Who's right.. if any?

[Greg Tallman]

Tom Doak criticizes the Normans and Nicklauses of the workd for designing courses that are ridiculously hard.

There are those that criticize the Doaks and C&C's of the world for sesigning a course that allows poor play from the tee, loose iron play that favors more the short game prowess and promotes ping png among the average player.

Must say I have can say I have seen evidence on both sides...

Whio's right? Who wrong? Anyone strike the perfect ballance? Jones/Mackenzie? Ross? Any modern archies

[Tom_Doak]

Greg:

I did say that about Greg Norman's courses just the other day, that they are all hard as heck.  You chose to see it as a negative; it was a neutral observation as I phrased it.

I don't remember saying that about Jack Nicklaus' courses anytime lately.  I think his are too complicated for the average golfer, more than too hard.  He gives you a lot of short grass if you're no good, but he doesn't let you hit a lot of greens or even lay up to a spot where you have a good chance of making par.

P.S.  What's ping png and where have I encouraged it?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Hard courses are difficult to define, but as long as options are available to navigate the course by more than one route then I question the use of the word hard.

For me one of the failing is the loss or perhaps I should say the demise of the fairway bunkers, there to “to do you in” as your ball flies down the fairway.  The world of design seems to imply that these in your face bunkers are hard work with a touch of unfairness, nevertheless these were once prolific on our early courses.

We have mentioned this before but what we consider hard today was once no more than acceptable.  However to locate fairway bunker on the periphery of the fairway abutting the rough seem like giving the golfer a free pass.

I remember going out with my father in St Andrews with a bag having six club, one being a Wood and one being a Putter and playing many a round. It was a simple question of playing the course with no preconceived ideas or plans. I found that the game was there to play to enjoy and yes at times to stop and make you think of your options, yet I must say the limited choice gave the game
a higher level of enjoyment and satisfaction. 

IMHO the Royal & Ancient Game of Golf must push me, perhaps that’s why I enjoy playing courses for the first time. Being unaware of the course, its traps and hazards allows me to master my own game (at whatever level that may be).

We todays seem to consider hard as penal, but if there are options, then  all of a sudden there are degrees of hardness or penal that may have been designed to suit most golfers.

As for who’s right.. if any – I would say the one that remembers all the options and not just the current trendy one we seem to be flooding our courses for the last decade or two, may be right as having looked at the bigger picture.

Melvyn

[Scott Warren]

Melvyn,

aren't your first and fourth paragraphs above at odds with you admonishing Doug Siebert for driving up the 1st fairway while playing the 18th at The Old Course?

[Mac Plumart]

Whio's right? Who wrong?

No one and everyone.  It is all a matter of taste, perspective, and personal preference.  Ben Hogan might say that Nicklaus and Norman are right, as he is rumored to have hated putting.  Maybe someone else prefers interesting short game options.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Scott

NO

Melvyn

[Matthew Rose]

I interpret the Nicklaus philosophy to be one that places an emphasis on execution. Here it is, right in front of you. No tricks or deception or illusion, just straight ahead in your face hazards. One of Nicklaus' favorite ways to criticize a golf course he didn't like was to say it "lacked definition".

I suspect professionals probably prefer this type for that reason - their entire game plan is based on execution. They feel like they have total control that way.

I interpret the Doak/Crenshaw philosophy to place the emphasis on planning, strategy, and thought. Maybe what you see is what you get, but maybe it isn't. That's for you to figure out. This area over here looks safe, but where does it leave you? Perhaps on the surface, this approach appears less demanding superficially, but it is demanding in other ways. The difficulty lies in being challenged visually and mentally. There isn't as much that is obvious and controllable.

I suppose many pros are less comfortable with these courses because the answers are all not immediately obvious to them. Those who swing for the fences and play the high, straight ball all the time might not see the forest for the trees (so to speak).

Of course, this doesn't mean that execution isn't still very important. You still have to hit good shots to score well. I think it is a disservice to say that you can get away with poor driver or iron play on these courses.... I don't believe that at all.

I am glad there are more of these types around and being built. It isn't because Nicklaus courses are inheritly bad, but I do think they cater much more to the better player and less to the recreational player. And there are just so many more of the Nicklaus type are around that the Coore/Crenshaws make a very nice contrast.

I have played several Nicklaus, a couple of Doaks and a couple of Coore/Crenshaws. I obtained much enjoyment from all concerned and have shot all kinds of scores on each.

[Mike Hendren]

Interesting.  I had a discussion with Michael Whitaker and John Kirk at Bandon and was surprised they found Doak courses to be hard.  Perhaps it is the respective subsets the three of us have have played but I disagreed.  FWIW, I've played Pacific Dunes, Old Macdonald, Quail Crossing, Tumble Creek and Ballyneal.   While Tom might fashion himself a Mackenzie disciple, I find his work to reflect Donald J. Ross's philosophy of defending par around the greens. 

Perhaps any excessive challenge to his courses accrues from his careful selection of jobs to take, often where the elements - not the architecture are the primary source of difficulty.  That's not at all to say his courses are easy.  I think they're about right.

Mike

[Greg Tallman]

Greg:

I did say that about Greg Norman's courses just the other day, that they are all hard as heck.  You chose to see it as a negative; it was a neutral observation as I phrased it.

I don't remember saying that about Jack Nicklaus' courses anytime lately.  I think his are too complicated for the average golfer, more than too hard.  He gives you a lot of short grass if you're no good, but he doesn't let you hit a lot of greens or even lay up to a spot where you have a good chance of making par.

P.S.  What's ping png and where have I encouraged it?

Tom, Not challenging your comment just using to generate more discussion, no doubt it was rooted in truth yet perhaps an overgeneralization.

Not sure I have a great example of a hole that promotes ping pong though 17 at Bay of Dreams comes to mind. Perhaps that was my mistake of overgeneralizing and, like you, was not being overly critical, but laying it out there for discussion. That said I have heard the ping pong comment regarding some of the more respected new designs from some rather reputable folks in the golf industry.

Not juding who is right or wrong or if there is such a thing. Personally I would prefer the course that promotes short game creativity while allowing for more run up play versus the forced carry courses but that is merely a personal preference based largely on my talent level (or lack thereof).

[Bill Brightly]

It is a shame so few will ever get to play Cape Kidnappers. I only played it once and hit the ball poorly (maybe I just had an off day) but I thought that was one of the hardest courses that I have ever played. I hate the "ping pong" reference, but with greens lightning fast (I am guessing 12 on the stimp) I found it nearly impossible to get up and down. Never once did I think a hole was unfair, but  I took a thumping evry time I missed a green, and I missed almost every one! I think that course "defends par" every step of the way...

[Jed Peters]

P.S.  What's ping png and where have I encouraged it?

16 at Pac.

[Gary Slatter]

Greg, I don't understand how Nicklaus or Norman (or others) make a course that's too "hard".   I've played poorly at many courses but don't think it was because they were hard.  Carnoustie is the hardest I've ever played, but from the middle tees it's not bad.
I thought the Medalist was difficult, but not hard.  Glen Abbey is the hardest Nicklaus that I've played, but I wouldn't consider it hard unless the average golfer had to play  Canadian OPen set up.  I really enjoyed TPC Sugarloaf (GN) in Atlanta, some difficult shots but pure fun to play.

I like most courses.  Love your ping-pong expression, new to me after 60 years of golf.  I think the best example is a Stanley Thompson green, 17?, at Waterton  (I thnk Donald Ross had something to do with it).  Great par three to an upside down bowl or a green.

On third thought, too many water hazards and housing can make a course too hard.  The Gold at Doral used to be too hard, we had corporate golfers who went  through +24 balls.  (18 in the water, 6 in the gardens).

[Bill_McBride]

P.S.  What's ping png and where have I encouraged it?

16 at Pac.

Last week at Pacific Dunes I saw a solid 4-hdcp play ping pong on #16.

Very solid tee shot down the middle into two club wind, 110 to back pin.

Nine iron up in the air, JUST short, heart-breakingly short right.  40 yards down to the bottom of the hill.

SW JUST over the green into deep bunker.

Three shots later, bunker shot JUST over the green, 40 yards down the hill.

Ball in pocket, thank heaven for match play, "your hole sir!"

World class ping pong hole.

By "ping pong" (which I introduced to this thread in the context of Seminole in windy and hard conditions), I mean narrow, perhaps crowned, slick greens with deep bunkers or steep fall offs on both sides, where it is maddenly simple to play almost precise shots that somehow wind up across the green in a position where it's not difficult to do it again....and again.  That's ping pong.

Austin Golf Club has a number of opportunities as well.

[Greg Tallman]

Greg, I don't understand how Nicklaus or Norman (or others) make a course that's too "hard".   I've played poorly at many courses but don't think it was because they were hard.  Carnoustie is the hardest I've ever played, but from the middle tees it's not bad.
I thought the Medalist was difficult, but not hard.  Glen Abbey is the hardest Nicklaus that I've played, but I wouldn't consider it hard unless the average golfer had to play  Canadian OPen set up.  I really enjoyed TPC Sugarloaf (GN) in Atlanta, some difficult shots but pure fun to play.

I like most courses.  Love your ping-pong expression, new to me after 60 years of golf.  I think the best example is a Stanley Thompson green, 17?, at Waterton  (I thnk Donald Ross had something to do with it).  Great par three to an upside down bowl or a green.

On third thought, too many water hazards and housing can make a course too hard.  The Gold at Doral used to be too hard, we had corporate golfers who went  through +24 balls.  (18 in the water, 6 in the gardens).

Gary the comment about Norman's courses was made by TD in another thread and I threw Jack under the bus by including him as truth be told he has built some awfully demanding courses in his day. I think it comes down to whether one prefers a "ball striker's course" or a course that defends par at the green site and surrounds. What courses strike the perfect balance?

[Gary Slatter]

sorry Greg!  Personally I like a course that is a mixture of shotmaking and fun greens and surrounds.   Bob Cupp did this at Mad River Golf Club, a great course when it opened.  I think we assume that the average golfer understands how to play a hole - they are closer to the tour pros, they want it all out in front of them (otherwise they overlook it).  I used to love standing on the first tee (of various tracks), talking to the players.  I'd explain the hole and most would make some comment like "maybe you can do that, I just want to have a second shot".  Anyway we're lucky to have worked with nice people in great places!

[Sean_A]

P.S.  What's ping png and where have I encouraged it?

16 at Pac.

Last week at Pacific Dunes I saw a solid 4-hdcp play ping pong on #16.

Very solid tee shot down the middle into two club wind, 110 to back pin.

Nine iron up in the air, JUST short, heart-breakingly short right.  40 yards down to the bottom of the hill.

SW JUST over the green into deep bunker.

Three shots later, bunker shot JUST over the green, 40 yards down the hill.

Ball in pocket, thank heaven for match play, "your hole sir!"

World class ping pong hole.

By "ping pong" (which I introduced to this thread in the context of Seminole in windy and hard conditions), I mean narrow, perhaps crowned, slick greens with deep bunkers or steep fall offs on both sides, where it is maddenly simple to play almost precise shots that somehow wind up across the green in a position where it's not difficult to do it again....and again.  That's ping pong.

Austin Golf Club has a number of opportunities as well.

Ace

There is no question this situation of defending par at the greens and creating ping pong holes becomes a bit of a drag if it occurs too much (for me Pinehurst is an example of too much).  However, to be fair, sometimes a player is too agressive in his recovery and should be playing for the fat part of the green when a "Sunday" hole location is in play.  This of course can lead to the situation where guys are too often hitting away from flags (definitely a play that must always be kept in mind while at Yeamans) on recoveries and this too can get old if a good balance isn't struck.  This in part explains why I am not keen on 18 rolly polly greens and would rather see an archie get his yas yas out on a handful of greens and find other ways to make play interesting for the other greens (which often involves angles and subtlety/deception).

Ciao

[Jed Peters]

P.S.  What's ping png and where have I encouraged it?

16 at Pac.

Last week at Pacific Dunes I saw a solid 4-hdcp play ping pong on #16.

Very solid tee shot down the middle into two club wind, 110 to back pin.

Nine iron up in the air, JUST short, heart-breakingly short right.  40 yards down to the bottom of the hill.

SW JUST over the green into deep bunker.

Three shots later, bunker shot JUST over the green, 40 yards down the hill.

Ball in pocket, thank heaven for match play, "your hole sir!"

World class ping pong hole.

By "ping pong" (which I introduced to this thread in the context of Seminole in windy and hard conditions), I mean narrow, perhaps crowned, slick greens with deep bunkers or steep fall offs on both sides, where it is maddenly simple to play almost precise shots that somehow wind up across the green in a position where it's not difficult to do it again....and again.  That's ping pong.

Austin Golf Club has a number of opportunities as well.

I watched a .4 handicapper do the same exact thing, only this time w/ a wedge.

Another ping pongy notable on Pac:

14 in the winter, playing into the wind.

I watched this happen time and time again at Old Mac as well. 2nd, 6th, 9th, 10th (given though!), 11th.

Ping Pongy on Trails:

13 and 14.

[Matthew Petersen]

It's all "right." There's room for a bit of everything in GCA and we are fortunate that over the past 10 years or so there have been opportunities for the Nicklauses and Normans and Dyes and Coores and Doaks to all build their own sorts of courses. When it gets to be wrong is when one style dominates over all the others (Trent Jones and his post-war style being the example that comes immediately to mind). Variety, to me, is always welcome.

[Jed Rammell]

Ping Pong is an interesting term . . . Fazio rarely has ping pong holes, which makes me wonder if it helps his ratings.

[Jim Tang]

I love Kingsley Club, but the 9th green has high ping pong potential.  Of course, if you're Wyatt Halliday, then you just ace it and move quietly on.

[Kalen Braley]

#6 at Pacific also has a high ping pong quotient too, especially given that the wind is usually blowing pretty good out there.

Back to the original question though about hard or not.

From having played 2 Nicklaus courses and 4 Doak courses...the biggest difference in my mind is this:

Jacks courses were tough, and they didn't let up much.  Its just tough hole after tough hole with not many breaks.  Whereas Doak's courses will give you a tough hole, but then come right back with a short interesting hole thats very par-able if not birdie-able.  So for my personal preferences, I prefer the latter.  I don't mind a tough hole here and there to keep things interesting, but 18 straight holes of tough is just a grind.  But for one who plays to a 2, perhaps that is thier preference and utlimately what they want in a golf course.