The Correlation between Strategy and Difficulty

[TX Golf]

After my first few months on this website I have come across some some ideas that seem to be shared by the majority of people here.

The first of which is that golf is already difficult enough to begin with, so why are we making it more difficult by building harder and harder courses. It seems that we agree that the difficulty of the game is driving people away due to the slow play it creates and the frustration beginners suffer when taking up the game.

The second standard thought around here is that strategy is key to a great golf course due to the fact that it creates options and in turn makes the game more fun. We all agree that the great courses are blessed with this characteristic of being strategic layouts. However, at the same time the majority of all these courses are considered to be quite difficult as well.

I guess my question is this. Are there many great golf courses in existence today that offer strategic options but are not overly difficult? It seems to me that we contradict ourselves in our demand for strategic courses, but at the same time we don't want them to be too difficult for the average-below average golfer (aka the beginner). The best example of the perfect combo I can think of is the TOC. What others exist? Thanks.

Robert

[Jim Franklin]

NGLA can be fairly tame if the shots are played to the proper part of the fairways and greens, but if you miss, a lot of bogeys add up to a big number. Plus wind is ALWAYS a factor at that course. It is the ultimate in fun golf.

[Kalen Braley]

I would think CPC would fit well in this category.  Tons of choices, lots of ways to play it, not too difficult to get around.

[TX Golf]

Sorry to add to my own post before any response, but I felt this adds to the question.
These are the Top 20 on the GD list. Is there a single course on this list that isn't a least considered to be significantly above average in terms of difficulty?? Just food for thought. I feel like Cypress might be the best option, but a beginning golfer would still have a hell of a time out there and most likely get quite frustrated.

1. Pine Valley
2. Shinnecok
3. Augusta
4. Cypress
5. Oakmont
6. Pebble
7. Merion
8. Winged Foot
9. Seminole
10. Crystal Downs
11. Medinah
12. Sand Hills
13. NGLA
14. Pacific Dunes
15. Wade Hampton
16. Fishers Island
17. Oakland Hills
18. Muirfield Village
19. Pinehurst
20. The Country Club

[Kenny Baer]

Augusta National from the old tees was very strategic and not "Overly" difficult.

[Kenny Baer]

I don't think that people on this web-site want easier courses just courses where the difficulty is more subtle instead of in your face.  A par five with a very tough green complex instead of just making it 650+ yds.

I think almost all of the top 20 listed below have that in common.  Most of those courses are relatively easy for a beginner, few forced carries, not much OB but difficult for anyone of skill.

[Charlie Goerges]

During the US Amateur, the announcers went on at length on many occasions about how the course (basically the greens) were difficult for top players, but that even a high-handicap player could get around without too much trouble (lost balls etc.) I can't verify this from experience, but if it is the case, what makes it so?

[TX Golf]

Good point Kenny... For any of the architects out there. What are some design features that have allowed you to successfully achieve this balance??

[Kenny Baer]

Charlie,

.

During the US Amateur, the announcers went on at length on many occasions about how the course (basically the greens) were difficult for top players, but that even a high-handicap player could get around without too much trouble (lost balls etc.) I can't verify this from experience, but if it is the case, what makes it so?

Because of the lack of hazards; the greens make it dificult for the pro; and of course the amateur as well, but the amateur is most concerned about how many strokes it takes him to get to the green w/o hazards and lost balls they preceive the course to be easier. IMO

[Garland Bayley]

Which is greater?

1.
“Every Hole should be a hard par and an easy bogey”. Robert Trent Jones Sr.

Drive short of the pinching fairway bunkers, appoach short of the overbunkered green, chip/pitch up, easy bogey.

Perhaps Oakmont and Oak Hills fit this mold.

2.
How about, "Many holes should be hard birdie, but somewhat parable; some should be easy birdie, or easy bogey depending on the result of risks taken; and some should be what RTJ said." Garland Bayley  (probably the greatest even added to these characterizations)

Perhaps AGNC, and CPC fit this mode?

[Kenny Baer]

I like what Garland said; a good mix of tough holes, easy holes, etc....

IMO I like difficult but not long; those are the holes that I have the most fun playing.   A hole where both the tee shot and 2nd shot must be precise not neccessarily hit a long way.

[Andy Hughes]

Kenny, I gather you are not a long hitter?

Robert, Pinehurst #2 is the kind of course that you are describing.

[TX Golf]

Pinehurst would definitely fall under this criteria.... but I think these posts are all proving my point to one extent or the other. Of the top courses in the world, we are having trouble coming up with a solid list. How about courses that the average golfer has access to for their weekly/monthly round of golf. They are usually left with fairly uninteresting and uninspiring courses they don't exactly excite them when standing on the first tee. What can be done to create fun, intellectually challenging courses that won't lend themselves to slow play??

Robert

[Kenny Baer]

Kenny, I gather you are not a long hitter?

Robert, Pinehurst #2 is the kind of course that you are describing.

You would be mostly correct; I have right at 105 mph clubhead speed with my driver. I carry the ball right at 240.

Not long but not terribly short either for an amateur, compared to pros incredibly short.  I still find 450 yd par 4's very long.

[Kenny Baer]

Robert,

Large Fairways, undulating greens, center line hazards, crowned putting services, bunkers that do not require raking, and other things I can't think of.

Golf courses like this encourage fast play because the trouble is not about losing your ball but making sure your ball is properly placed so you can make the best score.  The amateur is happy because he can knows where the ball is, no matter how bad a shot he hit, and the better player constantly has to think about where he should place his ball.   

[Tom_Doak]

Robert:

I don't think there is much question that most people think a great course has to be reasonably difficult.  Some even think it has to be reasonably difficult for a Tour pro; I wouldn't stretch the definition that far myself.

Interestingly, most people seem to equate "creating strategy" with "adding more bunkers," which necessarily makes a course harder to play.  At Sebonack, Mr. Nicklaus often created another optional route by adding another bunker somewhere to cut off the "B" route for some players and require them to take a "C" route ... but, by definition he was making the course harder for the "B" player, more than the "A" player who already had his own set of obstacles to contend with.

[TX Golf]

Tom,

Interesting stuff regarding Sebonack. Anther question for you if you don't mind. In the case of municipal courses or those without a large budget, what architectural features would you instill in a course to make it strategic? What low maintenance features do you think work best. Angled greens, elevation changes, etc??
Thanks.

Robert

[TEPaul]

"I guess my question is this. Are there many great golf courses in existence today that offer strategic options but are not overly difficult? It seems to me that we contradict ourselves in our demand for strategic courses, but at the same time we don't want them to be too difficult for the average-below average golfer (aka the beginner). The best example of the perfect combo I can think of is the TOC. What others exist?"


Robert:

The best example I know in America that represents that perfect combo is Maidstone. The "easy/hard" differential is all pretty much dictated by wind and complex weather or the total lack of it and it's just a really beautiful thing to play that golf course over time throughout that spectrum. I know of no other in America quite like it that way.

[Adam Clayman]

Tom,

Interesting stuff regarding Sebonack. Anther question for you if you don't mind. In the case of municipal courses or those without a large budget, what architectural features would you instill in a course to make it strategic? What low maintenance features do you think work best. Angled greens, elevation changes, etc??
Thanks.

Robert

I wouldn't presume to answer for Tom, but my guess is that the two answers to your questions could be the same thing. Firm fast short grass.

Wild Horse is a great example where the typical American player just cannot fathom the need to bounce the ball into the green and repeatedly hits each green only to have their ball bound long. 

[TX Golf]

TEPaul,

I just read the profile by Ran and Maidstone does seem to fit  the mold. It seems like it would be a great place to play on a daily basis as it would never get old. Where is it located in NY?

Adam,

I would agree that fast and firm short grass is an absolute must. What other features does Wild Horse offer that make it a fun yet not overly challenging experience??

[Mike_Clayton]

The West Course at Royal Melbourne is the most strategic course in Australia and also the easiest of the top 20 courses in the country.

[Adam Clayman]

What other features does Wild Horse offer that make it a fun yet not overly challenging experience??

Width, to play away from bunkers. Contours, and kick plates to assist the aware and creative and sometimes lucky.

There needs to be a distinction between someone who is a poor, or newer golfer, and those who are just plain too stupid to adapt their game to the challenges presented. Designing solely for the lowest common denominator can be just as bad a mistake as designing for the top 1%. Having options and different avenues to tack is all the lesser golf needs.

[Sean_A]

Many folks are describing, for me anyway, the best sort of course.  A course where a 10 capper can get around in par once in a blue moon, but can also tack up a 90.  Almost by definition championship courses are too difficult and very, very few are welcoming to the pro and 18 capper alike. 

As Tom suggested, often times so many bunkers are put in that an 18 capper finds it difficult to get around.  Additionally, I observe high cappers driving the ball off line in the rough, finding it, but not having a place to put it back in play because there are so many bunkers at the landing zone.  The only reasonable option is to pitch out.  Its deadly boring.

On the other hand, every great course has to have a few holes where its one way or the highwa.  This gives low cappers a chance to do their thing and provides a bit of balance to the design.  I love it when two long holes are in succession each going in the opposite direction.  The par 5 is downwind and very birdeable and the par 4 is into the wind and 4 feels like a birdie. 

I spose the key for really great courses is the offer of recovering.  So many championship courses leave far too many shots in a dead place in which recovery for the pro is possible, but not so for the average player. 

To each is own, but I will take the Pennards, St Enodocs and Wokings over the Carnousties, Troons and Lythams any day. 

Ciao

 

[Mark_F]

The West Course at Royal Melbourne is the most strategic course in Australia and also the easiest of the top 20 courses in the country.

Mike,

How can it be strategic when the fairway bunkers aren't in play for even Chris Kane?

[Chris Kane]

How can it be strategic when the fairway bunkers aren't in play for even Chris Kane?

Because you still need to think about where you want to hit the ball, whether a bunker is in the landing area or not.