[mike_malone]

I think so. I played a course yesterday that is rising fast in the rankings. It was very nice in every way. It had that wide open look I love. It had top notch internal flow on the putting surfaces. It had variety.
 It just lacked that challenge throughout that the top courses have.


Pine Valley is the epitome of this and sets the standard.


I came away with a desire to return when the firmness and speed is up but I still think that the approaches and recovery shots are just a little too straightforward to be at the top.


Your thoughts on the necessity of challenge for greatness?

[JESII]

I'm interested to see where this goes Mike.


I suspect there will be a contingent that disagree with your assessment because the word challenge can equal difficulty and difficulty can become excessive...which is not always good.


My opinion is that every feature that adds interest also adds challenge so in the ultimate, the answer to your question has to be yes.


Take a green contour that's modest but interesting. Peeling out some of that modest contour can only serve to make the green easier to approach and play. This is not a green speed argument, rather it's just a statement of fact that any specific green would become easier if it were flattened.


Greenside contouring and hazards are the same. If a bunker that adds interest to the approach were removed and replaced with at grade playable rough the hole would be somewhat easier.


Somewhere along the way, adding difficulty for the sake of difficulty loses the plot. That means that harder isn't necessarily better but a pretty high level of challenge is required to achieve real top 20 type greatness.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Yes is the answer.


However challenge comes in many forms and is not to be confused with length.


I do think that a course has to punish someone who is not quite on their game if it is to be considered great. I’m all for wide open resort courses that flatter the 6 - 18 handicapper. But “fun” comes in many guises and one of them is the ability to hold a round together over a tough 18.

[Carl Rogers]

If a top 20 player in the world cards a 62 at Cypress Point, does that diminish the "greatness" of the course?


Is there a difference between "greatness" and "quality"?

[mike_malone]

I avoid difficulty but take on challenges.

[JESII]

“Is there a difference between "greatness" and "quality"?”



IMO, yes! And it’s the word Interest.

[mike_malone]

I’m struggling with TOC here. But I see 11 as top quality challenge. I love 5 where I can have a massively long putt. 17 is unquestionable. Other parts like Hell and Valley of Sin. So it’s challenging.

[mike_malone]

While the visual is important it’s the playing that matters. If I feel that I can just hit my normal tee shot, or choose an iron and it doesn’t act unpredictable on landing, chip around the green with confidence, and putt assertively then the challenge is low.
If I feel like I’m just going to die regardless of what I do that’s annoying difficulty.


While I love the visuals at Pine Valley it’s the playing that matters and I drift up and down from 13 to 18 but still feel  I can execute every shot there.

[Peter Pallotta]

I'm gratified to see that I agree with Ally and Jim, an architect and a golfer -- i.e. the two sides of the equation.

My pet theory is this: that any goal -- save for the creation of an excellent field of play -- that an architect holds onto too tightly mars the whole thing.

Whether he/she is determined to make a "fun" golf course or a "hard" golf course makes no real difference in the end -- both determinations lead to a lesser golf course.

Any brand an architect attempts to build for him/her self, whether as the designer of resort courses or as the go-to-guy for championship tests, mars the integrity of the process and precludes excellence in design. It's too self-conscious and prescribed and didactic an approach, and not free enough to create greatness.

Build a golf course that honours the game: that's the highest level that can be achieved. And since the game is inherently challenging (in many ways and on many fronts) the resulting golf course will be challenging.

[Peter Flory]

Even in other art forms, critical "greatness" usually requires a level of challenge.  Movies, albums, visual arts, etc.  Challenge as in, they put you in uncomfortable positions and force you to wrap your head around them and think about them from different perspectives than you're used to doing.  They aren't just pretty or clever.

A sweet and fun feel good movie or an album with breezy melodies may be more pleasant on the first pass or the first few even, but the ones with challenges are the growers that ultimately are more satisfying in the end. 

[Mark_Fine]

I think Mike has seen enough and is smart enough to know the answer and in this case there is one 

[Andrew Harvie]

I've never played a good golf course that didn't challenge me throughout. It's different than difficulty, because Jasper Park is easy, but there are a lot of challenging shots throughout. It also would not have been easy back in the day.

[SL_Solow]

The real question is challenge for whom and the follow up is how does one define challenge?  Years ago I had a conversation with a young architect who posited that in order to be "great" touring pros had to be challenged to shoot par from the back tees.  I responded by asking whether Cypress Point is a great course?  After some delay he responded "it used to be".  I told him that I would be happy to discuss individual holes and features but that if Cypress (or the National) did not meet his definition of greatness, discussing that topic would be a waste of time.  It is a key problem in the ratings game; the definitions differ much less the judgments.  So the answer to the question is yes , challenge creates interest.  But how and for whom is not so easy to determine.

[Jim Sherma]

When the gutty changed to the Haskell and hickory changed to steel there were clearly “great” courses that ceased to be though of as such. As the Titleist Professional turned to the Pro-V and the Pittsburgh Persimmon turned to the Sim2 why should our era be different?

[Sean_A]

I have never seen a course that wasn't challenging. I can understand if folks think the challenge is dull, uninteresting, one dimensional etc, but not challenging? I look for a wide variety of challenges in greatness, but not necessarily all on the same hole. But never forget, greatness is over - rated. There are plenty of good, varied challenges courses that are plenty good enough for the likes of all on this board.

Ciao

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

Yes, there ain't no patsies in the top 100

[jeffwarne]

I have never seen a course that wasn't challenging. I can understand if folks think the challenge is dull, uninteresting, one dimensional etc, but not challenging? I look for a wide variety of challenges in greatness, but not necessarily all on the same hole. But never forget, greatness is over - rated. There are plenty of good, varied challenges courses that are plenty good enough for the likes of all on this board.

Ciao

Ciao

+1
There are times where a course is "easier" than another, based on scores relative to par.
But that doesn't always mean the course lacks "challenge"
The challenge might be to make a 3 on a 320 yard par 4 with a inverted saucer green stimping appropriately for the design and wind(something I enjoyed yesterday)
and by extension executing the shots required.
Or making a 4(or) better on a downwind 480 par 5 with a seemingly "unfair" green(to those not critically thinking) that runs away from the player where up and down from over the green is easier than just short.


Adding 80 yards to first example or reducing par on the second might make those holes more difficult, but it doesn't change the fact that in either iteration there is a compelling "challenge" to be overcome.
AND adding the 80 yards or lowering the par is far more likely to result in altering/neutering the design to return it to "fairness" in relation to new yardage and par. (quite the feedback loop)


This is the primary reason why links golf remains compelling(especially with typical weather), without the silly trappings of greens stimping stupidly brought on by the completely unrelated effect of scale and skill reducing equipment

[Sean_A]

Exactly. One challenge for you may be scoring a 3 and for me a 4. The next day on the same hole one challenge may be to make a
on the same hole. To some degree the challenge is internal.

You could make an 18 hole course full of 225-275 holes and the challenge would high, but probably a bit too repetitive to enjoy on a regular basis.

Ciao

[Mike Hendren]

Yes, but I agree with Sean that challenge is primarily internal.  As I study the next shot, even after I've taking my stance and glanced a ahead, the challenging doesn't begin until the club is pulled away from the ball. 


Execution is far more challenging than architecture - at least for me.


Mike

[jeffwarne]

Exactly. One challenge for you may be scoring a 3 and for me a 4. The next day on the same hole one challenge may be to make a
on the same hole. To some degree the challenge is internal.

You could make an 18 hole course full of 225-275 holes and the challenge would high, but probably a bit too repetitive to enjoy on a regular basis.

Ciao

On the 225-275 yard issue, yesterday I played in a Pro SR/JR(as in Jr.  under 50) where I was playing white tees and my partner blues.
The challenge became how birdies can we make in the various formats-especially on the downwind holes which were playing quite short(for me from whites esp.)
We struggled on those downwind holes and were challenged by the interesting partial shots and finding ways to get close to some tucked pins.
Had it been a stroke play singles event no doubt the challenge would've been different as the pressure to make as many birdies would've been less, and the course less "challenging" for pars and a consistent score.


I just don't need to spend the day fighting to find balls and/or stay on the course and  grind like crazy to 2 putt from 10 feet on icy greens , just because someone else needs to feel a course is difficult to feel challenged.


Probably the easiest 2 courses on eastern Long Island to score on are NGLA, Southampton and Maidstone.
Not coincidentally my favorites out here, and always cited as the most "fun"
Why on earth would you play golf otherwise?
Plenty of "challenge" on another level, without spending the day hacking out and hunting balls...

[John Kavanaugh]

If raters would play by the rules of golf when they rate, courses wouldn't need to be so difficult for the rest of us who do.

[Jason Thurman]

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.

[Ben Hollerbach]

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.

While the average player would struggle to consistently make a 4 on the above hole, experienced and skilled players would find this hole boring and not requiring much skill to play. They can easily hit the ball long and accurate enough to hit the green in 2 shots and 2 putts for their 4. There simply is not enough danger to the hole to impact their play.


But if they were playing for a score of 3, the holes length would be enough to restore the challenge. Even then they would still not find the hole compelling, some would find the hole unfair. Interest is required to make a golf hole feel compelling and enjoyable to play, but that interest must come from some level of contention or conflict between what the player wants to do and what the hole permits them to do.


Your disappointment with the course has nothing to do with it's lack of challenge, challenge is striking a golf ball near where you desire. Your disappointment is with its lack of contention. The reward to the player is not just in recording a score, but overcoming or besting the design of the hole. The lack of tension between your play and the hole's response proportionally decreased your lack of satisfaction around your playing of the hole.

[John Kavanaugh]

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.

While the average player would struggle to consistently make a 4 on the above hole, experienced and skilled players would find this hole boring and not requiring much skill to play. They can easily hit the ball long and accurate enough to hit the green in 2 shots and 2 putts for their 4. There simply is not enough danger to the hole to impact their play.


But if they were playing for a score of 3, the holes length would be enough to restore the challenge. Even then they would still not find the hole compelling, some would find the hole unfair. Interest is required to make a golf hole feel compelling and enjoyable to play, but that interest must come from some level of contention or conflict between what the player wants to do and what the hole permits them to do.


Your disappointment with the course has nothing to do with it's lack of challenge, challenge is striking a golf ball near where you desire. Your disappointment is with its lack of contention. The reward to the player is not just in recording a score, but overcoming or besting the design of the hole. The lack of tension between your play and the hole's response proportionally decreased your lack of satisfaction around your playing of the hole.

Doesn't that hole exist at TOC somewhere near where they sell hot pockets?

[Eric Smith]

Doesn't that hole exist at TOC somewhere near where they sell hot pockets?

Yes, the 9th. I think even Grahambone parred it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()