News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
One vs. another? - Sure you can compare them!
« on: February 12, 2002, 08:46:33 AM »
Some feel certain golf courses can't be compared to one another, yet the same people feel that "strategy" and the strategic atributes of a design are what separates the greatest!  So if nothing else, why can't all designs be compared on this point alone?    
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Matt_Ward

Re: One vs. another? - Sure you can compare them!
« Reply #1 on: February 12, 2002, 09:08:06 AM »
Mark:

Agreed!

I enjoy sizing up one course versus another and that comparison, in my mind, must start with the "strategic vision" and how the player is ultimately tested. Golf is about mastering a full range of shots linked together through varying holes that test the complete game in mind and body.

P.S. Besides, how would one know the merits of a course without some sort of comparison being done with others?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: One vs. another? - Sure you can compare them!
« Reply #2 on: February 12, 2002, 12:09:03 PM »
Lots of views Matt, no posts ???  Where are all the "you can't compare these courses" supporters??  Here were some quotes from other threads:

"I generally agree with you on Olympic, and with your statement that trying to compare it to NGLA is fruitless"

-- Why is it fruitless??

"And, finally, of course, comparing golf courses is the same as comparing apples and oranges.  Is Michelle Pfeiffer more attractive than Gwyneth Paltrow, or vice versa? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

-- Didn't realize we were only discussing beauty??

Come on guys, speak up  :)


« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Richard_Goodale

Re: One vs. another? - Sure you can compare them!
« Reply #3 on: February 12, 2002, 01:48:38 PM »
Mark

I'm not sure where you place me in this debate, as I don't really fit the profile in your opening post but since you quoted me, I'll tell you what I believe.

1.  Of course you can "compare" apples and oranges.  One is orange and the other various shades of red and yellow and green.  One is more acidic than the other, etc. etc.

2.  I tend to prefer apples.  Why?  I don't know, I just like them better.  The texture, the flavor, the look and feel, maybe?

3.  But, I like orange juice much better than apple juice.  Why?  Again, I don't know.  I just do.

4.  My "comparing is fruitless" statement was more for a cheap laugh than to make a firm statement.  Of course you can compare fruits, or even golf courses.  As long as you remember that they come in all shapes, sizes and colors, and some people like certain colors better than others.

5.   I personally beleive that comparison is very useful at the micro level.  For example, why does the combination of textures, flavors and chemicals in an orange make it a desireable cooking accompaniment to duck, while the same combinations do not suit it to pork?  Why do the characteristics of apples and not oranges meld so nicely with pork?  If you really get into these things, you can learn something, if you wish--about chemistry and physiology adn psychology and even how to design adnd prepare and enjoy culinary experiences.  In a similar vein, discussions which "compare" NGLA's Short with its Redan and its Eden can bring up some useful insights, just as can comparisons of Redans at various courses, or the pros and cons of lacy vs. austere bunkering, or thick or wispy rough, or firm and fast vs. narrow and soft, or whatever.

6.  However, when you extending such comparisons to entire golf holes, the number of variables you are dealing with expands exponentially such that it is impossible, at least for me and in my opinion, to make comparisons that depend on much more than "Why, because I like it!" sorts of arguments.  You ask enough observers and you can come to some sort of conclusion as to whether the 18th at TOC is "better" or "worse" than the 1st at NGLA, but what does that tell us, really?  Extending this sort of comparison to a course vs. course level just compounds the variables and makes our ultimate judgement even more subjective.

7.  Finally, when you try to deconstruct the whole process into a series of factors, to which you assign numbers, down to the 100th of a point, you completely lose me.  It's like trying to quantify why the duck a l'orange at a retuarnat in Fife is better or worse than the medallions of pork in apple butter at a bistro in Strasbourg.

As to Olympic.  I have only played it once, with Gib, this summer.   To me it is better than some of the courses which are "ranked" ahead of it that I have played, and not as "good" as some which are "ranked" below it.  It is an underappreciated course on this site.  Why?  Perhaps because it does not carry the hallmark of some revered designer?  Perhaps there are just some people out there who just cannot bring themselves to believe that the combination of Reid, Whiting and RTJ could possibly manage to create a "better" course than old Tillie was able to on a nearly adjacent, but clearly superior piece of ground at SFGC?  Or maybe it's the musty old lockers and the sense of privilege, vs. the democratic robustness of OC?  Maybe it's just the "ambience?"

The bottom line--both OC and SFGC are great golf courses and great experiences that should not be missed.  That's all I can say with certainty. Those with more power than I please compare and rank to your heart's delight.

Cheers

Rich


« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Dan King

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: One vs. another? - Sure you can compare them!
« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2002, 03:50:40 PM »
I avoid ranking threads like the plague. They seem to get plenty of hits without my help.  But I did click into this one for some bizarre, uncomprehended reason. So here I am, I might as well respond.

You can compare anything. There is no reason in the world you couldn't compare your favorite golf course to your favorite bowling alley. The point is will others find value in your comparison?  Do they have enough in common to give the comparison value -- hence the apples and oranges argument.

Do Cruden Bay and Muirfield have enough in common to make any comparison valid? They both have 18 holes -- that makes it a bit more valid than the golf course vs. bowling alley comparison. But when rankers start throwing around resistence to scoring or challenge to the best golfers, then they are comparing two courses with little in common. Sure they both have stratigic attributes, but so does the bowling alley. Why not compare Pine Valley to Indianapolis Speedway or Yankee Stadium?
Quote
"Number 10 is Rush Limbaugh's book and No. 8 is a book on menopause, so I'm somewhere between the right wing and the change of life."
 --Peter Jacobsen (on his book "Buried Lies" being No. 9 on the Washington Post best seller list)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: One vs. another? - Sure you can compare them!
« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2002, 06:19:05 PM »
Rich,
Nice response.  Always wanted to know the difference between apples and oranges  ;)  

Dan,
I'm surprised to hear you don't have any favorite courses with all the golf you've played  :(  So much for getting any recommendations on where to play from you  ;)  But come to think of it, you do make a lot of posts with opinions on golf courses don't you.  I guess you just never draw any conclusions on what you really like and don't like.  Oh well, to each his own!

Mark
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: One vs. another? - Sure you can compare them!
« Reply #6 on: February 12, 2002, 10:02:45 PM »
I've been asked what is better Augusta or Cypress Point?  How on earth can you compare those 2 courses, a links course vs. an inland course?

Each course has to be evaluted on their own merit.  

My example of comparing NGLA to Olympic is not to diminish one or the other but each has special characteristics that can not be compared.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: One vs. another? - Sure you can compare them!
« Reply #7 on: February 13, 2002, 04:43:22 AM »
What "merit" are you talking about Joel?  What is the difference between a "links" course and an "inland" course?  Formby is an "inland" course isn't it?  So is Sunningdale and Prairie Dunes.  Oakmont used to be treeless!  What kind of course is that?  Where a course was built with a shovel or a bulldozer, who cares, it's still a golf course.  

All I am saying is that anyone who has an opinion about a golf course has that opinion for some particular reason(s).  If they have favorites, there are reasons why they are their favorites.  If someone asks them what are the best courses they have played, they probably have some way of responding.  I doubt they say, "I have no clue"!  We compare golf architecture of different courses on this site all the time.  All these people are evaluating courses for various reasons and that's what rating courses is all about.  

Sure you can compare Cypress with Augusta.  Evaluate Cypress (under it's own merit) then evaluate Augusta (under its own merit) then access your opinions of both and why you feel that way.  My guess is the merits you use will be pretty much the same for both  ;)  No need to "rank" them, that is just something that falls out of the process.  

Mark
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »