[JDoyle]

Matt Ward,

You said:

Jonathan -- you should have asked the more difficult question -- what's more important -- how a course "looks" or how it "plays?"  

How about – What is more important – how a course is “designed” or how it “plays?”

I am not interested in playing a boring yet perfectly conditioned golf course.  I will take a beat-up Bethpage Black (circa 1990) over a perfectly manicured Bushwood any day.   But I am very tired of well-known courses that are so soft that their design features and strategy are lost  (see Mark Fine’s post above).  

There is a good discussion on another current thread about cutting trees down.  I feel more clubs should be cutting trees down that are choking some of the US’s best golden age designs.  I love the changes at Oakmont & WF.  However, there is another “conditioning” issue at work as well – soft conditions that take the strategy and creativity out of the game.

When faced with these soft Augusta-wannabe conditions I would consider playing a course that was fast and firm – where my drive didn’t land on the fairway like a nine iron on a green.

I know the people on this DG are design folks first, but they also travel to Ireland/Scotland/England and rave about the style of golf played there.  So some of us do want conditions that support strategy rather than soak it.

[Matt_Ward]

Jonathan:

I don't disagree about your desire for fast and firm conditions. Hello! Where did I say otherwise?

When I said "looks" I meant the "be-all" fascination a good number of people here on GCA have for the minutia relating to how a bunker may look or the sideshow features at a course that aren't really tied to how the course "plays."  

I look at a course first and foremost as a challenge that will call upon me to play a wide variety of shots. Too many people get so tied up in this blather about did the bunker really have too much of a face showing or some such other esoteric design matter that is really secondary to how the course "plays."  The arcane and sideshow elements that make for good 19th hole banter but in the end analysis it's only important if it has a DIRECT role in the way one must execute particular shots.

That's why I have always said that people may make comments about a how course "looks" from aerials and other second hand sources but actually playing a course is the only sure fire way to assess how a course "plays" and whether or not it satisfies the "rubber meets the road test" that ultimately is where the focus and emphasis needs to begin IMHO.

[Texas_Three_Putt]

we may have too low of an opinion of the average golfer out there.

I don't think you all do. Take any 36 hole complex, the better manicured, less well-designed 18 will always get more play. Good example is Horshoe Bay. IMHO, Ramrock is twice the course that Applerock is. Applerock gets twice the play because Ramrock requires good shot making. And if I'm not mistaken, Slickrock even gets more play than Ramrock.

[Lou_Duran]

TX 3 Putt,

I think that you've 4 whacked this one.

Ram Rock gets less played not because the other two courses are in better condition and more bland designs, but because it was built to be and is one of the hardest courses in Texas.  People sometimes confuse level of difficulty with quality of design.  Ram Rock is a great example that the two are not necessarily related.

The reason that Applerock and Slickrock get more play is that the former is considered to be a better design, and the latter fits the demographics of the retirement community more closely.  From the back tees, Ram Rock is nearly unplayable when it is windy (most of the time) and in firm/fast condition.  It is usually in as good of shape as the other two, and sometimes better because the lack of play.  Members opt for the other courses because they are more enjoyable.

At Barton Creek in Austin, the Fazio Foothills and Canyon courses get more play than the C & C course not because they are in better shape (they are not) or cheaper (they are much more expensive), but because they are considered to be better designs.

In my opinion, the so-called Augusta syndrome is way overstated.  Holding everything else equal, courses with substantive designs will generally draw better than those without.  Superior conditioning may help a poor course survive, but it will not overcome whatever it lacks in design.  And having to depend on pristine conditions to attract golfers is a risky, costly proposition.    

[Texas_Three_Putt]

From the back tees, Ram Rock is nearly unplayable when it is windy (most of the time) and in firm/fast condition.

Lou,
Wouldn't be the first time I've 4 whacked one No doubt, Ramrock is unbelievably tough from tips (with or without wind) but most the members don't play from the tips on any of the courses. Because Ramrock usually is in firm/fast condition (or at least the times I have played it is), the average golfer considers that less conditioned (I'm probably not stating my view very well). From the members I know there, I have heard them say many a times, "Ramrock is the better course but Applerock is in better condition". Of course, when I'm there, they always insist on playing Ramrock from the tips . On a side note, when of the greatest 9 holes of golf I ever witnessed was a friend of mine shot 5 under on the back at Ramrock from the tips. It was a thing of beauty!

Maybe I'm using the wrong facilities to state my case. When given a choice between 18 holes at a 36 hole facility, I think the better conditioned course wins (such that the difference in conditions is noticeable). Throw the difficulty variable in (as is probably the case at HB), then the average golfer chooses the easiest course. But, if you have 36 holes and one 18 is in immaculate condition, and the other 18 is in so-so condition but a better layout, immaculation wins with the average golfer, IMHO.

Do you know the story why Ramrock was built?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()