Members Courses

[David Botimer]

Pacific Dunes is not a "members" course, but the resort does have "members".  A small group of local business people are afforded the opportunity to pay a small yearly fee and get significantly reduced greens fees at all of the Bandon Dunes courses.  They hold a club championship each fall.  I believe this is done as a token of goodwill to the town of Bandon.

[Rich Goodale]

After a little more reflection (aka "sleep")....

A "Member's Course" is one which has world class architecture and on which you would happily play every day, but on those rare days when you happened to bring your "A" game, you might feel just a little bit cheated that the challenge was just not quite enough.

Alternatively, a "Great Course" also has world class architecture, but always challenges you, and beats you up so often that you need to get away from time to time to re-learn the fact that golf can be "fun."

As Sully and a few others have said, there are a very few courses that are both.

As Matt says, one thing that separates the Members from the Greats is the seemingly incessant demand for length on the latter, although I think this length criterion is more related to approach shots than tee shots.

Essentially, on both courses you can lay up, but unless you are Tiger, laying up will cost you on the great courses and only mildy irk you on the member's ones.

[Tom Huckaby]

Great thread!  And I have neither pain nor shame in saying I love the way Rich has defined all of this in his most recent post.

Courses that are both:

Shinnecock Hills
Sand Hills (member's course from middle tees, great course from double diamonds)
Pebble Beach

There must be a few others.  But those immediately came to mind.  Disagree?

[Peter Pallotta]

Just an aside
in a 1926 article by CV Piper (then the USGA's Green Committee Chair) on the ideal golf course, he included 'length' as a factor, and thought that 6,500 yards was about right. No mention of different sets of tees, and I don't know what the 2007 equivalent is...maybe 6,500 yards

Peter

[Ken Moum]

Just an aside
in a 1926 article by CV Piper (then the USGA's Green Committee Chair) on the ideal golf course, he included 'length' as a factor, and thought that 6,500 yards was about right. No mention of different sets of tees, and I don't know what the 2007 equivalent is...maybe 6,500 yards

Peter

1926 was five years before the USGA rolled back the ball, and most fairways weren't irrigated, so you might be right about the yardage comparision.

Ken

[Jerry Kluger]

Richard: Is this not a description of many of the classical courses which are now being overtaken by technology?  The second part of your definition is what concerns me - that if you bring your "A" game the course is not quite enough of a challenge.  Mind you my game has never been that good for such a consideration, but in any event a course such as Somerset Hills would immediately come to mind or perhaps even Plainfield.  Locally I would think of Columbia CC in Chevy Chase, Maryland.  A great old course on a small piece of property which is loved by the members but perhaps 5% of the membership could overpower the course.

[Matt_Ward]

Rich G:

1000% correct on your mentioning the demands required at championship courses in the approach area. No doubt the added aspect of distance and severity of angles also needs to be thrown into the mix.

The issue with members courses is that they have all the tools accept for the intensity of the shots faced when distance and approaches is calculated together.

Mark F:

No doubt WF has plenty of single digit players. I just mentioned the aspect of Fenway and QR getting more love on this board than WF ever does. Interesting right ?

[George Pazin]

Wasn't NGLA considered too difficult by some when it first opened?

[henrye]

Are Sunningdale & Deal considered too "Championship" for this list?

[Doug Ralston]

RFG;

At last a concept I really 'grok'. I like these purely subjective definitions.

If it is a test for me, but not really some place I wanna keep returning to, then it is not a 'Members Course'. If it is an exciting course that is irresistable, but not really a clear test of all my golfing skills, it is not a 'Members Course". If it is neither, nyet!

But if it is both, then it is a happy 'Member's Course', where my heart has clearly joined the club! I AM a 'member', regardless of the objective status of those playing the course.

 

Doug

[Rich Goodale]

Jerry

I'm not that good either, but sometimes I think I am!  Another way of describing what I think I mean is coming off a course with a good score, but not feeling as if you ever broke into a sweat.  A sort of "Where's the Beef!" moment.  Of course, feeling as if you were hardly playing is also one of the symptoms of playing "in the zone," so it is possible to be confused as to whether the seeming "easiness" of a course is down to the course or just because you had one of those days.  then again, maybe one of the great things about "member's courses" is that they bring out the "zone" and the endorphions in you, and euphoria is a hard feeling to beat.

Matt

I've never been there, but is WF the sort of place you would happily play every day, or would you need to go to QR or Fenway from time to time for a little R&R and/or rehab?

George

My guess is that NGLA was too hard for most members when it was opened, but they probably learned to enjoy it.  How couldn't they?  For the elite players?  Not sure.

Henry E

Haven't played Sunningdale.  I see Deal as a great member's course that would probably be a ball-buster if played off the very back new tees that they are building in the hopes of an Open.  In this way it will be very much like the Old Course, which is a "member's course" from all but the Championship tees, which the "members" rarely if ever play.

Doug

I really like your last paragraph.  In the example immediately above, we are all "members" of the Old Course.  If you love golf and a golf course you really don't need any stinkin' badges to prove it.

[Jim Nugent]

Courses that are both:

Shinnecock Hills
Sand Hills (member's course from middle tees, great course from double diamonds)
Pebble Beach

How about ANGC, played from the proper tees?  TOC?  

A good members course is St. Louis CC.  

[Rich Goodale]

Jim

Vis a vis the Old Course, see my opinion above.

Rich

[Matt_Ward]

Rich:

I can't answer your question with a quick one-way reply for all golfers. Clearly, those golfers who lack the firepower will shy away from WF / West because they know the inevitable will fall upon them and frankly few golfers wish to get beat-up over and over and over again.

From the standpoint of self-interest and for the fact that they can enjoy all the Tillie elements -- in a lite fashion -- they can play them via QR and Fenway. Nothing wrong with that and for many a good bit more fun.

Believe me, I have a number of guys I have played with over the years and when they hear I'm heading out to Bethpage Black they might come a few times but after they find out that their pop-gun tee shots and failure to achieve consistent trajectory with their approaches won't suffice and they'll be quick to offer a variety of excuses -- real and otherwise.

No doubt some of the courses you mentioned -- and others listed -- were likely "championship courses" at one time but because of natural evolution and because of equipment advances the "separation" point took place between those at the very top end of the spectrum and those representing the general avid golf population.

No doubt there are a few courses in the world that can easily fit into both categories. People have mentioned TOC and I certainly agree with that example. One can even include Pebble Beach although on some of the more challenging days there the idea that PB doesn't have some sharp fangs can be a good bit misleading.

Rich, the key thing to remember is that most people assign "greatness" as it pertains to THEIR GAME. That's why for me the ratings of courses from a group consensus perspective purpose has little real meaning.

There's nothing wrong with assigning tag names to courses -- e.g., member / championship -- but it's clearly very important to know who is doing the tagging and what type of game they bring to the table when such applications do in fact occur.

[Mark Pearce]

Why does a members' course have to leave you feeling the challenge is lacking if you play well?  Does it have to be flawed?  I'd say Muirfield is a wonderful members' course.  Great architecture, a real test but play well and you'll score well against handicap.  It's a course that many elderly members get great pleasure from playing but toug enough that the best in the world can't beat it up.

I like the inclusion of Alwoodley.  Is Ganton a great members' course?  I'm sure Swinley and both Berkshire courses are.  Isn't the tough question:  are there any truly great courses that aren't great members' courses?

[George Pazin]

Seems kinda like the main thing lacking from the listed courses is the ability to stroke some golfers egos, whether through showing off the long ball or grinding out the slogging par.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Rich,

"A 'Member's Course' is one which has world class architecture and on which you would happily play every day, but on those rare days when you happened to bring your "A" game, you might feel just a little bit cheated that the challenge was just not quite enough.

Alternatively, a 'Great Course' also has world class architecture, but always challenges you, and beats you up so often that you need to get away from time to time to re-learn the fact that golf can be 'fun'."

Your definitions seem to be based on 'relentless' being the one difference between a 'member' and a 'great' course. If the shortest 'great' course could be identified, and it was then matched up against the longest 'great' course, what would be their respective differences, save yardage? Matt likes to use WFW as an example. What if it played 1000 yards less, how relentless would it be, and for whom?  
   

[Matt_Ward]

George:

Read what was posted by me and others sharing the same sentiment.

Nothing wrong at all with member's courses - but there's little doubt that from the standpoint of the better players they do lack the next level of intensity.

That doesn't mean member's courses are inferior architecturally -- it's just that they do not have the TOTALITY from all sides of the game equation. Frankly, very few do.

One other thing -- those who lack the game often bemoan those who do and often cite the factors of those having a long game or ability to adjust to even more exacting shot values as being nothing more than ego related when that is not the case. No doubt a sign of personal insecurity / one's own golf game is at work here.

[Andy Troeger]

To me calling something a "members" course doesn't necessarily make it less challenging. Many of the courses that I think of as great members courses are such because they do have the totality that Matt desires. By that I mean they have a great variety of holes that tests everything, lenghth, accuracy, short game, etc. They force you to use every club in the bag, etc.

As Matt has gotten at they may not have the length to tame the best of the best when they are on. Very few 7300 yard courses do either unless they have something else going for them and are set up for difficulty. I would guess the pros would have more trouble with Crystal Downs if set up tough than they do with many of their current PGA Tour venues. There is something to be said for courses that can challenge all levels of players without overly punishing the amateur golfer.

Black Mesa is a course that is a wonderful course to play every day. As a 5 hcp I can play the blue tees (6700 yards) and interact well with the architecture whereas from 7300 yards I bet it would give most any golfer a run for its money. I wouldn't enjoy it as much though from those tees. Flexibility is great and contributes to being a good "members" course.

The problem IMO with some championship layouts is that they overly emphasize length. Sure, as at Black Mesa one could move up to the 6500 yard tees and have an enjoyable round, but if the course loses its difficulty and length does it have something left to offer? Certainly some championship layouts do, but not all.

From glancing through the thread it appears there are many slight variations on members course vs championship course (or something in between) which obviously has a big impact on how one sees courses labeled with such terms.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

Let me point it this way ...

Many championship tee players can understand and see the qualities of what member's courses can provide.

I'm not so sure it works that easy in reverse.

The guys who bemoan distance are generally the guys who don't have it in their games. I see both categories as interesting elements within the broader area of design. Like I said previously, few have it both ways.

I'll say this -- I see Black Mesa as being one of the few which does.

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
Maybe so, I'm probably somewhat in the middle as I have the length to handle within reason just about any length, I'm also erratic enough to have trouble on just about any course on the wrong day. I certainly agree with your comment that both categories have interesting elements. I would go further and say that in many cases it is the few that have it both ways that are amongst the best of the best.

To me any course that overemphasizes one part of the game (length, accuracy, short game) without tending to the others isn't a match for one that has all aspects. The best "shorter" courses tend to have some really good short holes with some interesting risk/reward options. The better "longer" courses also have interesting green features and still require a variety of shots tee to green.

[Mark_F]

Matt,

In what way do you define the next level of intensity?

A constant stream of 475 yard par fours and 580 yard par fives?

I don't see what is wrong with a 6500 yard course that only has a couple of those sorts of holes, especially of the Prestwick Sea Hedrig type, but a number of driveable/short par fours to test long driving, as well as a long par three or two for your long irons.

Isn't that a description of many of the best, and old, members courses?

In the truncated Australian Open at Victoria Golf Club in 2002, the 9th and 17th holes, both newly lengthened to over 600 yards, played below par for the (Short) week.  

Conversely, the potentially driveable 297 metre 15th played right on its par of four.

At the Australian Masters at Huntingdale this week, the four easiest holes will be the par fives - and two of those are, again, over or very close to 600 yards.

[Michael Moore]

Interesting choice of words -- "ball buster."

Such a tagline usually is applied by people who don't have sufficient firepower in order to tackle the courses like Winged Foot / West but fall in love with such places as Fenway and the like.

It would be the same for Western Pennsy types who fawn over The Field Club and Fox Chapel but get a bit weak in the knees when having to butt heads with Oakmont.

Matt -

I see where you are coming from.

I know some types who praise The International in Bolton (Pines Course) up one side and down the other, but when they tee it up at the Jade Dragon Snow Mountain Golf Club, it's all "ball-buster" this and "ball-buster" that.

[Rich Goodale]

All

I'm changing my definition for this comparison to:  "Members Courses" and "Examinations."  The "Greatest" courses in the world are both.

All decisions of the judge are final.

Mark

Muirfield is a great example, if....you don't play from the championship tees in any sort of wind, and even from the front tees you play match play.  The impenetrable rough makes any medal round a grind (not that I've played a medal round there!), which may be one of the many reasons that its members are so devoted to match play--it makes what is an examination for the elite players a great course for members too.

George

All golfers have egos, including you.  All (that I know) enjoy challenging their own game, obviously at levels of challenge consonant with their abilities and tolerance of failure.

Jim

You are right that the word "relentless" is important.  It is the difference between a game of stroke play golf in competion and match play golf with friends.  Truly great courses feel right for both types of play.

Andy

Good point re: Crystal Downs and Set up.  The same is true for most British Open venues and for shorter courses that have great architecture (from the tee to the hole).  However, I think a ball-busting set-up of Crystal Downs or say Dornoch (which in the latter case might involve cutting the rough rather than growing it) would be extremely interesting, but just a little bit short of a Final examination due to the lack of enough tests of length.

Matt

My touchstone for the revelation that great golfers are differnt from you and me (well maybe not you in this case) is the 6th hole at Spyglass.  I used to watch the best pros 30 years ago stand up on that back tee and fire their drives over the RH fairway bunker with seeming impunity, whereas I had to try a power fade between the bunkers to maximize my distance, because I couldn't make the carry.  I'm sure you have your own touchstone.  Maybe around the greens at Pebble ?

Thanks y'all

Rich

[Jim Nugent]

In the truncated Australian Open at Victoria Golf Club in 2002, the 9th and 17th holes, both newly lengthened to over 600 yards, played below par for the (Short) week.  

Conversely, the potentially driveable 297 metre 15th played right on its par of four.

At the Australian Masters at Huntingdale this week, the four easiest holes will be the par fives - and two of those are, again, over or very close to 600 yards.

Par 5's always play easiest for the pro's.  Until they make them 700+ yards long, these holes will play the shortest for top players.  They can putt for eagle on nearly all of them, often after hitting a mid iron to the green.  

Par 3's play the hardest for pro's, for the same reason, only in reverse.  They play the longest for top players.