[John Kavanaugh]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mPZ8gRtUQE

[Tom_Doak]

I think we all understand that a course doesn't become great by beating the living hell out of everybody who plays it.


But as much fun as I had while playing Mammoth Dunes, it just plain isn't challenging enough to capture the imagination. Whether we're talking food or talking golf courses, cloying doesn't satisfy. That doesn't mean you need to load everything with ghost pepper and water hazards, but a little salt in the caramel adds dimension and an occasional almost-great shot that gets rejected just makes me want to return so I can try it again.

I was wondering when someone would mention Gamble Sands.


To the premise of the post, challenge is an essential part of golf, but more challenge is not always better.  Courses need not be as relentlessly challenging as Pine Valley to be great, because most golfers are not that great, either.


This is one reason I'd like to see a few professional golfers on the ranking committees, instead of a bunch of guys in their 50's and 60's who can't break 80.  The pros would be the appropriate guys to call out whether a course is uninteresting to someone at their level; I don't think it makes much sense for any of us to project what they would say.  Every panelist should respond based on their own game and own perspective, and the editors should strive to find a balance of representation and viewpoints.

[Kalen Braley]

Mike,

Imagine a perfectly flat golf hole that is 400 yards long with a 60-yard wide fairway and a green that is a perfect circle 40 yards in diameter.

This would be about as close to the simplest and easiest par 4 you could build. For the majority of players who play the game, this would be a hole that is too challenging for them to consistently make a 4 on. the difficulty to them as players comes from the length and their inability to hit the ball where they desire it to go. hazards are not needed to test the average player’s abilities.

What you're speaking of is not challenge, rather interest, but its also interest framed within a particular construct.

I think Ben hit the nail on the head with this post.  Its not about challenge per se as even the easiest of courses still provides plenty of challenge to the vast majority of players to shoot 80, much less get near par.

The "highest levels" should be reserved for courses that provide interest, fun, options, and intrigue to most players and this can be independent of difficulty.  Courses like Oakmont and Pine Valley would kick my ass every which way till Sunday, but I'm 99% confident I would have an absolute blast playing them.  Contrast this to courses like Ballyneal or CPC which I didn't find difficult, even as a high capper, and were among the most fun and engaged I've been on a golf course.

[Jeff_Brauer]

No real and definitive definition of greatness, or highest level.


 A course can be great for many different reasons.  A course can be great for different levels of golfers.  If anything comes close to a definition of proper challenge, it might be a course where it is possible, but not easy, for a golfer to shoot within a few strokes of their average score.  Not too hard, not too easy.  (i.e., a course where normal set up would make a tour pro shoot 78 isn't great).  But, how warm is the perfect bowl of porridge?  And does it get there by being cooked to hot and allowed to cool, or taken off the stove just at that right temperature?


The real answer to this question is to further subdivide the various lists into courses ranked primarily by fun, character, beauty, perhaps intrigue (or temptation), and challenge.


But, you knew that already!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()