Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Kevin_D on October 11, 2014, 11:27:32 AM
-
Reading the Golf Digest article about Gamble Sands and following the thread here, I noted several comments about how the course yielded the best-ever score for several people, and in fact that was DMK's intention. Both those comments, and even more so, the look of the course from the photo thread made me wonder: is this course too easy, to the point of being boring?
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm a 12 handicap and am no fan of a torture test. But many of the courses I've played that have fairly wide fairways, limited forced carries, and an absence of overly penal features (like National, Friar's Head, all the Bandon courses, Streamsong, Stonewall North) wouldn't be called "easy" by anyone (or at least not by me). Their difficulty simply lies in features other than tight corridors of play, thick rough and water hazards.
At the same time, I can think of other courses that so have some/all of those penal features - for instance, Merion, Garden City, Quaker Ridge, Stonewall Old. They all have some combination of OB, thick rough, penal bunkers, or water hazards. If you're wild off the tee, all of these can beat you up - but at the same time are still fun to play.
So I guess my question is: what is the line between "fun and playable" and just easy? Can a course be too easy to make it boring? Does having some penal features, and/or heroic shots, make a course more fun, providing a thrill to the golfer for pulling off a difficult shot? Does Gamble Sands show that we've moved to the other end of the spectrum from the 7500+ yard, tight, water hazard filled courses of the 80s and 90s - and perhaps moved a bit too far?
Disclaimer: I haven't played Gamble Sands, so am just going by photos and the GD article.
Kevin
-
Depends on one's handicap. Over the years, I've learned at my home club to not get into this discussion with anybody. Being a low handicap, trying to talk to a 28 is beyond hopeless. Forced carries are almost a swear word to them.
-
Kevin:
It's an interesting question. There are many low-handicappers who love hard courses and dismiss the rest, but I don't know that any course which is considered architecturally interesting is today written off as "too easy". At one point, thirty years ago, the National Golf Links of America was written off that way, and I've heard the same thing said of North Berwick and St. Andrews, but it's far from the consensus, in fact the consensus seems to be swinging the other way.
GOLF DIGEST, even, seems to be talking more in its articles about "fun" courses even though "resistance to scoring" is still a mainstay of their 100 Greatest Courses rankings.
I have not seen Gamble Sands yet, but it does appear to be "easy" in a somewhat different manner than the other courses mentioned ... it seems to appeal most to the golfer who can reach the turbo-boost areas in the fairways that make three of the par-4's drivable and most of the par-5's reachable in two. It does sound as though you have to make some big carries to get to those spots, but the carries don't sound out of reach for the GCA golfers who have played it, and if you fail to make the carry the big bunkers sound very recoverable.
-
Depends on one's handicap. Over the years, I've learned at my home club to not get into this discussion with anybody. Being a low handicap, trying to talk to a 28 is beyond hopeless. Forced carries are almost a swear word to them.
Cary,
Hard to believe you could defend forced carries(which leave NO options) to a high handicap, yet just the other day criticize Nicklaus' use of bunkers "in the middle of the fairway"( Which leaves 4 options- short, over, left or right)
-
Kevi,
It's a great question.
One of the answers I would offer is, consequences at the green for failure to hit the green
-
It no longer matters whether you miss a shot or not.
The examples of NLGA and the Old Course are great, plenty of room to play, disaster awaits if you get out of line.
-
There is an assumption here that easy can't be fun. Just saying.
-
There is an assumption here that easy can't be fun. Just saying.
It isn't so much that easy golf isn't fun. More like golf that doesn't present any difficult decisions prior to striking shots is boring. At first it seems fun until you realize that there are no risk reward options to sort through. No reason to think, no reason to be nervous, no reason to rejoice on a good result. Just swing away.
Eating Jello is also fun, but afterward you realize all you consumed was some lightly flavored water.
-
There is an assumption here that easy can't be fun. Just saying.
Is there? I hadn't noticed it.
-
Familiarity breeds contempt is a phrase that comes to mind in relation to fun-playable-easy.
Not dissimilar to what I had in mind when I started the thread about the point when an 18-hole course gets too short and too easy -http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,59515.msg1401564.html#msg1401564.
Without challenge fun can taper off, although length alone can be pretty boring.
atb
-
There is an assumption here that easy can't be fun. Just saying.
Is there? I hadn't noticed it.
Well yes: .......line between "fun and playable" and just "easy"
Surely you can see this suggested the two are mutually exclusive. ::)
-
Thomas,
I tend to agree with the premise you originally wrote in your other thread. I play off of 3 and I've yet to experience these mythical courses which are apparently too easy. I've played a lot of courses which are dull because of a lack of variety/options, consistently just aiming at the centre of a fairway then hitting a wedge to the green. I've never however found a course which I thought was too easy.
-
Thomas,
I tend to agree with the premise you originally wrote in your other thread. I play off of 3 and I've yet to experience these mythical courses which are apparently too easy. I've played a lot of courses which are dull because of a lack of variety/options, consistently just aiming at the centre of a fairway then hitting a wedge to the green. I've never however found a course which I thought was too easy.
I agree with Paul. I'm a 3 also, and I have not found a course I think is too easy. There are some where I can score pretty well if I'm hitting it well, while others are a bit tougher, but nothing I have found is too easy. And while I hit the ball a long way, I do not simply want a long course just because, well, it's a long course. What I want is variety. If I play a 6,200 yard course where I have a wedge into every par 4, that's boring to me. If I encounter many short holes with little defense around the green, that's boring to me.
That doesn't mean I can't enjoy the round, especially if I think the course is a good one. But, I can't say I'd rush back to play it, as I want something that will test every club in my bag. I might not break par, 75, or even 80 on that 6,200 yard course, but I don't want to play it very much. I want to be able to use every club in my bag. I don't want every par 4 to be 450 yards, either.
-
Thomas,
I tend to agree with the premise you originally wrote in your other thread. I play off of 3 and I've yet to experience these mythical courses which are apparently too easy. I've played a lot of courses which are dull because of a lack of variety/options, consistently just aiming at the centre of a fairway then hitting a wedge to the green. I've never however found a course which I thought was too easy.
I agree with Paul. I'm a 3 also, and I have not found a course I think is too easy. There are some where I can score pretty well if I'm hitting it well, while others are a bit tougher, but nothing I have found is too easy. And while I hit the ball a long way, I do not simply want a long course just because, well, it's a long course. What I want is variety. If I play a 6,200 yard course where I have a wedge into every par 4, that's boring to me. If I encounter many short holes with little defense around the green, that's boring to me.
That doesn't mean I can't enjoy the round, especially if I think the course is a good one. But, I can't say I'd rush back to play it, as I want something that will test every club in my bag. I might not break par, 75, or even 80 on that 6,200 yard course, but I don't want to play it very much. I want to be able to use every club in my bag. I don't want every par 4 to be 450 yards, either.
I thought Paul's statement was right on -- too dull is the real culprit -- but this post ties together "dull" and "easy" so directly that you might as well just say the courses are "too easy" for you.
The problem with modern equipment and the modern game is that even those 450-yard holes you don't want too many of, are driver-wedge for the big boys now.
-
It isn't so much that easy golf isn't fun. More like golf that doesn't present any difficult decisions prior to striking shots is boring. At first it seems fun until you realize that there are no risk reward options to sort through. No reason to think, no reason to be nervous, no reason to rejoice on a good result. Just swing away.
In my experience this is exactly what happens on tough, overly long courses. Those are the ones where I just bomb away without thinking because I have to try to carry it as far as possible in order to have any shot at posting a decent score on the hole
-
There is an assumption here that easy can't be fun. Just saying.
Is there? I hadn't noticed it.
Well yes: .......line between "fun and playable" and just "easy"
Surely you can see this suggested the two are mutually exclusive. ::)
Not really, no. I think in this context, playable is effectively a synonym for easy, or at least easy-ish, and easy means too easy. GCA is not a place where 7,700 yard championship monsters get a lot of love.
-
I always thought playable was a prerequisite for greatness.
-
Here is what a "fun and playable" course tends to offer, in my opinion of the term:
1) Lots of opportunities to gain or lose fractions of a stroke by slightly mishit or poorly thought out shots.
2) Lots of opportunities to lose a full stroke by overly aggressive or outright stupid decisions or very badly struck shot.
Here is what a "too easy" course tends to offer:
1) Little or no difference in outcome between well struck and somewhat poorly struck shots.
2) Not much penalty for simply taking the most aggressive possible shot every time, even if you don't execute it as planned.
Now implicit in my definitions is that "well struck" or "overly aggressive" types of things are totally relative to an individual player's capabilities. So a course can certainly be "fun and playable" for one golfer while being "too easy" for another golfer with different capabilities. It would be an exceptionally great course if it were "fun and playable" for a 28 handicapper while still avoiding the "too easy" complaint for an elite player. But it can be done, IMO. It's just unusual and difficult to implement.
-
Intriguing answers everyone.
To be clear, I meant "easy" in the context of being so wide open as to not provide any real penalty for a missed shot - where instead of recovery being possible, it is actually probable. Perhaps "boring" would have been a better word, but long, difficult courses can also be boring - so I am talking about courses that are both boring and unchallenging.
The Gamble Sands thread describes some holes as "reward-reward" instead of "risk-reward". Is reward-reward really a good thing? At Wykagyl there are 5 semi-reachable par 5s - but I rarely go for more than 1 or 2 of them a round because my risk of making bogey or worse goes up significantly with an errant 2nd shot.
Using another example, I think about #9 on Tom Doak's Stonewall Old. Par 3, 180 or so yards from the men's tees (230 tips). With a pin placement on the left side, I guess the pond could be considered "penal", but you have the whole right side to use to avoid it, and the ball funnels left anyway. But if you really want to go at the stick, you can, but are then flirting with the water. To me, this hole is far more interesting than if the water wasn't there. The hole would unquestionably be easier without the pond, but would it be better?
I am not saying I want water/OB on every hole, nor am I saying that there shouldn't be recovery options/possibilities. With what has been written about Gamble Sands though, I do wonder if we are tilting in the other direction now - and perhaps a bit too far.
-
There is an assumption here that easy can't be fun. Just saying.
Is there? I hadn't noticed it.
Well yes: .......line between "fun and playable" and just "easy"
Surely you can see this suggested the two are mutually exclusive. ::)
Not really, no. I think in this context, playable is effectively a synonym for easy, or at least easy-ish, and easy means too easy. GCA is not a place where 7,700 yard championship monsters get a lot of love.
Well exactly. Meaning that you do recognise that a distinction has been made. It's a mute point so let's not fight. ;)
I'm just not familiar with these courses which are apparently too easy and, as a direct consequence, dull. 'Too easy,' I've long thought, is a phrase thrown around by people attempt to create a certain impression. But if and when I break 50 for 18 holes on a par 72 golf course and join the ranks of the former North Korean leader I'll be sure to eat my own words. ;D
-
Thomas,
I tend to agree with the premise you originally wrote in your other thread. I play off of 3 and I've yet to experience these mythical courses which are apparently too easy. I've played a lot of courses which are dull because of a lack of variety/options, consistently just aiming at the centre of a fairway then hitting a wedge to the green. I've never however found a course which I thought was too easy.
I agree with Paul. I'm a 3 also, and I have not found a course I think is too easy. There are some where I can score pretty well if I'm hitting it well, while others are a bit tougher, but nothing I have found is too easy. And while I hit the ball a long way, I do not simply want a long course just because, well, it's a long course. What I want is variety. If I play a 6,200 yard course where I have a wedge into every par 4, that's boring to me. If I encounter many short holes with little defense around the green, that's boring to me.
That doesn't mean I can't enjoy the round, especially if I think the course is a good one. But, I can't say I'd rush back to play it, as I want something that will test every club in my bag. I might not break par, 75, or even 80 on that 6,200 yard course, but I don't want to play it very much. I want to be able to use every club in my bag. I don't want every par 4 to be 450 yards, either.
I thought Paul's statement was right on -- too dull is the real culprit -- but this post ties together "dull" and "easy" so directly that you might as well just say the courses are "too easy" for you.
The problem with modern equipment and the modern game is that even those 450-yard holes you don't want too many of, are driver-wedge for the big boys now.
Isn't it time we bifurcate course discussions? It seems more and more the case that one course cannot meet the demands of all golfers...if this truly ever was the case. It seems crazy to constantly footnote conversations with yes, but, the flat bellies...
As for me, I have absolutely never seen a course I thought was too easy. Its definitely a case of lack of interest for me and that disease is spreading quickly to the maintenance set up not supporting the design being a huge turn-off.
Ciao
-
May have missed it, but isn't the first answer that you don't lose tons of golf balls, and get many 2 stroke or stroke and distance penalties? Those aren't fun for anyone, and all the player really needs is separation of one stroke anyway.
You can require a butter cut 6 iron to a tight pin, which is challenge, but ponding it, being in 4" deep rough, a 20 feet deep bunker, etc. is just hard, whereas 1.5" rough is tricky, but recoverable, a 4-6 ft bunker is recoverable, etc. Of course, I would recommend a few hard hazards. Once or twice is fun, all day long is misery.
If there is a friendly match, and the outcome depends on being one hole or one stroke better than your buddies, then even and easy course can be pretty fun, as -9 beats -8........
-
My view is like Paul’s in that I’m not too familiar with golf that is too easy. I’m always wondering, as I read discussions here about this or that great course, where do these guys play most of their golf? In other words and from my own perspective, does traveling around and seeing a bunch of terrific courses kind of spoil your appreciation for your home club? I don’t think it does for me. Although many on this site get to some great places, I suspect that there are quite of few of us that play the majority of our golf on pretty ordinary courses of the “fun and playable” variety that a really good golfer would find to be fairly easy. To me it’s all as subjective and relative as one match being better or more enjoyable than another. There is no definitive answer, only opinions, experience, and personal preference.
I can understand the view that life is too short to play poor golf courses, however that is an option not available to most golfers. We find our appreciation and enjoyment where we can. In the case of Gamble Sands (from pictures, not experience), it looked like a pretty great site and a enjoyable place to spend a few pleasant hours playing with friends, regardless of the relative difficulty of the course. That is true of a lot of courses, maybe most courses, so there are other factors to consider when we decide when and where to play, including, for example, the time and expense to get there. In my experience working with average golfers, where they play is less important than where their friends are.
-
Here's my dirty little secret of golf travel. There are only two reasons for me to travel more than an hour or two to play golf...
1) To play with friends I can't play with at home.
2) To play on firm, fast, cool-climate turf that I can't play on at home.
Obviously any time I can do one of those things while also playing a course with very interesting holes or in spectacular surroundings, that's a big plus. But if I'm going to be playing either by myself or with random strangers and playing on overwatered turf, I'm every bit as happy doing it on my undistinguished home course as on one much higher up the GCA food chain.
-
Isn't it time we bifurcate course discussions? It seems more and more the case that one course cannot meet the demands of all golfers...if this truly ever was the case. It seems crazy to constantly footnote conversations with yes, but, the flat bellies...
As for me, I have absolutely never seen a course I thought was too easy. Its definitely a case of lack of interest for me and that disease is spreading quickly to the maintenance set up not supporting the design being a huge turn-off.
Ciao
Sean:
Perhaps we should just eliminate discussion of the flat bellies altogether, as they are seldom relevant to the collective opinion of courses on GCA. I'd be fine with that. I was just trying to point out to Paul that his criterion of "using every club in the bag" is increasingly irrelevant in the modern age, for players just a few shots better than he is.
-
I've never understood the "every club in the bag" anyway.
Take three straight, flat Par 4's each with a fairway bunker in the left-side landing zone and greenside bunkers short right and long left. Make one of them driver/7-iron, another driver/6-iron and the third driver/5-iron.
To me, that set of Par 4's is only preferable by the tiniest margin to three holes that all played driver/6-iron. A stock iron shot from a flat fairway to a uninteresting green is the same no matter which particular iron you use.
-
I've never understood the "every club in the bag" anyway.
Take three straight, flat Par 4's each with a fairway bunker in the left-side landing zone and greenside bunkers short right and long left. Make one of them driver/7-iron, another driver/6-iron and the third driver/5-iron.
To me, that set of Par 4's is only preferable by the tiniest margin to three holes that all played driver/6-iron. A stock iron shot from a flat fairway to a uninteresting green is the same no matter which particular iron you use.
But the better player is going to beat you by significantly more over time on the driver 5 iron over the driver 7 iron holes.
I think the idea is more that you have to hit long clubs more often than every hole being driver wedge, as some courses present far too much.
10, 18, and 19 handicaps that hit the ball comparable distances played a course with far too many driver wedge holes last Saturday. The 10 shot 77, and the 18, and 19 shot 78. The 10 was not pleased (nor was his pocket book). With 13 par 4s, only three required more than driver 9 iron.
-
I'm not discussing relative advantages for whatever type of player. I'm just saying that 20 or 40 yards difference in length between two otherwise similar and unexceptional holes aren't particularly better than if they are the same length.
Let me hit a wedge on one hole, a mid-iron on another and make a third hole unreachable. That's variety. Two similar holes playing one club different in length? Feh. Why bother. My variation from one tee shot to the next is more than 20 yards.
-
...
Let me hit a wedge on one hole, a mid-iron on another and make a third hole unreachable. That's variety. Two similar holes playing one club different in length? Feh. Why bother. My variation from one tee shot to the next is more than 20 yards.
That's what I was trying to get to. Use all clubs is another way of saying vary the lengths of the holes significantly enough that players are not hitting driver wedge as much as half the time or more.
Another thing it seems you see is the magic number 400. A course has holes length 395, 397, 399, 401, 403, 405. These are not necessarily driver wedge, but they are repetitious and tend somewhat to preventing use of the full bag.
Clearly on different plays you are not going to be hitting the same club on the same hole a high percentage of the time, unless they are driver wedge all the time.
-
Isn't it time we bifurcate course discussions? It seems more and more the case that one course cannot meet the demands of all golfers...if this truly ever was the case. It seems crazy to constantly footnote conversations with yes, but, the flat bellies...
As for me, I have absolutely never seen a course I thought was too easy. Its definitely a case of lack of interest for me and that disease is spreading quickly to the maintenance set up not supporting the design being a huge turn-off.
Ciao
Sean:
Perhaps we should just eliminate discussion of the flat bellies altogether, as they are seldom relevant to the collective opinion of courses on GCA. I'd be fine with that. I was just trying to point out to Paul that his criterion of "using every club in the bag" is increasingly irrelevant in the modern age, for players just a few shots better than he is.
Sorry Tom but it wasn't my criterion of "using every club in the bag." That was actually David.
I do agree with you about eliminating elite players from the discussion, since 470 yards has become driver/wedge for those guys now. I sense something of a rerun of the 'same old' here as that immediately leads me to thinking about the screamingly obvious need, it seems to me, to roll the ball back.
-
Isn't it time we bifurcate course discussions? It seems more and more the case that one course cannot meet the demands of all golfers...if this truly ever was the case. It seems crazy to constantly footnote conversations with yes, but, the flat bellies...
As for me, I have absolutely never seen a course I thought was too easy. Its definitely a case of lack of interest for me and that disease is spreading quickly to the maintenance set up not supporting the design being a huge turn-off.
Ciao
Sean:
Perhaps we should just eliminate discussion of the flat bellies altogether, as they are seldom relevant to the collective opinion of courses on GCA. I'd be fine with that. I was just trying to point out to Paul that his criterion of "using every club in the bag" is increasingly irrelevant in the modern age, for players just a few shots better than he is.
I don't mind talking about flat bellies, but somewhere along the line it has become assumed by many that to be a great course or considered for top whatever, a course must challenge the best players. On the surface this seems entirely reasonable, but for some reason I keep asking myself is it reasonable? I don't have the answers and for the most part it doesn't matter because as I say, its already assumed that to be great, the course must challenge great players. I know I used to sort think this way until I thought about old people, women, kids, beginners, hackers, 10 handicappers....
We know what challenges the best and we know that harsh rough, greens stimping in the stratosphere, and lots of left/right hazards are not what makes most golfers buzz.
Ciao
-
It's not fun if there isn't a downside to failing to pull off a shot, or an upside from pulling off that shot. It's also not fun if, having failed to pull it off, there isn't another challenging shot at recovery. I am a member at three clubs. The Northumberland is a hard course (maybe not for flat bellies but for mortals (in Regional Qualifying for the Open this year only 9 of 73 competitors broke par)) and is less fun than Elie and Crail Balcomie, both of which are relatively easy. Interestingly Crail Craighead is also hard (SSS is 74 and CSS often goes out to 77) but I find Caighead more fun to play than Northumberland. Why? I think because it is rare to lose a ball and there are always recoveries available, even if they're difficult and rarely made. So, for me, easy and fun don't mean the same thing. Hard can be fun, if the course and set-up allow. I think Northumberland would be far more fun if the fairways were widened and the rough didn't cause balls to be lost so often.
-
Sean,
The whole premise of testing the very best is surely bogus for the simple reasons that:
a) testing the very best players frequently means dampening the enjoyment of the majority.
b) the very best golfers only make up a tiny percentage of the total number of golfers in the world.
A club not a million miles away from me which shall remain nameless, so far as I know still has, a strategic plan which goes something likes this:
It is hoped that the club will be asked to host an Open qualifying event and the plan therefore is to set the course up in such a way as to be deemed suitably difficult to test the best players if asked to host such an event. The club's current position however is to decline such an invitation if asked as hosting such an event might affect the presentation of the course.
You can't make this stuff up.
Translation, so far as I can see, is:
Make it hard and basically less enjoyable for the membership but whatever else you do make bloody sure it looks pretty while their out there for hour after hour having a painful time.
-
Would the new presentation of Pinehurst #2 be the poster boy for "fun and playable", but not "easy"?
-
Kevin D,
I overheard an interesting remark by some caddies on the first tee at Old Macdonald.
It centered around a discussion some golfers I was playing with were having about which tees to play.
The caddies wanted us to play the "Gold" tees and we wanted to play the "Green" tees.
One golfer stated that the course was too easy from the Gold tees.
In response a caddy said, "why don't you play the gold tees and when you birdie three holes in a row, move back to the Green tees.
I then asked the caddies if I could ask them a question:
They said sure, so I asked them if they were paying us for the round or if we were paying them ?
I said that if they were paying us, I'd play from where ever they decided.
Then I stated that it was almost impossible to birdie three holes in a row on a miniature/putt-putt course let alone a regulation golf course and that birdying three holes in a row was not the standard by which a golfer should measure the degree or ease of the challenge presented.
At the conclusion of the round we all agreed that the course was terrific, fun to play, presenting more then an adequate challenge.
When asked what made the course so enjoyable, all indicated that the width along with the large and interesting putting surfaces were major factors. Another factor was that greens could be hit in regulation if the golfer hit good shots
I think the term "easy" is misleading
Some courses are more difficult than others, but no regulation course is inherently easy for the average or better golfer.
What is critical to the enjoyment, to the fun in the round, is that the challenge has to be commensurate with the golfer's ability.
A 5, 10, 15 or 20 handicap will not have fun playing WFW from the back tees, hence, distance is a critical factor.
Old Macdonald from the Green tees was a good match for our group.
The Gold tees would not have provided the appropriate challenge, one commensurate with the abilities of those involved, and three birdies in a row was not the criteria by which to make that assessment.
-
I am trying to think of the playing fields of other sports where folks may call them great in somewhat the same way they do in golf. I guess, I come up with F1 courses and some other car racing events. But these courses don't have the equivalent of the hacker giving it a go. Ski hills may be somewhat similar, but I don't know enough about this.
Of course, there is a element (a big element imo) of the "course hosted such and such so its great"...chicken and egg deal.
Ciao
-
Kevin D,
I overheard an interesting remark by some caddies on the first tee at Old Macdonald.
It centered around a discussion some golfers I was playing with were having about which tees to play.
The caddies wanted us to play the "Gold" tees and we wanted to play the "Green" tees.
One golfer stated that the course was too easy from the Gold tees.
In response a caddy said, "why don't you play the gold tees and when you birdie three holes in a row, move back to the Green tees.
I then asked the caddies if I could ask them a question:
They said sure, so I asked them if they were paying us for the round or if we were paying them ?
I said that if they were paying us, I'd play from where ever they decided.
Then I stated that it was almost impossible to birdie three holes in a row on a miniature/putt-putt course let alone a regulation golf course and that birdying three holes in a row was not the standard by which a golfer should measure the degree or ease of the challenge presented.
At the conclusion of the round we all agreed that the course was terrific, fun to play, presenting more then an adequate challenge.
When asked what made the course so enjoyable, all indicated that the width along with the large and interesting putting surfaces were major factors. Another factor was that greens could be hit in regulation if the golfer hit good shots
I think the term "easy" is misleading
Some courses are more difficult than others, but no regulation course is inherently easy for the average or better golfer.
What is critical to the enjoyment, to the fun in the round, is that the challenge has to be commensurate with the golfer's ability.
A 5, 10, 15 or 20 handicap will not have fun playing WFW from the back tees, hence, distance is a critical factor.
Old Macdonald from the Green tees was a good match for our group.
The Gold tees would not have provided the appropriate challenge, one commensurate with the abilities of those involved, and three birdies in a row was not the criteria by which to make that assessment.
Patrick
Out of interest what were the yardages of gold and green?
-
I've been playing this game for a while now, and i've never heard anyone complain that the course was "too easy" after shooting a great score.
From what i can tell about how how people talk about golf (myself included)
The term "playable" seems to mean on the easy side, but implies the element of fun.
The term "easy" means well easy...But on the less fun side of easy
Fun courses exist in all forms of yardages and difficulties. If you have played a good bit of courses I'm sure you have encountered courses that were easy but still fun, and courses that were difficult and not fun at all. Inversely I'm sure you have played challenging courses that are a blast, and easy courses that bothered you. The truth is that there are so many courses all over the world, and they are all different to a certain degree, and all have a place in the great game of golf.
That being said i think in recent golf boom (going back to the 90s) so many courses were built to be longer, and pose a greater challenge to the 1%. Now a days there are too many mediocre to crappy courses that are long/difficult and not very fun. Designing a course thats challenging isnt hard at all. I could throw together a quick sketch that would be a challenge to the best of the best of the PGA tour, but there is no merit in my ability to throw together a course designed simply to be incredibly challenging. Designing a course thats easier for the average golfer, but still has that fun factor is incredibly challenging, and i am quite certain that i couldn't design one of these courses. These are the types of courses that are in a minority in the United States, and are the same courses we need more of now. These are the courses that get people to fall in love with the game, and with the golf industry struggling as it is we need more of these courses. Courses being built like Gamble Sands and Old Mac give me hope that we are headed in the right direction.
First post!
-
Ryan,
GOLD. 5,658
GREEN. 6,320
We had great guys for caddies, but the purpose of traveling 3,000 miles to play golf was to satisfy our desire to play Old Macdonald at a distance commensurate with our abilities, and not to make the round more convenient for the caddies.
At the end of the round they commented on how much fun they had with us, as the golfers abused each other at every opportunity.
It was a perfect day weather wise, the course was in good condition, the banter was non-stop and everyone enjoyed everyone else's company.
The golf wasn't bad either.
Rick, Rich, Rob and Ray. Fun guys to be with for the days we were there
I renamed Ray, annointing him as, "Wrong Read Ray" and "Bad Read Ray"
Rich took a large red magic marker and made a pocket sign on the back of a scorecard that read "Bad Read Ray". Then he made him wear it in his front chest pocket.
While playing Pacific Dunes and Old Macdonald we ran into a moron in training that I, as moron in chief, quickly promoted to full moron status.
It was nice to finally meet Sven,
Unfortunately, a large storm blew in and we had to cut our trip short
-
Gamble Sands is as far from boring as you can get.
To embarrass myself a little I will say that I'm an 8 that I almost never play anywhere near and I birdied a couple of holes, but also made several triples from bad shots into areas that you flat out can't be in. I ended up shooting in the upper 80's. My brother is a six, he hit great shots, stayed out of trouble, made some putts and shot 73. At the end of the day I pulled the same ball out of the cup on 18 that I teed up on #1 and had one of the best days you can have on a course. Maybe this argument could be had about a dead flat cow pasture with 18 flat greens and no hazards, but Gamble Sands is far from that.
-
Cory's comments allude to another dimension I don't believe has been discussed explicitly in this thread. There are plenty of courses that meet my definition of "fun and playable" in all situations except for stroke play.
The desire to accommodate "flat bellies" does indeed lead to all sorts of design and setup nonsense nowadays. But the desire to provide a course that is "playable" with a stroke-play scorecard in ones hand is also a pernicious influence. If you want to keep long-hitting scratch or better players from occasionally shooting in the low 60's but you also want to make a course "fun and playable" for weaker players, other than building an 7,800 yard set of tees you're kind of stuck, aren't you?
-
The desire to accommodate "flat bellies" does indeed lead to all sorts of design and setup nonsense nowadays. But the desire to provide a course that is "playable" with a stroke-play scorecard in ones hand is also a pernicious influence. If you want to keep long-hitting scratch or better players from occasionally shooting in the low 60's but you also want to make a course "fun and playable" for weaker players, other than building an 7,800 yard set of tees you're kind of stuck, aren't you?
I think you can build courses where good players have trouble going low [sub-68] while the 12- to 14-handicap can still shoot in the 80's. In fact I think I have built quite a few of those, none of which are 7,800 yards. I am not worried about a Tour pro occasionally shooting in the low 60's, I would be more worried if they couldn't, but there is a big difference between "occasionally" and "routinely".
What WOULD a Tour pro shoot at Gamble Sands?
-
Brent
The trend toward longer courses is exactly what one would expect to happen if medal play and more challenging are mixed. Although, I have never quite figured out why people place such an emphasis on medal VS matchplay courses. A course is either good or not. It doesn't make any difference if I am using a pencil.
Ciao
-
What WOULD a Tour pro shoot at Gamble Sands?
To answer TD's question, IMO I don't think a pro gets as big an advantage from the layout as an amateur, because they already hit fairways and greens, and get up and down like crazy, so their rounds are dictated by how well they putt. So the ease of recovery shots for the amateur is not a benefit for the pro.
As you may know, I weighed in with my thoughts about GS on the previous thread after my first play; I have now played it a second time with my wife. That means a 6, 12 and 22 handicaps have played it in my family. All of us loved the course.
Yes, my wife shot the lowest round of her life, so you can add her to the list. She attributed it to her ability to recover and make bogeys where she would have often made a double or worse. What kept her score down was really the elimination of the big numbers, 7-10, that appear on her scorecard a few times every round.
What makes GS easier is the recovery shot: harder sand, and with large greens and no rough around the greens, you are putting a lot. And with a putter in your hand, that means an amateur can get up and down or at least eliminate the double bogey most of the time.
As someone previously said, he made triple(s), and the first time I made two doubles on the way to a 75, so there is danger out there.
What I found interesting was watching my wife tack around a large bunker, BECAUSE SHE COULD! There was space to play away from the bunker (and the hole) to avoid the trouble. At 99.9% of courses that is not physically possible. She would have been forced to go over a bunker she would likely have hit and would have typically taken multiple strokes to get out of. Instead, she aimed about 45 degrees away from the pin to avoid the bunker, then reached the green on the next shot and two putted for a bogey. On some other course, she either must attack the bunker (a fight she would lose), or her angled play would have been a 60 yard shot hoping to not hit it into the woods or some deep rough. And who thinks about doing that when they are playing? But she saw her predicament, realized she had the space to go at an angle, and then still play to the green from the fairway.
But it wasn't a walk-in-the park for her. Next hole, a par 3 with a forced carry over a wash, she proceeded to hit it into the wash. She said she psyched herself out staring at the forced carry and all the junk down in the wash. She made double.
The take-away is that the tee shot psyched her out. Does that sound like a comment someone would say about an easy course?
Same par-3 hole I am hitting a four-hybrid on a hole playing 220 yards, while aiming 30 yards away from the pin trying to use the slope of the surround to feed the ball to the hole. On the day, I hit between a PW and a 4-hybrid on the par 3s. That is variety, and that's what, IMO, makes it fun and playable.
-
I think you can build courses where good players have trouble going low [sub-68] while the 12- to 14-handicap can still shoot in the 80's. In fact I think I have built quite a few of those, none of which are 7,800 yards. I am not worried about a Tour pro occasionally shooting in the low 60's, I would be more worried if they couldn't, but there is a big difference between "occasionally" and "routinely".
What WOULD a Tour pro shoot at Gamble Sands?
No doubt low 60s, potentially 58/59. There is nothing to stop their assault. Greens flat, fairways flat, absense of cross hazards, absense of bunkers fronting greens, amphitheater mounds deflecting errant shots toward green centers and fairways a mile wide. The slope from the back tees is 128 with stroke rating at 74 which is generous. (118 from regular tees). I think a +10 would do pretty well there. Question is would he have fun?
-
What WOULD a Tour pro shoot at Gamble Sands?
No doubt low 60s, potentially 58/59. There is nothing to stop their assault. Greens flat, fairways flat, absense of cross hazards, absense of bunkers fronting greens, amphitheater mounds deflecting errant shots toward green centers and fairways a mile wide. The slope from the back tees is 128 with stroke rating at 74 which is generous. (118 from regular tees). I think a +10 would do pretty well there. Question is would he have fun?
Well if a +10 is going to shoot 60, the Slope may be fine, but the course rating of 74 is a bit high. [Are those guys really +10 now? Greg Norman was +6 when he was #1 in the world.]
-
What WOULD a Tour pro shoot at Gamble Sands?
Prior to opening Kevin Chapell played out there and shot a pair of 68's. Unless it's been bettered that is the course record.
http://golfweek.com/news/2014/aug/01/gamble-sands-david-mclay-kidd-playability-washingt/ (http://golfweek.com/news/2014/aug/01/gamble-sands-david-mclay-kidd-playability-washingt/)
I played it the day prior to opening from one tee forward and shot 73 and left 3-4 strokes out there having issues with putting on the fescue.
-
What WOULD a Tour pro shoot at Gamble Sands?
No doubt low 60s, potentially 58/59. There is nothing to stop their assault. Greens flat, fairways flat, absense of cross hazards, absense of bunkers fronting greens, amphitheater mounds deflecting errant shots toward green centers and fairways a mile wide. The slope from the back tees is 128 with stroke rating at 74 which is generous. (118 from regular tees). I think a +10 would do pretty well there. Question is would he have fun?
Well if a +10 is going to shoot 60, the Slope may be fine, but the course rating of 74 is a bit high. [Are those guys really +10 now? Greg Norman was +6 when he was #1 in the world.]
Dean Knuth wrote an article awhile back saying that top players were +10 to +12 depending on how hot there were at any given time. I bet a look at the handicap sheet from Whisper Rock would be interesting.
-
There is a big difference between making a par and making a birdie, and I just don't see that taking a pro back to 7500 yards means they are going to hit it close enough to make 13 birdies in 18 holes. They are good putters, but they don't make that many from 20-30 feet!
I will say that they would probably birdie or better every par 5. Maybe they get their score down with an eagle or two.
Maybe this is more to the point, I would be shocked if a pro made more than 1 bogey in a round at GS.
For those that haven't played GS, the closest thing to it that I have played is the Plantation Course at Kapalua. But GS didn't have the wind.
And we do know what numbers a pro can shoot at the Plantation Course when they get it going. Course record is 62.
Kevin Chappell shooting a casual pair of 68s at GS seems about right to me.
I would estimate that the course is about 4 shots easier than a standard handicap. So my 75 would have been a 79 somewhere else. That being said, my 77 on my 2nd round would have been a 77 anywhere. I hit it very long and straight all day. 2 bad swings the entire round. Shot 77 because I lipped out 4 putts. On any course, I would have hit almost every green in regulation, and bad putting is bad putting on any course (direction, not distance).
-
Brent
The trend toward longer courses is exactly what one would expect to happen if medal play and more challenging are mixed. Although, I have never quite figured out why people place such an emphasis on medal VS matchplay courses. A course is either good or not. It doesn't make any difference if I am using a pencil.
Ciao
Do you like quirk?
The emphasis on medal play courses is to remove any semblance of quirk.
The emphasis on medal play is to remove fun stances and shots.
Who wants to play a steady diet of medal play courses? Not me.
Winged Foot West has to be less fun than Pennard.
-
Brent
The trend toward longer courses is exactly what one would expect to happen if medal play and more challenging are mixed. Although, I have never quite figured out why people place such an emphasis on medal VS matchplay courses. A course is either good or not. It doesn't make any difference if I am using a pencil.
Ciao
Do you like quirk?
The emphasis on medal play courses is to remove any semblance of quirk.
The emphasis on medal play is to remove fun stances and shots.
Who wants to play a steady diet of medal play courses? Not me.
Winged Foot West has to be less fun than Pennard.
GJ
As I said, a good course is a good course. One should not evaluate the quality of the course by the method of scoring. Pennard is exactly the same course if one uses a pencil or not. If you enjoy it, great. If not, move on to something else...the course doesn't mind.
Ciao
-
Brent
The trend toward longer courses is exactly what one would expect to happen if medal play and more challenging are mixed. Although, I have never quite figured out why people place such an emphasis on medal VS matchplay courses. A course is either good or not. It doesn't make any difference if I am using a pencil.
Ciao
Do you like quirk?
The emphasis on medal play courses is to remove any semblance of quirk.
The emphasis on medal play is to remove fun stances and shots.
Who wants to play a steady diet of medal play courses? Not me.
Winged Foot West has to be less fun than Pennard.
GJ
As I said, a good course is a good course. One should not evaluate the quality of the course by the method of scoring. Pennard is exactly the same course if one uses a pencil or not. If you enjoy it, great. If not, move on to something else...the course doesn't mind.
Ciao
A good course is not a good course. A good course can be a very bad course. It's all relative to the players, and their likes and desires.
The worst course I played recently is Saunton East. How on earth did it get so high on the Doak scale? For that matter, how on earth was it ever considered better than the west course? Clearly Saunton East is a a course modified for the pencil golfer. The best course I played recently is St. Enodoc, although it has undergone some recent modifications for the pencil golfer on the last few holes, it still has it's unique character that makes it great for match play. It needs to be protected from the pencil golfer, who would do something about the 10th hole problem.
-
I agree with Sean about the artificial distinction between medal and match play courses. It just isn't a distinction a British golfer would recognise. As to Garland equating the distinction with quirk, that simply doesn't hold up. Elie has as much quirk as I have seen anywhere. It works fine for Strokeplay. Northumberland is relatively quirk free. Narrow fairways and thick rough together with frequent wind can make medals a chore.
-
Well GJ, if Saunton East is the worst course you have played lately you are walking in high cotton.
You have mastered Double Dutch.
A good course is not a good course. A good course can be a very bad course.
Mark
Yes, my thoughts are similar. Medal play often is related to pro golf and clubs get the trickle down effect. It is usually the case that the same course in the hands of the handicap player doesn't make any sense. Isn't this why Stableford was invented? I thought the Doctor lamented the time it took for Medals and devised a scoring system to quicken the pace. Maybe its time we look for another new scoring system :P
Ciao
-
I agree with Sean about the artificial distinction between medal and match play courses. It just isn't a distinction a British golfer would recognise. As to Garland equating the distinction with quirk, that simply doesn't hold up. Elie has as much quirk as I have seen anywhere. It works fine for Strokeplay. Northumberland is relatively quirk free. Narrow fairways and thick rough together with frequent wind can make medals a chore.
Every course works fine for stroke play. You count the strokes, you add the total, you are done. That doesn't mean that the medal players find it ideal.
Why does Dr. MacKenzie lament the fact that medal players often degrade golf courses, such as was done at Saunton East, by removing the character so they can score more consistently? Without the need for total score match play does not promote the removal of such character.
Why was the issue of seeing the bottom of the flag stick such an issue between Tom and Jack when they built Sebonack?
Would you rather the medal player got his way and put every flag stick in full view?
-
I don't necessarily think the "medal" player should get his way. But I also don't think medal scoring makes any architectural demands...golfers do...and many golfers play medal...the two should not be used as if they are the same thing. Every course can't be a Perranporth, nor should we wish or expect that to be the case.
I don't know what you think happened at Saunton, but you do realize a little skirmish called WWII had a bit to do with how and why the design is as we see it today. There was no sinister plot by Jack or medal players. The removal of blind shots had been ongoing and strongly advocated by celebrated archies (and not for medal play purposes imo, well at least I never read that as a reason for the reduction of blind shots) well before the rebuild of Saunton. I find it disappointing when golfers have difficulty finding the good in a well balanced design such as Saunton, but I am not surprised because I know many people visit GB&I wanting to see mountainous dunes in action.
Ciao
-
Sean,
So the east course fairways were flattened to make airplane runways in WWII? One wouldn't think so since just off the fairways there are significant undulations. Furthermore, the west course which opened before WWII, still has the undulations in the fairways. Please explain why the fairways of the east course for the most part are flat, and the fairways of the west course are not.
-
Here's a Bing Sat-map of the two Saunton courses plus the huge area of dunes to the south and the west. Biggest area of duneland in the UK I've been told.
Saunton area - http://binged.it/1uhd3ZP
As to airport runways, I thought the area was used as a tank training area during WWII.
atb
-
Why was the issue of seeing the bottom of the flag stick such an issue between Tom and Jack when they built Sebonack?
Sorry to thread-jack, but, I don't remember that this ever was an issue at Sebonack. Could you remind me how you know this?
Jack DID count the number of uphill shots in the routing at the beginning of the process, but I don't remember him ever talking about seeing the bottom of the flag stick.
-
Why was the issue of seeing the bottom of the flag stick such an issue between Tom and Jack when they built Sebonack?
Sorry to thread-jack, but, I don't remember that this ever was an issue at Sebonack. Could you remind me how you know this?
Jack DID count the number of uphill shots in the routing at the beginning of the process, but I don't remember him ever talking about seeing the bottom of the flag stick.
Perhaps the use of the word "such" was oversell. My memory is that you discussed a hole on here where from much of the fairway the bottom of the pin was not visible, and Jack was uncomfortable with that.
-
Why was the issue of seeing the bottom of the flag stick such an issue between Tom and Jack when they built Sebonack?
Sorry to thread-jack, but, I don't remember that this ever was an issue at Sebonack. Could you remind me how you know this?
Jack DID count the number of uphill shots in the routing at the beginning of the process, but I don't remember him ever talking about seeing the bottom of the flag stick.
Perhaps it was your posts about his concern for visibility that led me to conclude the issue of seeing the bottom of the flag stick was present in your mutual work at Sebonack.
The first time I met with Jack Nicklaus re: Sebonack, he had counted how many uphill shots there were on my routing vs. the last one they had done, and mentioned the fact there were more; but he admitted that maybe the routing was better and we could deal with the visibility issues. Visibility is a very big deal to Jack.
When we were building the course, I was going to put some fill for the back tee on #14 which is down in a corner of the property, but Jack said not to bother ... it was an uphill tee shot anyway, it might as well be really uphill.
Mark:
You raise an excellent point which I had omitted -- the contour of the fairways.
I think Sebonack takes the elements which Jack has traditionally used to make a golf course hard -- length, small greens, and lots of bunkering -- and adds the 3-D effects on the fairways and greens which I normally use in lieu of those other things. Put it all together, and it's a very difficult test.
Jack was not as agreeable about using lack of visibility as an element of difficulty, which I do on occasion.
-
This thread title got me thinking about the Himalayas putting course at St Andrews.
Immensely fun and playable for sure but in no way easy. Plenty challenging. No dullness. No hazards. No forced carries. No dress code. Low maintenance. One club, one ball.
Perfection?
atb
-
This thread title got me thinking about the Himalayas putting course at St Andrews.
Immensely fun and playable for sure but in no way easy. Plenty challenging. No dullness. No hazards. No forced carries. No dress code. Low maintenance. One club, one ball.
Perfection?
atb
You forgot green speed of about 6 :D
Ciao
-
This thread title got me thinking about the Himalayas putting course at St Andrews.
Immensely fun and playable for sure but in no way easy. Plenty challenging. No dullness. No hazards. No forced carries. No dress code. Low maintenance. One club, one ball.
Perfection?
atb
You forgot green speed of about 6 :D
Ciao
I certainly did........and that all players start each hole from the same spot! :)
atb
-
There is an assumption here that easy can't be fun. Just saying.
It isn't so much that easy golf isn't fun. More like golf that doesn't present any difficult decisions prior to striking shots is boring. At first it seems fun until you realize that there are no risk reward options to sort through. No reason to think, no reason to be nervous, no reason to rejoice on a good result. Just swing away.
this could be true for multiple repeat plays from the same tees and same hole locations, but the course is so big, it will never be boring unless hitting a golf ball properly from tight lies, in a beautiful setting, is boring :)