What have you learned by playing highly ranked courses?

[Tim_Weiman]

I’ve been playing great courses for the last 20+ years. If I’ve learned anything it’s that no individual hole is greater than another. Some just find their way into conversation easier.

I like a lot of the answers on here but I still think John’s original post is my favourite:

Sure, there are holes that excel in strategy. But seeing as strategy is overrated, there are far more holes that have just become easy touch points and standard bearers for discussions on great holes, even if they are no better or worse than half a dozen other holes on their respective courses.

For that reason, I have always advocated for the “whole” ahead of chasing individual hole greatness: The album over the three hit singles. That seems to be where I differ from other architects on here.

You are a golf course architect but you denounce the quest to build a great golf hole?


It's one thing to opine that you should not detract from another hole in the eighteen in order to build one great one.  I might agree with you on that -- although it would depend on the circumstance.  [If you've only got one chance to build a great hole on a particular project, you should probably go for it.]


It's another thing to say you aren't chasing the opportunity to build great holes.  WTF are you trying to do then?

Your middle paragraph is exactly what I’m saying. Of course I’m going to build the best / greatest hole I can if the opportunity arises and it doesn’t detract from the whole but only adds. To do otherwise would just be stupid…. I am merely indicating that the whole takes precedent.

Ally,


Regarding the quest to build a great hole detracting from the whole, can you actually cite a few examples where this was done? Or is this just theoretical?

[Ally Mcintosh]

I’ve been playing great courses for the last 20+ years. If I’ve learned anything it’s that no individual hole is greater than another. Some just find their way into conversation easier.

I like a lot of the answers on here but I still think John’s original post is my favourite:

Sure, there are holes that excel in strategy. But seeing as strategy is overrated, there are far more holes that have just become easy touch points and standard bearers for discussions on great holes, even if they are no better or worse than half a dozen other holes on their respective courses.

For that reason, I have always advocated for the “whole” ahead of chasing individual hole greatness: The album over the three hit singles. That seems to be where I differ from other architects on here.

You are a golf course architect but you denounce the quest to build a great golf hole?


It's one thing to opine that you should not detract from another hole in the eighteen in order to build one great one.  I might agree with you on that -- although it would depend on the circumstance.  [If you've only got one chance to build a great hole on a particular project, you should probably go for it.]


It's another thing to say you aren't chasing the opportunity to build great holes.  WTF are you trying to do then?

Your middle paragraph is exactly what I’m saying. Of course I’m going to build the best / greatest hole I can if the opportunity arises and it doesn’t detract from the whole but only adds. To do otherwise would just be stupid…. I am merely indicating that the whole takes precedent.

Ally,


Regarding the quest to build a great hole detracting from the whole, can you actually cite a few examples where this was done? Or is this just theoretical?

There will be plenty of examples.


I mean it in two senses:


1. Routing: The amount of times an architect will hold on to a favourite hole to the detriment of the overall routing or flow will have been numerous. Real, not theoretical; but given it is very difficult to judge routings without being intimate with the pre-construction site, not always obvious.


2. Holes that feel out of place, not part of the whole, whether that be through different landscape (which is usually very acceptable) or different design (which is often not). Sometimes done in an effort to make the hole stand out.

[Tim_Weiman]

Ally,


What I was asking for is actual examples whereby you name the specific hole that was built in an attempt to create a great hole but that doing so came at the cost of the entire golf course.


Honestly, I don’t think it is that easy to do. Your comment about routing appears to acknowledge this. It leads me to think this is more theoretical than real.

[Mark Pearce]

What I was asking for is actual examples whereby you name the specific hole that was built in an attempt to create a great hole but that doing so came at the cost of the entire golf course.

Not my fight but this question is unanswerable, isn't it?  It presupposes knowledge of the architect's intent.  It assumes the ability to identify a course which COULD have been great but isn't.  It relies on identifying a hole intended to be great.  Surely the only approach is to identify great holes on average courses and then make assumptions.  But there's another thread on that.   

[Aaron Marks]

I've learned that truly great golf courses are highly complex and require multiple plays to appreciate all of the strategy, subtlety and nuances they contain.

Completely agree. I'd rather play one great course ten times, than ten great courses one time. 

[Tom_Doak]

What I've learned from playing highly-ranked golf courses is that the majority of them are overrated, and that there are legions of $50 golf courses that are twice as good as many $250+ courses.

Okay, let's have five examples of overrated $250 courses, and give $50 courses that are twice as good.  [I don't think I could come up with five of the latter, myself.]

[Kalen Braley]

I'd bet Sandpiper and TP South hit the $250 mark or are pretty close.

However, I can only think of one $50 course that might be as good as those two, Indian Canyon in Spokane, but I couldn't claim twice as good. 

[John Kavanaugh]

You just don’t get much in the $250 range these days. You’ll never double up Prairie Dunes at that price if you know a member.

[Tom_Doak]

What I've learned from playing highly-ranked golf courses is that the majority of them are overrated, and that there are legions of $50 golf courses that are twice as good as many $250+ courses.

Okay, let's have five examples of overrated $250 courses, and give $50 courses that are twice as good.  [I don't think I could come up with five of the latter, myself.]

Oh, I am sure there are quite a few $250 courses that aren't worth a crap.  But Tim's post also referenced "highly ranked" courses and I don't think that a lot of those crappy $250 places are highly ranked.


I will give you Torrey Pines, though, Kalen. 

[John Kavanaugh]

I’ve never played a course in the US twice as good as TPS at any price.


While the above statement may appear to be trolling the fact that I have held and defended this view for 20 years makes it my truth.

[Tim Gavrich]

What I've learned from playing highly-ranked golf courses is that the majority of them are overrated, and that there are legions of $50 golf courses that are twice as good as many $250+ courses.

Okay, let's have five examples of overrated $250 courses, and give $50 courses that are twice as good.  [I don't think I could come up with five of the latter, myself.]

Tom--


"Highly-ranked" being a relative term (and cost being tied to public perception of a course regardless of its actual quality), here are some pairings I would propose. In each case, I would rather play the relatively inexpensive first course than the second to the tune of at least a 7-3 10-round split, and the second course generally costs significant multiples more to play than the first.


I'll freely admit my splits are partly in consideration of the relative value props (i.e. not a 100% straight architecture comp, although some of them are, like my CA, CT, NY and SC examples) but I feel compelled to represent the overwhelming majority of golfers who don't have the means to play high-$ courses often or at all.


AZ: Papago > Wigwam Gold
CA: San Vicente > The Grand GC
CT: Keney Park > Lake of Isles (North)
FL: Brooksville CC > Innisbrook (Island)
FL: Riviera Ormond Beach > TPC Sawgrass (Valley)
ID: Circling Raven > Coeur d'Alene Resort
MI: Diamond Springs > Boyne Highlands (Hills)
MI: Grand Beach > Harbor Shores
NY: Copake or Orchard Creek > Pound Ridge
SC: Charleston Muni > Kiawah Island (Turtle Point)
WA: Liberty Lake > Salish Cliffs


There's 12 examples, though a few of them stretch the criteria a bit (i.e. Circling Raven is more a $100 course but compared to the $300 CdA course it's a no-brainer).

[Tom_Doak]

AZ: Papago > Wigwam Gold
CA: San Vicente > The Grand GC
CT: Keney Park > Lake of Isles (North)
FL: Brooksville CC > Innisbrook (Island)
FL: Riviera Ormond Beach > TPC Sawgrass (Valley)
ID: Circling Raven > Coeur d'Alene Resort
MI: Diamond Springs > Boyne Highlands (Hills)
MI: Grand Beach > Harbor Shores
NY: Copake or Orchard Creek > Pound Ridge
SC: Charleston Muni > Kiawah Island (Turtle Point)
WA: Liberty Lake > Salish Cliffs

There's 12 examples, though a few of them stretch the criteria a bit (i.e. Circling Raven is more a $100 course but compared to the $300 CdA course it's a no-brainer).

Tim:


Thanks for naming names!  Lots of people throw out positions like this and can't back it up.


Had this been a $$$ wager, I would have insisted that the expensive courses be highly regarded in some ranking, or that you stick to the $50 you set as your limit for lower courses.  I don't pay to play very many places, but I do wonder how many of your courses in the USA are really $50 or less at their normal high season rates.  Even CommonGround in Denver is up to $77 for out of towners on the weekend.

[Joe_Tucholski]

To me the thing I've noticed the most is the importance of greens.


It makes sense that most highly ranked courses have greens with interest and they often make the shots before the green matter.


This is the part about the greens that is going to sound a bit silly.  Most highly ranked courses also have greens that have a different sound.  When you drop a ball on the green or lightly drop the head of your putter the thud you usually hear at highly ranked courses is different than the sound at courses I usually play.

[Andre Masse]

What I've learned from playing highly ranked golf courses is that they, on average, deliver a more memorable experience than average courses. Of course, there is the bias of knowing you are stepping foot on a highly ranked course in the first place, but I swear I can remember most shots I hit at the highest ranked courses I played - I attribute this to a combination of interesting architecture getting you to think about each shot, but also a coherent story being told hole after hole, making the entire routing more memorable.

Highly ranked courses tend to have great holes that heighten the experience, few boring holes that kill momentum, and a very distinct identity. Some of those courses make you think because of how much trouble they offer, but some also make you think because of how different they feel from other holes you've played. The tee shots on 10 at Riviera or 6 at LACC North, the approach into 4 or 7 at Fishers are good examples of the latter in my mind.

Most highly ranked course I've played have felt like have a strong identity, doesn't mean I personally loved all of them, but I typically leave the round with a pretty clear sense of what those courses stand for.

[Mark_Fine]

Not that we need another list    but it would be interesting to see the top 100 best value courses.  Talk about controversial and a subjective list 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not that I was belt notching, mind you, but at one point I had played over 70 of the top 100 by Golf Digest.  Not sure about other rankings and not sure about newer rankings, and it was never my intent to hit all 100.


As to Ally's point, I once wrote that it would be bad to sacrifice the whole for one hole, i.e. waterfront.  Of course, that never really happened to me until I renovated Superior National in MN.  There was land available to get a short par 3 along the banks of Lake Superior.  However, between wetlands and road crossing costs it would have been prohibitively expensive if done.  And, the long ride would have spoiled the flow of what is a pretty tight course, with mid distance Lake Superior views anyway.  (I have noticed a few times that somewhat elevated views of water are actually as good as playing right along the water)  So, I declined the suggestion or routing to get to that one "spectacular water par 3.)


As to the main premise, I have noticed that the list of "courses I want to head right back to the first tee and play again" is much smaller than the list of "great courses."  At least, IMHO.

[Tom_Doak]

As to the main premise, I have noticed that the list of "courses I want to head right back to the first tee and play again" is much smaller than the list of "great courses."  At least, IMHO.

Jeff:


Just curious, are all of the courses you'd like to rush back to the first tee, "great courses," in the rankings?  And if not, do you think those courses SHOULD be ranked as great, or can they be exciting to play again without being "great" ?

[Tim_Weiman]

Not that I was belt notching, mind you, but at one point I had played over 70 of the top 100 by Golf Digest.  Not sure about other rankings and not sure about newer rankings, and it was never my intent to hit all 100.


As to Ally's point, I once wrote that it would be bad to sacrifice the whole for one hole, i.e. waterfront.  Of course, that never really happened to me until I renovated Superior National in MN.  There was land available to get a short par 3 along the banks of Lake Superior.  However, between wetlands and road crossing costs it would have been prohibitively expensive if done.  And, the long ride would have spoiled the flow of what is a pretty tight course, with mid distance Lake Superior views anyway.  (I have noticed a few times that somewhat elevated views of water are actually as good as playing right along the water)  So, I declined the suggestion or routing to get to that one "spectacular water par 3.)


As to the main premise, I have noticed that the list of "courses I want to head right back to the first tee and play again" is much smaller than the list of "great courses."  At least, IMHO.

Jeff,


Thanks for your post and the comments about Superior National.


So it leads me to a crazy question. Can you imagine the club buying the land and building a short hole that is not intended to be part of the existing golf course? Instead, it would just be a place members could go for maybe an hour and enjoy both the view and a fun little hole.


I have never seen such a thing, but can’t help but wonder if members of a club might actually find it pretty cool.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not that I was belt notching, mind you, but at one point I had played over 70 of the top 100 by Golf Digest.  Not sure about other rankings and not sure about newer rankings, and it was never my intent to hit all 100.


As to Ally's point, I once wrote that it would be bad to sacrifice the whole for one hole, i.e. waterfront.  Of course, that never really happened to me until I renovated Superior National in MN.  There was land available to get a short par 3 along the banks of Lake Superior.  However, between wetlands and road crossing costs it would have been prohibitively expensive if done.  And, the long ride would have spoiled the flow of what is a pretty tight course, with mid distance Lake Superior views anyway.  (I have noticed a few times that somewhat elevated views of water are actually as good as playing right along the water)  So, I declined the suggestion or routing to get to that one "spectacular water par 3.)


As to the main premise, I have noticed that the list of "courses I want to head right back to the first tee and play again" is much smaller than the list of "great courses."  At least, IMHO.

Jeff,


Thanks for your post and the comments about Superior National.


So it leads me to a crazy question. Can you imagine the club buying the land and building a short hole that is not intended to be part of the existing golf course? Instead, it would just be a place members could go for maybe an hour and enjoy both the view and a fun little hole.


I have never seen such a thing, but can’t help but wonder if members of a club might actually find it pretty cool.

Tim,


There is a hotel there which has a somewhat maintained par 3 golf course anyway.  Even using a few of those holes, it was hard to get down to the lake.  It also seems there is a trend to those kinds of semi fun and semi practice facilities at clubs.  Whether you would want hotel guests to be practicing where a lake might steal too many golf balls is an open question.


Tom,


I guess my bias is for aesthetic courses on dramatic topo, over the courses that make the list with a high score for difficulty, so I can imagine many unranked courses fitting my bill.  In thinking about it, I know Crystal Downs was one I would have gone right back out to play, as would be Dornoch and County Down, but Oakmont wouldn't make my list.  For that matter, as highly regarded as Merion is, the topo is about average, and there is nothing that screamed "let's play it again" to me.

[Tim Gavrich]

AZ: Papago > Wigwam Gold
CA: San Vicente > The Grand GC
CT: Keney Park > Lake of Isles (North)
FL: Brooksville CC > Innisbrook (Island)
FL: Riviera Ormond Beach > TPC Sawgrass (Valley)
ID: Circling Raven > Coeur d'Alene Resort
MI: Diamond Springs > Boyne Highlands (Hills)
MI: Grand Beach > Harbor Shores
NY: Copake or Orchard Creek > Pound Ridge
SC: Charleston Muni > Kiawah Island (Turtle Point)
WA: Liberty Lake > Salish Cliffs

There's 12 examples, though a few of them stretch the criteria a bit (i.e. Circling Raven is more a $100 course but compared to the $300 CdA course it's a no-brainer).

Tim:


Thanks for naming names!  Lots of people throw out positions like this and can't back it up.


Had this been a $$$ wager, I would have insisted that the expensive courses be highly regarded in some ranking, or that you stick to the $50 you set as your limit for lower courses.  I don't pay to play very many places, but I do wonder how many of your courses in the USA are really $50 or less at their normal high season rates.  Even CommonGround in Denver is up to $77 for out of towners on the weekend.

At the moment, you can at least walk the following courses from my pairings for $50 or less:
- Keney (okay, it's $51 on weekends but $49 weekdays)
- Brooksville ($50)
- Riv ($59.95 with cart, I'm pretty sure you can walk though and it would be under $50)
- Diamond Springs ($50 weekdays walking)
- Grand Beach ($30; I paid $13.50 to walk 9 in summer 2019, as soon as the young lady in the pro shop had finished scooping ice cream for a gaggle of bathing-suited kids in front of me)
- Copake ($40 weekdays)
- Orchard Creek (shucks, another $51 weekend walking rate, BUT all the apples you can eat along the fairways)
- Liberty Lake ($52 pre-booked; $48 otherwise)

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not that I was belt notching, mind you, but at one point I had played over 70 of the top 100 by Golf Digest.  Not sure about other rankings and not sure about newer rankings, and it was never my intent to hit all 100.


As to Ally's point, I once wrote that it would be bad to sacrifice the whole for one hole, i.e. waterfront.  Of course, that never really happened to me until I renovated Superior National in MN.  There was land available to get a short par 3 along the banks of Lake Superior.  However, between wetlands and road crossing costs it would have been prohibitively expensive if done.  And, the long ride would have spoiled the flow of what is a pretty tight course, with mid distance Lake Superior views anyway.  (I have noticed a few times that somewhat elevated views of water are actually as good as playing right along the water)  So, I declined the suggestion or routing to get to that one "spectacular water par 3.)


As to the main premise, I have noticed that the list of "courses I want to head right back to the first tee and play again" is much smaller than the list of "great courses."  At least, IMHO.

Jeff,


Thanks for your post and the comments about Superior National.


So it leads me to a crazy question. Can you imagine the club buying the land and building a short hole that is not intended to be part of the existing golf course? Instead, it would just be a place members could go for maybe an hour and enjoy both the view and a fun little hole.


I have never seen such a thing, but can’t help but wonder if members of a club might actually find it pretty cool.

[Tom_Doak]

For that matter, as highly regarded as Merion is, the topo is about average, and there is nothing that screamed "let's play it again" to me.

Usually when I've played Merion, my forearms are too exhausted from hitting it out of the rough to try and go around again!

[astavrides]

Not that we need another list    but it would be interesting to see the top 100 best value courses.  Talk about controversial and a subjective list 

https://golf.com/travel/top-100-value-courses-you-can-play-150-less/

[Jeff_Brauer]

For that matter, as highly regarded as Merion is, the topo is about average, and there is nothing that screamed "let's play it again" to me.

Usually when I've played Merion, my forearms are too exhausted from hitting it out of the rough to try and go around again!

Our experiences are the same.  Having played PV the day before, I was astonished at how much easier it was, primarily due to the rough at Merion.

[cary lichtenstein]

It's 16 years since I picked up a golf club, so I thought I'd reflect on this thread. I have my favorite courses, my favorite holes, etc. I have my hardest courses too. my favorite architects. my over-rated courses as well.


Since no one can agree on anything, like politics, I'll keep my opinions to myself.