[Matt_Ward]

I mentioned this previously on the Pound Ridge topic and some may think "relentless" as being a flaw in a golf course because too often people associate too great a demand / difficulty as being in the picture.

I see relentless design as a good feature because it mandates that players play at a high level -- no doubt the tee boxes chosen will dictate the fairness or not of the course and how the player reacts.

Wing Foot / West is another good example of a relentless course. Ditto Oakmont and Bethpage Black. It's possible people prefer somewhat less intense in your face type designs.

Be curious to the thoughts of others and how they view "relentless" design.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt,

I don't think that Oakmont fits that categorization.

There are a number of short holes interspersed with the longer ones, whereas, BPB doesn't give you much of a break until # 18.

WFW would seem relentless as well.

[Tom Huckaby]

I'm sure Ryan Simper and Sean Leary and a few others are laughing as they read this... because one of the adjectives at least I thought one of them used to describe Prairie Dunes was "relentless".  And we argued over this for many days...

Because for me it is most definitely a negative term.  I do not like courses where the challenge never ceases.  I prefer a "breather" hole to be thrown in... and the more the breather hole really does have subtle challenge of its own, the better.  But in your face, intense, non-stop challenge is simply not my cup of tea.

Which is rather why I prefer NGLA to Shinnecock, but then again we've discussed this countless times before, haven't we, Matt?

It's interesting though, I did not find Winged Foot West to be relentless at all.  Tough yes, relentless no.  I guess my definition of the term might differ from yours.. relentless to me means the chance for penalty shots shot after shot after shot after shot... long tough shots as one finds at Winged Foot, well... that's not relentless to me.  Relentless is a course with water, OB, very high rough on every shot...

As I understand Oakmont and Bethpage Black, I wouldn't call those relentless either.

So I guess it depends on what you mean!

Relentless tough as found at WF-W, Oakmont, Bethpage, that's great by me.

Relentless tough as found at THE RANCH (San Jose, CA), that just plain sucks.

TH

[Mark_Fine]

I would define most (but maybe not all) great tests of golf such as Oakmont as relentless - tough golf holes just keep coming at you.  The beauty of a design like Oakmont is that the "breather" holes are really not breather holes.  If you let your guard down on those holes, you have NO chance of scoring well.  That added pressure to do well on those holes (it is really relative because there are so few anyway) is just another element of the design that makes it so great!  The more one plays it, the more they will appreciate what I am getting at.  By the way, Oakmont has a standing bet with first time guests (for those playing the course more than one time on a visit) - it is that their second round score will be higher than their first.  There is a good reason for this    Relentless probably fits its description.  Ask Tiger and others what happened on #17.

[JohnV]

Pat,

I disagree.  Oakmont is relentless if you look at it from the point of view that each shot must be precisely struck with little margin for error.  Just because some of those shots are not full tee shots or the like doesn't change that.

Matt,

To me there are two kinds of relentless.  

1) The kind where every shot has the potential for a shot lost due to the difficulty of recovery.  Even the recovery shots can once again put the player in this kind of difficulty with the possibility of more shots lost if the execution is not perfect.  Oakmont, WFW, BB, most classic courses and many of the best modern ones offer this kind of relentless test.  

2) The kind where every shot has the potential for a penalty stroke due to water/ knee deep rough / OB being on one or often both sides of the hole, frequently very close to the line of play.  Every shot puckers you because a poor shot means two shots lost, not just one.  Many modern courses have way too much of this relentless punishment.  I personally don't enjoy these kinds of courses.

I can take this a few times a round, but not on every shot.  It is particularly bad where it is on both sides of holes.  This is why I'm not a big fan of desert courses or ones built through housing where OB exists on both sides.

Think about Pebble Beach.  You have the ocean on the right of every hole from 4 through 10, but here is room to play away from it.  Now think of 18.  The OB left squeezes you between it and the water.  That is ok once in a while, but would you want to play all those holes with all that trouble on BOTH sides?  I wouldn't.

Similarly, The Old Course is relentless in demanding perfection to score well, but you can play away from the trouble and sacrifice strokes.  I don't think I'd have enjoyed TOC as much when it was one fairway wide with gorse down both sides as it seems to have been long ago.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

I'm fine with any of the definitions of relentless on offer so far -- and I don't think that even Oakmont or Winged Foot would be the best design choice for a high-end public course in Westchester County, NY.  That's why I asked about Pound Ridge.

[John Moore II]

I think relentless can mean several things. At times, it can mean purely hard. But in the case of a place like Tobacco Road its a bit different (for a better player anyway). If you play for fun and just to get around you can hit the ball here and there and still score somewhat well. However, if you want to shoot a low score, its necessary to hit the ball to precise spots in order to be able to score well. In that way, for a better/good player, the course can be either relentless or moderately easy.
--For the average/below average player, its a different story.

[Bruce Leland]

I have always referred to Hazeltine National as relentless in that it requires great ball striking in order to avoid making double bogey for a low to mid hdcp player. The greens are not as exacting as some classical courses but if you are not in the fairway off the tee, it's difficult to position your ball on the greens to two putt.

[Tim Bert]

When I think of relentless in golf course design, I tend to think of it in terms of this definition I found on answers.com - "Unyielding in severity or strictness"

I don't really have a pre-disposed notion of whether relentless is good or bad.  I think it would depend on the course.

Two that come to mind are The Shattuck in NH and Gillette Ridge in CT.  For some reason I give the former a pass and just enjoy it for the ridiculousness that it represents, while I despise the latter.  I think due to the fact that the former was a day-trip away and I didn't have to see it on a daily basis, while the latter was in my back yard.

[Sean_A]

I tend to think of relentless courses as championship venues.  Many are just hammer blow after hammer blow (be it rough, length, narrow fairways, crazy fast greens or a combination) with perhaps one or two sneaky tough breather holes.  In the end, it just gets boring.  I prefer courses where shots just get niggled away by bad (which can be overly aggressive or conservative) decision making rather than poor execution.  Don't get me wrong, I also like the odd hammer blow chucked in just to keep things on a balanced keel and to keep golfers honest.  Perhaps this is why I am a fan of so few championship courses.  That doesn't mean I don't think these courses aren't good.  Of course they are good at least in the sense of fulfilling their purpose as a championship course.  Its just that they aren't my bag. 

Ciao

[JWinick]

Sean:

You're absolutely right about relentess and tournament courses.   However, I have found US-Open style courses to be relentless, but fair in the sense that you don't lose a lot of golf balls.   I've played golf in Florida and lost 5 balls and shot in the low 80s.  How good to you feel if you lost too many golf balls or spend too much time looking for them?  Sometimes, I've got to fight "survivor" guilt after we find my ball after looking for 5-10 minutes.   I tend to blow up the hole if I get  too good of a break. 

But, even on a tournament style course you can mitigate the relentlessness by how you play the course.   Why not play one of the shorter Par 4s from the ladies tee to give yourself a drivable Par 4?   If I normally play from the blues, you can probably play 2-3 holes from the tips and play one hole as a drivable Par 4.   

Multiple forced carries, OB, and water tend to meet my definition of relentless. 

[Sean_A]

J

I may have a very narrow definition of championship courses (in fact, where championships are played as opposed to just tournaments), but I can't think of too many which have a lot of water  in play.  Its been a while since I palyed a course with a fair amount of water.  I think the course on Bald Head Island (can't recall the name - it could be Bald Head!) is the last.  I didn't think much of it and I would agree with you.  A lot of water is not my bag. 

Ciao

[TEPaul]

Matt:

What you call relentless I think I call a "high intensity level". Here where I am I always felt Pine Valley, Merion East and HVGC had the highest intensity levels, particularly in stroke play tournaments. On courses like that I was always sort of on edge all day long because you know it is very likely that even the slightest mistake or error in judgement can result in one of those scores they refer to as "others."

On the other hand, a course like Aronomink had none of that "high intensity level" but for a guy like me who was always pretty short off the tee I felt Aronomink was "relentless" because I felt like I was just beating long irons and woods all day long.

[Mark_Fine]

The comment about "championship" courses is interesting.  I happen to think that a lot depends on the set up.   Pinehurst #2 comes to mind as one championship venue that is not always relentless.  When the greens aren't rolling at 11 or 12 and rock hard, the course is quite enjoyable to play and I wouldn't call it relentless.  On the other hand, when they are firm and lightening fast (I'm played it both ways a number of times) it is one of the hardest golf courses on the plant.  I've tried to explain to people who have not experienced it that the wide fairways are inviting but deceiving.  When the course is firm and the greens are rolling out you have to be precise with your tee shots and iron play has to be spot on to have any chance to score.  Furthermore, if you miss the greens (and you will) there are many times where you not only can't get it close, you are lucky to just be able to pitch/putt/chip/ or flop it back anywhere on the green.  It is relentless 

[Andy Troeger]

For me length has to be part of the equation for a course to be relentless. I'm thinking of courses where it seems like every hole is long and well guarded by some kind of hazard. These are courses where unless you're a bomber you pretty well have to hit driver on every hole just to give yourself a chance to get home in the expected number of shots for a decent player.

For me its not so much the nature of the hazard when using the word relentless, its having hazards on every hole that can cause grief. In most cases, it also coincides with a lack of options of how to play the hole. You have to execute a certain shot every play and if you do not then its recovery time. If I use the word relentless to describe a golf course you can assume with high confidence that I didn't like it.

I'm also not necessarily talking about the back tees. Some courses that are 7500 yards with 450 par fours and 220 par threes all over just move up the next set to play a little shorter with 420 par fours and 200 par threes. So the next caliber of golfer that plays those tees still beats themselves up. Then the next set at 390 and 175 does the same and on from there. There's not much variety in a relentless course usually the way I define it.

[BCrosby]

I am not clear what people above think "relentless" signifies. Is it meant as a compliment?

"Relentless" is not something I would normally associate with a good strategic course. Difficult, exacting, "penal" courses maybe. But the courses I like best are decidedly not relentless and I tend to avoid courses that are described that way.

BTW, I do not think PVGC is relentless. To the contrary.

Bob

 

[David_Elvins]

I see relentless design as a good feature because it mandates that players play at a high level

Matt,
Not sure I agree with that at all.
Don't  good opponents mandate that a player plays at a high level.  The course is just a playing field that facilitates good competition.

[tlavin]

Relentless, as others have said, typically means difficult.  It also means constantly demanding.  A relentless golf course constantly demands that a tee shot be generally hit into a certain part of the fairway if one wants any hope of a reasonable shot into the green.  A relentless golf course imposes hazards that are very accessible if the player is not precise in distance or direction.  A relentless golf course does not have a sequence of breather holes or a simple, short one-shotter to get the player's confidence back up.

In my golf resume, the most relentless golf course I've played is Butler National.  It easily meets all of the above criteria.

[Matt_Ward]

Bob C:

Beg to differ on your take / re: PV and being relentless -- Crump didn't build the layout to be sympathetic to the plight of indifferent or mediocre shotmaking.

I'll follow with more later today ...

[PThomas]

Blackwolf Run River course

[Phil Benedict]

Lost ball hazards everywhere you turn with no room to bailout most of the time.  PGA West Stadium fits the bill.

To me tight is more daunting than long.

[Mike Benham]

Think about Pebble Beach.  You have the ocean on the right of every hole from 4 through 10, but here is room to play away from it.  Now think of 18.  The OB left squeezes you between it and the water.  That is ok once in a while, but would you want to play all those holes with all that trouble on BOTH sides?  I wouldn't.

I have the opinion that Torrey Pines South is relentless ... numerous par 4s and par 5s with bunkers left and right in the landing zone, bunkers on the outside of doglegs, every par 4 and par 5 with bunkers in the landing zone.

Compare that to Olympic Lake which has been labeled relentless but only has one fairway bunker (ignoring the two fairway cross bunkers on #1) ...

[Ken Moum]

Ancala Country Club, Scottsdale.

Narrow, VERY narrow, with untouched desert in the rough.

By the turn, you're doing the "Ancala steer" on every swing.

I played it several years ago, and everything about it was first class, but the relentlessness of the course wore me out.

Ken

[Kalen Braley]

Bob C:

Beg to differ on your take / re: PV and being relentless -- Crump didn't build the layout to be sympathetic to the plight of indifferent or mediocre shotmaking.

I'll follow with more later today ...

Matt,

You've pretty much answered your question with that statement.

A course that is not sympathetic to indifferent of mediocre shotmaking.  That about sums up a relentless course to me where every shot demands at least a good shot on every hole, every time.  As a high teen capper, that is relentless to me....

[Mike Wagner]

I think of relentless as the absolute in focus.  A course that demands precision every hole and will shread misplaced shots.  Also, this set up would not have the typical stretch where players normally feel they can make up ground.  It's all about perserverance, where every hole presents potential disastrous consequences.

PGA West Stadium from the tips!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()