[JESII]

Guys,

I don't think there is a premise any of us are supporting that states Hard = Good in any way.

The premise from the opening post is, are great courses difficult? And they are! Every single one. This does not mean you can take your own course, make it more difficult, and therefore make it greater.

[BCowan]

Jim,

Not all great courses r difficult

[Jim Sherma]

Jim,

Not all great courses r difficult

Today that may be the case given the different equipment since they were built. Are there any examples of courses that were considered great upon construction that were not also considered challenging and hard?

[JESII]

Jim,

Not all great courses r difficult

Name one that's easy.

[Ken Moum]

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.

Well, it could be that no one else thinks Firekeeper is easier.

Certainly none of the "average" golfers I play with think it's easy. Most of them couldn't finish a round if they had to play by the rules.

Firekeeper is a very popular spot for scrambles, because you only have to get one ball in play off the tee.

As I may have said before, when the City Championship played a round out there a couple of years ago, the leaders after one round teed off first and only about half the field finished the round before darkness.

A friend of mine got in 16 holes in just over 6 1/2 hours.

Another one, several-time city champ, said he wouldn't play in it as long as Firekeeper was in the rotation.

It's a lovely course, but easy isn't a reasonable description.

Which might explain why it's ranked so highly.

On topic, I hard=good is at least partly due to good.players and TV types saying, "This is a good par four..."

K

[BCowan]

Jim,

Not all great courses r difficult

Name one that's easy.

Jim,

  Going from difficult to easy is some spectrum.  Non difficult great courses, Franklin hills comes to mind.  Battle Creek cc comes to mind too.  Old Elm comes to mind.  Southern pines comes to mind...

[Sean_A]

Ben


Unless one is an exceptional golfer, all courses are difficult, but the vast majority are not great.  Once again, folks are viewing (or trying to view) golf thru the eyes of the best players. 


The spectrum should go from hard.....to so hard there is no fun to be had...to so hard its painful to watch the pros play.  Easy doesn't exist for me and I wouldn't say Franklin Hills is easy.  If a course feels easy its because I am playing well.  That same course can feel brutal the next day.


For me, archies get it when they understand the game is hard and therefore don't look for ways to beat golfers over the head.  The best archies look for ways to make the difficulty as palatable and fun as possible. They make golfers want to blame themselves for lost strokes rather than blame the archie and the best sort of blame an archie can hope for is helping to create mental mistakes by enticing, cajoling and begging golfers to step out of their comfort and capability zones.  The worst sort of archie relies on demanding golfers to do so...at least do so too often. 


Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

I believe the reason hard courses are equated with good ones is because most defer to the better golfers about what golf is about, and better players like challenging courses where their superior skill prevails.

My proof is all those ladies committees I used to deal with, who insisted they didn't want tees further forward, because the discussion was dominated by the women's club champ and runner up.  Meanwhile on my new courses I've been building tees way up and all the women love to play them.  I get a lot of hugs for it.

[Thomas Dai]

I wonder if when Tom completely updates the Confidential Guide books in 'X' number of years time the Doak Scale will be replaced by the 'Hug Scale'!?

Atb

[archie_struthers]

 


Don't think the majority of people on this DG think this. In fact we've had many fruitful discussions regarding flow and the need to mix it up. A constant staccato of hard and penal just doesn't make it!

[BCowan]

Ben


Unless one is an exceptional golfer, all courses are difficult, but the vast majority are not great.  Once again, folks are viewing (or trying to view) golf thru the eyes of the best players. 


The spectrum should go from hard.....to so hard there is no fun to be had...to so hard its painful to watch the pros play.  Easy doesn't exist for me and I wouldn't say Franklin Hills is easy.  If a course feels easy its because I am playing well.  That same course can feel brutal the next day.


For me, archies get it when they understand the game is hard and therefore don't look for ways to beat golfers over the head.  The best archies look for ways to make the difficulty as palatable and fun as possible. They make golfers want to blame themselves for lost strokes rather than blame the archie and the best sort of blame an archie can hope for is helping to create mental mistakes by enticing, cajoling and begging golfers to step out of their comfort and capability zones.  The worst sort of archie relies on demanding golfers to do so...at least do so too often. 


Ciao

S,

   You didn't read what I posted. Jim said every great golf course is difficult. Then he says which is easy. That is other end of spectrum.  Franklin hills is medium.  I took my 26 handi cap father and 40 handi cap father in law. They thought it was very user friendly. 2ndly I have caddies for 10 plus years and I am insulted that u think I just look through the lens of a good player only and say I was like other posters  .  It isn't so much archies as in green committe wanting thick rough or florida sand.

Tom,

   Maybe said woman doesn't want an Archie to touch a course the same way u don't want one touching TOC.     Maybe said woman doesn't want the tees dumbed down like many courses do for ladies tees removing dog legs ect.

[Kyle Harris]

Nobody likes to blame themselves for playing poorly.

When a golf course is hard, it's easier to blame the golf course.

[Sean_A]

Ben


Unless one is an exceptional golfer, all courses are difficult, but the vast majority are not great.  Once again, folks are viewing (or trying to view) golf thru the eyes of the best players. 


The spectrum should go from hard.....to so hard there is no fun to be had...to so hard its painful to watch the pros play.  Easy doesn't exist for me and I wouldn't say Franklin Hills is easy.  If a course feels easy its because I am playing well.  That same course can feel brutal the next day.


For me, archies get it when they understand the game is hard and therefore don't look for ways to beat golfers over the head.  The best archies look for ways to make the difficulty as palatable and fun as possible. They make golfers want to blame themselves for lost strokes rather than blame the archie and the best sort of blame an archie can hope for is helping to create mental mistakes by enticing, cajoling and begging golfers to step out of their comfort and capability zones.  The worst sort of archie relies on demanding golfers to do so...at least do so too often. 


Ciao

S,

   You didn't read what I posted. Jim said every great golf course is difficult. Then he says which is easy. That is other end of spectrum.  Franklin hills is medium.  I took my 26 handi cap father and 40 handi cap father in law. They thought it was very user friendly. 2ndly I have caddies for 10 plus years and I am insulted that u think I just look through the lens of a good player only and say I was like other posters  .  It isn't so much archies as in green committe wanting thick rough or florida sand.

Tom,

   Maybe said woman doesn't want an Archie to touch a course the same way u don't want one touching TOC.     Maybe said woman doesn't want the tees dumbed down like many courses do for ladies tees removing dog legs ect.

Ben


"Easy" is not an accurate adjective...otherwise I would expect 5-10 cappers to routinely shoot par.  I don't see that on any "regulaton" course.  Sure, you can say one course is easier than another, but that in no way should imply courses are easy. 


Ciao 

[Mike_Young]

I don't necessarily see hard as being equated to good.  I think it is the ability of a course to be difficult when needed or from a specific set of tees that makes it good.  I also don't think MAINTAINED rough is meant to be an element of difficulty in good architecture.  That's an element some committee or supt decided could be used to screw with people. It can destroy intended architecture.   A good golf course is like a checker board.  It can be used to play chess and yet the checker player can still enjoy it...and may even pretend he's playing chess

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Also, few seem to realize that its growing rough longer and thicker (with artificial irrigation) that makes pros scream "Get in the Bunker" as much as the ease of getting out of the bunker.  I imagine Mac and the others placed fw bunkers with the idea that the surrounding rough was pretty sparse.

When you have 2-3 acres of heavy rough on a hole, and only 2000 SF of fw bunker, it sort of negates the strategic value of the bunker anyway.  What's chances you are going to hit it, vs. rough all along both sides of the fw.  It all makes you just aim for the middle of the fw.  Make that narrow enough, and voila, its a tough course.

[Mark Pearce]

Kingsbarns is a highly rated, possibly great, golf course which is easy, relative to the average golf course.


I haven't played Castle Stuart but I suspect it is, too.

[Bob Montle]

Welcome, Bob. I'd love to hear why you enjoyed TOC and Berwick. What made them fun as opposed to hard?

 The answer (for me) is probably that they fit my game.  I’m an 18 handicapper who is wilder than normal off the tee (mostly wild left), and from the fairway but good at the ground game from 100 yds in.  I’m an average putter but struggle with contours on very fast greens.


On both courses I could swing freely without worrying about stroke penalties for wayward shots.  I loved using fairway contours to roll balls onto the green.  I loved the suprises on every hole – the blind shots and random bounces.  The greens were surprisingly easy to read and very consistant, making it easy to scramble for bogeys on otherwise disaster holes.
Both courses were as much fun as I have ever had on a golfcourse.  I was able to adapt my game to the course while still enjoying the challenge without feeling beaten down.

For what it’s worth I shot 52-42 on T.O.C  (guess which way the wind was blowing) and 49-43 at Berwick. 

I played with a 6 handicapper at Ladybank and at Fraserburgh.   His opinion was that Ladybank was fun and challenging while Fraserburgh was way too short and easy.
For me, Ladybank was "drive into the trees then knock it back into the fairway” on every hole.  Fraserburgh was a delight all the way, up and down over the sand dunes.
 
Scores?  Ladybank he shot 80 and I shot 114.
            Fraserburgh he shot 84 and I shot 88
 
He still insisted Fraserburgh was too short and he would have torn it up if it had been a calm day.  But… it wasn’t!    His 100 yd wedges were blown wide of the green while my 8 iron runners would roll up to the pin.
This has been hard for me to explain, but I hope I was able to answer your question sir.



 

[Doug Siebert]

Someone brought up the SAT, which I think is an interesting example.

I always wanted hard tests when I was in school. Partly because I was smarter than most of those taking it, so it allowed the gap between me and them to be more easily visible. Also because a really easy test where I should get a perfect score will annoy the hell out of me if I have a brain fart and miss one. That's like reaching the green in two on a par 5, lagging your eagle to three feet, then missing the damn birdie. Getting a 99 on an easy test gave me the same feeling a three putt par does!

But when I say hard I mean the questions are difficult insofar as requiring you to be smarter, not trick questions. To me trick questions on a test are like having OB all down one side of a hole and water down the other. Its a shortcut to making a hole harder rather than more challenging - it is just says "any shot that misses the fairway by very much is dead" rather than "if you hit a wild one you better be one hell of a golfer the rest of the hole if you expect it to not cost you".

[Jim Franklin]

My biggest issue is the concept of deep rough to penalize the golfer. Our course wants rough at 3 1/2". Fine, but it is only 3 1/2" for a brief time. It grows and becomes 4-6" quickly. I bring guests out to play that are not low single digits and we are spending far too much time looking for balls. You mention that to anyone and they don't want to keep rough lower because the course will be too easy.

More people are quitting the game because it is too hard not because it is too easy. Cut the rough and let the players have fun with a flier lie or two.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

That has always been my feeling.  A flyer lie may mess up any player while not punishing the bad ones.

I played in the inaugural Las Vegas Celebrity Pro Am many years ago, and almost lost a ball that had strayed off the fairway by six inches.  Caddy found it just in time, and Gary Player told me to hit up, since you never know when a shot will go in or close and help the team score.

Of course, its an argument for at least a graduated cut, but of course, this site would be generally against it as "too formulaically proportional."  Funny how your mind changes when its your shot that gets caught by deep rough.

And, to your main point, the times I want to quit a round are when I am constantly in deep rough.  And, I am a pretty straight driver.  What happened to hit it, find it, hit it again?

My only other thought on rough is to make it just long enough to tell the difference between it and fairway, especially on blue to blue or Bermuda to Bermuda, etc., wall to wall grassing.  Even then, there are plenty of times you could just mow it all the same height, if you wanted to mow an extra 50 acres an extra time or two per week.  (Most don't)

[Jim Franklin]

Jim,

That has always been my feeling.  A flyer lie may mess up any player while not punishing the bad ones.

I played in the inaugural Las Vegas Celebrity Pro Am many years ago, and almost lost a ball that had strayed off the fairway by six inches.  Caddy found it just in time, and Gary Player told me to hit up, since you never know when a shot will go in or close and help the team score.

Of course, its an argument for at least a graduated cut, but of course, this site would be generally against it as "too formulaically proportional."  Funny how your mind changes when its your shot that gets caught by deep rough.

And, to your main point, the times I want to quit a round are when I am constantly in deep rough.  And, I am a pretty straight driver.  What happened to hit it, find it, hit it again?

My only other thought on rough is to make it just long enough to tell the difference between it and fairway, especially on blue to blue or Bermuda to Bermuda, etc., wall to wall grassing.  Even then, there are plenty of times you could just mow it all the same height, if you wanted to mow an extra 50 acres an extra time or two per week.  (Most don't)

Jeff -

I am glad we agree on length of rough. I wish more classic courses did.

[Justin VanLanduit]

I believe the reason hard courses are equated with good ones is because most defer to the better golfers about what golf is about, and better players like challenging courses where their superior skill prevails.

My proof is all those ladies committees I used to deal with, who insisted they didn't want tees further forward, because the discussion was dominated by the women's club champ and runner up.  Meanwhile on my new courses I've been building tees way up and all the women love to play them.  I get a lot of hugs for it.

We are in that situation now.  When a renovation was done 12 years or so ago and ladies tees were constructed the then better woman didn't want forward tees.  Now those ladies are asking why the golf course is so long for the woman and are asking that we build tees up for them.

[George Pazin]

Welcome, Bob. I'd love to hear why you enjoyed TOC and Berwick. What made them fun as opposed to hard?

 The answer (for me) is probably that they fit my game.  I’m an 18 handicapper who is wilder than normal off the tee (mostly wild left), and from the fairway but good at the ground game from 100 yds in.  I’m an average putter but struggle with contours on very fast greens.


On both courses I could swing freely without worrying about stroke penalties for wayward shots.  I loved using fairway contours to roll balls onto the green.  I loved the suprises on every hole – the blind shots and random bounces.  The greens were surprisingly easy to read and very consistant, making it easy to scramble for bogeys on otherwise disaster holes.
Both courses were as much fun as I have ever had on a golfcourse.  I was able to adapt my game to the course while still enjoying the challenge without feeling beaten down.

For what it’s worth I shot 52-42 on T.O.C  (guess which way the wind was blowing) and 49-43 at Berwick. 

I played with a 6 handicapper at Ladybank and at Fraserburgh.   His opinion was that Ladybank was fun and challenging while Fraserburgh was way too short and easy.
For me, Ladybank was "drive into the trees then knock it back into the fairway” on every hole.  Fraserburgh was a delight all the way, up and down over the sand dunes.
 
Scores?  Ladybank he shot 80 and I shot 114.
            Fraserburgh he shot 84 and I shot 88
 
He still insisted Fraserburgh was too short and he would have torn it up if it had been a calm day.  But… it wasn’t!    His 100 yd wedges were blown wide of the green while my 8 iron runners would roll up to the pin.
This has been hard for me to explain, but I hope I was able to answer your question sir.

Fantastic post, thanks for sharing this. And I love your illustration of Ladybank/Fraserburgh with the 6 handicap, that shows what  Tom D was saying perfectly.

[Kerry Gray]

I want to expand on something Tom alluded to earlier. I think from time beginning ranking magazines have selected better golfers to perform the ratings, and they see tough courses as more challenging. Low handicappers don't struggle as much on harder, narrower, longer courses. Sahalee for example is loved for its beauty and difficulty but many would find it uninteresting because their is not much shot selection required. But it usually rated highly. In Canada, I don't think the National is a place I would want to play every week and in fact I know two members who left for that reason, both single digit handicappers. But it's always rated highly. Not saying it's bad but if had a bunch of average handicappers rate it, I think it's ranked much lower. I am a mid handicapper and two of the most fun courses I have ever played are Jasper Park and Kapalua. Not overly difficult but risk/reward abounds and you won't lose 20 balls if you miss hit some shots. Fun is underrated.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()