Is slumming with the "good" an acquired taste?

[William_G]

excellent topic


the circle of life if you re living anyway


true of travel, wine, food, etc..


once you've climbed Everest or played Augusta or drank Screaming Eagle


you can happily slum with anyone and everyone knowing it's all good


cheers

[Dan Gallaway]

I miss the days of not knowing what great is.   

[Dave McCollum]

My, a thread I have no business participating in because I keep expecting to be kicked out of this DG as a phony or impostor.  My journey began because I truly did not not know a good course from a bad one.  I pretty much thought any golf course was good if played with the right people.  All of this time and money spent trying to educate myself about what constitutes really great golf has been enjoyable and fulfilling and worth the journey, but hasn't really altered my initial premise except that getting some friends (old and new) to buy into the journey has given us other ways to enjoy the game and life.   


I admit I did have have a vain self-interest starting out:  I wanted to find out what was great golf was so that I could make the few acres under my control not just better, but some kind of legacy that would out live my efforts and be appreciated long after I'm gone.  Early on here I think I said something about this notion.  Mike Young responded to one of my early posts by saying something like don't waste your time and money on such vanities and that your golf course is probably good enough enough as it is precisely because of what it is.  Well over a decade later, I think he's right. 


Not that I don't still have a ton of projects that I want to do, projects that I believe I have to do to stay in business and keep us modestly profitable, however, at the end of the day, improving our course from a Doak 5 to a 6 or even a 7, attracting more regional play for more bucks, upgrading our operation to a real destination, or whatever won't satisfy the itch I was trying to scratch.  Rather it will be more like the journey that got me here:  do what you enjoy, do the best you can, and keep at it until you're done with this world.  It's just golf and giving folks a pleasurable distraction from whatever they seek.  I hope to get a few more years to improve your slumming experience.  [size=78%]                             [/size]

[Sean_A]

My, a thread I have no business participating in because I keep expecting to be kicked out of this DG as a phony or impostor.  My journey began because I truly did not not know a good course from a bad one.  I pretty much thought any golf course was good if played with the right people.  All of this time and money spent trying to educate myself about what constitutes really great golf has been enjoyable and fulfilling and worth the journey, but hasn't really altered my initial premise except that getting some friends (old and new) to buy into the journey has given us other ways to enjoy the game and life.   


I admit I did have have a vain self-interest starting out:  I wanted to find out what was great golf was so that I could make the few acres under my control not just better, but some kind of legacy that would out live my efforts and be appreciated long after I'm gone.  Early on here I think I said something about this notion.  Mike Young responded to one of my early posts by saying something like don't waste your time and money on such vanities and that your golf course is probably good enough enough as it is precisely because of what it is.  Well over a decade later, I think he's right. 


Not that I don't still have a ton of projects that I want to do, projects that I believe I have to do to stay in business and keep us modestly profitable, however, at the end of the day, improving our course from a Doak 5 to a 6 or even a 7, attracting more regional play for more bucks, upgrading our operation to a real destination, or whatever won't satisfy the itch I was trying to scratch.  Rather it will be more like the journey that got me here:  do what you enjoy, do the best you can, and keep at it until you're done with this world.  It's just golf and giving folks a pleasurable distraction from whatever they seek.  I hope to get a few more years to improve your slumming experience. 

Dave

I recall years ago writing to Mike Young and saying it's because of guys like him that guys like me can play interesting courses. I feel certain the same is true for you.

Ciao

[Dave McCollum]

I sat here for hours wondering whether to post my response.  I know nothing about philosophical golf questions.  I'm a lowly golf course operator.  I just mow my course and try not to piss off my golfers.  But when Pietro goes off on what it's all about, I'm drawn in because I suffer from the same demons as maybe I fantasize I could have done more with my life than run a golf course.  Its nothing.  I'm not dissatisfied.  I think what I'm doing is OK.  I had a great day playing with my golf buddies today.  I think we generally provide a similar experience to all of our golfers.  Have fun, no worries.  This is what we do.

[jeffwarne]

  That's why it hurts my brain so much when Americans do a Troon - Turnberry - Muirfield - St. Andrews - Carnoustie - Dornoch trip and buzz right past all of the great and more authentically Scottish courses in between.

This...but as I think of it, when I visited Paris for the first time last year, I'm sure the places I visited would absolutely hurt the brain of a seasoned
traveler.
It does trouble me more when they play that rota only and say they've "done" Scotland, but I get very nice commission checks from Haversham and Baker when they insist on such a rota as Tom mentions-complete with Castle Hotels.




I guess the real theme of this thread is that there are literally THOUSANDS of courses worth one's time for playing, and sticking to a famous list actually limits one's potential experiences and enjoyment-and leads to a lot of needless driving.


But one has to start somewhere.
I like to set up trips for newbies with an equal amount of "Big Guns" that they request, and several more compact gems that I know they will like-especially if well placed on the itinerary. That satisfies the need to tick boxes but also gives them a taste of the local culture, hospitality and opens future possibilities.


To Tom's point about the ratings #'s, I always found the commentary far more useful than the #'s, and played a lot of Doak 2's and 3's and 4's overseas.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not sure that this contributes to the thread, but isn't Ben Franklin's advice to keep expectations low so you can only be pleasantly surprised applicable here?


For that matter, if you start each round with the "worst day on golf course beats best day in the office" attitude, it should be hard to be disappointed in merely a good course.


Short version, while I am partially guilty, don't people on this site kind of over think things?  I'm guilty, because I really don't care to play just to play, I want to see new (to me) courses and my score is related to how many photos and notes I can take - (whoo hoo, shot 40 good photos today, 4 more than usual! 


But, I always go with an attitude that I can learn something from nearly every course I visit and focus on individual holes, or even features, over whether the whole is great.  But, maybe that's just because I'm an architect, who knows.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff -
the glib response is that yours is exactly the kind of post someone who has played most of the great courses of the world would write. 
the more 'serious' response is to wonder how much more I could 'see' and appreciate & value in a good golf course if I had learned what to look for (and satisfied my ego) by playing the great ones.
Jeff W, for example, doesn't feel the need/desire to play great golf courses because he's played enough of them to now see-find some of that greatness in many a modest and far flung course.
Probably the same is true for you and Tom D and Sean etc etc.
And maybe that's the true gift/reward of playing the greats, i.e. it opens your eyes to see that same quality in many more and often unexpected places.
And seeing that quality as often as possible makes for a happier life.
P     

[Ira Fishman]

I sat here for hours wondering whether to post my response.  I know nothing about philosophical golf questions.  I'm a lowly golf course operator.  I just mow my course and try not to piss off my golfers.  But when Pietro goes off on what it's all about, I'm drawn in because I suffer from the same demons as maybe I fantasize I could have done more with my life than run a golf course.  Its nothing.  I'm not dissatisfied.  I think what I'm doing is OK.  I had a great day playing with my golf buddies today.  I think we generally provide a similar experience to all of our golfers.  Have fun, no worries.  This is what we do.

Dave,


I was thinking about starting a thread asking you and the others who are in the golf business/profession what you would do if you were not.  The premise of the thread would have been that a large number of us would choose golf if we had the opportunity.  Not to say we do not like what we do, but clearly many of us have a great passion for golf.  So when I read your post, I thought it is pretty cool that you are doing exactly what you want to do.


Ira

[Bernie Bell]

Ira, same thought.
I fantasize I could have done more with my life, perhaps than run a golf course

[Pete Lavallee]

Would a wealthy person who dines on filet mignon and wash’s it down with Montrachet daily be impressed by my Moms tuna casserole? Perhaps it’s the variance that provides the unique experience we all crave.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff -
the glib response is that yours is exactly the kind of post someone who has played most of the great courses of the world would write. 
the more 'serious' response is to wonder how much more I could 'see' and appreciate & value in a good golf course if I had learned what to look for (and satisfied my ego) by playing the great ones.
Jeff W, for example, doesn't feel the need/desire to play great golf courses because he's played enough of them to now see-find some of that greatness in many a modest and far flung course.
Probably the same is true for you and Tom D and Sean etc etc.
And maybe that's the true gift/reward of playing the greats, i.e. it opens your eyes to see that same quality in many more and often unexpected places.
And seeing that quality as often as possible makes for a happier life.
P   

Peter,


Some interesting nuggets. And some more serious questions....


Let's say a gca newb made the same trip to Scotland as Dye, Doak, and other architects.  Or played a great old American course prior to being on this site or reading any books.  Would he know which of what he saw was great like someone who had already studied architectural theory?  How do we know what is great anyway?  We remember a feature affecting the outcome of a tournament, remember a certain contour that was similar and affected our shots?  We have a pre concocted idea of what is great and check off the boxes of a particular hole to rank it?


And, not to be glib, but as particularly relates to the last point, do most of us learn golf course design, or just rank them?  I know whenever I have tried to pose gca theory questions, most responses come in the form of "What about hole XX at Y?"


And, there is something to be said about the old art quote, "I don't know it, but I know what I like."  That is, a more general impression is just as likely to be a good opinion as a detailed one.  Plus,  there is no real consensus as to what "great" is.


And, I wasn't being glib in saying you should train yourself to look at smaller and smaller increments (i.e. features) which you can find at most courses.  The great ones simply have a higher percentage of those to find.


Overall, its a neat topic, but a tough one to pigeonhole a true answer that is all encompassing.

[Kalen Braley]

I watched a show on the Food Network awhile back.  It was about top notch chefs and their favorite places to grab a bite.  Not only did it not include any top restaurants, a few of them looked liked places I would be hesitant to step foot in.


At the end of the day, I'm with Pete on this one...variety is the spice of life!

[John Kirk]

In the end, my wife is correct -- The Confidential Guide would have been a much better book without the numbers.

I disagree with this.  Perhaps this subject deserves its own thread.

The numerical rating system summarizes your overall opinion of the golf course.  Without them, you are required to write more detailed and nuanced descriptions to reflect those general sentiments.  That could be a better, but much longer book, and you might have to sacrifice some entries to maintain a proper coffee table sized book.  Furthermore, there are only so many ways to say "I like this", "I don't like this very much", etc.  You are freed of that responsibility to some extent, while concentrating on the theories of architecture and your keen observations.

With the ratings, you make a definitive call.  They can be controversial, audacious, and fun.  And in most cases, I agree exactly with your rating.  In my opinion, the ratings helped popularize the book a great deal.  Your audience of golf connoisseurs are mostly lifelong golfers and successful ex-jocks who relate well to numerical analysis of sports.  I believe it is sufficient to state that these are your opinions, and opinions differ.

The Confidential Guide is probably the most important book in golf architecture in the last fifty years.  It was that rare book I devoured immediately, like the Bill James Baseball Abstracts and especially the Bill Simmons Book of Basketball.  As far as I can tell, the thoughts expressed in the book reflect the changes we see in golf courses today.  It is hard to criticize something that important.

On a lighter note, I like things that are great, 'cause great things are fantastic.  Like The Tony Bennett show, starring Tony Bennett.  One of my favorite SNL skits is temporarily available on NBC:

https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/the-tony-bennett-show/n12085

[John Kirk]

Peter-What you are describing is a a dare to dream scenario for the hipsters. Adding drones, dogs, (preferably of the short haired hunting variety) trestle sticks, and a strategically placed mashie niblick are always a nice addition for a Instagram shot. These guys excel at “staging”.

Hi Tim,

I see "staging" as a societal epidemic, not reserved for hipsters.  Optics have grown too important, says someone who excels at making himself look bad on regular occasion.

[Jim Nugent]

In the end, my wife is correct -- The Confidential Guide would have been a much better book without the numbers.

I disagree with this.  Perhaps this subject deserves its own thread.

The numerical rating system summarizes your overall opinion of the golf course.  Without them, you are required to write more detailed and nuanced descriptions to reflect those general sentiments.  That could be a better, but much longer book, and you might have to sacrifice some entries to maintain a proper coffee table sized book.  Furthermore, there are only so many ways to say "I like this", "I don't like this very much", etc.  You are freed of that responsibility to some extent, while concentrating on the theories of architecture and your keen observations.

With the ratings, you make a definitive call.  They can be controversial, audacious, and fun. 

I agree 100%.  The numbers are essential.  They remove the ambiguity (well, almost all of it), and give us something concrete to discuss, analyze and argue about. 

While I doubt Tom ever does it, I'd like to see him take things a step further, and order rank the 10s, and maybe even the 9s. 

[JESII]

Tom,


If you hadn't numbered the courses, your initial "close friends and family" distribution list would have sufficed...






Peter, this is a good topic, but I feel it has to lead down the same road as a ranking thread. Isn't it all about opinion? Or at least honest self-reflection?


I was incredibly fortunate to grow up on a great course in a great golf town that's been maintained by one of the true greats of the profession. I'm not sure when I recognized all of those things first but it's been a while.


I greatly admire a guy like Mike Cirba who grew up on the municipal courses in the eastern half of Pennsylvania and developed a similar love/interest/passion. This admiration comes from my presumption (perhaps falsely) that he had to look more diligently for the great aspects a course delivers to the game...but does that mean he would appreciate a Doak 5 more than me if we played one together tomorrow? After all, he's played Oakmont and I haven't...


I'm voting for Nature versus Nurture on this one. Some people can identify/Asses and Appreciate this type of subjective analysis much better than others. Just through conversation you can glean this...Adam Clayman refers to it as the Game Mind.

[Dave McCollum]

Jeff--


Let me give you an example.  I was on a buddy golf trip to a friend's cabin in Montana.  We played Old Works as we have done for some years.  These guys are just your average retail golfers that haven't played many great courses and think design and conditioning are the same thing.  I arranged for us to play Rock Creek Cattle Company.  None of us played it particularly well but everyone knew that they had just played a great course.  These guys had no architectural "training" or experience and I bet none of them had ever read a book about golf design.  They just reacted to the "I'll know it when I see it" sensations.  Even though I've read dozens of books about golf design and the best courses, played probably close to 20% of the best from the lists, and so on, I don't think my appreciation and enjoyment of that course was more profound than theirs.  Old Works is a good, well maintained golf course.  Probably one of the best they have ever played.  They knew, however, that they had played something in another class altogether. 


It gave me great pleasure showing my friends a great golf course.  I can only imagine what it is like seeing golfers enjoy one of your own creations.       

[Tom_Doak]

In the end, my wife is correct -- The Confidential Guide would have been a much better book without the numbers.

I disagree with this.  Perhaps this subject deserves its own thread.

The numerical rating system summarizes your overall opinion of the golf course.  Without them, you are required to write more detailed and nuanced descriptions to reflect those general sentiments.  That could be a better, but much longer book, and you might have to sacrifice some entries to maintain a proper coffee table sized book.  Furthermore, there are only so many ways to say "I like this", "I don't like this very much", etc.  You are freed of that responsibility to some extent, while concentrating on the theories of architecture and your keen observations.

With the ratings, you make a definitive call.  They can be controversial, audacious, and fun.  And in most cases, I agree exactly with your rating.  In my opinion, the ratings helped popularize the book a great deal.  Your audience of golf connoisseurs are mostly lifelong golfers and successful ex-jocks who relate well to numerical analysis of sports.  I believe it is sufficient to state that these are your opinions, and opinions differ.

John:


I doubt this part deserves its own thread, though I do thank you for the kind words on how it has changed the industry.


The impetus for The Doak Scale was more to do with your second paragraph than the third.  I didn't want to have to write two pages about why Augusta was a nine and not a ten; but I could write a paragraph about its weaknesses and then put a 9 after it, confident that my original audience understood that otherwise I agreed with the general consensus.  And that approach worked very well for the original recipients; I think only one or two of them ever objected to any of the numbers.


I was a huge fan of Bill James' Baseball Abstract, and its appeal for me was always about his thoughts on players, rather than his ratings.  Saying Rickey Henderson was a the best left fielder in badeball was easy; writing he "could commit armed robbery, be sentenced to 15 years in prison, get paroled in 5 years for good behavior, and still comfortably break Lou Brock's career stolen base record" put him in proper perspective, and made me laugh at the same time.  So that's what I was trying to do with The Confidential Guide.  I'm thankful that at least a few people enjoyed my sense of humor.

[Sean_A]

Jeff -
the glib response is that yours is exactly the kind of post someone who has played most of the great courses of the world would write. 
the more 'serious' response is to wonder how much more I could 'see' and appreciate & value in a good golf course if I had learned what to look for (and satisfied my ego) by playing the great ones.
Jeff W, for example, doesn't feel the need/desire to play great golf courses because he's played enough of them to now see-find some of that greatness in many a modest and far flung course.
Probably the same is true for you and Tom D and Sean etc etc.
And maybe that's the true gift/reward of playing the greats, i.e. it opens your eyes to see that same quality in many more and often unexpected places.
And seeing that quality as often as possible makes for a happier life.
P   

Pietro

I don't feel a need to see more great courses, but there is a large handful I definitely want to see.  Although, my hunger to make these visits possible has dwindled in recent years.  I now think of the likelihood I will be in general areas.  This is why I have Crystal Downs and Shoreacres high on the hit list.  But to be honest, I would probably be more thrilled to play Royal Copenhagen...as much because of the location as the course. I haven't seen Copenhagen in many a year. Man cannot live on golf alone.

Ciao 

[Dave McCollum]

Ira--


This belongs in another thread.  My apologies for thread jacking, but this needs to be said.


I wouldn't recommend getting into the golf business.  I think most of us in this DG who are in the biz are passionate about the game, but making it work as a business involves a lot of people--thousands of people between your team, your customers, and the community where you are.  It's mostly true that running a golf course is like running a cat house:  your customers are pretty determined to enjoy themselves when they  seek out your services.  Playing golf should be about having fun.  As with any business or activity involving so many people, it's not quite as simple as doing something you love for your livelihood.  I can't count how many times I've heard people say "if you want to play more golf, don't get in the golf business."  Keeping so many people happy takes a lot of effort and luck. 


Probably the most basic thing most people don't think about is this business is totally dependent on the weather.  The days you miss because of bad weather, you can never make up.  You must staff up and down with mother nature and that plays havoc with your staff's lives.  Year after year you churn through a bunch of temporary employees, mostly kids into golf and great kids they are, and if you want to survive, you don't really have many career opportunities for the keepers.  Golfers come and go and so do your employees.  I'm rather loyal to my employees and a couple of key ones have been with me since they were kids, but it makes no business sense to do this.  If you do this for the money, there are thousands of easier ways to make much more money than the golf business.


I enjoy what I do.  I'm ancient, 70 years old and am extremely lucky to run a golf course as retirement project to keep me doing something.  I'm grateful for my good fortune and content to live out my days doing what I do, but it happened so randomly I cannot endorse it for someone else, including my own kids who like it well enough but have other ambitions.  Yesterday, a perfect autumn day about 75 degrees with a 15-20 mph breeze, I played golf with a group of friends and was reminded why I love this game for the thousandth time.  I couldn't have been more happy and had nothing better to do, after a nap on the couch, than spout out a bunch of sentimental rubbish to my GCA.com brothers. Life is good for me, but I think you should carefully consider trading in your life as you know it for a pipe dream you love.  Those cherries have bitter pits and you have to deal with them.                 

[Mike Sweeney]

Yesterday, a perfect autumn day about 75 degrees with a 15-20 mph breeze, I played golf with a group of friends and was reminded why I love this game for the thousandth time.  I couldn't have been more happy and had nothing better to do, after a nap on the couch, than spout out a bunch of sentimental rubbish to my GCA.com brothers. Life is good for me, but I think you should carefully consider trading in your life as you know it for a pipe dream you love.  Those cherries have bitter pits and you have to deal with them.               

Nice post Dave. I really appreciate what you wrote and I appreciate the genuineness of what you wrote. Thanks

[Ira Fishman]

Dave,


I am pretty sure that Peter does not mind the thread interruption. I am an ancient 62 and have been lucky enough to have so many different careers to know that the grass is not always greener. And I have been blessed with a wife who has supported all of the crazy things I have done (well, she opposed my stint at the White House, but that is a longer story). So I am not going to jump into the golf business even though she loves the game, but if I were a younger man, I might ignore your sage advice.


Ira

[John Kavanaugh]

If the best you got ain’t the finest there is you just living someone else’s dream.

[Peter Pallotta]

terrific thread, and none of it my doing: I really enjoy reading posts that combine the personal (as in Sean's thinking re where he's at on his golf 'life cycle' and Dave's experience as an owner) with the 'theoretical'.  Plus lots of good laughs, like Jim's: "Tom - If you hadn't numbered the courses, your initial "close friends and family" distribution list would have sufficed..." Ha, ha - so true. And JK's last line is intriguing. Makes me want to say "You *can* covet your neighbour's golf, but then you risk being unable to enjoy your own".