Is easier "more fun"?

[Dennis_Harwood]

Although touched on in Mike's thread, why is the preception that "easier is more fun" a reoccuring comment when it comes to golf architecture and or course redesign?--

If taken to its extreme, it appears the "most fun course on earth" would have the following:

No trees except those providing shade at the tees, an occasional 150 yard bush and some out of the line of play which provide a "park like atmosphere"--

No water, except those with waterfalls or fountains near the dining areas of the club house-

No bunkers, except those far from the line of play that will look good in "signature hole" photos--

Flat, slow greens (perhaps with holes larger than 4 1/4 inches

Balls in the pro shop that will fly over 300 yards and implements for sale that will assure (without requiring refinement of skills through practice) straight shots (similar to the eat all you want, don't exercise and stay thin diet)--

Why is this seen as some as the perfect course(especially when some exist and no one plays them)?-

[Dan Kelly]

I guess I should respond, since I'm the guy (or at least one of the guys) who touched on it in Mike's thread.

I'm not an extremist, so I generally don't care for ideas taken to the extreme.

But in this case, as a matter of fact, I don't like your idea -- "easier is more fun" -- even if it's NOT taken to its extreme. I don't agree with it at all!

I like Hard! Demanding tee shots, demanding approaches, fast-running turf, bunkers in the line of play, tough bunker shots, contoured greens maintained as quick as they can be maintained. I don't mind water at all. And you'll find at least a dozen posts where I've advocated a Competition Ball -- and said that I'd be happy to play it.

What I DON'T like, and don't enjoy, are two things -- and they happen to be the two things that seem the most common embodiment of Hard on most American courses: thick rough and dense fairway-side forests.

When the rough is so thick that the ball must be hacked out and laid up, I think that's no fun. And when the trees are so densely planted that all you can do when you get into them is look for some avenue to punch out, I think that's no fun.

Rick Shefchik and I played at University of Minnesota this morning and were discussing trees as we played the 10th -- a shortish par-4 with a very narrow fairway between two thick lines of trees. Rick was saying he'd take down every tree that overhangs the fairway on the right side -- and maybe EVERY tree on the right side (which is also the right side of the opposite-direction 11th). I said I wouldn't go that far -- but I would clear out enough of the trees that, if one hit one's drive into them, one would have to pay a price, but would still have realistic possibilities to work the ball around them and go for the green.

That, to me, is fun: the constant possibility of an exciting, dramatic (heroic?) shot. Thick rough and thick stands of trees negate that possibility.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dennis,

Pursuing "easiest" to the ultimate would eliminate the challenge, and when you eliminate the challenge, you eliminate the fun.

[Dustin Knight]

Patrick,
I could not agree more with your statement, The brain must
stay stimulated in order to have 'fun' on the course!

[Dennis_Harwood]

Pat-- Is there a cynical smile among those "smilies" above.  I should have added one since it was on my face when I posted--

I'm one of those who is a great fan of the Architect in the Titleist ball ads--

[Tyler Kearns]

Dennis,

If golf were easy, it would not be fun, plain and simple. It is the elusive pursuit of that perfect day that keeps us all coming back.

Personally, it is generally those "easier" courses that lull me into mental deficiency, thus, my best scores are generally reserved for more difficult courses or at least, fairly trying conditions. Damn my mind!!

Tyler Kearns

[TEPaul]

No, easier is not necessarily all it takes to be more fun. What is more fun are golf courses where the unexpected happens (both ways) more rather than less---where you get bad bounces and even outrageously good ones too. Courses where scoring spectrums on holes and whole rounds tend to be wider rather than narrower, where the course for various reasons never plays the same old, same old every day.

Courses that play like that, no matter whether it's easier or harder, can generally be tracked to some really good architecture!

[Doug Siebert]

What Dan Kelly and Tom Paul said.

I'll just add that I like challenge, and I'd rather have to play the best round of my life to break 80 than hack around randomly and know I played like crap and shoot in the 70s without even noticing.

I don't like penalties/punishments that leave you no option.  Stuff like OB or water or thick forests on both sides.  Its fine if you want a tough hole, and sometimes the land doesn't allow you to do differently.  But usually one side can be a bit less penal.  Maybe there is OB on one side, but I can miss in the rough on the other side and have to catch a good lie to have a chance of getting to the green.  Putting Muirfield-like rough on that side when there's OB on the other is just cruel and unnecessary.

I'd echo Dan's dislike of thick trees for emphasis.  I'm not one of those "trees don't belong on a golf course" people at all.  But if the shade covers everything then they are too thick, 50% shade would be nice because then you can have the occasional potentional for the lofted heroic shot through a "window of daylight".  High risk/high reward, lots of fun.  I also like to see all the branches below 8' trimmed off -- treat it like a city park.  That way you can at least have a halfway decent swing at it, even if you are just chipping it back out in the fairway.

[Marc Haring]

Easy is more fun, if you are chopping it all over the planet. Tough is way more fun, if you are at one with your game. Right now, I’m looking for the worlds easiest golf course.

[Jeff_Brauer]

What's really not fun is losing golf balls, and breaking your wrists in deep rough......

I know you don't all like the idea of par, but with it in place, seriously, it is more fun to have enough challenge to make par just difficult enough to attain that it keeps you coming back.  If the course is too easy, its not fun.  However, if the course is so hard that you are piling up triple bogeys all over, then thats not fun.

Given the spectrum of players, I could amend this post to say something like "personal par" but the tough end - making triple after triple with lost balls, just ain't fun for anyone.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Jeff

This reminds me of the "hard par, easy bogey" statement attributed to RTJ.

Steve

[tonyt]

Look hard/play easy is different to just plain easy. And cleverly and historically done on a number of public access, CCFAD courses, and clubs located in towns with a high retirement population.

[Dennis_Harwood]

Look hard/play easy is different to just plain easy. And cleverly and historically done on a number of public access, CCFAD courses, and clubs located in towns with a high retirement population.

What's your nominee for the "hardest looking but easiest playing" course-- (Photos and visuals look like a monster, but par is not a hard number to achieve for a good golfer).

[tonyt]

Excellent question, but I'm restricted in my experience to Australasia. Yarra Yarra is a course I seem to play better than my handicap on, regardless of my form on the day. But it doesn't terrify anybody visually. A lot of the short par 4s raised in the daunting par 4 thread seem to achieve the goal, because many have a no-brainer par for those who play for it, with still the chance to sink your putt for a 3.