"For pure unadulterated fun,

[Bruce Katona]

You pick your favorite course....tee off on a perfect weekday early summer afternoon at 4 or 4:30 PM to enjoy the good walk into the setting sun...finishing at dusk; then into the clubhouse for a shower, beer and dinner.

Not what was the original idea of this topic, but this is my $0.02.

[Sean_A]

I think of pure, unadulterated fun as something which doesn't rely on length to gets its message across.  That isn't to say there can't be long and tough holes, but they shouldn't be what defines PUF. 

North Berwick
Kington
Pennard
Cavendish
Perranporth
West Cornwall
Painswick

Ciao

[John_Cullum]

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

I played there when I was 13 years old with my brother. It was basically non attended at the time. The grass on the greens was probably about an inch high. People tried to talk us out of playing it, but we were kids and didn't have anything else to do. I really don't remember much about it.

[Niall C]

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.

Simon

I'm not a member at Gullane but play through there quite a bit and while I very much enjoy No. 1, 3 and 2 are much more fun, and in that order. With regards to revenue, 2 and 3 are an absolute goldmine and mostly it is from home based players. The golfers from abroad mostly play No. 1 because they think that because its bigger its better. Well maybe in some way as a challenge it is, but not when it comes to having fun.

Niall

[RJ_Daley]

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.


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"

I think  part of the answer is because most every course is oriented towards needing to make a profit.  In order to do that, courses have to meet the expectations of consumers.  Golf consumers are inundated and indoctrinated in their early exposure to the game by marketting.  Yes, some of us came to the game at an early age on an old unheard of local course where there was no need for great marketting and image, and you just loved the place for what it was... a field of joy of playing the game.  But, as you get more sophisticated in your tastes (some of which is the marketting image of golf greatness inculcated by advertising and hype about conditions, and difficulty to score) you drift away from simple expressions like "it was just pure fun" to expressions as above to add, 'but it wasn't a great course'.   Yet, I think there is a point where you have reached saturation on that sophisticated (and generally more expensive) appetite for 'great courses' and begin to gain that confidence of your own convictions of what was just 'pure fun' and you harken back to those things that were part of the pure fun, like the quirky fun greens and approaches, funky bunkering, or the odd fairway that gives you options and strategy, not just a demanding long drive, etc.  (not to mention the pure fun of comeraderie of playing with friends at an old haunt that had just enough to provide fun, not conventionally marketted notions of greatness))

[jim_lewis]

I've only played it once, and that was about 20 years ago, but I have never enjoyed a course more than Salem CC in early October. Wonderful, fun golf course, no houses, trees are lit up like neon signs.