Narrow fairways, dull greens..great courses?

[Andy Hughes]

I have read here in the last week of great courses that have fairways that require single-file walking (Portrush), and great courses that have dull/boring greens (Bethpage Black).
What gives?  What exactly constitutes a great course, and are the cited courses great in spite of the perceived flaws?

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

Hold the phone partner ... you're the kind of guy who hears something from a few people and then broadcasts it to a much wider application.

I said Portrush (Dunluce) is a superb course that didn't need the extreme narrowing I found when I played there. The course has got plenty of substance without man's hand.

On Bethpage Black I agree with others who have said the drive to keep the course on a width pattern like a US Open venue is unnecessary and flies in the face of the width that the course was meant to have for everyday play.

One other thing -- BB has about six holes that have fairly uninteresting demands. Let's be clear -- just because people hit those greens it doesn't mean everyone sinks their putt or that you're not capable in three-putting.

I have also seen courses with so-called bullet-proof greens but have amateurish tee-to-green challenges. Many of the folks here on GCA would gush about such courses because their single minded focus is the nature of the greens at all cost.

I don't have the time to answer your question but clearly the shot values aspect for any great course must lead the list because making shots -- of all types -- is central to the playing of the game and it's something the top courses maximize throughout your round.

[Andy Hughes]

Matt
Consider the phone held.
Yes, your Portrush thread was an instigator, but it is far from alone. How many highly-ranked (and highly-regarded) courses have, let's face it, pretty narrow fairways?  If a narrow fairway removes all options other than hitting it or else, can such a course be considered great?  Must a 'great' course have wider fairways that allow options or decision-making?
If that aspect of the game is removed as it apparently was at Portrush and as it seems to have occurred at Bethpage as well, should those two courses be considered great, or should they be considered potentially great?  Is Portrush, as it sits today, a "superb course"?

[A_Clay_Man]

Andy, What you seem to be highlighting is that greatness doesn't follow any formulas.

I suspect that any course, that is designed to be "perfect", would be a lesson in futility for the archie.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

Let me go back a little in time -- I believed Bethpage Black to be great LONG BEFORE all the hoopla connected to the '02 Open and all those johnny-come-lately types who now rave about what the Black is.

I, along with countless others, could easily see the potential there for outstanding golf. In order to "see" it you had to fully appreciate the potential of what was there -- but was obscured through the stupdity of those running the show for many years before a person of talent like Dave Catalano was put in charge.

Andy -- a course can be great in my mind based on the key aspects there. I saw Portrush (Dunluce) in a snapshot of time -- one visit. I could plainly see that a gentle widerning and slightly more sensible positioning of the HAY like rough would elevate the course even further. I don't blame the course because of man's desire to doctor the end product.

To answer your last question -- yes, I believe wider fairways  -- within the realm of plausbility -- allow for more playing angles and move away from the strict and sometime onerous penal mandates of bowling-alley type fairways that only say to the player "hit it here and nowhere else."

[Andy Hughes]

Andy, What you seem to be highlighting is that greatness doesn't follow any formulas.

Adam, yes, exactly.  I have learned quite a bit from this site, but at the most basic level, I am still very unclear what the smart folk even use as the criteria for what makes a course (or hole) great.  
Now, Pat M will tell me that NGLA is a great course because of the complexity of the holes, the array of options, the wide playing surfaces in places etc .  And everyone tends to agree.
But someone else will say that course XYZ is great, and there will often not be ANY options other than 'hit it here or else'.  Is that great? I am not sure; I tend to think no, but in places it seems appropriate.
Others will then say as I read yesterday that #7 at Pebble Beach is a great par 3--is it? I have no idea, but I know if the exact same hole with the exact same dimensions were built flat swampy Florida rather than above the pacific, none of us would give it a second look other than to say 'pitch and putt hole'.
So perhaps there are no set definitions of what makes a course/hole great, as wide fairways are required to be great, and some courses with very narrow fairways are great....

Let me go back a little in time -- I believed Bethpage Black to be great LONG BEFORE all the hoopla connected to the '02 Open and all those johnny-come-lately types who now rave about what the Black is.

Matt
No need to prove your bone fides with me.
My only contention is what makes a course great, and if a course lacks those things, can it be great anyway.
As driving is such a key component of the game, can a course that offers bowling alleys for fairways truly be considered great? If so, what does that mean, Matt, for what a great course is?
If a course had dull greens that had no impact on strategy, could that course be called great?

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

I don't blame the course because of man's stupidity.

Narrow courses don't lend the design of BB or Dunluce -- any design for that matter -- to the fullest range of possibilities.

When you have a course that dictates "one way" oriented type driving you have a very limited design that simply caters to one style of play.

What I think is important is for raters to think "outside the box" and be able to understand the "potential" of a course even when man's hand so clearly minimizes or obscures what's there.

Andy -- your last putt on dull greens and can a course still be considered great. My answer is yes provided the issue of greens is not so dominant a negative. For some people -- Mike Malone -- the issue of BB's greens caused him to have a lesser opinion of the course. I still argued the point that the physical landscape of the Black -- it's unique routing and the sheer totality of shot values is more than enough to offset the fact that six greens on the course are not at the Mackenzie, Maxwell, Ross, et al top level.

What people tend to minimize is the sheer tenacity of the layout because a good number of other private clubs with so-called "great greens" usually possess inferior demands from the tee-to-green side. Many of these same folks don't factor that into the equation because IMHO they see the tee-to-green aspect in being a secondary factor when put against the scale of unique putting surfaces. I don't minimize the former for the latter.

[Andy Hughes]

Narrow courses don't lend the design of BB or Dunluce -- any design for that matter -- to the fullest range of possibilities.
When you have a course that dictates "one way" oriented type driving you have a very limited design that simply caters to one style of play.

No disagreement from me Matt.  But....
If that is the case, and if BPB and Portrush at this time both suffer from that affliction, then the question remains: are they, at this time, great courses?  Can a great course be one that has a 'limited design' and that 'caters to one style of play'?

[Matt_Ward]

Andy said ...

"If that is the case, and if BPB and Portrush at this time both suffer from that affliction, then the question remains: are they, at this time, great courses?  Can a great course be one that has a 'limited design' and that 'caters to one style of play?"

Let me answer it this way -- when people like the USGA come to a site for the Open and "doctor" the layout for that event I would dare say that people seeing the course for the first time might wonder why such a superb layout needs to be altered with narrow fairways and baked out greens, etc, etc.

In fact -- given the rightful criticism experienced during the event many people might actually "blame" the course for its set-up when in reality the people most directly responsible are the USGA.

The same holds true for the ignorance shown by the folks at Dunluce and Bethpage Black in having a daily play with narrow fairways that rob the course IMHO in maximizing the compelling architectural elements that each possesses.

Andy -- I don't hold it against the courses in question because of man's fault. A quick remedy -- the widening of fairways -- is readily available for implementation if the people responsible for the layout seized the opprotunity.

I don't equate such a simple remedy on the same level when courses have a deep problems with daily conditioning or issues with greens that are simple inadequate.

The "limited design" you speak about is in error. The courses are not "limited" in their design -- they are held back because of an understanding of the people operating them. Big difference in my mind.

The courses in question are more than capable in being available to different styles of play -- the issue is the people running the show -- not the course or the person who designed it origianlly.

[Andy Hughes]

The "limited design" you speak about is in error. The courses are not "limited" in their design -- they are held back because of an understanding of the people operating them. Big difference in my mind.

Matt, the use of the word 'limited' is actually borrowed from you. And I believe based on what you and others have said that it is correct, though not in the actual design of the course as you rightly say, but in the day-to-day playability of the course.
Matt, I don't wish to belabor the point, but if BPB has had its fairways narrowed to Open widths since it held the Open, then it is fair to say that that is the state of the course now. Its not been a week or a month; its been quite awhile since the Open was there. So as the course sits now, and has sat for quite a long time, it 'dictates' one way to play and has a 'limited' design.  
That being said, is it then fair to say that BPB is no longer a great course, and won't be until fairway width is restored?  Can a course with such limitations be truly considered great, or must we say Bethpage Black was once a great course and may be again, but at this time is not?

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

I do admit that using the US Open motif -- whether at the even itself or afterwards -- does not really embellish what the courses in question have to offer.

Still -- I know the nature of the Black in having played there almost 200 times. I can visualize the nature of the holes and the entire course even though man's hand has changed the nature of the course through narrow fairways. Does the course suffer because of that -- no doubt. Do I personally penalize the course to some degree when compared to other ooutstannding courses with wider fairways -- to some degree yes.

But, keep in mind the issue of fairway widening can be easily corrected. I would not hold the issue of fairway widening to the same level as other more serious and long term issues one might encounter when playing a top tier layout.