Fun to play

[Sean_A]

Sean,
I think we are saying the same thing - sort of.  Where I think we still differ is on the definition of greatness?  The Doak scale I think is geared to the quality and/or greatness of the design and with all due respect I have never played a course that I believed was an 8 or 9 or 10 on that scale that I didn't like or thought was over-rated (otherwise I wouldn't give it that high of a rating in the first place).  Pine Valley for example will never be fun for most higher handicappers.  Who likes to play holes that you can't finish?  Some do but some don't.  But it is hard to argue that Pine Valley is over-rated.  Then again, if you have a different definition of what is great, then maybe for that person it is     


This is why there will always be controversy with any set of course rankings and it still boggles my mind that people here get so bent out of shape about them.  It is all relative. 
Mark

Sure its all relative.  Muirfield is an obvious example for me.  Yep, I think its a great course, but it doesn't do much for me because of the clinical design.  There is no whimsy, it doesn't inspire me for a replay.  I would take near neighbour North Berwick 9 to 1 over Muirfield.  Totally different designs, but both are great and I like one far more than the other.
This is definitely where my preferences come to the fore and allows me to overlook the few holes at NB which are not terribly enthralling.  The other side of the ledger is so packed with good, unusual, unique and whimsical architecture that I place NB very high in the rankings.  Others think that Muirfield is awesome, many others who know a lot more than me....so I will go with the crowd and simply chalk it up to one of those things. 

Jeff

Pine Valley isn't in my top 10 either...of course I have never set foot on the property 

So, if a course appeals to you it must be great? 

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

.....  Who likes to play holes that you can't finish?  ....

Nicely put.
A challenge can be fun once or twice but thereafter if the challenge is too great the fun will likely disappear.
atb

[Steve Lapper]

 The REAL answer to Ted's original question is that it would put no less than 2/3 of the Golf Digest Raters Panel out of a title, and access.

 It would also refute what Ron Whitten, Stephen Hennessey, et.al have preached over there for years. It would reduce Tom Fazio's dominance over that list, Jack Nicklaus' architectural presence, and would diminish the influence of the PGA tour and it's reliance on bomb and gouge mentality.

 It would also conclusively refute the direction that so many single-project wealthy RE developers took throughout the 80's, 90's, and 2000's.

  Lastly, it would force Jerry Tarde to find another ancillary source of revenue to satisfy the Newhouses.

[Mark_Fine]

Steve,
Care to share which courses on the GD list would fall off because they are not fun to play? 

[Steve Lapper]

Steve,
Care to share which courses on the GD list would fall off because they are not fun to play?

Mark,


  Do I really need to?? It should be abundantly obvious to you. Perhaps you should look at Sean's British lists and extrapolate to the US. Shouldn't be too difficult.


   Do you really think a raters group with at least an equal-weighted category of "fun-to-play" would find many of the courses elevated for their scores in the resistance-to-scoring category surviving?

[John Kavanaugh]

Yes, if they truly fit the 5hdcp or less criteria.

[Ted Sturges]

Yes, if they truly fit the 5hdcp or less criteria.

...which is a silly criteria.  For example, this requirement would deem both Ran and Tom Doak to be unworthy as course raters. 

[John Kavanaugh]

That explains why "fun" is a silly criteria. Both Ran and Doak would be lousy raters for Digest. That's a compliment.


Digest built a brand on becoming a more skilled golfer. There are plenty of other options for golfers who want to smell the roses.

[Jim Lipstate]

Fun for me is a course that makes me think and gives me options. I tire quickly of excessive and repititous tree and water lined holes basically forcing one way to play the hole to have any success. Lost balls in excessively deep rough, overgrown trees blocking drives and approaches and impossibly thick vegetation too close to playing corridors slow my round and all too often have me digging in the bag for another ball. Lost balls are not fun. Residential courses lined by out bound stakes on almost every hole quickly expend any fun factor otherwise present.


Give me a course with challenges but also the chance for an occasional spectacular recovery and I will have a blast.

[Mark_Fine]

Steve,
It was actually a genuine question?  There are hundreds if not thousands of courses that are fun to play.  Frankly I can have fun on most any golf course just because I love to play the game and can figure out ways to make most any decent design fun.  Unfortunately if list only has 100 slots then you can only name 100 courses to fill those slots.  I was just wondering which courses you would toss out.  I am guessing you would remove most of the tough ones like Pine Valley, Oakmont, Pinehurst #2, Merion, Olympic, Shinnecock Hills,.... because they are just too hard?


By the way, if a course is one dimensionally tough it does not mean (at least in my book) it gets or deserves a high resistance to scoring number.  It is very easy to make a course hard. But hard doesn't mean good 😊

[John Kavanaugh]

We all know that guy at our club that has the most "fun" playing golf. When was the last time you asked him for advice...about anything?

[Ted Sturges]

We all know that guy at our club that has the most "fun" playing golf. When was the last time you asked him for advice...about anything?

In my golf circle, that would be Randolph Edward Morrissett III.  I ask him for his opinion on golf architecture all the time.  You should give it a shot John...you might learn something. 

TS

[John Kavanaugh]

I'd ask him why he quit playing hickories.

[Mark_Fine]

John,
I am not sure what you are getting at?  I am a big believer in making golf courses fun for the average golfer because they are predominately who plays this game.  However, there is nothing wrong with lists that rank courses with different sets of criteria.  I am not covering for GD or GM or GW or any of them.  They are just offering lists. 


If you take those few courses I mentioned, most average golfers might not consider them "fun".  They are just too hard for golfers that shoot 100 which is about how the average golfer scores.   Tom Doak doesn't mind hard or he wouldn't design his greens the way he does.  I recently played Stone Eagle and loved it.  I thought the greens were great and very tame for Tom but the members think they are way too hard.  Again, it is all relative.




 

[Steve Lapper]

Steve,
It was actually a genuine question?  There are hundreds if not thousands of courses that are fun to play.  Frankly I can have fun on most any golf course just because I love to play the game and can figure out ways to make most any decent design fun.  Unfortunately if list only has 100 slots then you can only name 100 courses to fill those slots.  I was just wondering which courses you would toss out.  I am guessing you would remove most of the tough ones like Pine Valley, Oakmont, Pinehurst #2, Merion, Olympic, Shinnecock Hills,.... because they are just too hard?


By the way, if a course is one dimensionally tough it does not mean (at least in my book) it gets or deserves a high resistance to scoring number.  It is very easy to make a course hard. But hard doesn't mean good 😊

 No Mark, my original assertion was that 2/3 of GD raters wouldn't know what to look for if "fun-to-play" was a criteria. My "removal" list wouldn't include all but one of the names you cited.


 It would, however, include the likes of Butler National, Medinah, Oak Hill, Congressional, Balty Lower, Oakland Hills, Canyata, Rich Harvest Links, et.al. Back when I was younger and less discerning, I played a good number of these regularly. No more. A course with that is one-dimensionally difficult is boring and more often than not, a waste of 4 hours that could've been spent elsewhere. That doesn't mean I won't try it once or twice, but we all know the definition of insanity and that precludes a third time.


PS...I too love Stone Eagle and find it amongst Tom's best work...especially when measured against the terrain he was given.

[John Kavanaugh]

Mark,


There are a glut of courses in the world. Why not enjoy the course that best suits your own game and let other people enjoy what fits theirs?  Why try to make everything enjoyable for everyone? Playing the sucker against the middle...how is that working out for the health of the game?


I rarely hear an Opera enthusiast question why some people love Taylor Swift. Now ask a Swiftie about Opera...

[Kalen Braley]

I sometimes wonder how this topic meshes with other GCA topics.


I've played several Jim Engh courses with other GCA'ers and unless they were lying to me, they all said it was good fun.  But the kind of fun stuff Jim does often gets panned here.


My primary definition of fun is having lots of unusal shot requirements and unconventional out-of-the-box kind of holes...and his courses have no shortage of that.

[Mark_Fine]

John,
Both Taylor Swift and an Opera can be held in the same concert hall.  The music is different but the quality of what is played is impacted by the venue/setting.  I am going to argue that golf courses are similar to concert halls.  Some are great and some not so much but the venue definitely impacts the game just like the concert hall/concert setting impacts the music.   

[John Kavanaugh]

Mark,


The Three Tenors famous Dodger Stadium concert lends itself to my theory that popularity leads to less favorable venues.

[Thomas Dai]

Mark,
The Three Tenors famous Dodger Stadium concert lends itself to my theory that popularity leads to less favorable venues.

How about The Three Fivers - Tarby, Brucey and Kenny! The even played golf.
atb

[cary lichtenstein]

Wow, a great topic and my hidden criteria in rating (no longer) courses. What does fun to play mean to me? It means there is a place to hit your drive besides water on both sides of the fairway. It means that green speeds are reasonable and and there are not 4 breaks in every putt every 7 feet. It means there are no bunkers in the CENTER of the fairway.


It means there is eye candy off the tee. It means that the greens are not tricked up with reverse slopes to the contour. It means that greens do NOT slope downwards from from to back.

[jeffwarne]

 It means that green speeds are reasonable and and there are not 4 breaks in every putt every 7 feet. It means there are no bunkers in the CENTER of the fairway.


It means there is eye candy off the tee. It means that the greens are not tricked up with reverse slopes to the contour. It means that greens do NOT slope downwards from from to back.

Different strokes I guess......

[Ted Sturges]

Wow, a great topic and my hidden criteria in rating (no longer) courses. What does fun to play mean to me? It means there is a place to hit your drive besides water on both sides of the fairway. It means that green speeds are reasonable and and there are not 4 breaks in every putt every 7 feet. It means there are no bunkers in the CENTER of the fairway.


It means there is eye candy off the tee. It means that the greens are not tricked up with reverse slopes to the contour. It means that greens do NOT slope downwards from from to back.

This is very interesting.  Several of the features you mention as "not fun" would definitely be included in my personal definition of "fun" (bunkers placed in spots that make me think, green contours that are puzzles that must be solved, greens that slope away from the line of play) and one you cite, "eye candy" which you enjoy, is something that would not be high on my "fun list". It makes me believe that "fun to play" (the topic of my thread) is more subjective than I would have initially thought.

TS

[Erik Mosley]

I think TPC Sawgrass is a good example of how subjective this can be.  I struggled, lost several balls, and had some unfair bounces/lies, yet I still had a blast.  I'm guessing that's not the case with everyone though...

[Thomas Dai]

I think TPC Sawgrass is a good example of how subjective this can be.  I struggled, lost several balls, and had some unfair bounces/lies, yet I still had a blast.  I'm guessing that's not the case with everyone though...

Fair point Erik. But would it be 'a blast' if you played it a couple if times per week, month after month, year after year or would it then drift into the category of 'unfun'?
Atb