Equating difficulty with good to great architecture seems to

[Patrick_Mucci]

have become popular over the last few decades.

Golfers seem to be a strange breed.

They want to be tested, on occassion, by venues prepared to test the best golfers in the world.

This despite the enormous differentials in their abilities, versus the abilities of the best golfers in the world.

In numerous conversations over the years, I've heard difficult courses categorized as "great" golf courses.

So, how did that "disconnect" or misconception come about ?
How did "difficulty" come to equate to architectural greatness ?

What courses are really fun to play, day in and day out ?
Courses that combine fun with a reasonable, not an unbearable challenge.

Recently, I played "Outlaw" in Scottsdale and loved it.

Hence, it would be on my "fun" list, as would NGLA, Maidstone, Seminole, Hidden Creek, GCGC, St Georges, Westhampton and Preakness Hills.

For the most part, "width" seems to be a common theme on my fun courses.
But, width alone isn't enough.
To me, these courses have a "sporty" not an overbearing aura.

What courses make you want to go directly to the first tee from the eighteenth green, day in and day out ?

And why, what is it about them that makes them so enjoyable ?

[Mac Plumart]

How did "difficulty" come to equate to architectural greatness ?


Golf Digest.

There Top 100 (or 50) was a most difficult list.  And now they double weight resistance to scoring on the Top 100 list criteria.  This makes difficult and good de facto synonyms.**

**This comment is factually incorrect, please see Andy's correction below.

[Andy Troeger]

Pat,
I'm not sure this is a new phenomenon. If you look at the great classics, most of them are/were still very difficult in their day. Pine Valley and Oakmont (and many others) are still very difficult today. The potential exception is Cypress Point.

But, as Mac says Golf Digest's definition of great golf certainly has contributed to any resurgence of the "harder is better" way of thinking.

By the way, Outlaw is really hard for most of us! The back rating is 73.5/147! Its fun to play, but its no Maidstone which I would guess isn't too tough on the occasion where the wind dies down.

Mac,
Resistance to scoring is not doubled. Shot values is. But, the playability category is not counted currently, so difficulty is certainly emphasized by the current setup.

[Mac Plumart]

Thanks for setting the record straight Andy.

[Adam Clayman]

The sport v. game mindset is the reason difficulty took hold. Throw in the card and pencil, and you have the road map for how Golf went down the wrong road. Behr warned, nobody listened.

I asked a real sportsman (hunter extraordinaire)  why he disliked golfing in the wind the other day. He had no credible excuse.

[Peter Pallotta]

I think human beings operate on different 'levels', sometimes several at once (and sometimes without realizing it, which usually leads to troubles and heartaches).  I think that when a golfer is operating almost entirely on the level of 'externals' -- i.e. the level of outward/recognized achievement and of impersonal standards (of success and failure, winning and losing) and of comparisons (better/worse than another) -- it is very easy to equate difficult architecture with great architecture; in fact, it is not only easy but actually required/demanded, since operating from that level the golfer feels the need to be tested rigorously and mercilessly, so that the achievements and successes feel well earned (and the failures feel inevitable, or at least excusable).  I think this 'level' is usually where most young men live, and want to live; it is their time for outward affirmation.  But, on the other end of the spectrum, there is also the level of 'internals' -- i.e. a level which foregoes comparisons of most kinds and instead enjoys/rests in subjective experience, one's own deeply personal sense of satisfaction, be it physical or spiritual or aesthetic. If the golfer is operating from that level, great architecture will be that which allows him the most freedom and fun and space in which to lose himself in that experience.  There are many gradations of course, and as mentioned most of us often operate on more than one level at a time. From what I've read, I think this may explain the success of the Bandon courses -- they allow for a subtle and pleasing/satisfying blending of the levels for a certain kind of golfer, i.e. they allow him to 'play at' both the external and internal levels at the same time.  

Peter

[JWL]

Interesting...if playability is not counted, that answers a lot of questions for me.

[Ken Moum]

I asked a real sportsman (hunter extraordinaire)  why he disliked golfing in the wind the other day. He had no credible excuse.

I know a lot of golfers who feel that way, most of whom are dedicated card-and-pencil guys.  Often serious tournament players.

Some of them also say, "That's a good par four," meaning it's hard to make par.

Or, "That's a good driving hole," meaning there's no place to put your ball.

I always tell them good and hard are NOT the same thing, but so far not one has been willing to consider the possibility that good and hard have different definitions in regard to golf holes.

BTW, I assume your hunter friend wasn't playing Nebraska today.  We played 27 at Heritage Hills in McCook today and the last 18 were in an ear-flapping breeze.

About halfway through that exercise I was moved to wonder who thought that piece of property looked like a golf course.  I am sually pretty good about getting around a golf course, but today I ended up ball-in-pocket about seven or eight times.

Tomorrow it's Wild Horse, and on Monday we're going to Awarii Dunes.  I expect to have more fun....

Ken

[Tom_Doak]

Pat,
I'm not sure this is a new phenomenon. If you look at the great classics, most of them are/were still very difficult in their day. Pine Valley and Oakmont (and many others) are still very difficult today. The potential exception is Cypress Point.

But, as Mac says Golf Digest's definition of great golf certainly has contributed to any resurgence of the "harder is better" way of thinking.

By the way, Outlaw is really hard for most of us! The back rating is 73.5/147! Its fun to play, but its no Maidstone which I would guess isn't too tough on the occasion where the wind dies down.

Mac,
Resistance to scoring is not doubled. Shot values is. But, the playability category is not counted currently, so difficulty is certainly emphasized by the current setup.

Andy:

It's true that "shot values" rather than resistance to scoring, is supposed to be the most important criterion in the GOLF DIGEST system.  However, I've met seveal panelists whose definition of "shot values" seems to be that if you mess up one shot, you have to pay -- so the more difficult the course is, the higher it scores [for them] on the shot values scale, too.  It's like they TRIPLE resistance to scoring.

P.S.  I can't figure out how Cypress Point and Fishers Island rate so highly by the GOLF DIGEST points system.  They are the two real outliers in the top 50, in terms of difficulty.

[Andy Troeger]

Tom,
I'm not surprised by that--I think a lot of panelists do think courses need to be hard to be good. I'm probably a bit of an outlier at times in that the really hard "championship" courses that reward execution but penalize everything else don't appeal to me much.

Shot values should emphasize risk/reward features, even if they allow for birdies and eagles. It also should emphasize courses that have a balance between length, accuracy, and the short game. Courses that are too long theoretically would over-emphasize length, but I'm not sure everyone sees it that way.

Design variety should also penalize courses that are excessively difficult. IMO the best courses ebb and flow and have some holes that wouldn't be considered "difficult" but still have interest. The ones that miss that lose points for variety, at least for me.

Cypress is 5th on the Digest system and 1st/2nd on all the other lists. So I think the SV/RS criteria do push it down a bit.  It obviously would do well in aesthetics and the ambiance category probably helps it as well.

[Sean_A]

I have thin skin when it comes to difficulty which is why I am very impressed by championship courses which serve its membership very well, but I think pulling off this double is rare.  There has to be a certain level of difficulty to set a course off, but I don't think it should be too hard for a 7-10 capper to be able to shoot par once a year.  Of course this means that for a scratch player he will need wind to make up for the lack of difficulty or just go low once in a while.  In my experience, even then going low rarely means below 68ish and I can't see a problem with that. Bottom line, there needs be some holes which are hard, but the course shouldn't be defined by these holes - rather these holes should help to balance out the challenge.  Too many course err on the side of difficult design. 

Ciao

[Brent Hutto]

Sean,

What's a good example of a course that offers the combination you're describing?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

How much can be attributed to "rating methodology" and how much can be attributed to the "Red Badge of Courage" mentality adopted by the membership ?

There seems to be a devilish pride in claiming how difficult one's golf course is.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

What's a good example of a course that offers the combination you're describing?

Brent

There are quite a few examples in Britain and some are very good courses.  The main ingredients are a shortish/widish course with minimal rough and a reliance on wind to provide the punch - so when the wind is down...It should be no surprise that some of my favourite courses fit this description: Brora, Pennard, Kington & Cavendish to name some.  I also think North Berwick & Brancaster fit this mould to a large degree and is a big reason why folks like the courses so much - they are a break from grinding championship links - especially when on a trip.  There are a few heathland come parkland courses which I think can be played in impressive numbers by a 10 marker, Swinley and Woking come to mind.  Both incredibly engaging courses but not the sort to beat the golfer down. 

Ciao

[Tony Ristola]

What courses make you want to go directly to the first tee from the eighteenth green, day in and day out ?

And why, what is it about them that makes them so enjoyable ?

Shots... lots of shots. Interesting green sites. Beautifully crafted features. Variety in length of holes... which is tougher today. Land that reflects nature and not the bulldozer... all those little contours, pockets and bumps that create variety that usually get ironed out when heavy equipment runs over them. Heavy equipment is great for destruction, but takes real talent and patience during construction. When it all comes together, those are the types of courses that I find enjoyable... but them there is the equipment issue that destroys it...

...Recently played my first couple rounds with hickory clubs and it was a blast... amazing how a 400 yard hole with a little wind became a stern challenge, how you can work the ball and would pick sides of the fairway to open up greensites (luckily the fairways were wide)... something totally lost today. It was the most fun I'd had on a golf course in ages, and teaming up with Perry Somers (an Aussie Mike Clayton knows who plays only hickory) in a team match, was just too much fun. Sad to see how the game has evolved... for it has sucked out a lot of enjoyment and soul of the game.

[Carl Johnson]

My three years on GCA have taught me a lot.  I hope to continue to learn.  My opinions may change.  But for now here's how I evaluate golf course architecture:

Magazine ratings, etc., are worth little (notice I did not say "worthless").  What really counts is my experience on the course.

Difficulty is a loose, relative term.  If a course is too difficult for me, then I have to question the architecture, or, sometimes, the set up.  Naturally, I want a course that is interesting and fun on which to play a match.  It's not me versus the course.  It's me versus the other player(s) on a venue that offers reasonable competitive challenges for our game.

I equate difficulty with pain and no fun, which are for me, a strictly recreational golfer, not what I am looking for in a round of golf.

Same when I'm watching the highly skilled players.  I want the course to provide an interesting venue for their matches, at their skill levels, but it's no fun seeing them beat up.

It's possible to interpret the word "difficulty" in a way that would be consistent with what I'm looking for in architecture, but I do not think that's the approach that most take.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Carl,

Perhaps, if you equated "difficulty" to "resistance to scoring" you'd alter your perspective.

Winged Foot West is a difficult course.
It's not unfair, gimmickie or blind.
It's just hard to score on, perhaps due to the greens and their angles and undulations, including surrounds.

It's not painful to play WFW, and you can have a good deal of fun, but, it's no easy task to score well there.

Alternatively, it's not easy to score on GCGC, although GCGC lacks WFW's length, but, GCGC's rough is far more difficult than WFW's and GCGC doesn't have the internal contouring in the putting surfaces.  But, GCGC's bunkers may be more difficult, more insidious in that their visibility isn't so apparent, but, it's a fun course to play.

If you adjust your perspective perhaps you'll see that there exists a variety in terms of difficulty.
Some courses in Florida have water flanking every hole.
I find that difficult, especially on windy days.
Losing a half a dozen balls is no fun and puts a damper on the day.

That's a different kind of difficulty versus WFW and GCGC