The definition of "good member's course."

[BCrosby]

Matt -

You asked if ANGC fits in the category of being both a true championship course and a fun member course.

The answer is yes.  From the member tees it is a delight to play.  Not overwhelming at all.  Greens will hold the shorter iron approaches.  You have to adjust for their incredible speed (usually there are a couple of three putts before you get a feel for it) but the members and their guests truly enjoy playing the course.

Bob  

[Chris Kane]

Jack Nicklaus ended up in the middle of controversy when asked what he thought of Royal Melbourne: "its a good members course".  He was comprehensively done over by the media for the next week.  Many Australians will never forget it.

That aside, I'd put my vote in for Royal Melbourne West.  Massively wide fairways allow the average hack member to enjoy his game, but its as fun for the pros.  Becuase the greens are so large, its fun too.  The member and the professional are essentially playing two different golf courses, but both can have a great time.

[Matt_Ward]

Chris:

You touched on something very important. When people hear the phrase "good member's course" you often have people upset because they view the phrase as telling them their course is a junior leaguer.

I can't read Jack's mind when he said what he said about Royal Melbourne / West, but clearly the locals didn't take kindly to his words. It would be most inrteresting to know what Jack means when he says those words and what other courses have that same tag. Did Jack ever parse his statement and add more clarity?

A "good member's course" is not about stress producing turn-your-stomach type golf for the average player although the level of execution is still there but not so intense. However, I believe strongly there must be some "beef" even to these types of courses. The "beef" isn't always about length since it can manifest itself in a number of ways.

But, I have to admit, if a course is linked to this type of definition I often might view it initially as "lacking" some of the elements that I believe are pivotal. To me "stress moments" are part of winning design, but the issue of balance is then in play. How much stress is too much? For what level of player? Can it be captured for all types of players throughout the round in a proportionate manner? Clearly, the threshold is quite high because few courses can meet this. Courses with maximum "elasticity" are ones to visit and treasure.

P.S. BCrosby: Thanks for your take on ANGC. Although I have been on the grounds countless of times at the Masters since my college days at Carolina it is one of the few top 100 courses I've never played -- yet.

[Chris Kane]

Whatever Jack's true feelings are, he was foolish to say what he did.  When the greatest golfer in the world played the greatest course in the country, people were understandably anxious to hear what he thought of it.  To say what he did indicates either: he really does see it as a good member's course and nothing more; or he wasn't thinking about what he was saying.

After playing one of the acknowledged greatest courses in the game, to say what he did is just plain silly.  I'm told that in the pro ranks, to call a course a "good members course" is the polite way to dismiss a course.

I believe that he did add some words at a later stage "what I meant was that this course is for the members as well as the champions" or words to that effect.  What we don't know, however, is whether he truly meant it, or if it was just damage control.

[TEPaul]

mmalone:

I understand what you're saying about Rolling Green being a good members course, but in the sense you speak about how members play it Oakmont could also be considered a members course in that particular context you speak of but clearly it's anythng but.

You do make an excellent point about lack of long carries but the difficulty of Rolling Green is much more than that, in my opinion. I would assume that Rolling Green (from certain tees anyway) would have a very high slope rating and also a high course rating, both signs of a course not really known to be "a good members course".

And please don't misunderstand what NOT being a "good member's course" means, or at least means to me. It means the course is generally very hard to score on--sometimes of championship dimensions and sometimes for a variety of other interesting reasons like danger through the bodies of the holes, or on and around the greens for some reason.

I've played an awful lot of tournament golf around here for quite a few years and I know most all the players going back a while and most consider Rolling Green in the top 5 hardest in the Delaware Valley!

[Matt_Ward]

I don't doubt that the term "good member's course" is often used as a politically correct way in saying something about a course without resorting to more stronger words that are less than diplomatic. Minus the Dave Hill incident from 1970 you don't see too many public displays from high profile professionals where civility flies out the window. I also think Finchem would be quick to lighten the wallet of any player who did.

Just because the member's are tested does not make a course a "must play" in my book. Can a course hold its own when the quality of play rises? If it can't -- then I may still view the course as a good one, but one rather limited in its overall versaility. There are plenty of people who actually think a course is really great because they are tested and fail to see how at a higher level of play that same hole / course may not what they believe is gospel.

The same argument has been made in reverse on GCA when people rightly complain when a course is too difficult and cannot accomodate varied handicap levels in providing options in playing a hole / course.

Just an opinion ...

[TEPaul]

Again, in my opinion, a "good member's course" is a good golf course, good architecture, sometimes good heritage too, but the design intent of the golf course is for member play period!

It doesn't mean it's boring or lousy or denigrating of the course in any way. It means what it says; it's a really good course for members, for anything they might need it for or use it for! Good member courses are not supposed to be "championship" courses. Mostly they don't have the length and the inherent difficulty for that. They aren't really designed for pros and tour players! I've seen them on "good member courses" they can tear them to pieces without even breaking a sweat!

Good member courses aren't designed to be anything other than good courses for members, period!

Hell, they probably don't even build "good members courses" anymore today! Members today probably think they need a course that will challenge Tiger in case he ever comes and it probably turns out to be a course that the member's can't really play very well anyway. That's not a "good member's course!"

[Bill_McBride]

Oakmont may not be considered a "good members' course" because of its degree of difficulty no matter how it's set up, but I can tell you that the members I've met worship that course and get really offended when the greens aren't 12+!  I guess that goes back to Mr. Fownes putting in a bunker every time somebody made a birdie.  

[Stan Dodd]

Chris,
Jack may have been alot of things but foolish was not one of them outsoken, blunt, opinionated, egocentric, ethnocentric maybe or honest (IN his opinion)  I think, as has been pointed out that RM could be both.  I think we might choose our words more carefully as Jack maybe should have done.

[TEPaul]

George Pazin:

You asked one fantastic question on a post a while back which was; "How much does the "setup" effect the relative enjoyment of a "championship" course?"

I don't know whether enjoyment is the correct word to use but I can attest to the fact that the "setup" can have an enourmous effect on the difficulty of the course--on the ability of various levels of golfers to score on the course! The effect can be enormous--HUGE!

I don't know how many of you have actually experienced the effects of various "setups" on courses for some tournament play. You would probably have had to play a large schedule of tournaments, and also particular ones, to really experience and understand it.

But it can be a huge difference, and frankly I think the spectrum of the effect on golfers of a particular "setup" on a particular course says a great deal about that course's architecture--and the quality of it!

I'm not talking here about "setting up" a course and driving "playbility" right over the top into the unnreasonable or the unfair either! I'm talking about the degrees to which a course can be "setup" to really challenge in the context of it's inherent architecture in a fair but highly demanding way.

I've seen really good tournament setups at Merion, Huntingdon Valley, even NGLA to an extent, Oakmont, and certainly Pine Valley but in many of those examples the tournament "setup" was accepted and understandable and recognizable. But the course that really surprised me was Seminole!! I could not believe how different it was than the way I'd always known it! Unbelievably demanding and not a thing unfair about it! And the fascinating thing is you couldn't really even see it! Not unless you had more experience than I did then I suppose! But I can recognize it now and it was just amazing! Not even rough or anything like that--as I said it was hardly recognizable!

But here's the thing that really blew my mind! It was setup this way on Thursday, Friday and Saturday for the tournement and some of us stayed around to play it on Sunday before leaving and in 24 hours it was back out of it tournament "setup" and almost back to normal and about 1000% different. In 24 HOURS! I was really amazed.

It probably takes the tournament circuit to get to see these differences but GeorgeP, it can be really amazing and again, I think it probably says a ton about the quality of a course's architecture--and also the effects, again, of the "maintenance meld" into really great architecture!

[Richard_Goodale]

Tom P

Well done again!

I fully agree that great courses with great supers can be set up in a variety of ways, with a variety of challenges for golfers of varying abilities.  Every one of the very top courses I have played has that characteristic.  Perhaps what distinguishes the great from the merely good is that the latter are either so hard that they cannot be enjoyable to "members" or lacking in the ability to be made fully challenging (Matt Ward's "sphincter mode" concept) to the most accomplished of golfers without resorting to trickery.  Perhaps an example of the former category would be Spyglass and an example of the latter would be Machrihanish.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt Ward,

In a word, the definition I would use:  SPORTY

[wsmorrison]

I certainly agree with most of the comments, those by TE Paul, Rich Goodale, and others certainly make a lot of sense.  As Flynn said, we shouldn't get caught up in back tees, middle tees, and forward tees (they're not lady's tees!).  I think a well designed course, with all levels of players in mind, can be a member's course.  Play each hole according to each's ability and using the appropriate tee and most well thought out courses can be member's courses.

I may be off the mark, but it seems we're not stressing the member part of member's course.  A good member's course must have good members; a variety that can offer a competitive challenge, companionship, and comfort.  At the very least, this should come from a majority of members.  

A well-designed course, good people, and a length of days to enjoy them.  Who could ask for more?  Maybe that is where I differ; I'm thinking of a member's club rather than a member's course.  Here's to having both.  As Mike Malone knows, we do.

[Tim_Weiman]

I've always understood a "member's course" to mean a course where members, by virtue of local knowledge, have an advantage playing the course against first time visitors.  A "member's course" has shots that are hard to figure out regardless of how good a player you are, i.e., quirky holes, blind or semi blind shots, shots with a deceptive appearance, shots where leaving the ball in a specific place is unusually helpful to one's ability to score.

Any suggestion that a "member's course" is somehow lacking seems odd to me.

Here in the Cleveland, perhaps the best example of a "member's course" is Mayfield Country Club, a Donald Ross course built on terrain with lots of elevation change.  The course is very tricky when first playing it.  For members "tricky" gives way to "sporty" over time.

Firestone offers another twist on the "member's" vs "championship" course theme.  The South course is the "championship" course, perhaps ideal for a small elite, but not as versatile or as interesting as the more popular North course.  In that sense you could say "championship" courses are inferior to "member's" courses because the latter offer more pleasure to a greater number of players.

Still, I would say Mayfield fits the definition of a "member's course" far better than Firestone North.

[George Pazin]

Tom Paul -

What was different about Seminole in tournament setup? Was it primarily the firmness, which then was mitigated after the tournament by watering?

My friend who caddied & worked at Oakmont chuckled at the old legend that they slow down the greens for the Open - he said during '94 they had the greens on constant alert, holding them right on the edge of death, to get them to a fast & firm enough state. He even said on Sunday that they followed the last group around, watering each green as play was completed.

[Mark_Fine]

Plain and simple, one that accomodates a wide ability level of players!