What is the line between "fun and playable" and just "easy"?

[Kevin_D]

Reading the Golf Digest article about Gamble Sands and following the thread here, I noted several comments about how the course yielded the best-ever score for several people, and in fact that was DMK's intention. Both those comments, and even more so, the look of the course from the photo thread made me wonder: is this course too easy, to the point of being boring?

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm a 12 handicap and am no fan of a torture test. But many of the courses I've played that have fairly wide fairways, limited forced carries, and an absence of overly penal features (like National, Friar's Head, all the Bandon courses, Streamsong, Stonewall North) wouldn't be called "easy" by anyone (or at least not by me). Their difficulty simply lies in features other than tight corridors of play, thick rough and water hazards.

At the same time, I can think of other courses that so have some/all of those penal features - for instance, Merion, Garden City, Quaker Ridge, Stonewall Old. They all have some combination of OB, thick rough, penal bunkers, or water hazards.  If you're wild off the tee, all of these can beat you up - but at the same time are still fun to play.

So I guess my question is: what is the line between "fun and playable" and just easy?  Can a course be too easy to make it boring?  Does having some penal features, and/or heroic shots, make a course more fun, providing a thrill to the golfer for pulling off a difficult shot?  Does Gamble Sands show that we've moved to the other end of the spectrum from the 7500+ yard, tight, water hazard filled courses of the 80s and 90s - and perhaps moved a bit too far?

Disclaimer: I haven't played Gamble Sands, so am just going by photos and the GD article.

Kevin

[cary lichtenstein]

Depends on one's handicap. Over the years, I've learned at my home club to not get into this discussion with anybody. Being a low handicap, trying to talk to a 28 is beyond hopeless. Forced carries are almost a swear word to them.

[Tom_Doak]

Kevin:

It's an interesting question.  There are many low-handicappers who love hard courses and dismiss the rest, but I don't know that any course which is considered architecturally interesting is today written off as "too easy".  At one point, thirty years ago, the National Golf Links of America was written off that way, and I've heard the same thing said of North Berwick and St. Andrews, but it's far from the consensus, in fact the consensus seems to be swinging the other way. 

GOLF DIGEST, even, seems to be talking more in its articles about "fun" courses even though "resistance to scoring" is still a mainstay of their 100 Greatest Courses rankings.

I have not seen Gamble Sands yet, but it does appear to be "easy" in a somewhat different manner than the other courses mentioned ... it seems to appeal most to the golfer who can reach the turbo-boost areas in the fairways that make three of the par-4's drivable and most of the par-5's reachable in two.  It does sound as though you have to make some big carries to get to those spots, but the carries don't sound out of reach for the GCA golfers who have played it, and if you fail to make the carry the big bunkers sound very recoverable.

[jeffwarne]

Depends on one's handicap. Over the years, I've learned at my home club to not get into this discussion with anybody. Being a low handicap, trying to talk to a 28 is beyond hopeless. Forced carries are almost a swear word to them.

Cary,
Hard to believe you could defend forced carries(which leave NO options) to a high handicap, yet just the other day criticize Nicklaus' use of bunkers "in the middle of the fairway"( Which leaves 4 options- short, over, left or right)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kevi,

It's a great question.

One of the answers I would offer is, consequences at the green for failure to hit the green

[Ian Andrew]

It no longer matters whether you miss a shot or not.

The examples of NLGA and the Old Course are great, plenty of room to play, disaster awaits if  you get out of line.

[Paul Gray]

There is an assumption here that easy can't be fun. Just saying.

[Daryl David]

There is an assumption here that easy can't be fun. Just saying.

It isn't so much that easy golf isn't fun. More like golf that doesn't present any difficult decisions prior to striking shots is boring. At first it seems fun until you realize that there are no risk reward options to sort through.  No reason to think, no reason to be nervous, no reason to rejoice on a good result.  Just swing away.

Eating Jello is also fun, but afterward you realize all you consumed was some lightly flavored water.

[Adam Lawrence]

There is an assumption here that easy can't be fun. Just saying.

Is there? I hadn't noticed it.

[Thomas Dai]

Familiarity breeds contempt is a phrase that comes to mind in relation to fun-playable-easy.

Not dissimilar to what I had in mind when I started the thread about the point when an 18-hole course gets too short and too easy -http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,59515.msg1401564.html#msg1401564.

Without challenge fun can taper off, although length alone can be pretty boring.

atb

[Paul Gray]

There is an assumption here that easy can't be fun. Just saying.

Is there? I hadn't noticed it.

Well yes: .......line between "fun and playable" and just "easy"

Surely you can see this suggested the two are mutually exclusive.  

[Paul Gray]

Thomas,

I tend to agree with the premise you originally wrote in your other thread. I play off of 3 and I've yet to experience these mythical courses which are apparently too easy. I've played a lot of courses which are dull because of a lack of variety/options, consistently just aiming at the centre of a fairway then hitting a wedge to the green. I've never however found a course which I thought was too easy.

[David Whitmer]

Thomas,

I tend to agree with the premise you originally wrote in your other thread. I play off of 3 and I've yet to experience these mythical courses which are apparently too easy. I've played a lot of courses which are dull because of a lack of variety/options, consistently just aiming at the centre of a fairway then hitting a wedge to the green. I've never however found a course which I thought was too easy.

I agree with Paul. I'm a 3 also, and I have not found a course I think is too easy. There are some where I can score pretty well if I'm hitting it well, while others are a bit tougher, but nothing I have found is too easy. And while I hit the ball a long way, I do not simply want a long course just because, well, it's a long course. What I want is variety. If I play a 6,200 yard course where I have a wedge into every par 4, that's boring to me.  If I encounter many short holes with little defense around the green, that's boring to me.

That doesn't mean I can't enjoy the round, especially if I think the course is a good one. But, I can't say I'd rush back to play it, as I want something that will test every club in my bag. I might not break par, 75, or even 80 on that 6,200 yard course, but I don't want to play it very much. I want to be able to use every club in my bag. I don't want every par 4 to be 450 yards, either.

[Tom_Doak]

Thomas,

I tend to agree with the premise you originally wrote in your other thread. I play off of 3 and I've yet to experience these mythical courses which are apparently too easy. I've played a lot of courses which are dull because of a lack of variety/options, consistently just aiming at the centre of a fairway then hitting a wedge to the green. I've never however found a course which I thought was too easy.

I agree with Paul. I'm a 3 also, and I have not found a course I think is too easy. There are some where I can score pretty well if I'm hitting it well, while others are a bit tougher, but nothing I have found is too easy. And while I hit the ball a long way, I do not simply want a long course just because, well, it's a long course. What I want is variety. If I play a 6,200 yard course where I have a wedge into every par 4, that's boring to me.  If I encounter many short holes with little defense around the green, that's boring to me.

That doesn't mean I can't enjoy the round, especially if I think the course is a good one. But, I can't say I'd rush back to play it, as I want something that will test every club in my bag. I might not break par, 75, or even 80 on that 6,200 yard course, but I don't want to play it very much. I want to be able to use every club in my bag. I don't want every par 4 to be 450 yards, either.

I thought Paul's statement was right on -- too dull is the real culprit -- but this post ties together "dull" and "easy" so directly that you might as well just say the courses are "too easy" for you.

The problem with modern equipment and the modern game is that even those 450-yard holes you don't want too many of, are driver-wedge for the big boys now.

[Ruediger Meyer]

It isn't so much that easy golf isn't fun. More like golf that doesn't present any difficult decisions prior to striking shots is boring. At first it seems fun until you realize that there are no risk reward options to sort through.  No reason to think, no reason to be nervous, no reason to rejoice on a good result.  Just swing away.

In my experience this is exactly what happens on tough, overly long courses. Those are the ones where I just bomb away without thinking because I have to try to carry it as far as possible in order to have any shot at posting a decent score on the hole

[Adam Lawrence]

There is an assumption here that easy can't be fun. Just saying.

Is there? I hadn't noticed it.

Well yes: .......line between "fun and playable" and just "easy"

Surely you can see this suggested the two are mutually exclusive.  

Not really, no. I think in this context, playable is effectively a synonym for easy, or at least easy-ish, and easy means too easy. GCA is not a place where 7,700 yard championship monsters get a lot of love.

[Adam Clayman]

I always thought playable was a prerequisite for greatness.

[Brent Hutto]

Here is what a "fun and playable" course tends to offer, in my opinion of the term:

1) Lots of opportunities to gain or lose fractions of a stroke by slightly mishit or poorly thought out shots.

2) Lots of opportunities to lose a full stroke by overly aggressive or outright stupid decisions or very badly struck shot.


Here is what a "too easy" course tends to offer:

1) Little or no difference in outcome between well struck and somewhat poorly struck shots.

2) Not much penalty for simply taking the most aggressive possible shot every time, even if you don't execute it as planned.

Now implicit in my definitions is that "well struck" or "overly aggressive" types of things are totally relative to an individual player's capabilities. So a course can certainly be "fun and playable" for one golfer while being "too easy" for another golfer with different capabilities. It would be an exceptionally great course if it were "fun and playable" for a 28 handicapper while still avoiding the "too easy" complaint for an elite player. But it can be done, IMO. It's just unusual and difficult to implement.

[Kevin_D]

Intriguing answers everyone.

To be clear, I meant "easy" in the context of being so wide open as to not provide any real penalty for a missed shot - where instead of recovery being possible, it is actually probable.  Perhaps "boring" would have been a better word, but long, difficult courses can also be boring - so I am talking about courses that are both boring and unchallenging.

The Gamble Sands thread describes some holes as "reward-reward" instead of "risk-reward".  Is reward-reward really a good thing?  At Wykagyl there are 5 semi-reachable par 5s - but I rarely go for more than 1 or 2 of them a round because my risk of making bogey or worse goes up significantly with an errant 2nd shot.

Using another example, I think about #9 on Tom Doak's Stonewall Old.  Par 3, 180 or so yards from the men's tees (230 tips).  With a pin placement on the left side, I guess the pond could be considered "penal", but you have the whole right side to use to avoid it, and the ball funnels left anyway.  But if you really want to go at the stick, you can, but are then flirting with the water.  To me, this hole is far more interesting than if the water wasn't there.  The hole would unquestionably be easier without the pond, but would it be better?

I am not saying I want water/OB on every hole, nor am I saying that there shouldn't be recovery options/possibilities.  With what has been written about Gamble Sands though, I do wonder if we are tilting in the other direction now - and perhaps a bit too far.

[Paul Gray]

There is an assumption here that easy can't be fun. Just saying.

Is there? I hadn't noticed it.

Well yes: .......line between "fun and playable" and just "easy"

Surely you can see this suggested the two are mutually exclusive.  

Not really, no. I think in this context, playable is effectively a synonym for easy, or at least easy-ish, and easy means too easy. GCA is not a place where 7,700 yard championship monsters get a lot of love.

Well exactly. Meaning that you do recognise that a distinction has been made. It's a mute point so let's not fight. 

I'm just not familiar with these courses which are apparently too easy and, as a direct consequence, dull. 'Too easy,' I've long thought, is a phrase thrown around by people attempt to create a certain impression. But if and when I break 50 for 18 holes on a par 72 golf course and join the ranks of the former North Korean leader I'll be sure to eat my own words. 

[Sean_A]

Thomas,

I tend to agree with the premise you originally wrote in your other thread. I play off of 3 and I've yet to experience these mythical courses which are apparently too easy. I've played a lot of courses which are dull because of a lack of variety/options, consistently just aiming at the centre of a fairway then hitting a wedge to the green. I've never however found a course which I thought was too easy.

I agree with Paul. I'm a 3 also, and I have not found a course I think is too easy. There are some where I can score pretty well if I'm hitting it well, while others are a bit tougher, but nothing I have found is too easy. And while I hit the ball a long way, I do not simply want a long course just because, well, it's a long course. What I want is variety. If I play a 6,200 yard course where I have a wedge into every par 4, that's boring to me.  If I encounter many short holes with little defense around the green, that's boring to me.

That doesn't mean I can't enjoy the round, especially if I think the course is a good one. But, I can't say I'd rush back to play it, as I want something that will test every club in my bag. I might not break par, 75, or even 80 on that 6,200 yard course, but I don't want to play it very much. I want to be able to use every club in my bag. I don't want every par 4 to be 450 yards, either.

I thought Paul's statement was right on -- too dull is the real culprit -- but this post ties together "dull" and "easy" so directly that you might as well just say the courses are "too easy" for you.

The problem with modern equipment and the modern game is that even those 450-yard holes you don't want too many of, are driver-wedge for the big boys now.

Isn't it time we bifurcate course discussions?  It seems more and more the case that one course cannot meet the demands of all golfers...if this truly ever was the case.  It seems crazy to constantly footnote conversations with yes, but, the flat bellies...

As for me, I have absolutely never seen a course I thought was too easy.  Its definitely a case of lack of interest for me and that disease is spreading quickly to the maintenance set up not supporting the design being a huge turn-off.

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

May have missed it, but isn't the first answer that you don't lose tons of golf balls, and get many 2 stroke or stroke and distance penalties?  Those aren't fun for anyone, and all the player really needs is separation of one stroke anyway.

You can require a butter cut 6 iron to a tight pin, which is challenge, but ponding it, being in 4" deep rough, a 20 feet deep bunker, etc. is just hard, whereas 1.5" rough is tricky, but recoverable, a 4-6 ft bunker is recoverable, etc. Of course, I would recommend a few hard hazards.  Once or twice is fun, all day long is misery.

If there is a friendly match, and the outcome depends on being one hole or one stroke better than your buddies, then even and easy course can be pretty fun, as -9 beats -8........

[Dave McCollum]

My view is like Paul’s in that I’m not too familiar with golf that is too easy.  I’m always wondering, as I read discussions here about this or that great course, where do these guys play most of their golf?  In other words and from my own perspective, does traveling around and seeing a bunch of terrific courses kind of spoil your appreciation for your home club?  I don’t think it does for me.  Although many on this site get to some great places, I suspect that there are quite of few of us that play the majority of our golf on pretty ordinary courses of the “fun and playable” variety that a really good golfer would find to be fairly easy.  To me it’s all as subjective and relative as one match being better or more enjoyable than another.  There is no definitive answer, only opinions, experience, and personal preference.  

I can understand the view that life is too short to play poor golf courses, however that is an option not available to most golfers.  We find our appreciation and enjoyment where we can.  In the case of Gamble Sands (from pictures, not experience), it looked like a pretty great site and a enjoyable place to spend a few pleasant hours playing with friends, regardless of the relative difficulty of the course.  That is true of a lot of courses, maybe most courses, so there are other factors to consider when we decide when and where to play, including, for example, the time and expense to get there.  In my experience working with average golfers, where they play is less important than where their friends are.    

[Brent Hutto]

Here's my dirty little secret of golf travel. There are only two reasons for me to travel more than an hour or two to play golf...

1) To play with friends I can't play with at home.

2) To play on firm, fast, cool-climate turf that I can't play on at home.

Obviously any time I can do one of those things while also playing a course with very interesting holes or in spectacular surroundings, that's a big plus. But if I'm going to be playing either by myself or with random strangers and playing on overwatered turf, I'm every bit as happy doing it on my undistinguished home course as on one much higher up the GCA food chain.

[Tom_Doak]

Isn't it time we bifurcate course discussions?  It seems more and more the case that one course cannot meet the demands of all golfers...if this truly ever was the case.  It seems crazy to constantly footnote conversations with yes, but, the flat bellies...

As for me, I have absolutely never seen a course I thought was too easy.  Its definitely a case of lack of interest for me and that disease is spreading quickly to the maintenance set up not supporting the design being a huge turn-off.

Ciao

Sean:

Perhaps we should just eliminate discussion of the flat bellies altogether, as they are seldom relevant to the collective opinion of courses on GCA.  I'd be fine with that.  I was just trying to point out to Paul that his criterion of "using every club in the bag" is increasingly irrelevant in the modern age, for players just a few shots better than he is.