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

[Brent Hutto]

I've never understood the "every club in the bag" anyway.

Take three straight, flat Par 4's each with a fairway bunker in the left-side landing zone and greenside bunkers short right and long left. Make one of them driver/7-iron, another driver/6-iron and the third driver/5-iron.

To me, that set of Par 4's is only preferable by the tiniest margin to three holes that all played driver/6-iron. A stock iron shot from a flat fairway to a uninteresting green is the same no matter which particular iron you use.

[Garland Bayley]

I've never understood the "every club in the bag" anyway.

Take three straight, flat Par 4's each with a fairway bunker in the left-side landing zone and greenside bunkers short right and long left. Make one of them driver/7-iron, another driver/6-iron and the third driver/5-iron.

To me, that set of Par 4's is only preferable by the tiniest margin to three holes that all played driver/6-iron. A stock iron shot from a flat fairway to a uninteresting green is the same no matter which particular iron you use.

But the better player is going to beat you by significantly more over time on the driver 5 iron over the driver 7 iron holes.

I think the idea is more that you have to hit long clubs more often than every hole being driver wedge, as some courses present far too much.
10, 18, and 19 handicaps that hit the ball comparable distances played a course with far too many driver wedge holes last Saturday. The 10 shot 77, and the 18, and 19 shot 78. The 10 was not pleased (nor was his pocket book). With 13 par 4s, only three required more than driver 9 iron.

[Brent Hutto]

I'm not discussing relative advantages for whatever type of player. I'm just saying that 20 or 40 yards difference in length between two otherwise similar and unexceptional holes aren't particularly better than if they are the same length.

Let me hit a wedge on one hole, a mid-iron on another and make a third hole unreachable. That's variety. Two similar holes playing one club different in length? Feh. Why bother. My variation from one tee shot to the next is more than 20 yards.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Let me hit a wedge on one hole, a mid-iron on another and make a third hole unreachable. That's variety. Two similar holes playing one club different in length? Feh. Why bother. My variation from one tee shot to the next is more than 20 yards.

That's what I was trying to get to. Use all clubs is another way of saying vary the lengths of the holes significantly enough that players are not hitting driver wedge as much as half the time or more.

Another thing it seems you see is the magic number 400. A course has holes length 395, 397, 399, 401, 403, 405. These are not necessarily driver wedge, but they are repetitious and tend somewhat to preventing use of the full bag.

Clearly on different plays you are not going to be hitting the same club on the same hole a high percentage of the time, unless they are driver wedge all the time.

[Paul Gray]

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.

Sorry Tom but it wasn't my criterion of "using every club in the bag." That was actually David.

I do agree with you about eliminating elite players from the discussion, since 470 yards has become driver/wedge for those guys now. I sense something of a rerun of the 'same old' here as that immediately leads me to thinking about the screamingly obvious need, it seems to me, to roll the ball back.

[Sean_A]

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.

I don't mind talking about flat bellies, but somewhere along the line it has become assumed by many that to be a great course or considered for top whatever, a course must challenge the best players.  On the surface this seems entirely reasonable, but for some reason I keep asking myself is it reasonable?  I don't have the answers and for the most part it doesn't matter because as I say, its already assumed that to be great, the course must challenge great players.  I know I used to sort think this way until I thought about old people, women, kids, beginners, hackers, 10 handicappers....

We know what challenges the best and we know that harsh rough, greens stimping in the stratosphere, and lots of left/right hazards are not what makes most golfers buzz.

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

It's not fun if there isn't a downside to failing to pull off a shot, or an upside from pulling off that shot.  It's also not fun if, having failed to pull it off, there isn't another challenging shot at recovery.  I am a member at three clubs.  The Northumberland is a hard course (maybe not for flat bellies but for mortals (in Regional Qualifying for the Open this year only 9 of 73 competitors broke par)) and is less fun than Elie and Crail Balcomie, both of which are relatively easy.  Interestingly Crail Craighead is also hard (SSS is 74 and CSS often goes out to 77) but I find Caighead more fun to play than Northumberland.  Why?  I think because it is rare to lose a ball and there are always recoveries available, even if they're difficult and rarely made.  So, for me, easy and fun don't mean the same thing.  Hard can be fun, if the course and set-up allow.  I think Northumberland would be far more fun if the fairways were widened and the rough didn't cause balls to be lost so often.

[Paul Gray]

Sean,

The whole premise of testing the very best is surely bogus for the simple reasons that:

a) testing the very best players frequently means dampening the enjoyment of the majority.
b) the very best golfers only make up a tiny percentage of the total number of golfers in the world.

A club not a million miles away from me which shall remain nameless, so far as I know still has, a strategic plan which goes something likes this:

It is hoped that the club will be asked to host an Open qualifying event and the plan therefore is to set the course up in such a way as to be deemed suitably difficult to test the best players if asked to host such an event. The club's current position however is to decline such an invitation if asked as hosting such an event might affect the presentation of the course.

You can't make this stuff up.

Translation, so far as I can see, is:

Make it hard and basically less enjoyable for the membership but whatever else you do make bloody sure it looks pretty while their out there for hour after hour having a painful time.

[Garland Bayley]

Would the new presentation of Pinehurst #2 be the poster boy for "fun and playable", but not "easy"?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kevin D,

I overheard an interesting remark by some caddies on the first tee at Old Macdonald.

It centered around a discussion some golfers I was playing with were having about which tees to play.

The caddies wanted us to play the "Gold" tees and we wanted to play the "Green" tees.

One golfer stated that the course was too easy from the Gold tees.
In response a caddy said, "why don't you play the gold tees and when you birdie three holes in a row, move back to the Green tees.

I then asked the caddies if I could ask them a question:
They said sure, so I asked them if they were paying us for the round or if we were paying them ?
I said that if they were paying us, I'd play from where ever they decided.

Then I stated that it was almost impossible to birdie three holes in a row on a miniature/putt-putt course let alone a regulation golf course and that birdying three holes in a row was not the standard by which a golfer should measure the degree or ease of the challenge presented.

At the conclusion of the round we all agreed that the course was terrific, fun to play, presenting more then an adequate challenge.

When asked what made the course so enjoyable, all indicated that the width along with the large and interesting putting surfaces were major factors.   Another factor was that greens could be hit in regulation if the golfer hit good shots

I think the term "easy" is misleading

Some courses are more difficult than others, but no regulation course is inherently easy for the average or better golfer.

What is critical to the enjoyment, to the fun in the round, is that the challenge has to be commensurate with the golfer's ability.

A  5, 10, 15 or 20 handicap will not have fun playing WFW from the back tees, hence, distance is a critical factor.

Old Macdonald from the Green tees was a good match for our group.
The Gold tees would not have provided the appropriate challenge, one commensurate with the abilities of those involved, and three birdies in a row was not the criteria by which to make that assessment.

[Sean_A]

I am trying to think of the playing fields of other sports where folks may call them great in somewhat the same way they do in golf.  I guess, I come up with F1 courses and some other car racing events.  But these courses don't have the equivalent of the hacker giving it a go.  Ski hills may be somewhat similar, but I don't know enough about this.

Of course, there is a element (a big element imo) of the "course hosted such and such so its great"...chicken and egg deal. 

Ciao

[Ryan Coles]

Kevin D,

I overheard an interesting remark by some caddies on the first tee at Old Macdonald.

It centered around a discussion some golfers I was playing with were having about which tees to play.

The caddies wanted us to play the "Gold" tees and we wanted to play the "Green" tees.

One golfer stated that the course was too easy from the Gold tees.
In response a caddy said, "why don't you play the gold tees and when you birdie three holes in a row, move back to the Green tees.

I then asked the caddies if I could ask them a question:
They said sure, so I asked them if they were paying us for the round or if we were paying them ?
I said that if they were paying us, I'd play from where ever they decided.

Then I stated that it was almost impossible to birdie three holes in a row on a miniature/putt-putt course let alone a regulation golf course and that birdying three holes in a row was not the standard by which a golfer should measure the degree or ease of the challenge presented.

At the conclusion of the round we all agreed that the course was terrific, fun to play, presenting more then an adequate challenge.

When asked what made the course so enjoyable, all indicated that the width along with the large and interesting putting surfaces were major factors.   Another factor was that greens could be hit in regulation if the golfer hit good shots

I think the term "easy" is misleading

Some courses are more difficult than others, but no regulation course is inherently easy for the average or better golfer.

What is critical to the enjoyment, to the fun in the round, is that the challenge has to be commensurate with the golfer's ability.

A  5, 10, 15 or 20 handicap will not have fun playing WFW from the back tees, hence, distance is a critical factor.

Old Macdonald from the Green tees was a good match for our group.
The Gold tees would not have provided the appropriate challenge, one commensurate with the abilities of those involved, and three birdies in a row was not the criteria by which to make that assessment.

Patrick

Out of interest what were the yardages of gold and green?

[K Rafkin]

I've been playing this game for a while now, and i've never heard anyone complain that the course was "too easy" after shooting a great score. 

From what i can tell about how how people talk about golf (myself included)

The term "playable" seems to mean on the easy side, but implies the element of fun.

The term "easy" means well easy...But on the less fun side of easy

Fun courses exist in all forms of yardages and difficulties.  If you have played a good bit of courses I'm sure you have encountered courses that were easy but still fun, and courses that were difficult and not fun at all.  Inversely I'm sure you have played challenging courses that are a blast, and easy courses that bothered you.  The truth is that there are so many courses all over the world, and they are all different to a certain degree, and all have a place in the great game of golf.

That being said i think in recent golf boom (going back to the 90s) so many courses were built to be longer, and pose a greater challenge to the 1%.  Now a days there are too many mediocre to crappy courses that are long/difficult and not very fun.  Designing a course thats challenging isnt hard at all.  I could throw together a quick sketch that would be a challenge to the best of the best of the PGA tour, but there is no merit in my ability to throw together a course designed simply to be incredibly challenging.  Designing a course thats easier for the average golfer, but still has that fun factor is incredibly challenging, and i am quite certain that i couldn't design one of these courses.  These are the types of courses that are in a minority in the United States, and are the same courses we need more of now.  These are the courses that get people to fall in love with the game, and with the golf industry struggling as it is we need more of these courses.  Courses being built like Gamble Sands and Old Mac give me hope that we are headed in the right direction.

First post!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ryan,

GOLD.  5,658

GREEN. 6,320

We had great guys for caddies, but the purpose of traveling 3,000 miles to play golf was to satisfy our desire to play Old Macdonald at a distance commensurate with our abilities, and not to make the round more convenient for the caddies.

At the end of the round they commented on how much fun they had with us, as the golfers abused each other at every opportunity.

It was a perfect day weather wise, the course was in good condition, the banter was non-stop and everyone enjoyed everyone else's company.
The golf wasn't bad either.

Rick, Rich, Rob and Ray.  Fun guys to be with for the days we were there

I renamed Ray, annointing him as, "Wrong Read Ray" and "Bad Read Ray"
Rich took a large red magic marker and made a pocket sign on the back of a scorecard that read "Bad Read Ray".  Then he made him wear it in his front chest pocket.

While playing Pacific Dunes and Old Macdonald we ran into a moron in training that I, as moron in chief, quickly promoted to full moron status.

It was nice to finally meet Sven,

Unfortunately, a large storm blew in and we had to cut our trip short

[Cory Brown]

Gamble Sands is as far from boring as you can get.

To embarrass myself a little I will say that I'm an 8 that I almost never play anywhere near and I birdied a couple of holes, but also made several triples from bad shots into areas that you flat out can't be in.  I ended up shooting in the upper 80's.  My brother is a six, he hit great shots, stayed out of trouble, made some putts and shot 73.  At the end of the day I pulled the same ball out of the cup on 18 that I teed up on #1 and had one of the best days you can have on a course.  Maybe this argument could be had about a dead flat cow pasture with 18 flat greens and no hazards, but Gamble Sands is far from that.

[Brent Hutto]

Cory's comments allude to another dimension I don't believe has been discussed explicitly in this thread. There are plenty of courses that meet my definition of "fun and playable" in all situations except for stroke play.

The desire to accommodate "flat bellies" does indeed lead to all sorts of design and setup nonsense nowadays. But the desire to provide a course that is "playable" with a stroke-play scorecard in ones hand is also a pernicious influence. If you want to keep long-hitting scratch or better players from occasionally shooting in the low 60's but you also want to make a course "fun and playable" for weaker players, other than building an 7,800 yard set of tees you're kind of stuck, aren't you?

[Tom_Doak]

The desire to accommodate "flat bellies" does indeed lead to all sorts of design and setup nonsense nowadays. But the desire to provide a course that is "playable" with a stroke-play scorecard in ones hand is also a pernicious influence. If you want to keep long-hitting scratch or better players from occasionally shooting in the low 60's but you also want to make a course "fun and playable" for weaker players, other than building an 7,800 yard set of tees you're kind of stuck, aren't you?

I think you can build courses where good players have trouble going low [sub-68] while the 12- to 14-handicap can still shoot in the 80's.  In fact I think I have built quite a few of those, none of which are 7,800 yards.  I am not worried about a Tour pro occasionally shooting in the low 60's, I would be more worried if they couldn't, but there is a big difference between "occasionally" and "routinely".

What WOULD a Tour pro shoot at Gamble Sands?

[Sean_A]

Brent

The trend toward longer courses is exactly what one would expect to happen if medal play and more challenging are mixed.  Although, I have never quite figured out why people place such an emphasis on medal VS matchplay courses.  A course is either good or not.  It doesn't make any difference if I am using a pencil. 

Ciao     

[Michael Essig]

What WOULD a Tour pro shoot at Gamble Sands?

To answer TD's question, IMO I don't think a pro gets as big an advantage from the layout as an amateur, because they already hit fairways and greens, and get up and down like crazy, so their rounds are dictated by how well they putt.  So the ease of recovery shots for the amateur is not a benefit for the pro.

As you may know, I weighed in with my thoughts about GS on the previous thread after my first play; I have now played it a second time with my wife.  That means a 6, 12 and 22 handicaps have played it in my family.  All of us loved the course.

Yes, my wife shot the lowest round of her life, so you can add her to the list.  She attributed it to her ability to recover and make bogeys where she would have often made a double or worse.  What kept her score down was really the elimination of the big numbers, 7-10, that appear on her scorecard a few times every round.

What makes GS easier is the recovery shot: harder sand, and with large greens and no rough around the greens, you are putting a lot.  And with a putter in your hand, that means an amateur can get up and down or at least eliminate the double bogey most of the time.

As someone previously said, he made triple(s), and the first time I made two doubles on the way to a 75, so there is danger out there.

What I found interesting was watching my wife tack around a large bunker, BECAUSE SHE COULD!  There was space to play away from the bunker (and the hole) to avoid the trouble.  At 99.9% of courses that is not physically possible.  She would have been forced to go over a bunker she would likely have hit and would have typically taken multiple strokes to get out of.  Instead, she aimed about 45 degrees away from the pin to avoid the bunker, then reached the green on the next shot and two putted for a bogey.  On some other course, she either must attack the bunker (a fight she would lose), or her angled play would have been a 60 yard shot hoping to not hit it into the woods or some deep rough.  And who thinks about doing that when they are playing?  But she saw her predicament, realized she had the space to go at an angle, and then still play to the green from the fairway. 

But it wasn't a walk-in-the park for her.  Next hole, a par 3 with a forced carry over a wash, she proceeded to hit it into the wash.  She said she psyched herself out staring at the forced carry and all the junk down in the wash.  She made double. 

The take-away is that the tee shot psyched her out.  Does that sound like a comment someone would say about an easy course?

Same par-3 hole I am hitting a four-hybrid on a hole playing 220 yards, while aiming 30 yards away from the pin trying to use the slope of the surround to feed the ball to the hole.  On the day, I hit between a PW and a 4-hybrid on the par 3s.  That is variety, and that's what, IMO, makes it fun and playable. 

[Daryl David]

I think you can build courses where good players have trouble going low [sub-68] while the 12- to 14-handicap can still shoot in the 80's.  In fact I think I have built quite a few of those, none of which are 7,800 yards.  I am not worried about a Tour pro occasionally shooting in the low 60's, I would be more worried if they couldn't, but there is a big difference between "occasionally" and "routinely".

What WOULD a Tour pro shoot at Gamble Sands?

No doubt low 60s, potentially 58/59. There is nothing to stop their assault.  Greens flat, fairways flat, absense of cross hazards, absense of bunkers fronting greens, amphitheater mounds deflecting errant shots toward green centers and fairways a mile wide. The slope from the back tees is 128 with stroke rating at 74 which is generous. (118 from regular tees).  I think a +10 would do pretty well there.  Question is would he have fun?

[Tom_Doak]

What WOULD a Tour pro shoot at Gamble Sands?

No doubt low 60s, potentially 58/59. There is nothing to stop their assault.  Greens flat, fairways flat, absense of cross hazards, absense of bunkers fronting greens, amphitheater mounds deflecting errant shots toward green centers and fairways a mile wide. The slope from the back tees is 128 with stroke rating at 74 which is generous. (118 from regular tees).  I think a +10 would do pretty well there.  Question is would he have fun?

Well if a +10 is going to shoot 60, the Slope may be fine, but the course rating of 74 is a bit high.  [Are those guys really +10 now?  Greg Norman was +6 when he was #1 in the world.]

[Ben Baldwin]

What WOULD a Tour pro shoot at Gamble Sands?

Prior to opening Kevin Chapell played out there and shot a pair of 68's.  Unless it's been bettered that is the course record.
http://golfweek.com/news/2014/aug/01/gamble-sands-david-mclay-kidd-playability-washingt/

I played it the day prior to opening from one tee forward and shot 73 and left 3-4 strokes out there having issues with putting on the fescue.

[Daryl David]

What WOULD a Tour pro shoot at Gamble Sands?

No doubt low 60s, potentially 58/59. There is nothing to stop their assault.  Greens flat, fairways flat, absense of cross hazards, absense of bunkers fronting greens, amphitheater mounds deflecting errant shots toward green centers and fairways a mile wide. The slope from the back tees is 128 with stroke rating at 74 which is generous. (118 from regular tees).  I think a +10 would do pretty well there.  Question is would he have fun?

Well if a +10 is going to shoot 60, the Slope may be fine, but the course rating of 74 is a bit high.  [Are those guys really +10 now?  Greg Norman was +6 when he was #1 in the world.]

Dean Knuth wrote an article awhile back saying that top players were +10 to +12 depending on how hot there were at any given time.  I bet a look at the handicap sheet from Whisper Rock would be interesting.

[Michael Essig]

There is a big difference between making a par and making a birdie, and I just don't see that taking a pro back to 7500 yards means they are going to hit it close enough to make 13 birdies in 18 holes.  They are good putters, but they don't make that many from 20-30 feet!

I will say that they would probably birdie or better every par 5.  Maybe they get their score down with an eagle or two.

Maybe this is more to the point, I would be shocked if a pro made more than 1 bogey in a round at GS.

For those that haven't played GS, the closest thing to it that I have played is the Plantation Course at Kapalua.  But GS didn't have the wind.
And we do know what numbers a pro can shoot at the Plantation Course when they get it going.  Course record is 62. 

Kevin Chappell shooting a casual pair of 68s at GS seems about right to me.

I would estimate that the course is about 4 shots easier than a standard handicap.  So my 75 would have been a 79 somewhere else.  That being said, my 77 on my 2nd round would have been a 77 anywhere.  I hit it very long and straight all day.  2 bad swings the entire round.  Shot 77 because I lipped out 4 putts.  On any course, I would have hit almost every green in regulation, and bad putting is bad putting on any course (direction, not distance).

[Garland Bayley]

Brent

The trend toward longer courses is exactly what one would expect to happen if medal play and more challenging are mixed.  Although, I have never quite figured out why people place such an emphasis on medal VS matchplay courses.  A course is either good or not.  It doesn't make any difference if I am using a pencil. 

Ciao     

Do you like quirk?
The emphasis on medal play courses is to remove any semblance of quirk.
The emphasis on medal play is to remove fun stances and shots.
Who wants to play a steady diet of medal play courses? Not me.
Winged Foot West has to be less fun than Pennard.