Resolved: "Memorability" is a terrible criterion to judge a hole / course

[Terry Lavin]

Is memorable the enemy of subtle? What are examples of subtle features / holes that are both great and memorable?

Press's Knob on 11 at Prairie Dunes.

[Mark Pritchett]

Is memorable the enemy of subtle? What are examples of subtle features / holes that are both great and memorable?

Press's Knob on 11 at Prairie Dunes.

Good one, I'll add the "bath tub" feature on the third green at Essex.

[Carl Johnson]

Disagree.  The question is: "Memorability is a terrible criterion to judge a hole / course."  Note - the question does not ask about memorability as a criterion to judge a "great" (or the like) golf hole/course.  What do we have of our games of golf once they're over?  Our memories of the day, the players in our group, the course.  If we can remember, a long time later, a particular hole, for better or worse, then that hole had to have something to implant that memory.  For each of us individually the memories will be different, but for each of us (well, maybe our pro members who make the bucks off the game) our memories are all we have left, and the holes/courses that provide those memories are, well . . . memorable.

[Mac Plumart]

Just thought of something...

I seem to remember Tom Doak talking about Streamsong.  He mentioned people telling him that the holes need more bunkers, more eye candy, more things to attract the golfers attention.  I believe this was a ploy to increase the "memorability" of the holes.

However, the 11th hole only has fairway bunkers and none around the green.  It is the most subtle hole of the bunch, IMO.  And I LOVE it.  The rumpled ground in the fairway and around the green is the hazard.

Maybe this is the least memorable hole out there, but I think it is excellent and relatively subtle.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Mark and Terry, regarding John's / Brad K's point about a foot-high mound being enough, architecturally, in your examples:
1) did you know about the feature beforehand or play with someone during your first round who pointed it out?
2) did you recognize the feature / hole as great immediately?

For the group: suppose you're an architect building a hole where you believe a mound placed on the front-right shoulder of a green would elevate the hole to greatness. Would your chosen height and size of that mound differ if the course was being built for a resort vs for a private club most of whose members are local (and avid golfers)?

Why / why not?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Rank-order these from easiest to hardest for a designer to achieve:
1) Great and subtle architecture
2) Memorable architecture
3) Great and memorable architecture

Please explain why you chose the hardest. Why do you believe it is harder than the other two to get right?

[Mark Pritchett]

Mark and Terry, regarding John's / Brad K's point about a foot-high mound being enough, architecturally, in your examples:
1) did you know about the feature beforehand or play with someone during your first round who pointed it out?
2) did you recognize the feature / hole as great immediately?

For the group: suppose you're an architect building a hole where you believe a mound placed on the front-right shoulder of a green would elevate the hole to greatness. Would your chosen height and size of that mound differ if the course was being built for a resort vs for a private club most of whose members are local (and avid golfers)?

Why / why not?

Mark,

This is an interesting thread as I tend to view courses in their entirety and not as individual holes.  There are courses I really like a lot that do not have what many might call "stand out" holes.

 I think it is important to note that "memorable" does not always mean better. 

Mark

[Andy Troeger]

Pinehurst #2 is a good example of where I'm coming from. The holes aren't particularly memorable IMO, and I'm not a big fan.

Andy,

I can see how someone might say that about the 1st and 2nd holes due to some similarities, but, after # 2, there sure are a lot of memorable holes on that golf course.

Did you not find #'s 3, 4 and 5 not memorable ?

8, 9 & 10 ?

15, 16, 17 & 18 ?

11, 12, 13 & 14 ?

6 & & ?

Patrick,
Not as much as you would probably think. For some reason, #13 was the hole that stood out the most. Next grouping probably #9, #5, and #17 and #18. Having now watched TV for two weeks, I have a better feel for the course, but after playing it I found it more difficult than normal to distinguish the holes from each other. It isn't a "forgettable" golf course, but it isn't nearly as memorable as most of the top 20 or even top 50.

[Terry Lavin]

MB:

I noticed it after it repelled another good shot of mine. When I lamented that PD had "more false fronts...", my playing partner said, "than a Hooters swimsuit competition" which led me to mention it to an assistant pro who told me of the knob moniker. Memorable, yet subtle.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Just thought of something...

I seem to remember Tom Doak talking about Streamsong.  He mentioned people telling him that the holes need more bunkers, more eye candy, more things to attract the golfers attention.  I believe this was a ploy to increase the "memorability" of the holes.

However, the 11th hole only has fairway bunkers and none around the green.  It is the most subtle hole of the bunch, IMO.  And I LOVE it.  The rumpled ground in the fairway and around the green is the hazard.

Maybe this is the least memorable hole out there, but I think it is excellent and relatively subtle.

Mac,

But, if someone asked you to identify the most memorable hole at Streamsong Blue, you wouldn't list # 11.

[jim_lewis]

My answer to the original question is Yes and No. There are too many exceptions.

On the one hand, Pine Valley is the greatest course I ever played, and after my first play I could remember each hole in order a year later.

On the other hand, I had to play #2 and The Old Course several times before I could remember every hole.

I suggest that all three of the aforementioned courses are "great". There are some courses where the sum of the parts is better than the individual holes. #2 is the best example I can think of.

I have played many courses where the hole I remember best was the worst hole on the course. It takes more that merely memorable to make a great hole or course.

[Peter Pallotta]

I'm having trouble with this thread. Mark never does this, but in this case he 1) started with straw man (memorability), 2) added a straw hat and suit of clothes (subtlety's enemy), and then 3) set the man and his suit on fire (doesn't always mean better). Sure, if you start with the implicit notion that gin-soaked dullards only remember water fountains and cart girls, then we might have something.*  As it is, I remember the 8th at Crystal Downs (Mackenize-Maxwell) and the 10th at Copper Creek (Ian Andrew, left to his own devices).

Peter

* True story. Early 1960s, Hollywood. Modest picture, first time director -- fired after the first week of filming. Old line producer sent in to take over and save the day. He comes in, he reads the script, he looks at the footage, he thinks for a while, and then he gathers all the crew together and says: "Okay, boys, this is what we're going to do -- we're gonna fill the screen with t-ts!  

[Rich Goodale]

Disagree strongly vis a vis courses.  Agree strongly vis a vis individual holes

If you cannot remember much about a course it is either a dud or highly overrated, as your have had ~ 4 hours to absorb the experience.  If you cannot remember much about a hole, this is natural, as you have only had 10-15 minutes to absorb the experience

[Patrick_Mucci]

Is memorable the enemy of subtle? What are examples of subtle features / holes that are both great and memorable?

Mark, Terry, Jim, et. al.,

To a great degree, isn't memorability a function of one's powers of observation coupled with their ability to recall ?

Isn't memorability also dependent upon the golfer's mental clarity at the time of his play ?
The golfer's ability to focus on the golf course and not be distracted by previous or current events ?

ie.  If you just had a fight with your wife, or if you just received a dubious traffic ticket on your way to the course, wouldn't you be distracted, unable to narrow your focus solely on the golf course, to the exclusion of everything else ?

A few years ago I was staying at the Desert Inn in Las Vegas.
I intended to play golf and went down to the pro shop to get a starting time for the next day.
I was told that there were no morning times because the hotel/casino had a tournament for their high rollers.
But, that there was an afternoon shotgun for the hotel guests.
I then asked if I could use the practice range in the morning and was told, "yes"

So, the next morning, or mid-morning, I went to the practice range and was hitting balls when I heard a commotion next to me.
A "caddy" had dropped the bag of a young woman who was coming to the range to hit balls.
She started hitting balls next to me and shanked a chip that almost hit me.
So, I turned to her and asked, "Was that another assasination attempt".  She laughed, apologized and began a conversation.
She was an All-American Volley Ball player at UCSD and had taken up golf and was going to try to make the LPGA tour.
She was about 6 feet tall, beautiful and statuesque.  An awesome figure.
She hit the ball very, very well, but, her short game was suspect.
I asked her if she was going to be playing in the afternoon shotgun.
She indicated that she was.

Shortly after, I finished my practice routine and carried my clubs back to the pro shop where I inquired as to who the starter, or person in charge of arranging the foursomes was.  When I found him, I asked him if I could have a word with him outside.
We went outside and I directed him to cast his vision upon the practice range, several hundred yards away.

I said, "Do you see those ?"  He said, "How could you miss them ?"  I said, "Well, I want those in my foursome."
And so it came to be.

I believe that I have very keen powers of observation, but, from that day, to this day, I couldn't tell you anything about that golf course.
My attention was fixated elsewhere.
I have some vague memories of the golf course, but, not much, because my focus was diverted.  I was distracted.

Originally, I told my wife that I was only going to play 9 holes.
After 9, I went to the pool and told her that I was playing pretty well and that I was going to play another 9.

As I was walking up # 18, who should be waiting for me behind the 18th green, but my wife.
I wouldn't say that she wasn't happy to see me, but, joy was not one of the emotions that immediately comes to mind.

Her first words ?  "You know you really are a dog, now I know why you wanted to play another 9"
What remains a secret till this day, is that I arranged the foursome.

Now, let me add, I have absolutely NO recollection of whom else was in our foursome.
I don't recall a single thing about them.

I don't recall any intricate details of the golf course.

So, was the course "memorable" ?

I don't have a clue.

But, I could tell you her life's story and then some, because I was preoccupied and solely focused on this extraordinary golfer.

So, when asking, is a memorability a factor or critical factor, so much depends upon the golfer's ability to focus on the course to the exclusion of everything else.

A course might not be memorable to a golfer one day and incredibly memorable the next, depending on his disposition and focus.

[John Kirk]

Do you remember her name?

[Tom_Doak]

I personally have never liked "memorability" as a criterion for ranking courses, because some holes are memorable for being awful -- Stone Harbor was one great example from my past. 

Meanwhile, there are excellent holes that sneak up on you because there is a feature first-timers will never notice.

I think "memorability" has been confused with "interesting".  An interesting hole is always a good one ... a memorable hole, not necessarily.

[Thomas Dai]

Memorability kinda implies 'signature hole'. Not something I'm keen on, although perhaps difficult to avoid.
atb

[Sean_A]

Memorability has no inherent connection to quality.  A hole could just as easily be terrible (ie Painswick's 1st) yet very memorable.  Or a hole could be great and very memorable.  There is a lot of ground in the middle which takes far greater powers of observation and memory to fully appreciate.  I think this thread is in a roundabout way talking about subtle features and their value simply because many will not remember the features until encountered several times.  Hence the reason that everybody's home course is "under-rated".  The issue then lies as how to view courses which are in the main quite subtle or seemingly subtle.  I don't think its a stretch to say subtle courses will struggle against the eye candy courses which have substance.  On the other hand, subtle is a very important element in architecture.  Everything can't be a visual feast because it will soon not be appreciated, seen as forced, seen as extreme etc.  

Ciao

[Mark Bourgeois]

If the memorable is not always great -- and it is not, correct? -- then using memorability to judge a hole / course produces a judgment of...memorability. Not greatness. Therefore it is a poor criterion.

Two points in support:
1) Terry's point about naming. Would TOC be even less memorable to the first-timer if so much out there didn't have names attached?
2) Sean's point Hence the reason that everybody's home course is "under-rated".

[Patrick_Mucci]

I personally have never liked "memorability" as a criterion for ranking courses, because some holes are memorable for being awful -- Stone Harbor was one great example from my past. 

Meanwhile, there are excellent holes that sneak up on you because there is a feature first-timers will never notice.

I think "memorability" has been confused with "interesting".  An interesting hole is always a good one ... a memorable hole, not necessarily

Tom,

I understand what you're saying but believe that the "context" of memorability had a positive connotation, not a negative one.

In the rating categories there are often descriptions detailing or expanding on what the category entails.

As someone stated, if the hole wasn't "memorable" how could it possibly be good.

We rarely forget good to great holes and are more likely to forget mundane, uninspiring holes.

Sean & Thomas,

No kissing up to Tom Doak.

Each rating category is defined and isn't just a word open to individual interpretation, especially when trying to suck up to renowned architects  .

[Paul Gray]

Andy has hit on a working definition of memorable: not tied to your own personal powers of memory. Rather, containing features / elements / whatnot that the individual considers "memorable." Depending on his abilities of recall, he might not even remember the "memorable."

Can anyone name a hole (or course) he considers great that he does not believe to be memorable? Or a hole considered by many as "great" that he does not find memorable? Or a hole he now considers great after multiple plays that at first he did not find memorable?

Mark,

Whilst I broadly agree with you, what about the courses you remember for all the wrong reasons?

[BCrosby]

If the memorable is not always great -- and it is not, correct? -- then using memorability to judge a hole / course produces a judgment of...memorability. Not greatness. Therefore it is a poor criterion.

Agreed. As my long ago Phil. 101 professor would have said, 'memorability' is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for the greatness of a hole.

Your topic skates along the edge of another interesting question -  how important is aesthetic appeal (a/k/a 'naturalism') to the architectural quality of a hole?  My old prof's answer above also answers that question.  

Bob  

[Tom_Doak]

We rarely forget good to great holes and are more likely to forget mundane, uninspiring holes.

Patrick:

I'll accept that YOU rarely forget good holes, but I will not accept that the average golfer or the average rater is equally blessed.

We all know that on the best courses, it takes two or three visits to really soak them all in.  The first time you go to Crystal Downs, you'll remember the wonderful 1st tee shot, the ruggedness of 5-6-7-8, the severity of the 9th and 11th greens, and the wildness of the 17th hole [good or bad].  The second time, you'll realize how much more severe the greens are than you remembered, and you'll start to notice some of the other holes.  But it is the third or fourth time before you realize that the most "mundane" holes on the course [#2 and #15] are NOT mundane at all, and in fact would be the best hole on many other courses.  I think you are fooling yourself if you would call those holes "memorable" in the way most people think of it, but they are very important to the overall quality of the course.

"Memorable" is what you remember, but that particular criterion is why so many golf holes today are overdesigned ... because another pretty bunker will make the hole more memorable, even if it doesn't make it better [and might make it worse].

[Jason Topp]

I agree it is a bad criteria after 1 play. It probably is a good criteria after five plays, particularly in multiple visits with varied weather. 

Pinehurst No 2 is the test case for this issue. Other than 4-5, i find it difficult to remember the holes, mainly because they are so flat tee to green. I think I would need to play the course five times to reasonably judge its quality.

Some of my favorite holes have appeared plain the first time around.

[Josh Tarble]

Disagree strongly vis a vis courses.  Agree strongly vis a vis individual holes

If you cannot remember much about a course it is either a dud or highly overrated, as your have had ~ 4 hours to absorb the experience.  If you cannot remember much about a hole, this is natural, as you have only had 10-15 minutes to absorb the experience

I like this comment from Rich.  I am firmly in the camp that a course must be memorable to be great.  Perhaps not in the traditional sense of remembering every single detail, but you continually think back to the experience, the flow and feel of the course, decisions you would love to do over or relish shots you faced.  If a course doesn't make you reminisce, why go back?