Is 'Fun' Compatible with 'Hard'

[Andy Troeger]

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.

Greg,
I'm no expert on the course having played 36 holes in one day there but by all accounts they have softened things from what it once was in terms of rough length and such things. I also had the benefit of playing with three members who knew the course VERY well which made a big impact. The course won round one but I gave it a pretty go the second time around. I enjoyed both rounds though.

[TEPaul]

It depends how it's hard for me to have fun.

I don't think a course that's hard simply because it's just long, long, long is fun but if a course isn't just that and it's hard and dangerous to score on I think it can be a lot of fun.

I think Oakmont is fun, and I think Merion East and Pine Valley and Shinnecock are fun and they're all hard but they aren't a million miles long throughout either.

But I can get even more specific than that. If a golf course no matter how hard it is doesn't have at least 2 or 3 par 4s under about 375 yards I really don't think I'd like to play it much.

[Adam Clayman]

Fun is figuring out why a hole/shot/course is hard. Having it shoved in one's face with the do or die razor's edge all carry over water on the 18th hole takes little figuring, ergo not fun more than once.

Figuring out Oakmont would be fun.

It begs for the line Ben Crenshaw gave to Corey Crandall during Sand Hills construction when asked if the course was going to be really hard. Ben said "Anyone can build a hard golf course" paraphrasing now "we're trying to build a great g.c.."

[wsmorrison]

For me, there absolutely are several types of enjoyably difficult golf courses.  These designs can, in rare cases with an ideal combination of land and architect, provide enjoyable difficulty for all classes of golfers on the same course.  Shinnecock Hills is a wonderful example of this, which is one reason I consider it the best course in America.  I've said it before, I simply cannot understand why it has the reputation it does for being overly brutal.  I lean towards this...it is not easy to determine the challenges of Shinnecock Hills.  It looks easier than it plays, especially if one doesn't figure out how to play it even though it appears straightforward.  When a golfer doesn't achieve what is expected, I think human nature being what it is transfers the shortfall in performance to the nature of the course rather than himself.  Yet maybe I am wrong since the course itself is so natural in appearance.

Other courses can be difficult but enjoyable because of their originality and variety of difficulty where length is not a factor on all holes.  Merion East and Pine Valley are fine example of this sort.  They are not courses that are enjoyable for all classes of golfers (women, juniors and seniors) due to the depth and number of the bunkers in addition to some of the required carries.  

Some courses can be enjoyable despite their difficulty and in fact embraced because of their difficulty if, as Tom Paul related, there are other outstanding factors in play.  Oakmont is definitely a great example of this sort of design where trying to meet the challenge of the course (design and set-up) is enjoyable despite the supreme difficulty.  Aronimink is a second tier example of this sort of course.  Its marvelous greens and one terrific par 5 (16th) almost overcome the proliferation of indifferent straight and long par 4s.

[Rich Goodale]

To me, "hard" courses can be fun as long as they do not have rough in which you can lose a ball.  Any visible penalty chance (OB, water, gorse) is fair game and fun to try to devise and execute strategies to deal with them.  17 and 18 at Carnoustie are good examples of tough holes which are fun to play, for me at least.  Excessive length (requiring too much of a diet of forced carries and shots to the green with long irons) gets boring, but can be overcome by playing the proper tees.  For me, playing Shinnecock from the tips was instructive and enjoyable, but not as much fun as it would have been from a mix of forward and back tees.

I wouldn't mind trying Oakmont from the tips with deep rough and Open speed greens, but only once.  It could be fun, in a masochistic sort of way, but if one gets regular pleasure from such perversions, a trip to the local shrink is very much in order.....

[tlavin]

To borrow from the medical profession, for me it is dosage-related.  Butler National is the course in town that is clearly the hardest and I greatly enjoy taking on the challenge when I get the opportunity to do so.  The clubs where I play are plenty tough, but Butler, like Oakmont, is a different breed of cat---an omnivore.  I probably would adjust my game if I joined Butler and I probably would figure out various ways to make the course play easier for my game.  And I'm sure that I would wind up enjoying it just fine, but if I want a challenge at Beverly or Olympia, I just go to the back tees.  Butler breaks my back as soon as I walk on the course.

[Jeff_Brauer]

To a degree yes, but mostly, no.  To me hard is a relentless challenge with punish for every miss.  The tendency is to pile up double bogey via hazard.  Sooner or later, I get tired of the punishment!

Fun is trying to create different shots on every hole.  There can be room to miss and make bogey, but not par or birdie.  There are occaisional holes where you are screaming, "Oh, S**T, Oh S**T,,,,,,,,, OH S**T, it turned out perfect!" on account of some friendly kick in bounces, punch bowls, etc.

In terms of a pure test of golf, that kind of course would not be considered a top course, but it would bring me back to play more.  I think Oakmont and a few other classics would be fun to play a few times, but not every day, although I suspect their low handicap membership feels differently, and certainly, playing in such a historic setting would be fun and make up for difficulty all by itself.

[Tom Huckaby]

To me, "hard" courses can be fun as long as they do not have rough in which you can lose a ball.  Any visible penalty chance (OB, water, gorse) is fair game and fun to try to devise and execute strategies to deal with them.  17 and 18 at Carnoustie are good examples of tough holes which are fun to play, for me at least.  Excessive length (requiring too much of a diet of forced carries and shots to the green with long irons) gets boring, but can be overcome by playing the proper tees.  For me, playing Shinnecock from the tips was instructive and enjoyable, but not as much fun as it would have been from a mix of forward and back tees.

I wouldn't mind trying Oakmont from the tips with deep rough and Open speed greens, but only once.  It could be fun, in a masochistic sort of way, but if one gets regular pleasure from such perversions, a trip to the local shrink is very much in order.....

This is damn well exactly how I look at this.  Perfectly stated, Rich.

Just one tiny disagreement: certain courses to me scream out masochism, and I'm not sure I'd want to ever shorten them or otherwise emasculate them in the name of fun, that is unless I was playing them all the time.  That is, as a one-time, once in my life visitor to Shinnecock, I was darn pleased we played the tips because anything else would have put an asterisk on that experience for me.  I had a blast there as that course kicked me up and down and sideways.  It gave me great stories to tell, as Rich knows.  Now I need no trip to the shrink as if I was a member there or regular guest, no way would I want that for every round... For me it was exactly how Rich describes how he'd want to play Oakmont - which is how I'd want to play that course also - but yes, only once.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

GCGC has tall, thick rough in which it's easy to lose a ball.

Yet, the golf course remains fun.

Why ?

One reason is the substantive width of the fairways.
I believe TEPaul measured # 2 at 55 yards.

The other is that it isn't excessively long, it's sporty.

Playing GCGC in the spring can be a signficant challenge due to:
No roll
Cooler weather
wet, thick rough

Yet, it remains fun to play ..... repetitively.

[Gary Slatter]

I am finding links courses in the winter to be hard!  No fast and firm conditions this year so far.  They are still fun though!
And its hard to beat three hours or less.

[Doug Ralston]

Hard can be fun, especially if you are not obsessed with score, and are just 'trying things''.

When I played Tobacco Road, I knew I would not likely score well. But it is such a challenge, that I continued to play bravely [foolishly?] rather than just 'take my medicine'. It worked ....... sometimes. Others times I just got a big score ....... and still a lot of laughs.

What a beautiful place for the game!

Doug

[Sean_A]

I am finding links courses in the winter to be hard!  No fast and firm conditions this year so far.  They are still fun though!
And its hard to beat three hours or less.

Gary

You aren't kidding!  I just moved to a links course before the winter.  Trying to protect a handicap in winter weather with the courses playing long is VERY difficult.  I am not used to having comps in the winter recorded for qualifying purposes.  Let me tell ya, its a different ball game, but it isn't difficult in terms of rough and hazards.  Its just hard battling through winter wind and cold temps with a card in your back pocket.  Scoring 36 points is GOOD golf.  

Ciao    

[Tom_Doak]

The difference between the courses Chip listed is that the ones he liked are relatively short and hard; the ones he didn't like are both long and hard.  That's the difference for me.  I love to hit my long irons, but not to every damn hole.

[Philippe Binette]

Courses where you can always swing at it, no matter how hard, are fun...

Courses with 18 dramatic tee shots, water on 15 holes, 120 bunkers, three-tiered green, 7200 yards aren't fun... guess what I just described what most developers are seeking for.

[Richard Boult]

The difference between the courses Chip listed is that the ones he liked are relatively short and hard; the ones he didn't like are both long and hard.  That's the difference for me.  I love to hit my long irons, but not to every damn hole.

I just read through this entire thread and was about to make this same reply. I could play at Bandon every day - hard but not long. I play Monarch Dunes more than all other courses combined, which plays much the same. But honestly, I've never played a single course that's not fun... it's golf.

[Tom Huckaby]

That's a good way to put it, BR.  If it's golf, it's fun.

Just some courses are more fun that others, that's all.

I tend to like variety myself.  I too would err on the side of not having long iron or fairway would approaches on every hole; but I'd also not particularly enjoy wedges on every hole either.

TH

[Phil Benedict]

I like to be challenged during the course of the round, meaning that I confront shots that make me feel uncomfortable, either because of the presence of some hazard or the shot doesn't fit my preferred shot.  I don't like being uncomfortable on every shot, which happens on a really tight course or one that features lost ball hazards all over the place.

[Phil_the_Author]

So far no mention of Bethpage Black? This is more than just my personal love of the course, but rather, as one of the handful of most difficult courses there are, many an average player still goes to the park in the middle of the night to get in line and sleep in his car simply so that they may get one of the few open tee times.

On the hole, those that do this are not the person coming from out-of-state to play it a single time and go home and tell how they got on it, but are locals who love the course for its beauty, challenge and ability to kick the crap out of them in hopes that this day will be the one they manage to break 100 or 90 or, on that most rare of days, 80.

The black is that course that answers the question of whether "hard" can be "fun." It's yes!

[Tom Huckaby]

Bethpage Black would seem to be the paradox here for me.  It does seem to me to be so brutally hard, I can't see myself lining up to play it all the time. (Note I have never seen it in person.)  Yet obviously many people do exactly that.

I just wonder though... is it because it's fun, or because there are few other decent public courses around, especially price-wise?

That is, is it fun, or is it cheap and great?

I ask because damn near all public courses around here that are priced decently are packed dawn to dust pretty much every day.  That doesn't mean they are necessarily fun to play....

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Bethpage Black would seem to be the paradox here for me.  It does seem to me to be so brutally hard, I can't see myself lining up to play it all the time. (Note I have never seen it in person.)  Yet obviously many people do exactly that.

I just wonder though... is it because it's fun, or because there are few other decent public courses around, especially price-wise?

That is, is it fun, or is it cheap and great?

I ask because damn near all public courses around here that are priced decently are packed dawn to dusk pretty much every day.  That doesn't mean they are necessarily fun to play....

TH

[George Pazin]

The difference between the courses Chip listed is that the ones he liked are relatively short and hard; the ones he didn't like are both long and hard.  That's the difference for me.  I love to hit my long irons, but not to every damn hole.

More reason for you to get to Oakmont. I'd wager you don't use your long irons on the course nearly as much as you'd think, unless you are counting tee shots.

[Don Hyslop]

 For me difficulty of the course does not equate to the fun I have. I have played difficult courses that were hard to play to my handicap on and vice-versa and have had fun on both. To me having fun was more dependant on a good pace of play and the aesthetics of the course.

[Jason Topp]

I think a difficult course is fun as long as the player has hope. 

A course consisting of a steady diet of 470 yard straight par 4's with the green 20 feet uphill, 25 yard fairway with deep rough is not going to be fun for me.  I know that most of the time, I will not handle the course well.

Contrast that with a difficult course that mixes in a a number of short par fours and an interesting variety of par threes - that course can be fun, even if overall it is just as difficult.  Periodically throughout the round, I will have hope of success.

Torrey Pines = difficult and no fun
Oakmont = difficult and fun (based solely on television)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bethpage Black would seem to be the paradox here for me.  It does seem to me to be so brutally hard, I can't see myself lining up to play it all the time. (Note I have never seen it in person.)  Yet obviously many people do exactly that.

I just wonder though... is it because it's fun, or because there are few other decent public courses around, especially price-wise?

That is, is it fun, or is it cheap and great?

I ask because damn near all public courses around here that are priced decently are packed dawn to dust pretty much every day.  That doesn't mean they are necessarily fun to play....

Tom,

Not all play has to be from the Open tees.

If you're a decent player and play from tees commensurate with your ability you'll find the course more palatable.

Play it from the Open tees and you're in for a long day.[/color]

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

That's a big if.  I gather all those waiting overnight are decent players and none play back tees?

I'm still going with cheap and great more than "fun."