The Fun Factor and Architectural Superiority

[TEPaul]

"Is it possible for a course to be more fun but architecturally inferior to another?"


JC:

I guess it depends on what kind of golfer you're talking about. Top notch competitive golfers or members and such.


  
"How can a course be better than another yet less fun to play?"

I think really great architecture can test all levels really well----even the best. I don't know that the test itself is necessarily supposed to just be a bundle of fun, though.  



"How much should the fun factor contribute to the evaluation of the architecture?"

I think it all depends on what kind of golfer you're considering and talking to or about.


I just played Myopia for the last four days. I've seen a lot of courses in my life, many of the very best out there, and to me Myopia is just about the most fun course I know. The way they have it set up now it's no push-over either. If you sort of fall asleep on some of those hole you can definitely pay for it. They had the Mass Amateur Championship last week, the week before the Leeds tournament I played in and I heard the average score for the stroke play qualifying segment was 78. I believe they have right around 13 or so completely unique holes on that golf course that all have something really interesting going for them with playability. The variety of holes there is wonderful, and it just exudes "old"----the club, the clubhouse, the course, the ethos etc, etc. And by the way----the "maintenance meld?" It was pretty much "Ideal."

I cannot imagine anyone thinking Myopia does not have a super high Fun Factor. For quite some time now I've felt that Myopia was the FIRST really good golf architecture in America! It is also remarkably well preserved with its original eighteen hole iteration.

[DMoriarty]

David: If we are to say that Oakmont it architecturally superior to, say, Pine Needles, does that mean Oakmont is more fun for all golfers, exclusive of the 'private club' experience? I say, from that I have seen of Oakmont on TV and images, that Oakmont would be too hard for an average golfer to enjoy day-in-day-out while Needles, from what I have seen personally, would be enjoyable for all golfers at just about any time.  Do you not agree?

I haven't played either one, so it is impossible for me to play.   But I wouldn't call any course "architecturally superior" if it wouldn't be fun for a wide spectrum of golfers to play day after day.   If a course really is too tough to be fun for a big share of golfers, then it may be a great "Championship Test" but it wouldn't be great architecturally.  

[Mac Plumart]

My apologies if I am over-posting on this thread, but this topic intersects right at the heart of my research regarding golf course architecture.  And that is essentially, what makes a course the "best" or "great" rather than simply "fun" or one of my "favorites".

Tom Paul, I essentially agree with you regarding it depends on the type of golfer you are talking about.

But David M.  I really like some of the things you are saying and they interest me a great deal.  You say a course that is too difficult for the average golfer might be a great "Championship Test" but not great architecturally.  This seems to go hand in hand with the cliche that a great course is playable for the mid to high handicapper but still a test for the scratch golfer.  But why are these brutal tests of golf still regarded by every golf rating entity as some of the best in the world?  That remains a bit of a mystery to me. 

George...you say its all subjective.  But why do all the usual suspects get rated by all the rating entities as the best of the best year after year.  What do they have that everyone likes?  Pine Valley, Cypress Point, Merion, Royal County Down, Sand Hills, Muirfield.  They've got to have something that transcends subjectivity, right?  If so, what is it?

And back to David M...aren't some of those courses I listed some of the most challenging test of golf on the face of the planet?  Why are they still so highly regarded?

Anyway, like I said this is one of my keenest interests...to find out these types of answers, hence my high volume of posts on this thread.   

[TEPaul]

"If a course really is too tough to be fun for a big share of golfers, then it may be a great "Championship Test" but it wouldn't be great architecturally."


That is a opinion, remark, statement, whatever, that is highly subjective; there is nothing wrong with that, however. It is also one I sure would not subscribe to or agree with. Pine Valley is perhaps the classic or perfect example of architecture that was intentionally designed NOT for a large spectrum of golfers and it was also not exactly designed as a so-called "Championship Test" in the vein it was supposed to be basically a "tournament course" or championship venue in the sense it was a club or course to basically hold high-level tournaments.

It was intentionally designed, by its architect, George Crump, for a high level of golfer as a virtual training ground for very good players and if anyone who studies golf architecture and the history of golf architecture actually says Pine Valley is not or should not be considered truly superior or great golf architecture, I would say they are completely wrong.  

[TEPaul]

"But why are these brutal tests of golf still regarded by every golf rating entity as some of the best in the world?  That remains a bit of a mystery to me."


Mac:

Because they are some of the best and best architecture in the world. The idea behind some of them----eg Pine Valley, was as a test of champions and also an architectural model to encourage other golfers to get better, and obviously a lot better. I just can't see how that could ever either diminish or even qualify golf architectural excellence.

Pine Valley has probably been considered the best course and best architecture in the world longer than any other course even though it was never intended to be designed for or for every type of golfer, particularly bad or incompetent golfers. It set the bar high and it reached it.

[Mac Plumart]

Shoot...I've got to go to bed...I am exhausted.  But I see some of you all are getting ready to post.  I can't stay up.  I'll be up first tihng tomorrow to read on.  Great topic, great stuff...thanks for getting it going JC.

One final thought...Pine Valley is rated by all the rating entities as one of the top 1 or 2 courses in the world.  Tom Doak gives it a 10.  So, there is no question it is amazingly good.  Perhaps the greatest course ever built.  But I think there is no question it is designed as a stern test of golf for great golfers.  

I have a hunch that greatness, and I mean truly great golf courses, are challenging for the greatest golfer in the world on any given day.  Not tricked up for tournaments.  Very good courses might fit that cliche of playable for average golfers and tough for great golfers.  But really and truly great and timeless courses just might have to be challenging for the greatest golfer only.  Anyway, just a final thought before tomorrow.  Maybe I am too tired to think straight, but I think that might be correct.

EDIT...Tom posted as I was posting.  I am too tired to respond tonight.

[TEPaul]

"Shoot...I've got to go to bed...I am exhausted."


Me too, Mac. I  just drove from Boston to Philly and got in about two hours ago after playing in some serious heat up there. I was really rolling once I hit NJ and PA----like 90-100!   

[V. Kmetz]

Consider this...

If a very beautiful house or building was designed by a leading and innovative architect for very tall and fat people (high archways, 12 foot ceilings, wide doorways, sturdy fixtures) the chances are a very small and thin person - and certainly the majority of average-sized people - could enjoy it too.  There would be less consequence or disincentive for anybody to live in the well-designed and appointed big man's house than there would in the second case where the same innovative architect builds the same nice house but specifically for the small and thin person...

Now there's a bit of a problem.  There are real inconveniences and consequences for anybody but a small and thin man to live in this house.  Now depending on just how small and thin you aren't, this house could be a real pain in the ass and not a joy or a respite at all from the daily world.  If you're me, I'm going to be very cranky and just seek to rent somewhere.  If you're John Daly or a Stadler or Ernie Els, you won't even go in the front door.

For me, the very great house that Crump and supporters built is for the small man...the man that thinks he's really doing something by playing the game of golf well and suffering match and card misfortune when he doesn't.  It is however great, i finally got to see a Crump Cup a few years back and it is a marvel and didn't disappoint my eye in the least.  The scale was both more dramatic and more intimate than I anticipated.  90 years of tradition and my own keen sense of curiosity didn't hurt the impression.  

I would love to play it a few times, but even if God blessed me with the good fortune I could never play more than a round a year there...I want to have fun.  I do not want the anxiety of heroic deeds, looking for some balls and casting off many others.  If I were on game enough to turn a regulation par at the difficult 13th and then cast a nice lofted iron safely on the 14th, it says nothing about anything, because the next time I play I could play similarly and return two double bogeys.

Im not a crack player - even when I was a 4.5, I was not so.  I was practiced and had a good short game, a variety of partial shots and knew the proper tactics to avoid big numbers, but what good does that do me when the ball is pulled into a forest of sand or against a high lip bunker or... doesn't hit the green!

That's for someone else, not me.  It's a marvel for the purpose - but that purpose is a small house.  Because it is indeed a beautiful house and houses roughly resemble one another - it has foundational design features found in the best houses designed for the most people but as is, it the best house the Danny Devito's can make for themselves.

Maybe it's completely perverse to suggest to this board, but if I had any "Hell" bunkers on my par 5s, they would be a ridiculous easy carry or they would be 100 yards out of the way of play or they would be little bigger than a pot...isn't that more truly fun than just saying, "Oh the Long at 14 St Andrews has the famous Hell and that's a great hole and I'm going to make my own Hell on my longest hole"??  

I mean I'm not insinuating any deficiency on the part of Crump and the geniuses of his era for doing what they did, it was was the real frontier then and they have provided many memorable golf experiences by their hand.  Yet, I think a mixture of outrageous slopes and ridiculously easy obstacles to pass.  To me it's much more aesthetically pleasing to pass a little obscure trap miles from play and have the caddies say the hole is named for that bunker called Hell.  i ask why, it can't come into play and he says "just get into it once and you'll know."  That is more of a terrifying yet charming adjunct of swinging at a golf ball than some 200 yard hit and hope over a wasteland.

But the St. Andrew's Hell wasn't made to be Hell, it got that way from extant usage and centuries of curses thrown at that juncture of the course.  To make a Hell copy is in its own way both strangely sufficient AND deficient to the purpose, probably why St. Andrews is often imitated, never duplicated.  

Golf is a game.  It needs amusement and fun and affirmation.  That how it is usually born into the soul, through its fun, not its disappointments and lost balls and punished mis-hits.  Everyone knows their first good hit or their first birdie.  Only the most craven of us remembers their first lost ball, OB or water hazard kerplunk.

I sunk a few fathoms from the topical surface, but this is all to say that golf course architecture that isn't fun first may be great and wondrous and a marvel and still miss the point.

By the standards of greatness essential to the offerings of those supporting Pine Valley as necessary to any great list, Trump national Briarcliff played from the tips should satisfy any challenge to the crack golfer Crump could ever dream.

Now is that great architecture though it has an island green in a waterfall and a hazard/boundary penalty available on every hole?

cheers

vk

[DMoriarty]

V. Kmetz,

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

__________________________________

Many top golfers do not want courses to be hard for them, they want courses to be hard for everyone else.  They think more of themselves when others struggle.   So when a course is playable for them but unplayable for most everyone else, then it must be top notch.

Courses for only excellent golfers should be no more distinquished than courses only excellent for hacks.   Both may serve the needs of their narrow band of continuents, but both are less than ideal for golf.   

___________________________________________

Mac, 

I've only played half the courses in your list and they were courses that anyone of moderate ability would find great fun, or at least they would be great fun if their memberships would give up their quest to remain relevant as Championship venues and get their courses get back to what make them great in the first place.   Watering down or tricking up greatness for the sake of difficulty is a travesty.   

As for Pine Valley, I haven't had the pleasure and cannot say one way or another. 

As for your "hunch" as to what makes a great course great, it excludes all of the greatest courses I've ever played and includes a whole lot courses I wouldn't play if they were in my back yard.   I don't give a damn whether a golf course "challenges" (whatever that means) the best golfer in the world every single day, and if it means what I think it means I have zero interest in playing that golf course.   While my continued involvement on this website may hint otherwise, I'm no masochist.

[Sean_A]

This question is only definable on a subjective basis and subjectivity is not only a sliding contiuum, but also dynamic as the individual changes or even depending on his mood.  I will toss out North Berwick.  There is no way I wll buy that it is architecturally one of the 10 best courses in GB&I.  Yet, most would have it on their list of greats.  I would suggest it is down to the uniqueness of some features, an odd green, a famous par 3 and its setting.  If looked at critically, there are many holes which should fail any test of greatness.  However, there are enough of the WOW features and the are spaced well enough to combine well with the few excellent and not so excellent holes.  In a word, North Berwick has variety in spades.  Perhaps North Berwick is the reason I prize variety so much, but that is a personal hang up and doesn't necessarily equate to great architecture, even at North Berwick.  But like Pennard, somehow North Berwick rises above strict architectural subjectiveness and is really what architecture is really about - purely subjective without the over-reliance that we have today on design method and princiiples.  

I am in an interesting position with the two clubs I belong to. Burnham I consider to be a modern test of golf even though most of it is very old.  Much iof it happens to be built by what I consider the first modern architect and his design values still absolutely rule the roost. I absolutely believe that on a shot by shot basis it is better than than my other club, Pennard.  That isn't to say Burnham doesn't have its whimsical moments, but Pennard somehow defies architectural logic to the point where many folks love it despite its many shortcomings as a design.  I put it mainly down to the fun factor (which may include its unpredictable nature), but that may only be for me.  In any case, I beleive Burnham the better course, but I would rather play Pennard.

Now we have Painswick...Folks llove it, but could we consider it great architecture?

Ciao  

[Adrian_Stiff]

Sean I am certain not  everyone loves Painswick, it can be very hard to raise a team to go play there in interclub matches, its fun to some but hell to others...ie subjective. The crossing roads, crossing holes, bad conditioning, impossible to hold greens, weird bounces, blind par 3s are certainly hell to most, but there is no doubt someones hell is anothers fun.

I define fun golf as easy scoring, but perhaps someones handicap determines what is easy for them and my 'easy' may just be a totallly worthless golf experience for a better golfer.

[Sean_A]

Sean I am certain not  everyone loves Painswick, it can be very hard to raise a team to go play there in interclub matches, its fun to some but hell to others...ie subjective. The crossing roads, crossing holes, bad conditioning, impossible to hold greens, weird bounces, blind par 3s are certainly hell to most, but there is no doubt someones hell is anothers fun.

I define fun golf as easy scoring, but perhaps someones handicap determines what is easy for them and my 'easy' may just be a totallly worthless golf experience for a better golfer.

Adrian

You miss my point.  In terms of architecture, Painswick is a complete mess.  YET, it survives and nnot only that, folks love it.  This highlights to me why the best architecture doesn't necessarily equate to the funnest golf or the golf many want to play.  IMO, this sort of design doesn't seem to have much room in the modern archie's sketch pad.  Instead there is loads of talk about law suits, cart paths, maximum routng to take create more clubhouse business...Its a new world for sure, but not one that is particualrly brave. 

Ciao

[Mac Plumart]

Great stuff!

Okay, I am getting my arms wrapped around my thoughts and will try to find a way to best articulate them throughout the day.  For now, I think I will throw this out there.

1--I truly don't think great architecture is subjective.  There is something about it that transcends subjectivity for people who are educated on the topic.  However, for people who are not educated on quality architecture they can't understand it...so they simply rely on what they think is "fun".  Frankly, I think Sean did a great job of touching on this topic.

2--This lack of subjectivity in determining great architeture is why many of the Top 100 lists have the same courses on them.  The subjectivty (and/or futility) of trying to say that Pine Valley is #1 and Cypress is #2; and Pebble is over-rated at 8 and should be 12; and the like is where the confusion comes in regarding the level of subjectivity in determining great architecture.

3--A "great" golf course may not be a course a given golfer would want to play day in or day out.  Frankly, it might be too stern a test for them.  They would prefer a more fun course for day in and day out.  For exmaple, I just got back from playing Kiawah Ocean.  The course is in my opinion the best course I have played to date.  I've played it 3 times in 30 mph winds, 20 mph, and 40 mph.  My scores correspondingly were 91, 90, 88.  Not my best scores by any stretches, but that 88 in 40 mph winds just might be my best round of golf.  I've alway stepped on the first tee knowing that I had to focus the entire round and battle non-stop.  I've done it and been fairly happy with my performance, but I've always walked off the course completely and totally exhausted.  Therefore, I simply wouldn't be able to play it every day.  I want to play it a few times a year to test my game, but not every day. 

4--The "best" course architecturally does not have to be your most "fun" course are your "favorite" course.  For instance...As I mentioned, per my opinion Kiawah Ocean is the "best" course I've played.  But I'd rather play other courses day in and day out...Holston Hills, Pine Needles, Mid-Pines, Canterbury.  Now for sure, most of these are great/very good architecturally...but not the very best I've seen, yet I still love to play them.

5---And finally I really think one's outlook or opinion on what course is the most "fun" depends on your golfing skill level and what you want from the golf experience.  Perhaps Kiawah in 40 mph winds is what you love.  Perhaps The Golf Club and it serene nature is what you like.  That is up to you.  But I truly believe every educated person would agree that both of those golf courses are excellent pieces of architectual work.

Ok...I've got to go to work!!   

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

If I had been forced to come up with an example for my thoughts, I'd have used North Berwick, too.

It's way too short to test the best players.  The bunkering is nothing to write home about, and really, neither are the greens, except for 4-5 of them which are really outstanding.

It's certainly one of the most fun courses in the world, though ... so much so that many talk of it as "architecturally superior" in spite of the statements above.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Is it possible for a course to be more fun but architecturally inferior to another? 

On Thursday I visited an inland course in Ireland. The course was on heavyish soil but the topography was perhaps the best I'd seen on an inland site in the whole country. Everything at the club was done on a budget and the green complexes were fairly simple and there wasn't a huge amount of interest with the bunker strategy... But because of the topo, some of the holes were fantastic fun... I had a blast...

So taking aside Tom's answers on this thread, I'd certainly say that you can have simple (as opposed to subtle) architecture that provides loads of fun...

[Chris Shaida]

"Many top golfers do not want courses to be hard for them, they want courses to be hard for everyone else."

This seems to me to be very well said and the source of a lot of the muddy thinking about architectural 'superiority'.  One might even extend the thought and say that when such a golfer finds a course that he thought was going to be hard (that is, hard for others!) to be hard for him) -- then he calls it 'unfair'!."

("While my continued involvement on this website may hint otherwise, I'm no masochist."  Funny.)

[Adam Lawrence]

Philosophy 101: The subjective/objective debate is as old as the hills, and is found in virtually every area of 'art'. One one level, there is no absolute reference point for what a golf course should be, unless you want to take a pure utilitarian viewpoint, which in golf terms would translate as 'the best courses are those that are most fun for most people to play'. This is superficially attractive, but it leads us to unappealing conclusions when courses that are justly regarded as great are unfavourably compared to seemingly lesser venues, just as utilitarianism leads inevitably to the conclusion that it is better to be a happy pig than a dissastisfied Greek philosopher.

But pure subjectivity is not a credible position either, as it leads inevitably to the conclusion that if I think a Big Mac is better food than a great steak, my view is equally valid as yours that it isn't. Or in golf terms: my contention that Pacific Grove is a better golf course than Cypress Point has the same validity as Jack Nicklaus saying the reverse.

Art, and I'm including golf courses in this category for the sake of the argument, is 'group objective'. Objective judgements can and are made based on the collective subjective viewpoints of qualified individuals. They are not truly objective in the same way that statements such as 2+2=4 are, but they emerge from the communication and criticism of members of a group. They are subject to revision if new facts emerge, or new opinions convince the members of the group to change their minds, but they are more than pure subjectivity. Thus we can say 'TOC is a better golf course than Balbirnie Park' and it means more than just a pure subjective opinion.

blimey....

[Tom_Doak]

you can have simple (as opposed to subtle) architecture that provides loads of fun...

Ally:  I agree completely with the quote above, but that's one of the things that bothers me about this thread (and many others in the past) -- when people try to separate "architecture" from "golf course".

There is nothing wrong with simple architecture, in fact the simple solution is usually the best.  I think many architects and shapers try too hard.  And, I worry that many critics of architecture now (panelists, not Ron Whitten or Brad Klein) tend to want to reward a course where the architect or shaper shows off how brilliant he is, because it will show off how brilliant the critic is.  That's not the point.  The point is to evaluate each course on its golfing merit, not its "architectural" merit.

[TEPaul]

Sean Arble:

It seems to me with the first paragraph in Post #34 you are sort of purposefully contradicting yourself:



"I will toss out North Berwick.  There is no way I wll buy that it is architecturally one of the 20 or 30 best courses in GB&I."


Why wouldn't you put it in the 20-30 best courses in GB&I if you think it provides so much fun or uniqueness or variety?

  
"Yet, most would have it on their list of greats.  I would suggest it is down to the uniqueness of some features, an odd green, a famous par 3 and its setting.  If looked at critically, there are many holes which should fail any test of greatness."


So what then do you think the 'any test of greatness' is?

[archie_struthers]

 

A real good question which has multiple answers....most players couldn't take a steady does of Oakmont ...Pine Valley or Winged Foot as they are too difficult for the average layer and eventually would beat them down...even at your home club the super and golf pro are smart to set up the course easier ....pins tees etc as good scores + happy golfers .....soooooooo good architiecture ..even great architecture isn't always the most fun for the player every day    

[Sean_A]

Sean Arble:

It seems to me with the following you are sort of purposefully contradicting yourself:



"I will toss out North Berwick.  There is no way I wll buy that it is architecturally one of the 20 or 30 best courses in GB&I."


Why wouldn't you put it in the 20-30 best courses in GB&I if you think it provides so much fun?

 
"Yet, most would have it on their list of greats.  I would suggest it is down to the uniqueness of some features, an odd green, a famous par 3 and its setting.  If looked at critically, there are many holes which should fail any test of greatness."


So what then do you think the "test of greatness" is?

TomP

Because imo, the ultimate test of greatness is not just about fun.  I usually look at these sorts of courses (ie North Berwick) as my favourites because they provide plenty of challenge for ME and are terribly fun.  However, the ultimate test of greatness is when a course can challenge and provide entertainment for all levels of players, but still keep a bit of humour/whimsy about it.  I also think it must be a comfortable walk - meaning a tidy design, but I am likely in the minority on that one.  I have always believed that the truest and best expression of greatness is found on links.  I do admit that these days meeting this ultimate test of greatness is becoming more and more difficult.  So I would likely include courses which at one time in the not too distant past which pulled off this feat. Ironically, most modern courses which attempt to meet the challenge criteria fail miserably on the fun aspect.      

Ciao

[Mac Plumart]

Tom D...any chance of expanding on this, "The point is to evaluate each course on its golfing merit, not its "architectural" merit."

And Adam Lawrence, this argument maybe as old as the hills but that response you put up was frickin' money!!  And quite unique at least to me ears/eyes.

Others (too many to mention in the brief time I have)...awesome stuff.  Great points. 

[TEPaul]

"By the standards of greatness essential to the offerings of those supporting Pine Valley as necessary to any great list, Trump national Briarcliff played from the tips should satisfy any challenge to the crack golfer Crump could ever dream.

Now is that great architecture though it has an island green in a waterfall and a hazard/boundary penalty available on every hole?"


V Kmetz:

That was an interesting post of yours; it has something of an old fashioned Biblical tone to it.  

I've never seen Trump National Briarcliff but it sounds like numerous courses out there that can provide real challenge to the crack golfer but for starters if it (Trump National Briarcliff) or any of the others with huge penalty on every hole via some "hazard/boundary penalty" it and they are about as different from Pine Valley as night and day.

Most who don't really know Pine Valley probably do not realize and also fail to suspect that it is virtually impossible to hit a ball out of bounds at Pine Valley and it is also very rare (basically due to the caddies) to lose a ball at PV other than in one of its app four water hazards. This, in and of itself, may be one of the really unique aspects of this course that has always been considered so tough to score on by so many. One thing that those with experience at PV know is it is perhaps the greatest example in the world of how to both evaluate intelligently and execute effectively all kinds of imaginative and creative recovery shots even it means playing the ball something like a foot or two on purpose.

[TEPaul]

"However, the ultimate test of greatness is when a course can challenge and provide entertainment for all levels of players, but still keep a bit of humour/whimsy about it."


Sean Arble:

Well, then, do you suspect there is something about North Berwick that would not provide as much challenge and entertainment to say Tiger Woods as it apparently does to you? And if you do, what is it? In considering that question you should probably disregard the fact that he generally scores better on any golf course than you would? 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom D...any chance of expanding on this, "The point is to evaluate each course on its golfing merit, not its "architectural" merit."
 

Mac:

All I am saying is that too many people get tied up about what the architect or shaper did to make a hole, but in the end the only thing that matters is what it offers the golfer.  [Note that I'm not saying that you should only judge the hole based on how a certain golfer plays it; different golfers may get different things out of it, including beauty, a respite, or anything else.]

In fact, I think that was where golf architecture got so far off base in the 1980's ... architects were consciously trying to BUILD things to draw attention to their work ... which created a niche for a reactionary movement [what everyone now calls minimalism].

To me, it doesn't matter whether a feature is created by the architect or not, as long as he doesn't draw too much attention to it, either deliberately or just through bad tie-in work.  But there are too many people who give architects bonus points for what they have created from scratch, and also too many who give us credit for not having to create anything from scratch.  None of that matters in the end, except maybe to the guy who had to pay for it.