Has focus on memorability trumped subtle nuances on GCA

[jeffwarne]

Ron,
That top photo is great.

My wife always wonders why I take what she calls the "carsick route"
-hard to pass up a drive by Shinny, and through NGLA, and Sebonack entrance

every time I pass that green I wonder why modern architects can't simply build something like that and lose the rest of the crap that is so prevalent on golf courses of the last 30 years
(and that green would be incredibly cool without the pot bunker or rear/road bunker-at a variety of distances and pars)

[jeffwarne]

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.

Paul,
Apology accepted as well as the next
The thread title is "Has focus on memorability trumped subtle nuances on GCA"
There was no reference to the average golfer, only "here on GCA"
On GCA, I will ask again, why would you (in particular Paul as a GCA member) not remember subtle?
I've even brought up a very subtle example of a template hole in which the original (17 TOC) was not subtle at all.

Sean did bring up a very obvious point that you have to NOTICE subtle first, which may take more than a few plays.
However, the subtlety has to be at least fun/compelling enough to warrant that extra play. or the subtle holes may only be noticed by future plays inspired by the more memorable holes.

I have a headache now

[Ronald Montesano]

Here is one more image that illustrates Jeff Warne's point. This is from the rear of the second right side green bunker.

[Paul Gray]

Jeff,

OK, second apology issued.  

I read GCA to mean architecture as a whole, rather than as a specific reference to GCA.com

But to get all Occamsian, each and every good course I've ever played only reveals itself after multiples plays, ergo subtlety is not necessarily memory until yo've had sufficient exposure to a course. Then again, you might just be more astute than me.   and after well meaning emoticons.

[jeffwarne]

But to get all Occamsian, each and every good course I've ever played only reveals itself after multiples plays, ergo subtlety is not necessarily memory until yo've had sufficient exposure to a course. Then again, you might just be more astute than me.   and after well meaning emoticons.

Failed the astute test- "Occamsian" ? sounds like those snakes we avoid in creeks in Georgia.

If every "good course" you've played only revealed itself after multiple plays, why the second play?
Seems you'd have to replay a lot of mediocre/shitty courses to test that theory

No doubt a course can get better after each play, and more and more subtle features revealed upon repeat plays, but a subtle course has to be charming and/or memorable enough to warrant repeat play.
Generally, a course that I discover to have more and more subtle features receives my repeat play because it was at least fun the first and "noticeably subtle(an oxymoron?) in spots" to warrant the second time , and becomes more increasingly complex as I play it and further uncover its charms.
Palmetto being the prime example vs. it's less subtle and more flashy neighbor Sage Valley.

To take this the other way, often the "memorable features"water, native grass, railroad ties , deserts, contribute to the unplayability thus encouraging a one and done mentality

[Paul Gray]

Jeff,

You're right and I'm right. We said the same thing and completely different things. I have no idea how that works. 

As for 'Occamsian' you're either taking the p!ss, which is fine, or you have no idea what I meant, which is equally fine because I almost certainly made the term up. Just in case you actually need me to provide this:

Occum's Razor:

Ockham's razor (also spelled Occam's razor, pronounced AHK-uhmz RAY-zuhr) is the idea that, in trying to understand something, getting unnecessary information out of the way is the fastest way to the truth or to the best explanation. William of Ockham (1285-1349), English theologian and philosopher, spent his life developing a philosophy that reconciled religious belief with demonstratable, generally experienced truth, mainly by separating the two. Where earlier philosophers attempted to justify God's existence with rational proof, Ockham declared religious belief to be incapable of such proof and a matter of faith. He rejected the notions preserved from Classical times of the independent existence of qualities such as truth, hardness, and durability and said these ideas had value only as descriptions of particular objects and were really characteristics of human cognition.

Ockham was noted for his insistence on paying close attention to language as a tool for thinking and on observation as a tool for testing reality. His thinking and writing is considered to have laid the groundwork for modern scientific inquiry.

[Sean_A]

Sean did bring up a very obvious point that you have to NOTICE subtle first, which may take more than a few plays.
However, the subtlety has to be at least fun/compelling enough to warrant that extra play. Wink or the subtle holes may only be noticed by future plays inspired by the more memorable holes.

Jeff

Usually the subtle stuff comes with the more dramatic stuff.  A lot of courses mix the two and in some cases the flatter stuff is just as compelling...Hoylake and Burnham come to mind for this....though I am very much in the minority with that opinion.  I agree though, its tough to come across a fairly flat course without flash and then want to return.  The good exmples of flatish courses I like either have a cool hole or two to break up the flat or other cool features.  The courses which come to mind for this are Little Aston, Huntercombe, Sacred 9 & New Zealand.  All have something special going on.  All that said, to be honest, I don't come across many dull affair flat courses because I pick and choose where to play rather than throwing darts at a map. But I think the larger point of the thread was folks focus on high dunes and bling factor rather than the architecture at hand...I don't think there is any doubt of this.

Ciao   

[jeffwarne]

Sean,
I'll ask again.

Amongst GCAers
Why would subtle not be memorable?

I can remember every hole and every shot I took on my 2 trips around the Sacred nine, and there were no high dunes and no eye bling
(at least not in March)

Although I have to say the word memorable may not be the best opposition to subtle.(as stated in thread title)
To me, a clever subtlety (once discovered) is extremely memorable

[Sean_A]

Jeff

GCAers are golfers and golfers like bling.  Most golfers walk away with maybe a handful of memories that last more than a year or so if that.  You tell me, will be bling or subtlety they tend to remember?  Again, I use the homer case.  Once golfers know a course quite well they learn to respect and admire subtlety and that helps explain why so many homers rate their courses higher than fly by nighters do.  Subtlety usually requires experience and in some cases, the archie doesn't have that luxury if he wants to make a splash.  Why do clubs spend money redoing bunkers when it doesn't alter how a course plays?  Bling matters.

Ciao 

[Cristian]

If I see things on a course which I have not seen often already I tend to remember; If the individual holes on a course are not very similar to each other and ask different questions, I tend to remember them. These two aspects make a course memorable to me and I think it should be a very important criterion in judging a golf course. It has nothing to do with Eye candy in my view; Many of us have played golf on resort courses on some of the most beautiful places in the world, overloaded with eye candy, yet it does not make us remember the holes if the course architecture is repetitive and or dull.

[Ally Mcintosh]

If the individual holes on a course are not very similar to each other and ask different questions, I tend to remember them.

I think this is an important point.... But there's no question in my mind that flat holes have to work harder than undulating holes to provide that distinction, even when it's quite clearly there... and they have to work even harder again on an out and back routing, possibly why Nairn and Troon suffer... Maybe that in turn shows the class of the Deal holes... and obviously TOC holes?

EDIT - I thought we were on the "flat holes vs memorability" thread... Still, relevant here I guess.

[Ronald Montesano]

Regarding what is memorable or not, it's important to not project ourselves onto other golfers. I suspect that Jeff has an uncanny eye for nuance and is fortunate to have a brain the records it well, and offers unfettered access to what he saw and recorded.

I believe that the reason I photograph courses is that I am the opposite of Jeff, at least in the recording gene. I don't recall very much about a course in a way that would recognize subtlety or nuance, until I am face to face with my photos.

I would place Sean between Jeff and me. I suspect that Sean records a fair amount in his mind, but also likes to snap a few images to ensure his recollection.

I could be off on my assessments, but that's not the important point. What matters is this: we all appreciate subtlety and nuance in golf course architecture. How we assess it, connect with it and recall it are what varies among us.

[BCowan]

''Why do clubs spend money redoing bunkers when it doesn't alter how a course plays?''

I don't agree with thisl.  Clubs tend to change sand in bunkers and totally alters play.  They also at times tend to make them more penal in an effort to restore them to original depths.  If bunkers are eye candy, i have a sweet tooth.  The other end of the spectrum is dumbing them down to the point they aren't a hazard.  Some say that if you are against that, you are against having fun. 

[astavrides]

.

[Sean_A]

I would place Sean between Jeff and me. I suspect that Sean records a fair amount in his mind, but also likes to snap a few images to ensure his recollection.

I actually started snapping photos to help me remember courses in their entirety...a sort of way to remember the flow of courses.  I am pretty good with remembering individual features and green sites.  Bunkers are odd for me.  I tend to only really focus on the best placed ones or those those that come in bunches...so all I really take away is a flavour of the bunkering rather than a pure memory of each pit.  This leaves just an impression of generally how many are on a course and their general placement style.  I guess its the same with trees for me.  I think this approach has come from my general belief that practically all courses are over-bunkered and over-treed...so try to pay attention to the other stuff. 

Ciao