Does anybody else catalog their courses played by architect?

[Roadking2003]

I started keeping a list of the courses I have played many years ago and have added the course architect for most of them.

 

Here are my top five by course count;

 

Jack Nicklaus: 40 (played my 40th Nicklaus course last week - Aspen Glen)

RT Jones Jr: 20

Pete Dye: 19

Arnold Palmer: 18

Tom Fazio: 18

[raynorfan1]

No; I consciously try to avoid matching architects and courses because I have found that it biases my view on the course. I prefer to know as little as possible about a course going in so that I can experience it as a new discovery.

[az2au]

No and I quit keep tracking of courses when I crossed 700. It became useless and pointless to keep track.

[Roadking2003]

> @az2au said:

> No and I quit keep tracking of courses when I crossed 700. It became useless and pointless to keep track.

 

The only point is if you enjoy it. If not, it's pointless.

[az2au]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @az2au said:

> > No and I quit keep tracking of courses when I crossed 700. It became useless and pointless to keep track.

>

> The only point is if you enjoy it. If not, it's pointless.

 

That’s kind of my point. It became a job rather than something I enjoyed. I realized that I just found the whole thing completely meaningless.

[CMCSGolf]

I catalog the courses I have played by a few different things, one of which is architect. I enjoy tracking the places I have been in life. But I've always been a bit neurotic that way. For a bit I tried to approach it like Raynor to limit bias, but it became hard. I wanted to increase my chance of liking the experience so I did some research to avoid places I know I wouldn't like. But to each, their own.

[Schley]

I only keep track of the classic designers and not in any document, but in my head as they are pretty memorable.

[Roadking2003]

> @CMCSGolf said:

> I catalog the courses I have played by a few different things, one of which is architect. I enjoy tracking the places I have been in life. But I've always been a bit neurotic that way. For a bit I tried to approach it like Raynor to limit bias, but it became hard. I wanted to increase my chance of liking the experience so I did some research to avoid places I know I wouldn't like. But to each, their own.

 

I track lots of stuff including countries, national parks, etc.

I don't know how you filter out things like major tournament venues and courses you've seen on TV when evaluating a course. Playing a course I've seen on TV (the tours) enhances the experience and I actively seek them out. Whistling Straits is a good example. How can you ignore the great golf we've seen at Whistling Straits on TV and not let that add to your enjoyment when you finally get to play there?

 

However, the architect has much less influence on my evaluation.

[duffer987]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @CMCSGolf said:

> > I catalog the courses I have played by a few different things, one of which is architect. I enjoy tracking the places I have been in life. But I've always been a bit neurotic that way. For a bit I tried to approach it like Raynor to limit bias, but it became hard. I wanted to increase my chance of liking the experience so I did some research to avoid places I know I wouldn't like. But to each, their own.

>

> I track lots of stuff including countries, national parks, etc.

> I don't know how you filter out things like major tournament venues and courses you've seen on TV when evaluating a course. Playing a course I've seen on TV (the tours) enhances the experience and I actively seek them out. Whistling Straits is a good example. How can you ignore the great golf we've seen at Whistling Straits on TV and not let that add to your enjoyment when you finally get to play there?

>

> However, the architect has much less influence on my evaluation.

 

Pretty simple really: I'm there for me and my enjoyment of a golf course, not someone else's. And my enjoyment comes from playing cool holes/courses and making a good pass at the ball. I'm too busy being actively engaged in that endeavour to care about anything else, especially what some guy did some time in and around the same spot I happen to be standing.

 

When I watch a tourney, like the Scottish Open today, then sure I have a greater appreciation for the course and can see the shots/terrain better because I have been there, but I don't give a toss whether some place I play is hosts an event or not. Those players are playing somewhere I have played - not the other way around.

[Chanceman]

If you are a golf course aficionado then you know when you play a Mackenzie or a Crenshaw or an Old Tom and you know which ones you like. The numbers are really irrelevant. I played St Andrews Beach here in Aus and loved it long before I knew who Tom Doak was.

[az2au]

> @duffer987 said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @CMCSGolf said:

> > > I catalog the courses I have played by a few different things, one of which is architect. I enjoy tracking the places I have been in life. But I've always been a bit neurotic that way. For a bit I tried to approach it like Raynor to limit bias, but it became hard. I wanted to increase my chance of liking the experience so I did some research to avoid places I know I wouldn't like. But to each, their own.

> >

> > I track lots of stuff including countries, national parks, etc.

> > I don't know how you filter out things like major tournament venues and courses you've seen on TV when evaluating a course. Playing a course I've seen on TV (the tours) enhances the experience and I actively seek them out. Whistling Straits is a good example. How can you ignore the great golf we've seen at Whistling Straits on TV and not let that add to your enjoyment when you finally get to play there?

> >

> > However, the architect has much less influence on my evaluation.

>

> Pretty simple really: I'm there for me and my enjoyment of a golf course, not someone else's. And my enjoyment comes from playing cool holes/courses and making a good pass at the ball. I'm too busy being actively engaged in that endeavour to care about anything else, especially what some guy did some time in and around the same spot I happen to be standing.

>

> When I watch a tourney, like the Scottish Open today, then sure I have a greater appreciation for the course and can see the shots/terrain better because I have been there, but I don't give a toss whether some place I play is hosts an event or not. Those players are playing somewhere I have played - not the other way around.

I'd go as far as to say I'm suspicious of a course that has hosted tour events instead of excited by it. I have to try to manage my bias the other way. Mark Hensby was just tweeting yesterday about the fact that the PGA Tour generally plays mediocre courses and that you'd find better courses if you focused on where high level NCAA golf is played (I'm paraphrasing but that's what he was getting at).

 

I can say with 100% certainty that it doesn't increase my enjoyment level and, off the top of my head, I can't even recall anything of significance at Whistling Straights regarding actual play. I mean, I know that's where DJ had the bunker issue and that there have been events there but none of it is remotely meaningful to me. Fame is a funny thing. If I were a huge fan of the PGA Tour and professional golf I'm sure it would have more influence on me but I'm not. I'm a huge fan of playing golf and enjoying the sport myself. The PGA Tour is probably my third favorite tour played globally and I barely watch the others either because pro golf is only tangentially interesting to me. That makes it extremely easy to filter that stuff out and thus I can also say with completely honesty that I thought Whistling Straights-Straights was fine. Not horrible, not great. Just fine. Resort is very nice. Certainly wouldn't make it in the top 50 courses I've played, not sure where it would fall but likely somewhere in the upper half.

 

[Roadking2003]

> @duffer987 said:

> When I watch a tourney, like the Scottish Open today, then sure I have a greater appreciation for the course and can see the shots/terrain better because I have been there, but I don't give a toss whether some place I play is hosts an event or not. Those players are playing somewhere I have played - not the other way around.

 

But if they didn't host an event you wouldn't have seen it on TV. That's the point. Watching how the pros played a course adds to the enjoyment.

 

A good example is Erin Hills #18. Standing on the Justin Thomas plaque and looking up to the green gives you a much greater appreciation of that shot.

[duffer987]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @duffer987 said:

> > When I watch a tourney, like the Scottish Open today, then sure I have a greater appreciation for the course and can see the shots/terrain better because I have been there, but I don't give a toss whether some place I play is hosts an event or not. Those players are playing somewhere I have played - not the other way around.

>

> But if they didn't host an event you wouldn't have seen it on TV. That's the point. Watching how the pros played a course adds to the enjoyment.

>

> A good example is Erin Hills #18. Standing on the Justin Thomas plaque and looking up to the green gives you a much greater appreciation of that shot.

 

You've completely missed the point of my post.

I don't really care about watching golf on TV (although I do enjoy the UK/Ireland stretch we're in now) but if I do watch a tourney on a course I have played, it makes it easier to have an appreciation for things like elevation changes and the degree to which a dogleg bends for instance - and I'll repeat - when watching it on TV.

 

That has nothing to do with how much I enjoy playing a course or in choosing which courses to play.

[vallygolf]

I am kind of an interesting case study to this question. Most of my golfing life (starting at age 12) I really never even gave a single thought to architecture or who even designed the course up until about 10 years ago. I began to really learn about principles of architecture and history of course development. I kind of nutted out on it for a few years. One day as I was playing a round on a course I had played years earlier and enjoyed very much I realized that my micro dissection of the course had actually diminished my personal enjoyment of the game. Tossed the notion of caring about who designed the course out the window, as well as playing the course from the architects perspective, and have never enjoyed the game as much as I do right now. Architecture creeps into my mind off and on, but doesnt dominate enough that I care to know or find out who designed a course before or after play. I just go out to enjoy the game of golf.

[BUCKEYERBALL88]

My top 10 golf course architects (#of courses played):

1. Doak/Urbina (6)

2. Mackenzie/Maxwell (3)

3. Colt/Old Tom (2)

4. Hanse (1)

5. Nicklaus (6)

6. Weiskopf/Moorish (8)

7. Hills (9)

8. Ross (5)

9. Fought (6)

10. Palmer (7)

[Hawkeye77]

Shorter and deader the architect more I like it.

[duffer987]

> @Hawkeye77 said:

> Shorter and deader the architect more I like it.

 

Did Dorf design any courses?