"For pure unadulterated fun,

[jeffwarne]

I've yet to see the equal of this course"

This quote about a not so famous golf course, by a famous golf writer whose tastes in golf courses I have great respect for, fascinates me.

Why wouldn't "pure unadulterated fun" be the goal in every course we seek out to play, (and write about), and be a large/majority percentage of our personal evaluation and more importantly our desire to return.

I'll give away the author and course later after discussion.

Im reminded of when a member at a big name modern course was describing how much fun he had had when I set him up at NGLA , and then punctuated the conversation by saying "it was extremely fun, but not a great course"

[Ben Sims]

Jeff,

Your quote piqued my interest; and I was sure I'd read it before.  So I snooped around the 'net a bit. 

One of the people I respect most on this site has told me personally that if Sheep Ranch was the best golf experience of my life, then it would be a shame to skip the course you speak of on my next trip to Ireland. 

Today I continued my current obsession with playing with only 6-9 clubs.  The course on base at Laughlin AFB might be the worst in the DoD.  It was windy and spitting rain, I was the only guy out there.  After 8 holes or so, I started just randomly creating new ways to play to different greens in a vain attempt to recapture the magic of that day a year ago on the Oregon coast.  It was a lot of fun.  And really, isn't that why we all play? 

I think that's why we on this site collectively respect the classic architects and a few modern guys more than the general golfing public.  The fun quotient just goes through the roof when you're talking Macdonald, Mackenzie, Doak and Coore. 

[Anthony Gray]

   Cruden Bay.....sorry for spoiling the surprise.

  Anthony

[jeffwarne]

   Cruden Bay.....sorry for spoiling the surprise.

  Anthony

Nope-at least not this quote.
I enjoyed Cruden Bay, and it has some fun holes so it certainly qualifies.
Ben,
I hope we're speaking of the same course-cause you've got the country.

[Anthony Gray]

  Prestwick and North Berwick come to mind but there are those hidden gems scatered everywhere. Some of them lack the length to be championship courses. Like Crail.

  Anthony

[jeffwarne]

  Prestwick and North Berwick come to mind but there are those hidden gems scatered everywhere. Some of them lack the length to be championship courses. Like Crail.

  Anthony

We're getting somewhere now.
Do play golf for fun or Championships?

[Kalen Braley]

Torrey Pines...

Signed,

Rees Jones

[Anthony Gray]

  Prestwick and North Berwick come to mind but there are those hidden gems scatered everywhere. Some of them lack the length to be championship courses. Like Crail.

  Anthony

We're getting somewhere now.
Do play golf for fun or Championships?

  Understand 100%. I hate a course that just beats you up. Give the average guy a chance. Quirk me to please.

  Anthony

[Ben Sims]

Jeff,

Just to make sure, I looked it up again.  County Donegal, 9 holes? 

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,

Just to make sure, I looked it up again.  County Donegal, 9 holes?  

That's the one, formerly known as Macamish-(I had noticed it but was tempted to skip it until Donal mentioned it again)
That looks like quite a day paired with Portsalon one of my favorites

[Ben Sims]

Jeff,

Now known as Otway GC I think.

Like any any good trip to Bandon should include Sheep Ranch and hickory golf at Old Bandon Links along with The Resort.  My first trip to Ireland will include places like this along with Ballybunion and RCD

[Andrew Thomson]

Is the quote from Mike Clayton and was he referring to a course on the South Island of New Zealand?

It was a hidden gem until recently!

Edit: oops, need to read the rest of the posts, already been identfied as another..

[Gary Slatter]

The Old Course on a day with gale ("cyclonic" as BBC refers to them) is the perfect course for pure unadulterated fun, although the wind and sleet might not be covered in the meaning of unadulterated.   

The Old Course on a windless day is also pure fun as the challenge then is to score lower than your previous best.

the 2010 Open will be pure unadulterated fun championship golf for the players - if the weather is right scoring will be awesome (in the true meaning of awesome).

[Mike Demetriou]

when I read this thread title, I immediately thought of the Sheep Ranch...

[jeffwarne]

The course is Otway near Rathmullen, Ireland (Co. Donegal)
The author is Bernard Darwin.

With the noteable  exception of NGLA why aren't fun courses rated higher?
If a course is considerd "too short" to be great, why then would anyone ever play great coures from anywhere but the back tees.
I.e. if North Berwick is too short at 6200 yards, why play Shinnecock from the 6300 yard member's tees?

If there are xxxxx million golfers in the world , why do we deny greatness to courses that are a blast to play, but don't provide a perceived sufficient challenge to the top 1/2 % of golfers. Couldn't 99.5 % of the population bestow greatness upon a course?

Wouldn't publicity and rankings of more fun courses revive the game?
and I'm not suggesting we build more courses.


I would argue that if someone has elected to play anywhere short of the longest tees, he's in no position to comment on a course's lack of length.
While many say they love a challenge, hitting a green from a hundreds yards out is a challenge to most golfers.

What if the top 10 courses in the world were..?

North Berwick
NGLA
Dunaverty
Goat Hill
Otway
Prestwick
Painswick
Brora
TOC
ANGC circa 1934(although it was quite long then)

Would golf be more popular?
Would the current top pros stay the same?
Would they enjoy these courses?

[JNC Lyon]

Jeff,

Great thread.  I have to say I agree with you on most points.  Who cares what the pros think about a golf course?  I have started to ask myself this question more recently.  They do represent a small percentage of golfers, though they represent a larger percentage of the total rounds played.  Nevertheless, it is central to the golf equipment debate.  Why do we need to lengthen courses to accommodate the 1% of golfers that benefit from equipment advances?  Why are golf courses considered obsolete because they are too short for a small percentage of golfers?

I think you are correct that should be more of a focus on fun courses in the game.  I think it is fun to play a tough course.  I would love to play Pine Valley a couple of times of year.  But it is a course I could play every day?  Is it course where one can learn the game? No and No.  Yet many courses are built in the Pine Valley mold.  They are inaccessible and no fun for most golfers.

At the same time, there is still a mass appeal to long and difficult courses.  People love to say they have played at a US Open course.  People care when other people play at Open courses.  When I go back to the states, most of my friends will not care that I played at Huntercombe or Swinley Forest, as much as I might.  However, they will be interested to hear that I played at next year's British Open venue.  Is Swinley Forest or Huntercombe a better course for the general public than Sandwich? Probably.  But the general public will flock to Sandwich over Swinley because Sandwich is the course that can beat up the pros.  Simple as that.

Would the top pros change?  Some would, some would not.  Tiger would still be the best player in the world.  The courses you listed put the emphasis on short game over long game.  He has an imagination around the greens that is only matched by Mickelson.  These two would still be the best in the world.

What this paradigm shift would do is make the pro game more competitive.  It would bring more players into the fold.  Shorter courses will allow longer and shorter hitters to compete an equal spectrum.  I think this could only grow the game.

For your biggest question, I think golf would grow and would be better off if courses like Brora and Painswick were rated higher.  At the same time, I really do not care where these courses are ranked.  Courses are made for golf.  They should not be made to compete for a spot on some superficial list.

[George Freeman]

Is the quote from Mike Clayton and was he referring to a course on the South Island of New Zealand?

It was a hidden gem until recently!

Edit: oops, need to read the rest of the posts, already been identfied as another..

Andrew,

What course would that be?

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,

Great thread.  I have to say I agree with you on most points.  Who cares what the pros think about a golf course?  I have started to ask myself this question more recently.  They do represent a small percentage of golfers, though they represent a larger percentage of the total rounds played.  Nevertheless, it is central to the golf equipment debate.  Why do we need to lengthen courses to accommodate the 1% of golfers that benefit from equipment advances?  Why are golf courses considered obsolete because they are too short for a small percentage of golfers?

I think you are correct that should be more of a focus on fun courses in the game.  I think it is fun to play a tough course.  I would love to play Pine Valley a couple of times of year.  But it is a course I could play every day?  Is it course where one can learn the game? No and No.  Yet many courses are built in the Pine Valley mold.  They are inaccessible and no fun for most golfers.

At the same time, there is still a mass appeal to long and difficult courses.  People love to say they have played at a US Open course.  People care when other people play at Open courses.  When I go back to the states, most of my friends will not care that I played at Huntercombe or Swinley Forest, as much as I might.  However, they will be interested to hear that I played at next year's British Open venue.  Is Swinley Forest or Huntercombe a better course for the general public than Sandwich? Probably.  But the general public will flock to Sandwich over Swinley because Sandwich is the course that can beat up the pros.  Simple as that.

Would the top pros change?  Some would, some would not.  Tiger would still be the best player in the world.  The courses you listed put the emphasis on short game over long game.  He has an imagination around the greens that is only matched by Mickelson.  These two would still be the best in the world.

What this paradigm shift would do is make the pro game more compe titive.  It would bring more players into the fold.  Shorter courses will allow longer and shorter hitters to compete an equal spectrum.  I think this could only grow the game.

For your biggest question, I think golf would grow and would be better off if courses like Brora and Painswick were rated higher.  At the same time, I really do not care where these courses are ranked.  Courses are made for golf.  They should not be made to compete for a spot on some superficial list.

JNC,
Nice post.
Selfishly,
I like the ratings and preferences the way they are.
The courses I love to play are rarely crowded and are completely affordable for the most part, and are usually played in 3-4 hours.
I played 21 holes today in a threesome on a packed course in 3:50.
Also the over the top nature of certain courses allows me to make a living 

As an aside, I guess my irritation with equipment and ball increases stems from club's reaction of lenghthening and/or tightening courses, which only decreases the fun and increases the amount of time it takes to play. (or the # of holes one can play in a given period)

[JNC Lyon]

Jeff,

Great thread.  I have to say I agree with you on most points.  Who cares what the pros think about a golf course?  I have started to ask myself this question more recently.  They do represent a small percentage of golfers, though they represent a larger percentage of the total rounds played.  Nevertheless, it is central to the golf equipment debate.  Why do we need to lengthen courses to accommodate the 1% of golfers that benefit from equipment advances?  Why are golf courses considered obsolete because they are too short for a small percentage of golfers?

I think you are correct that should be more of a focus on fun courses in the game.  I think it is fun to play a tough course.  I would love to play Pine Valley a couple of times of year.  But it is a course I could play every day?  Is it course where one can learn the game? No and No.  Yet many courses are built in the Pine Valley mold.  They are inaccessible and no fun for most golfers.

At the same time, there is still a mass appeal to long and difficult courses.  People love to say they have played at a US Open course.  People care when other people play at Open courses.  When I go back to the states, most of my friends will not care that I played at Huntercombe or Swinley Forest, as much as I might.  However, they will be interested to hear that I played at next year's British Open venue.  Is Swinley Forest or Huntercombe a better course for the general public than Sandwich? Probably.  But the general public will flock to Sandwich over Swinley because Sandwich is the course that can beat up the pros.  Simple as that.

Would the top pros change?  Some would, some would not.  Tiger would still be the best player in the world.  The courses you listed put the emphasis on short game over long game.  He has an imagination around the greens that is only matched by Mickelson.  These two would still be the best in the world.

What this paradigm shift would do is make the pro game more compe titive.  It would bring more players into the fold.  Shorter courses will allow longer and shorter hitters to compete an equal spectrum.  I think this could only grow the game.

For your biggest question, I think golf would grow and would be better off if courses like Brora and Painswick were rated higher.  At the same time, I really do not care where these courses are ranked.  Courses are made for golf.  They should not be made to compete for a spot on some superficial list.

JNC,
Nice post.
Selfishly,
I like the ratings and preferences the way they are.
The courses I love to play are rarely crowded and are completely affordable for the most part, and are usually played in 3-4 hours.
I played 21 holes today in a threesome on a packed course in 3:50.
Also the over the top nature of certain courses allows me to make a living 

As an aside, I guess my irritation with equipment and ball increases stems from club's reaction of lenghthening and/or tightening courses, which only decreases the fun and increases the amount of time it takes to play. (or the # of holes one can play in a given period)

I think golf would take less time if there were more golfers but shorter courses.  Additionally, it would be less expensive.  Shorter courses = less expensive courses, in general.

The club's reaction with changes of length and tightening is definitely the worst problem of today's game.  My home course lengthened a short par three hole from 140 yards to 190 yards.  The justification?  They wanted the good players hit the same club into the green that they hit when the course was built.  Really?  I am a five handicapper, and I hit 2 hybrid on that hole from 190.  Were single-digit handicappers hitting 2-iron from 140 in 1925? Doubt it.  Of course, most people who play the hole should not be playing from the 190 tees.  It remains a mystery as to why that tee was built.

The problem stems from misperceptions by the club rather than actual needs.  The par three at my club will not be that much harder for the good players at 190 than it is at 140.  The green is very severe, and it is a tough three from 80 yards.  Furthermore, the changes in equipment just do not effect most golfers.  A 20-handicapper is still a 20-handicapper, regardless of the material from which his drive is made.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

For me it was the original sheep ranch, then maybe my neighborhood as a boy with wiffle balls. I find the Mac/Raynor style to be the most fun style of architecture.

[Andrew Thomson]

Andrew,

What course would that be?

Arrowtown Golf Club, NZ

[Simon Holt]

Great topic and very close to my heart.

So in 2013 the Open is at Muirfield and for a week every ten years East Lothian becomes the centre of the golfing universe.  It also means that once every ten years 4 local courses get awarded the honour (and it is seen as that) of hosting final qualifying on the Sat and Sun before the big show.

In 2013 it will be Dunbar, Gullane No. 1, Musselburgh and North Berwick.  Musselburgh GC (aka Monktonhall) is an inland course that has been brought in at the expense of Luffness.  Local opinon is that it is a mixture of reward for hosting regional for the past 5 years or so, and that Luffness is too short.  A sad state of affairs IMHO.

Gullane No. 1 has had new bunkers on 1 which will have no effect on the pros but lots on the regular golfer.  They also put new tees in every time for this event.  They have even completely changed the 8th hole from a gentle dogleg R to L to having a new green site 70 yards to the right on the present one making the hole now a dogleg L to R.  Donald Steel BTW and it looks like a nice job to be fair.

Is this justified?  Personally I feel not.  I had a heated debate in the Gullane clubhouse with some members after a match a few weeks ago.  They say financially the club needs to host these events for both direct revenue and indirect from the exposure and referral play so to speak.

I just feel it is sad that this happpens to these fun, and yes short in modern day, for one tournament held every 10 years.

As far as scoring- the same old applies.  We need wind.

In 2002 at North Berwick Trevor Immelman shot 63 first round (par 71, 6400) and that remains the course record.  Not too low for a short course??  An amateur also shot 63.  The next day it was a 3 club wind- no more.  He shot 71, the amateur 85!  Only 3 players in the entire field broke par.

Are these courses fun- absolutely.  Are they too short in terms of being embarrassed by low scores?  Who cares, and no if they are played in the regular conditions.  Is it sad they are changing after 100s of years and standing the test of time? Very much so.

PS.  To any Gullane members out there I LOVE your course.  And I also realise that a higher body than us plays a large part in 'suggesting' changes.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Jeff:

I found the score card of Otway;

NoYds Par
1 162 3
2 363 4
3 257 4
4 209 3
5 255 4
6 264 4
7 123 3
8 180 3
9 304 4

Out 2,117 32

It's been over 20 years since I last played Otway, but I remember one hole where the green is perched up on high in the middle of a large rock outcrop. It may be the 3rd or 4th. The green is surrounded on both sides by rocks and if you even miss it by a few feet, your ball may ricochet anywhere. The green is very narrow and slopes upwards on both sides.

There is another hole where the green is not visible from the tee; it could be the par 4 6th. I recall having to hit a blind shot over another large mound composed of rocks. There is a gap between the large mounds and you walk through this and suddenly the green is revealed.

It's been a long time since I played Otway, so my description may be totally inaccurate. It's just how I remember it as a teenager.

Dónal.

[Richard Phinney]

All great courses are surely tremednously fun to play, but there are some that bring a smile to your face, again and again.  Is it possible to  to push Lahinch, Cruden Bay, Prestwick, North Berwick and TOC out of the top 5?

[Mark Pearce]

All great courses are surely tremednously fun to play, but there are some that bring a smile to your face, again and again.  Is it possible to  to push Lahinch, Cruden Bay, Prestwick, North Berwick and TOC out of the top 5?

I think so.  For pure, unadulterated fun I'd put Kington above at least one of those.