A sign of a good/great course?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Do you think that remembering the holes years after you played a golf course ONCE would be a way of defining a good/great course? I only played Spyglass once, probably 30 years ago but I remember with great fondness the first 5 holes then another series of great holes into the woods, then a slight memory fade on the back nine of absolute greatness (it was just good).


Do people remember mediocure golf courses on one play? Equally can you remember a real howler on one play, would you remember all the holes?


My memory is really good (atm) I can remember a fair amount from courses I have had just one play. From the courses I played (or walked) once the greater I regard them the more I remember from them seems to be a pattern for me.


Or do others simply not remember so much after one play regardless.

[Sean_A]

I have a good, not great memory of courses. Given that, I don't consider remembering entire courses as a sign of greatness.

Ciao

[Ira Fishman]

I do think it is a sign of how much you did or did not like the course. I played Lahinch once 7 years ago and remember virtually every hole. I played PH4 last year and barely can remember any of them.


Ira

[John Emerson]

Ball washers on every hole.  This is a sure fire way to know it’s destined for high rankings right? 
But, honestly this is really subjective.  One person might say “the # of holes that are memorable”, and another might say “well I had a ton of fun and was sad when we got to the last hole”. 

[Adrian_Stiff]

I have a good, not great memory of courses. Given that, I don't consider remembering entire courses as a sign of greatness.

Ciao

Sean - You got THE most observant pair of eyes I have come across. You see things in one play, others don't in twenty plays...I don't mean you have to remember the entire course, but the more you remember from the course is a pointer to greatness.

[Tommy Williamsen]

No I don't think memory plays an important part. I used to remember every hole for years, regardless of the quality of the course. When I turned 70 it became problematic. If I can get the routing in my head remembering is easier. I played Hidden Creek a dozen time last year. I can't get the routing to stick in my head. I can remember most of the holes but not necessarily in succession.

[Peter Bowman]

Do you think that remembering the holes years after you played a golf course ONCE would be a way of defining a good/great course? I only played Spyglass once, probably 30 years ago but I remember with great fondness the first 5 holes then another series of great holes into the woods, then a slight memory fade on the back nine of absolute greatness (it was just good).


Do people remember mediocure golf courses on one play? Equally can you remember a real howler on one play, would you remember all the holes?


My memory is really good (atm) I can remember a fair amount from courses I have had just one play. From the courses I played (or walked) once the greater I regard them the more I remember from them seems to be a pattern for me.


Or do others simply not remember so much after one play regardless.

From the perspective of being an avid golfer (and not as the architect I'd like to be one day), I say it definitely matters that holes are memorable and fun years later.  For example, I remember playing the ocean course of Monterey Peninsula CC and enjoyed it a lot.  Months later I practically forgot every hole except a cool downhill par 3 on the back nine.  I played Cypress point 5 years ago and I can remember just about every hole and the variety in design, shot making, and scenery.  I know it's hard to compare anything to Cypress Point in greatness, but it's a shining example for me at least.In my trip to Ireland last year I played 8 courses and Ballybunion, Lahinch and Corballis Links were the most memorable for me.  The common theme with those three courses is unconventional routing and design. The other courses I played (Island Club, Doonbeg, Waterville,and Euro Club) were still great but have far fewer great holes that I can recall.I make an exception for K Club because it was memorably BAD and I couldnt believe a Ryder Cup was held there, as most of the design reminded me of the Munis I used to play in Stockton, CA.

[Greg Smith]

I liked the comment that basically says memorability is a good measure for whether you liked the course, not necessarily whether it's a great course.

I think Pinehurst No. 2 is the poster child for this.  Now, I've never played PH2 -- but I suspect that if I did, I would instantly dislike it.   From all the reviews I've heard from those who have played it, sounds like it would be a parade of demanding approaches to greens that run off -- and you'd better be a real shotmaker/shot shaper with irons to cope with that.  I have also heard from the same group of people that "qualities" of the course as a whole were very memorable, but individual holes were -- not.

But PH2 is undeniably a GREAT course regardless of whether I can cope with it or like it.

So there's the perfect example of a course that scores low to middling on "memorability" (as contrasted with, say, Cypress/PV/PB/Merion, etc) -- yet its greatness cannot be argued.  Therefore, for me it would be a course I instantly respect but won't be enjoying as much as some others where I remember the individual experiences.

As an aside, I'm not that happy with the USGA/Pinehurst thread.  As far as potential US Open sites go, PH2 is the one I'd be least interested in as a fixture on a "rota".  For sure, it's a very appropriate playing test for a championship -- but I sure prefer Oakmont/PB/WFW as a US Open model.  (I won't even talk about Chambers Bay or Erin Hills!)

[John Mayhugh]

I think memorability of the course - the entire experience - is a very good indicator of greatness. But I'm referring to memorability in an aggregate sense. On a great course, the imprint of the experience never leaves you. You don't have to remember the details of individual holes, but if you don't remember the day and the way it made you feel, then wouldn't be a great course. At least to me.

[Tom_Doak]

I think memorability is a bit overrated.  It's not a bad thing, but it can lead to unnecessary features, and having a gimmick to remember each hole.  And of course a lot of golfers remember golf holes strictly on the basis of whether they made birdie or double bogey on them.


The key is whether the holes are great, not whether you remember them all.  The best example are the outward holes on The Old Course.  The 2nd and 4th are great holes, but lots of people do not remember them at all.


My reversible course has a problem with memorability -- it confuses people to the point that they can't remember which hole was on which routing.  I don't think that's a bad thing, but I think it will lead to the course not being ranked as high as it could be.

[Peter Pallotta]

I think memory is related to will and desire -- we remember best what we want to remember most: years ago, a pretty girl's telephone number, these days the pin number of our visa-debit card. So there's probably something in a golf course that we remember well that has caused us to *want* to remember it. That might be its greatness; but I suppose it could also be what it 'represented' for us -- and who we were, or like to think we were -- when we played it.

[Peter Flory]

I often relate things to music.  Songs/ albums that make an immediate impact often grow old more quickly.  Complexity can be harder to digest and less memorable, but grow on you with repeated listens and keeps your interest long-term. 

The best of all has some of both qualities.  It gives you some hooks, but has depth and subtleties that can only be appreciated once you really get to know it. 

It would be easy to make the pop equivalent of a golf course and it could be memorable.  But we're interested in the concept albums, right?  An overarching theme with songs that can blend together and a progression that matters. 

[Pete Lavallee]

In order for a course to stick in your memory shouldn’t there be something memorable about each hole?


Cavendish is an excellent example of a course I’ve only played once but is seared in my memory.


Not starting on hole #1 can ruin this for me. Sagebrush is an excellent example. We played it in a shotgun start in a Kings Putter and that completely spoiled my recollection of a great set of holes for me.

[Ira Fishman]

I liked the comment that basically says memorability is a good measure for whether you liked the course, not necessarily whether it's a great course.

I think Pinehurst No. 2 is the poster child for this.  Now, I've never played PH2 -- but I suspect that if I did, I would instantly dislike it.   From all the reviews I've heard from those who have played it, sounds like it would be a parade of demanding approaches to greens that run off -- and you'd better be a real shotmaker/shot shaper with irons to cope with that.  I have also heard from the same group of people that "qualities" of the course as a whole were very memorable, but individual holes were -- not.

But PH2 is undeniably a GREAT course regardless of whether I can cope with it or like it.

So there's the perfect example of a course that scores low to middling on "memorability" (as contrasted with, say, Cypress/PV/PB/Merion, etc) -- yet its greatness cannot be argued.  Therefore, for me it would be a course I instantly respect but won't be enjoying as much as some others where I remember the individual experiences.

As an aside, I'm not that happy with the USGA/Pinehurst thread.  As far as potential US Open sites go, PH2 is the one I'd be least interested in as a fixture on a "rota".  For sure, it's a very appropriate playing test for a championship -- but I sure prefer Oakmont/PB/WFW as a US Open model.  (I won't even talk about Chambers Bay or Erin Hills!)

Greg,


I did not reference PH2 in my memorable=like post because I played it more than once (twice) and the OP spoke about one play courses. But you could not be further from the truth. I could not shape a shot if my life depended upon it plus my short game is woeful, and I found PH2 great fun to play with every hole memorable because they are brilliant. Perhaps the reason I do not remember the holes at PH4 is that Number 2 is so much superior, and we played Number 2 after having played Number 4. And please do not get me started about PH8. My wife rarely has a pronounced negative view of a course, but she disliked Number 8 even more than I did.


Bottom line: if you ever get the opportunity to play PH2, grab it. Skip everything else at Pinehurst and go to Pine Needles and Mid Pines.


Ira

[Greg Clark]

I tend to remember the really bad architecture on a course as much as the really good.  From that perspective, memorability is a two sided coin. 


I think John's description is a good one.

[Mark_Fine]

I can’t think of too many great courses where I can’t remember the holes or at least a lot of them.  I do believe that most great holes do have something interesting or unique about them that helps make them great (and memorable).  I am not talking about gimmicks like waterfalls coming out of the green like on #10 I believe at The Pete Dye GC.  I am talking about features that distinguish the golf hole and make it special.  Few will remember all of these things but on the best courses there are many aspects that standout.  Pine Valley might be the best example.  It is hard not to remember every hole on that golf course after even just one time around. 

[Simon Holt]

In simple terms for me, if a course has more than a good handful of holes that I can't wait to play again, then it's usually a great course.


Conversely, if a course has some holes that you'd walk if you lose a ball off the tee, then it probably won't be in the great bracket.  Cue exceptions to that rule!



I also find that when you do the best eclectic 18 exercise with holes matching their number in real life, then the truly great courses have candidates for as many as 30-50% of the holes.

[mike_malone]

I’m pretty much with John Mayhugh on this. As I try to throw myself back into playing a course I found great I think about how I felt there versus other courses I was told were great.


 Even though it was the coldest feeling ever I recall gliding around NGLA like a magic carpet ride. TOC I felt like I was in church. North Berwick I felt like I was at a great amusement park. Oakmont made me feel in danger. Pine Valley made me awestruck.


Winged Foot made me frustrated. Royal St.George’s made me pine for its neighbor Deal.


These feelings are personal not determined by some standard. 

[David Wuthrich]

For me that is one of the keys to a great course.  However, that is not the only variable.  Not everyone has that kind of a memory!

[Mark Pearce]

Conversely, if a course has some holes that you'd walk if you lose a ball off the tee, then it probably won't be in the great bracket.  Cue exceptions to that rule!

How about a course with a hole where you stand on the tee, know that it's not possible for you to play the hole without losing a ball and walk straight to the next tee?

[Rob Marshall]

For me that is one of the keys to a great course.  However, that is not the only variable.  Not everyone has that kind of a memory!

I can tell you every shot I hit at Pebble and that was probably 10 years ago.

[Thomas Dai]

If you have an interest in golf course architecture and you remember the surrounding scenery more than you remember the course itself would it be reasonable to suggest that this probably says something not particularly complimentary about the course (or that the scenery is truly epic )?
Atb

[Adam Uttley]

In general my memory isn’t great and although ‘greatness’ certainly has some bearing on whether I remember the holes, visual stimulation or anticipation of the round seems to have a greater bearing.  For example, I can remember the holes on seaside courses (eg Pebble, Cape Kidnappers back 9, Sheringham, Wentworth West) much more than others I consider to be greater. (eg Kingston Heath, Walton Heath).  I believe that because my senses are on high alert, I remember them better.

[Jason Topp]

I think memorability has more to do with elevation change than it has to do with the quality of the golf course.

I remember the people I played with far more clearly than I remember the golf holes at Muirfield and Pinehurst No 2.  Nonetheless, I loved both courses.  Trinity Forest also fits into this category.   I think flatter courses are generally less memorable.

I remember a lot about Wolf Creek in Mesquite, NV and Old Head in Ireland and I was repulsed by the first course and not enthralled with the latter.

[Mark Kiely]

I remember a lot about Wolf Point in Mesquite, NV

Except the name of the course, apparently.