News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.

Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Matt_Ward

The definition of "good member's course."
« on: February 07, 2002, 07:50:44 PM »
I know this topic has had some previous play, but can someone provide to me their personal definition of a phrase often heard at most 19th holes. Many times when you play a course that has plenty to offer, but lacks in some way (hard to define always) you will hear the phrase "that's a good member's course."

In my mind such a phrase says the course has many solid ingredients, but lacks the kind of muscle needed to test the more complete golfer --particularly when it comes to driving the ball both long and straight an dpossibly with longer approaches to the putting surfaces.

Good member's courses usually rely on cunning, guile and getting the player to make mental errors without relying upon physical strength to bump up your score. In many ways the finesse elements are usually front and center.

I don't define the phrase "good member's course" in any negative manner because it clearly has a number of interesting elements worthy in playing time after time. Among local courses in my backyard I would put in this category is Somerset Hills in Bernardsville, NJ and I would add WF / East as well. I also believe among the more famous of courses that could be placed in this heading is NGLA.

When I've played NGLA I can see how it's complexity and magnificence would enthrall just about any golfer, but I can also see that the same "club" golfer who would love NGLA may not feel exactly the same in playing its neighbor Shinnecock. In my mind Shinnecock is clearly the better of courses (I rate Shinnecock as among the 2-3 finest I've played in America) and the one I would opt to play if I had to choose because the demands on the golfer are more rigorous and thorough. But, that's just my opinion and personal preference.

How do people define the term? Is it by defintiion some sort of lesser course because of that tag? And, finally, can courses so defined be placed among the very elite? In answering the last part I think that some can -- i.e. NGLA is one example in my mind. I just wonder what others think.

Thanks! ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

John_Conley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The definition of "good member's course."
« Reply #1 on: February 07, 2002, 08:16:48 PM »
I'm with you.  It can lack a 7000 yard set of modern tees or be a little forgiving in terms of how errant shots are treated.

I usually like good members' courses.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

RandyC

Re: The definition of "good member's course."
« Reply #2 on: February 07, 2002, 11:39:17 PM »
A course that is challenging yet enjoyable day in and day out.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Matt_Davenport

Re: The definition of "good member's course."
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2002, 04:33:19 AM »
I think Randy hit the nail on the head.  My definition of a good member's course is one that challenges the average player but will not leave you with the feeling of being defeated after your regular 18-hole match.  I am not willing to say that a good member's course should be a boring, featureless golf course, but I would imagine that you won't find too much "hidden water" or top shot bunkers (unfortunately) in this category.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:02 PM by -1 »
Logged

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The definition of "good member's course."
« Reply #4 on: February 08, 2002, 04:42:29 AM »
A good members' course is one that you can play every day,
and not get bored.  Interesting and challenging.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Will E

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The definition of "good member's course."
« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2002, 05:49:18 AM »
"A whimiscal adventure or an objective examination"
credit to Gib

Matt,
You've hit the perfect example with NGLA vs. Shinnecock.
Around here, Indianwood Old vs. Oakland Hills South.

My question,
What course is the perfect blend of a "member's and
championship" course?
Seminole?
Quaker Ridge?

Also, do you think Shinnecock is a bad members course?
Winged Foot West?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

THuckaby2

Re: The definition of "good member's course."
« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2002, 07:03:31 AM »
It's been discussed MANY times in here, but Matt does hit on what has to be the best test case of what one wants in a golf course:  Shinnecock or National?  Test or mystery?

That being said, would ANYONE turn down a membership at Shinnecock?  It is a test, but I'd have to say it's damn fun also.

So no, there's no way you can call it a "bad" member's course - there are just too many great golf holes, too many fun shots required.  I could play 10-13 every day 20 times, just doing that loop, and be quite content.

But that being said, I still prefer National!  But that again comes down to what qualities on prefers.

So this is a long-winded way of saying BOTH are great member's courses!

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

TEPaul

Re: The definition of "good member's course."
« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2002, 08:10:20 AM »
Matt;

It looks to me like you've gotten the definition of a member's course down pretty comprehensively!

To me a good indiction of a good members course are those in the 6300-6800yd range but with good and interesting architecture, variety etc.

Real Championship courses are hardly ever good member's courses--the likes of Shinnecock, Oakmont, Pine Valley, Aronomink, Pinehurst #2, Rolling Green, Huntingdon Valley, Merion etc are not good members courses for a variety of reasons. Generally a course with a real high slope and/or a high rating (generally distance related) is not a good member's course.

Courses that might be considered good members courses but might have the capacity or ability to transition into something else because of wind or maybe a wide set-up spectrum would be the likes of Seminole, NGLA, Riviera, or even Maidstone, Fishers etc.

True members courses would the likes of Gulf Stream, Gulph Mills, Misquamicut, and a zillion other Ross courses, for instance!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Mike_Cirba

Re: The definition of "good member's course."
« Reply #8 on: February 08, 2002, 08:11:30 AM »
The answer is elementary, my dear Mr. Ward;

A course that is good.

A course that has members.  

Where's my gold star?  ;D
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Brad Miller

Re: The definition of "good member's course."
« Reply #9 on: February 08, 2002, 08:18:15 AM »
see Ran's YH thread of a couple of days back!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Paul Perrella

Re: The definition of "good member's course."
« Reply #10 on: February 08, 2002, 08:28:30 AM »

   I don't seem to be much different than the group when I "rate" Shinnecock slightly higher but would rather play NGLA everyday. Certainly courses such as Shinnecock and WFW are a joy to play but the constant beating most golfers take seem to move them out of the members course definition. The  "good members course" moniker may be in the I know it when I see it grouping.

  Tom H,

    Obviously you love to play the 10th thru the 13th holes at Shinnecock but I am wondering what you don't like about my favorite the 14th. A fun angle off the tee and the challenge of the precise shot up the alley really gets my blood pumping.

            Paul
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Richard_Goodale

Re: The definition of "good member's course."
« Reply #11 on: February 08, 2002, 08:30:35 AM »
Bravo Mike Cirba.  You get a star in my book!

I can't think of a good course that is not a good "members" course.  As was brought up, I think by Matt, when this was last discussed, Shinnecock is very playable for a wide variety of golfers, if you play from the tees appropriate to your ability.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Craig Disher

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The definition of "good member's course."
« Reply #12 on: February 08, 2002, 08:33:53 AM »
It must have holes that can be played by all the members - no required 200 yard carries, for example - and enough randomness to keep you on edge. Rye GC is the best example I know. The members love it, never tire of it, know every advantageous bump on #4, and will beat your brains out 99% of the time
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

THuckaby2

Re: The definition of "good member's course."
« Reply #13 on: February 08, 2002, 08:34:24 AM »
Paul - I just stopped at 13 because that gets me back close to the clubhouse and the 10th tee again - makes for a nice little loop, no?

14 is a GREAT GREAT GREAT golf hole.  If I were a Shinnecock member, as God is my witness I'd find a way to play that hole well... But I could just see a very fun, 1/2 hour or so loop doing 10-13 repeatedly, and dammit I'd conquer those holes too!

Rich is right, btw - Shinnecock would be pure fun from shorter tees.  From the waybacks, as a great man sad when I was there, it "requires perfect golf shots."  I don't have many of those.  No one in my group that day did.   ;)

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Matt_Ward

Re: The definition of "good member's course."
« Reply #14 on: February 08, 2002, 09:04:18 AM »
Appreciate the responses! ;D

Good members courses don't really "stress" you out. There is obviously demands to hit quality golf shots, but the ante isn't so intense -- so pressure oriented because distance and accuracy are magnified not on every hole clearly, but it is present on quite a few. The elements of shotmaking are not so rigorously pursued by a "must" standard.

A good example is local driving v interstate driving. In both instances you must pay attention, however, the reaction time is shorter with the latter than with the former. When I play a course correctly identified as a "championship course" (that's another topic that should be defined?) I find that tee shots are really challenged. You cannot afford to let your guard down because the demands are relentless and the penalities usually much harsher.

Rich is right about Shinnecock because it is one of the very few courses where a world class pro and average member could totally enjoy their day by using different tee positions. SH, is in my opinion, one of the few attaining the highest of status among "championship" and "member's club" categories. I'm sure others will advocate others.

I believe WF / West on the other hand is a very intense and demanding layout that many "club" members may find too intense and stress producing day after day. That's why I mentioned WF / East as a "junior" version (no put down is intended!) of its big brother.

What's interesting is looking at how courses are assessed on GCA because there are some people who are inclined to favor "member's courses" because they fit their games better and as a result may not rate as high others where the "intense / stress meter" is considerably higher. In the final analysis, I believe, the tee shot is where much of that definition takes place in determining the type of course you are playing and ultimately preferring.

P.S. Mike Cirba -- love the quick defintion, brevity has its place! I'll mail you the gold star ... :)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

THuckaby2

Re: The definition of "good member's course."
« Reply #15 on: February 08, 2002, 09:15:39 AM »

Quote
What's interesting is looking at how courses are assessed on GCA because there are some people who are inclined to favor "member's courses" because they fit their games better and as a result may not rate as high others where the "intense / stress meter" is considerably higher. In the final analysis, I believe, the tee shot is where much of that definition takes place in determining the type of course you are playing and ultimately preferring.


Just remember Matt that this also goes both ways!  The great players who look primarily for challenge certainly prefer those courses where the heat is turned up, also.

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The definition of "good member's course."
« Reply #16 on: February 08, 2002, 10:00:48 AM »
shivas:

Excellent point about Skokie and Beverly both being very
fine members' courses.  Both can be difficult and host a
championship here or there (a fine venue for the Chicago
Open!), but both are very enjoyable day in and day out.

The challenges are never the same and each round is
fun.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

corey miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The definition of "good member's course."
« Reply #17 on: February 08, 2002, 10:05:31 AM »
Matt-  I think most of us get your drift on the explanation between "members" course and "championship" course.  What I object to is the seemingly neverending quest to change "members" courses into "championship" courses.  ie:must be 7000 yards,must be difficult,defending par,etc,etc..
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The definition of "good member's course."
« Reply #18 on: February 08, 2002, 10:27:16 AM »
I think both courses at MPCC qualify. However, when I was somewhat younger and longer I thought Riviera was THE members course. Not punishingly long, strategic routing, only one par three over 190 yards(the magical fourth)and a wonderful finishing hole where the bets could be evened.

Los Angeles C.C. is another, but of the par threes, four out of the five  are long shots. I think I would rather play Riviera (of the seventies)on a regular basis.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Brad Miller

Re: The definition of "good member's course."
« Reply #19 on: February 08, 2002, 10:36:19 AM »
Many a par 71-72 "members courses" would come closer to being "championship" if par was made to 70 or heaven forbid 69. Fisher's Island with 8 and 18 as par 4's as just one of many examples.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Craig_Rokke

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The definition of "good member's course."
« Reply #20 on: February 08, 2002, 10:42:22 AM »
To me, a good member's course is one that you don't get bored of playing. Even if it's the 100th time you've played it,
it should still be revealing things to you, and still holding be your interest. It should also be the type of course
where golfers of varying skill levels have a chance to try to
play "their game", whether it includes 180 yard drives, or 280
yard drives.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Matt_Ward

Re: The definition of "good member's course."
« Reply #21 on: February 08, 2002, 10:53:25 AM »
Corey:

I agree with you completely. There should not be a rush to turn a "good member's course" into some sort of Frankenstein brute! I think you have to ask the leadership of any club why they would opt to do such a major transformation for just one week "in the sun."

Tom:

You're right. There are also people who prefer rigorous tests rather than "good member's courses" but I know I do enjoy my share of both.

That leads to a question that I addressed earlier. How many courses can really fill the void of being both a "good member's course" and a "championship course." In my mind -- there aren't that many. Shinnecock is one -- heck, I use to consider ANGC in that category. Do people feel it still is?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

THuckaby2

Re: The definition of "good member's course."
« Reply #22 on: February 08, 2002, 10:58:47 AM »
Very cool, Matt - glad you do undestand how this goes both ways.  I'm not ashamed to say that at this point in my life, I'm gonna prefer "interest" to "raw challenge", but I too would like to think I can evaluate objectively.  And yes, Shinnecock works both ways, but being the "see both sides" kinda guy I am, I think National can also, as Tom Paul as explained!

There must be lots of others... Bob H. mentions MPCC and he's right on re both courses!  But the Dunes particularly might fit into the BOTH category... the way-back tees there give all the challenge one could want.  Just a thought.

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The definition of "good member's course."
« Reply #23 on: February 08, 2002, 11:04:36 AM »
As a corollary, how much does setup dictate the relative enjoyment of a "championship" course? I have a friend who grew up caddying at Oakmont & worked the greens crew in '94. He has shot as low as 78 at Oakmont, but said he would be lucky to break 100 as it was setup for the Open.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

mmalone

Re: The definition of "good member's course."
« Reply #24 on: February 08, 2002, 12:51:14 PM »
to TEPaul-as member of rolling green,think it is great member's course,because high handicappers can knock it down the middle,lay up in front of most greens,and chip on the green.we have few forced carries.but,lower handicappers go for green in regulation and encounter trouble.it is a second shot course.a good members course can be played by different levels of players frequently with no boredom.by the way i have played gulph mills several times since our course has been closed .it reminds me alot of rg.seems to be wonderful members course.in fact i would think high handicappers find the forced carries of your #3#6#10 and the third shot on #18 to be tough.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up