[T.J. Sturges]

In the topic we've called, "Underrated...overrated", Shivas offered a statement as to what he feels makes a course "great".  His statement was:

"...a great golf course requires that you hit golf shots to play well on it."     -Shivas (Aug. 2006)

This brings up an interesting question as to what makes a course "great".  I am not an expert player and have always played golf with my friends, for "fun".  My definition of what makes a course great has always been related to the question of "where would I prefer to play"?  For me, I would rather play a round of golf at Fishers Island, than to get my brains beat out playing the 7500 yards of Medinah, or the torture chamber that is referred to as PGA West.  Does this make FI "great", and Medinah et. al. not?  For me it does.  But that's MY definition of great.  My list of "great" courses would include places like Crystal Downs, Yale, Prairie Dunes, Pacific Dunes, NGLA, and Royal Dornoch.  I just love playing those places.  I'd rather play at those spots than many, many other places.  At the end of the day, that is what shapes my own personal definition of what I feel makes a course "great".

What do YOU think makes a course great?

TS

[Tom Huckaby]

Ted:

This is a question that has been explored many times here... but it remains very relevant.  Not sure if you've played these Long Island greats, but I really think it gets crystallized if one is asked to state a preference between Shinnecock Hills and National Golf Links of America.

Both are great by whatever measures one chooses to use.

But if forced to make a choice, well....

Shinnecock is a LOT of golf course and requires very strong play in order to have success.

NGLA is not so strenuous, at least in terms of raw difficulty.  It is maddeningly quirky and tends to require brains more than brawn.

I prefer NGLA and have always said so on here.  Many prefer Shinnecock.

But it comes down to this:  test of golf, or fun and inspiration?

I go with the latter - sounds like you do also.

BUT here's the rub:  I wouldn't say Shinnecock - or Medinah - is less "great" than NGLA or Cypress Point or the others I'd put in the "fun and inspiring" category - they're just a DIFFERENT form of greatness.

Someone once said here - or make that someone said this at least 1000 times - it's a big beautiful world of golf.  I believe it is.  There are many forms of greatness - and how one looks at this is always going to turn on personal preference.

TH

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ted,

Sounds like you subscribe to the "If it walks like a duck, smells like a duck...." theory.  Its as good as any to determine greatness.  I suppose that theory also works substituting "turd" for "duck."

Golf, generally IMHO, is meant to be enjoyed, not endured.  So if you come off a course exhilarated, and want to run right back out to play, then I think its a great course.  

Both Shinny and NGLA did that for me, BTW.

[Tom Huckaby]

Both Shinny and NGLA did that for me, BTW.

Me too.

But which did it MORE?

That's where this gets crystallized.  And for this exercise, no fair calling it a tie.  They are both very very great for sure... but they are so different in so many ways, a choice surely can be made.

TH

[Dale_McCallon]

Ted,

Maybe you have beat me to the punch--I was getting ready to start a thread wondering how many "great" individual holes it took to justify calling a course great.  It seems Pebble might be a great standard.  While few would argue the greatness of 7, 8, 9, and 18 (and a few others), many like to say that the weaker elements bring the course down.  I don't agree, I would be glad to pay Pebble anytime (unfortunately I didn't win the Powerball this weekend).

Fun level vs. other elements--not sure.  For example at Dixie Cup II last year, no doubt in my mind Tobacco Road had more fun, memorable holes--but if I had to choose which one to play again I would have picked Mid-Pines.  Not anything there that just blew you away, but just a great place full of character and great flow from hole to hole.

[Matt_Ward]

Ted:

I have a very simple formula to answer what you have asked.

I assess a course through three key aspects ...

1). The land it occupies
2). The sophistication of its routing
3). The shot values it requires

Get a course with an "A" in it each category and you will be playing a place of utter quality that you will be racing to get back there for another round.

[Greg Tallman]

I believe Shivas has identified the answer without coming out and stating it:

Variety - Not a variety of options on EVERY shot but a variety of examinations spread throughout the course.

Offering the ground game on every shot - not the answer-important aspect of teh examionation but not the end all be all of good architecture as most on the site would promote;

Requiring a high, fast stopping approach - not the answer-important aspect as I believe a player must display this talent during a round but agian not the only answer.

Tight fairways and penal rough - not the answer-important... but only one aspect.

Variety placed throughout examining all aspects of one's game with a finishing hole that would allow for a variety of play options.

[Phil McDade]

Huck:

...or between Blackwolf Run (River) and Lawsonia (Links), of two courses mentioned here frequently. In Ted's other thread, I rated one as over-rated and one as under. From my point of view, there's little doubt that the River course is beautiful, sits on wonderful land, has great variety in its holes and shot requirements, and is demanding. And it just beats my brains out; it's...not...fun...to...play (largely, I think, because of my mediocre abilities). Lawsonia has all of that, as well, and is an absolute blast to play. It's probably/certainly not as "demanding" as the River, esp. from back tees. But there's little doubt it can provide a significant challenge for even top-flight golfers (although I would like them to get their green speeds up...)

One of the reasons I think so highly of Lawsonia is that golfers of virtually all ability can play it and begin to understand and appreciate routing, land contours, shot demands, the strategic use of bunkers and slopes -- all of the things that done well go into great golf architecture. I can't say the same about the River -- for me, it's a course that demands pretty darn good abilities as a golfer to appreciate its architectural appeal (of which it has much). That's why, given a choice, I'd always choose Lawsonia over the River course.

[Tom Huckaby]

Greg:

My local par three course has variety - some greens are soft, some are firm... some holes are long, some are short... but does that alone make it great?

And when you say variety, is it all about the "examination"?  PGA West - Stadium requires you to hit every club - it has variety in spades.  But is it great?  Is it greater than others just because of this variety?

I'm not trying to pick on you - but I know shivas, and I doubt he'd be pigeonholed into saying the examination is ALL that's involved in greatness.  There are such things that fall under "inspiration."

So I ask you, I guess:  is this all that's required for greatness for you - that a course be a varied test?  I'm guessing you don't mean this to be exclusive either....

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Phil - that's it, brother.  And people do come down on both sides of this - I don't think either is right or wrong... it's just fascinating to me when we have these courses that do crystallize the choice.  Is golf about the test, or is it about fun and inspiration.

I once said that the greatest of all courses have both... but I'm not 100% sure that's true any more.

TH

[Tommy Williamsen]

Ability helps decide if you think a course is great or fun.  I love the River course.  It is demanding, to be sure, but I think it is great fun.  It tests all aspects of my game.  The tee shots are generally benign but offer some risk reward decisions.  The shots to the green ask the player to be able to move the ball left to right or right to left.  Some should be hit high and some lower.  If you miss the green your short game is sternly tested.  The greens, themselves, are undulating and demand touch and nerve. It sits on a beautiful site and is pretty walkable.  Turn in a good score and you have earned it.

[Brian McElveen]

Any course that will allow you to bring your own cooler should be one step closer to the greatness category! Seriously.

Aside from that, you can throw 100 items up on the list of what makes a course "great".  A few things that constitute great in my personal opinion are as follows:

1.  Visual-  I think that a course has to fit your eye, if you don't like the surrounding your probably not going to like the course, no matter how good the layout is.

2. Variety- Ahhh, the spice of life.  Shivas was spot on.  I personally want to use every club in my bag, great courses usually have a way of doing this.  No course can be considered great if you only need 4 clubs to play it.

3. Challenge-  this really goes with the variety I spoke of.  If a course makes you use different clubs, hit different shots, and actually think about the way a hole should be played, I'm going to enjoy the challenge of doing this.

4. Condition- I expect a course to be in good condition.  Especially if I am paying a premium price to pay for it.  Can you imagine going to play #2, paying $350 and finding out in the middle of the first fairway that the bunkers weren't maintained, or the fairway grass wasn't cut for a week.  You expect more, you paid for more, and dammit you deserve more.  This is more in relation to the courses in the US, and while I understand how great some of the courses in the UK are, its a different design and concept than we have in the US. (Note I have never paid and never will pay $300+ to play anywhere, unless they redraw the powerball numbers from saturday )

These are just a few of my personal opions in what needs to be present to help make a course great, ultimately greatness varies person to person. While I could go on and on about this topic, I'm sure you all have an opinion and most of the things that make courses great will make it into this thread. At this point in my career I'm happy to have fast greens, a few buddies to play Wolf with, and my cooler full of cold adult beverages.  

[Kirk Gill]

I hate to be a pedantic pain in the ass, but I think you have to define the word "great" before getting involved in this discussion.

There's "great for me" and capital G "Great." There's Tony the Tiger saying "theyyyyyyyyyrrrrrrrrrrrrr great " and there's the kind of Greatness that is achieved over time, by near-universal acclamation. If it's the first kind of greatness you're talking about, then whatever courses you've played that you really like are great. You had a great time playing them. They're great fun to play. They either fit into or perhaps even create your definition of what a golf course ought to be.

And if I had to say what a course has to have to fit into that category for me, then it would be interesting shapes that interact with the flight and the roll of the ball in interesting ways. It's the shape of the land combined with the shapes of the landing and hazard and green areas and the interest that is created by the need to hit over, onto, from and on them that creates the challenge, and the interest, of a course. And it can't just be on one hole, although what percentage of holes need to be great for the course to seem great is kind of up in the air.

Then, of course, there's the kind of Greatness that is, by definition, larger than personal opinion. It's something that extends both beyond our own individual feelings and the specific age we live in. A discussion of the courses that make this list is a far less interesting one, since it's already been decided by someone else. The only real interest here is the possibility that some new entrant is slipping into the Canon of Great Courses, like Sand Hills seems to be.

[Mike_Young]

Heritage...if it develops this then everything else was in place...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Both Shinny and NGLA did that for me, BTW.

Me too.

But which did it MORE?

That's where this gets crystallized.  And for this exercise, no fair calling it a tie.  They are both very very great for sure... but they are so different in so many ways, a choice surely can be made.

TH

Tom,

I would say NGLA, but mostly because as a gca, I love features on a golf course more than a particular challenge, which I may or may not execute (more of the latter as years go on.....) while I can appreciate "features" no matter how I play.  Other, competitive players would almost surely say Shinny.

BTW, why does everything have to turn into a ranking of one above another? Can't there just be greatness, near greatness, and miles from greatness? Oh wait, that's ranking them, too.

[Tim Liddy]

Mix the following ingredients in equal amounts:

Great client
Great architect
Great site

Let it cook for a period of 30 to 50 years.

[Tom_Doak]

The greatest courses answer this question anew, instead of relying on someone else's definition.  They have a character unto themselves.  That's why I hate any ranking system which relies too much upon a strict definition.

However, the "know it when I see it" argument is vulnerable to being bent around to, "I thought it was great because I shot two under."

[T_MacWood]

For me a great course should be equally interesting and amusing to both the low handicap and the average to slightly above average golfer - not too exacting for everyday play. No one wants to be beaten down on regular basis.

The great course does not need to be a collection of great holes, although a few great ones help.

It should provide a maximum of variety. A premium should be put on good golf, but the course should require as much mental agility as physical skill.  In the ideal the great course - from first tee to the last hole - stimulates thought and mental excitement.

Natural beauty can help but its not a requirement.

I’m a follower of the Wethered & Simpson school that says the great course should have at least one bad hole, better described as an amusing or unorthodox hole. They called it the introduction of attractive discord. Too many great holes can be overwhelming - you need a respite at least once or twice a round.

And I agree with the idea that the great course should be unique in some way.

All that said there are great courses that break one or more of the characteristics listed above.

[Tom Huckaby]

Jeff - well said.  And I'm all for lumping many courses into one broad definition of greatness.  That's cool.  There are just a few choices that reveal so perfectly what a golfer likes and doesn't like, well... it remains fun to ask.

 

[Glenn Spencer]

Shinnecock and NGLA- I have only played a grand total of 8 shots at Shinnecock, but I have read plenty of commentary about both here to say that a good example of this is in Dayton, Ohio. NCR is beat you up tough and hosts a bunch of tournaments like Shinnecock and Moraine is a little bit quirky and hosted a big one in the past like NGLA. Moraine is supposed to be easier, but I play better at NCR. I think this lends them to being great courses in their own right. I can't solve Moraine's mystery and therefore I love it. Someone could play it for the first time and hammer it. This won't happen at NCR the first time, but it can be learned. Membership at one or the other? The only deciding factor would be amount of play. NCR gets a bunch and Moraine gets as little as any course in the country. Otherwise, it would be a tough choice.

[T_MacWood]

Dave
I hear you...there are plenty of those guys out there. One of the worst cases I've seen was at Bethpage-Black. The group in front of me had a thirty-something Skip Microbrew who appeared to be playing his one and only round of the year (the rental clubs and the suit pants gave him away....that and his swing).

He insisted on playing the course from the very tips and it beat him into bloody mess. I'm sure to this day he revels in his Bethpage experience, but I doubt he would know a great golf course from a full body search.

[Tom_Doak]

Shivas:

Score is relative.  A great course should test one's ability to plan their way around the course, and reward good shots; I'm not sure whether one should be valued way more than the other.  But regardless, it can happen whether the players are shooting 66 or 76 ... in fact, the same course does that for different players.

A golf course is a medium for the game, not the game itself.  A lot of people seem to lose sight of that.

[Adam Clayman]

Tom, I think alot of people never had a clue about what you just said.

All "they" see is the subjective. Playing their opponent, clueless that it is the course and themselves they should be combating.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ted Sturges,

It's the routing, followed by the macro architecture, followed by the micro architecture.

[Tom Huckaby]

Mark:

I love the language, I'm just not sure about the logic.

If true greatness is sui generis, then how can there be more than one?  By very definition there can be no other, right?

Or is it that there can be an incomparable course that's its own type, then another of its own type, and another?

If so, then you've identified three great ones.

I'd add a seaside links with more "sea" involvement than TOC:

Royal Dornoch

In any case, I'm also not prepared to say ordinal rankings are odious (atlhough I love the language there also):  the great Gene Greco and had an oft-repeated conversation in which we arrived at a group of courses that all could be called sui generis, more or less.  That part was fun. Agreement came easily.

But the best fun came when we tried to decide which of these we liked the best.

So odious?  Well, if it means that some courses get closed and others make money and people lose jobs because of them, then odious they are.

But outside of that they are fun and rather thought-provoking.

I'd love to hear arguments for Alexander the Great or Churchill - wouldn't you?

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()