[Jason Topp]

It seems like a stupid topic but the discussions on the "obtuse" threads got me thinking about this and I did not want to threadjack.

I think the answer is no.  

Some of the viewpoints expressed there would suggest that there are great courses that most people do not like to play.  I'm not aware of any.

[Bart Bradley]

I think it is possible.  I haven't played there yet but...do most people like to play Pinehurst #2.  I have certainly heard many describe the architectural nuances of the the course and its difficulty (and describe it as "great") but have heard from many that it is too punishing to love playing it.  I watched the OPEN in person there in 2005 and thought I would enjoy playing it, but have golfed with many that would simply find it frustrating beyond enjoyment.  So ...yeah, maybe.

[Powell Arms]

I do not think a course can be great if most people do not like it, largely because I think it would be financially unsustainable as a course in that configuration.  (unless, of course, one found a membership of like minded individuals that could be constant over time)

While Pinehurst #2 may be perceived as too punishing by most, I think that many that play it feel the need to appreciate it, even if they do not love it.  Same could be said of TOC.  

[Bill_McBride]

Pinehurst #2 may be one of the most difficult courses you'll ever play, but it's still a lot of fun.  The challenge is all in the greens, and it's fun to try out different kinds of shots.  If you were in a medal play tournament it might be less fun, but the setting, conditioning, design elements and challenge of the greens still make for a very rewarding day.

[Joe Hancock]

It would all depend on what the course's greatness is. If it has great challenge for only the best players in the world, then perhaps. But, if it is a great course because it is enjoyable to the masses (MacKenzie's definition) then that makes the premise invalid. I think, too, that great aesthetics would be a blow to your premise.

Joe

[Jim Franklin]

I hate to admit this, but I know far too many people that did not like TOC. I, for one, think they are crazy as I fell in love with the place after my first walk there and the subsequent rounds played. So I say yes, a course can still be great if people don't tlike it. Most golfers have not a clue as to what an architect is presenting to them. If it is green and lush with a waterfall or two, then most golfers will love it.

[Bart Bradley]

Pinehurst #2 may be one of the most difficult courses you'll ever play, but it's still a lot of fun.  The challenge is all in the greens, and it's fun to try out different kinds of shots.  If you were in a medal play tournament it might be less fun, but the setting, conditioning, design elements and challenge of the greens still make for a very rewarding day.

As I said, I think I would enjoy it and it sounds like you did.  But, WOULD MOST PEOPLE???  I am not sure, but it raises the possibility that most people wouldn't like it and it could be great for just the reasons you stated.  I personally think it is great and want to play it.

[Powell Arms]

Pinehurst #2 may be one of the most difficult courses you'll ever play, but it's still a lot of fun.  The challenge is all in the greens, and it's fun to try out different kinds of shots.  If you were in a medal play tournament it might be less fun, but the setting, conditioning, design elements and challenge of the greens still make for a very rewarding day.

As I said, I think I would enjoy it and it sounds like you did.  But, WOULD MOST PEOPLE???  I am not sure, but it raises the possibility that most people wouldn't like it and it could be great for just the reasons you stated.  I personally think it is great and want to play it.

I too would want to play Pinehurst for just thast reason.  But I think their tee sheet is full regardless of whether people love the course or not after they walk off 18.  Would Pinehurst be full and considered great absent its history?  Devoid of its history I think it might suffera decline in rounds played.

[Jason Topp]

I hate to admit this, but I know far too many people that did not like TOC. I, for one, think they are crazy as I fell in love with the place after my first walk there and the subsequent rounds played. So I say yes, a course can still be great if people don't tlike it. Most golfers have not a clue as to what an architect is presenting to them. If it is green and lush with a waterfall or two, then most golfers will love it.

I do not think that it is rare at all for people not to like TOC on the first playing.  Nonetheless, I would guess that most people enjoy it and that people enjoy it more with repeated exposure.

[Mike_Young]

Of course it can.....it happens all the time....all it takes is the right ad agency and public relations firm.....and it can remain great until aal the real estate is sold.....once the ball starts rolling most people can't determine fro themselves so they just join in for the ride until the next comes along....JMO

[Jason Topp]

Of course it can.....it happens all the time....all it takes is the right ad agency and public relations firm.....and it can remain great until aal the real estate is sold.....once the ball starts rolling most people can't determine fro themselves so they just join in for the ride until the next comes along....JMO

Mike - I know your response is tongue in cheek but I am talking about truly great courses, whatever that definition is.  

People on this site complain about standardization, elimination of blindness, elimination of green contour and attribute it to the preferences of an unenlightened majority of golfers.

I do not think that perception squares with reality.  I believe most golfers enjoy courses that are "great."

I also believe that if you design a course with features most golfers despise it cannot be a great course.  

[Mike_Young]

Jason,
Of course I was tongue and cheek but I sincerely think that for most people..even the "enlightened ones" on this site...maintenance conditions account for a much higher percentage of that equation than is realized...I think therer are a few great golf courses around that have maitenance conditions that people don't like and thus they do not care for the course.JMO
Mike

[Dan Kelly]

Jason --

I don't know if you think it's a "great" course, but I wonder:

Take away all of its history -- and would "most people" like Hazeltine either as it was or as it is?

Hell, for that matter, take away all of The Old Course's history, and answer the same question.

I think the Nos would give the Yeses a run for their money, in both cases.

[John Shimp]

I agree with the general answer "no" to the question.  But,
I think Pinehurst #2 and TOC aren't good poster children for this.  You don't lose balls at those courses, you don't beat a lot of bushes, there aren't any forced carries that separate out 2 from 20 hdcps.  Medinah #3 to me is the kind of course that might make a better poster child.  That course is so much harder for the poor player due to heavy rough, trees, some water,  a couple of tricky carries.

[Brent Hutto]

Heck, I think it's possible for me to consider a golf course "great" even if I don't like it myself. In all honesty, nothing I've seen or read about Oakmont leads me to believe I would particuarly enjoy playing there. Certainly I'd love to play one round just to see if my impression is correct but even assuming my long-distance impression is true there's no reason to deny that it is one of the "great" golf courses in the USA. The things that make it "great" for regular play by masochistic members or for contesting a major championship just don't happen to line up with what makes a course fun to play for this particular bogey golfer.

I recently encountered an arguably "great" golf course, next year's Open venue Royal Birkdale. I had a wonderful time there in part because it was gorgeous golf weather, in part due to the good company of my playing companion and in part due to it being an obviously very well sorted-out championship course. But it will never crack my lifetime "Top 10" list of beloved courses because it somehow just never cranked up my personal "I Love It" meter in the way some other courses have (including a few that nobody considers "great").

My point is this. I think any reasonable usage of the phrase "Great Golf Course" needs to be a somewhat analytical in the sense that one can state well-accepted reasons for its superiority. Such things as importance to the history of the game (ex. The Old Course), notable competitions decided thereupon (ex. Augusta National), sympathetic usage of whatever special features were inherent in the land (ex. Cypress Point Club) or uniquely perfect execution of unusual design features (ex. Pine Valley) are how a "great" course is characterised. It is possible to perceive that sort of thing even in a course you don't particularly like.

[Jason Topp]

Jason --

I don't know if you think it's a "great" course, but I wonder:

Take away all of its history -- and would "most people" like Hazeltine either as it was or as it is?

Hell, for that matter, take away all of The Old Course's history, and answer the same question.

I think the Nos would give the Yeses a run for their money, in both cases.

I don't think Hazeltine can be classified as great.

I do think most people really would enjoy the Old Course, at least after some repeat exposure, without the history.

[JESII]

I thought it was a prerequisite...well then people should at least have to explain what it is they think is great about it...

[John Keenan]

I think you need to define what you mean by Great.

Is it great because it does well in various pools and rankings? Great because it get a lot of play? Great because of the views and location. Great because it has history?  Great because someone has called it such? Great because it makes a good ROI?

There are a lot of things that can make something great. Key is to understand what is your criteria for greatness?

[Jason Topp]

My point is this. I think any reasonable usage of the phrase "Great Golf Course" needs to be a somewhat analytical in the sense that one can state well-accepted reasons for its superiority. Such things as importance to the history of the game (ex. The Old Course), notable competitions decided thereupon (ex. Augusta National), sympathetic usage of whatever special features were inherent in the land (ex. Cypress Point Club) or uniquely perfect execution of unusual design features (ex. Pine Valley) are how a "great" course is characterised. It is possible to perceive that sort of thing even in a course you don't particularly like.

I disagree that you need to categorize greatness although I agree that well accepted reasons should exist for assigning such a label.  Tom Doak does not make categories in applying his scale.  

I would argue that in order to be considered great, a course need not, indeed probably should not be free from controversy.  I recall Mackenzie providing a definition something along the lines of "pleasurable excitment for the greatest number of golfers."  That sounds somewhat pornographic to  me, but it is the best explanation I have read.  

Under that definition, if most people do not enjoy the course, it is impossible for a course to be great.   If there is a better definition, I'm interested in hearing it.

[Brent Hutto]

Jason,

Do you think it's possible for a course to be truthfully a "Great Championship Course" (meaning an unimpeachable choice as a venue for an elite national championship) while not being any fun at all for an 18-handicapper to play?

In that case I'd argue that recognizing its greatness (for its intended purpose) is more a matter of appreciating it than liking it. To my way of thinking such a course would therefore be an example of being great without most people liking it, that's all I'm saying.

[John Keenan]

Jason

I like Mackenzie's definition of greatness  "pleasurable excitment for the greatest number of golfers."   That opens the door to a lot of courses that may not be considered great. On GCA I suspect there is a somewhat diffrnet definiton of what is great than that one . I can live with Mackenzie's and in fact like it.

JGK  

[Jason Topp]

Jason,

Do you think it's possible for a course to be truthfully a "Great Championship Course" (meaning an unimpeachable choice as a venue for an elite national championship) while not being any fun at all for an 18-handicapper to play?

In that case I'd argue that recognizing its greatness (for its intended purpose) is more a matter of appreciating it than liking it. To my way of thinking such a course would therefore be an example of being great without most people liking it, that's all I'm saying.

Brent:

It would be interesting to hear how the following courses fit under your test

Oakmont
Winged Foot
Pine Valley
Shinnecock

Most would concede these are great.  
Does the 18 handicapper enjoy them?  
If not, my test probably does not work.
I do not know.  I've never been to them.

[Powell Arms]

I fit the criteria and am playing Oakont on Monday.  Stay tuned...

Seriously, the first time I played the Ocean Course was 1993, and it was brutal.   So much so that I thought I'd never play it again.  That said, I have played it many times since and truly enjoy it.  My change in attitude came about for two reasons, one, I changed my palying approach to the course to make it more manageable.  And having caddies to help with yardages, tracking shots, etc, definitely helps.  I've played that course with hiogh handicappers and low, and I think even thoses that are beaten up walk away appreciating that the course is "great", perhaps becasue they'd be reluctant to admit that it wasn't "great', (probably more on point with TOC) or because they are masochists.

[Steve Kline]

Most, if not all, of the courses mentioned are quite expensive to play. Some people would never be able to admit that they played a course that expensive and it wasn't great. So, there is a tendency to say a course is great.

I have taken many different people to Pinehurst in the 17 years I've been going there. Good players and bad. People that play more than 100 rounds a year and others that play 15 or less. I have yet to see a person that didn't really like the course. It's very challenging for the good player because of the greens but the poor player can putt from all over, which keeps him from duffing chips, and the poor player won't lose any balls.

[John Keenan]

So the Mackenzie definition of  greatness "pleasurable excitement for the greatest number of golfers" would apply quite well to Pinehurst.

I agree regarding people paying a lot of money and then being unable to say it was not great. I would add that reputation ins sometimes like that as well. Everyone says it is great how can I not like it?  Whats wrong with me, what am I missing?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()