[Jordan Wall]

What are some examples?

Tetherow opened my eyes to how extreme a golf course can get.  I loved it, but for an average player I think the course would be too tough to enjoy consistently.  However, for the better player I think it is a really great test of golf.

Chambers Bay is a bit of an extreme golf course that still provides the average player chances to score.  It is also a very good test of golf for the better player, allowing opportunities to score and challenge holes but also penalizes bad shots shots accordingly.  I think Chambers is a good example of a somewhat extreme design without going overboard.

What are some others?

[Peter Pallotta]

Jordan - just an aside, but when I saw your thread title I thought it was better as a statement than as a question. That is, it strikes me that the very definition of a great course is one that "borders on the extreme" but that still manages to be playable and challenging and fun for most of us, most of the time.

Peter

[Ian Mackenzie]

1. Erin Hills
2. Whistling Straits
3. Rich Harvest Farms

[Tom_Doak]

Isn't "overboard" a matter of personal taste?

Some people think the greens at Streamsong are "overboard" or "extreme".  Others think they are the making of a great course.  There's a similar dynamic for The Kingsley Club, Crystal Downs, and many others.  Just look at Ian's list:

1. Erin Hills
2. Whistling Straits
3. Rich Harvest Farms

I would certainly draw my own line somewhere in the midst of those three.

Or, consider this exchange, from the front of a famous book on golf course design:

"Is it as bad as they say?"

"I don't know what they say, but it is.  When I came in, the intelligent and charming Negro bar-tender asked me how many balls I had lost.  I said six.  He said that I'd got off more cheaply than some."

That's J.C. Squire, in the preface to Design for Golf, by Wethered and Simpson, talking about Pine Valley in 1929 ... which suggests that the REAL definition of when a great course doesn't go overboard is whenever the course is so well accepted that people become afraid to question it.  Or, that all great courses border on the extreme, but so do some that go too far.

[J Sadowsky]

I think Tom's right to an extent.  There are some courses that are so "extreme" in one way or another that they create disagreement about how good the course is.  That disagreement might drive down the course's rankings, at least when those rankings are based on a collection of raters.  But I think it is rare to think of a course where everyone agrees it is too extreme and would be better off it were toned down some.  Think the Strantz courses, for example.  If those courses are not too extreme (and I do not personally think they are, though I also probably would not want to play those courses on a day-in, day-out basis), what courses are beyond the pale?

Architecture is art. 

[Terry Lavin]

1. Erin Hills
2. Whistling Straits
3. Rich Harvest Farms

I also find this an interesting list in the context of this thread.  In my mind, Erin Hills does not border on extreme, except as to length, and one can choose to play from an appropriate length.  As for Whistling Straits, I think that it does border to the extreme, but mainly as it relates to excessive "natural-looking bunkers" on an artificial site.  To invoke a form of golf theology, that, to me, is a pardonable (or venial) sin.  Rich Harvest Farms, the third listed by Ian strikes me not as excessive, but merely as poorly designed from an architectural standpoint, a flaw that could be corrected if Jerry Rich, the affable and generous owner, would let a qualified architect fix the course without his well-intended meddling.

[Ian Mackenzie]

1. Erin Hills
2. Whistling Straits
3. Rich Harvest Farms

I also find this an interesting list in the context of this thread.  In my mind, Erin Hills does not border on extreme, except as to length, and one can choose to play from an appropriate length.  As for Whistling Straits, I think that it does border to the extreme, but mainly as it relates to excessive "natural-looking bunkers" on an artificial site.  To invoke a form of golf theology, that, to me, is a pardonable (or venial) sin.  Rich Harvest Farms, the third listed by Ian strikes me not as excessive, but merely as poorly designed from an architectural standpoint, a flaw that could be corrected if Jerry Rich, the affable and generous owner, would let a qualified architect fix the course without his well-intended meddling.

Terry, I agree re. RHF. Perhaps you will allow me to swap out RCH for the Ocean Course at Kiawah...? Hardest course I have ever played and I broke 90 by holing out a 9 iron from 142 to save par on 18.

So many ways to define "extreme". What rubs me about the Straits course is, outside of the egregious greens fees, the course just does not feel natural. It feels like a visit to an amusement park and, (for me) like a scary roller coaster, I only choose to indulge in that form of recreation once every 3-4 years usually at the invitation of some corporate client....;-)

Erin Hills....kinda the same thing. Upon arriving at the encampment, I was enchanted by the surroundings. They are simply stunning. The land is incredible. Sadly, the golf course does not feel like it belongs in the space. It feels forced and manufactured.

I have not yet been to Chambers Bay.

Is Cape Kidnappers extereme due to its unique topography?
Is Oakmont extreme due to their greens?

My parents have a summer home in south central New Hampshire (near Mt. Monadnock) and there is a Brian Silva course near there called "The Shattuck". It is listed as the "21st most difficult course in North America" and my older brother and I have dubbed it "the "tortcha Chaimba" - (New England accent for Torture Chamber".) You miss the fairway by 6" and you lose your ball. First time I played it I lost 9 balls.

[Greg Taylor]

Tobacco Road ?!?

[Patrice Boissonnas]

For golfers who simply take golf for what it is - a game - nothing is really to extreme.
Then it all comes down to the good old debate about fairness, a concept which was ignored at the age of match play but which became predominent with the development of professional game and stroke play.
So if I translate the question of this thread in other words we have: "up to what point can a golf course be extreme and yet remain fair? - would that golf course be a good golf course?"
Obviously, as Tom suggests, this is a very personal question as we all have our personal red line.
I personaly think Cypress 16 is overboard, but then I always have the option to play it as a par 4. Good hole? Bad hole?
I like the topic of this thread but I am afraid there is no real answer to it...

[David_Elvins]

What are some examples?

Every great course in the world.

Isn't it almost the definition of a great course?

[Ian Mackenzie]

For golfers who simply take golf for what it is - a game - nothing is really to extreme.
Then it all comes down to the good old debate about fairness, a concept which was ignored at the age of match play but which became predominent with the development of professional game and stroke play.
So if I translate the question of this thread in other words we have: "up to what point can a golf course be extreme and yet remain fair? - would that golf course be a good golf course?"
Obviously, as Tom suggests, this is a very personal question as we all have our personal red line.
I personaly think Cypress 16 is overboard, but then I always have the option to play it as a par 4. Good hole? Bad hole?
I like the topic of this thread but I am afraid there is no real answer to it...

Patrice -

First, I just love the photos I have seen of Hardelot Les Pins and I look forward to visiting and playing (if possible) one day. I have spent 4 years in France and my wife and I will be there again next week.

Second, the more I speak with architects, the more I hear them reject the word "fair" in favor of embracing the concept of "fun".

Third, I thnk #16 at CPC is both fair and fun...;-) After a spirited debate with my caddy (the 5th one in that first round), I hit 3 wood (slight headwind) to 18' while two of my playing partners laid up left, chipped on and had par and bogie.

A+...Ian

[SL_Solow]

Without commenting on specific courses,(yet), I note the topic referred to "great" courses that border on the extreme.  The question presented is when does a course design go too far?  A matter of taste I suppose but merely identifying extreme courses doesn't answer the question unless it is as a way to distinguish those that are merely extreme from those that approach the edge but don't go too far.  Query, can a course get away with greater "extremity" in one area if the rest is less extreme.  For example, Lost Dunes, by all standards a wonderful course (I have trouble deciding where various individuals draw the line at the overused "great") has a set of greens that most would define as extreme.  The remainder of the course, while interesting and challenging, does not , by my standards, qualify for that term.  Is it easier to accept extreme greens when the rest of the design is not?  Similarly, if the demands off the tee are extraordinary, or the topography in the fairways dictates unusual lies on a regular basis, will the course be more acceptable if the greens are less severe?

[Tom_Doak]

Without commenting on specific courses,(yet), I note the topic referred to "great" courses that border on the extreme.  The question presented is when does a course design go too far?  A matter of taste I suppose but merely identifying extreme courses doesn't answer the question unless it is as away to distinguish those that are merely extreme from those that approach the edge but don't go too far.  Query, can a course get away with greater "extremity" in one area if the rest is less extreme.  For example, Lost Dunes, by all standards a wonderful course (I have trouble deciding where various individuals draw the line at the overused "great") has a set of greens that most would define as extreme.  The remainder of the course, while interesting and challenging, does not , by my standards, qualify for that term.  Is it easier to accept extreme greens when the rest of the design is not?  Similarly, if the demands off the tee are extraordinary, or the topography in the fairways dictates unusual lies on a regular basis, will the course be more acceptable if the greens are less severe?

Shel:

In this vein, I am willing to accept most versions of "extreme" except those that cause a bunch of lost balls.  There are not many great courses [by my own personal definition] where the average golfer will lose a half-dozen balls in 18 holes.  I understand that it may be inevitable on some sites due to a high water table -- Doral, TPC, etc. -- but that holds them back from true greatness in my view.

[Sean_A]

Seriously, extreme equals great?  In my book, the great designs are those which are varied and the extreme end of the spectrum is displayed, but I wouldn't characterize the course as extreme.  I think some of the great courses which have part which may be considered extreme are

North Berwick for various elements

Muirfield for bunkering and rough

St Andrews for large greens and blind bunkers

St Enodoc for a small handful of holes

Kiawah for water hazards

Trump Aberdeen for raised tees and raised greens

Of these I would choose Muirfield as the most extreme (not overboard, just not to my liking) because the extreme aspects of the design make it a punishing design even though many throw it up as a strategic masterpiece.  I doubt many would see it like I do though. 

Ciao

[Tom Bacsanyi]

In this vein, I am willing to accept most versions of "extreme" except those that cause a bunch of lost balls.  There are not many great courses [by my own personal definition] where the average golfer will lose a half-dozen balls in 18 holes.  I understand that it may be inevitable on some sites due to a high water table -- Doral, TPC, etc. -- but that holds them back from true greatness in my view.

I think we should differentiate between balls in a hazard and actual LOST (or OB) balls.  They are two different animals.  At my course we have unplayable/lost ball native lining every hole, which I would gladly trade for hazards in a heartbeat.  There's a huge difference between getting a drop and hitting 3, and hitting 3 from the tee.

[Michael Felton]

Apologies for the name dropping, but this seems like a good opportunity.

I would put forwards NGLA, which I had the pleasure of playing a couple of weeks ago. The extreme nature here is the number of template holes on the course. I've played a few courses where the templates seem a little too forced, but every hole at NGLA feels like it just fits perfectly (to me at any rate). I'm pretty sure that wasn't what the OP was getting at, but IMO courses can definitely overdo the templates. NGLA isn't one of them, despite the sheer number of them.

[John McCarthy]

Wouldn't the better question be which courses are excessive?  I am not a good player but I can get around Butler.  Rich Harvest (which I have not played) from the back at 7700?  Par 80 for me.  Bull Valley? 

[Bill_McBride]

Seriously, extreme equals great?  In my book, the great designs are those which are varied and the extreme end of the spectrum is displayed, but I wouldn't characterize the course as extreme.  I think some of the great courses which have part which may be considered extreme are

North Berwick for various elements

Muirfield for bunkering and rough

St Andrews for large greens and blind bunkers

St Enodoc for a small handful of holes

Kiawah for water hazards

Trump Aberdeen for raised tees and raised greens

Of these I would choose Muirfield as the most extreme (not overboard, just not to my liking) because the extreme aspects of the design make it a punishing design even though many throw it up as a strategic masterpiece.  I doubt many would see it like I do though. 

Ciao

Sorry, but you can correct Muirfield's "overboardness" by lowering the mower blades for another 30-40' each side of some fairways.  The bunkers are to be avoided.  There's a great mix of holes at Muirfield.  From the member tees with wider fairways it's a course you would never tire of playing.  

[Sean_A]

Ace

So far as I am aware, Muirfield has for many, many years maintained their rough as it is.  Sure, the course would be better for less rough because they bunkering would better highlighted, but we can say tons of courses would be better if...  I didn't think people would agree with me, but of the great courses I know, Muirfield fits the bill for excessive best.  The odd thing is that originally I would have thought a great course with some areas of challenging terrain would fit the bill better; maybe Lahinch or St Enodoc, but I don't think they are excessive.  Because they aren't excessive is a major reason why I think they are great courses. 

In the US, I would think some courses with stupidly fast greens would be the main culprits for excessive. There is also Pinehurst for its domed greens.   

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

Interestingly, when I saw Peter's post it immediately occurred to me to cite Muirfield as a great course that is not extreme in any way.  Yes, it has challenging bunkers but I don't consider them extreme.  Yes, if you miss the fairways badly you lose a ball (I played 36 holes of foursomes there a couple of weeks ago and we lost one ball all day and that was hit 30 yards left of the fairway and deserved not to be found) but reasonable tee shots get found.  No doubt it's a tough golf course to score well on but in my experience it is fair, in that a handicap golfer playing well and sensibly can score reasonably well against handicap.

[Ian Andrew]

Yale in the distant past
Tobacco Road in the recent times

These both come to mind for me.

[Sean_A]

Ian

I spose I don't consider Tobacco Road great, though t is extreme in places.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Yale in the distant past

This was the first that came to mind for me, too.

[Carl Rogers]

I hope that many in the George Cup field will discuss Ballyhack relative to this thread topic after the event.

[Jordan Wall]

So what would be an example of a course that is too extreme? Why?

Where is the line drawn in terms of design between an over-the-top design and one that is just pure, good design?

Architects like Tom Doak, C&C, and Gil Hanse - among others - push the envelope with borderline extreme designs often featuring large contours, bold bunkering, and compelling strategy while getting it right time after time.  In my opinion these architects have set the precedent for great design in the past 20-25 years, being true ambassadors of GCA.  When other architects try and mimic these designs, where in particular do you see some designs falling short of greatness by being too over-the-top?

What can these courses learn from how these great architects continually produce stellar designs?

Mr. Doak, specifically for you, would you merely call this an art, or are there ways your design habits can be echoed (not copied) by other architects to achieve a great design while not taking things too far?

Also, what do you guys even consider 'too extreme?' For instance, if you had to define it to someone who doesn't understand GCA, how would you explain to them what this means? Not to say there is a specific criteria, but is there any way to make this more definable and explainable?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()