For Raters & Rankers...and Interested Parties

[Sean_A]

There is often debate about the difficulty of having to make rating judgements based on 1 or 2 plays, or a handful of plays in a few days.  Loads of people believe that to get a handle on a course it takes several plays in at least a few different weather conditions.  Of course, that isn't realistic for the vast majority of raters/rankers and it may be the case that they only play a handful of their local courses more than 10 times over several years.

My question is, of the courses which are rated on some list, somewhere, or should be rated according to you...how many have you played about 10 times (or more) over 10 years (or more)?  Of these courses, which few do you really look forward to playing again and again?

Ciao

[Ira Fishman]

Sean,


Good question because it is shaping my retirement wishful thinking.


I have only four that I have played 10 or more and probably within 10 years, not across: Mid Pines, Pine Needles, Primland, and Hope Valley.


I am not a rater and doubt highly I will become one.


So when I retire in a few years, my goal is to play some of my favorite one play courses multiple times if I am healthy enough to do so. I never will see CPC again, but Lahinch, Pasatiempo, the courses near Dornoch, and the Heathlands are all doable. I have concluded that multiple plays at favorites is preferable to chasing one plays. But of course that could change in heartbeat on our next trip.


Ira

[Adrian_Stiff]

There is often debate about the difficulty of having to make rating judgements based on 1 or 2 plays, or a handful of plays in a few days.  Loads of people believe that to get a handle on a course it takes several plays in at least a few different weather conditions.  Of course, that isn't realistic for the vast majority of raters/rankers and it may be the case that they only play a handful of their local courses more than 10 times over several years.

My question is, of the courses which are rated on some list, somewhere, or should be rated according to you...how many have you played about 10 times (or more) over 10 years (or more)?  Of these courses, which few do you really look forward to playing again and again?

Ciao

I would have thought it was fairly difficult/impossible to play lots of courses 10 times. Realistically somebody would have a home club so that would take a fair chunk of someones 'rounds'. The folks here that play 100 rounds per year probably make 40 at the home club 25 at new courses never played and 35 repeaters. If its less than 100 annual rounds then the new/repeaters would probably be evenly skimmed back, home club rounds the same. I have only played clubs within 30 miles of my home 10 times or more. 90% of the courses I have played have been just the one time, some are 45 years in the past.

[jeffwarne]

While I would agree with the premise,(playing 10x to rate)
it would mean less raters would have the same courses in common(if playing x 10 were the prerequisite)
So while you may have played Beau Desert 10x, few others would have, and you would be ineligible to rate Palmetto GC and Aiken GC-and I would be ineligible to rate the nearly 150 courses I'e played in the UK/Ireland.(with the exception of Portsalon, Waterville and The Island and Narin and P)


That and Golf Digest would sell a lot less rater packages....


So apples to Apples to Apples would be very hard to come by and ANGC would be ineligible!

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean -
my honest (if misguided) opinion:
no greater lie has ever been foisted upon an unsuspecting public, and no more ego-driven theory has ever been espoused around here, than the notion that one must play a course many times under various conditions to understand it and determine its worth. Play a course once and someone will ask if you've played it twice; play it five times and someone will demand to know if you've ever played it in a rainstorm, or in the winter, or in match play. 
The supposed 'playing' permutations are endless (that's the ego) and the supposed treasure trove of unlocked 'architectural' secrets is enormous, and guarded by a giant Smaug-like dragon (that's the lie).
Architects now and forever design with their best foot forward: the course as they routed & designed it as well as they could with a couple of factors in mind (e.g. prevailing wind) and with the full knowledge that they don't/won't control the maintenance meld is what the course *is*, and all it will be -- play it once or play it a hundred times.
I've played three courses well over 10 times, and about five more over 5 times each.
The good ones were good the first time (and remain so), the poor-to-average ones have proven to be exactly that over time/multiple plays, ie poor-to-average, whether in the wind or rain or in the summer or fall.
That I might 'discover', after multiple plays, that if I severely pull hook a long enough drive the ball actually runs out into an adjacent fairway and past a clump of tree roots and leaves me an unobstructed view of the green and a good angle is absolutely meaningless (and raising such 'nuance' is the lie & the ego both), and does a disservice to any genuine assessment of a golf course's worth.
My two cents
P     
 
 

[Colin Macqueen]

Peter,


That two cents worth is valued here at five bob!


Cheers Colin

[George Pazin]

Sean -
my honest (if misguided) opinion:
no greater lie has ever been foisted upon an unsuspecting public, and no more ego-driven theory has ever been espoused around here, than the notion that one must play a course many times under various conditions to understand it and determine its worth. Play a course once and someone will ask if you've played it twice; play it five times and someone will demand to know if you've ever played it in a rainstorm, or in the winter, or in match play. 
The supposed 'playing' permutations are endless (that's the ego) and the supposed treasure trove of unlocked 'architectural' secrets is enormous, and guarded by a giant Smaug-like dragon (that's the lie).
Architects now and forever design with their best foot forward: the course as they routed & designed it as well as they could with a couple of factors in mind (e.g. prevailing wind) and with the full knowledge that they don't/won't control the maintenance meld is what the course *is*, and all it will be -- play it once or play it a hundred times.
I've played three courses well over 10 times, and about five more over 5 times each.
The good ones were good the first time (and remain so), the poor-to-average ones have proven to be exactly that over time/multiple plays, ie poor-to-average, whether in the wind or rain or in the summer or fall.
That I might 'discover', after multiple plays, that if I severely pull hook a long enough drive the ball actually runs out into an adjacent fairway and past a clump of tree roots and leaves me an unobstructed view of the green and a good angle is absolutely meaningless (and raising such 'nuance' is the lie & the ego both), and does a disservice to any genuine assessment of a golf course's worth.
My two cents
P     
 
 

There is a lot of truth in this, and a lot that’s up for grabs.


I’m guessing the architects and greenkeepers can pick up on things fairly quickly, after a play or two, maybe even a walk or two. And I’m also guessing there are an equal number of people who will never be able to articulate their thoughts on any course, even one they’ve played many times, though on some level they likely do understand them.


But really, who cares about rankings and ratings? I’d rather here people’s thought.

[Tom_Doak]

I kind of agree with Peter's take, plus the caveat that I'd almost rather someone had only walked the course instead of playing it once, because in many cases their experience from one play is so biased from the shots they hit.


I also agree with Jeff that the suggestion of limiting raters to courses they'd played 10x is impractical, because the overlap of panelists would be much too small.  If you had to play a course ten times to rate it, there would be that much more "homer" voting.


Apart from my own courses -- I'd guess I've played about 50-60% of them more than ten times -- my list of courses is geared toward the places I've lived and the courses I love the most -- which just happen to be the best courses in the world.  I wrote this years ago and was almost embarrassed to post it, but these are the ones I've played 10x or more:


Sterling Farms where I grew up
Cornell University GC
Crystal Downs where I'm a member
TPC at Sawgrass where I was a "national member" when that cost $100 at opening


NGLA
Garden City
The Creek
Pine Valley
Pinehurst #2
Camargo ? maybe
Chicago Golf Club
Shoreacres
SFGC
Cypress Point
Pebble Beach
The Valley Club
Riviera


St. Andrews (Old and Eden courses)
North Berwick
Royal Dornoch
Walton Heath (Old)
Ballybunion (Old)
Lahinch
Royal County Down


Royal Melbourne (West)
New South Wales




Note that I recorded most of my rounds at most of these courses long ago ... mostly in my 20's and 30's, or Pebble Beach when I was a teenager and it was cheap.  I was very fortunate to get to know the professionals or a member at most of them, and they took me seriously as a designer even when I was just starting out and let me know I was always welcome to come back.  That's why I go kind of deaf when people complain how private some of these places are ... sure they are, but they also go out of their way to treat you nicely once they decide you are sincere and passionate about the game.


There are a few others that I've walked at least 10x but not played that much.  There are older members at Winged Foot who probably thought I belonged there as much as I would go and walk it when I was still in school, and there are many where I've consulted and know inside out but I haven't really played many times.

[Ira Fishman]

Tom,


I am not going to debate the access issue because I am quite confident that an ordinary mortal cannot play most of the private courses you mention regardless of one’s passion for architecture. Such is life in a world of elites (I am one in many ways).


Nor do I disagree that a reasonably versed person can grasp the quality of architecture on one or two plays (and a walk is definitely enlightening).


However, I think that there would be great pleasure in being able to play a great course over and over even if the opportunity cost is not playing another great course even once. I would take a 100 rounds at Lahinch or Swinley Forest or Brora even if it meant giving up the chance to play NGLA ever.


Ira

[Sean_A]

Jeff

Normally I associate experience with knowledge.  I can fully understand that golf courses often don't take many plays to determine if they belong in a top 100 discussion and some may take only one play to believe they are among the greatest courses on the planet.  I was thinking more about the outlier courses which draw you back.  Haven't you come across some courses which after a few plays wonder why they aren't in the top 100 discussion? 

Pietro

I have come to believe that golf is more about recovery/out of position shots than it is about shots from the correct positions.  When looking at a course from this perspective it can well take more than few plays to fully grasp what is on offer beyond the theoretical.  Of course, this presupposes there are meaningful recovery/out of position shots.  Meaningful meaning are there choices which temp a player or are the choices simply a matter of a chip out sideways or at a bit more of an aggressive angle?  Hand in glove with the belief that incorrect positions is the true engine of architecture is the concept of width which is then mitigated by terrain, wind, vegetation etc.  But width is never so mitigated so as to remove the heroic recovery shot....in many cases anyway.  When we drill down, the bite off as much as you can chew drive is really the same choice as the safe recovery VS the heroic recovery.     

I have also come to believe that presentation can be just as important as architecture.  I can't count how any times I would have taken a good course well presented over a great course poorly presented.  However, in recent years presentation has taken on too much importance or at least misdirected importance  When architecture is dumbed down to better present a course than something has gone astray.  First it was green speeds, now it is fairway heights.  Is there really a need to run greens at 11+ and fairways cut so short that they resemble greens?  How many courses in top 100 discussions are riding the tails of presentation at the cost of architecture?   

Tom

I am not advocating 10 plays over 10 years, though it certainly couldn't hurt if only because people and courses change.  What we should be rating is how a course plays rather than what it could be like with TLC.  A few cases in point are Huntercombe and Addington.  Both are a mess for difference reasons, but reasons beyond architecture, no, despite architecture. 

I reckon I have only played maybe 35-40 courses more than 10 times over many years.  Of those, maybe 15-20 which I would consider in the top 100 discussion.  Of those, only Kington and Pennard come to mind as courses which I needed to see over time and in different conditions to be convinced they belong in the discussion even if I am not (yet) convinced they are great courses...if that matters.  A third course also comes to mind, but I was convinced after one play it was great and believe it to be one of the best courses I have ever played.  That doesn't mean that I knew the course well, but well enough to know it stacks up.

Ciao 

[Lou_Duran]

Sean,


I need less than one hand to count the number of times I've changed my mind appreciably about a course after repeated play.  That is not to say that I don't learn to play a course better with experience or that I might like it a bit more or less, but capturing the essence of a course under normal conditions doesn't require multiple rounds.


This inquiry reminds me of a story told to me by a famous architect about another more famous designer on the subject of visits to a golf development site.  The former is known to spend extended periods of time on site before and during construction over numerous separate visits.  The latter, who might make two or three short trips to the site prior to the grand opening, wondered why it took the other so much time to design a course.


The insinuation I think dealt with the learning curve and this applies to rating and most other endeavors.  Essentially, some people learn, focus, and execute better or faster than others.


Without getting into methodologies and statistics, raters, IMO, do better the more highly-ranked courses they play (breadth).  Though GD and GW do not ask their panelists for an ordinal ranking, I don't know how anyone can assign a value without establishing a standard from personal experience.  For example, if the best course I have ever played is your beloved Pennard and I am now invited to play Royal Porthcawl, what am I to think?  Or substitute Clyne for Pennard and Southerndown for RP.  Would repeated play at these courses make my evaluations more accurate/realistic?  Probably not.


     

[Sean_A]

Sweet Lou

Capturing the essence of a course can leave a lot on the table. I am not trying to suggest that I will often radically alter my opinion after multiple plays and time, but maybe just enough to where it matters in terms of making the discussion or not. 

I wonder if much of this thinking is not so much about learning curve as it is about confidence. In other words, being confident does not equal more astute.  I will admit that I often struggle to determine if one course is better than others.  Often times there seems to be very little in it, so little that a margin due to lack of experience or perhaps a course hitting more of what I prefer may be warranted....and by experience I wouldn't say a few plays is a great amount.  Hence the reason I arbitrarily threw out 10 + 10. 

Ciao

[Michael Wolf]

Sean,


Good discussion!


I'm in general agreement with Lou and Peter - courses I like the first time I'll usually like more with each subsequent replay, and vice versa. I'd say that's true at least 95% of the time. At the end of the day, isn't that the ultimate judgement of a course - would I like to play this again? (that doesn't mean I regret playing the ones I didn't like the first time)


My notable exceptions would be the Ocean Course at Kiawah, which went from enjoyed to hated the more I played it, and the Plantation course at Kapalua, which I've like more each time.


As someone who likes to travel for golf quite a bit, this subject really moves from the theoretical to the practical for me when planning a return golf trip to regions I've already visited. I keep records of where and when I play my rounds, and as my trips to the UK have started to really add up, I've noticed a definite trend - I will pass up a "9" that I've already played a half dozen times, to play a "6" that I haven't seen yet. BUT - once I've seen all of the courses I'm considering including on an itinerary, then I tend to play what I consider the "best" courses from that point forward regardless of how lopsided the #'s of lifetime rounds played starts to get, and regardless of the logistical challenges. In other words, I'll skip playing Muirfield for the 10th time to see Dunbar for the first time. But I'd play Royal Dornuch for the 11th time rather than Castle Stuart for the 3rd time. And I won't take the time and expense to visit a region if it's got a "9" or "10" that I can't access during the timeframe I'm in town. An example would be Melbourne, which I've been working to organize for quite a while, but can't pull the trigger on until the RM reservations window opens for the weeks I'll be Down Under.


Regarding the playability of courses in different weather conditions - I've also found myself preferring multiple rounds at a course during the same trip BUT no longer in the same day. I've found in the last few years I just enjoy it more if I play 18 at a Carnoustie on the first and last days of a trip rather than going around twice on the same day. Some of that is because I like seeing it under different conditions - but mostly because it gives me a better chance of avoiding really miserable conditions for at least one round.


My answer to your original question of 10&10 at "ranked" courses: Pebble, Spyglass, Pasatiempo, Camargo, Kapalua, Merion, Oakmont, Crystal Downs, Shoal Creek, St Andrews Old-New-Jubilee, Carnoustie, Muirfield, Falkenstein, Kennemer


Michael

[jeffwarne]

Jeff

Normally I associate experience with knowledge.  I can fully understand that golf courses often don't take many plays to determine if they belong in a top 100 discussion and some may take only one play to believe they are among the greatest courses on the planet.  I was thinking more about the outlier courses which draw you back.  Haven't you come across some courses which after a few plays wonder why they aren't in the top 100 discussion? 

Pietro

I have come to believe that golf is more about recovery/out of position shots than it is about shots from the correct positions.  When looking at a course from this perspective it can well take more than few plays to fully grasp what is on offer beyond the theoretical.  Of course, this presupposes there are meaningful recovery/out of position shots.  Meaningful meaning are there choices which temp a player or are the choices simply a matter of a chip out sideways or at a bit more of an aggressive angle?  Hand in glove with the belief that incorrect positions is the true engine of architecture is the concept of width which is then mitigated by terrain, wind, vegetation etc.  But width is never so mitigated so as to remove the heroic recovery shot....in many cases anyway.  When we drill down, the bite off as much as you can chew drive is really the same choice as the safe recovery VS the heroic recovery.     

I have also some to believe that presentation can be just as important as architecture.  I can't count how any times I would have taken a good course well presented over a great course poorly presented.  However, in recent years presentation has taken on too much importance or at least misdirected importance  When architecture is dumbed down to better present a course than something has gone astray.  First it was green speeds, now it is fairway heights.  Is there really a need to run greens at 11+ and fairways cut so short that they resemble greens?  How many courses in top 100 discussions are riding the tails of presentation at the cost of architecture?   

Tom

I am not advocating 10 plays over 10 years, though it certainly couldn't hurt if only because people and courses change.  What we should be rating is how a course plays rather than what it could be like with TLC.  A few cases in point are Huntercombe and Addington.  Both are a mess for difference reasons, but reasons beyond architecture, no, despite architecture. 

I reckon I have only played maybe 35-40 courses more than 10 times over many years.  Of those, maybe 15-20 which I would consider in the top 100 discussion. 

Ciao

Interesting exercise.
I've counted 65 courses I've played 10 times.
Many from working at courses -10 industry jobs including college resulting in 18 courses(5 at Doral,3 at Palmetto Dunes.3 at Sea Island plus 7 other single courses,)Several from recurring events,many from where I grew up and many from having lived in one area for 23 years.


I just looked at the list and can't think of one that changed my impression after 10 plays vs..1.
Some have had major improvements but I already loved those courses.(Sleepy, Southampton,Augusta cc)
I may have to make a list of 3x plays and see what conclusions I find there as that brings a lot of UK/Ireland and MET Section courses into play.

[Tom_Doak]

Human nature says if you’ve played a course ten times you’ve probably liked it from the start.


If you’ve played a course 3x you are much more likely to have stopped there because you decided you didn’t like it as much as you’d originally thought.


Jeff may have different results because he plays in multi-day events or will go play a course to compete even if he’s not fond of it, but most of us who play for fun will stop going back to s Course once we decide it’s not that much fun 😉

[Mark Chaplin]

Other than clubs where I’ve been a member or municipals from my youth I’ve played very few courses ten times or more RSG and Rye for sure, nine laps playing TOC and a few more caddying, then only Sunningdale and Walton Heath around ten on each course.


I definitely appreciate the great courses I’ve played three or more times over the one and dones like NGLA, Royal Birkdale, Cypress Point, Lahinch and WFW.

[Richard Fisher]

Just for my own edification I followed up Sean's chain of thought and came up with a list of those British 'rated' courses that I have played about ten times or more: my listing is a modest one, and comprises, in descending order of plays

Harlech
Huntercombe
Porthcawl
Brancaster
The Sacred Nine
Deal
Hunstanton
Burnham and Berrow
Hoylake
Swinley Forest
Luffenham Heath
Aberdovey
Woking
Rye
Westward Ho!

Does regular play give you a different perspective than a single or very occasional visit? Yes, absolutely, if only because you are more likely to experience the full variety of the challenge offered. But then a Ratings Exercise is not necessarily about 'the best place to be a member and play regular games' - if it were then for various different reasons a number of courses would be disqualified. As Tom says, the key to any such listing of 'repeat destinations' is that the player has been keen to return, and not unimportantly has had friends who have invited him back, or s/he has played in regular matches there. I had a game at the Sacred Nine on Tuesday, and still woke up with that unique sense of excitement of imminent return to one of golf's beloved places (even if my golf was not quite up to the challenge provided: I'd forgotten just how difficult Worly can be).

[Thomas Dai]

How keen are you to go back is a good indication for me, subject to time, travel, family and money etc constraints.
As to money, well maybe ‘official raters’ don’t have to pay to play but jeez there’s a big hole in the pocket coming from playing many of the courses mentioned herein once let alone 10 times! Plus the travel etc related costs in getting there and back and probably playing other courses too.
Atb

[Sean_A]

I would say its pretty close to 50% of the courses I played 10 + 10 that I don't love and in truth like less over time...mainly because I changed.  However, without exception, all are good enough for my purposes of a friendly game played in an attractive environment.  I think this is where my PoV has changed quite a bit.  My "standards" have dropped quite a bit and over the last decade or so and I can more readily see the value of the interesting "small" course even if they are relatively rare. 

I think my second visit to Reigate Heath initiated this thread.  I think I caught myself subconsciously dismissing the course from "the discussion" because its a 9 holer, not overly long and hemmed in a bit by roads.  But when I play the shots, they are as compelling as any from top notch courses.  I spose this relates back to my feeling that what separates good second tier courses from 1st tier courses can often be a sense of grandeur in the setting, history etc.  And now, I may be going through the same process with Alnmouth Village 

Ciao

[Brad Tufts]

Great post Peter!


While I feel like it would be nice to have 3 or 4 plays at all of the greats, it's just not logistically possible to run the ratings like that.  My goal as a rater is to take up as little of everyone's time as possible, thank them for letting me check the place out, and move on.  Some guys like to bring a foursome or three family members, etc. to get multiple perspectives, but that to me is counter to my goal of having as light a touch as possible when people are generous.  While multiple plays would be nice, I'd rather personally focus on expanding my breadth of knowledge by seeing as much as I can see.


My record of 10x+ courses runs the gamut in quality:


Tedesco, 600+...my home course, combo of homemade/Ross/Stiles/Wogan, etc.
Ralph Myhre @ Middlebury College, 100+...my college home course...homemade!
Va-Jo-WA GC, 55ish...the course closest to our family place in Northern Maine...homemade!
Salem Municipal, 50ish...closest public course to home, an old quirky Stiles 9-holer
Concord CC, 36x...GREAT Ross course, have played a three-round tourney here for about 10 years
Myopia, 35x...worked in the shop there for 14 months, all of 2004
Essex, 30ish...my favorite Ross course, my favorite course in MA
President's, 28x...play the Norfolk Co. Classic here each year...was original Wollaston CC
Taconic, 23x...Williams was Midd's rival in college golf
Neshobe, 20x...closest public course to Middlebury in VT
Salem CC, 16x...Tedesco's sister course and main rival...great Ross course
Indian Ridge CC, 15x...worked at this Phil Wogan course in Summer 2002
Hanover CC, 13x...my wife went to Tuck Business School at Dartmouth
George Wright, 12x...closest public when I lived in Boston
Franklin Park, 10x...see above
Kelley Greens, 10x...exec 9 in Nahant, MA, was once a 3000y Stiles course.


The next tier where I have 7-8-9 rounds would be Bass Rocks (Leeds in Gloucester, MA)/Brae Burn (Ross)/Sand Hills (7), Beverly Golf & Tennis (Stiles), Gannon Municipal (Stiles in Lynn, MA), McGregor Links (Emmet in Saratoga Springs, NY), and The Country Club of Brookline ( 8 ), and Charles River and Granite Links (9).


I would guess my resume is similar to lots of guys who grew up playing private golf in the Boston-area.  Lots of Ross, lots of Stiles, and a smattering of local places.  Tedesco plays in a local league with Salem/Pine Brook/Weston/Wellesley/Oakley/Charles River/Woodland/Winchester/Brae Burn so these will all be over 10 plays sooner rather than later.  All of them are either Ross or Stiles!

[Kalen Braley]

I have to agree with the general sentiment here.

I think its a bit like watching a movie or hearing a new song for the first time.  You can certainly get a pretty good gist from just the one time, but repeat viewing/listening will help you pick up the little details and more nuanced bits with each new iteration.  But in general your general opinion, whether favorable or not, is not likely to change much.

I think an exception to this for golf courses would be playing it in a heavy rain or fog where your first impression may be quite a bit off..

[George Pazin]

I have to agree with the general sentiment here.

I think its a bit like watching a movie or hearing a new song for the first time.  You can certainly get a pretty good gist from just the one time, but repeat viewing/listening will help you pick up the little details and more nuanced bits with each new iteration.  But in general your general opinion, whether favorable or not, is not likely to change much.

I think an exception to this for golf courses would be playing it in a heavy rain or fog where your first impression may be quite a bit off..

.But don't follow up visits then merely fall into the trap of confirmation bias?

[Kalen Braley]

I have to agree with the general sentiment here.

I think its a bit like watching a movie or hearing a new song for the first time.  You can certainly get a pretty good gist from just the one time, but repeat viewing/listening will help you pick up the little details and more nuanced bits with each new iteration.  But in general your general opinion, whether favorable or not, is not likely to change much.

I think an exception to this for golf courses would be playing it in a heavy rain or fog where your first impression may be quite a bit off..

.But don't follow up visits then merely fall into the trap of confirmation bias?

George,

I will agree that once we've formed an opinion on something it can be difficult to change it.  And unless a course undergoes an extensive renovation/restoration its probably unlikely to happen.

I think the bigger issue most face is:  A magazine list or group of people otherwise heap a bunch of praise on a course, and then after you play it for the first time, there is pressure to go along with the group.

A personal example for me is Black Rock in Idaho, but in the opposite direction.  Its been panned a lot on this site, but I really enjoyed it.  But I will admit the mixed reviews have made me second guess a few things and take a harder look at the course, but overall I still like what I like I guess.

[MCirba]

Has anyone ever played a course a second, or third, or tenth time when their rating impression of the golf course moved more than one point up or down?   

I suspect that's very, very rare.

[Sean_A]

I have to agree with the general sentiment here.

I think its a bit like watching a movie or hearing a new song for the first time.  You can certainly get a pretty good gist from just the one time, but repeat viewing/listening will help you pick up the little details and more nuanced bits with each new iteration.  But in general your general opinion, whether favorable or not, is not likely to change much.

Well, if we are going to compare music or movies with courses in this way, I think your premise, for me at least, is way off base. There are more than enough instances in my life where music and films meant more to me than they currently do...to the point where I think less of them now than when first discovered.  On the other hand, if I truly do believe the musician is/was a genius, then why can't it be the case that I simply am not in a place in my life where I can fully appreciate their work and that this may change in the future?  Not that I would like to a musician to a golf architect, but if it is the case with music that with time and experience we can better appreciate it, why cannot this be the same for golf courses?   

Mike, it might be a rarity, but does that matter?  Its the idea of being open to amending one's thoughts on a course which counts. I think its important because we change as we grow older and experience more of what the world has to offer and can more easily find context for new experiences.

Ciao