[Matt_Ward]

Rich:

Good point / re: greens at Pebble Beach. In fact, one can make a very good argument that Pebble is the classic example in being the best of the two types -- membership and championship.

Mark F:

The next level of "intensity" clearly does involve length and I concur with what Rich G said a ways back concerning the demands placed on how touch it is to get near the pin (e.g. the approaches played).

However, that doesn't mean length alone ups the ante on the "intensity" meter.

Mark, let's be clear many people assess courses beased on how they FIT THEIR OWN GAME. Nothing wrong with that but too often people don't want to admit the obvious. These same folks will go to any length (no pun intended!) to rationalize other course examples when the real truth lies with the fact that in the arsenal of shots they simply don't have the consistent length to handle the championship courses mentioned previously. Hence, the reason why Nicklaus made his comment that was cited on member's courses.

Just to say this again -- I see nothing inherently wrong with courses defined by such tags.

One final thought -- Mark, you list the stroke average of a particular short hole when compared to long holes. I don't doubt your point but I can easily list tons of situations where short holes were considerably easy than longer versions. No doubt the situations will vary depending upon particular holes / courses and the manner by which they were set-up for that respective event.

Andy:

C'mon, enough of the in-between acknowledgements of "maybe so." The issue is not about your game alone. Unfortunately, for many people that's how they view courses though.

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
Just because you feel you can understand others games as well as they understand their own doesn't mean we all have to play the game

Of course our viewpoints are reflective of our own games. You've made it clear that you're a long hitter and your viewpoints reflect that consistantly.

We can all try to understand what others bring to the table, but very few understand others viewpoints anywhere near as much as their own.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

My comments reflect beyond my own game. I play with a steady group of regulars and each has their own game -- preferences and those elements they favor less of. I observe the nature of how they play various courses very carefully -- whether they are geared towards member's or championship oriented layouts and from that I have drawn the conclusions I have posted. To the credit of a number of them they admit it frankly that distance (namely the lack of it) clearly impacts their assessments.

I've also opined that certain people without sufficient length often bemoan courses that emphasize such a requirement -- but not to the exclusion of other important design additions too. Like I said, and you may have missed a previous point I've made, that either style of golf is fine.

I'll stand by what I said -- that a number of people who prefer member courses do so because they can more fully use their skill set in regards to what is asked of them. Self interest is clearly at work. Turn up the intensity meter -- in terms of length / approach shot requirements and the likelihood is that while they may still appreciate the latter they would much prefer the former. Either style is fine.

[George Pazin]

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.

You got me, Matt, my sense of self worth is completely wrapped up in a game where you knock a little white ball into a hole.

Is projection one of the seven deadly sins?

Rich -

You're of course correct in stating everyone wishes to be challenged to his own level.

What I observe far more often, however, is that people wish to be challenged at what they think their own level is or should be, even many of the best golfers in the world. That's why you see guys sitting in the fairway, but on the wrong side, scratching their head about why their wedge shot didn't end up 10 feet from the hole, and then assuming the course is lacking, even thought they end up walking away with a bogey. "Tiger woulda stiffed that wedge, this course must be too easy."

As long as golf is a game against others, even the "member courses" listed before can provide more than enough challenge for any golfer in the world, even Tiger, though it may mean people have to adjust scoring expectations. A hole won with bogey is not necessarily better than a hole won with birdie.

[Andy Troeger]

I've also opined that certain people without sufficient length often bemoan courses that emphasize such a requirement -- but not to the exclusion of other important design additions too. Like I said, and you may have missed a previous point I've made, that either style of golf is fine.

I'll stand by what I said -- that a number of people who prefer member courses do so because they can more fully use their skill set in regards to what is asked of them. Self interest is clearly at work. Turn up the intensity meter -- in terms of length / approach shot requirements and the likelihood is that while they may still appreciate the latter they would much prefer the former. Either style is fine.

Matt,
I agree with most of what you said in the above quote, but sometimes I think people that do have length and a strong long iron game tend to bemoan courses without sufficient length as not being complete or a clear test of the golfers ability. I agree that either style is fine, but I think we all have a natural tendency to enjoy courses that play to our strengths. Of course we can appreciate the other courses as well, it just may take a bit more concentration!

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

Check what I wrote -- I never opined member courses --however defined -- are inadequate or lacking in aspects tied to quality design. Some people may feel that way -- I don't.

What I did say is that way too often championship courses are played down simply because of the length issue and its correlation to the increased demands tied to the severity of approaches and the like and the fact that those without sufficient "game" will hold that against such courses because of deficiencies they have with their own game. Like I said many people may respect WF / West and BB but they are quick to avoid them and play other Tillie designs more in tune with what they can handle.

[Andy Troeger]

Andy:

Check what I wrote -- I never opined member courses --however defined -- are inadequate or lacking in aspects tied to quality design. Some people may feel that way -- I don't.

Matt,
I did not mean to imply that, although I can see how it could be implied from what I wrote. I simply meant what you said above, that I think some people do feel that way. Just as some people downplay "championship" courses for the reasons already stated.

[Michael Hayes]

I will not take a stab at the Member/championship debate.  However, I just played a course yesterday that I think fits the member course to the T.  I had the pleasure of playing the Meadow Club yesterday, and all I can say is wow.  I don't see how a person could tire of this course.  While it lacks the length to contain today's long hitters, I found the course to offer a huge variety of tee shots coupled with some of the most thoughtful green sites I have ever seen.  The course had great width; shots were well framed; the routing never felt cramped, despite a smallish site.  All this in possibly the most serene setting I have ever experienced.  I give the Meadow Club 2 thumbs up and can't see how a better example of a members course exists...

Michael Hayes

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()