Contemporary tastes

[Tommy Williamsen]

Last year, I visited two clubs that had been mainstays in the top 100. Around 2010, they began to drop in the rankings. Now, they don’t even sniff the top 200. They moaned that some of the courses in the top 100 were not nearly as difficult as their courses, they had too many bunkers, and the greens were “unputtable.” Some courses are indeed marked down because they are “too” difficult.
As I drove away, I thought, “They’re right. Difficulty is no longer a measure of how courses fare in magazine rankings. Many of the best new courses are built on sand, bunkers determine the line of charm, and putting requires touch and imagination.”
Those two courses still belong in the top 100, but they will never get back there.

[Ally Mcintosh]

‘Difficulty’ is not a particularly appealing categorisation. But I do think that ‘Challenge’ is important and that it is being somewhat overlooked with some of the ultra-wide modern courses that aim to send the one or two time visitors home with a happy smile.


In the end, great golf consists of ~ 14 drives, ~ 18 iron shots, a few chips and fairway woods and a whole bunch of putts. If you punish poor precision on the 14 drives only by giving a slightly weaker angle (when angles matter less than we’d like), then those 14 drives start to mean less. If you can blast away without consideration on 40% of your long shots, is the course as good as one that asks for full concentration on all shots?


It’s good to question the norms / echo chamber of the day. Only way to stay fresh.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Next question: The thing that makes a course most “difficult” for me is rock hard greens that mean I can’t stop the ball. So I assume that kind of “difficult” is lauded because firm and fast is good?


Remember the rules of modern architecture:


- ‘Fun’ is good, ‘Difficult’ is bad
- Width is good
- Trees are bad
- Natural bunkers are good
- Brown is good, Green is bad
- The more micro undulation the better
- Water is bad
- Strategy, strategy, strategy
- Firm and Fast, nothing else
- Minimalism is good, everything else is highly suspicious.
- Design / Build is good, Design + Bid is bad.


With the above information, you can go forth and conquer the social media-sphere.

[Mark_Fine]

Tommy,
As you know, it is very easy to make literally any course hard.  I just played one two days ago in Thailand that was very hard but that didn’t make it good. 


I hope Ally doesn’t have those modern design rules right.  They at least aren’t right for me.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Mark, we both have played some very lousy courses that are difficult. Anything over 425 yards is a half-par for me nowadays. Some courses get a pass because they have a certain pedigree. I wonder where Winged Foot West would be ranked if it were built today, even with those great greens. Just curious.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Mark,


I think / hope you realise that I was just summarising the echo chamber.


Most posters on here are a little deeper than that but those 7 or 8 bullets still encompass about 90% of the architecture content here on GCA.


Ally

[Ally Mcintosh]

Mark, we both have played some very lousy courses that are difficult. Anything over 425 yards is a half-par for me nowadays. Some courses get a pass because they have a certain pedigree. I wonder where Winged Foot West would be ranked if it were built today, even with those great greens. Just curious.

This is a genuine question because I haven’t played them:


- What makes Winged Foot West “difficult”? What makes Oakmont “difficult”? Why are they difficult but so great?…


Length doesn’t buy it for me as you can play different tees… Long does not usually make a course less good in any way other than extending the walk (which is a major consideration certainly)


If it’s tricky greens, then are the greens too difficult to make the courses “great”? After all, anyone can make a course difficult.


If it’s too many bunkers, then are all those modern courses with sand everywhere too difficult?


I’m only probing. There could - genuinely - be a simple answer.

[Sean_A]

Watching Winged Foot on tv it was clear the fairways were narrow and the rough brutal. I can’t say why it’s great, but the greens look very good.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Thanks Sean.


Yes I was going to add to my above post to say that Forced Carries can’t be the answer otherwise Pine Valley wouldn’t be considered great….


….which leaves narrowness with heavy rough.


“Too” narrow with heavy surrounding rough seems to be the only consistent factor that can make a course very difficult and definitively affect its potential to be great…. So going back to my first reply up above, there is - for me - a sweet spot of width and rough severeness that gives enough challenge to mean executing a good drive is of the utmost importance; whilst not unduly punishing anything but the bad drive.

[Sean_A]

Ally

Depending on the greens and terrain, each hole has a sweet spot range.

I will say that I have rarely played a hole that I thought was too wide or one which should have harsher rough. I have thought some courses could do with more trees if of the right species and well placed. But it’s far more often there are too many trees… wrong  species and placement.

Greatness is different for everybody. For me, one element of greatness is offering recovery shots. This is the most fun part of the game. So harsh rough and narrow fairways may (though I question this thinking) be a good way to test elite players, they are not conducive to great design… at least not imo. That said, most courses need a few pure execution holes, hard holes where a kiss on the card doesn’t require much to go wrong, if only for the sake of variety.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Contemporary maintenance/agronomy tastes?

Atb

[Kalen Braley]

Ally,

To your point on narrow fairways with punishing rough, I think its the frequency of it that may find objectionable.

You can play the occasional difficult hole that is long, heavily bunkered, or fraught with danger otherwise, and it can be a good, almost fun test.  But to play hole after hole after unrelenting hole of narrow fairways and brutal rough, it just wears you down and eventually breaks the spirit.

[Joe Hancock]

Just a thought, but can it be that courses that are difficult can also be great because if you can keep finding, and hitting, your ball? Courses that have too much water or deep rough or knee-deep native can be very unenjoyable.

[Ben Sims]

Joe gets an upvote. That’s it in a nutshell.


Ally bemoans the echo chamber. He says, “If you can blast away without consideration on 40% of your long shots, is the course as good as one that asks for full concentration on all shots?“


Fair enough. But in my mind the height of architectural interest is a designer that can make a golf hole challenging AND playable. So my answer would be yes, it can be as good.


PS—I have NEVER played a golf course, not one, where you can blast away without consideration. I’m not even sure what that would look like. Even at Old Barnwell, which is very close to if not the largest fairways I’ve ever played, you must hit the ball in certain places to have a better chance at scoring. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, other than the water, Augusta National is a place where you can always find your ball. And it’s plenty hard.

[Sean_A]

Just a thought, but can it be that courses that are difficult can also be great because if you can keep finding, and hitting, your ball?

Sounds like Pinehurst 2, but isn’t this a rarity?

Ciao

[Carl Johnson]

Obviously we all have different opinion about what a "great" course is, but most, if not all, seem to focus on the individual golfer vs. the course.  My approach is different.  I look at a course not as playing field to be competed against, but rather as a playing field on which two or more golfers can compete fairly and enjoyably against each other.  I submit that it's at the very least useful to think of "greatness" from such a perspective.  I'm looking at this from the standpoint of the typical recreational golfer, and not that of what's best for entertainment professional golf.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Just a thought, but can it be that courses that are difficult can also be great because if you can keep finding, and hitting, your ball? Courses that have too much water or deep rough or knee-deep native can be very unenjoyable.

Agree entirely, Joe.


And Ben - I think you are picking up my position wrongly. I am all for challenging and playable. But I do think that there is a potential to remove interest and challenge with too much width (in some circumstances).


Do understand that the “rules” I trotted out earlier were just me trying to question what I think is lazy headline golf architecture discussion on much of social media. There almost seems to be a kickback against anyone who might give a different opinion. I’m here to say that they should be questioned because there are all sorts of nuance and shades of grey that sit underneath.


In the context of this thread, courses that are primarily identified as “difficult” rather than “fun” are no longer in vogue. And hence cannot be great… but they can. It depends what makes them difficult.

[Chris Hughes]

Obviously we all have different opinion about what a "great" course is, but most, if not all, seem to focus on the individual golfer vs. the course.  My approach is different.  I look at a course not as playing field to be competed against, but rather as a playing field on which two or more golfers can compete fairly and enjoyably against each other.  I submit that it's at the very least useful to think of "greatness" from such a perspective.  I'm looking at this from the standpoint of the typical recreational golfer, and not that of what's best for entertainment professional golf.

Excellent perspective Carl --> UP vote!!




As it goes to Tommy's original post -- "around 2010" was there some sort of sea-change in the official ratings methodology being employed by the accredited/official ratings organizations and their representatives?


Who drives policy (and how) in this regard?

[Ben Sims]

Just a thought, but can it be that courses that are difficult can also be great because if you can keep finding, and hitting, your ball? Courses that have too much water or deep rough or knee-deep native can be very unenjoyable.

Agree entirely, Joe.


And Ben - I think you are picking up my position wrongly. I am all for challenging and playable. But I do think that there is a potential to remove interest and challenge with too much width (in some circumstances).


Do understand that the “rules” I trotted out earlier were just me trying to question what I think is lazy headline golf architecture discussion on much of social media. There almost seems to be a kickback against anyone who might give a different opinion. I’m here to say that they should be questioned because there are all sorts of nuance and shades of grey that sit underneath.


In the context of this thread, courses that are primarily identified as “difficult” rather than “fun” are no longer in vogue. And hence cannot be great… but they can. It depends what makes them difficult.

Mama always said “if you’re frustrated by the pendulum of life, just wait.”


Actually she didn’t say that but you get the point. 


If the “modern” blowback (that perhaps you’re right has become a bit of groupthink) to the idea of what made a course good to great 30 plus years ago irks you, the world will change. Also, for every nerd on this website or IG or X, there’s a hundred joes happy that their club has the fastest greens and that their handicap “travels.” 


Outside of the circles we run in, difficulty is still a metric that attracts golfers and represents quality.


All that said, I think it’s really smart the last thing you said. *What* makes a course difficult is very important. I like it when I hear about golfers not losing a ball but having a hard time scoring. That’s a pretty solid indication I’ll enjoy the course.

[Ally Mcintosh]

It’s not so much the modern blowback, Ben (my overarching philosophies are pretty much aligned), it’s more what I consider the lack of depth in some of the arguments.


“Difficult” has become a curse-word and “Fun” has become synonymous with “Great”: If you call a course “Fun” without any backup, you’ve already won the discussion.


For me, Joe is correct - losing balls is the one kind of difficult that is unanimously miserable. Other kinds of difficult could be exactly what makes a course great…. On the flip side, we should question what makes a course fun: Ultra-wide fairways where I can have a terrible driving day yet don’t get unduly punished reduces the interest in the game. I am sure I am not alone in that.

[Sean_A]

Does anyone have specific courses (or holes) in mind when talking about these issues? It’s difficult to get a sense of what people mean without linking examples with the terms.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

I’ll try and be succinct:


- Course No.1 is possibly the most difficult course in Ireland, not because of lost balls (it manages its rough pretty well) but because of its firm greens - the firmest in GB&I - married with the design and placement of those greens. The greens are very playable but unless you’re a high-spin player, very difficult to get close to pins without good creativity and yes, management of angles.


All this despite what I consider, mowing lines that could be improved to encompass 7-10 yards more fairway width, particularly in mid-summer. The width plays fine in winter.


The course demands that you hit the ball well and tests you the whole way round, whilst asking for mental agility and providing varied shots and recoveries. Both difficult as well as the right amount of challenge to be fun.


- Course No.2 is a wonderful design, built in the last 20 years (not Ireland). Topography is varied, detailing is excellent, aesthetics beautiful. Many of the modern design tropes have been included: Artistically sculpted bunkers, playful positioning, heavy undulations in and around the greens, and very wide fairways…. It is firm (built on sand) but not nearly as firm as Course No.1. I have thoroughly enjoyed playing there (admittedly only a few rounds) because the approaches and recoveries have provided a lot of interest…. But I have always scored reasonably well, even when my driving has been awful and not deserving of any reward. That width reduces interest and because the course is not ultra-firm, negates the desired outcome of making angles really matter…. I feel the outcome is not commensurate with the skill on the day. It is classically “fun” (by the stereotypical definition) but not nearly as rewarding or “great” as Course No.1.


I have not included course names as it just turns the conversation in to a back and forth debate on two courses where people have already made up their mind.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Let me use Musgrove Mill GC in Clinton, SC, as an example of a course that has fallen out of favor. I have been a member since 1996, so I know the course very well. Ran gives it a 6 in the Confidential Guide. My wife loves the course but must plot her way around it.
Here is a link to an In My Opinion piece I did.

https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/musgrove-mill/

It once ranked in the top fifty of GOLF WEEK’s best modern. Now, it doesn’t even get a sniff. Part of the reason is the quality of new courses built, but part of it is the change in tastes. Musgrove Mill is a challenging course. It is also a cerebral course. Placement off the tee is more important than distance. I played the course with a magazine editor, who insisted on hitting the driver off every tee. He made bogies and double bogies and hated the course. I tried to tell him to hit a shorter club off some of the tees. He resisted. MM has more single-digit handicappers than any other course in SC. I played with a GOLF WEEK panelist who was probably an 18 handicapper. I tried to tell him where to hit his shots but like the editor, resisted. He tried to hit shots he could never pull off and lost half a dozen balls. If you try to hit shots you cannot pull off, you will pay the price.

Musgrove looks tight off the tee, but it isn’t. Most fairways are forty yards wide. The waste areas mess with your head. It has a great collection of par threes. They are different in length, vertical rise, and direction. Two is a drop-shot hole of 150 yards that drops about 40 feet. Two creeks and bunkers surround it. Seven is two hundred yards long with a river on the right and a two-tiered green. Twelve is 160 yards long over a gull with a diabolical green with three distinct shelves. Seventeen can be stretched to 225 yards with a three-tiered green. The par fives are varied and give the player good chances for birdies. Most are reachable in two. The par fours are varied in length. The Enoree River snakes around the course, and a couple of ponds make the course more interesting. 

The course demands thought off the tee, precise second shots to give the player good chances for birdies and avoid three-putt greens, and a deft touch on the quick sloping greens.

I wouldn’t call it a great course, but it certainly is everything a golfer would want in a course; it is pretty, challenging, and fun. The only time you see anything off the course is on the 11^th green, where you see a two-lane road. Otherwise, it is self-contained. If there is a weakness, it might be that the course does not allow many shots that let you run the ball onto the green. You need to carry it onto the green.

[Ronald Montesano]

Didn't punitive golf come into acceptance, around the same time as the space race? USA wanted to be stronger/faster/harder than USSR and GDR, and RTJ and others were just the guys to do that.

Restrictive trees and restrictive rough and reduced options do not make for greatness.

[Thomas Dai]

Width.
If a course has had the same width of short cut playing surface since inception does it effectively play narrower these days given that changes in equipment over the decades have allowed errant and mis-directed shots to travel further away from the short cut playing surface?
Atb