[BCowan]

It just seems that memorability has been used more from time to time on GCA.  As if courses are judged on how dramatic the land is.  The more dramatic the land is the more likely someone is going to remember each hole.  I tend to like subtle nuances over eye candy.  thoughts...

[Philip Hensley]

Would you consider MP a course that fits that fits in the nuance mold? There aren't any dramatic vistas on the course. But for instance, the 4th hole, which is set next to the old guest condos and the driving range net, is one of my new favorite two shotters. So much strategy and nuance to the hole that the typical golfer probably doesn't even notice because off its setting.

[Paul Gray]

Yes. Next question.  

Great minds.....

I was thinking just that about an hour ago.

[Andy Troeger]

Yes, but this is hardly a new thing. I would argue that memorability has long been a consideration in GCA. Most great courses have subtle nuances too, but most of them have subtle features that balance with dramatic ones. One can have both in this case, and the best usually do.

[BHoover]

I think there is plenty of room for both memorable golf courses and subtle golf courses, both of which are worthwhile. But even the subtle nuances I have enjoyed have been memorable. So is not every type of golf memorable?

[Mark Bourgeois]

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=1df72fe8ea76c5b41330d851e65db09e&topic=58967.0

[Peter Pallotta]

I enjoy quoting a non-golfer, Ricky Roma, on occasion. As follows:

"The great fu--s that you may have
had.  What do you remember about
them? For me, I'm saying, it's probably
not the orgasm.  Some broads'  forearms on
your neck, something her eyes did.
There was a sound she made...or,
me, lying, I'm telling you, I'm lying in
the bed: the next day she brought me café
au lait.  She gives me a cigarette, my ba--s feel like
concrete.  Eh?  What I'm saying, what is our life?
It's looking forward or it's looking back, that's it. That's
our life."

My point: what's memorable? And if it really is memorable for you, would you want subtle instead?

[Matthew Mollica]

It just seems that memorability has been used more from time to time on GCA.  As if courses are judged on how dramatic the land is.  The more dramatic the land is the more likely someone is going to remember each hole.  I tend to like subtle nuances over eye candy.  thoughts...

Good question Ben.

I have a friend who would no doubt concur. He is of the firm belief that the advent of the digital camera has been to the detriment of golf course design. He makes some good points, regarding  design focus on visuals, impact and memorability at the expense of sound design, and subtle features which don't translate so well on-screen.

MM

[jeffwarne]

Why would one not remember subtle?

[John Kavanaugh]

Why would one not remember subtle?

Because they aren't as smart as someone dumb enough to start another "I'm smarter than you" thread on this site.

[BCowan]

Why would one not remember subtle?

Because they aren't as smart as someone dumb enough to start another "I'm smarter than you" thread on this site.

Coming from a guy who has 3 or more threads started about greens fans. , Jaka forgot there was a search button.  Coming from a guy who hates golfer and starts a thread with ''you guys are stupid''.  The irony of being Jkava. 

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,24106.0.html

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,29289.0.html

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,30699.0.html

"I hate Golfers''
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,398.0.html
''You guys are stupid...#2 Typical Fazio''
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,6377.0.html

[Kevin Lynch]

I think there's a little bit of a false dichotomy going on here.  The opposite of subtlety isn't eye candy.  Perhaps I'm misreading Ben's point, but "eye candy" has always struck me as a negative term, as in a dramatic feature that has no strategic playing value (e.g. a waterfall, framing containment mounds, etc).  None of those things would make hole "memorable" to me (at least not in a good sense).  Or does Ben believe those that value "memorability" are only interested in visuals (regardless of the play)?

I'll confess that I'm probably one of the "elevation whores" that Ben referred to in the "flat sites" thread.

However, I reject the notion that dramatic land is exclusive of subtlety.  Oftentimes, the dramatic features of the land can obscure some of the subtleties of the individual holes.  For example, on Pat Mucci's "Putting Golfers on the defensive" thread, we discussed how the large scale of overall terrain is used to hide the subtle uneven lies in the (relatively flat looking) fairway.

I guess I don't understand why some believe strategic angles, well-contoured greens or other subtle nuances are any more likely to be applied to flatter land than to bolder topography.

I tend to find holes with bolder topography to be more memorable, but it's not because I don't like subtlety.  Topography adds layers of complexity to a hole, whether it be adjusting for the impact of elevation change, the effect of uneven lies, the higher likelihood of visual confusion / uncertainty, and all of this is in addition to simple photogenics.

When you ask if memorability "trumps" subtle nuance, it reads as if they're mutually exclusive.  To the contrary, if there is a cool subtle feature, it's more likely I'll remember the hole.  But if there's a cool subtle feature combined with a neat landform, I'll probably remember it more.

Am I misreading this?

[JESII]

OK BC...share with us a subtle nuance you prefer to dramatic land.

[John Kirk]

Why would one not remember subtle?

This was my first thought as well.  For me, memorable things about courses can be either subtle or dramatic.  What constitutes memorable probably varies from one person to the next.

Nice post, Peter.  I liked that one.  However, at least once it was the O.

[jeffwarne]

OK BC...share with us a subtle nuance you prefer to dramatic land.

The green on #7 at NGLA (the land on that hole/greensite is very ordinary)
Almost wreck the car staring every time I drive the road through the course-amazed I never notice the green running way that much when I play it
Of course the road hole bunker guarding the middle of the green isn't so subtle so perhaps a less than perfect example

Much prefer that hole to many on more dramatic land

[John Kirk]

The little crown short of the 13th green at Dismal River (Red) is a memorable feature, no more than 18-24" high, but important on a very dramatic hole which often requires a mid-to-long iron approach shot.

[BCowan]

Kevin,

   Great post.  I did not mean to imply the opposite of subtle is eye candy.  ''does Ben believe those that value "memorability" are only interested in visuals (regardless of the play)?'' YES for the most part, well said.  I'd say most to all like or love elevation, ''elevation whore'' was directed at people who disregard or overlook flatter sights.  

''However, I reject the notion that dramatic land is exclusive of subtlety.  Oftentimes, the dramatic features of the land can obscure some of the subtleties of the individual holes.  For example, on Pat Mucci's "Putting Golfers on the defensive" thread, we discussed how the large scale of overall terrain is used to hide the subtle uneven lies in the (relatively flat looking) fairway.''  Great points, i agree.

''I tend to find holes with bolder topography to be more memorable, but it's not because I don't like subtlety.  Topography adds layers of complexity to a hole, whether it be adjusting for the impact of elevation change, the effect of uneven lies, the higher likelihood of visual confusion / uncertainty, and all of this is in addition to simple photogenics.''  Great points.

''When you ask if memorability "trumps" subtle nuance, it reads as if they're mutually exclusive.  To the contrary, if there is a cool subtle feature, it's more likely I'll remember the hole.  But if there's a cool subtle feature combined with a neat landform, I'll probably remember it more.''  They aren't always mutually exclusive, no such things as absolutes.  For the most part I agree, and very well said!    

[Bill_McBride]

OK BC...share with us a subtle nuance you prefer to dramatic land.

The green on #8 at NGLA (the land on that hole/greensite is very ordinary)
Almost wreck the car staring every time I drive the road through the course-amazed I never notice the green running way that much when I play it

Much prefer that hole to many on more dramatic land

Interesting.  In my one 36 hole day I thought #8 was the coolest hole out there, with not exactly subtle features.  The green is dangerous and the fairway bunkering sucks you into destruction. 

[Kevin Lynch]

Ben,

Thanks - I understand your perspective a little better.  Like you said, absolute thinking can be a negative, and disregarding flat sites out of hand is unfortunate.

It's not that there can't be a great flat course, but it takes an extraordinary effort.  I'll always believe that sites with topography have an inherent built-in advantage over flatter sites, and one aspect of that advantage is memorability.  I've found it easier to recall a great flat hole, but a great flat course is much tougher.  Without the variability provided by topography, tee shots at flat courses tend to blend together (even if the individual holes are good).  Throw in the layers of complexity provided by elevation (from my earlier post), and I'm feeling a little whorish.

Sometimes I get the sense that flat site proponents feel the final product on the ground should be valued higher because of the limitations that needed to be overcome by the architect.  And while (hypothetically) I may recognize that Coore & Crenshaw may be more proud of their efforts needed at Talking Stick, it doesn't necessarily make TS better than Dormie.

[Charlie_Bell]

I might have phrased the question something along the lines of, Does drama trump subtlety in making a course memorable?   Or perhaps I'd be more specific and say "visual drama" and "strategic subtlety" or "architectural subtlety."

Regardless of how it's phrased, though, I agree with your premise:  boldness and visual drama tend to skew our impressions of the architectural merit of a course.  Three of the more distinctive holes at my favorite course, Cabot Links, are the muscular 2nd, the Cape-y 11th, and the dinky-but-devilsh 14th.  I remember them easily because of the settings:  overlooking the Gulf of St. Lawrence, bending around an inlet, and straight AT the St. Lawrence.  All are strong holes because of the choices raised by the layout and the wind.  They are excellent tests -- and fun.  But surely they are more memorable than identical holes would be on an inland course, even if you could somehow replicate the terrain, the hazards, and the wind. So I would say that, yes, the setting of a course seems to have a multiplier effect on my internal rating of the course.  

I think the bigger challenge in all this is that, almost by definition, you doesn't appreciate the nuances of a course until you've played it many times. Few of us have the opportunity to play GCA-worthy courses frequently; fewer still have the luxury of playing them repeatedly. My home course?  I can write a book about the brilliance of Raynor's 9-hole design, but even a charter-member GCA visitor would probably remember the views of the Berkshires and the Road-Hole pond long after he or she has forgotten the sweet contours of the 6th green or the long low ridges that never quite meet in the middle of the 2nd...

[Ally Mcintosh]

They are not mutually exclusive but in the modern day, even our best loved architects spend more time filling each hole with "features". This in an effort to improve aesthetics, sometimes strategy and mainly because they are so skilled that they just 'can'.

I think I might diverge from the pack here in saying I prefer playing courses with a consistent and repeatable 'whole' than ones with a few, obvious world class holes and a few question marks. I usually find that the class of the former types of courses trumps the immediate interest of the latter type over the long-term, making them overall the more enjoyable experience.

[Sean_A]

Why would one not remember subtle?

One first needs to notice subtle to remember it...I thought this was the point of the thread.  This is why many homers give higher marks...they know the subtleties that fly by nighters fail to notice.

I like both subtlety and dramatic mixed into a course, but its often the subtle stuff which floats my boat.

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

OK BC...share with us a subtle nuance you prefer to dramatic land.

The green on #8 at NGLA (the land on that hole/greensite is very ordinary)
Almost wreck the car staring every time I drive the road through the course-amazed I never notice the green running way that much when I play it

Much prefer that hole to many on more dramatic land

Interesting.  In my one 36 hole day I thought #8 was the coolest hole out there, with not exactly subtle features.  The green is dangerous and the fairway bunkering sucks you into destruction. 

Sorry Bill, meant #7 green-the road cuts across #8 tee shot
8's a cool hole but certainly isn't subtle

Clearly I drive by the hole more often than I play it

[Ronald Montesano]

Here is a look at that green, the #7 at NGLA. The first image juxtaposes the subtlety of #7 with the rapture of #8. The second is closer in on #7. Both are from the 2013 Walker Cup. The images I have of the rear of #7 green are from across the road. As a result, the berm interferes with the run-away to which Jeff Warne alerts.

[Paul Gray]

Why would one not remember subtle?

It pains me to in any way back JK but that question could only be asked in this little GCA prism. Why would the average golfer not remember subtle? Come on mate. Sorry Jeff.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()