Anthony:
It's not a 10 by your standards, or someone else's?
And if Cruden Bay is the most fun course you can play, why ISN'T it a 10?
Conversely, if other 10's are not as fun, should they really be ranked higher than Cruden Bay?
We've battled this many times before in here. I do understand the distinctions. I just don't believe in them.
TH
Tom - The only difference I can identify between fun and a high quality course is the need to accomodate all levels of player. In other words, what is fun for one player may be boring or torture to others.
A 6500 yard course is plenty fun for me but could be a repetitive layup/wedge round for a long hitter. By contrast, most desert courses are fun if one has reasonable control over the ball but absolute torture for someone who hits it all over the place or cannot dependably get the ball in the air.
This partial list of Mackenzie's 13 ideals all relate to fun (except number 2):
1. The greens and fairways should be undulating, but without steep hills for the golfer to climb.
2. There should be a minimum of blind approach shots
3. The emphasis should be on natural beauty and not artificial features
4. There must be a complete absence of annoyance caused by searching for lost balls.
5. Course conditioning must remain consistently outstanding.
6. Every hole should have a different character.
7. There should be a sufficient number of heroic carries from the tee, but for the weaker player, with the loss of a stroke, they shall always have an alternative route.
8. There should be infinite variety in the strokes required to play the various holes.
9. The course should be so interesting that even the high handicapper shall be stimulated to attempt shots he has previously been unable to play.
10. The course should be arranged so that the low handicap player or absolute beginner should be able to enjoy their round, in spite of the fact they are piling up a big score.