What course is the most fun to play "the right way"?

[Jason Thurman]

DECADE says avoid risk, don't chase angles, take big numbers off the table as much as possible at your relative level of skill, etc.


Some have opined that a course like Tobacco Road, which relies heavily on temptation and visual intimidation, becomes almost easy and boring when you play it "the right way" and just plot your way from large landing area to large landing area. I don't know if this is true or not, but it sounds like a real bummer of a way to approach a course with so much spunk.


Are there courses, though, where playing "the right way" is also really fun? Where resisting temptation creates great joy? Where playing the safest shot available, over and over, is also deeply satisfying and maybe even more so than trying the risky one? And if those courses exist, what characteristics do they share?

[Peter Flory]

It's Mid Pines for me.  It's not only more fun, but there I think that it is essential due to the firmness and some of the fall offs.  I've only played it with hickories, so maybe there would be a more aggressive strategy that could be employed with modern clubs.  But with a bit less backspin and longer average approach distances, it's an angles course. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I don't know if this is true or not, but it sounds like a real bummer of a way to approach a course with so much spunk.

I don't really agree with the premise! (Surprise surprise!  ) Playing the way I and others have talked about isn't really a "bummer" because it leads to more birdie putts (by hitting more greens) and lower scores (on average). It raises the floor quite a bit, and really only barely lowers the ceiling on what you can shoot.

It's not a "bummer" to shoot lower scores.

All you "give up" is "going for it" on some stupid hero shots where the risk outweighs the reward. Sure, if you pull it off 20% of the time, you'll remember that 20% shot for a long time. I get that, and some people don't really care about their scores: they care about pulling off the hero shot, about the company, about the sights and sounds, the exercise… etc. There are many reasons to enjoy golf.

But when you're talking about strategy… they're not mutually exclusive. You can still enjoy the exercise… and the company, and the sights and sounds… while shooting a lower score by employing proper strategy. So the only thing you give up is the "high risk" shot.

Are there courses, though, where playing "the right way" is also really fun? Where resisting temptation creates great joy?

Again, this pre-supposes that playing the right way is normally boring.

I greatly enjoyed the score I shot at Sand Valley. I ground (grinder?) my butt off for a little over four hours. It was deeply satisfying.

I got a DM on Twitter from a lurker here who told me that the only way to enjoy good golf course architecture (including courses built after 2000, which I don't totally understand) was to play hickory. I can kinda understand what he means, even if I don't totally agree.

For example, if there are bunkers left and right, and they're at the end of your driver range and 35 yards apart, but the right strategy is to lay up just short of them with your 3W, that's both the "classic strategic" choice and the modern-day strategic choice. Good players have generally always played strategically. They've always played away from penalty shots, to the fat sides of greens, etc. They've just not really written about it as much as I and others have lately. They didn't have a codified system the way people have these days.

[Anders Rytter]

I’d say Ballyneal. Most fun course i’ve played in any regard

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not to mention that old Donald Ross quote...."There is the hole, play it any way you please."

[Jason Topp]

Jason - Fairways angled to the tee present interesting questions.  I hit a hook with my miss a big block.  If the fairway angles left, I am pretty comfortable - my hook keeps me in the fairway and the big block leaves me on the wide side, often with some way to recover.  Fairways angled to the right are more difficult.  My big block winds up in water, trees, ob, bunkers or other nasty predicament.


A course that has tee shots angling both ways are interesting, even if I am simply trying to put the ball in play. 


A straight hole with one side that is a bailout side another that is disaster is interesting.  You give up angle and distance if your target is too conservative.


A series of bowling alleys with equal damage on both sides simply punishes me for my sins.  More severely on a difficult course and less severely on a less difficult course. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jason T,


As I mentioned in my thread, I find that playing Pete Dye courses ultra conservatively consistently yields good scores for me (an 80's shooter)  I would have to think harder, but I generally think that applies to all difficult courses, but the satisfaction of a good score and a job well done can't be discounted, as opposed to the joy of one heroic shot, vs the cost of a dozen lost golf balls, LOL.


The rest of your post talks about having a variety of shots, which I do think is the proper approach to architecture, i.e., design the targets for someone who has "all the shots" and eventually,  no one is overly punished or rewarded by the design, while the best player should (and usually, but not always does) win.  As with my response to Mark Fine, I don't really think that many holes (outside RTJ and Wilson, Joe Lee, etc. in the 1950s) are designed that way, i.e., bunker left, bunker right on every fw and green.  I mean really, name a course that does that these days?


All your examples seem to give a very simple choice, which isn't bad.  Some here would probably overthink that and want to design in several subtle varieties of choices as "strategic" but as I have said before, I design holes with two simple choices, and let the golfer overthink those into a dozen or more........    Seriously, I recall saying that in some old thread.  Tom Doak, on the other hand, went into the 11 possible choices to deal with a fairway bunker placed on the left side of the landing zone.  Like I say, I am aware of those choices, but trust I don't need to over think them, as I know many golfers will......


Too many people here, IMHO, focus on designing the hazards to be difficult, although that may be perfect for Whistling Straits and a few other courses, it is certainly not great for a course you play every day.

[Jason Thurman]

I don't know if this is true or not, but it sounds like a real bummer of a way to approach a course with so much spunk.

I don't really agree with the premise! (Surprise surprise!  ) Playing the way I and others have talked about isn't really a "bummer" because it leads to more birdie putts (by hitting more greens) and lower scores (on average). It raises the floor quite a bit, and really only barely lowers the ceiling on what you can shoot.

Sure. But you also don't LOVE Tobacco Road, right? Because you're disciplined enough to look at a hole like 11 and dismiss the chance to hit the most memorable shot of your lifetime in favor of hitting a boring-ass layup to a perfectly wide target area.


And the boredom compounds, because when you hit a mediocre layup you then set up a mundane wedge approach, and you're a boringly good player who doesn't feel much risk on that mundane wedge approach. But when I hit a mediocre 4 iron and end up in that horrifying bunker, I lost out on my chance at eagle but gained the chance at one of the greatest up-and-downs I've ever pulled off. And then I did it. I'm gonna remember that shit for a lot longer than you're gonna remember your 75 yard wedge approach to a safely conservative target.


Part of the joy of Tobacco Road lies in doing the deeply stupid things it tempts you to do. When you're too smart to do them, you miss out on some of the course's appeal. Which is fine! But that's why I'm asking the topic question... because surely there are other courses where even a smart player can have a good time.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

As I mentioned in my thread, I find that playing Pete Dye courses ultra conservatively consistently yields good scores for me (an 80's shooter)

That's exactly what I tell my college golf team (we played our conference championship at Avalon Lakes for a few years). Pete will hide the wide areas and make holes look more dangerous than they are… if you keep getting tempted to bite off a little bit more than you can chew.

I would have to think harder, but I generally think that applies to all difficult courses, but the satisfaction of a good score and a job well done can't be discounted, as opposed to the joy of one heroic shot, vs the cost of a dozen lost golf balls, LOL.

That feels like what I tried to say, only much better put. 

Sure. But you also don't LOVE Tobacco Road, right? Because you're disciplined enough to look at a hole like 11 and dismiss the chance to hit the most memorable shot of your lifetime in favor of hitting a boring-ass layup to a perfectly wide target area.

I don't love it, no. Strategically, it's a bit "boring" because the safe areas, the "targets," are pretty generous. The 11th hole, for example: driver into an 80-yard-wide fairway, 7-iron layup, 55-yard pitch to a long, narrow green. Unless you want to go for the hero shot… which I almost never do, because I am satisfied by hitting good golf shots and putting a good number on the card.

I tell a lot of people to visit and play TR and form their own opinion. I tell them it's awesome and interesting to look at, for sure. I've played True Blue and Caledonia (like/love those), and Royal New Kent last year (liked it, didn't love it), too.

And the boredom compounds, because when you hit a mediocre layup you then set up a mundane wedge approach, and you're a boringly good player who doesn't feel much risk on that mundane wedge approach. But when I hit a mediocre 4 iron and end up in that horrifying bunker, I lost out on my chance at eagle but gained the chance at one of the greatest up-and-downs I've ever pulled off. And then I did it. I'm gonna remember that shit for a lot longer than you're gonna remember your 75 yard wedge approach to a safely conservative target.

Maybe you will. But odds are you're going to make a bad shot from there, and shoot a bad score.

Different strokes for different folks. I enjoy hitting the ball well and making a good score, as well as the other things (the walk, the scenery, the company, the weather, nature, etc.). You enjoy (maybe, not putting words in your mouth) the excitement of occasionally pulling off a bit more of a "hero" shot.

Part of the joy of Tobacco Road lies in doing the deeply stupid things it tempts you to do. When you're too smart to do them, you miss out on some of the course's appeal. Which is fine! But that's why I'm asking the topic question... because surely there are other courses where even a smart player can have a good time.

I think that implies that TR is like most courses, and that I don't find most courses fun. That's not true: TR is an outlier, and it can still be fun to hit the ball well and choose the proper strategy. It's a bit too "simple" for my tastes at TR (the targets for a "lowest-score-on-average" [LSOA] approach are pretty big). You can shoot a good score at TR, enjoy all of the other parts of golf, and have tremendous fun.

But I think it's an outlier, and TR is just very extreme: it's pretty simple for the "LSOA" player, but wildly thrilling for the "excitement, score-be-damned" [ESBD] golfer.

It's been a few years since I've played Caledonia, but I think it's like probably 95% of other courses: it's NOT at the extreme end of the scale like TR might be, and thus, is "enjoyable" for players regardless of whether they're closer to LSOA or ESBD.

[Michael Moore]

I greatly enjoyed the score I shot at Sand Valley.

Everyone greatly enjoys their score at Sand Valley.

[Ben Hollerbach]

It's Mid Pines for me.  It's not only more fun, but there I think that it is essential due to the firmness and some of the fall offs.  I've only played it with hickories, so maybe there would be a more aggressive strategy that could be employed with modern clubs.  But with a bit less backspin and longer average approach distances, it's an angles course.

100% Agree! With the lack of spin generated by the hickories proper approach angles matter a great deal at Mid Pines. Especially on 4, 7, 12, and 17.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Everyone greatly enjoys their score at Sand Valley.

Sure, but I will assume you still understood the point I was trying to make.    Sand Valley isn't a bunch of risk-reward, hero-shot type golf like TR.

[Carl Rogers]

How would Pinehurst No. 2. work on the OP?  On my one round, I found the course slightly frustrating as I could not figure out which part of the green to aim at in order have a chance to hold the green.

[Jason Thurman]

It's Mid Pines for me.  It's not only more fun, but there I think that it is essential due to the firmness and some of the fall offs.  I've only played it with hickories, so maybe there would be a more aggressive strategy that could be employed with modern clubs.  But with a bit less backspin and longer average approach distances, it's an angles course.

A few thoughts on this choice:

• Given that you hit your hickories a little higher, softer, and longer than I hit modern clubs, but with much better consistency and precision, I presume that your hickory strategy would be a good model for me to follow.
• Mid Pines didn't thrill me quite on the same level of some of its sister courses in the area. I liked it and all, but I didn't fall in love. But I also played it as a pretty undisciplined player. I didn't shoot a particularly good score, and I may have failed to play for proper angles or really do the math to differentiate between times when risk was worthwhile vs when it just needed to be mitigated.

No. 2 is another one I thought of. Carl sorta makes the point - I think I'd have to play it a few times to really understand the angles at play, and the proper positions to try to gain. Once I knew the best positions, I'd get a real kick out of plotting my way to them, especially if I watched my opponents get out of position regularly. I love feeling smarter than other golfers.


But I also feel like there's room in this conversation for courses like Pebble. It's a little less strategically angle-driven, but that also gives it a really satisfying clarity-of-challenge, I think. And there's some serious importance placed on missing approach shots in the right spots, and the fact that most everything breaks toward the ocean means it's probably a little easier for a player to identify those spots without necessarily having played dozens of rounds on it. Which is handy... because it'll be a long time before I play my dozenth round on any of these courses.

[Kalen Braley]

Jason,

Great topic, and at the risk of offending Barney's delicate sensibilities, I wanted to introduce a point of nuance.

There is a difference between appreciating and discussing golf course architecture & features, the primary reason (hopefully) for why this site exists...

And

How one derives pleasure when they actually play and interface a course.  For this second part, I equate this to tastes or preferences in women or music, there really are no wrong answers.  So if Erik wants to play a course like TR and play it safe so he can shoot a good score, I have no problem with that, even if that's not my thing.  Just like if someone wants to listen to county music, whatever floats your boat.

[Kyle Harris]

The whole point of golf is to integrate with as little of the architecture as possible.

[Steve Kline]

How would Pinehurst No. 2. work on the OP?  On my one round, I found the course slightly frustrating as I could not figure out which part of the green to aim at in order have a chance to hold the green.

Precisely why I love the course. And the part of the green to aim at changes based on the hole location.

[Mark_Fine]

If there is clearly a "right way" to play a golf course then there is also clearly "not enough temptation". 


What is "the right way" to play #13 at Augusta National?

[Jeff_Brauer]

BTW, for me it was the Old Course, where I tried bump and run nearly every approach shot.