[Jim Franklin]

I'm sure it has been touched before, but why do people equate hard as being good or even great golf? The rough at our course is kept at a pretty high level and thick as well. Too many people think that will get us rated better. I say cut it down and have fun.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not sure who says that, but I agree with you.  The original GD criteria focused on hard, but has since changed, but that might have been part of it.

[Adam Lawrence]

A good question, and a difficult one to answer. We can come up with lots of examples -- the original GD 'toughest courses' list, the fact that championship courses tend to be the most highly regarded, and are inevitably also tough -- but actually explaining _why_ is much harder, I think.


I jokingly like to say that golf's Scottishness is expressed by it not being about fun but pain and suffering; perhaps there is a little bit of truth in this, and getting a kicking from the course is somehow inherent to golf's appeal. Plus, it's a game largely played by guys, who tend towards the macho, and, again, doing battle with a beastie is more macho than taking on and taking apart something much easier.


But the root cause of why so many golfers calculate that hard = good? Search me.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think a lot of people do associate hard = good. I agree with Adam that it is because the better golf courses are harder. Hence par 4 holes under 400 show a weakness and if there are too many it adds up to a negative. Long = good as well in most eyes as a general statement.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Maybe it's changing.  I was worried a bit about public rankings when I designed Firekeeper in KS.  Client asked for an easier resort course and I had designed the top 2 in KS public already.  However, upon opening, it rose to no. 1 in KS (public) over my harder Colbert Hills and Sand Creek Station, which dropped to 2 and 3 respectively.  Think that is true for both GD and GW, but I haven't looked at any current rankings. 

Of course, it also had no housing and nice gently rolling land, a nice head start on the other two.  So, maybe rankers look at the total circumstances.

[Ian Andrew]

deleted

[John Kavanaugh]

Watching Pebble last week those firm greens sure looked difficult. Sure looked fun.

[JESII]

Because an easy opponent in any sport has never been considered great...


Not saying it's right, just saying...

[Nigel Islam]

For me I don't mind hard as long as I don't have to spend time looking for balls and fretting about water all over the place. There are different degrees of hard...........

[Sean_A]

Golf has always been a difficult game...I don't think there is much doubt about that. If we go back to the American boom of the early 1920s onward, there was a conscious effort to build tougher championship courses that would produce better golfers. That mantra of tougher courses produce better golfers exists even today with the media and rankings reinforcing the concept.  So if the golfers are supposedly better for it, the tougher courses must be superior. 


The dramatic improvements in equipment and course conditions have also played their part.  As the better players shot lower and lower scores, courses became narrower and more hazard filled...this progression was a reaction.  People still view courses "through the eyes" of the best players.  The problem is, the gap between the best players and good players has never been greater.  Hence there is now a serious disconnect between courses and quality of players.  Thankfully, there has been a bit of a backlash with Pietro's idea of the popularity of resort courses with are easier to keep one ball in play and hence it is more likely for good players to score well. 


Ciao   

[Niall C]

Speaking as a Scotsman, I suspect Adam has a point, as much as it pains me to say it. As I get older and the more I’m exposed to golfing cultures elsewhere, the more I’ve come to believe that in this country we simply aren’t as articulate when it comes to architecture, which is not to say that we don’t know a good course when we see it. We just don’t seem to know or be able to articulate why it’s a good course (or bad course as the case me be).


In essence golf is about the challenge of getting the wee white ball in the hole. We all enjoy the challenge, and therefore the bigger the challenge the better it is (in theory). However I think it is about more than creating a bigger challenge but should be about the nature of that challenge. That to me was what the Golden Age boys were all about. They weren’t about removing the challenge but rather making the challenge more fun. Somewhere along the line we’ve forgotten that or at least don’t talk about it outwith specialised forums like this one.


That I think is slowly changing but with the UK perhaps lagging behind ? Perhaps Sean or Rich who’s experience straddles both sides of the pond could comment on that.
 


Niall


ps typed this before Seans response but has taken the last 5 minutes to sort the formatting
 

[Jim Hoak]

Since golf is a game, shouldn't fun=good?

[Adam Lawrence]

Aha! I think Jim has hit on something quite important. But I also think it is a mistaken view, and here is why.


The course is in no sense one's 'opponent' in a game of golf. The course is a _venue_ which allows a game of golf to be contested between two or more players, at matchplay, strokeplay, Stableford, skins or whatever scoring method one chooses.


The view of the course as our opponent is also the source of the obsession with par, and, in particular, golfers' affection for 'half par' holes where the real par (3.5 or 4.5) is below the actual par (4 or 5), and distaste for those holes where true par is higher than actual par (4.5 against 4 or 3.5 against 3). Why? Because on those holes we are most likely to feel that we got one over against the course -- which we view as our opponent.


Course as opponent thinking is also responsible for most of the quibbles about 'fairness'. All courses are inherently fair, because they are the same for all golfers (with a sidebar noting that in a large competition changing weather conditions _may_ impact on this). But, when we view the course as our opponent, then unfairness abounds!


I see an article in this (goes away to think some more). Cheers Jim!

[Peter Pallotta]

Here's one possible answer/theory, in line with Jim's post and Niall's too:

The essence/purpose of golf course architecture is to turn a field into a field of play. It accomplishes this by taking away the straight and unencumbered line between the teeing ground and the pin; and inculcates an otherwise uninteresting walk (a field) with hazards to avoid, obstacles to overcome, challenges to confront, shots to be played, fears to be faced, and alternate routes/choices to be made (a field of play). In other words: if golf wasn't hard it wouldn't be a worse/better game, it wouldn't be a "game" at all. 

Far from being spiteful or misguided, it is in fact only the architect that  creates/finds difficulties for the golfer to handle and problems for him to solve who is actually fulfilling his mandate and using his craft/talent for the purpose it was intended.  We all know this to be true, and so for as long as the game itself has been played those who play it -- the so-called rabbits and tigers both -- have equated a hard golf course with a good (i.e. well designed) golf course.

Neither they nor we are not wrong in believing that; the field of play must be challenging or it becomes simply a field. If there is a problem, it is only this: that over the years some architects (and some golfers and some clients and some magazines) have opted for and fallen in love with unimaginative and heavy-handed and boringly repetitive forms of challenges and obstacles and hazards. 

Of course since, as I suggested on another thread, we are now firmly in the grip of "The Golden Age 2-The Resort Course", our tolerance level for blunt and heavy-handed challenges and hazards is at an all time low.   

Peter   

[Kalen Braley]

I wonder if there isn't something else at play here.

I wonder if many of the courses that are considered good, are the ones that everyone sees on TV....which the vast majority are usually presented with difficult conditions including high rough, tucked pins, and long holes.  It seems to me that "good" courses are simply where the pros play, and difficult conditions are just part and parcel with that experience.

I also think its due to this same phenomena that:

1)  Long holes are "better" than short ones
2)  Quick 10+ stimping greens are "better" than slow ones.
3)  Fairway conditions must be perfect to be "good"
4)  A long pre-shot routine is "better" than no routine.
5)  18 holes that challenge you on every shot is "better" than just a few holes.

etc, etc.

[BCowan]

For me I don't mind hard as long as I don't have to spend time looking for balls and fretting about water all over the place. There are different degrees of hard...........

By far the best post.  So simple and to the point.  Why can't there be compromise.  Firmer greens and shorter rough, instead of long rough and soft greens?

[John Kavanaugh]

Pick up your trophies at the door. You've each earned one just for showing up.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have actually seen a bit of a disconnect from this, as the golf population ages.  At least, many in the golf industry hope so.

The theory is that many older types are content with their home course being easier and shorter, and get whatever "hard golf" fix they may have an inner need for on road trips or a few competitions.  The recreational player really just wants to shoot near their average score.  However, those concerned with handicap competitions prefer a harder course and higher handicap which travels well to other easier courses.

I guess golf is still competitive.  The basic quest to reach your "personal best" is still out there somewhere, even if diluted by recreational play, carts, comraderies, etc.  It's a natural thing to want to test yourself on a tougher course, sort of like moving up to the next level on your video game....LOL

[Ben Hollerbach]

Good golf courses are challenging, which to many makes them hard. Good golf courses also often present fairness in their challenge, they have what I like to call the "plotters route" where one can choose to avoid all danger and challenge while sacrificing ones ultimate score.


Golf courses that don't present the plethora of challenge we cherish in good golf courses rarely see that as its greatest shortcoming towards greatness., rather they see the course as too easy. They grown the rough and shrink the fairways to make the golf course harder. But it also takes away some of the challenge, if a ball hit in the fairway is playable and a ball hit in the rough is not, then the challenge has become binary and boring.


To many hard=good because they think good=hard, rather than understanding good=challenging.

[John Kavanaugh]

Are there really golfers in the world who wouldn't want to play ANGC under tournament conditions. From the correct set of tees that is. Once you show the maturity to play from the correct tees, without hard what you got?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Most golfers I know who get to play in such situations are always really surprised at how much harder tournament conditions are.  Probably the best way to get golfers to stop demanding tournament conditions would be to actually let them play tournament courses a few times. 

It would probably shut them up in a hurry, as they would quickly find they were way over their heads.  Actually, not a bad analogy, most golfers should stay in the shallow end of the pool, if not the kiddie pool.

[Andrew Carr]

Are there really golfers in the world who wouldn't want to play ANGC under tournament conditions. From the correct set of tees that is. Once you show the maturity to play from the correct tees, without hard what you got?

Sorry to be a contrarian, but I have no interest in playing the ANGC of today.  If Mr. Doak or some other GCA with a reverence to Dr. Mackenzie were to restore it, I'd be first in line (or I'd try to be...)  To not stray too much from the post's topic, it's for the reason that they have removed a lot of Dr. Mackenzie's width and made the course too hard.  Thankfully, the Green Jackets haven't put in US Open Style Rough, but when they can no longer purchase more land, to make the course longer, rough might become an option to "protect par."  I'm beating a dead horse with bringing up how many less trees there were originally and how many more bunkers have been added, but weren't they put in to make the course harder?  Also, the speeds of the greens!  They had to remove the most interesting part of the course in an effort to keep "championship speed."  Why else did they do that if not to make it hard (great)?

[John Kavanaugh]

Yea, and I tried to explain to my wife this morning why I was driving nine hours to play in the wind. You either get it or you want it given to you. The world is tilting to the latter.

[Kalen Braley]

I'm sorry Andrew, but my BS meter just blew its lid off.

Are you saying that if you got an invite to play ANGC, the Monday after the tourney, (from the correct tees), that you would turn that down?

GMAFB....that's probably the most absurd thing I've read on this site in a long time.

Sorry, just calling it how I see it! 

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff Brauer,

Great point and exactly!!

Most weekend warriors that struggle to shoot 85 from the whites at their home course have no clue that if the pros played that same course under the same conditions you are, they would eviscerate it with a low 60s, (from the tips), without even breaking a sweat. 

Major disconnect!!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()