What 'Great' means to me..

[Jonathan Cummings]

What makes great to me?  Great golf holes forming a great course come in many forms.  Some are subtle, some dramatic.  Others are luring, or daunting.  And some are steeped in tradition and recognition, while others are fresh and novel.  To me, all have in common a designer's success in (1) integrating a hole to complement the land around it; (2) stimulating a rich variety in thoughts/problems with the golfer; (3) focusing, as opposed to distracting the golfer on the hole/problem in front of him; and, (4) telling a crucial part of an 18 chapter story.

What means 'great' to you?

[Jonathan Cummings]

Here's a definition from Digest to their raters...

Course greatness, as defined by Golf Digest and used since the first rating list, is as follows: “A great course should test the skills of a scratch golfer from the championship tees, challenging him to play all types of shots.  It should reward well placed shots and call on the golfer to blend power and finesse.  Each hole should be memorable.  There should be a feeling of enticement and a sense of satisfaction in playing the course.  The design should offer a balance in both length and configuration, and the course should be properly maintained”.

[A_Clay_Man]

JC- The subtext of your post is subjectivety, and being a Taurus I usually find it hard to believe that others don't see it, MY WAY.  

But, some of the age old sayings are more than applicable, like there's no accounting for taste or to each their own. This enigma is just another of the complexities golf offers us.

I like discussion, but most view it as complaining or arguing while I, at the end of the day, realize that you or anyone is entitled to their opinion. I even try to squeeze out those opines to better determine the persons taste or lack thereof. Then I either seek out their suggestions or avoid them.

To answer your post, great to me, is both somethings simple and some complex. Simple like the backnine at PG, complex like figuring all the elements on a windy day in Gothenburg or Mullen.

[Slag_Bandoon]

 I, being a Moon Child, generally use the word "great" as an adjective for specific features,  e.g. great blowout bunkers, great prices, great cart girl.  Some places exude greatness, like North Berwick and Prestwick.    If I were to use the word to describe Sand Hills it would only be because of a sudden attack of aphasia that has hobbled my creativity by its greatness.  
  I think it's "great" that Mike Keiser came along.  I think that a "great" shot on a "great" hole can make for a "great" moment.  I think Adam Clayman has a "great" preshot routine (nothing routine about it).  I think Sugar Frosted Flakes are Grrrrrreat!   I think my answers are grating.

    
     Royal Dornoch has great groves of gorse
     For bogey or worse.
    

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Jonathon, Thanks for the inclusion of the Golf Digest definition.  As we have probably discussed n the past, this is an indication of how inadequate the ratings game can be.  

A great hole should is one that engages each of the faculties of ALL players not just those finite few who posess a scratch or better handicap.  And you ask which faculties are you including?  

Players each have strengths and weaknesses.  Whether it be power, putting, shotmaking or brains any player will go to his or her strength in an attempt to get the win in match play or the lowest possible number in medal play.  In return the golf hole should be designed to emphacize one of the possible skills.  Players are forced from their comfort zone and judged on their overall game.  A power player might be forced to think their way through a strategic hole while a shotmaker might later be forced to bust their biggest drive in order to compete with the big hitter.  During each round we should be confronted with 18 separate puzzles as a complete analysis of each players game.  The player who plays to his highest ability should take home the bet.

More insidious is how the ratings game has led some designers to attempt to design to the list rather than creating an interesting game board.  Tom Doaks thread asking whether Pacific Dunes is too easy is a perfect example.  PD is not a difficult golf course in calm conditions.  It does provide multiple opportunities to solve strategic problems.  Shall I hit an iron short left of the bunker on two? or bust one to the right? The left side provides an easier shot to the green while the right side option provides a shorter more blind shot.  When the wind blows it provides different options still.  Had Doak designed for a rating, we could well have ended up with par 72, all par 4s over 400 yards and hazards lining the edges of the golf course.

Other courses (which shall remain unnamed) prescribing to the Digest pattern offer one option.  They may be different but if you miss the option the penalties are often catastrophic.  I am a pretty strong player and I find these courses absolutely boring.  Without the opportunity for recovery, hope is lost. And so is my interest!!

[Jonathan Cummings]

Cos-man

Good write up!

J