me that a director I am very fond of was not able to separate out those two aspects of the art-business, i.e the quality of the film itself from the public reaction it garnered; and that he was not able to realize in 1946 that, while he may have indeed misjudged popular tastes for the moment, those tastes would change over time and the film he'd made and thought was a great one would eventually be seen that way by most everyone. And now that I've finished writing this, I realize what it is that brought it to mind, i.e. I'm glad our own Tom D is more balanced and healthy-minded than Frank Capra was back then, and that he not only seems to have a pretty clear idea of (and be pretty comfortable with) the way the course will 'play in the marketplace', but can also keep the issues of the mainstream-golfer's-reaction to Old Mac separate from the issue of the inherent quality of a golf course that he and his team no doubt worked very hard to try to make great. Apologies again for the ramble; I just started writing and found myself here/there.

Peter

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The problem with Subtlety - Old Mac
« Reply #26 on: April 01, 2010, 04:30:28 PM »
Combining this thread with the recent one about Pinehurst #2 and the continuing Old Course comments lead me to believe that people who go around playing this course and that course one time, might be missing out on the understanding of great golf courses.

Don't get me wrong, I've played lots of different golf courses in my brief golfing life.  I play them to get a sense of what is out there and what is available and what I like.  But as  I play them, I am getting a list together of courses I want to play again and again and again.  I am essentially getting a list together of courses I would like to play at least annually and study continuously.

So, perhaps if playing Old MacDonald is something that appeals to a golfer...that golfer should carve out time and play it annually (at least) to study it and learn it.  But then again, if Old MacDonald isn't for you...pick another course...play it often and learn about it.

Just a thought.

Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Ron Farris

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The problem with Subtlety - Old Mac
« Reply #27 on: April 01, 2010, 04:54:16 PM »
I have never been to Old Mac, but I can tell you that it seems every golf course has a "preferred line of play".  That line may change with the weather conditions, so unless you can keep up with Mother Nature while playing - good luck hitting a preferred LOP.  I don't think I have hit more than 3 shots in my life that went where and how I had envisioned, so I don't get too hung up on such preferred lines of play.  Hit the ball, find it, and hit it again and again, until you are in the hole.  That is my style of play.  I seldom play for anything other than a cup of coffee, so I am never going to get all bent out of shape if a golf course doesn't visaully tell me where to go on each shot.  Good Luck and I hope you don't toss and turn at night - wondering how to play a golf course or hole that Jim Urbina and/or T. Doak designed (include all the others involved with OM).  To me I like a golf course with a little mystery to it.

Anthony Gray

Re: The problem with Subtlety - Old Mac
« Reply #28 on: April 01, 2010, 04:59:39 PM »
Don't many golfers say the same thing about TOC, after playing it for the first time? 

  Beat me to it.

  Anthony


Matthew Hunt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The problem with Subtlety - Old Mac
« Reply #29 on: April 01, 2010, 05:26:09 PM »
I'm surprised at the word, subtle.  Is the National Golf Links subtle?

I thought the course was pretty bold, to be honest.  But, to each his own.

I would never expect the course to be more popular than the others at the resort, but based on feedback to date, I would be very surprised to find it abandoned in five years' time, either.

Subtle prehaps in the way Links golf should be. From pictures of the two courses I have seen, NGLA presents the player with a range of stategies and the player must decide which one to play. Even with a design that is prehaps bolder, Old Mac would probably present a more inconspicuous thinking process to a player who has been brought up on a less 'raw' version of golf . It seems (unlike most Americian courses) to makes the player not the designer identify the possible stategies, before to choosing one and executing it. I like this approach yet also understand how other wouldn't.

What do you think?

Matt

Anthony Gray

Re: The problem with Subtlety - Old Mac
« Reply #30 on: April 01, 2010, 05:41:05 PM »
I'm surprised at the word, subtle.  Is the National Golf Links subtle?

I thought the course was pretty bold, to be honest.  But, to each his own.

I would never expect the course to be more popular than the others at the resort, but based on feedback to date, I would be very surprised to find it abandoned in five years' time, either.

Subtle prehaps in the way Links golf should be. From pictures of the two courses I have seen, NGLA presents the player with a range of stategies and the player must decide which one to play. Even with a design that is prehaps bolder, Old Mac would probably present a more inconspicuous thinking process to a player who has been brought up on a less 'raw' version of golf . It seems (unlike most Americian courses) to makes the player not the designer identify the possible stategies, before to choosing one and executing it. I like this approach yet also understand how other wouldn't.

What do you think?

Matt

  I think at OM you won't have to ask your caddy after a shot "Is that OK" as much as at NGLA.

  Anthony

 

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The problem with Subtlety - Old Mac
« Reply #31 on: April 01, 2010, 05:44:23 PM »
Jed, please excuse this aside. For some reason this thread reminded me of a story that director Frank Capra tells about "It's a Wonderful Life". He says he never recovered from the very luke-warm reception the film originally received in 1946 (by the public and critics alike); he says it shattered his confidence in himself completely. Indeed, during the next 20 years, this multiple Oscar-winning and prolific director made (I think) only or or two more movies, and then left Hollywood for good. And what's especially interesting to me is how he describes his loss of confidence, i.e. he says that for all his best years as a film-maker, he was utterly confident in his directorial abilities/craft, but even more confident in his ability to 'understand the audience' i.e. to understand what worked for a mainstream audience, what they liked and wanted to see. But in 1946, when audiences found depressing and uninteresting what Capra thought was his most life-affirming and best film ever, he lost that confidence forever; he had completely mis-judged what post-war Americans wanted to see, and he found it very hard to live with that. It is sad to me that a director I am very fond of was not able to separate out those two aspects of the art-business, i.e the quality of the film itself from the public reaction it garnered; and that he was not able to realize in 1946 that, while he may have indeed misjudged popular tastes for the moment, those tastes would change over time and the film he'd made and thought was a great one would eventually be seen that way by most everyone. And now that I've finished writing this, I realize what it is that brought it to mind, i.e. I'm glad our own Tom D is more balanced and healthy-minded than Frank Capra was back then, and that he not only seems to have a pretty clear idea of (and be pretty comfortable with) the way the course will 'play in the marketplace', but can also keep the issues of the mainstream-golfer's-reaction to Old Mac separate from the issue of the inherent quality of a golf course that he and his team no doubt worked very hard to try to make great. Apologies again for the ramble; I just started writing and found myself here/there.

Peter


Really nice post, Peter.
Great thread so far.

I played the ten hole loop last fall.  Very bold contouring, well designed to encourage low trajectory shots.  This course will be difficult, perhaps the toughest on the resort; getting down in two shots from around the greens will be fun, but very challenging.

Two holes which caught my attention are #9, The Cape, and #18, Punchbowl, which I haven't played yet, but has a unique look from the typical landing area.  Hopefully others see what I covet in the Cape, which, though subtle in appearance, is absolutely loaded with deception and strategy.


Greg Tallman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The problem with Subtlety - Old Mac
« Reply #32 on: April 01, 2010, 05:49:58 PM »
Of the handful of people I know that have had a "preview" the reaction is mixed. Some of the comments...

"I don't get it"

"I get what they were doing but... (shrug)"

"I loved it... awesome"

For the record Jed, I think your comments suggest you do get it but you simply prefer to play a "paint by numbers" kind of course.

Jed Rammell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The problem with Subtlety - Old Mac
« Reply #33 on: April 01, 2010, 05:57:18 PM »
Of the handful of people I know that have had a "preview" the reaction is mixed. Some of the comments...

"I don't get it"

"I get what they were doing but... (shrug)"

"I loved it... awesome"

For the record Jed, I think your comments suggest you do get it but you simply prefer to play a "paint by numbers" kind of course.

I'm not sure I prefer to play a "paint by numbers" course, but if the course involves a lot of angles and line of play strategy, I need to spend some serious time on the course to appreciate it. How is that possible if I can only visit once every few years? Its entirely my problem, not the golf course's problem; but if many walk away underwhelmed (without the desire to "dig deeper"), has it become the golf course's problem?
« Last Edit: April 01, 2010, 05:58:55 PM by Jed Rammell »

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The problem with Subtlety - Old Mac
« Reply #34 on: April 01, 2010, 05:59:47 PM »


Judge Smails: "You're playing golf at Old MacDonald and you're going to like it."
"... and I liked the guy ..."

Greg Tallman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The problem with Subtlety - Old Mac
« Reply #35 on: April 01, 2010, 06:00:36 PM »
Of the handful of people I know that have had a "preview" the reaction is mixed. Some of the comments...

"I don't get it"

"I get what they were doing but... (shrug)"

"I loved it... awesome"

For the record Jed, I think your comments suggest you do get it but you simply prefer to play a "paint by numbers" kind of course.

I'm not sure I prefer to play a "paint by numbers" course, but if the course involves a lot of angles and line of play strategy, I need to spend some serious time on the course to appreciate it. How is that possible if I can only visit once every few years? Its entirely my problem, not the golf course's problem; but if many walk away underwhelmed (without the desire to "dig deeper"), has it become the golf course's problem?

Perhaps why there are so many great caddy stories out there... and in here.

I know exactly what you are saying... not for every resort or for many casual golfers.

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The problem with Subtlety - Old Mac
« Reply #36 on: April 01, 2010, 06:02:17 PM »
Jed...

I love your last line..."if many walk away underwhelmed, has it become the golf course's problem?"

That is an interesting point and might lead to asking the question of would you rather have a commercially succesful course or a critically acclaimed one, which needs to be asked and answered before you built the course.

Good point!
  
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The problem with Subtlety - Old Mac
« Reply #37 on: April 01, 2010, 06:07:27 PM »
From the pix, Old Mac does seem a course which is an extreme mix of huge, bold features and contour & bumps - not so different from TOC but probably as wide as TOC is meant to be.  All my favourite and what I consider to be the best courses have some combination of big n bold and contour n bumps.  Sometimes the bold just comes from the site itself like playing around a hill, a body of water or whatever.  It doesn't need to be n the form of huge hazards.    

For you guys heading to Buda this year, expect much of the same thing - a course in which you will turn to your partners and ask "is that alright".  If you are with me, the answer will nearly always be yes, but....TOC has the balance of bold and contours pretty even while Pennard leans more toward the contours with the bold being more contour driven because of the hilly site.

No matter how one breaks it down with the above combo, the timeless, ever thoughtful and most questioning courses will have incorporate that combo.  Whether or not folks see the greatness of this type of design is irrelevant, though I am confident that if given enough opportunities all would see the charm and greatness of this type of course.  Suffice it to say that Old Mac is one of the very few courses I really want to see.

Ciao

 
New plays planned for 2024:Winterfield, Alnmouth, Camden, Palmetto Bluff Crossroads Course, Colleton River Dye Course  & Old Barnwell

Richard Choi

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The problem with Subtlety - Old Mac
« Reply #38 on: April 01, 2010, 06:12:08 PM »
I guess a good question to ask is, how many golf course have you played where your first impression is completely different from what it is after more plays?

I am thinking through all of my top courses and I can honestly say I have loved them from the day one. I do have courses that I have grown to appreciate more as I have played them, but I don't regard them far greater than the first impression I had.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: The problem with Subtlety - Old Mac
« Reply #39 on: April 01, 2010, 06:13:51 PM »
Jed:

I would be the last one to bank on the majority of golfers at Old Macdonald wanting to "dig deeper."  But the real metric is whether people have fun and want to play it again.  You don't really have to understand it all in order to appreciate it ... if you did, then golf architects would all be out of business.  (If we aren't already.)  ;)

If this had been entirely MY concept, and not instigated by Mr. Keiser, then I might have worried a bit more about whether I thought it would succeed.  But, I would say that he has had far more success in the retail golf market than most people [present company included], so I didn't worry about it for long.

Or are you asking whether we should have built the dumbed-down template version of Macdonald's work, instead of the more complicated version?  Perhaps that's a valid question; but if he wanted that, then he definitely hired the wrong guys!




Greg Tallman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The problem with Subtlety - Old Mac
« Reply #40 on: April 01, 2010, 06:15:22 PM »
I guess a good question to ask is, how many golf course have you played where your first impression is completely different from what it is after more plays?

I am thinking through all of my top courses and I can honestly say I have loved them from the day one. I do have courses that I have grown to appreciate more as I have played them, but I don't regard them far greater than the first impression I had.

Ricahrd, I believe one could make a good argument that truly great courses are almost always appreciated more after numerous plays. If you can play a course one time and feel you have taken in all it has to offer I submit it is not that great of a golf course.

Pete_Pittock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The problem with Subtlety - Old Mac
« Reply #41 on: April 01, 2010, 08:52:18 PM »
I think Dub nailed it.  OM will be the course t the resort where (IMHO) a good caddy is most needed from tee to green. It is all angles, wind and hole locations. Since I am not a long hitter there were a number of holes where I was 30-50 yards short of the green. Even with my imagination and pitching game I will be very challenged if I wasn't in great position.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The problem with Subtlety - Old Mac
« Reply #42 on: April 01, 2010, 10:19:16 PM »
Jed,

Is that a short coming of the golf course or your recognition and course management skills ? ;D   ;D   ;D

JC Urbina

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The problem with Subtlety - Old Mac
« Reply #43 on: April 01, 2010, 10:51:22 PM »
Jed,

If I may interject and BTW thanks for your honest opinion.

 I have told a few people that Old Macdonald may not be for everyones game and that some golfers may not understand our intent and that's OK. 

Darwin wrote that it was the "Spirit of Adventure" trying a shot that seems impossible but seems to always get its due. That sums up what you may encounter playing Old Macdonald

 That is the excitement that we are trying to bring out at Old Mac.

Jed Rammell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The problem with Subtlety - Old Mac
« Reply #44 on: April 01, 2010, 11:23:57 PM »
Jed,

Is that a short coming of the golf course or your recognition and course management skills ? ;D   ;D   ;D

I have no doubt this is the case, but I wonder how many others will share the same shortcoming.

Jed Rammell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The problem with Subtlety - Old Mac
« Reply #45 on: April 01, 2010, 11:33:54 PM »
Jed,


 I have told a few people that Old Macdonald may not be for everyones game and that some golfers may not understand our intent and that's OK. 




I'm sure 99% members on this board will understand and love the intent of the course (hell, some assumed this thread was a joke). You are responding to a poster with very little knowledge and ability to evaluate a golf course . . . but I'm guessing that I'm not alone. 

Ben Sims

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The problem with Subtlety - Old Mac
« Reply #46 on: April 01, 2010, 11:49:42 PM »
This reminds me of a scene in the bunker bar in the basement of the lodge at Bandon. 

A father/son combo on their yearly golf trip.  Imagine the best Thurston Howell accent, "Loved Pebble a year before last, it's our favorite course.  We went to Sea Island on the coast of Georgia last spring.  It was splendid.  But Scotland?  We'll never go again.  St. Andrews was a goat path!"

I nearly choked on my Romeo Y Julieta.  I have never even been to TOC and I was offended.

The next day, over in the corner of McKee's at the end of the day, was the father/son duo.  "Ben, hello! We loved Bandon.  We previewed that one you told us about after our first round.  It's too easy.  And the greens are all tricked up.  It's like the only way they could keep us from scoring was to make the green like putt-putt."  Which brought a rousing laugh from the son. 

I almost threw my meatloaf at them. 

To each his own.  No offense to the great original, but they can stay there.  My new Bandon 10 spilt looks like this.

OM 4, PD 3, BT 2, BD 1 (the very last round, for nostalgia)

It's beyond huge, and many golfers won't get it.  If your entire life has--like mine up till when I saw it--been spent on courses clearly defined, it will 1) enthrall you 2) enrage you.  I agree with Jim's notion of polarization. 


Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The problem with Subtlety - Old Mac
« Reply #47 on: April 01, 2010, 11:52:54 PM »
Jed,

I applaud the cajones it takes to make these comments with this crowd.  I've had similar thought about BT #14 for the resort golfer.  But at the end of the day I applaud these guys for building the best possible layout and this resort is so good that there will be substantial repeat business.  Hell we played 4 rounds on Pac Dunes on our first visit alone.
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

JC Urbina

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The problem with Subtlety - Old Mac
« Reply #48 on: April 02, 2010, 01:02:10 AM »
Jed,

I argue with Tom all the time on golf courses and how I evaluate them. 

I think Old Town Golf Club is right up there with Prairie Dunes.   Others would think Southern Hills is the King and I am mistaken.

Tom  thinks I am a little bias when I say the Western Gailes is one of the coolest golf courses in the U.K. 

We debate the merits of Newport Golf Club, he doesn't understand my love affair with it.

All because I like what I like and he generally likes something different.    Neither of us is wrong we just have a different opinion on what each of us consider to be entertaining.

We discussed in the airport for two hours in Cabo San lucas Mexico waiting for a delayed plane  about what I thought  Mackenzie's best course was. 

I evaluate golf courses for what appeals to me.  I think a golf course is high on the fun meter  when I don't lose a ball.

I once played a golf course in Southern Indiana with a friend.  He thought it was one of the best golf courses in Indiana and I thought it was to hard.   He thought that was one way a golf course should be judged.  I disagreed.

Just a difference of opinion, not right or wrong. 


John Moore II

Re: The problem with Subtlety - Old Mac
« Reply #49 on: April 02, 2010, 01:32:43 AM »
Jed,

I have told a few people that Old Macdonald may not be for everyones game and that some golfers may not understand our intent and that's OK. 

I'm sure 99% members on this board will understand and love the intent of the course (hell, some assumed this thread was a joke). You are responding to a poster with very little knowledge and ability to evaluate a golf course . . . but I'm guessing that I'm not alone. 

Jed-Play more courses, both good ones and bad ones. You'll learn over time how to evaluate a course. The more you play, the better you are at determining what is good, better, or best. I'll flatly admit that I've never played a course that was rated 8, 9, or 10 in the Confidential Guide. So, I might not know exactly what is great or just very good. But I can certainly try to understand it. Just keep playing courses and listen to what a lot of the guys on here say about courses, you'll learn a lot about how to figure out what is good, better, or not good. Some guys on here have played well over 1000 courses; they're good at knowing what make good golf and communicating that with others.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back