What Constitutes a "Good Test of Golf?"

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat's thread brought up an idea I have been noodling on, as well as one of the answers on that thread, discussing the nuanced difference between a good test and a hard course.  I have always agreed with this.  In a way, target size and receptivity, given shot length, wind, elevation, etc. sort of sets the "test level."  In other words hitting a 3 iron to a small green (or small target within a green) is always a test.  Hard might be the difference between a gentle fw chipping area surrounding the green vs loads of deep sand bunkers, water, or what not.

Sound like a reasonably fair generalization?

Another criteria we often hear thrown out is "requires you to hit all the shots."  Some would define that fairly simply as using every club in the bag, but I think better players would include ball flight, including curvature, height, and what kind of lie they hit off of, as well as a variety of wind conditions to define "all the shots."  You might add in high and low spin.

For instance, high fade into the wind, cross wind left, cross wind right, downwind.  And then low fade, high and low draws, etc., in the same 4 wind conditions. 

We might add a mixture of mental states, as in fear of water (cape hole, island green) and a few easier holes that just might lull you to sleep.  For that matter, mixing hazard close to one side of green, and bail out areas on the other side to cause temptation/indecision would be a better description, and of course lead to choices.

So, my list includes:

Reasonable but difficult targets, (perhaps a mix for variety)
Design that suggests the best shot may have certain patterns to it to best assure success.
Some flat out terror (can be overdone.....)
Options (Indecision/Temptation/Doubt).

What else needs to be factored into a good test of golf?  BTW, we presume that inspiration, usually coming from great natural setting, while not a test of golf, would also need to be included to make it a great course.

[Sean_A]

Jeff

If I know the terrain of the course, usually, all I need to do is look at the scorecard.  A course rating of higher than par on a links will likely prove to be quite difficult for me if there is wind about...often times too difficult.  A good test is a course rating at par or a shot or two below par.  This means length will not be the major defence, but rough, wonky lies, firm ground and wind are all elements which will provide a good test for me.  

On less open terrain such as on parkland courses, it is harder for me to discern the test, but bottom line, if a see a course with a par of 70 and a course rating of 69 or 68, it will be a good test so long as the length remains ~6200 or less on undulating terrain.  Normally Colt courses fit this description quite well.  That said, and to refute GJ somewhat, that means 90 years ago these courses must have been very difficult for the average club member.  There were much fewer courses back then, so I suspect golfers really didn't know any better...how could they?

Ciao

[Mark McKeever]

A good test of golf:

-Use all the clubs in your bag
-Hit different kinds of shots
-Hit off of varied lies
-Greens with varied movement and slopes

[Rich Goodale]

Jeff

Are you not asking what is a "good test of GOOD golf?"  95+% of golfers don't have a clue what it is like to hit a high faded 3 iron to a small green 200+ yards away, but a much higher percentage (very much including me, these days) would consider that 200+ shot to a small green to be a great test as to whether or not I could hit a 200+ shot from the fairway pin high and/or in the ideal position to get up and down in two.  A very much higher percentage of players would consider that shot to be a good test as to their ability to hit the ball somewhere short of the green where they might be likely to hit the green in 3 and maybe hit it close enough to maybe make a par.

Different strokes for different folks.

Rich

[Joe Zucker]

Having interesting greens that provide a variety of different recovery shots over the course of a round are necessary to maintain interest over many rounds.  I think that is relatively straight forward and a pretty common thought.

When I think about the courses I enjoy the most that I played a lot (Sleepy Hollow and Manakiki in Cleveland), the options off the tee come to mind.  On both courses you can pound driver all day long and make a few birdies as you will have a lot of wedges into greens.  But upon repeated playings, driver can get you into quite a bit of trouble.  A good / interesting test for me is one that allows me to hit driver if I want, maybe into a tight corridor, but after seeing the course you realize shorter tee shots might be a better route on some holes.  On any one hole there is the option to be aggressive and go for birdie, but identifying which holes this is the appropriate strategy is tough. When I've played the course 50 times and I still think I know its a good test.

[jeffwarne]

Why the hell would I want to take a test?

Did you guys sit in the front row in school?

I lived for recess

[Mike_Young]

As a person once told me regarding a good administrative assistant:  " you will know it when you have had one"....same goes for golf course:  "you'll know it when you play it".

[Jeff_Brauer]

Rich,

Yes, I guess I am asking what a good test of GOOD golf, or of good golfer's play is.

Mark, I guess my original list didn't include challenges of putting, just tee to green.  Think I basically covered your other points, so I am adding that and Joe's variety of short game challenges.

So, my list includes:

Reasonable but difficult targets, (perhaps a mix for variety)
 Greens small to large for shot
 Fairways narrow to wide
Design that suggests the best shot may have certain patterns to it to best assure success.
Some flat out terror (can be overdone.....)
Options (Indecision/Temptation/Doubt).
Putting Challenge - I guess basics would include almost flat, uphill, downhill, sliders, breakers, up and overs, and reverse breakers for starters.......
Short Game/Recovery Challenge with variety of challenges (short grass, bunkers, grass bunkers)
Variety in general

[Jason Thurman]

When I hear people say "It's a good test of golf," I generally find that they're referring to courses that:

* Are at least 6900 yards
* Have fast greens and lush rough
* Have at least one reachable par 5 with water guarding the green
* Have a few greens with runoff/chipping areas surrounding them
* Have more than 50 bunkers
* Divide greens into clear sections, so that "good shots are rewarded" with makeable putts while less precise approaches have to come over ridges
* Don't hide anything up their sleeves - the challenge is clearly spelled out on each hole and the question is more one of execution than strategy
* Keep the challenge in proportion - for example, the long par 4s and 3s have bigger greens while par 5s and shorter 3s and 4s have more precise targets.

I know that's not exactly what the topic is asking, but when you hear "good test of golf" thrown around, that's usually what the speaker is really thinking.

[Carl Rogers]

Isn't this a "you recognize it when you see it issue"?

Got to play the Homestead Cascades a couple of weeks back.  

I think it passes the test, which ever one you decide to give it, with flying colors.
Variety of everything - hard to imagine a single course with more variety .... degree of difficulty, some easier holes, some very hard, variety in all the par 4's, par 3's (5 of them), par 5's (3 of them) .... all unque, the course has a fascinating and dynamic balance to it.
variety of lies etc

[Joe Zucker]

I'm not sure I completely buy the "you'll know it when you see it" argument.  The Old Courses is arguably the greatest course in the world and very highly regarded here, but a lot of people have said they didn't much like it the first few times around.  I think I remember Rory saying he hated TOC until recently.

I know, I know, a pros opinion is net necessarily valuable, but the fact that he (and others) haven't immediately loved TOC means you might not know you are on a good test when you are playing it.

[Chris DeToro]

I'm not sure I completely buy the "you'll know it when you see it" argument.  The Old Courses is arguably the greatest course in the world and very highly regarded here, but a lot of people have said they didn't much like it the first few times around.  I think I remember Rory saying he hated TOC until recently.

I know, I know, a pros opinion is net necessarily valuable, but the fact that he (and others) haven't immediately loved TOC means you might not know you are on a good test when you are playing it.

Maybe that's part of what makes a great test--a course that you can't stop thinking about after the round is complete.  You know there is something special there, but just can't quite put a finger on it.  But you remember every hole.  There is something unique about the place that makes you unsure if you liked it or not, but doesn't take away from the quality of the course. 

[Paul Gray]

I'm not sure that I even agree with the premise of the question. There are very few golf courses on this planet which are incapable of providing me with a good test, if by "good test" you actually mean a stern test. But then much in the same vain, I find it incredibly delusional when I hear someone comment after shooting 14 over par "That course is too easy. It doesn't really challenge you." What? You've just shot 85. Explain to me which double bogey it was that led to that moment of clarity.

[Joe Zucker]

I definitely agree Chris. A course is great if you can't wait to play it again, even if you don't know why

However, I think the question is looking for what characteristics of a course make you think that way, which is tougher to identify...

[Chris DeToro]

I guess my point was that uniqueness to an extent helps constituted a good test of golf.  Uniqueness makes you encounter shots that you may never have experienced before which makes it challenging

[Jeff_Brauer]

As I alluded to, a "great course" certainly has to give inspiration via site or design. At least, IMHO, a great course doesn't have to be a great test of golf for better players. For most, of course, it is.

Similarly we can all agree that there are courses that wow us and that we want to go back, but upon reflection and multiple plays, don't really provide shot variety, etc.  Some would argue that a great test is one that reveals its true intent slowly after many plays because of its subtlety.

That said, I think we all agree there are many barometers of good to great golf courses.  I am looking for ideas as it relates to what good players would consider a great, or even well rounded test, regardless of beauty, playability for others, etc. 

Any other thoughts on shots, shot values, etc. that you would like to see on a well rounded test of golf, assuming you can play well enough to understand and occasionally execute the shots required?

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - I think the two lists of criteria you've posted here sums it up very well. I would just add this more 'bird's eye' or 'meta-level' view: from the appropriate set of tees, a good test of golf routinely invites me to hit shots that are just outside my comfort/skill level. It is that 'stretch' that defines/characterizes the test -- and it is the variety and intenisty of those stretches (as devised by the architect) that make the test a good and interesting one.

Peter

[Thomas Dai]

That the course has some kind of puzzlement about it. One where both physical and mental golfing skills are required. Some courses require this more than others.
atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter and Thomas,

Interesting points.  I wonder if from the perspective of good players either idea would be included?

Frankly, it seems they want shots up to their limit of skill, but not generally exceeding them.  We may be thinking the same thing.  For instance, they statistically hit their irons in a pattern of 10% of shot length, i.e. within 16 yards (8 each side) on a 160 yard shot.

Would they want a green only 10 yards wide on that shot?  From those I have talked to, no, but would accept a narrower green downwind, since it would presumably straighten out the shot a bit.  However, if you are saying make it 14-15 yards wide, they might accept that as a good test, every once in a while anyway.

And, they seem to like them laid out like a road map with little confusion or puzzlement, so they can "commit to the shot."  To them, I think a good test is a clearly defined series of doable challenges within their skills and other factors aren't appreciated.

Some decision making is okay with them, I think.  Even the go for the pin or play to the fat part of the green (or bail out, if its a water hazard) is something they probably consider in terms of 67-33% probability of success before hitting the shot.  If that 160 yard shot, it would be shades of gray, aiming at least 8 yards from the water no matter what, unless they really, really needed a birdie late in the match.

[David_Tepper]

One minor "good test" for me is a course that calls for using at least 3 different clubs on the par-3's (assuming there are 4 or 5 on the course). Ideally, I would like to see one par-3 that calls for short iron and one that needs a long iron, hyrbrid or fairway wood.

[Rob Marshall]

A good "test" of golf is one where you need to hit a wide variety of shots and play well to shoot your own "personal" par.

[JMEvensky]

One minor "good test" for me is a course that calls for using at least 3 different clubs on the par-3's (assuming there are 4 or 5 on the course). Ideally, I would like to see one par-3 that calls for short iron and one that needs a long iron, hyrbrid or fairway wood.

I'm the same,but this can just as easily be accomplished by tee marker/hole location set up.

My place has 3 (of 5) 3-pars going the exact same direction at almost identical center/center yardages. For a couple of years,we had a Super who delegated tee marker/hole location set up to minimum wage staff who didn't play golf--the Super couldn't be bothered with such quotidian stuff.So frequently,you played 3 identical 3-pars.

Lucky for us,that Super is now screwing up somebody else's golf course.

[Paul Gray]

You could do a lot worse than listen to MacKenzie in a couple of his fundamental ideals:

2) There should be a large proportion of good two shot holes, two or three drive and pitch holes, and at least four one shot holes.

9) There should be infinite variety in strokes required to play the various holes - viz., interesting brassy shots, iron shots, pitch and run-up shots.

Simple and spot on.

[John Kirk]

Rich,

Yes, I guess I am asking what a good test of GOOD golf, or of good golfer's play is.

Mark, I guess my original list didn't include challenges of putting, just tee to green.  Think I basically covered your other points, so I am adding that and Joe's variety of short game challenges.

So, my list includes:

Reasonable but difficult targets, (perhaps a mix for variety)
 Greens small to large for shot
 Fairways narrow to wide
Design that suggests the best shot may have certain patterns to it to best assure success.
Some flat out terror (can be overdone.....)
Options (Indecision/Temptation/Doubt).
Putting Challenge - I guess basics would include almost flat, uphill, downhill, sliders, breakers, up and overs, and reverse breakers for starters.......
Short Game/Recovery Challenge with variety of challenges (short grass, bunkers, grass bunkers)
Variety in general

Good list and good topic.

The course should yield putts of varying lengths, which is almost the same thing as varying the size of greens.  The greens should also slope in different directions, and ideally, the ideal miss should change with hole location on as many holes as possible.

A great course has several holes with fairways that yield different types of lies, so you don't have the same exact lie every time.

I would have minimal out of bounds and eliminate artificial water hazards as a higher priority than flat out terror.  Natural creeks/streams are great.

If you can have firm turf and some wind, then a whole new complement of shot variety can be achieved, like judging how to bounce a ball into a green.

A great course should also be versatile, with lots of interesting tee/hole location combinations.

I'm very keen on this subject, believing that a great course should offer a comprehensive test of a player's skills.  Not everybody here feels that is a hard requirement.

[Frank M]

The swing is test enough for the vast majority of golfers. So much so that all they really want is some eye candy and good conditions.

When it comes to those who appreciate GCA as an art (I think it is fair to assume the vast majority of us here do), well, then it's a different story.

Personally, I like logical GCA. Simple strategies and clear decisions have always appealed to me. Space, and I don't mean fairway width, is big IMO. Let me hit the ball. I don't care if it's from the rough, sand, fescue, whatever. Let the land dictate play. Mother nature has given us plenty of variety and, golf courses that take advantage of that, I believe, will always be a good test.