Follow up on "fun to play"

[Ted Sturges]

I was fascinated by the differing opinions of what constituted "fun to play".  JK wants to face challenging shots, others wanted width, and some cited eye candy...all within their definitions of "fun".  I've been thinking about this and came up with a list of courses that I have played which I felt are so much fun to play that they inspire me to play more (ie:  I would leap at the chance to run to the tee for a second 18 in the same day).  Below is my list of courses that fit that bill for me.  I would love to see the lists of others...

NGLA
Yeamans Hall Club
Royal Dornoch
Cypress Point Club
Rock Creek Cattle Company
Old Macdonald
High Pointe  (NLE)
Cruden Bay

TS

[Ian Mackenzie]

Fun:


Shoreacres
Brora
Western Gailes
Belvedere
San Francisco
Valley Club


And now for the "Antithesis of fun" (IMO):


Butler
Medinah #3
Carnoustie
The Belfry (Ryder Cup course...except #10...;-)

[Brian Finn]

There are quite a few courses where I would run straight from 18 green to 1 tee for another round (because they are so much fun to play)...here are the first bunch that come to mind:

Prairie Dunes
Sand Hills
North Berwick
Cruden Bay
Sleepy Hollow
Somerset Hills
Old Town
Fishers Island
The Creek
Valley Club
Kingsley
Fox Chapel
Wilshire CC
Southampton
Rustic Canyon
Palmetto
Secession
Roaring Gap

[Bill_McBride]

Elie!

[Mike Treitler]

Kingsley Club
Carnoustie
Lawsonia Links


I find these courses to be incredibly fun to play.    I noticed someone mentioned Carnoustie as the antithesis of fun.   I personally loved how firm and fast the terrain is there and found it a joy to have to think about every bounce on my chip shots.  Kingsley is similar in this sense as well. 
Lawsonia Links is so fun because nearly every hole feels like a birdie opportunity yet the course resists scoring quite well due to the greens.   There is also a wonderful variety of holes at the links.

[Tom_Doak]

If you ever needed proof that "fun to play" is just as subjective as "shot values" or "great", seeing Carnoustie listed with the fun courses should clinch it!

[Evan Fleisher]

Ballyneal

[BHoover]

I'm not sure I have ever played a course that wasn't "fun" in some respects. I enjoy playing the game of golf, so obviously a course is going to be fun. I would always be willing to play another 18.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'm not sure I have ever played a course that wasn't "fun" in some respects. I enjoy playing the game of golf, so obviously a course is going to be fun. I would always be willing to play another 18.

True. Heck, IMO, part of the "fun" of Oakmont is how unrelenting it is, and how it demands your best on every shot. That can be fun, too.

[Wade Whitehead]

Ballyhack

WW

[Mike Sweeney]

Great thread and it could morph into GCA's "Top 100 Match Play Courses", which must be in Ran's spam folder :

• NGLA
• Sand Hills
• Cape Arundel
• Mountain Lake
• Cypress Point (sorry for the cliche)
• Pine Valley (hard can be fun)
• Edgartown Golf Club, ME
• North Haven Golf Club, ME
• Yale GC (homer)
• Eastward Ho!
• Garden City
• Merion West
• Shennecossett
• Newport CC

[Jon Wiggett]

Alwoodley
Kilspindie
Brora
Gullane 2 & 3
TOC
Abernethy
Castle Stuart
Boat of Garten

[Matt MacIver]

Skipping obvious top 100 candidates and those mentioned I'd nominate Black Mesa, Devil's Paintbrush, Musgrove Mill and Bulls Bay. 

[Thomas Dai]

A recent thread mentioned Dustin Johnson's comment that he's not played any par-4 this year with more than a 6-iron for his second shot.
On the thread I wondered how the hcps of amateurs would be effected if they played courses of such length.
I am now further pondering to what extent the 'fun' element would be effected?
atb

[Jud_T]

Anyone who hasn't read it needs to:  Challenging, Pretty or Fun.  We each have our own preferences:


http://www.mnuzzo.com/pdf/GAV5.pdf

[Tom_Doak]

Anyone who hasn't read it needs to:  Challenging, Pretty or Fun.  We each have our own preferences:


http://www.mnuzzo.com/pdf/GAV5.pdf

I love Mike's idea but this thread illustrates the weakness of it, if Mike Treitler is going to rate Carnoustie high on the fun scale.  Indeed, you start to go back to the GOLF DIGEST problem, where they ostensibly rate every course on seven different criteria but in fact, their panelists are likely to anchor every number they give to a course around their overall opinion of that course.

[Ian Mackenzie]

A recent thread mentioned Dustin Johnson's comment that he's not played any par-4 this year with more than a 6-iron for his second shot.
On the thread I wondered how the hcps of amateurs would be effected if they played courses of such length.
I am now further pondering to what extent the 'fun' element would be effected?
atb

Yes, but that does not take into account the sand wedges he hits from the rough back out onto the fairway because he can't go for the green...;-)

[Jud_T]

Tom,


I'm not sure it shows the weakness of his argument.  Most of us don't fit neatly into one silo.  For instance I would say I'm an 80/20 Fun/Pretty guy, if I'm being honest.  It may simply mean that Mike T. is a fun/challenging guy.  The point is that there are different lenses through which we view courses.  It also shows the lie of trying to force courses into one ranking is a flawed exercise at best.  Ranking Butler National versus Old Elm is just silly. Pebble may be #2 on the pretty list, #10 on the challenging list and #40 on the fun list as an example (numbers picked out of thin air).  This thought process I think helps the arm-chair crowd think more dispassionately about how we really feel about various courses instead of arguing apples, oranges and pineapples ad infinitum.

P.S. As an aside, I think his choice of Carnoustie is not totally out of left field as I found it more playable and enjoyable than many other tough championship layouts.

[John Kavanaugh]

If you know you are having fun then you are probably bored. Golf is a road trip and all my great memories involve unmitigated disasters, panic, hope and an end game.

[Jud_T]

#challengingguy

[Garland Bayley]

A recent thread mentioned Dustin Johnson's comment that he's not played any par-4 this year with more than a 6-iron for his second shot.
On the thread I wondered how the hcps of amateurs would be effected if they played courses of such length.
I am now further pondering to what extent the 'fun' element would be effected?
atb

If you get your jollies by scoring low, you would probably find it fun. I you get your jollies by hitting golf shots, it might become a bit boring.
Tournament players aren't out there to have fun. They are out there to go low. So bomb and gouge is a way of going low practiced by many. No need to run the ball in if you can fly it high and have it stop. Would you find that fun Dai?

[Thomas Dai]

I was playing Devils Advocate a bit Garland, as I reckon you realised.

Challenge can be fun, but challenge day-after-day-after-day? Same with 'relatively easier', fun for a while but day-after-day-after-day? I guess we each have different monotony levels.
I actually quite admire the lads and lasses we see on TV, especially the ones who are struggling for £$. Fly, hotel, practice round/pro-am, 4-rounds (okay sometimes only 2), fly 25-30 weeks p/a.

In some ways we should be grateful for DJ's 'nothing longer than 6-iron par-4 second shots' scenario - okay he's longer than most but imagine how long aTV pro-comp round would take it the players were hitting long-irons and hybrids and fairway metals as second shots on par-4's. They be on the course forever! Yawn fest?

As to money, I recall one Euro Ryder Cup player saying he'd play on an airport runway if the money was good enough!

atb

[Tom_Doak]

I was thinking of trying out Mike's system, and asking everyone here to take the latest top-100 list and rate the courses on Mike's three categories.  It would be an interesting exercise, if only to identify the biases of the current GOLF Magazine panelists -- if we didn't understand them pretty well already.  [Hint:  Challenge is a distant third on their priority list.]


But in the end, somebody would have to add up a bunch of numbers to create three lists instead of one, and it wouldn't change any of our own preferences, anyway.


The other thing is, I'm not sure that Mike's three categories really capture the most important aspect of golf courses, for me personally.  My #1 category is Interesting.  I guess you could say that's a combination of Fun and Challenge, but it is a particular combination, or perhaps just a tweak of the idea of Challenge.


The most straightforward Challenging course would have ten-yard-wide fairways, penal rough, lots of hazards, etc.  And everyone would hate it!  What most of us want is a course that's challenging without killing us in such straightforward ways.  Some define this as "fair" -- but that's a four-letter word in my office, because it invites the criticism that a bad bounce is "unfair", when in fact razor-thin margins for error are a huge part of what makes a hole Interesting.


Interesting also covers the problem that if you keep repeating the same design, no matter how good it is by other measures, eventually that becomes stale and we would prefer something different.  [see:  Seth Raynor]


Interesting is pretty easy to break down, one hole at a time; but it can also be applied to the course as a whole.

[Tim Martin]

Interesting also covers the problem that if you keep repeating the same design, no matter how good it is by other measures, eventually that becomes stale and we would prefer something different.  [see:  Seth Raynor]

I could play Raynor's courses day after day and never find the "templates" stale. I would love to see what the rankings look like today if he had lived just 10 more years to the age of 62.

[Tom_Doak]

Best case, Raynor only had 4 more years of work in him before the Depression cut off his opportunities.  I'd guess the only difference in the rankings is that Whippoorwill would be included if it had Raynor's name on it instead of Banks's.  Such is the fickle nature of panelists!