Is 'Fun' Compatible with 'Hard'

[Phil Benedict]

One of our posters told me that he enjoyed playing Oakmont but wouldn't want to play there all the time because of the relentlessness of its challenge.  There are just too many land mines on the course, great though it is.  Although he didn't say so as such, I took his comments to mean that beyond a certain point Oakmont stops being fun.

Are hard courses generally not fun courses?  Or does it depend on your definition of fun?  

[Greg Krueger]

I think it depends on your definition of fun. For me the harder the better (I'm kind of sick that way) as long as it is good architecture and not 7,500 yards! I could play Oakmont every day and love every minute of it, no matter what I shoot.

[JMEvensky]

It also depends on your definition of hard.In my small corner of the world,I see many golfers who play so poorly that every course would be hard.Worse,they don't even try to learn enough(about the game itself or taking lessons)to ever have fun.

This site is full of discussions on the why's.Personally,I think this might be the root of the problems with the non-hard core golfer.They've never played when it was fun.All they've ever known is hard.

Most of us learn as kids.We don't know it's a hard game until later.All we know starting out is that it's a lot of fun.IMO,the game would be well served if everyone could learn the fun part first.It would sure help stop a lot of course disfigurations based on a perception of "too hard/unfair".

[George Pazin]

Phil, I've heard the Oakmont comment from a handful of folks after they've played it for the first time. They usually change their mind if they get a repeat visit.

For me personally, it depends on how a course is hard. I can appreciate Oakmont's difficulty, because at least you're not constantly reaching for a new ball or determining drop spots. For those reasons, I don't particularly care for desert golf, now matter how hard or easy it is.

[Adam Clayman]

I sort of agree with George. It depends on how a course is hard. I prefer courses that are challenging on a variety of levels.  

On this day, when we were privileged to hear Jim Lipe extoll the virtues of the risk/reward hole, and their green scenarios. George's comment on his dislike for all desert golf should remind us all that stereotyping, even g.c.'s, is just plain wrong. Tsk Tsk George

[George Pazin]

If over-generalizing is wrong, I don't wanna be right.

Where would we be on this site if one didn't have the right to make blanket observations?!?

 

[Phil Benedict]

I've played PGA West Stadium a couple of times.  It is what it is but I enjoyed playing there and might go back.  However, the water water everywhere aspect of the course would be a real turnoff for frequent play.  Too many lost balls and penalty strokes.  

George's point about the source of difficulty is a good one.  I suppose the genius of Oakmont is that it is really hard without needing lost ball hazards.

[Bill Brightly]

Phil, I've heard the Oakmont comment from a handful of folks after they've played it for the first time. They usually change their mind if they get a repeat visit.

I was in Pittsburgh last week and just happened to meet a golf pro from that area. He felt Oakmont was too hard for the vast majority of golfers. He also said the two best courses to play in Pittsburgh were Fox Chapel and St. Clair. (He was not the pro at any of the three.)

[George Pazin]

He felt Oakmont was too hard for the vast majority of golfers.

I've always found this sort of comment highly condescending and, if carried to its logical conclusions, very unfortunate for golf and the average golfer.

Fox Chapel is a wonderful place, I haven't seen St. Clair but I've heard great things - and yet, I'd say neither is Oakmont.

[Phil Benedict]

He felt Oakmont was too hard for the vast majority of golfers.

I've always found this sort of comment highly condescending and, if carried to its logical conclusions, very unfortunate for golf and the average golfer.

Fox Chapel is a wonderful place, I haven't seen St. Clair but I've heard great things - and yet, I'd say neither is Oakmont.

George,

Years ago I went skiing in Italy with a bunch of expert skiers when I was essentially a beginner.  The first day they dragged me off to the black runs and it was one of the worst experiences of my life.  I just couldn't handle it and fell every 10 feet.  I wanted to go home (London at the time).  The rest of the week I stuck to the blue runs and had a blast.  I know it's a different sport (golf has no physical hazard) but isn't it the case in golf that someone can get in over their head when his game isn't up to the challenge of the course, and be miserable because of it?

[Tom Huckaby]

Phil:  it most definitely depends on what the golfer calls "fun."  Try as he might, my friend George can't convince me that Oakmont would be particularly fun for me over the long haul, as I define "fun."  The way I look at it, each course would be fun for me to play every so often (just for the challenge) but over the long haul, neither would.  Note that if forced to choose between two evils, give me Oakmont over PGA West (although that assumes one doesn't spend all day searching for balls in high rough at Oakmont - I dislike that worse than the immediacy of water and OB), but to me they each remain evils in a way.  I like to have a fighting chance at success, rather than fight long battles of attrition.  

But to each his own as I see it. I certainly get George's take - it's just not for me.  Individuals surely do look at this very differently.

TH

[George Pazin]

I know it's a different sport (golf has no physical hazard) but isn't it the case in golf that someone can get in over their head when his game isn't up to the challenge of the course, and be miserable because of it?

Sure you can - hence my comments on desert golf. I find it only moderately more fun than going to a driving range - which I do find fun, just not as much fun as actually playing golf. It's still many rungs above, say, mowing the lawn!

Huck -

You need to sit down with our good friend JohnV and quiz him about his Oakmont experiences. If that doesn't convince you, nothing will!

 

[Mark Smolens]

I'm not certain that I can make an adequate response to this inquiry without first playing the course, something I could certainly make myself available for  . . .

Seriously tho, Dubsdread from the back markers, especially in the spring with no roll, was a tough way to spend a Saturday morning, but I'd love to go back to doing it again every week.

[Tom Huckaby]

I know it's a different sport (golf has no physical hazard) but isn't it the case in golf that someone can get in over their head when his game isn't up to the challenge of the course, and be miserable because of it?

Sure you can - hence my comments on desert golf. I find it only moderately more fun than going to a driving range - which I do find fun, just not as much fun as actually playing golf. It's still many rungs above, say, mowing the lawn!

Huck -

You need to sit down with our good friend JohnV and quiz him about his Oakmont experiences. If that doesn't convince you, nothing will!

 

George - he as tried on-line; can't see how it would be different in person.  But perhaps we shall discuss it some day.

Just remember he likely looks at this differently from how I do also.  Trying to convince me something is fun when I look at the term quite differently than you guys do, well... it would seem a fool's errand.  And I know you all aren't fools.

 

[David Neveux]

Personally I very much enjoy playing hard / difficult courses.  Some that instantly come to mind, Wolf Run, Whistling Staits (Straits), Crystal Downs (I love when the wind is howling).  I find that hard / difficult courses can be extremely rewarding when one is playing well, i.e. I was even through 6 holes on the straits courses before a topped 3 wood.  

I just finished reading "Caddy For Life," and there are quite a few references to how Tom Watson used to love very difficult courses.  When he started playing on the senior tour he had a hard time focusing because the courses were set up so easy.    

[Doug Ralston]

Man! Fun is VERY compatible with 'Hard'!

I just played Tobacco Road for the 1st time. If that is not both fun and hard, I cannot imagine what is.

Doug

[Pat Brockwell]

Yes, fun is compatible with hard.  Simple can be difficult.  Paradox, polarity and dichotomy help us find brilliance.  Executing a simple shot under difficult conditions on a hard course can be most rewarding, memorable and FUN! Next question.

[Tom Huckaby]

I agree it can be fun.

I just wonder, would any of you want this all the time?  For the majority of your golf?

Not me.  I certainly can find fun anywhere playing this game.  I just prefer ultra-difficult golf courses in low and infrequent doses.

TH

[Sean_A]

Fun doesn't equate to hard for me in the slightest.  If I think a course is too hard it doesn't matter what I think of its archie merits - its too bloody hard to care.  Sure, there has to be a few ball busters, but more than a handful just gets boring and slows the game down.  The time issue seems to become more important for me with each passing year.  I seem to have a breaking point of about 3.75 hours unless I am doing more than just playing golf.  

The problem with hard courses is they distract from the game, just as courses with long walks between greens and tees do.  I much prefer courses that steal shots from you and leave you wondering why.  I prefer courses in which it is difficult to lose a ball.  I prefer courses with a blend of beauty and funk with a touch of difficulty just to keep me honest.  For certain, I don't play the game to discover difficult courses - that is one of the last things I want from golf.  

As a place to touch base, I reckon a course rated at its par or perhaps just under its par is about as tough as I want it.  This business of par 72, rating 74, slope 145 is for the birds.  For many, that is a 4.5 hour round waiting to happen - no thanks.  As an American example, I reckon the disc tees at Tobacco Road are about right for difficulty.  Of course the funk is what really sells the place to me.

Ciao

[Chip Gaskins]

i thought pine valley and tobacco road were hard but a ton of fun.

i thought carnoustie, pga west and the ocean course (pre-softing) were hard and not very fun at all.

i suspect for me oakmont would fall under the hard, but not very fun category.

[Phil Benedict]

i thought pine valley and tobacco road were hard but a ton of fun.

i thought carnoustie, pga west and the ocean course (pre-softing) were hard and not very fun at all.

i suspect for me oakmont would fall under the hard, but not very fun category.

What about PV and TR made them fun, and what about the others made them not fun?

[Andy Troeger]

I don't think there's much of an equation between the two for me. I've played hard courses that were a lot of fun and others that were little or none at all. Courses that are super hard and require specific shots with little to no creativity required (just execution) are no fun for me. I can go to the driving range and see if I can hit it within 10 yards of the 200 marker (I can't) if I want to try that.

Other courses are very hard but still have a great variety of holes (long and short) and still give you a fighting chance if you play shots that are well considered and executed. These are the courses where you feel you can shoot your handicap one day and fifteen over it the next depending on your game. Wolf Run is the best really hard course I've played.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil,

To a degree it's compatible.

I think length/excessive length is what puts it over the edge and eliminates the fun portion.

I think that # 1, # 3, # 4, # 6 and # 8 at NGLA can be hard and a lot of fun at the same time, but, none of those holes are excessively long.  

If they were long to very long, they wouldn't be much fun.

I think the same is true for most of the holes at NGLA.

I'd put forth the same premise for Shinnecock.
Fun gets diminished as length increases beyond the golfer's ability.

As a caveat, if "hard" produces a bogey or an occassional double bogey it can remain fun.

When "hard" produces doubles, triples and more, it ceases being fun.

[Greg Ohlendorf]

Wolf Run is a perfect example of a course that could easily be described as too hard, yet others find it fun. I have found that most of the time I find a course is too hard, I have played it without the benefit of a member/local/caddy who knows the course. My first tour of Wolf was without any of the above and I made many mistakes as to appropriate lines and distances to hazards, etc. When I went back and played with a member, I "found" an entirely different course. It's still hard, but a lot more fun the second time around.

[Chip Gaskins]

What about PV and TR made them fun, and what about the others made them not fun?

i think it is the idea of sharp edges (which i realize oakmont doesn't have).  the idea of a fairway and suddenly a water hazard (carnoustie 17, 18, the ocean course everywhere, pga west everywhere) is where my line is drawn between hard/fun and hard/not fun.

you look around in the landing areas at PV or TR and you have a lot of room.  and if you do miss it, you are in a fair amount of trouble, but you can at least try a recovery shot.