The Fun Factor and Architectural Superiority

[JC Jones]

Is it possible for a course to be more fun but architecturally inferior to another?  How can a course be better than another yet less fun to play?  How much should the fun factor contribute to the evaluation of the architecture?

[Mac Plumart]

"Is it possible for a course to be more fun but architecturally inferior to another?"  Yes, yes, yes...there is no doubt about it!!!

I can think of a number of architecturally sound golf courses that are highly regarded by the experts, but I prefer to play less architecturally sound courses that are more fun for my taste.  I think skill level plays a part in the "fun" equation as does plain and simple taste in golf courses.  I think this plays a part in answering your second question; "How can a course be better than another yet less fun to play?"

Also, to your third question..."should the fun factor contribute to the evaluation of the architecture?".  Yes.  But once again, how each golfer defines "fun" is different.  Perhaps a low handicapper thinks "fun" is challenging shot values and resitance to scoring.  Perhaps someone looking to chill out and de-stress thinks "fun" is walking around a beautiful routed golf course enjoying the flow and feel of a natural golf course.  I could literally go on and on...but the bottom line is each and every golfer will define "fun" in a different way and, therefore, look for different things in the design of a golf course.

[Peter Pallotta]

JC -

People have been trying to package up fun and sell it to us in a bottle for a long time. Okay, fine - but please don't make it too obvious.

Take the elevated tee on most modern courses. Is it fun for me to hit a good drive and to watch it soar off high against the bright blue horizon and travel further than I'd imagine? Yes. But that fun is short-lived - because I can't help feeling that the 'game was rigged', that someone had set it up (with mathematical precision even) for me to have exactly the kind of fun I just had.

Blah.

I don't feel joyous, I feel duped.

But good architecture - no, exceptional architecture -- can pull off even the rigged game.

In fact, that may the very definition of exceptional architecture -- and it was for a long time, until the professional game took over. 

Exceptional architecture treats us rabbits as rabbits, but it makes us think that we're tigers every once in a while. (To borrow/steal from Darwin -- the stylish writer of frivolities, not the ponderous purveyor of big ideas.  Interesting that the two were related...)

Peter

[JC Jones]

Mac,

I agree that fun is subjective.  But, so is the evaluation of architecture.  Therefore, I am not sure how there can be no doubt that Course A can be "better" architecturally than Course B, yet Course B has architecture that is "more fun."

[Tom_Doak]

How much should the fun factor contribute to the evaluation of the architecture?

JC:  It depends on the rater.  There is no way that everyone is going to agree on the same criteria for what makes a golf course great.  We all have our own preferences.  The very best courses manage to touch nearly all the bases that everyone sets for them, but there are very few which really do.

Is it possible for a course to be more fun but architecturally inferior to another?

So, the answer to your first question is that it's unanswerable.  No one can define what "architecturally superior / inferior" really mean.

[Mac Plumart]

Is Oakmont an architecturally sound (or superior) golf course?

[Peter Pallotta]

Really, TD?  

If you (or me, or someone) can't articulate the measure of -- the elements of -- greatness, what do you (or I, or someone) aim for when we start a project?

What is our ideal?  (And where dis we get that notion of the ideal?)

What do you or I or someone aspire to?

Great work has and does engender great work.  How - if that greatness can't be identified/define?

Peter

[JC Jones]

Tom,

I disagree that it is unanswerable.  Why do you say that the architecture of Crystal Downs is superior to Bandon Dunes?  When you say it is a "better" course you are saying it is superior.  

If you had more fun playing Bandon Dunes than you did Crystal Downs, would you say (in your opinion) that Bandon Dunes was a "better' course?

[JC Jones]

Is Oakmont an architecturally sound (or superior) golf course?

I'd say that "sound" and "superior" are two entirely different concepts.  When I say "superior," I mean can you say that Course A is "better" (therefore having better architecture i.e. holes, quirk, design, routing, etc.) yet have more fun playing Course B?  If so, aren't you really saying that Course B has better holes, design, routing, etc.?

[Mac Plumart]

Here you guys go again...is Crystal Downs superior to Pacific Dunes.  C'mon.  That is subjective.  They are both GREAT!!!!

Is Seminole superior to Achasta?  Yes.  No doubt about it.  I have more "fun" on Achasta than I did on Seminole.  I am not good enough to enjoy or appreciate Seminole.  Achasta is more fun for me.  So, back to my first post.  Yes.  It is possible to a course to be architecturally inferior but more fun.

If you simply want to discuss the greatest courses in the world within the context of your question you will swirl around in circles as they are all great courses and the answers are completely subjective.  Take the comparision down a few notches and perhaps the answer can become more clear.

[Mac Plumart]

Is Oakmont an architecturally sound (or superior) golf course?

I'd say that "sound" and "superior" are two entirely different concepts.  When I say "superior," I mean can you say that Course A is "better" (therefore having better architecture i.e. holes, quirk, design, routing, etc.) yet have more fun playing Course B?  If so, aren't you really saying that Course B has better holes, design, routing, etc.?

JC, I don't follow your above post.  But frankly, I am hopped up on big time pain meds right now.  So, I am sure it is my fault.  But perhaps my last post touches on your question/point.

[JC Jones]

Here you guys go again...is Crystal Downs superior to Pacific Dunes.  C'mon.  That is subjective.  They are both GREAT!!!!

Is Seminole superior to Achasta?  Yes.  No doubt about it.  I have more "fun" on Achasta than I did on Seminole.  I am not good enough to enjoy or appreciate Seminole.  Achasta is more fun for me.  So, back to my first post.  Yes.  It is possible to a course to be architecturally inferior but more fun.

If you simply want to discuss the greatest courses in the world within the context of your question you will swirl around in circles as they are all great courses and the answers are completely subjective.  Take the comparision down a few notches and perhaps the answer can become more clear.

I said Bandon Dunes, not Pacific Dunes!!!!

Of course it is subjective.  So why not say you think Achasta is a better course than Seminole?  Because others have said Seminole was great?  If you have less fun at Seminole then what is it about it that makes it better than Achasta?

[JC Jones]

Is Oakmont an architecturally sound (or superior) golf course?

I'd say that "sound" and "superior" are two entirely different concepts.  When I say "superior," I mean can you say that Course A is "better" (therefore having better architecture i.e. holes, quirk, design, routing, etc.) yet have more fun playing Course B?  If so, aren't you really saying that Course B has better holes, design, routing, etc.?

JC, I don't follow your above post.  But frankly, I am hopped up on big time pain meds right now.  So, I am sure it is my fault.  But perhaps my last post touches on your question/point.

If you find a course more fun than another aren't you saying you like it more than another?  Therefore, aren't you saying that it's architecture is more appealing to you than another? 

If so, how can you rate the other course higher or say it is "better"?

[John Moore II]

Certainly a course can be more fun and architecturally inferior. That is always a possibility. Mac sums it up pretty well. Fun is person dependent. But either way, it is not very hard for a course to be more fun than another that might be architecturally superior.

[JC Jones]

Here is a, hopefully apt, analogy:

If you prefer to eat a Big Mac rather than a porterhouse from Peter Luger's, how can you say that the porterhouse from Peter Luger's is better than the Big Mac?

[JC Jones]

Certainly a course can be more fun and architecturally inferior. That is always a possibility. Mac sums it up pretty well. Fun is person dependent. But either way, it is not very hard for a course to be more fun than another that might be architecturally superior.

Isn't the determination of superior architecture also "person dependent"?

Or, in other words, I'm not going to let anyone punt this question with a subjectivity argument.

[Mac Plumart]

Bandon Dunes, Pacific Dunes...whatever!!!  I told you...I am hopped up on pain meds!!!  

Regarding Seminole and Achasta, I am trying to answer your question...but you seem to not want it answered.  Seminole is WAY better.  Better routing, better greens, better bunkering...I could go on.  But it is too difficult for me...at least it was the 1 time I've played it thus far.  30 mph winds, 13 stimped greens, wild slopes, bunkers everywhere.  It seemed even the good shots I hit didn't work out like I planned.  This wasn't "fun", but I am interested to get back out there and try to apply what I've learned about the course to see if I can do better.  But the low handicapper would love the course I am sure.  

Achasta is pretty good and under-rated I think, but it isn't in the class of Seminole.  And frankly, for Seminole I could input TPC Sawgrass as well.  Perhaps even Kiawah Ocean (which in my humble opinion is the "best" course I've played).  Anyway, back to the Achasta/Seminole comparison.  Achasta's routing isn't close to Seminole's.  Achasta's variety isn't close to Seminole's.  Achasta's greens are boring compared to Seminole's.  Achasta has some "odd" holes.  But I have fun on it, because no one is ever there...so I seem to get the course all to myself whenever I play it.  The greens are more receptive to the golf ball, so scoring is easier.  The routing is pretty good at Achasta, but at times the creek that cuts through the course gets redundant redundant and presents the same type of shot time and time again.  But again, the course's "fun" factor is there for me and my taste.  The mountain setting is particularly stunning in the fall...and like I mentioned no one is ever there...even at that wonderful time of year.

Anyway, that is what I got.

PS...I've seen you've posted more, but I think this touches on your added posts.  And you will see this isn't a "punt".  I've tried to answer in some detail why Seminole is "better" and why I have more "fun" on Achasta.  Also, on my website I make it clear that I am ranking my "favorite" courses rather than the "best" courses I've played.  Therefore, I hope this shows I've put some thought into your question prior to this and also shows how important I think the topic is. 

PSS...The reason I posted the Oakmont question is that of course it is a great (superior) golf course architecturally.  But I really don't think I would find it "fun" given my current handicap.  So, again I am trying to provide an answer to your question.

PSSS...did I mentioned I had to take some pain meds?   

[Peter Pallotta]

JC - re your analogy of post #14.

People knew the difference once. That some no longer do doesn't make the difference disappear.

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

JC:

It's an unanswerable question as an absolute.  It's answerable for any individual who wants to take the time to break down everything he's seen and why he likes what he does.  I've spent the last 31 years working on that.  But I've also spent the last twenty years listening to other people react to what I've built, and the more I listen, the more I realize that few others are ever going to have the same take on architecture that I do. 

So, to me, trying to write down exactly what you SHOULD think is pointless ... in fact, it's self-defeating.  What I need to do is listen to others, and see if they say anything that I haven't already thought of and internalized.

In the end, though, all design is a matter of opinion.  You can achieve a consensus of opinion, but it will only be meaningful for people who realize there will always be exceptions to their rules.  Hell, look at all the golf professionals who think The Old Course at St. Andrews is inferior architecture ... while I think it's our equivalent of a Biblical text.

[Kirk Gill]

I'll whip out another analogy.

For a lot of people, if you ask them to list the greatest movies, and then later ask them to list their favorite movies, the lists won't necessarily have a lot in common.

JC - is this kind of what you're talking about?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Yeah it is kind of unanswerable but in general, I have always said a golf hole does one thing well.  In other words, its kind of hard to have a fun bounce built in and also be a "stern test of golf."  Think Rees Jones Open Doctor remodels done for that purpose, vs one of my courses where I try to build in all kind of favorable bounces and slopes, because they are fun.  When a good player looks at some of those, his reaction may be "Thats not golf.  Some SOB can miss 30 yards left and be as close to the pin as I am!"  I can achieve one aim and not the other in that stark case.

In other cases - like calling for a fade into a slot off the tee, its fun for all players because you ask for a specific challenge and its fun or at least satisfying to pull it off exactly as demanded.

Its really all a blend, and I say golf holes above, because a course could have 9 each fun oriented holes and 9 hard ones and perhaps have a nice blend of both.  And it might come out in the middle of the ratings but serve well.

I think the whole concept of "a course you could enjoy every day" is underrated these days.  I don't know that I hear many golfers say "Its a course I would enjoy beating me up every day" because most just don't play for the supreme challenge of difficult golf.

[DMoriarty]

Is it possible for a course to be more fun but architecturally inferior to another?  How can a course be better than another yet less fun to play?  How much should the fun factor contribute to the evaluation of the architecture?

If you are talking about the golf experience and not the externatilities that add  to or subtract from that experience, and if you are talking about fun over play after play, ideally hundreds or thousands of plays,  then NO.

But I guess it depends a little on how one defines fun.    If you want a stern test, go back to school.  If you want to have fun, go play a great golf course. 

[John Moore II]

David: If we are to say that Oakmont it architecturally superior to, say, Pine Needles, does that mean Oakmont is more fun for all golfers, exclusive of the 'private club' experience? I say, from that I have seen of Oakmont on TV and images, that Oakmont would be too hard for an average golfer to enjoy day-in-day-out while Needles, from what I have seen personally, would be enjoyable for all golfers at just about any time.  Do you not agree?

[Mac Plumart]

Quite simply a fantastic thread and subject.  I hope we kick this around for quite some time...I know I can learn a lot by hearing what other people have to say.

John...IMO Pine Needles is very, very good architecturally and very fun.  To me it is right there in terms of a darn near perfect golf course.  And I think it can hold its own in term of architecture with almost any course...it may not win hands down, but it can hold its own for sure.

I love Kirk Gill's analogy to movies.  I find that spot on.  I loved Shawshenk Redemption, it might be one of the greatest movies of all-time.  But I couldn't watch it every day.  Grease on the other hand, any time, any place!!!     Seriously, though.  Maybe that is Seminole vs. Holston Hills.

Tom Doak, Jeff Brauer...great stuff!!!  Anymore thoughts or comments would be awesome!!

And David M...I think you hit on such a great point with you fun relative to hundreds of plays.  Back to my Achasta/Seminole comparison.  Achasta, I've got figured out...at least How to play it.  Hole 15 has taken some time.  Seminole, like I mentioned above, kicked my ass...but I think about it often concerning how I will play it in the future, what I will do differently, what I will try next time to see if that is the correct way to play it.  Maybe The Old Course is that way, I don't know yet.  But perhaps this is a big key to "great" architecture.  You never stop learning from it and you never quite figure it out.  Perhaps it isn't "fun" the first few times, but it captivates you.  Thus far, Seminole, Kiawah Ocean, Pinehurst #2, and Canterbury have got me so far on this front.

[George Freeman]

Subjectivity, subjectivity, subjectivity.

Sorry JC, but that is all it is.  We all interpret GCA differently, i.e. what's great, what's not great; what's fun, what's not fun.

If you judge golf courses only by how much fun you have, than the answer to original question is yes.  If you judge courses only by how good you believe the architecture to be, irrespective of how much fun you have, than the answer to your original question is no.  However, both are subjective in and of themselves.

Were there two particular courses that fueled this question?    That may be the more interesting conversation...