What is the threshold for greatness in golf courses?

[John Kirk]

There are about 38-39k golf courses in the world.  That means there are about 400 golf courses in the top 1 percent.  Golf architecture is a well-developed art form.  Are there 400 great courses in the world?  I'm not sure about that.


I thought Yale was pretty special when I played it.  It's big and bold.

[Pete_Pittock]

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
It evokes memory or expected memory. I remember playing Black Rock in eastern MI and wondering about hunters that would have trod there a hundred years ago in a few places on the course, but not enough to elevate it.
A sublime routing that paints a cohesive picture.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I ask myself this question all the time. Last summer I played two courses that about five miles apart. One was highly ranked while the other didn't even make the best in state list. If I didn't know the ranking and was plopped down on those two courses I couldn't have told you which one was ranked higher.


I look for options off the tee, shots that require skill into the greens and imagination around and on the greens. I don't care how hard it is. I do care if it is fun. I think the course needs interesting terrain and being in a pretty setting helps the overall feel of the course. AFter all is said and done it is subjective, that's why rankings always have a diverse reaction to them.

[Steve Lang]

   As a player my greatness threshold is wonder, as in I wonder how am I going to play this hole's tee shot or approaches or putts?


Good is when options for all the parts are presented amongst the various holes individually, intermittently, making some memorable moments.  Great is when almost all shots, i.e., tees to hole-outs, are presented with wondrous options to ponder... hey, no one's perfect...


Take-away quote is, "Wow, I have some unfinished business on that course."  So, the general solution is greatly superseded by the specific ones, and yes, my opinion of great has evolved over the years... I hope for many more too.   

[Tom_Doak]

Was what you did a first at an important course where the choice isn’t at least partially  to keep the green playable.

Actually, the only other one I can think of is the 9th at Pine Valley; I believe the alternate green was Alison’s idea but, unlike the 8th, it didn’t have anything to do with Crump’s green being too small.


I would suggest that some other examples are more the cause of liking two green sites and taking advantage to make one of them small, instead of not having space to make the preferred green big enough, but I’m not sure since I’ve only done this once.

[Don Mahaffey]

Greatness means something different to everyone.
To me, I think I feel it when a course takes me out of the analytical exercise of judgement and just sucks me in. I get that will not make sense to many here who use numbers to judge holes and courses. And maybe i'd feel different if I played the greats everyday. But that's it for me. For just a little while I lose track of all the things we think about and just live in the moment. Other activities do that to me as well like live music, a great book, or movie. For just a bit of time the great things in life change the way we "are". 

[mike_malone]

I’m suggesting that Yale and North Berwick are indeed great to me but I don’t expect everyone to agree. As for Rustic Canyon I’m not going to argue with someone who sees it as great but it seems a little modest to me. I enjoy it thoroughly but think it just falls short of greatness.


Let’s see how this week goes. I know Wilmington which I would call solid and know little about Ridgewood which seems to be on that threshold.


I find that speaking of specific courses helps to define the line.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Greatness means something different to everyone.
To me, I think I feel it when a course takes me out of the analytical exercise of judgement and just sucks me in. I get that will not make sense to many here who use numbers to judge holes and courses. And maybe i'd feel different if I played the greats everyday. But that's it for me. For just a little while I lose track of all the things we think about and just live in the moment. Other activities do that to me as well like live music, a great book, or movie. For just a bit of time the great things in life change the way we "are".

I agree with this. But then I also think that because of this, greatness is fluid and more dependent on the individual person at any one time, the receiver of the greatness rather than the giver. Greatness isn’t fixed. Perhaps it should be but it isn’t.

[Sean_A]

Greatness is over-rated.

Ciao

I disagree, or I would change this statement to "Greatness is too often assigned, and rarely achieved".

The key is design innovation, feeling as though you are playing something unique, exciting and/or different.  For whatever reason, I thought of the 9th hole at Pacific Dunes first.  Especially when you play to the lower green, that hole is unusual.  You have to drive the ball to carry the imposing wall of sandstone to reach the fairway, which slopes down rather sharply to the small, undulating green.  I don't know if it's still there, but there used to be a little gorse bush guarding the left side of the green.  In the summer, the two shots are playing decisively downwind. Those are two exciting and unusual shots.  It's hard to get the distance right on the second shot, downwind from a downhill lie.
By the way, I like the lower green at Pacific Dunes #9 way better than the upper green.  I think the hole is far more interesting played that way.  You also get the bonus of playing the 10th hole from the lower tee.

That's one reason why North Berwick is so great.  You just see stuff that is new and exciting and challenging.  It grabs your attention and stokes your interest.  When you see something new and different, it makes golf more fun.


I say great courses offer bold and innovative hole designs.

I say greatness is over-rated for a few reasons. As you suggest, its too easily used to describe anything, both on a personal and community level. Furthermore, when it comes to golf, it matters little what anybody else believes. Its one's personal opinion which carries the most weight. So any such conversation about the subject is a lot of wasted time.

I also think greatness is over-rated because we don't need greatness and to expect greatness does a disservice to many well designed, sustainable, affordable courses which admirably serve (or could serve) their communities. This feeds back to the above. Greatness can be assigned to these courses because anything less of description will turn people off or draw the ire of others. We have seen that happen on this all too often. Greatness can be wonderful, but its not the reason I play golf.

When it comes to golf, I know greatness when I see it. It may take 1 or 10 looks, but I will eventually see what I think is greatness if its there. It can be no other way because greatness is a completely subjective term. All I can do is offer up what I think is great, but I think its much easier to substitute favourite for great. Fewer egos bruised and fewer roundabout conversations.

Ciao

[Ira Fishman]

Don and Ally are spot on. And Don’s analogy to music, books, and movies is apt for how I judge greatness. A great course presents a coherent and compelling narrative. I am both emotionally drained and emotionally invigorated because the course sucked me in (to use Don’s vivid verb) in a way that commanded my emotional investment and then rewarded that investment with enlightenment and enjoyment.


Mike, to get specific, and subjective, North Berwick is great. Yale is close; I found it compelling but not fully coherent—more a collection of excellent individual holes than a fully fleshed out drama.


Ridgewood is near great because it is a coherent narrative (at least the two nines we played), but was not quite compelling. Just down the road, I found Somerset Hills unquestionably great.


Other courses that I consider great in no particular order: Woking, CPC, PH2, Ballyneal, and Lahinch.


Near great: Swinley Forest, Bandon Trails, Friar’s Head, Sleepy Hollow, St. George’s Hill, Streamsong Blue, Brora, Mid Pines, Elie, and Pasatiempo.


Courses that raters consider great that do not cross my personal threshold: Ballybunion, PAC Dunes, and Royal Dornoch, Castle Stuart, and Kingsbarns. The first three certainly are near great, and I think my expectations were unreasonable—a bit like everyone telling you that you are about to see the best movie ever. Fortunately, we are seeing PD twice more in a couple of weeks so my expectations may have adjusted. CS and KB are very good remakes or covers that do not come near rising to greatness.


But as Don and Ally said so well, it is personal and therefore subjective. And I agree with Sean whose post crossed with mine that Great and Favorite can be different in a good way.


Ira

[Peter Pallotta]

Ally - perhaps the fact that greatness isn't fixed is precisely the reason why there's such fervent attempts to collectivize it (through rankings & ratings, and sites like this one) and to codify it (through magazine writers and PR and podcasters/youtubers) -- ie because you couldn't effectively commodify and monetize it otherwise. Our experience of that greatness would remain wholly personal and subjective -- which is a lovely and sacred space, but one that doesn't generate much money/enough ROI for big time developers or small time wannabes or anyone else in the industry, and so holds very little value for the world at large.
Peter
PS - very nice line re greatness being less about the giver than the receiver

[Sean_A]

Ally - perhaps the fact that greatness isn't fixed is precisely the reason why there's such fervent attempts to collectivize it (through rankings & ratings, and sites like this one) and to codify it (through magazine writers and PR and podcasters/youtubers) -- ie because you couldn't effectively commodify and monetize it otherwise. Our experience of that greatness would remain wholly personal and subjective -- which is a lovely and sacred space, but one that doesn't generate much money/enough ROI for big time developers or small time wannabes or anyone else in the industry, and so holds very little value for the world at large.
Peter
PS - very nice line re greatness being less about the giver than the receiver

Pietro

I agree. Very few people could produce a list that would be universally accepted/praised and have commercial value. Its the magazines/rankings which hold this clout.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Don and Ally are spot on. And Don’s analogy to music, books, and movies is apt for how I judge greatness. A great course presents a coherent and compelling narrative. I am both emotionally drained and emotionally invigorated because the course sucked me in (to use Don’s vivid verb) in a way that commanded my emotional investment and then rewarded that investment with enlightenment and enjoyment.


Mike, to get specific, and subjective, North Berwick is great. Yale is close; I found it compelling but not fully coherent—more a collection of excellent individual holes than a fully fleshed out drama.


Ridgewood is near great because it is a coherent narrative (at least the two nines we played), but was not quite compelling. Just down the road, I found Somerset Hills unquestionably great.


Other courses that I consider great in no particular order: Woking, CPC, PH2, Ballyneal, and Lahinch.


Near great: Swinley Forest, Bandon Trails, Friar’s Head, Sleepy Hollow, St. George’s Hill, Streamsong Blue, Brora, Mid Pines, Elie, and Pasatiempo.

This post sums it all up, including that part of the reason there is a threshold is for people to nit-pick and tell us which courses "fall short".


Peter is right that the word has become commodified and that's undeniably true, just look at the green fees for courses on the Top 100 lists . . . and remember that GOLF DIGEST calls theirs the "100 Greatest".

[Ira Fishman]

Tom,


I actually do not believe that there is a threshold because that implies a clear delineation among descriptive categories. That concept mekes it even more subjective in a quantum physics kind of way.  But Mike introduced the threshold concept, and it is an intriguing one to think through, especially to think about how I define great and why my personal definition leads to my views about particular courses.


I also agree with Mike that specific examples help. But I am not in business so it is easier for me to be specific.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,


I actually do not believe that there is a threshold because that implies a clear delineation among descriptive categories. That concept mekes it even more subjective in a quantum physics kind of way.  But Mike introduced the threshold concept, and it is an intriguing one to think through, especially to think about how I define great and why my personal definition leads to my views about particular courses.

I also agree with Mike that specific examples help. But I am not in business so it is easier for me to be specific.

Ira:


The main reason I quoted your comment was that you were specific about WHICH courses didn't quite make your standard of "great" but offered no reasons as to why.  I suspect that's because if you delineated your reasons, you'd find that not everyone agrees with all of them, which is exactly why this is all a subjective exercise.

[Kalen Braley]

I always figured it was implied that if someone declared a course to be great it was subjective by default.

But to keep Barney happy, I will now contradict myself in proclaiming that a course can generally be considered great if a consensus/majority vote of those with informed opinions/background deem a course to be a 9 or 10 on the DS. 

[Ira Fishman]

Tom,


I delineated my reasons for the ones that Mike mentioned in his posts that I have played (NB, Yale, and Ridgewood). I thought it would be a a bit self indulgent to do so for the rest. Plus I needed to go to work.


For me and my definition of greatness (built upon Don's and Ally's foundation) that includes a threshold, the questions would be why I consider Woking great and Swinley Forest and St. George's Hill near great or why Ballyneal but not PD or why Lahinch but not Ballybunion or RD.  The answers are not too different than Don's point about music, literature, and movies. Woking is an intellectual tale of the first order; Ballyneal presents more mystery from tee to green and around/on the greens; and I found Lahinch to be magical in its variety and quirk--it reminded me of a Ken Kesey novel.


Ira

[John Kavanaugh]

To paraphrase FTRH. Act like everywhere you play is a great place to be.

[John Kavanaugh]

I’ve never played TPC Sawgrass but the mention of it on the season finale of Better Caul Saul put the cement on it.

[John Kirk]

Continuing to throw random thoughts at the thread.

The Major League Baseball Hall of Fame requires a "yes" vote by 75% of those casting ballots to elect a player into the Hall of Fame.  (Each member of the committee can vote for up to 10 players in any given year). While it is subjective, the Baseball Hall of Fame is generally the most exclusive of the major sports.

I think we'd find that a 75% agreement on greatness would be a high bar with golf courses.  I'm a "No" on some of the courses I've seen on the top 100 lists.


Assigning greatness can be a consensus exercise.

As an aside, I would have voted "No" on David Ortiz.

[Jim Sherma]

I’ve been rolling the original premise around in my head and believe that we are not necessarily thinking about this the right way.


While there might not be 400 great courses available today, are there 400 courses that with the appropriate stewardship could/would achieve that status?


All great courses have great ownership that have not only maintained what they have, but also continually tried to improve what’s there. Admittedly with some attempts better than others.


How much of our architecture fetish is less about the original architecture and more about the club’s/owner’s continual pursuit of greatness. There are plenty of courses that have fallen from grace only to be re-elevated once proper investment and care is forthcoming.

There are about 38-39k golf courses in the world.  That means there are about 400 golf courses in the top 1 percent.  Golf architecture is a well-developed art form.  Are there 400 great courses in the world?  I'm not sure about that.

[mike_malone]

I have heard Gil Hanse say that a great course has a sense of place. I take that to mean that there is a unique feel of enjoyment that can’t be separated from the 18 holes you are playing.


  This is subjective particularly at the margin of greatness.

[David Kelly]

All great courses have great ownership that have not only maintained what they have, but also continually tried to improve what’s there. Admittedly with some attempts better than others.

Riviera? 


Apache Stronghold, when it opened, was a great golf course. It didn't have great ownership.

[mike_malone]

Ira,


  I should introduce you to my buddies who think I’m hard to please!


I like your objection to Yale. I can see it as not a drama but a collection of holes.
So routing or the journey is another factor in the definition of that threshold.


Interestingly I use the word “ magical” to describe Ballybunion and “awesome “ for Lahinch. I see both solidly above the threshold.

[Philip Gordillo]

Here’s my personal scale:

Good = Fun course but would only play it on vacation, holidays, or weekend if I happen to be in the area.


Very Good  = Very fun course that I would schedule a golf trip to play even if there is not much else to do after the round (i.e. bad food/bar/clubhouse).


Great = Willing to rearrange work/family schedule to play under just about any scenario.