[THuckaby2]

To me there are few sadder things in golf than looking back on a wonderful course knowing that I will probably never play it again.  

. . . Okay, I begrudgingly admit that playing a great course once is better than not playing it at all, but  it is just barely better in my opinion.

So the dark side is setting in.  Come on over, Dave, it's really not that bad.  

Seriously though, I concur with the first statement, and the second is just a matter of degrees.  It is VERY sad pulling out of the parking lot of some of these great courses... but to me it would considerably sadder never to have played them at all.

The difference here is then in the degree.  I'm sure you're glad you played NGLA, but the pain you felt leaving has you feeling it's just barely better than never playing it at all.  Me, oh I felt the same pain leaving there (until later on that night when I was feeling no pain in a certain Southampton bar), but I am so freakin' glad I got to see it, I sure have no regrets.

I also never say never, until I just did.  

TH

[TEPaul]

I'm a homebody at this point for some reason but I guess I'd have to say I've played a ton of golf on some pretty interesting tracks. Now I'd rather study.

And I won't need to sit here for three hours waiting impatiently to post on this thread again---this is it---although I do feel this post is way too long!

[DMoriarty]

Seriously though, I concur with the first statement, and the second is just a matter of degrees.  It is VERY sad pulling out of the parking lot of some of these great courses... but to me it would considerably sadder never to have played them at all.

The difference here is then in the degree.  I'm sure you're glad you played NGLA, but the pain you felt leaving has you feeling it's just barely better than never playing it at all.  Me, oh I felt the same pain leaving there (until later on that night when I was feeling no pain in a certain Southampton bar), but I am so freakin' glad I got to see it, I sure have no regrets.

Tom, I have no regrets about playing NGLA, I only have regrets about not being able to play it every day for the rest of my life.
______________________

I suspect that there are architectural styles which would appeal to one group or another.  Remember, we are controlling for all other variables except for a stong interest in gca.  

For example, why would a Galavanter care whether a one-time play has onion layers to peel?

[THuckaby2]

Re NGLA, you and me both, my friend.  Oh, I wouldn't take it to the extent you to about playing it every day for the rest of my life - I just can't say that about ANY golf course - but I sure wouldn't mind playing half my golf there for the rest of my life!

I really don't understand your other questions... I guess we'd have to define better what each of us means by the term "architectural styles".  I don't think we're using this in the same way.

To me its obvious that a homebody would prefer a course with layers to peel back, and a galavanter might like this, but wouldn't seek it out necessarily (as I feel about courses like this such as NGLA, The Old Course, Rustic).  I do enjoy playing courses like that, because I do like to think, but not to the extent that I'd want to play every round the rest of my life at any of them....  Then on the other hand, the homebody definitely wants to peel back the layers, but he also wouldn't turn down rounds at other courses he's heard are great, assuming from what he's heard or knows they also have layers to peel...

Again, this all might just be a matter of degrees.  Is it perhaps simple enough to say that the homebody is just more zealous about the peeling back, and the galavanter is more zealous about seeing and experiencing variety?

TH

[DMoriarty]

Re NGLA, you and me both, my friend.  Oh, I wouldn't take it to the extent you to about playing it every day for the rest of my life - I just can't say that about ANY golf course - but I sure wouldn't mind playing half my golf there for the rest of my life!

I really don't understand your other questions... I guess we'd have to define better what each of us means by the term "architectural styles".  I don't think we're using this in the same way.

To me its obvious that a homebody would prefer a course with layers to peel back, and a galavanter might like this, but wouldn't seek it out necessarily (as I feel about courses like this such as NGLA, The Old Course, Rustic).  I do enjoy playing courses like that, because I do like to think, but not to the extent that I'd want to play every round the rest of my life at any of them....  Then on the other hand, the homebody definitely wants to peel back the layers, but he also wouldn't turn down rounds at other courses he's heard are great, assuming from what he's heard or knows they also have layers to peel...

Again, this all might just be a matter of degrees.  Is it perhaps simple enough to say that the homebody is just more zealous about the peeling back, and the galavanter is more zealous about seeing and experiencing variety?

TH

But Tom if I am an architect I had better understand my customers, hadn't I?   Why would I worry about layers if I was aiming to attract galavanters?   Why not focus on those features which make an impression the first time around?  

[THuckaby2]

Why indeed, David?  You tell me.  

Just remember this:  not even every homebody golfer is going to see the same type of course as being a site for peeling back the layers.  For one man that occurs at Rustic Canyon; for another, that can very much occur at Lost Canyons, or dare I say Moorpark.    

By the same token, not every gallavanter is impressed by the same things... many would prefer Rustic Canyon to the other two, big time - because what they are looking for is not the obvious flash.

This isn't black and white.  Lots of shades of grey involved...

But assuming we can make it black and white, here's another question:  wouldn't the best golf courses have something for both the gallavanter and the homebody?  I seem to remember some doctor or someone saying the best courses give the most pleasurable excitement to the greatest number of golfers...  

TH

[Mike Benham]

Just remember this:  not even every homebody golfer is going to see the same type of course as being a site for peeling back the layers.  For one man that occurs at Rustic Canyon; for another, that can very much occur at Lost Canyons, or dare I say Moorpark.    

By the same token, not every gallavanter is impressed by the same things... many would prefer Rustic Canyon to the other two, big time - because what they are looking for is not the obvious flash.

This isn't black and white.  Lots of shades of grey involved...

A defining factor for the Galavanter or Homer is cost of access to play golf (let's exclude private clubs).

Pebble is public but do you think that they are many Homers at Pebble?  Safe to say that Pebble is frequented by 100% galavanters.

Cost and access to tee times may make some golfers (Joe 6-pack) a Homer, with the merits of the course being the third factor (only from a negative).
Mike

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

OH yes, right on, there are very many reasons why one would be a homebody or a galavanter beyond the architectural focus, and you have nailed the most important ones.

BUT... David has excepted these out.  For purpose of this discussion, the only variables allowed are those involving architecture.

I leave it to others to decide how "real world" this is, as that is surely a separate issue.    

Thus I have tried to stick to his premise here.

TH

[Mike Benham]

BUT... David has excepted these out.  For purpose of this discussion, the only variables allowed are those involving architecture ... Thus I have tried to stick to his premise here.

My bad ... apologies ...

[Mike_Cirba]

So many courses...so little time.  

685 courses in 27 states and 4 countries later, I feel I'm only scratching the surface.  

Is there anything (outdoors) that creates such exciting anticipation as waking up to play a new course that day?  

I also believe that it's possible to get a real sense of a course on a single visit, although I know others here disagree.  Of course, multiple playings is optimum, but how many courses have you played where you find out on your tenth playing that your initial impression was completely wrong?  

Not many, I'd believe.  

[Matt_Ward]

A person can love golf and simply play in and around where one lives, however, greater exspoure allows for one to further refine and identify what separates the average, the good and the greatest courses IMHO.

I don't doubt people in either category can truly love golf and have valuable insights, but, on the whole, the person with the greater diversity of experiences and exposure will likely have the opportunity to know what is and what is not the vintage golf experiences because of the greater range of comparisons he / she has encountered and that one can study.

[DMoriarty]

I also believe that it's possible to get a real sense of a course on a single visit, although I know others here disagree.  Of course, multiple playings is optimum, but how many courses have you played where you find out on your tenth playing that your initial impression was completely wrong?  

Not many, I'd believe.  

I don't doubt people in either category can truly love golf and have valuable insights, but, on the whole, the person with the greater diversity of experiences and exposure will likely have the opportunity to know what is and what is not the vintage golf experiences because of the greater range of comparisons he / she has encountered and that one can study.

Mike and Matt:  You guys arent trying to turn this to a discussion on ratings are you?  Nothing like kicking a man when he's down . . . .  

Mike: Why does it matter whether one can get a real sense of a course in one visit?    Who cares whether your view substantially changes after 10 visits?  Why not ask:  Did I enjoy my 10th play as much as my first?  More than my first?  Less?

Matt:  Does one really need to galavant to know whether he's having a vintage golf experience?  And if so, wouldnt it still be a vintage experience on the tenth play.  

While they are related, I am not really talking about ability to assess a golf course, I am talking about enjoying golf. Or rather, what it is that a galavanting golfer enjoys vs. a homebody.  

[A_Clay_Man]

Mike Hendren- You'd be surprised to know that there are Homers at Pebble. Not many payers, a few though, but once a month is enough to call it home. Hell, four times a year is still enough to know the course pretty well after two years.

Mike Cirba- Hi, been wondering. wb

[Mike Benham]

Mike Hendren- You'd be surprised to know that there are Homers at Pebble. Not many payers, a few though, but once a month is enough to call it home. Hell, four times a year is still enough to know the course pretty well after two years.

I know that mean mem, really honestly don't you?  

I'm sure there are some, just not as many as at Pacific Grove ...

[cary lichtenstein]

I am a galavanter. I love new courses, architecture is a turn on, I just enjoy it.

But I know lots of guys who are very good players that are homebodies. Just different strokes for different folks.

[Michael Whitaker]

Most private club members I know are homebodies. Very few will venture out to experience a new course unless they are invited to play in a member-guest or are participating in some type of sanctioned competition. The one exception to this is an annual or semi-annual three-or-four-day golf safari to a resort destination.

Down south we use the term "House Poor" to describe someone who has so much of their personal wealth invested in an expensive house that they can't afford to do anything... or go anywhere... or have any fun in life.

Well, many of these homebodies I know are "Golf Poor." They have so much invested in their club memberships and dues that they can't afford (in money or time) to venture out and experience new places. Every time they play golf somewhere other than their home club they feel like they are throwing money away. I feel sorry for a few of them because they would like to be "Galavanters" but, alas, they find themselves shackeled.

To each his own.

[Matt_Ward]

David M said:

"Does one really need to galavant to know whether he's having a vintage golf experience?  And if so, wouldnt it still be a vintage experience on the tenth play.  

While they are related, I am not really talking about ability to assess a golf course, I am talking about enjoying golf. Or rather, what it is that a galavanting golfer enjoys vs. a homebody."

Let me answer the first part ... No -- a person doesn't need to galvant to know whether he's having a vintage golf experience. But ask yourself this -- without an adequate sample size how does one know for sure? In order to really make some kind of assessment it's important in my mind at least to have some sort of reference -- if you simply play one course and only one course it becomes quite difficult to broadly announce with some sort of CERTAINTY that such an experience qualifies to that pronounced level. That may not apply to you -- but it does for me.

Second, I don't doubt a person can enjoy golf even if its' just one course. However, the wherewithal to play a rich variety of courses allows for a broader pool of places from which to fully identify and classify that experience. If one only went to McDonald's how would you know that it provided the best tasting burger even if you really liked McDonald's?

As a galavanting golfer I enjoy the opportunity that the "next" experience may truly be the most unbelievable and rich golf experience as I ever have. I mentioned my great affinity for Black Mesa many times on GCA and believe, along with Ron Whitten, a course that stands right there with another masterpiece in Pacific Dunes. If I simply stayed in NJ and never ventured to such "fun" courses my appreciation and self enjoyment would never rise to the level that it is today.

In my mind -- it's a no-brainer -- the fun and excitement comes from the very notion that the "next" course may indeed be the kind of golf experience you will always treasure.
For me -- that's what makes the game so appealing -- if others feel differently so be it.

[Matt_Ward]

Shivas:

Don't forward to my wife.

Good stuff indeed!

[Cory Lewis]

I will borrow from redanman and say that my motto is "have gas, will travel"  Of course I am a galavanting golfer, but part of the reason has to do more with the fact that it is impossible for me to have a home course because of my job and also because I don't have kids yet, when I do, I suspect I will change to a homebody and find a nice club to settle down at.  Until then I'm on an eternal quest to see and play the best.

[DMoriarty]

Let me answer the first part ... No -- a person doesn't need to galvant to know whether he's having a vintage golf experience. But ask yourself this -- without an adequate sample size how does one know for sure? In order to really make some kind of assessment it's important in my mind at least to have some sort of reference -- if you simply play one course and only one course it becomes quite difficult to broadly announce with some sort of CERTAINTY that such an experience qualifies to that pronounced level. That may not apply to you -- but it does for me.

Second, I don't doubt a person can enjoy golf even if its' just one course. However, the wherewithal to play a rich variety of courses allows for a broader pool of places from which to fully identify and classify that experience. If one only went to McDonald's how would you know that it provided the best tasting burger even if you really liked McDonald's?

Matt, first I conceed that, for most (and for me), some sort of sample may be necessary in order to build a level of confidence in the quality of their course.  But even it true, one could look around then settle down.  The galavanter has no desire to settle down even when faced with quality.  
   As for my bolds, why would anyone feel the need to announce with certainty a course's quality, or to fully identify and classify the experience.  Again, this sounds more like rating that tastes.  My tastes arent nearly that analytical . . . I can usually tell whether I am having fun without refering back on the 100s of courses I have played.  

As a galavanting golfer I enjoy the opportunity that the "next" experience may truly be the most unbelievable and rich golf experience as I ever have. I mentioned my great affinity for Black Mesa many times on GCA and believe, along with Ron Whitten, a course that stands right there with another masterpiece in Pacific Dunes. If I simply stayed in NJ and never ventured to such "fun" courses my appreciation and self enjoyment would never rise to the level that it is today.

Pac Dunes vs. Black Mesa?   Hmmm, I wish I had made it to New Mexico if Black Mesa holds its own against Pacific Dunes.  Since I have only seen one, perhaps you can answer a few questions about the two courses:
--  Which affords the best chance of an enjoyable 10th round?  100th round?  1000th round?
--  Which affords the best chance to surprise you with a detail or a shot after the 30th round?
--  After your first play of each, which one did you grasp to the greatest extent?

Not trying to suggest that one approach is better than the other, just trying to understand a perspective which is foreign to me (and perhaps might have been foreign to many before me.)

[THuckaby2]

Let's test Moriarity's lawyering skills:

Dave, care to respond to Matt's statements, as modified by yours truly?    Remember, that's a HOME computer!

I'd like to read that as well - I have a feeling the answer would be legendary!  

But on another part of this, I'll be bold and take a stab at Pacific Dunes v. Black Mesa.  I wonder how many people outside of the participants in this group would have seen both of these courses... But anyway, here's now I see it, having played BM twice and PD I think 4 times (don't remember for sure the exact number of playings...)

--  Which affords the best chance of an enjoyable 10th round?  100th round?  1000th round?
They both would be very strong in this criteria.  I'd have to say that PD might ever so slightly be more enjoyable over the very long term, but not due to the architecture - more due to the ever-changing weather conditions.  If you just base it on architecture and keep weather constant, the slight nod might go to BM, just for the incredible variety of possible shots.

--  Which affords the best chance to surprise you with a detail or a shot after the 30th round?
BM.  I can't imagine EVER figuring out all of those greens.  Things are gonna happen that surprise you up to the 1000th round.  Damn the same thing would happen at PD... but it just might happen a tiny bit more at BM.


--  After your first play of each, which one did you grasp to the greatest extent?
Neither.  I think it would take a very long time to fully grasp either course.  So call this a tie.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

David M:

You must have worked for the Clinton White House because you have this delicious habit (shall I be so kind to call it that) with parsing to the eeeeeeeeeeeeenth degree.

Let me refresh your memory before you engage in the endless spin cycle that is your forte.

I meant what I said -- if someone believes from only playing ONE course that it is the ultimate golf experience without having any sort of sample from which to compare how does one know for sure? Like I said if you feed someone McDonald's and that's the only hamburgers they have ever had it's possible they will believe McDonald's to be the ultimate hamburger. That's simple for me to understand -- maybe you just like McDonald's.

David -- when you say "look around" what type of sample are we talking about? Is it just the courses in LA or Orange counties? Or is it a bit broader than that? If you're sample size is really quite small it's hard for me to pontificate (I know you can) on how things measure up when you only have such a small sampling to go by. When a golf course is the "ultimate" I have to base it on more than just that experience in order to provide some sort of context. Maybe that doesn't matter to you, but it does to me.

Another point you said, "The galavanter has no desire to settle down even when faced with quality." Hello -- where did you make that leap in logic?

I've played Bethpage Black over 200 times -- do you think I go back there just to play games on the LI Expressway? You see David -- my lawyer argument friend -- I like to reside in both categories -- you seem to imply that homebodies can assess greatness from a narrow base of options and I don't agree with that. Look, if Joe Sixpack BELIEVES IN HIS O-W-N MIND that he is playing another version of Cypress Point from the local muni in his backyard so be it. Like I said before -- ignorance can be bliss and I say to Mr. Sixpack go knock yourself out.

You also said, "why would anyone feel the need to announce with certainty a course's quality, or to fully identify and classify the experience." David -- go visit any 19th hole and this sort of thing happens all the time. People share their experiences with their golfing buddies and usually pinpoint a given place and recommend others either to play it or avoid it.
If you don't do such a thing then I believe you're the one in the minority.

You also keep using the word "fun" -- I don't doubt people can have "fun" and they can have "fun" simply by whacking balls at the range or even in playing putt-putt. If that's what floats their boat -- great. That's just not for me. I want to more fully explore what exists in golf and visiting places -- as well as returning to the tried and true -- provides me with the consumate enjoyment or "fun" as you define it.

David -- I agree for the most part by which Huck defined Pac Dunes and Black Mesa. They are both stunning golf courses and among the finest "new" courses I have played in the States. I don't throw such comment forward without giving them some serious thought. I would just hope that those on this site would not look upon Black Mesa as being beneath Pac Dunes simply because of the person who designed it. Baxter Spann did a superb job in creating holes that fit within the "given" landscape and as Ron Whitten correctly point out in his review I also believe the strategic elements you find at Black Mesa will always rise to the occasion -- the first time -- the 100th time -- the millionnth time. Since you have not played Black Mesa you need to play it before wondering if my analysis is spot on.

Last point -- when you say, "Not trying to suggest that one approach is better than the other, just trying to understand a perspective which is foreign to me (and perhaps might have been foreign to many before me.)"

I have to stop laughing ...when you say that you're not suggesting one is better than the other -- of course you
are -- otherwise why all this time wasted typing your comments over and over again? David -- what's foreign is that YOU may need to fully explore what golf courses exist in this country to get a much better handle on why someone like me and others may feel the way we do. Nothing more -- nothing less.

[DMoriarty]

Shivas and Tom,  

I think I'll stick with my answer the way it is, make the same edits if you like.   Plus one addition:

Watching Bill Mayer the other night (unusual for me) and he was trying to explain to women why men roam.  Said something like, 'it's not blondes, not brunettes, not big breasts or small, not legs, not personality, not even age. . . .  It is NEW.  Men cheat because they are looking for something, no anything, a NEW.  I mean come on, Hugh Grant had Elizabeth Hurley at home and he paid to be with Marvin Hagler in a wig.  Why?  Because she was NEW."  

Apply this to gca if you like.  

[DMoriarty]

Matt I dont understand what you are getting so worked up about.  We simply have different motivations and goals.  You seem motivated by seeing more and more, and being able to assess and order it all.  The thrill of finding something new and wonderful.  This isnt my motivation at all.  My motivation is to enjoy golf, and to delve into what is great to see what I can learn.

I'll stick to my assertion that Galavanters arent looking to settle down.  You see, its my term and by definition[/b] Galavanters arent looking to settle down.   You may want to take a look at my post to Shivas above where I distinguish between his galavanting and my previous galavanting.

And I dont care how many times you've played Bethpage, you have not settled down.  

I keep mentioning fun because my tastes are based largely on fun, enjoyment.  You and I find enjoyment in different places.

Matt, I've grown tired of you condescendingly assuming that I (and others) dont have an adequate basis for challenging you because we havent seen what you have seen.    

      First, while I am no Matt Ward, I have sewed my golfing oats, mostly outside of Southern California.  Including, for example, close to 100 rounds at a variety of courses in your beloved New Mexico, before BM was built.  So quit telling me that I havent seen enough to qualify to converse with you.

      Second, your assumption that skimming everything is the best way to build a basis from which to learn is questionable at best, and quite arrogant at worst.  In my opinion, it invites shallow and predictable assessments and might cause the golfer to favor flash instead of substance.  It also might cause the golfer to zoom right past the essence of the game.  

How many different courses did average golfers from Dornoch play in a lifetime before transportation became more efficient?  Were these golfers somehow cheated by their more limited golfing experience?  Were they ignorant of good architecture?  

And Matt, I dont have to have played either PD or BM to wonder whether your assessment is spot on.   I dont agree with the way you view architecture, more specifically, your understanding of the requirements of great architecture, and I can question your assessment based on that and that alone.   But . . . you might note that I did not question the validity of your assessment, I just asked your to clarify a few points.  Thanks for doing so.  

[Dan Kelly]

Apply this to gca if you like.  

I believe we've done this once already, didn't we -- in Prof. Goodale's "strange" thread?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()