Are Bad Tough Courses better for Developing Good Players?

[Jason Topp]

It seems to me that a dispraportionate number of good players I have encountered come from courses I do not like.  The courses fall into one of two categories:

1.  Long and Punishing - No strategic choices but difficult demands on the player - i.e. 460 yard par fours on boggy ground with an upslope to the green and no strategic choice on the hole; and/or

2.  Tight and penal - a ton of water, OB or other nonrecoverable hazards pinching tight landing areas, little strategic choice other than how far to try and hit the ball.

The first type of course demands your long game be high quality or you just get punished.  The second type of course demands you be able to put your ball in play or you will shoot a million.  If you can handle these two types of challenges on a day to day basis, it must be great training for tournament play, where the hazards seem closer and the swing can get quicker.

Do others notice a similar relationship in their areas?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

There's no such thing as a bad course, some are just better than others.

It's the inherent challenge of the game, the challenge of getting the ball from point A to Point B in the fewest strokes possible that makes it so much fun.

Architects strive to frustrate that attempt while creating interest and additional challenges.

[BCrosby]

I've never detected a correlation between the kind of courses you describe and great players.

There is a correlation, however, between competitive, focused kids and good adult golfers.

The kinds of courses they happened to learn on are irrelevant.

Bob

[Lou_Duran]

"There's no such thing as a bad course, some are just better than others." P. Mucci

Jason,

I couldn't agree more with Mucci's statement.

I also think that you are onto something.  Champions Golf Club has two courses, Cypress Creek which may resemble your #1, and Jackrabbitt, which may fit #2.  The club is reputed to have by far the most single-digit handicappers in the extraordinary Houston area golf association.

I learned to play golf on a course which some would argue resembles your #1.  From the fall of 1971 to the summer of 1978, I played well over 500 rounds on the Scarlet course at Ohio State in Columbus.  While I believe the course offered many strategic options, it was certainly hard as nails with college players sometimes failing to break 90 during tournaments.

By the time I was a senior, I could shoot in the mid to high 70s, every once in awhile getting close to par, and played with a number of the non-travelling OSU golf team members for a few bucks whenever coach Brown wasn't around.

When I went home for the summer and played the local muni, I would shoot right around par, sometimes a stroke or two better, for the first month, then I would see my game gravitate higher to my normal range (75 - 80).  When I went back to OSU, it took me a least a month or so to get my game back to where it was before I left in early summer.

The same thing happened to me when I moved to Texas in 1978.  I shot right around par despite not playing as much for a couple of months, then began to slowly acclimate to the easier courses and my comfort zone in the mid to upper 70s.

This is all anecdotal, but I've also noticed that players with handicaps established at more difficult courses, their games seem to travel better.  Typically, Colonial CC members I've known not only have improved when they joined the club, but they've done well in area tournaments and member-guests.

I do agree with redanman (something I find myself doing way too much recently, which worries me) that competition is the key.  The more you test yourself and become hardened, the better you play.  It is a self-selecting process- some people don't like the pressure so they don't compete; it is likely that those who compete throughout their lifetime are those who gain the most out of it.  Playing regularly at a difficult course, one that requires great ball striking and a deft short game, is no doubt synergistic (and probably self-selecting as well).

BTW, I've never played a long, difficult course devoid of strategic options.  True, some holes on these courses require well-struck drives to get home in regulation, but I haven't seen one that penalized guile and imagination.
   

[Sean Leary]

I have actually found that many times easier courses spawn players that are unafraid to go low scorewise (on tougher courses) because they are comfortable being way under par.

I, of course,  freak out when I have a great round going.

[David_Tepper]

There is certainly a school of thought that believes the European players of 20-30 years ago (Faldo, Ballesteros, Woosnam, Langer & Lyle) grew up as tougher players by developing their games on the rougher conditions of the European tour courses rather than on the well-manicured courses of the US PGA tour.  Fighting the weather in Europe is a little more demanding as well.

To have the five guys mentioned above all be born within 18 months of each other and all win majors could simply be a freak of nature for which there is no logical explanation.

Whereas Faldo, Seve, et. al. were playing for a living when they were 19-20 years old, a number of young Europeans now come to the US on golf scholarships at that age.  It is interesting to note that, as some of the young players from Europe come to the US as teenagers to play intercollegiate golf, they seem to develop very nice golf swings, but they don't seem to learn how to win top-level golf tournaments (Luke Donald & Paul Casey come to mind). Perhaps they get a little spoiled by the easy livin' in the good 'ole USA.

     

[Steve Burrows]

Didn't Nicklaus say that he learned to play a cut because he used to play Scioto?  He said that the course just moves that way.  I'm not sure that I totally agree with him, but if he believed it to be true, then there is at least some evidence to show that the course that a person grows up on can have a lot to do with the way they play the game.

[Doug Siebert]

Jason,

I might buy your argument if you said players who came from both types of courses got to be good, but if you just play the long and punishing course you might end up hitting it a long way but unable to control where it is going, while if you play the short and penal course you may develop a nice bunt you can control but may not have the length to play a longer course.

I think good players need to have at least both those types, or one course that covers both.  Good architecture certainly isn't a requirement for creating a good player, but playing anything one dimensional carries great risk of creating a one dimensional golfer.

Nicklaus said that when Grout taught him he taught him to swing at it as hard as he could, figuring he could straighten out the hooks and slices later.  If you tried to raise a golfer today with that philosophy on a tight penal layout with expensive houses on either side of the fairway, you'd better maintain a good relationship with your insurance agent during the "straightening" years

[Jason Topp]

Doug:

Courses I was thinking of:

In Iowa - Westwood golf course in Newton Iowa had a strong contingent of good players for such a small town when I was a kid.  There is not much good one can say about the course, but, the small raised greens require a good short game and the creek on the back nine requires that one put the ball in play.  

In Minnesota, there are a dispraportionate number of good players at Olympic Hills, Bent Creek, Rolling Green, Windsong and Hazeltine, none of which are my favorites (I still cannot decide on Windsong).  Bent Creek is the short tight course and the others are in the brute category.  By contrast, the number of good players at my favorite golden age courses, such as Minnekahda, Interlachen, Golden Valley, Somerset, Oak Ridge and others is relatively small.  (Minneapolis would be the exception).

It may have to do with the demographics of membership, but the result is directly the opposite of some of Mackenzie's writings in which he takes the position that great courses will result in a better class of player.  It seems to me that experience has taught that tough courses either create better players or they just are more attracted to them.

[AndrewB]

I have actually found that many times easier courses spawn players that are unafraid to go low scorewise (on tougher courses) because they are comfortable being way under par.

I think there's a lot of truth to that statement.  I grew up playing a difficult course where par is a good score and I don't think I'm nearly as comfortable as a lot of players when I get a handful under par.  Whether I'm more used to hanging on and grinding out a decent round in tough conditions because of it, who knows.

[Doug Siebert]

That's an interesting point, I know I get uncomfortable when I get a couple under par (a "problem" I haven't had to deal with the last couple years) and I think its exactly for that reason.  As a 4 for many years and a 6 the last couple years playing on a 74.1/134 home course, breaking 80 is pretty damn good for me, and I've never shot under par there.  The other courses I play regularly aren't quite as tough but are tough enough that even as a 4 shooting under par would be pretty high odds according to the USGA.

I've thought before that I should join my dad on the senior tees that are 66.0/118 (would be higher if they rerated them, but not more than 67 now) to try to get a better mindset about shooting lower scores.  Of course, I may just drive it into the trees closer to the green and not really shoot appreciably lower so it may harm my psyche more if I shot an 80 there for a nice 13 or 14 differential!  The funny thing is that even from the senior tees the shortest par 4 is 330 uphill and into the prevailing wind, so other than the par 5s the advantage only comes in the form of hitting lots of half wedges, which is a very fickle advantage indeed...