[Sean_A]

I'm reminded of an AL Hirt quote.  Criticized for being too "commercial, " he supposedly said,  "I can't feed eight kids catering to people who claim to understand Thelonius Monk."


Architecture that's inaccessible to regular golfers is like classical music and progressive jazz. It may be too much work to be enjoyable.


My dad was a jazz saxophonist who was a Bird Parker fan, so I have some knowledge.


And I've been a single-digit golfer.


But I really don't "get" Miles Davis and playing Prairie Dunes and Royal Dornoch is so demanding I find it hard to appreciate them.

Somewhere Peter Pallotta is smiling.

😎


Ciao

[jeffwarne]

The Subway is full of random people.


Take those same random people and drop them at The Alotion Club,  Shadow Creek or any overseeded manicured course, and they are guaranteed to prefer that to what they would see at Shinnecock in the '04 and '18 US OPENS or TOC on any given day.


Tawny fiery bouncy golf on a desolate landscape with micro undulations is an acquired/educated taste.
The theme song for Barney the Dinosaur was heard and sung in more households than the classical violinist playing in the Subway and Barney would surely exceed $32 in the Subway venue

[Tom_Doak]

As with most things in life, great is over-rated. Not only because good, unusual, interesting, etc are often good enough, but because the line between great and not great is invisible most of the time. It's a rarity for greatness to stand out as obviously so.

Sean:


I sort of agree with you on this, and sort of not.


I don't need to play a top-100 course to be happy, but I need the place to have some character.


Mike Hendren referenced Tom Fazio's work as being "good enough" but for me it rarely passed this test.  Sound construction and perfect manicuring is not character, it's almost anti-character.


But, this all comes back to lots of people having a checklist for what constitutes a great golf course, vs. my understanding that an "inspired" course frequently fails to tick some of their boxes.

[Sean_A]

As with most things in life, great is over-rated. Not only because good, unusual, interesting, etc are often good enough, but because the line between great and not great is invisible most of the time. It's a rarity for greatness to stand out as obviously so.

Sean:

I sort of agree with you on this, and sort of not.

I don't need to play a top-100 course to be happy, but I need the place to have some character.

Mike Hendren referenced Tom Fazio's work as being "good enough" but for me it rarely passed this test.  Sound construction and perfect manicuring is not character, it's almost anti-character.

But, this all comes back to lots of people having a checklist for what constitutes a great golf course, vs. my understanding that an "inspired" course frequently fails to tick some of their boxes.

Sure, a course with character is what I mean by unusual, interesting etc. I have played a few of these recently. The one which impressed me most is Panmure. Some very cool man made mounds with natural features and great greens. The finishing stretch eliminates Panmure from being great, but I would sooner play there than the course next door.

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

As with most things in life, great is over-rated. Not only because good, unusual, interesting, etc are often good enough, but because the line between great and not great is invisible most of the time. It's a rarity for greatness to stand out as obviously so.

  Sound construction and perfect manicuring is not character, it's almost anti-character.


But, this all comes back to lots of people having a checklist for what constitutes a great golf course, vs. my understanding that an "inspired" course frequently fails to tick some of their boxes.

Two great lines.


My first travel books were James Finnegan's, full of stories and descriptions, including how courses made him feel.
Quite useful, especially after you had sampled a few of his offerings and could read between the lines.
Next was the Confidential Guide, where Tom's DESCRIPTIONS (not ranking) sent me to many 3's and 4's, which had some really cool holes, and often some of my favorites.


IMHO, those who stick to Doak 7's and above or Top 100's miss so many unique and cool holes on alleged "lesser" courses, even if there a few less memorable holes to get you there and back.
IMHO, that's one of the problems with many raters, especially those who exclusively are charged with picking a Top 100.
I'll take 3-4 really unique cool holes, and a compelling setting on a 9 hole course over an 18 holer with no "bad" holes. Heck even the (alleged) bad holes(Palmetto 15-which I love! and consider great due to the unique fallaway green) are more memorable than the supposed "not bad" holes on so many vapid courses that appear occasionally in the Top 100.






They certainly miss more unique and compelling experiences, especially if you're into no hype, frills, simple people and low key.



The 31 Flavors in the CG has some absolute favorites of  mine, many of which were under rated, and under played, even now-30 years later
I just booked Pennard on a Saturday via their website!

[Tommy Williamsen]

Architecture that's inaccessible to regular golfers is like classical music and progressive jazz. It may be too much work to be enjoyable.


But I really don't "get" Miles Davis and playing Prairie Dunes and Royal Dornoch is so demanding I find it hard to appreciate them.

I don't entirely understand why people think good architecture is so hard to recognize or appreciate.  Holes that have interesting features and interesting greens are pretty easy to recognize, even if you can't hit the shot they require . . . which is a fallacy, because the same contour that makes the green interesting for a great player's second shot, will probably also make it interesting for my pitch or chip.


I do understand your point that many "great" courses are relentless in their challenge and thus beyond the capability of many golfers to enjoy their game.

When my son was a teenager, I took him to Muirfield Village, Inverness, and Shoreacres. He liked the first two, but after the first nine at Shoreacres, he said, "This is the coolest golf course I've ever seen."
Great golf isn't hard to determine.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I'm reminded of an AL Hirt quote.  Criticized for being too "commercial, " he supposedly said,  "I can't feed eight kids catering to people who claim to understand Thelonius Monk."


Architecture that's inaccessible to regular golfers is like classical music and progressive jazz. It may be too much work to be enjoyable.


My dad was a jazz saxophonist who was a Bird Parker fan, so I have some knowledge.


And I've been a single-digit golfer.


But I really don't "get" Miles Davis and playing Prairie Dunes and Royal Dornoch is so demanding I find it hard to appreciate them.

I like this take, and would like to expand on it. The video that got me interested in board/video game design-theory applied to golf was a Game Developers Conference talk given by Ben Brode (I will link to the relevant time stamp below).

There is a non-linear relationship between complexity and depth, even though complexity is needed for depth.



Learning the complex parts of a subject is the cost you pay to get to the fun part, the depth. It applies to understanding Thelonius Monk, Violin Concertos, or The Old Course. However, something does not actually need to be very complex to have a lot of depth, and when we see things that are very simple, but very deep (interesting, fun), they are typically referred to as elegant. I always think of par three's with massive drops as elegant holes (#4 at Presidio, #9 at Lake Chabot), where any beginner immediately understands how the massive elevation change makes the shot different from normal and how it's interesting. 

In designing complex golf courses for those of us who are already GCA fans, we have already paid the cost of learning the complexity of architecture to understand it, but that takes work for other people to understand. Learning why Joshua Bell is amazing also takes work. It's not cost-free to appreciate. 

This is why something as simple and effective as an island green or a large elevation change can be so powerful. It's a very easy way to bring depth to a golf hole without requiring they player to understand subtlety (because they aren't subtle). It's also why they can become cliche.

Here's the relevant section of the GDC talk: https://youtu.be/HjhsY2Zuo-c?t=697

[Ken Moum]

I'm reminded of an AL Hirt quote.  Criticized for being too "commercial, " he supposedly said,  "I can't feed eight kids catering to people who claim to understand Thelonius Monk."


Architecture that's inaccessible to regular golfers is like classical music and progressive jazz. It may be too much work to be enjoyable.


My dad was a jazz saxophonist who was a Bird Parker fan, so I have some knowledge.


And I've been a single-digit golfer.


But I really don't "get" Miles Davis and playing Prairie Dunes and Royal Dornoch is so demanding I find it hard to appreciate them.

Somewhere Peter Pallotta is smiling.

I certainly hope so.

[Joe_Tucholski]

When my son was a teenager, I took him to Muirfield Village, Inverness, and Shoreacres. He liked the first two, but after the first nine at Shoreacres, he said, "This is the coolest golf course I've ever seen."
Great golf isn't hard to determine.

Tommy I've not played any of the 3 you list.  They are all 7's/8's in the confidential guide.


I've heard people refer to Inverness as a great course, even more so after recent work.  PGA tour players seem to love Muirfield (or at least Jack).  I don't think Shoreacres is a consensus great course but it's clearly one you and your son really appreciate, no doubt it's in the great to very good range.


Personal preference aside I stick to my opinion that the difference between great and very good isn't easy to identify.  Presentation and history have a big impact on perceptions.


Bad is easy to identify.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,


He’s  lucky that no one knew the violin was worth 3.5 million. 😀

[Mike_Young]

Mike,


He’s  lucky that no one knew the violin was worth 3.5 million. 😀

You got that right....

[Jeff Schley]

I don't think Shoreacres is a consensus great course but it's clearly one you and your son really appreciate, no doubt it's in the great to very good range.

Joe what is your cutoff for great course?  Top 20 / 50 or?Also consensus meaning multiple rankings systems?
This is probably a whole separate topic, as great gets thrown around much more often than very good.

[Joe_Tucholski]

I don't think Shoreacres is a consensus great course but it's clearly one you and your son really appreciate, no doubt it's in the great to very good range.

Joe what is your cutoff for great course?  Top 20 / 50 or?Also consensus meaning multiple rankings systems?
This is probably a whole separate topic, as great gets thrown around much more often than very good.

From my perspective a consensus great course gets the 9s or 10s on the doak scale (an outstanding course).  A 6, 7, 8 is a very good course (8 may be great, but a borderline).  4, 5 is good.  2, 3 is ok.  1 is bad.  0 is bad, ok, or even good.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()