Why Aesthetics is my #1 Criterion for ranking courses!

[Tom_Doak]

+1
Maybe they should have appointed 2 x TD’s to revise their course instead of M&E!!!!!!

Generally speaking, consulting at championship courses usually consists of doing what the head of the committee tells you to do.


If you're really good, and went to the right school, they might include you in the conversation.

[Thomas Dai]

+1
Maybe they should have appointed 2 x TD’s to revise their course instead of M&E!!!!!!

Generally speaking, consulting at championship courses usually consists of doing what the head of the committee tells you to do.
If you're really good, and went to the right school, they might include you in the conversation.

+1
Atb

[Mark_Fine]

I have actually never hit it O.B. on #1 (I have once on #18) in the nine or ten times I have played there.  I just have never liked an interior out of bounds especially on the first hole.  Same goes for the first at Portrush although that is at least a better golf hole.  It has nothing to do with "fairness" as I never use that word when describing a golf hole.  I just don't think #1 at Hoylake is a great hole. 

[Ira Fishman]

My first attempt at vegan scalloped sweet potatoes and onions was a Julia Child Scale 7 for taste and a 2 for aesthetics. Good routing but lousy tie ins. The Thanksgiving crowd would disagree that aesthetics is the number 1 criterion.


Ira

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
In case you missed it we are talking about golf courses not food   
Mark

[SL_Solow]

Mark,  I won't argue about ratings.  I was a rater for quite a while but left the panel when I got the sense that it had become more about fund raising than about architectural analysis.  I concede that aesthetics make a major difference in my feelings about a golf course.  Part of the pleasure of the game is the interaction with your surroundings and beautiful places, all other relevant factors being equal, add significantly to the experience.  But if the golf is the principal reason for going to the course, aesthetics are far from the top of the list.  All of the factors that go into making the game interesting take precedence no matter how you label them.  Call it strategy, challenge, variety etc., to my way of thinking these concepts are more important than beauty.  Otherwise, one might as well just be taking a walk.  I have been married for over 40 years to a woman who combines beauty with other admirable characteristics including intelligence.  Its been a long time but I recall that I tired quickly of the "dumb blonde" type.  I feel the same way about golf courses.

[Mark_Fine]

SL,
Good points but remember I started this thread very clearly stating that just because a hole is “pretty” doesn’t mean it is any good.  However, if it looks like crap it probably plays like crap as well.


Aesthetics is a very subjective term.  I wouldn’t call Hell Bunker pretty and it sure isn’t ugly but aesthetically it is a visually intimidating hazard.  To me it is a huge part of the aesthetic of the hole. 


I will push back on what you say about “if your principal reason is golf” then aesthetics are far from the top of the list.  Again we all have different definitions, but name one great golf course that isn’t aesthetically pleasing in some way?  I can’t name one and I don’t think you can either.  No one else has except Tim doesn’t care for Shinnecock Hills 

[SL_Solow]

Mark,  From the time I started in competitive debate through my legal career I have understood that if you can define the assumptions, you always will win the argument.  If you define aesthetics as anything you find pleasing and you are pleased by "good" golf holes, then aesthetics becomes anything you like and is essentially meaningless.  So by that standard, I can't disagree.  But let me suggest that Pebble, Cypress et al are far more aesthetically pleasing than say, Chicago Golf.  If it is the most important factor then Mammoth Dunes should be rated ahead of Sand Valley.  Methinks not.  Again, I m not suggesting aesthetics are irrelevant or even unimportant.  Moreover, I agree that they have a disproportionate impact on the published ratings.  But for me, it is far from most important.

[Peter Pallotta]

Shel -
good & relevant point about assumptions/definitions.
For me, I can agree with the OP only if I define aesthetically-pleasing as 'a seamless melding of form and function' -- as in an antique Shaker dresser.
In that context, I'd suggest that better and more experienced eyes than mine can see/sense those (perhaps relatively rare) cases when an aesthetic meets that definition -- and, if it does, I'd suggest that the golf hole will almost certainly be an excellent one.
P