[Phil McDade]

Taking in Cage the Elephant this past summer in Madison WI, I was reminded that some things just have to be seen in person to appreciate their special appeal (like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-bq0q8C1ZU). Cage is good on record; they are explosive and generally excellent in person.


Is there a parallel in golf? One of this website's major accomplishments, it seems, is bringing greater appreciation to golf architecture generally, and certain courses and holes specifically, through the use of pictures and descriptions. Ran's Courses by Country, as well as the vast catalog of picture threads by many GCAers, have opened up a world of terrific architecture that I wouldn't otherwise be able to see. (Example: Growing up in Cleveland, I knew about Canterbury, the well-regarded Sleepy Hollow muni, and a few others like The Country Club and Pepper Pike CC. I had no idea about Kirtland, and had no clue I lived quite near  a course that good.)


But what courses are simply not done justice by displaying their merits here in 2D? What courses must be seen in person to appreciate their greatness? (Let's stipulate here: All courses should be seen and played -- multiple times -- to gain an appreciation and true understanding of them.) Cypress Point is near-universally regarded as great. I'm reluctant to judge a course without seeing it and/or playing it, but if I ever set foot there, I'm pretty sure I'd agree with the consensus -- it just looks great, from every picture I've seen of the course. The same with NGLA, and -- for me -- a few others like Oakmont, Merion East, and Shinnecock.


But what courses have to be seen in person to fully appreciate, and understand, their greatness? The Old Course might be the leader in the clubhouse in this regard. Now that Mr. Mucci is back, what about Seminole? It looks -- from pictures -- less great than any other highly regarded, great course in the U.S.


Others? Who's the Cage the Elephant of golf courses?

[J_ Crisham]

Eastward Ho - pictures and words fail to describe the beauty of the terrain

[Phil McDade]

Eastward Ho - pictures and words fail to describe the beauty of the terrain

Jack:


Eastward Ho was a course I actually thought of for this thread -- but for the exact opposite reason!


While I don't doubt that words and pictures fail to do it justice, one look at this:


http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/eastward-ho/


makes me want to go play it right away! I'm sure it's better in person -- but that's true of probably every course we talk about.


Maybe my initial post was a bit too meandering. I guess what I'm looking for is greatness that is subtle.

[Tom_Doak]

Seminole does not really fit your definition.  I know plenty of people who have been there and found it wanting.  You have to play it in 4-D [in the wind] to appreciate how good it is.


I was going to say Augusta National, because it's so much bolder than what people imagine from years of seeing it on TV -- but not because it's subtle!


For your new definition, my highest nomination would be Royal Worlington & Newmarket.  You could drive right through the course [on a public road alongside the first hole] and not appreciate what's right there.  But get out on the fairways and greens, and the light bulb goes on for most people.

[Joey Chase]

To me, without a doubt it has to be Garden City.  I haven't seen many pictures of the course that would get you excited, but it is among my ten favorite places to play.

[Phil McDade]

To me, without a doubt it has to be Garden City.  I haven't seen many pictures of the course that would get you excited, but it is among my ten favorite places to play.

Joey:


That's a terrific example -- I've had similar reactions to pics of Garden City as I do of Seminole, yet its near-universal acclaim makes me think it really does have to be seen in person to understand and appreciate it.


Tom: not sure if you know of my (around here, at least) views on Royal Worlington, a course which many folks I admire -- Sean Arble for starters -- argue its greatness, yet I just can't see it from the pics. I know some GCA posters who view it as over-rated, but lots of well-traveled folks hold it in very high esteem.

[Tom_Doak]

Phil:


I guess your question could be rephrased as, which courses just don't photograph well, relative to their golfing interest?


Royal Worlington is definitely one of them.  Garden City GC is definitely another ... I've been going there for 30 years, and I'm still not happy with any of the pictures I've taken!  The Loop is going to be one, too, I think.


What do these all have in common? 


1.  enough trees around the perimeter to preclude very late-in-the-day pictures with dramatic shadows, like you get on links courses;
2.  modest elevation changes;
3.  great greens ... greens never photograph well; and
4.  firm playing surfaces, which accentuates the subtleties of the approaches and greens.

[Phil McDade]

Tom:


Well, The Old Course isn't surrounded by trees, and I've never thought photos really capture all that's going on there -- maybe because there is so much going on there. But it does fit your other criteria -- firm, with open approaches to greens that must take into account the terrain, and enormous greens that you can't really capture in a photo. (I thought the same thing taking photos at Raynor's Blue Mound, another course with large and great greens, where the internal dynamics of the greens just aren't adequately captured unless you see them in person).

[John McCarthy]

This is a moment in time, but this summer at Sand Valley the halfway house is at the highest spot for miles around.  About 3/4 of a mile in all directions is denuded of trees and grass making truly spectacular vistas.  Of course except for the first course.  There are already many nice pictures on this site of what has already been planted but there are few other places I have seen where I would enjoy a sunrise or sunset.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()