Pat thanks for the response. I know this topic has been discussed before here but I think it's interesting to debate and I'd like to know more whether what I think and feel about courses such as Hazeltine is right or if I'm missing something.
Patrick:
"Championship" courses tend to lack "Character/Subtlety/Strategy" to most golfers with a handicap over 10-15 because quite frankly they aren't good enough to see it. Different horses for different courses. Hence when this question comes up you hear the same golf courses mentioned over and over and over again: Medinah, Torrey Pines, Atlanta Athletic, East Lake, every golf course Rees Jones has ever set foot on, etc...
Why can't a 10-15 see it? Is it simply because they can't hit it long enough? Or can't hit it straight enough? In other words why do they miss it when the better players don't? What would have to change for them to see it?
And it works the other way too. I played with a couple Northwestern golfers last year who called Shoreacres the most overrated and boring golf course they've ever seen. Why? They thought it was way too easy.
Interesting. So they'd rather go play Medinah? What did they shoot at Shoreacres? If Shoreacres had longer tees would they have seen it?
For the record, I think Bellerive is a better and more well rounded course than Hazeltine. In my opinion, Hazeltine's front nine is dull in spots and a bit goofy. But I like the back nine there alot and think the 10th and 16th holes are really really good.
Agree that the 10th and 16th are nice holes. Again I think it certainly is a good course just not great one and certainly not inspiring like say an Interlachen or a Holston Hills or even say CommonGround. The point is you don't go home after playing a course like Hazeltine and think of alternative ways to play the holes. You don't think "oh maybe I should go 3-wood, 4-iron on that par 4 next time instead of challenging that bunker with the driver and trying to get to a 7 or 8 iron left. Or "man I should play that par-5 as a 3 shot hole instead of going for it in 2 because the risk is higher than the reward for trying in 2. You simply come back and try and pound the ball down the fairway as far as you can on just about every hole.
To follow up on my first point, Patrick, and to use your example of Hazeltine. When I played there, I played it from about ~6700 yards on an early May day last year that was probably 50* and the wind was blowing 20mph. I felt that the weakest holes there were the longer par-4's that the PGA guys would be playing it from 450-500 yards, but I was playing from ~400 yards. The greens on these holes are designed to hold a shot from ~200 yards, not a 150 yard 8 iron, so the green looses interest from me, the 4 handicap.
So I'm curious if Hazeltine holds up in terms of its character/strategy to other "non-pro/scratch amateur" golfers in the 10-15 handicap range if they just play the right tees? Or does your description of hitting a green from 150 with an 8 iron instead of 200 with a 5-6 iron like the pros seem to point to the fact it doesn't work?
You also mention the green loses interest to you from 150 yards because it was built to receive shots from 200 and not provide a challenge once you get there. This seems pretty silly to me that it can't be both, for instance do the greens at Augusta for example lose interest to Tiger or Phil if he has 150 left while half the field has 200 left?
It sounds like when you build a "championship" course you have to sacrifice the elements that make golf fun? Why couldn't Hazeltine have both the length to challenge Pros and host a tournament and have interesting greens?
The only other way to combat the PGA guys from shooting -20 under is to have them play a golf course that is either a) really really tight, b) features alot of tight tree lined doglegs (like Southern Hills) or c) have really hard greens which usually need a lot of slope or a lot of speed.
Hazeltine just defends par differently than a place like Southern Hills. Hazeltine just defends par using its length, and doesn't beat the player up a second time once he reaches the green. Most 20 handicapers aren't going to see the subtlety in Hazeltine.
So Hazeltine's only defense is it's length. What is subtle or strategic about length? How does it give any character to the course other than calling it in Bill's term, a brute? If length is the only defense isn't it simply a mindless "hit as far as you can hit and then hit it again" slugfest every round? If length is the only redeeming attribute of the course is the 10-15 handicap really "not able to see the character/strategy/subtlety" or does it just not exist?
And again, it works both ways. JB Holmes hit a 4-iron over the dogleg and onto the 13th green at Shoreacres...think he saw any subtlety?
Can a course have both the length to challenge a modern pro and the character/subtlety/strategy that we enjoy in many of the classic courses as well as some being built today or are they mutually exclusive? Is it fair to want more than what Hazeltine gives you?