Should you evaluate a course in light of its purpose?

[Jason Topp]

Last weekend I played three courses in Florida that serve very different purposes:

Doral Blue Monster - designed to wow resort guests and stage exciting professional events.
Naples National - hosts a top amateur invitational event but primarily exists for 18 handicap private club golfers
West Palm Beach GC - Designed for heavy low cost public play

We spend a lot of time trying to "rank" courses here but attempting such an exercise in these contexts is a bit silly.  As a symptom of the different contexts of each course, Doral charged $3 for a bottle of water, Naples National charged me nothing for a beer because they were not sure how to process a payment and West Palm Beach literally gave me a bucket of ice when I ordered two beers. 

More on point, the conditioning requirements for each course are vastly different.  Doral is in terrific condition but they have to keep the greens a bit slower than a private club so that customers can finish and grass can survive.  Naples National was pretty much in perfect condition, so much so that maintenance people were rolling the greens in the middle of the day.  West Palm Beach had great greens but efficiency and keeping the grass alive is clearly its biggest priority.

Trying to compare such courses strikes me a bit like trying to compare a lavish office building to a private estate to a department of motor vehicles office. 

Yet . . . I do not accept the notion that evaluating golf course architecture is simply a subjective exercise.  To do so renders any analysis meaningless and means that perceptions of quality can change as fashions change.  I don't think that is quite right.  I sense that there are qualities of great golf courses that outstrip individual preference and last beyond the latest fashion.  In the building context, great architecture from 500 years ago is still great architecture.  Great golf courses from 125 years ago are also still great golf courses.

I suspect the real analysis should focus on what a golf course should be.  For me, the heart of such an analysis are items 11 and 12 on Mackenzie's list of principles for an ideal course:

"11. The course should be so interesting that even the plus man is constantly stimulated to improve his game in attempting shots that he has hitherto been unable to play.

12. The course should be so arranged that the long handicap player, or even the absolute beginner, should be able to enjoy his round..."

Those criteria fall short however.  Pine Valley would be considered a disaster of a course under number 12.  Many other very highly regarded courses might be considered inadequate under criteria 11.  Merion had to be narrowed to a point of near silliness to be considered adequate to host a US Open.  I am not sure what would happen with other courses considered too short to test top professionals today.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Are there no absolutes in architecture ?
 
No benchmarks ?

[Jason Topp]

Are there no absolutes in architecture ?
 
No benchmarks ?

Patrick - I guess that is my question.

[K Rafkin]

Classic courses get away with being extremely difficult as well pretty much any other criticism. 




What I'm wondering really wondering is why are resort courses often amoung the most difficult and least playable.   

[Sean_A]

Jason


Yes, I do think one should evaluate courses for what they are, but this has its limits.  For instance, for me there are always three underlying elements which I always look for.


1. Courses should be playable for higher cappers...and I don't mean 18s...more like 28s.  Sure, there are always exceptions and no, this doesn't mean there can be no forced carries.  I use the term playable loosely and fully support the idea that all courses need a few holes which allow superior golfers to really take advantage of their skill. 


2. Courses should engage the golfer by making suggestions rather than demands.  Again, I am not suggesting that demanding certain shots here and there is a no go area.   


3. Balance and variety.  If an archie remembers this it is nearly impossible to go badly wrong. 


Ciao

[Phil McDade]

3. Balance and variety.  If an archie remembers this it is nearly impossible to go badly wrong. 


Ciao

Jason:


I think Sean's final point here is the most important one -- and it's what I look for when evaluating courses. I would also add the term "cohesive," which I guess is the middle ground between balance and variety. I like courses that "fit," from 1 through 18, in a logical way -- not just an assemblage of 18 holes, but ones that provide almost a narrative of what a course should look like and play.

[SL_Solow]

Jason;  I think part of the answer depends on the purpose of the evaluation.  A low budget course designed to introduce players to the game and provide basic golf at a reasonable fee might be perfect in achieving its goal.  it is unlikely that it will rival Cypress Point as an overall golf experience.  Similarly a very good fast food hamburger can be satisfying and provide a good value for the price  but for a meat lover, it will not match the best prime steak.  Both effectively achieve their respective goals but on a scale where one determines which is the "best", the steak or the great course is the winner.  That does not suggest that the architect or the chef did a less than stellar job, he or she just had different materials to work with and a different clientele to satisfy.

[Jason Topp]

3. Balance and variety.  If an archie remembers this it is nearly impossible to go badly wrong. 


Ciao

Jason:


I think Sean's final point here is the most important one -- and it's what I look for when evaluating courses. I would also add the term "cohesive," which I guess is the middle ground between balance and variety. I like courses that "fit," from 1 through 18, in a logical way -- not just an assemblage of 18 holes, but ones that provide almost a narrative of what a course should look like and play.

Phil - I am not sure what this means.  Can you provide any good and bad examples of cohesive courses?

[jeffwarne]

Jason;  I think part of the answer depends on the purpose of the evaluation.  A low budget course designed to introduce players to the game and provide basic golf at a reasonable fee might be perfect in achieving its goal.  it is unlikely that it will rival Cypress Point as an overall golf experience.  Similarly a very good fast food hamburger can be satisfying and provide a good value for the price  but for a meat lover, it will not match the best prime steak.  Both effectively achieve their respective goals but on a scale where one determines which is the "best", the steak or the great course is the winner.  That does not suggest that the architect or the chef did a less than stellar job, he or she just had different materials to work with and a different clientele to satisfy.

I prefer the diverse tastes of a great taco to a great aged steak, but then I prefer Goat Hill to Harbour Town and Dunfanaghy to Muirfield  so is that evaluating different purposes or do I just have different taste?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jason,

Yes, a course should be judged at least partly by its function, and also in how it functions, drainage, etc.

A select few have all the resources they need to maintain anything, most scrape for every penny, so certain things cannot be done with an eye towards top design standards.

On a current remodel with a maintenance budget of less than $400K (for 27 holes!) we couldn't do either scraggy bunkers (or even numerous bunkers) or bent fairways because the super just didn't have the budget, equipment or manpower to maintain those features. 

And the lower construction budget meant fairways, bunkers, tees and greens had to be as small as possible.  That sort of scenario is fairly typical, at least where I work.  The existing land plan really prevented much re-routing to achieve something better, or even widen corridors.

Lastly, the course really does get a lot of resort play, and a high percentage of female play, so we purposely kept the putting green contours and other challenging features to a minimum.

I think you would like the course if you played it, but if you commented on narrow fairways and play corridors, or lack of bunkers, or varying green targets and contours, you wouldn't fully be considering the constraints we face.  Or, what may make for practical design for the 99% of golfers who pay the bills over the 0.00001% who are golf architecture junkies.

Will it ever make Top 100 anything?  Maybe (views are stupendous) but it will happily serve its customers and owner without attaining a ranking.

[A.G._Crockett]

I think so, yes.  There are things that you can do to greens especially that might make the course too tough for public players (beginners, children, seniors, etc.) that would be necessary to provide a challenge to members at a private club.

Mickelson spoke to this several years ago when the PGA was last at Atlanta Athletic Club.  Though he was speaking of tour pros vs member play, he said that bunker depth and difficulty, as well as the carries required for the par 3's made him wonder if members enjoyed the Highlands course. (I'm being more diplomatic than he was.)  And, in fact, the Riverside course is probably more popular for casual play for the majority of the membership.

[Phil McDade]

Jason:


I think Sean's final point here is the most important one -- and it's what I look for when evaluating courses. I would also add the term "cohesive," which I guess is the middle ground between balance and variety. I like courses that "fit," from 1 through 18, in a logical way -- not just an assemblage of 18 holes, but ones that provide almost a narrative of what a course should look like and play.

Phil - I am not sure what this means.  Can you provide any good and bad examples of cohesive courses?



Sure.


To me, one of the best examples that fits the notion of balance and variety that Sean outlines, and my notions of cohesiveness, is Lawsonia. That course to me just fits -- it flows really nicely from hole to hole, there is great variety (stout par 3s balanced by some rigorous par 4s and 5s, along with some gambling par 5s and some relatively easy par 4s), it is balanced and cohesive because Langford keeps asking the golfer to make decisions, on most every hole, that lead to different outcomes depending on the choice made (the tee shot on the par 4 8th, for example, one of my favorite short par 4s I've ever played). There is a sense at Lawsonia of taking a journey -- a pleasant walk, no doubt, but also a journey among golf holes where one follows the next logically and coherently -- that, for instance, of course it makes sense that Langford would route the vigorous and expansive par 4 6th after the tight and go-for-broke par 5 5th. Or that the muscular par 3 10th (surely a driver for most players when the course opened nearly a century ago) would, of course, feature the course's largest green -- yet a green that can be devilish to putt.


Two courses that, to me, lack cohesiveness that I'm familiar with are the University of Wisconsin's University Ridge:


http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38431.msg1450865.html#msg1450865


and Erin Hills: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,45966.msg1012286.html#msg1012286


Both are good courses -- I think Erin Hills is very good, although a very tough test of golf -- but for me they lack the cohesiveness and balance that I see in Lawsonia. I go into greater detail about both courses in the threads, but in summary: each course has a number of good-to-very good (some excellent in the case of Erin Hills) but the courses as a whole just doesn't add up in the way a Lawsonia would for me.

[Kalen Braley]

The answer to me is simple....YES!!
 
As SL_Solow alluded to, its all about the value or what and how much do you get for what you paid??
 
Sure I can go to my local muni and its never going to be anything to write home to Mamma about, but paying $20 for 18 holes might be a much better value than paying $500 to play a course like Pebble.  But then again, those courses aren't competing against each other...just like Taco Bell isn't competing against a nice SteakHouse....its really apples and oranges.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I should amend my post to say that in general, constraints increase creativity, no reduce it. 

The tendency for some architect, given the once in a lifetime project with no constraints, might be to add things, like waterfalls, that have no real effect on golf, but basically design the same old course underneath.  Or, go nuts and design their hardest course ever, which might not make it their best course, either.

And, in reality, most of the top 100 courses, if you really would look into it, had the typical budget, land, etc. constraints.

[Jason Topp]

Both are good courses -- I think Erin Hills is very good, although a very tough test of golf -- but for me they lack the cohesiveness and balance that I see in Lawsonia. I go into greater detail about both courses in the threads, but in summary: each course has a number of good-to-very good (some excellent in the case of Erin Hills) but the courses as a whole just doesn't add up in the way a Lawsonia would for me.

Thanks Phil.  You could not provide a better contrast for me given I played Lawsonia and Erin Hills on the same weekend this year.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phil does make a good point. Lawsonia was probably designed (if you could ask Langford) to fit golfers like a comfortable old sweater, and worn (played) every day.

Erin Hills was designed to host a tournament mostly, or as a once a year special destination.

Is it any surprise that Lawsonia feels more comfortable to many golfers? Not that there isn't room for both, but it will be interesting to see the crop of courses the last 20 years that endure as well as Lawsonia and others, given the design emphasis has shifted not so subtly to signature holes, visuals and the like. 

I'm not so sure LM or other older designers actually articulated anything like that, but the idea of designing primarily for things other than everyday golf didn't really occur to them......

[Jason Topp]

Is it any surprise that Lawsonia feels more comfortable to many golfers? Not that there isn't room for both, but it will be interesting to see the crop of courses the last 20 years that endure as well as Lawsonia and others, given the design emphasis has shifted not so subtly to signature holes, visuals and the like. 

Part of the difference is simply the length of the walk. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Possibly and probably true.  I think my response sort of addresses both this thread, and the "narrative" thread, too.

The topic is deep.....very deep.  I would add a smiley face, but for some reason, mine are disabled.....

[Jud_T]

Jason;  I think part of the answer depends on the purpose of the evaluation.  A low budget course designed to introduce players to the game and provide basic golf at a reasonable fee might be perfect in achieving its goal.  it is unlikely that it will rival Cypress Point as an overall golf experience.  Similarly a very good fast food hamburger can be satisfying and provide a good value for the price  but for a meat lover, it will not match the best prime steak.  Both effectively achieve their respective goals but on a scale where one determines which is the "best", the steak or the great course is the winner.  That does not suggest that the architect or the chef did a less than stellar job, he or she just had different materials to work with and a different clientele to satisfy.

SL-


This is a bit simplistic IMO.  I've eaten at some of the world's finest restaurants and one of the best meals of my life was a pizza.  As for evaluating a course as to its purpose, I would agree.  Nuzzo nailed it with his Pretty, Challenging or Fun piece IMO.  Deciding whether Butler National is "better" or ranked higher than Shoreacres is mental masturbation of the highest order, yet for the sake of simplicity and magazine sales we insist on having ONE list of fruit salad.  Break 'em down into their respective categories and adjust for price if you want and get on with it.


P.S. Shoreacres is of course clearly superior...

[Jim Hoak]

I've struggled with this question in the evaluation of courses that have been built as a part of housing projects, especially retirement housing developments.  I think that one of the main drivers of golf course construction over the past 40 years has been the rise of golf as the focal point of (often high-end) housing developments. 
Tom Fazio has specialized in these kind of courses.  I don't often like courses he has done, but hasn't he built to the needs and demands of housing developers?  And should we criticize his business plan in responding to builders of these kind of courses?  These developments are often built for couples, so don't they need to appeal to various levels of golfers of both genders?  Since the objective is to sell lots and houses isn't the beauty of the course, rather than its strategy, more important?  Don't they prefer to build the course on 200+ acres, rather than 120 acres, in order to have more lots for sale? Hasn't he succeeded in these objectives?
It certainly seems there should be absolute objectives to judge the value of golf course architecture, but don't we have to be more understanding in looking at why a course was built before we judge it?  I guess the question of this post is what are these absolutes.  And while I know I prefer courses designed before housing sales were the objective, maybe I should be kinder and more tolerant toward courses built with these objectives primary.

[Jon Wiggett]

The answer to me is simple....YES!!
 
As SL_Solow alluded to, its all about the value or what and how much do you get for what you paid??
 
Sure I can go to my local muni and its never going to be anything to write home to Mamma about, but paying $20 for 18 holes might be a much better value than paying $500 to play a course like Pebble.  But then again, those courses aren't competing against each other...just like Taco Bell isn't competing against a nice SteakHouse....its really apples and oranges.

+1

the only real points you can compare on is value for money and access. I usually find that the more average courses tend to score better than the upper end in this respect. A good example near me would be Skibo, Dornoch and Golspie. Skibo is super exclusive and expensive and probably the best example of its type in Scotland. Dornoch is high end private expensive but very accessible. Golspie is good private club with affordable greenfees and very accessable.

I rate Golspie as the best to play when looking at it is great value for money and a good course in good nick. Then Dornoch which is a better course and in better condition though the difference is mainly cosmetic and does not affect play. It is not good value for money however at top wack and when compared to the rest of the market. Skibo is certainly in great condition and might be great to play but as it is super exclusive it is impossible to say ergo not possible to rate and so bottom of the list.

Jon

[Sean_A]

Surely the first question to ask when rating a course is...is it any good?  I am all for value for money, but its not great value to spend $20 and 4 hours on a course we don't think is any good.  To me, that bar of quality (and the bar is different for everyone) doesn't alter regardless of price.  If the course is no good a cheap green fee doesn't fix it.  Some courses I won't play (in fact the closest course to my house!) because they are crap.  Some courses I won't play because they are too expensive for what they offer.


Ciao

[Jud_T]

The answer to me is simple....YES!!
 
As SL_Solow alluded to, its all about the value or what and how much do you get for what you paid??
 
Sure I can go to my local muni and its never going to be anything to write home to Mamma about, but paying $20 for 18 holes might be a much better value than paying $500 to play a course like Pebble.  But then again, those courses aren't competing against each other...just like Taco Bell isn't competing against a nice SteakHouse....its really apples and oranges.

+1

the only real points you can compare on is value for money and access. I usually find that the more average courses tend to score better than the upper end in this respect. A good example near me would be Skibo, Dornoch and Golspie. Skibo is super exclusive and expensive and probably the best example of its type in Scotland. Dornoch is high end private expensive but very accessible. Golspie is good private club with affordable greenfees and very accessable.

I rate Golspie as the best to play when looking at it is great value for money and a good course in good nick. Then Dornoch which is a better course and in better condition though the difference is mainly cosmetic and does not affect play. It is not good value for money however at top wack and when compared to the rest of the market. Skibo is certainly in great condition and might be great to play but as it is super exclusive it is impossible to say ergo not possible to rate and so bottom of the list.

Jon

Jon,


This is because, as discussed previously, the premium folks are willing to pay for a Top 100 course vs. say a course in the second 100, is quite large.  It's comparable to the Chinese bidding up 1st growth Bordeaux when there are often better wines available at a third of the price.  The brand name factor, status and bragging rights are valuable to a lot of folks and of course to some several hundred dollars is a fart in the wind.  So supply and demand for the 1% and the wannabe bedpost notchers and 'I played the Top100' set is at play.  Yet another reason that many of these lists of "best" with their arbitrary criteria are a joke and arguably detrimental to the game.  So you take these seemingly statistically significant criteria, apply them and get a differential between #50 and #150 of roughly 1 rating point when then criteria and the courses may not be what's enjoyable or important to you!  Hence the best values are typically the hidden gems- the Doak 5's, 6's and 7's that suit your interests, abilities and wallet.

[Kalen Braley]

Surely the first question to ask when rating a course is...is it any good?  I am all for value for money, but its not great value to spend $20 and 4 hours on a course we don't think is any good.  To me, that bar of quality (and the bar is different for everyone) doesn't alter regardless of price.  If the course is no good a cheap green fee doesn't fix it.  Some courses I won't play (in fact the closest course to my house!) because they are crap.  Some courses I won't play because they are too expensive for what they offer.


Ciao

Sean,
 
Once again, I see where you are coming from, but there are other factors to consider when playing golf.  Such as:
 
1)  Is the $20 course 2 miles away and the one you really want to play 20 miles away or further?
2)  Where are your buddies going to play?
3)  How much time do you have?
4)  How much money do you have?
5)  Is the course "good enough" to be enjoyable in light of playing with your buddies even if its no CPC or ANGC?
 
Sure in a vacuum, I would prefer to play nothing but the best all the time...but that is not the reality for me or 99.9% of golfers.

[Jason Topp]

It certainly seems there should be absolute objectives to judge the value of golf course architecture, but don't we have to be more understanding in looking at why a course was built before we judge it?  I guess the question of this post is what are these absolutes.  And while I know I prefer courses designed before housing sales were the objective, maybe I should be kinder and more tolerant toward courses built with these objectives primary.

Jim:  Housing courses are a great example.  For me - the presence of housing on the interior of a course nearly always detracts from its quality (Harbor Town an exception that first comes to mind). 

Perhaps the best way to think about it to separate the quality of a course from the quality of the work performed by the architect.  An architect can do an excellent job but that does not necessarily mean that the course should be held in esteem.