When it comes to the very best, how much does "Uniqueness" count?

[Peter Pallotta]

I was thinking of two "10"s - Crystal Downs and NGLA. The first I've played, the second I've only read about. CD is a truly wonderful course; I didn't need to have played many good/great courses (and I haven't) to recognize it as special right away -- containing as it does my favourite hole anywhere (and to this day the only Par 5 I've ever loved), an outstanding collection and variety of Par 4s, excellent and to me very under-appreciated Par 3s, great greens and green complexes, a beautiful setting, offering both challenge and fun, and a charming and easy flow/routing. Let's call it a "10". Yes - but, when I think of the overall aesthetic and the topography and my visual impressions/memories and the various shots I was asked to play, I can't honestly say that there was much there at CD that I'd "never seen before" or, perhaps better put, that I couldn't "extrapolate" from what I had seen before. It's a "10", but is "uniqueness" one of its dominant qualities? I can't say that it is.

On the other hand, from the many photos and descriptions I've seen and read about NGLA, I would say that "uniqueness" is indeed one of its dominant qualities. Playability wise, I have to take it on the word of others that it is as much a "10" as CD, with an outstanding collections and variety of holes and great greens and offering both challenge and fun and an charming and easy flow. But from what I can see in photos, the overall aesthetic and visual impression and topography -- well, not only have I never seen anything like it before, but I can't even extrapolate from what I have seen. NGLA seems to be truly one of a kind - unique in other words.

So - for you who have played many great courses (they don't all have to be "10s"), how much does "uniqueness" count for you? Does it count enough to make one of your "10s" an "11"?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Peter      

[Tom_Doak]

Uniqueness is one of the things I value most in golf courses.  I fully recognize it won't matter to a lot of people, because they don't travel enough to make the comparisons; but when you have traveled as much as I have, finding something really different is worth its weight in gold.

Peter, you didn't play Crystal Downs with me, but I always mention to guests when we get to #5 tee that the stretch of holes from 5 to 9 are all unlike any other holes I've seen.

By contrast, National was inspired by golf holes in other places, and of course it became the template for many imitations.  Yet to me it feels different than all those others, and much more securely tied to the land it resides on.

[John Kirk]

I've been looking for the right thread to share the following quote.  A recent thread wasn't quite right; this one is perfect.  Once again, I'll mix music and golf stuff.

The most famous record collector in music history is probably Harry Smith.  Over the course of twenty-odd years in early adulthood, Smith acquired a massive collection of 78 RPM records, most of them country, folk and blues music from the twenties and thirties.  In the early fifties, Smith moved to New York City.  He needed money, so he offered to sell his collection to Moses Asch, the owner of Folkways Records, a label that specialized in documenting indigenous folk music.  Asch asked Smith if he'd like to create a compilation album from the records he had collected.  Smith's six album compilation, called The Anthology of American Folk Music, is among the most influential American music documents, and a primary inspiration for artists such as Bob Dylan and the Grateful Dead.  It is also a major factor in the folk music renaissance of the fifties and sixties.

Last week, while reading the liner notes for a fourth volume of the Anthology of Folk Music, unreleased during Smith's lifetime (he died in 1991), author John Cohen writes:

"I once asked Harry about his selection of Bascom Lunsford and Buell Kazee on the Anthology.  In a way, they were neither popular singers nor directly from the music traditions - Lunsford being a lawyer and Kazee a minister with a trained voice.  Harry said he chose them for their individual aspects.  From that I could see he might be more interested in individual eccentricities than a notion of "authenticity".

I hope that makes sense to you, and seems relevant.

[Sean_A]

Pietro

Uniqueness (and originality!) count quite a bit for me.  I couldn't say in numbers, but when a hole like Liphook's 9th pops up among a ton of heathland courses which have so many holes which are essentially the same, I take notice.  Is it enough for me to call Liphook great, no, but that is of little importance.  But if I talk about North Berwick, without a question it is the many unique holes and features which make it a great course.  I think part of the key for NB is the awesome variety of unique features and their use.  Generally speaking though, it is usually the case where uniqueness/originality is not enough to call courses great.  It seems to me that most of the great courses are made up of a steady diet of "very good and interesting" holes with perhaps the odd bit of quirk.    

It also occurs to me that uniqueness in the main relies upon existing features and the terrain.  Its very difficult for an archie to build in a unique feature not only because just about everything under the sun already exists, but also because built in unique features tend to be polarizing.  To be honest, its even difficult for archies today to use the cool features in an aggressive manner because many see these as polarizing.  Tobacco Road is a classic example of these two points.  Its the outlandish design which gets TR noticed, but also holds it back from a place on the podium.    

Ciao

[Scott Warren]

I think the sheer quality of what we see at the very top end is quite compressed, for those who are lucky enough to see many great courses. That and even those who try very hard to perhaps cannot perceive the very subtle things that make the best the best (I count myself among these ranks) [or maybe no one can and some of us bluster better than others...]

In any case, I think uniqueness is what makes a course or place memorable and elevates it in my memory. Maybe that is separate to the architecture, or maybe it is a sum of many parts including the architecture. But I have concluded that it is what makes my absolute favourites what they are.

For me, the best examples of this are Dornoch, NGLA, Friar's Head, Pasatiempo, Deal, Morfontaine, Rye, Royal Melbourne (West), Prairie Dunes and Yale.

All offer something you will not see anywhere else and that lingers in the memory and stirs the soul. They may not be the scientific "best 10" I have played, but they are undoubtedly my favourite 10.

Uniqueness is everything.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, gents - you each approached this from a different angle. Tom's suggestion that uniqueness isn't based primarily on how 'original' any given golf hole is, but on how it is situated on/blended into the site itself; John's subtle and interesting distinction between uniqueness/originality and "authenticity"; the importance of an uncreated/unforced uniqueness from Sean, and the neat point that the fact Lipkook isn't officially "great" being of little importance; and Scott's examples, which suggests how uniqueness is tied to the subjective more than to objective/scientific qualities. 

Peter

[jim_lewis]

In my opinion uniqueness is overrated, but in the modern world it seems to carry a lot of weight.  If it were possible to build an exact replica of Sand Hills, I think they would both be 10's. Same can be said for all of the other great courses. Sure, I enjoy discovering a course that has features that I have not seen before, but that does not make them excellent courses, exceptional maybe.

Seth Raynor designed many excellent and some near-great courses that have lots of similarities. Their similarities do not diminish their individual qualities, at least not in my opinion.

[Mac Plumart]

For me, uniqueness is vital if I'm traveling to play golf.  If I can get something, or a close replica, close to home, I'm not going to make the trip.  However, if a venue offers something truly unique and excellent...I'll make long treks to partake in the experience.

Some unique golfing venues and experiences that I'll travel for (remember, as a point of reference, I live in Atlanta, GA)...

-golf in the Nebraska sand hills
-GB&I Links golf
-Long Island golf
-and, of course, almost anywhere that good friends will be.

[Sean_A]

Seth Raynor designed many excellent and some near-great courses that have lots of similarities. Their similarities do not diminish their individual qualities, at least not in my opinion.

Jim

For me anyway, I don't feel the "need" to see many Raynor courses like I do Dr Mac courses simply because I am not convinced I will be getting something fresh for any given site.  There are expectations to be met with Raynor which isn't the case for Dr Mac.  That isn't to say that the Raynor  courses individually aren't outstanding, but that the implied promise of "outstanding" (whether accurate or not) is not enough for me to undertake serious travel. 

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Lewis,

Do you equate "uniqueness"with "quirk" ?

If so is"quirk" overrated ?

Peter,

I didn't interpret Tom's comment as you did.

How is fitting a golf hole to the land it sits on, "unique" ?

[jim_lewis]

For starters, let me say that I think the word "unique" is perhaps the most misused word in the English language. If you mean "unusual" or "different", just say so. Unique literally means one of a kind. Truly unique features are very rare in golf course architecture, but then I suppose all courses are unique, sort of like my finger prints are unique. There are not degrees of uniqueness anymore than there are degrees of pregnant.

Now to my next rant. It seems to me that there is too much fascination with new and different and not enough appreciation for "tried and true". That applies to much more than golf courses, restaurants, for example. Give me an established and proven steak house over a new fad with the latest creation from California everyday. Don't get me wrong, I am often excited when I encounter a course, a hole, or a feature that is unlike anything I have seen, or rarely seen, before. But, I also appreciate what I call "pure golf". Some holes are just worth repeating, and I admire an architect who can, and will, repeat a great feature. In the case of Raynor/Macdonald I expect to find several often repeated holes. What I find fascinating is how they manage to repeat the hole on different sites. It's sort of like my reading of history. I have probably read at least 10 histories of the Battle of Gettysburg written by as many historians. Of course, I know how the battle will come out, but it is interesting to see how different historians treat the same event. I am not looking for someone to come up with a "unique" outcome. OK, actually I keep hoping!

Pat, I don't really know what "quirk" means exactly. I suppose Astoria qualifies as quirky, probably even unique. Some quirk, like Astoria, are pretty cool. Others, like trees in the middle of fairways, or even greens, are just ridiculous.

[Peter Pallotta]

Pat - I took it this way: it's the land that is unique, and so an architect who can create a series of quality golf holes (playability wise) via that particular land/site just might end up with a uniquely excellent course --which is how NGLA strikes me.

Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

Just as "quirk" may be difficult to define, so may the term "unique"

As you state, if the land/terrain is unique and the architect merely places the holes on the land, how creative has the architect been ?

Very
Moderately
Not at all.

Tehama sits on unique land.
But, is it suitable for golf ?
Are the holes placed on that unique land a tribute to the creativity of the architect ?

Or, are dead flat sites like Pine Tree and Boca Rio a great example of architectural creativity ?

Or, more than anything else, are courses like Bayonne and Shadow Creek the epitome of architectural creativity with the land presented to the architect .........uninspiring ?  ?  ?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Peter,

I thought a lot about this a while back. I came to the conclusion that not all unique courses are great but all great courses are unique. By logic and definition, this will limit the number of "great" courses to a reasonable number. It revalues the term (a good thing). Considering uniqueness as a quality of greatness led me to understand why ordinal rankings of golf courses tend to misrepresent not only this quality of greatness but of the cardinal numbers such rankings attach to courses. Look at those and you'll see a handful of courses separate themselves from the pack.

Every sui generis course is not great but every great course is sui generis.

Each great course brings a unique and special value to the global collection of course arch, so that if one were wiped permanently from the planet never to be replaced nor rebuilt, the total value of golf course architecture would be diminished.

These values should be expressed not in ordinal rankings but quantitatively.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks much, MB -- very well said/done.

A question though: have you played both NGLA and Crystal Downs? If so, what do you think?

I'm sort of waiting to see if anyone who has played both will actually say, 'yeah, both are great, but only one is truly one of a kind". (I don't mean to focus on those two courses, but on those two kinds/species of great courses).

Peter

[paul cowley]

Unique/quirk are all the same...you know it when you play it.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Peter,

Let me ponder your post but something else I wanted / forgot to add: in considering uniqueness I think you have to allow for imitations, especially for great old courses. So while I think uniqueness in the current world counts, if the course is great it should inspire various forms and degrees of imitation.

At the same time, the courses I consider great remain unique in important ways — astounding when you think an old great course still can be unique when it has been exposed to so many designers over the decades.

Yes?

[paul cowley]

...maybe.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Paul, if I had a time machine I could show you for sure! Anyway, great to see you posting again...and making unique comments. Maybe. 

[Peter Pallotta]

He's like the Oracle at Delphi - he says just enough to prove that he knows, but not enough to actually help anyone else....
 

Yes, very good to see you back Mr C!!

Peter

[paul cowley]

thx y'all 

[Mark Bourgeois]

Thanks much, MB -- very well said/done.

A question though: have you played both NGLA and Crystal Downs? If so, what do you think?

I'm sort of waiting to see if anyone who has played both will actually say, 'yeah, both are great, but only one is truly one of a kind". (I don't mean to focus on those two courses, but on those two kinds/species of great courses).

Peter

Peter

I have not played both but, as with TOC, NGLA surprised me. That a course could be so famous for so long, with holes copied from elsewhere and then copied somewhere else yet surprise me — that very element of surprise was surprising in and of itself. I think such surprise is our innate reaction to sui generis greatness.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I think uniqueness is what can take a course up another level on anybody's "rating' scale.
It can show the difference between an architect and an artist, the difference between a golf course and piece of art.
Often the site itself will obviosly contribute to the uniqueness, but sometimes it s just he artistry of the designer, someone willing to look otside the box to create something unique perhaps with quirk but not stupidity.
I think we have all played courses that are unique to the extreme and it simply doesnt work, whilst others like Crystal Downs it works beautifully.

[Steve Salmen]

PP,

After only 1 play at NGLA, I did observe some uniqueness.  The approach and putting green at #1.  The approach to #2 and #3.  The approach and green at #7, the Road Hole.  I found there to be very little green (width wise) between the Road Bunker and the bunker to the right of the green, thought it is fairly deep.  Finally, the size of the false front of the 15th green was unique but I did not care for it because it covers a large portion of the green.

I hold North Berwick in high regard partly because of the uniqueness.  I'm not sure how architecturally great #13 is but it is one of my favorite holes in the world because of the green site protected by the wall.  The pro's advice in the yardage book reads, "Do not argue with the wall.  It is older than you." Holes 15 and 16 at North Berwick used to be unique until they became templates.

[Mac Plumart]

You see, this is interesting...I like uniqueness too...but some hate it.  Some golfers have a standardized idea of what a golf course should be and if a course doesn't fit into their preconceived notion of a "proper" golf course, they think it is gimmicky and/or tricked up.  I've noticed over the years that "unique" courses that result in odd bounces, difficult putts, and the like can be viewed as goofy golf by some subsets of golfers.

To me, this is what is so interesting about golf courses and golfers.  Each have their supporters and detractors and, therefore, the idea of ranking golf courses becomes interesting and, at times, heated.