[Paul Jones]

Most Fun:
National Golf Links
Plainfield
Sunningdale (Old)
Fishers Island (In the rain)
Ballybunion (Cashen Course) - Figures some will think I am crazy...

Most Not Fun (Great Courses, But Too Hard.  Glad I Experienced Them Once):
Oakmont
Carnoustie

[Jud_T]

Paul,

I'd take a steady diet of Carnasty.  If Bally Cashen was my only option, I think I'd give up golf for tiddlywinks...

[Jim Thornton]

Hidden Creek ranks very high on the fun scale for me.  Extremely walkable, almost impossible to lose a ball, interesting and challenging green complexes, and great variety in holes including a driveable par 4, a short par 3, and a reachable par 5.  It's the kind of course where you walk off the 18th green and you want to immediately head back to the 1st tee and go again - and that's my definition of fun.  In the interest of full disclosure, I've been a member for over 5 years.

[Brian Freeman]

Jaeger…

Of course a mathematical equation can be discovered/derived to model/predict the “fun” a golf course can provide each and every golfer.  First, we will need to model each and every golfer’s utility function in the context of fun on a golf course.  But after that, all we need to do is an MVA.

And, as we all know, a multivariate analysis (MVA) involves observation and analysis of more than one statistical variable at a time (like tee time intervals, width of fairways and the like). In design and analysis, the technique of MVA is used to perform trade studies across multiple dimensions while taking into account the effects of all variables on the responses of interest.  So, alas we will not only be able to predict the “fun” of a given course which is already designed, but we will also be able to provide architects with a blueprint of our formula to assist them with building “fun” courses prior to them actually breaking ground.  It will be wonderful!!!

Think about it, this is exactly the kind of thing the mortgage gurus did with the sub-prime mortgages and CDO’s and look how well that worked out!!!   

This whole thing makes me think of the scene in Dead Poet's Society where the textbook is telling the students how to mathematically determine a truly great poem and Robin Williams has them rip the pages out of the book.

The same thing applies here guys.  There's no formula for great golf.

[Mac Plumart]

Brian...

I (we) know.  That is why the smiley and the sentence at the end of the post.  

The Fun rating is just for fun.  Neat discussions, you know.  What courses do you think are the most fun?

[Jud_T]

This whole thing makes me think of the scene in Dead Poet's Society where the textbook is telling the students how to mathematically determine a truly great poem and Robin Williams has them rip the pages out of the book.

The same thing applies here guys.  There's no formula for great golf.
[/quote]

Brian,


1. You obviously haven't played enough Raynor courses....

2. What do you suggest we bicker about all day & night then?  

[John Moore II]

To go with the original question, I don't think fun can be defined. What is fun for me might not be fun for someone else because of the different ways we play the game. Fun is just known when it is seen, its as simple as that. You can't define what is fun for everyone because nothing is fun for all, I don't think.

[Brian Freeman]

Brian...

I (we) know.  That is why the smiley and the sentence at the end of the post.  

The Fun rating is just for fun.  Neat discussions, you know.  What courses do you think are the most fun?

Yeah, I know too, but at the end of the day I like brunettes, the other guy blondes and it is what it is. 

How do you put a quantitative measure on fun?  I don't have the extensive course library of some of the other folks on here, but to me...

- Tobacco Road is fun because it looks impossible and then you figure out if your course management is in good form, its little secret is it's actually there for the taking.
- The mountain course I grew up on will never make any ratings list but is fun because it has a par 4 and par 3 that both drop about 10 stories, three (yes, three) reachable par 5s in a row, and I because I know almost every inch of the property even though I rarely play there any more.
- Tanglewood is fun because it's the hardest course I've ever played and makes you a better player because there's about 100 bunkers and you have to learn how to stripe your long irons and figure out a way to survive if you're not.
- CCNC is fun because every time I've ever played it, it's wide open, no waiting, and the greens are so perfect and slick compared to everywhere else I've played, you're always planning a shot ahead.
- The local course I walk 9 on sometimes during the week is fun because they don't allow tee times so you just show up, the front nine is only 3000 yards and wide open and if I have any kind of game from 100 yards in I just might make break par.  The perfect diversion from a tough day at the office.
- Tidewater is fun because it's a beautiful course, never plays the same way twice based on which way the wind is blowing, and seems like the perfect mix of easy holes and hard holes.

And seriously, I can't find a common thread at all among those courses.  I'm headed to Scotland for the first time in 2 months so I'm sure I'll feel the same way about there.  I'm looking forward to Carnoustie for the challenge, St Andrews for the history, North Berwick for the quirk, Dornoch for more reasons than I can count, and Cruden Bay because after reading all of Anthony Gray's posts there's no way on earth a course is really that good. 

[Steve Strasheim]

Gentlemen, I'd respectfully disagree that fun cannot be defined. In fact, I think that I could accurately define the last several times I had fun. It's a general feeling of excitement and goodness, a direct result of several stimuli. Why not try to categorize the stimuli in order to rank courses.

If there were a reliable "fun" rating, it would be the first place I'd check when playing a new area.

Adam,

Yes, I was considering "natural beauty" as part of the X-factor rating. Using a multiplier for this gives it a lot more weight. My rating Sandhills recovery as a 3 and Bayside as a 4 meant I found Bayside easier to recover from errant shots. You point out correctly that it should be how fun the recovery shots are, not how easy. So, I'd like to switch those two numbers. LOL.

I haven't played Ballyneal yet, but I'd be very interested in your personal fun rating of it vs. another course I might be familiar with.

[Adam Clayman]

Steve, At the beginning of the thread I described my idea of fun. Ballyneal would be at the pinnacle of that definition, as far as fun is concerned. WH is also way up on my scale for fun. But Ballyneal's is higher because of the topography, freedom and firmness.


Brian, I'll admit There's no easy way to quantify fun for everyone. Alas, it may be futile and we just treat it like pornography.


What if we forget about satisfying the all, (that never works out anyway) and we concentrate on a smaller sub set? Starting with Members of this forum that have Handicaps over 12?

Maybe if we have different criteria for the types of courses?

Strategic and Links courses.? C, P & P courses? Jack Nicklaus courses? Top 100 list courses? Courses that have profiles on this site?

If we can quantify one set, or subset,, maybe it will make the next one easier?

[Jud_T]

I don't think Natural Beauty has any place in this ranking, that will come when we do the Pretty ranking...Do we really have enough 12+ handicaps to get a statistically significant sample...

[John Moore II]

Gentlemen, I'd respectfully disagree that fun cannot be defined. In fact, I think that I could accurately define the last several times I had fun. It's a general feeling of excitement and goodness, a direct result of several stimuli. Why not try to categorize the stimuli in order to rank courses.

If there were a reliable "fun" rating, it would be the first place I'd check when playing a new area.

Steve-Like I said, what is fun for one person might not be fun for another. I'm roughly a scratch golfer who hits the ball a long way. My good pal Kalen from the site here is not a scratch golfer and doesn't hit it as far as I do (And he will admit both of those). So, I might think a particular feature is fun that he does not, either because it may be too difficult for him or is beyond his reach off the tee, etc. Same with him, he might think a feature is fun that I just hit over or that provides no challenge for me. And that can go with any number of golfers. So, thats why I say its hard to define.

[Jim Franklin]

1. Rock Creek
2. NGLA
3. The Old Course
4. Sand Hills
5. Merion

Top 5 "funnest" courses I have played.

[John Moore II]

1. Rock Creek
2. NGLA
3. The Old Course
4. Sand Hills
5. Merion

Top 5 "funnest" courses I have played.

And just for the sake of this discussion, why were they the most fun? You know, actually qualtify why they were so much fun and others were not? (Not trying to pick on you, but since you list specifics, lets be even more specific) I just don't think I can describe why exactly I liked one course more than another one. One just 'felt' better.

[Matt MacIver]

My "funnest", in no particular order, with a little commentary: (post-script: now that I've written this it's likely that I played each of these courses with less than two balls - EXTREMELY rare for me):

Kingsbarns - my caddy said it was the windiest day he'd ever seen, and I don't think he was just sayin'.  I used my noodle all day, running it on the ground as often as possible.  In fact without that severe wind it might (just) miss out on this list.  

Old Course - all those humps and hollows, blind tee shows and hidden bunkers!  Fast and firm; wind!  Wide fairways with BIG greens - so you're sayin' I have a chance...?!

Pacific Dunes - great green complexes and angles on all shots that made you think, with enough room to run 'em up when needed.  

Prestwick - links golf with lots of quirk, mostly in the form of blind shots.  

Devil's Paintbrush - the quirk word again - an old house foundation serving as a hazard, as well as a moon crater, a double green split by a sandtrap (and tree).  Only played it once so maybe the discovery was the best part and it would get old....nah.  

Mid-Pines - tight routing made it like a step back in time, easily passed the walk-in-the-park test.  Probably lots of other Rosses do to...actually let's put Bandon Trails in here too, and likely most other C&Cs if I ever play another one.  

I would list Black Mesa, T-Road and Gleneagles Kings on here somewhere too.  

[Adam Clayman]

Jud. Natural beauty belongs for two reasons. 1) It was originally presented as a criteria for individuals prefrences. 2) Natural beauty makes a huge difference on how some feel when they are golfing. Not everyone mind you, but cerytainly a subset of golfers that would likely appreciate a Fun rating the most.

[Anthony Gray]

Jud. Natural beauty belongs for two reasons. 1) It was originally presented as a criteria for individuals prefrences. 2) Natural beauty makes a huge difference on how some feel when they are golfing. Not everyone mind you, but cerytainly a subset of golfers that would likely appreciate a Fun rating the most.

  If golf is an "experience" than natural beauty is important. I believe that a golf course should be memorable if you only walked it without even playing.


   Anthony

[Garland Bayley]

Gentlemen,

How soon we forget. Fun is measured with at stop watch!
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,17958.0/

Thank you Capt'n

[Greg Tallman]

  A drivable par 4

  par 3 less than 120

  Creek that goes through the property

Is this another thread about White Day?

[Jud_T]

I was just thinking in terms of Mike 3 categories.  Seems like we're comingling types.

[Jim Nugent]

Brian...

I (we) know.  That is why the smiley and the sentence at the end of the post.  

The Fun rating is just for fun.  Neat discussions, you know.  What courses do you think are the most fun?

Yeah, I know too, but at the end of the day I like brunettes, the other guy blondes and it is what it is. 

How do you put a quantitative measure on fun?  I don't have the extensive course library of some of the other folks on here, but to me...

How do we put a quantitative measure on "best" courses?  i.e. all those rankings we love to look at and debate?  That seems to me no less subjective than fun. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

This whole thing makes me think of the scene in Dead Poet's Society where the textbook is telling the students how to mathematically determine a truly great poem and Robin Williams has them rip the pages out of the book.

The same thing applies here guys.  There's no formula for great golf.

Brian,


1. You obviously haven't played enough Raynor courses....



Jud,

I think you've hit on a very good point.

There is a formula for fun, it's in the inherent design of the hole/s and CBM, SR and CB were able to duplicate that design, albeit on different terrain, over and over and over again.  The selection and crafting of those holes didn't happen by accident.  It occured after much study and experimentation

I've never played a CBM, SR, CB course that wasn't "fun"

While they're vastly different, there's something fun about playing a Biarritz, a Short, an Eden and a Redan.
There's something "fun" about playing a Double Plateau, a Bottle, a Knoll, a Plateau, a Hogback, a Road and a Valley hole.

Those designs, singularly and collectively are challenging, diverse, yet "fun"

So, we have to ask ourselves, why is it fun to play NGLA, The Creek, Piping Rock and others.

Is it the variety in the play of the holes ?

Look at the diversity in the Eden, Redan, Biarritz and Short, examine how differently each plays versus the other, then, examine how differently each hole can play with different hole locations and conditions.

CBM, SR and CB figured out the architectural and playing values that combiine to make these holes fun to play, while offering a great range in how those holes challenge you, individulally and collectively.

Hence, I believe that certain holes are inherently fun to play because of the architectural method by which the challenge is presented, individually and collectively.

It would appear that the golfing universe agrees with me because these holes have withstood the ultimate test, the test of time.

That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.
 
[/quote]

[Philippe Binette]

The no 1 fun course in the world: North Berwick West Links

everything is downhill from there

[Adam Clayman]

Patrick. I'd agree variety is a key element. Ergo, repetitive is less. Since were trying to quantify a Fun rating, and the obstacle standing in our way is an individual's definition of fun, perhaps we should switch gears and attempt to quantify the variety? It would keep the focus on the architecturen hopefully removing the subjectivity. This V rating would ultimately end up being the Fun rating.  Do you think we could quantify variety?

[Peter Pallotta]

Adam - maybe instead of "Variety" we can think in terms of "Variability".

I think that a constant diet of variety can get monotonous pretty quickly.  I'm nitpicking, of course, but sometimes this clear-cut variety can end up feeling like one more example of the hand of man/the architect intruding itself on the natural setting. 

Peter

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()