Must a golf course be great for all, to be considered great by all?

[Ronald Montesano]

"Have you been to __________? Her set of tees would be 6800 yards with a rating and slope of 75.6 / 151. The first hole that comes to mind when talking about our moms is the 10th tee shot, a well over 200 plus yard carry over water with no way to the fairway but over the water. How would she play this hole? Does this make _________ not a good course?"


This quote, from a concurrent thread, brought up the question in this thread's title, as I sit here in a Starbuck's in Annapolis, after attending USNA commencement and commissioning yesterday.


My answer is, I do not know. I suspect that you do.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ron -
I no longer care what courses all or anyone else considers great.
I happen to know what makes for a great golf course, and my own knowing now satisfies me completely -- the only person said knowledge needs to satisfy.
'Great' we actually experience, personally & subjectively; 'considered great' is part of the big lie in which we collectively (if conveniently) chose to participate.
And 'playable for all' is simply another pleasant-sounding version of the same collectivized approach -- the one deigning to speak for the many, most of whom the one has not ever even met, let alone heard speak for themselves.
And that's the truth, brother!
PS
I think I'm with Mike Young's old tag line, it 'It never happened'... at least not in the (collective) way we like to say it did.
Best to you
Peter

[Bill Charles]

That sounds like a course that can only be played by a few elite. How can anyone consider that great? Golf should be meant for everyone and we can not accept golf courses that are not built or designed or redesigned for everyone.

[John Emerson]

I think no.  “Art” is always in the eye of the beholder.  Some courses move different people in different ways.  Is the Mona Lisa attractive to all?  Definitely no, but many people consider it one of the best paintings ever.  I think the same goes for golf course designs

[Tom_Doak]

Ron:


There is absolutely nothing wrong with having courses that appeal to different segments of the golf population.  There are many, many examples of that in this business, from the mom-and-pop courses that would never appeal to a GOLF DIGEST panelist but generate local interest, to courses that you have to have a certain sort of golf game to enjoy.


Indeed, I think golf course architecture would be better if architects were less afraid to offend someone, and built courses which didn't have six sets of tees in a band-aid attempt to please everyone.  [It would make them actually consider playability from tee to green.]  But, many clients insist on the combination of Playability and GOLF DIGEST [TM] Resistance to Scoring, and here we are.


Your question, though, is well phrased.  You didn't ask if the course must be great for all, to be great.  You asked if it must be great for all, to be considered great by all.  And by that phrasing, I think the answer is YES. 


There are few if any courses which are actually considered great by all users.  Even The Old Course has its detractors, as silly as they are.  But everyone is entitled to their own opinion, just as much as they are entitled to their own strengths and weaknesses at playing golf.

[Ronald Montesano]

I like what I've read so far, among the comments.


For me, a great golf course includes words like "memorable, playable, challenging, strategic, encouraging."


It does not accept hyperbole.


Much as I love magical realism, I don't want Cortazar's Hopscotch in my golf, nor do I want the starter to warn that ...


'twas brillig and the slithy toves...

[Nick Ribeiro]

Another good question would be does a golf course have to be fun to be great? There was a highlighted quote in another thread where ANGC was said to be only fun for better golfers but also great. Yesterday someone sent me a great article which also suggests ANGC has abandon fun as it's no longer possible to maintain fun and challenge with equipment advancement. It's either one or the other.


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


I think there are far more "fun" courses than challenging courses out there today which is required because most golfers are average golfers and get beat up on challenging courses. The course listed by the Original Poster is Pikewood National, a great course but by no means for a beginner or even average golfer.


I think a reasonable fair way to define great (and make this community not look so ugly) is to see if the course fits into 2 of 3 categories ~ Challenging / Fun / Beauty. Fun is really the wild card as it is not part of any ranking criteria. But a good start is to look at a course with those 3 categories then get into more details about each category from there.


So although ANGC may have lost its fun there is no question its one of the most challenging courses in the country and also one of the most beautiful. Fun for single digit and better golfers, arguably not fun for average golfers. I would say its great.


Pikewood National is also rated one of the hardest courses in the country and has some of the best non ocean views golf has to offer. The course is immaculate and with very few rounds played there annually the conditions are spectacular. The course is fun for single digits and better, maybe not so fun for average golfers. I would say it's great.


Pine Valley is also rated one of the hardest courses in the country and has major scale. It has natural beauty and each hole feels like its own amazing piece of property. Again, another course which is fun for single digits or better but arguably not for average golfers. I would say it's great.


Bethpage is also rated one of the hardest courses in the country and like the others list has serious scale. Its routing is also great and the holes are private. It is fun for single digits or better but may not be for the average or worse golfer. I did say it's great.


All these examples score perfectly in challenge, highest allowed by USGA. It would be hard to discount any of them as not great even if they are lacking in beauty or fun, especially if they only lack being fun for just average or worse golfers.

[Bill Charles]

Another good question would be does a golf course have to be fun to be great? There was a highlighted quote in another thread where ANGC was said to be only fun for better golfers but also great. Yesterday someone sent me a great article which also suggests ANGC has abandon fun as it's no longer possible to maintain fun and challenge with equipment advancement. It's either one or the other.


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


I think there are far more "fun" courses than challenging courses out there today which is required because most golfers are average golfers and get beat up on challenging courses. The course listed by the Original Poster is Pikewood National, a great course but by no means for a beginner or even average golfer.


I think a reasonable fair way to define great (and make this community not look so ugly) is to see if the course fits into 2 of 3 categories ~ Challenging / Fun / Beauty. Fun is really the wild card as it is not part of any ranking criteria. But a good start is to look at a course with those 3 categories then get into more details about each category from there.


So although ANGC may have lost its fun there is no question its one of the most challenging courses in the country and also one of the most beautiful. Fun for single digit and better golfers, arguably not fun for average golfers. I would say its great.


Pikewood National is also rated one of the hardest courses in the country and has some of the best non ocean views golf has to offer. The course is immaculate and with very few rounds played there annually the conditions are spectacular. The course is fun for single digits and better, maybe not so fun for average golfers. I would say it's great.


Pine Valley is also rated one of the hardest courses in the country and has major scale. It has natural beauty and each hole feels like its own amazing piece of property. Again, another course which is fun for single digits or better but arguably not for average golfers. I would say it's great.


Bethpage is also rated one of the hardest courses in the country and like the others list has serious scale. Its routing is also great and the holes are private. It is fun for single digits or better but may not be for the average or worse golfer. I did say it's great.


All these examples score perfectly in challenge, highest allowed by USGA. It would be hard to discount any of them as not great even if they are lacking in beauty or fun, especially if they only lack being fun for just average or worse golfers.

Get over it, any course that isn’t for everyone isn’t great. I don’t care what it is or where it falls on any list.

[Nick Ribeiro]

Are there any courses sloped over 145 that are allowed to be considered fun and or great for the average golfer? Looking for real reasons other than it gets a pass because of where its ranked which can be said in a million different ways around here.

[Jay Mickle]

Are there any courses sloped over 145 that are allowed to be considered fun and or great for the average golfer? Looking for real reasons other than it gets a pass because of where its ranked which can be said in a million different ways around here.

Tobacco Road 145 from the tips, 117 from the forward tees.

[Bill Charles]

Are there any courses sloped over 145 that are allowed to be considered fun and or great for the average golfer? Looking for real reasons other than it gets a pass because of where its ranked which can be said in a million different ways around here.

Tobacco Road 145 from the tips, 117 from the forward tees.

Very good selection! Tobacco Road is a very sweet treat, a 145 slope and challenging but not to hard. Very playable and fun for all skill levels!

[jeffwarne]

Ron:.


Indeed, I think golf course architecture would be better if architects were less afraid to offend someone, and built courses which didn't have six sets of tees in a band-aid attempt to please everyone.  [It would make them actually consider playability from tee to green.]


How many God awful unplayable courses use the disclaimer that they're very playable from the "appropriate tees"(sure if you play the senior tees and tee off with a 7 iron to avoid the gunch)


This is one reason why I get quite ornery when an 18 handicapper complains when there's incredibly playable interesting hole with options and strategy that they deem "unfair" because they can't reach in "regulation"

[Peter Pallotta]

That's truth too, ie god-awful courses that are playable from the appropriate tees are god-awful precisely *because* they have 6 sets of tees. (And if it's not a bad course, and even if it debuts on in the Top 100 modern lists, it's not as good a course as it could have been, for the exact same reason.)
I'm convinced: as soon as an architect knows he's going to use 6 sets of tees (and he must know right from the start, as he's routing the course) he gets lazier and less talented and less imaginative than he'd normally be.
A great golf hole can't possibly be solely or even mostly about length, but length is the only aspect of design being addressed by using 6 sets of tees.
As so the initial creative process is inherently at war with itself right from the start -- because
no one can lie and tell the truth at the same time.

[Bill Charles]

That's truth too, ie god-awful courses that are playable from the appropriate tees are god-awful precisely *because* they have 6 sets of tees. (And if it's not a bad course, and even if it debuts on in the Top 100 modern lists, it's not as good a course as it could have been, for the exact same reason.)
I'm convinced: as soon as an architect knows he's going to use 6 sets of tees (and he must know right from the start, as he's routing the course) he gets lazier and less talented and less imaginative than he'd normally be.
A great golf hole can't possibly be solely or even mostly about length, but length is the only aspect of design being addressed by using 6 sets of tees.
As so the initial creative process is inherently at war with itself right from the start -- because
no one can lie and tell the truth at the same time.

Very good insight Peter. To expand on your point, where there are 6 sets of tees there also seem to be very uninteresting greens the club can never decide what speed to maintain them at. Most likely the architect lost interest by the time getting to the green and just created flat ovals telling the greens mower if you keep them fast they will break subtly.

[Nick Ribeiro]

Tobacco road challenging but not hard 


Thats a new one. I happen to like Tobacco road also but it is certainly hard. Lots of 30 yard plus sand shots required there. I've seen plenty of average golfers take their beating and pick up and move on. Also lots of blind shots and plenty of forced carries. Things some don't like at other courses but seem to be okay for Tobacco Road?

[Sean_A]

Well, great is a subjective term so a course can't be objectively great. So I don't know how to answer the question.

We had a long debate about tees not long ago. I can see both sides of the coin with designing for minimum versus mega tees. It's almost a guarantee that a six tee course will be a poor walk and therefore encourage more people to ride. My gut tells me this is a bad first step if producing quality architecture is a primary goal. Of course, mega tees is mainly driven by length rather angles which is an added kick in the teeth.

Back to greatness, I long ago gave up on caring if I think a course is great. Good enough is a silver/bronze standard which has stood me well. This recent trip to Fife, East Lothian and Northumberland has shown this to be the case once again.

Ciao

[John Kavanaugh]

For me personally a great course is mostly empty which would lead one to believe that it is not for everyone.

[Bill Charles]

For me personally a great course is mostly empty which would lead one to believe that it is not for everyone.

If it’s empty and no one wants to play what do you see so great about it?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Thats a new one. I happen to like Tobacco road also but it is certainly hard. Lots of 30 yard plus sand shots required there.

Tobacco Road is not hard. It's only hard when you take on - and fail to achieve - too much. If you play to the wide areas and employ a simple strategy, you can pretty easily shoot around or under par as a 2 handicap or better.

"Ease" is relative. The back tees are rated only 72.5/145. The scratch or better golfer can post a good number there pretty easily. The 145 speaks more to the bogey golfer than the The blue tees at BPB are 77.5. Five shots tougher for the better player (and, relative to that rating, even still tougher for the bogey golfer.)


To answer the original question, and though my own list of "great" courses may differ from those of others, I think that a great course will be seen as "great" (if they use that term) by the majority, but not necessarily "all" and not even necessarily 85% plus.

[Tim Martin]

Thats a new one. I happen to like Tobacco road also but it is certainly hard. Lots of 30 yard plus sand shots required there.

Tobacco Road is not hard. It's only hard when you take on - and fail to achieve - too much. If you play to the wide areas and employ a simple strategy, you can pretty easily shoot around or under par as a 2 handicap or better.

"Ease" is relative. The back tees are rated only 72.5/145. The scratch or better golfer can post a good number there pretty easily. The 145 speaks more to the bogey golfer than the The blue tees at BPB are 77.5. Five shots tougher for the better player (and, relative to that rating, even still tougher for the bogey golfer.)

Erik-You’re the stat man right? What percentage of the general golf population has a 2 or better handicap?

[John Kavanaugh]

Sometimes courses are empty for good reasons. They may be secluded, they may be too hard for most golfers, they my be exclusive or something so simple as that they stay open over the winter. Every great round should start off on the right foot and searching for a parking space ain't my cup of tea.

[Bill Charles]

Sometimes courses are empty for good reasons. They may be secluded, they may be too hard for most golfers, they my be exclusive or something so simple as that they stay open over the winter. Every great round should start off on the right foot and searching for a parking space ain't my cup of tea.

The definition of terrible. Do you know Nick?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik-You’re the stat man right? What percentage of the general golf population has a 2 or better handicap?

Who cares? You can look up what percentage of golfers with a handicap have a 2 or better. My point remains: "ease" is relative. Two people could say "Tobacco Road is easy" and "Tobacco Road is hard" and both be telling the truth - arguing about whether it's "easy" or "hard" makes almost no sense. Conversely, BPB is "hard" for everyone as both the course rating AND slope are high. (I don't know whether a mythical 77.5/120 course would be seen as "hard" given the high rating but relatively low slope.)

[John Kavanaugh]

Bill,


You can change your game to fit any course. The course is static and your swing is not. I personally had to learn how to hit the ball straight giving up some distance in the process. It took a couple of years but it was worth it.

[Bill Charles]

Tobacco Road is a fine design but there are areas of improvement. Some of the hard features about it like all the sand around the greens could be converted into collection areas and short grass which would make it even better. I do enjoy the course though.