[Tommy Williamsen]

Very few of us play the Merions, San Francisco GCs, or Sunningdales every week. Bless those that get that privilege. Most of us play on fields of much less stature. Some of my most enjoyable golf has been played on courses that not even guys on this well-educated board have heard of.
Just how good does a course have to be to be well, good enough to love or good enough that you would invite a well-traveled friend to play?

[PCCraig]

I think it's less about how "good" a course is as it is how "interesting" it is.

[Wade Whitehead]

I'll play any course with a good friend or two.

WW

[Greg Smith]

The key phrase there is "well-traveled" friend.  Another is "love" a course.


Last week I did play a very well-known and elite course by sheer miracle and happenstance.  That course asked a lot of questions -- some my game could answer, others not even close.  But every shot had some detail that kept one engaged and focused.


The devil is in the details.  To invite my well traveled friend there have got to be at least some details that are a mark of architectural sophistication.  It doesn't have to be on every shot like the elite course, but there has to be SOMETHING.  If the course is composed entirely of thoughtless holes it shouldn't even be discussed.

[Jeff_Brauer]

For this group?  Pretty good. Or for the broad cross section of "retail" golfers?  Surveys show maintenance, comraderie and proximity, among other things are factors driving play.


Good enough to love?  I think all of us are probably lucky that not everyone has top notch standards when it comes to loving us!

[Adrian_Stiff]

For this group?  Pretty good. Or for the broad cross section of "retail" golfers?  Surveys show maintenance, comraderie and proximity, among other things are factors driving play.


Good enough to love?  I think all of us are probably lucky that not everyone has top notch standards when it comes to loving us!

+1

[Tommy Williamsen]

I have to admit I have been judicious about who to invite where. I hate that I have done that because some would love me more than they would have loved the course.

[Jim Hoak]

Golf is a game (for most of us), and we play games to have fun and enjoy the experience.  So doesn't "fun" trump "good," however you define that?  We can appreciate "good," but "fun" is more important on a regular basis.

[Tim Gavrich]

I play in a modest stableford-and-skins game on Saturdays at Sandridge GC here in Vero Beach, which has two Ron Garl courses. The facility is really good, but the design of the courses is just not that compelling to me. I still enjoy playing them with a chance to win a few bucks, but I'm hard-pressed to go out there on my own and play. If I'm just going to go play, I'd much rather pay a little bit extra and go down to play the Dye Course down at PGA Village, which is about half an hour. It's an excellent golf course, which means it is plenty engaging even in a non-competitive context. This is to say the course itself is a compelling adversary in a way that others are not.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I believe for most golfers, courses are like art, they may not know why they like it, just that they like it.  I doubt we could quantify why over a large group, but if we did, aesthetics and ambiance would be closer to the answer than being a "compelling adversary."

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()