At what point can an educated opinion of a golf course’s architecture be formed?

[PCCraig]

At what point can an educated opinion of a golf course’s architecture be formed?

After playing a golf course once? 100 times?
After visiting the course/club's website?
Can you walk a course without playing it and form a lasting opinion? How about walking a course during a major professional tournament?
Do you even have to visit a golf course in person to know if you will like it or not?
Do you form an opinion while watching a course on TV?
Is a GCA.com photo tour, through pictures and discussion, enough to understand a golf course’s subtlety and strategy?

Many times when a major tournament is hosted, a lot of judgment is thrown around this site and on various threads. When the 2009 PGA was played at Hazeltine National, won poster called it “Haznat” on here and his blog after only walking the course. Was that fair?

When the PGA was awarded to Bellerive in St. Louis in 2018, Geoff Shackleford (and others) ripped the decision on his blog…without ever visiting the golf course in person. Is that opinion justified or remotely educated?

This doesn’t just go for Rees Jones influenced designs. The “popular” architects on golfclubatlas.com get love for designs before a course even opens, let alone after someone has played it and done the obligatory “Super Fan Photo Tour.” Do we sell ourselves on a course either way before, during, and after visiting a golf course?

At what point can you realistically and honestly judge a golf course with an educated opinion?

[Jud_T]

Pat,

It obviously varies from person to person but I'd say 2 plays is a bare minimum for most of us.

[Sean Leary]

Just from pictures, obviously.

Regards,

Garland.

 

[Garland Bayley]

Just from pictures, obviously.

Regards,

Garland.

 

No, you have to look and measure on Google Earth too.

Kalen

[Phil McDade]

Pat:

It's a good question. I think you can make plenty of informed and interesting judgements about a course and its architecture after even just walking it once. I do that plenty, and have posted various photo threads here having walked a course just once. Before I do so, however, I read up on the course, search this site for information about it, look at pictures, and talk to other folks about the course.

Playing a course, and repeated plays, certainly, enhances one's views on it, revealing nuances and lines of play that might not otherwise be seen on a first go-around. But I also think our own abilities, and the way we approach a course, bias (not necessarily in a bad way, but it's a bias nonetheless) our views of courses and their architecture.

[Bill Brightly]

I say you can form an "educated" opinion on  GREAT course after one play, but getting to truly "know" a course requires many plays.

I knew RCD was great the first time I played it, same with Old Macdonald. (I can't even count NGLA because I was in love with it before I ever gotto play there.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think you dont have to have played it as long as you can understand how it plays, ie you can walk the course.

[Michael Dugger]

When you are reborn Pat Mucci.

Otherwise, you don't know bull...

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

There is no pat answer to your question, apart from the general sentiment that "my opinion is always more educated than yours." 

The best answer is that you can always form an opinion of a golf course, but that opinion should always be qualified by (a) how well you know it, and (b) what your general knowledge of architecture is.  I would postulate that many architects can form a pretty good opinion just by walking a course one time, because we are pre-disposed to notice what is different about a new course than all the others we've seen, or built ourselves. 

Certainly, it always helps to play, too ... sometimes you find that a particular shot is not as hard as you thought it was, but by the same token, some players form negative opinions just because they didn't play well.  The whole purpose of The Renaissance Cup was to get people to come and play my courses twice, so they would get more familiar with the holes and discover they weren't the same from one day to the next.

However, if we limited discussion of courses here to only the people who had played them multiple times, Golf Club Atlas would be a much less interesting discussion.  People only tend to play a course multiple times if they really like it, so you would be eliminating many of the dissenting opinions with such a rule.

[Terry Lavin]

Obviously, one can form an opinion relatively quickly, even one that can defensibly be called "educated", even if the person isn't truly educated about the subject well enough for it to be reliable.  We see those sorts of opinions by the non-professionals on this site all the time, myself included.  In many respects, it's like Yelp for golf courses.  You know the drill:  Go to a restaurant, write a review, base it on all the other meals you've eaten and suddenly you're Gordon Ramsay.  Heck, we even have contests going on right now that ask for opinions based on photographs alone, so that should tell you how valuable the opinions are.  Not that it's worth getting your knickers in a bunch.  It's the internet, after all.  The less seriously that the amateurs hereabouts take themselves, the better, IMHO.

[Michael Goldstein]

Good question.  I am in a somewhat unique position having played many of the great courses only once.

100 days through our mission I had a primitive opinion of a courses architecture.  For example, RM West didn't blow me away last year! (My opinion has changed hugely having playing it a few more times lately)  At that stage my interest in architecture was relatively new and my general knowledge of architecture was limited.  I hadn't experienced many great golf courses and was still influenced on things like conditioning, the weather, my own score etc.

150 or so days through the mission things had started to change (and obviously scoring had become a very peripheral concern).  I'd read a few books like the famous golf courses on the East Coast, on PV, Dr Mac etc.  I'd started to look at the original designs framed and sitting on the walls of the clubhouses.  JP and I were fortunate enough to have played dozens of quality courses and almost had a daily lesson on golden age architecture. It pricked the passion and I was cursorily reading GCA and even occasionally finding 20 minutes to read about a course in advance of playing it.  At that stage I would stay consider my opinion to be a relatively primitive one.

By day 250-300 the biggest factor was that the mind was becoming tuned to analysing a golf course.  Instead of just focusing on the position of your own ball it was instinctive to pick up different playing lines from tee to green and you'd naturally find yourself looping around the green at least once.  It became second nature.   By the end of the round you could spurt off pro's and con's relating them to examples around the world with minimal thought.  Some times courses had a good 'feel' - a less quantifiable but equally important aspect of a golf course than simply analysing every hole.

I guess what I found was simple:
- that the more you play, the more varied your experiences and the more you take an interest in GCA then the more educated your opinions would be (duh)
- nothing compares with playing the courses yourself.  Particularly in the UK & Ireland - photographs don't come close to painting the full story.
- that I felt confident in having an opinion from one round only once I had built up a base understanding of GCA and also learnt to (try) ignore peripheral factors (like clubhouses, weather, playing partners, your game etc);

Now that I'm playing many courses for repeat play it is great to delve a little deeper..

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom D - that last paragraph of yours was a generous take on the situation; I think in the self-help/positive-thinking movement, that's what's called "re-framing" the issue.  

Pat - Imagine if I can on here and posted six of the most outstanding paragraphs chock full of the most insightful observations and most preceptive criticisms about NGLA that you are anyone else had ever read. (I know...but just imagine).  After the praise for me had died down, what would you say if I came back and admitted that I had never played NGLA, or even walked it?  Would my (formerly) brilliant analysis now be less brilliant? Would those posters who had played NGLA a dozen times suddenly become emboldened and start mocking me and wiping the dust of my thinking off their feet?  If so, what would look worse in your eyes: my (now presumably suspect) analysis or the reaction of the (now clearly hyprocritical) posters?

Peter  

[Andy Troeger]

Something I think is important to consider is not just how many times someone sees/plays a particular golf course, but also the amount of quality golf courses one has seen. Certainly reading about architecture and studying other materials are helpful too. We don't all have the same starting point, so an "educated" opinion of any one course is very much a moving target.

And no matter how "educated" the opinion, its only right of course when we agree with it! 

[Mac Plumart]

After they play The Old Course at St. Andrews.

[Wade Schueneman]

I say you can form an "educated" opinion on  GREAT course after one play, but getting to truly "know" a course requires many plays.

I knew RCD was great the first time I played it, same with Old Macdonald. (I can't even count NGLA because I was in love with it before I ever gotto play there.

Agreed.  I think that I can tell if a course is great after only one play, even though I may only begin to understand its true genius.  To really appreciate the genius of a true masterpiece like TOC might take 100 plays.  I would need to see every combination of hole location/weather condition (and play a variety of approach/recovery shots with respect to each).   

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

After they play The Old Course at St. Andrews.

XXX...wrooong. Pretty sure I didn't experience some epiphany or feeling of divine intervention when I walked off The Old Course any of the 3 times I played it or 2 times I walked it. But whatever..

[Tom_Doak]

XXX...wrooong. Pretty sure I didn't experience some epiphany or feeling of divine intervention when I walked off The Old Course any of the 3 times I played it or 2 times I walked it. But whatever..

Jamie:

That's too bad for you.  But, it explains some of your posts on other threads.

[David_Elvins]

Tom,

Sound like you are in the middle of updating the confidential guide.  Excellent.

[Adam Clayman]

I agree with those who have intimated that an opinion is not necessarily educated. However, I do respect the opinions that come from more analysis than simply playing the course once, or opinions solely based on how one played.

i.e.
 I recently returned from Rock Creek. After one round I had very little opinion on the courses quality. Certainly, the superficial stuff like, it's beauty, which really isn't the gca, but the natural awesome setting, was obvious. After two, an opinion started to formulate based on what I was experiencing and witnessing. And finally after three rounds, I felt I was comfortable enough to try and formulate one. I have not articulated that opinion, yet. But, I feel comfortable with my feelings about the gca, and that's enough for me.

[Tim Martin]

I think you have to have at least one walk around the property as a player or observer to offer an educated opinion. The more courses you have from a comparison standpoint the more educated your analysis becomes. Pictures and TV can give you a starting point but not much more. I read in another thread on Congressional that someone didn`t like it because of what he saw on TV and a flyover on his way in a DC airport. That sounds like a stretch to me. As an example I think most are blown away with the elevation changes and green contours at ANGC upon their initial examination. You cannot pick this up on TV. Obviously the more trips around a course the more weight your opinion carries. In response to David Elvin`s post I certainly hope that Mr. Doak updates the Confidential Guide.

[Adam Clayman]

Tim. I somewhat disagree with your volume comment. Yes it helps, but understanding certain principles trumps the number of experiences. I would cite Peter Pallota as an example of someone's opinion which is based more on principles than experience. And on the other hand Matt Ward as someone with loads of belt notches but misses on the analysis. Maybe I just expect more from Matt than Peter and that's my fault.

[Tim Martin]

Tim. I somewhat disagree with your volume comment. Yes it helps, but understanding certain principles trumps the number of experiences. I would cite Peter Pallota as an example of someone's opinion which is based more on principles than experience. And on the other hand Matt Ward as someone with loads of belt notches but misses on the analysis. Maybe I just expect more from Matt than Peter and that's my fault.

Adam-Thanks for your comment. I guess I didn`t convey clearly enough that my expectation would be that as more courses were viewed by an individual his understanding of core principles would increase. 

[PCCraig]

Pat - Imagine if I can on here and posted six of the most outstanding paragraphs chock full of the most insightful observations and most preceptive criticisms about NGLA that you are anyone else had ever read. (I know...but just imagine).  After the praise for me had died down, what would you say if I came back and admitted that I had never played NGLA, or even walked it?  Would my (formerly) brilliant analysis now be less brilliant? Would those posters who had played NGLA a dozen times suddenly become emboldened and start mocking me and wiping the dust of my thinking off their feet?  If so, what would look worse in your eyes: my (now presumably suspect) analysis or the reaction of the (now clearly hyprocritical) posters?

Peter  

Peter:

A nice response and a good theoretical (or not?) case study. However, it makes a huge assumption in that you could actually write a perceptive criticism of a golf course without ever visiting it in person. Assuming that you could, to answer your question in your last sentence, you would have to be in the wrong. Most posters would of had to of assumed themselves that you had actually visited the course and actually understood the golf course and your thoughts were not just a collection of others' observations to which you formulated your own opinion.

------------

If a person posts a very critical opinion of a golf course based on little or no fact, are they held accountable on here? Do they loose accountability in your eyes?

Geoff's blog is now owned/run/partnered/whatever by Golf Digest, which in many people's eyes would give it credibility in the golf journalist world. Is it fair when he blasts a course without ever seeing it (but isn't clear on the fact) and his readers take it as fact?

[PCCraig]

Pat:

There is no pat answer to your question, apart from the general sentiment that "my opinion is always more educated than yours." 

The best answer is that you can always form an opinion of a golf course, but that opinion should always be qualified by (a) how well you know it, and (b) what your general knowledge of architecture is.  I would postulate that many architects can form a pretty good opinion just by walking a course one time, because we are pre-disposed to notice what is different about a new course than all the others we've seen, or built ourselves. 

Certainly, it always helps to play, too ... sometimes you find that a particular shot is not as hard as you thought it was, but by the same token, some players form negative opinions just because they didn't play well.  The whole purpose of The Renaissance Cup was to get people to come and play my courses twice, so they would get more familiar with the holes and discover they weren't the same from one day to the next.

However, if we limited discussion of courses here to only the people who had played them multiple times, Golf Club Atlas would be a much less interesting discussion.  People only tend to play a course multiple times if they really like it, so you would be eliminating many of the dissenting opinions with such a rule.

Thanks for the response Tom.

Just a scenario. Let's say someone created a website that bashed all things Pacific Dunes and it gets a ton of hits. If you googled "Pacific Dunes," and this was #3 in the results and fans and potential clients could theoretically find said site easily. Then you found out said person(s) hadn't played it.

What would you do?

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

I've been told, by others, that I have been bashed numerous times on other web sites and in one case that I ought to sue to have something taken down, because it was personal and not true.

I just don't pay any attention to b.s.  I have got plenty of better things to do with my time.

As you can imagine, I've been on the other side of this conversation a few times as a result of The Confidential Guide.  I wish that more people would have taken my comments the same way I take criticism ... you can basically agree with it, or dismiss it.  When people complained loudly about something, I figured it was because I'd touched a nerve.

So, if someone wants to bash Pacific Dunes, they are welcome to.  It will amply prove their talents at judging golf courses.  In fact, the title for this thread should be changed to "Consider The Source".