Degree of difficulty=greatness?

[Andy Hughes]

I have also read this week of courses that are 'proven' to be great or better than other courses because of their difficulty. Is that really a barometer of greatness?  Should it be?  How does that balance with the fun quotient?

[Doug Siebert]

Just ignore the Ward vs. Shivas battles about Bethpage versus Medinah.  Some people confuse difficulty with challenge...

Its trivial to design a difficult course.  You or I or anyone could design the most difficult course in the world that'd make Koo'lau look like your average 9 holer muni.  John Cleese has some good ideas in this regard, along with Dr. Evil -- fill the water surrounding an island green with sharks with FRICKIN laser beams on their head and even Tiger will be sweating it when he arrives on the teebox!  It wouldn't be something anyone would want to play, of course.

But if you make something that's challenging, that's another matter.  It can be as difficult as you want, as long as there are better results for more skill (in shotmaking, thinking, etc.) and there are options for all (or at least a good portion of) levels of golfer that are within range of the ability they'll bring on a good day.  As I see it, the art in architecture comes in finding that balance so that all golfers are challenged to produce the best they are capable of, and punished for slacking on that aim, without requiring them to produce something they can only do once in a blue moon or through blind luck.

Probably the hardest task for a designer is to design a course that isn't particularly difficult, that isn't going to punish every little mistake, at least not in an obvious or overt fashion, but is still widely regarded as fun and challenging even for accomplished golfers.  Look at courses like North Berwick, highly ranked and regarded, but not particularly difficult and certainly not very penal.  This type of course has even been making a comeback lately...the pendulum has swung back from some of the excesses of the Pete Dye style.

Personally, I prefer a course that will beat me up a bit when I make a mistake.  But that isn't for everyone.  Some people would rather have every hole be a birdie hole.  Those people probably like offensive battles in football, while I like a good defensive battle.

Even for a course that'll beat you up, there are different ways to do it.  I'm not a big fan of a course that will pretty much show you where you need to be by virtue of bad stuff everyone else, and then throw penalty strokes or chip/wedge outs for a poorly played stroke.  I much prefer a course that will let you BELIEVE you are getting away with something on a missed shot, then come back to bite you on your next shot or the one after unless you play a truly superior shot to make up for it, forcing you to think your way around the course and being more subtle by punishing you for mental mistakes.  I bring out my best when I mess up, and have to do something spectacular to get back on track.  And while I don't succeed every time, it is certainly more satisfying when I do.  Guess its the old "I'd rather make a par from the parking lot than the middle of the fairway" thing.

[Dave_Miller]

I have also read this week of courses that are 'proven' to be great or better than other courses because of their difficulty. Is that really a barometer of greatness?  Should it be?  How does that balance with the fun quotient?

In my humble opinion difficulty should not be the barometer for greatness.  Many great courses are difficult but the great courses also present fun, challenge, enjoyment, require patience and mental concentration.  They challenge in various ways not just with difficulty.
Fairways and Greens,
Dave

[Robert Thompson]

This is an interesting debate -- certainly the world's top course, Pine Valley, is very difficult, but also very fair.
I think there was a time, not that very long ago, when owners thought they were creating great courses by asking architects to make them difficult. I think, largely, that time has passed, but there are still lots of examples out there.
Is a difficult course necessarily great? Of course not. But I do think a great course will almost always have a significant level of difficulty, depending on the conditions and the tees selected.
I'll be the first to say Carnoustie is great, but it is also very difficult and not always a lot of fun. Turnberry, on the other hand, is clearly an easier course, but has enough difficulty to make it challenging and great.
I think there is a fine line here -- in Canada, the National, a George and Tom Fazio design, has long been regarded as one  of the country's toughest courses. For a long time it was also regarded as the best, but that has changed recently as the pendulum has swung towards the classics, which are often not as penal.

Robert

[Matt_Ward]

What's amusing is that people gush about PV but it was created as a holy terror course! Guys PV is difficult -- especially for the mid-to-high handicapper -- they don't have a 150 slope rating for nothing!

I also have to say that many people who whine about difficulty are usually adverse to any "intense" demands courses place upon them. In simple terms -- people judge courses by their own self interests and rarely see outside that narrow universe. That's why people apply the perjorative connotation to "difficulty" but salute the meaning of the word "challenge."

Many people opt away from such places as Bethpage Black, Winged Foot / West and Oakmont because they know quite frankly that THEIR game will be quickly picked-apart by the intense meter encoutered there. That's why people will opt for other similar, but less intense courses like Bethpage / Red  or Winged Foot / East, Fenway, or one of the other more noted Pittsburgh area courses like Fox Chapel or the Pittsburgh Field Club.

Like Tom Paul often says -- it's a big world and there's plenty to go around for everyone.

Difficulty is a part of a course's standing -- provided there are some options included I see no reason why it becomes such a easy punching bag to dress down.

Like I said if you want to know where a person usually stands on the topic look to see where he sits with his own game.

[Andy Hughes]

What's amusing is that people gush about PV but it was created as a holy terror course! Guys PV is difficult -- especially for the mid-to-high handicapper -- they don't have a 150 slope rating for nothing!

I wonder Matt; is it a fun course to play, in spite of the difficulty?
Can a course be both a ball-breaker and fun? I would certainly think so.  But I think a lot of that will come down to how that ball-breaking is applied. If it is one hole after another of trying to hit a tiny ribbon of fairway and then be penalized severely for missing, than no, I can't see that as a fun course.  Or of being asked to make one forced carry after another that is beyond the players ability with no chance to take a longer, safer route.

Robert, I agree with your comment re Carnoustie. It was my least favorite Scottish course (and oh yeah, it whipped my tail), and found Turnberry to be exhilirating.  Which course is greater?  To me Turnberry was, and not because I had a lower score.

[Matthew MacKay]

As Matt said, the ability of the player has great influence on how good they percieve a course to be.  In the minds of very good players I think difficulty is a major component of greatness.  Average players look up to and tend to believe what good players tell them, consequently their notion of what constitutes greatness gets skewed.

Rob, you mention the National GC of Canada.  I don't know how anyone who doesn't hit it high and relatively long can enjoy that course day in and day out.  Somehow it has managed to hang it's hat on this for years, although as you note, its grasp seems to be slipping.  I wonder if they'll soon have to change the moniker on their bag-tag.  

[Doug Siebert]

To me, Turnberry was much more beautiful, but I found it to be overrated because I found it quite easy and didn't require top notch shots -- both times I played there I shot 76, and got away with a lot of bad shots.

You could argue that because I've been fairly successful at Carnoustie both times (and had my first hole in one there on the 16th in 1991) that I'm biased in its favor.  But I love Prestwick too, and my record there stands at 95 & 102 so far (don't ask)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy Hughes,

The quality of the challenge presented should be a consideration in evaluating the merits of a golf course.

[TEPaul]

In my opinion, there're a lot of very good and very thoughtful posts answering this thread's question. I think it's very indicative what was said on here about Pete Dye's style when he gets into real difficulty in architecture and also what was said about Canada's National.

And I think it's also most interesting what's generally always been said about PVGC in the context of difficultly. It seem that PVGC has always been considered very difficult but no one has ever much seriously criticized it for that---certainly never much criticized its architecture for that.

Why is that? Probably because PVGC has always provided that one real key to interesting golf and architecture that allows it to not be criticized for its excessive difficulty---and that key is it's always had a very generous amount of fairway area.

Sure, if you miss that generous fairway area your score can get royally screwed in a heartbeat no matter who you are.

The way PVGC treats the recovery shot is pretty unique too and always has been. Sometimes there is the opportunity for the truly heroic recovery shot down there but golfers who know that course have always understood although truly heroic recovery is sometimes possible you're really rolling the dice compared to other courses---hence the very common so-called "PVGC others" that from time to time have plagued every level of player down there ever since the course opened.

But they also know that the course has really generous fairways and that probably mitigates their criticism of the course's difficult if you miss them!

In my opinion, there's a very fundamental point here about golf architecture and about the overall subject of difficulty--even how it may relate to greatness!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Do you really feel that the 2nd fairway is generous ?

How about # 5. # 7 # 12 ?

On some holes, only certain areas, certain LZ's are generous.
Certain holes may look generous, but they play narrow.

Take # 11.

If your ball ends up on the downslope of the ridge, or left, with your approach shot blocked by the trees, how generous is that fairway, which looks wide from the tee ?

As one approaches # 15, I don't believe you could call that fairway wide by any stretch.  Narrow would be more descriptive.

But, in general, I would agree, the appearance of width, and actual width can be very beneficial.  NGLA is a good example.

Probably the greatest contrast is Shinnecock, in its 55 acre hayday compared to its widths this past June.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Do you really feel that the 2nd fairway is generous?"

Pat:

Yes I do, particularly for a hole that's 365 yards long. That fairway is generous but more than any hole at PVGC what's on both sides of that generous fairway area is so visually intimidating it generally induces golfers to exhibit what's called "the Pine Valley Hang-On!"--eg more golfers than not try to really steer the ball off that hole and subject themselves to the PVHO!

How about #5, #7 #12?

#5 is a 245 yard par 3 that has a fairway that's about 35 yards wide and about 50 yards long. How much fairway do you want on a long par 3? A ton  of players would do a lot better on that hole if they just tried to hit that fairway (as I do) rather than the green but how many players even think of that? And in that lies on of the more interesting strategical ramifications and facets of temptation in all of golf!!! Believe me, I've seen it for the last couple of decades.

#7 is about 45 yards wide on the first half and probably about 65+ on the second half!!

#12, for a short nearly driveable par 4 has a fairway that's really wide, although it's hard to see all its width from the tee. The psychological problem to many golfers on that tee shot is that the green is stuck way off to the left of the really generous fairway and it mentally pulls the golfer  towards it---one of the most interesting nuancy tricks in all of architecture, in my opinion (not unlike Maidstone's #17!!----another really generous fairway width-wise).

#11 is a wide fairway but a most interesting one--pretty unique in golf. It's very likely for some golfer to fly the ball about 50 yards past another golfer on that hole and end up less than 10 yards apart. As for the left side of that fairway and the trees---I go over there all the time. You have to know what you're doing on the tee if you go over there. If you hit the ball too far down the left side of that fairway off the tee you can be in the fairway but blocked by those trees (simply because you're too near them distance-wise) but if you're back a bit farther it's not much problem going right over the top of them or else just hit a draw around them which I do all the time. If you get the distance right by flying the ball to the green that green is incredibly "collecting".

#15 is a really wide fairway but it slopes and too many try to slot the ball up the left side sometimes bouncing it out of the rough. The thing that really dictates that to most players isn't the functional narrowness of the fairway for the tee shot compared to the fairway's actual really generous width it's because of the fact that if you can get the ball up the left side you really shorten the hole and the sense for everyone on that tee shot is hole is so long you want to get the shortest club possible in your hand for the third shot beause that approach shot is so hard. But the fairway on #15 is really wide.