Great courses you don't enjoy

[Sean_A]

It seems many people don't enjoy playing hard "Championship" stlye courses (IE Butler, Medinah, OFCC, Hazeltine, Oakland Hills, etc...) which raises the obvious question: if no one enjoys playing them then why are they "great?"

I spose that depends on if you believe greatness is appropriate for all and/or only for a subset of golfers.  There is no question I believe the greatest courses are those which all can play even if they may shoot higher scores than normal.  However, there are some courses which are great, but just too difficult for most golfers.  Oakland Hills springs to mind, so does Muirfield & Portrush (summer conditions), and there are others - likely Oakmont.  For me, places like Sandwich, Merion and TOC are among the greatest of courses because all can play and enjoy them, yet the flat bellies are tested as well and perhaps most importantly, these courses still retain characteristics which make them stand out as individual.  This last bit is one of the biggest flaws of the great American parkland courses. In the drive to keep these courses at a championship standard, most have morphed into essentially the same type of course but in differnt parts of the country - very little individuality to make them stand out.  The same thing has happened to many of the championship links.  In the quest to maintain greatness from a championship POV, the characteristics which made these courses wonderful in the first place have been codified to the point of almost a rubber stamp like quality.  What now stands out most about these links and parkland courses is the fact that they are difficult - not a great advertisement for true greatness.  

Ciao      

[JNC Lyon]

Oh Mr. Craig, you may have just touched on something I consider very important with your above comment...

It seems many people don't enjoy playing hard "Championship" stlye courses (IE Butler, Medinah, OFCC, Hazeltine, Oakland Hills, etc...) which raises the obvious question: if no one enjoys playing them then why are they "great?"

Two "great" courses that I have played that I, in fact, wouldn't enjoy playing every day are Kiawah Ocean and Seminole.  Why?  They are too damn difficult for me to play.  Seminole the day I played it had 20 mph winds, BRICK hard greens stimped at 13 with ridges and slopes feeding balls into bunkers.  I've played Kiawah Ocean in 20, 30, and 40 mph winds.  Each and every time I've played it, it has been amazingly great and fun...but mentally exhausting.  So, I wouldn't want to play it/them every day as they are too difficult for my current skills.

HOWEVER, if I played them everyday there is no doubt about the fact that my golf game would improve significantly and my course handicap would travel quite well.  And if I was a tournament player, I think I would become a fierce competitor and a threat to win at each and every course I travelled to.  (Assuming I could survive the demoralization what would occur at the beginning of my every day golf at these types of courses).

I believe this is a BIG factor in many courses being defined as great.  They are great tests of golf.  Only the best golfers can score well on them.  In fact, I believe many of them were built for that specific purpose...to take golfers to another level competitively.  Furthermore, I believe Oakmont fits that bill...and I am sure a few others as well which were built right around that time.

So, I think GREAT courses fit into a few categories.  Perhaps two of them being, playable by the high handicap and a challenge for the scratch man...AND...courses that are simply sheer tests of golfing skill.  Play on the testing courses and your game will improve significantly over time.  Play on the more fun courses and your rounds might be more "fun" less stressful, but don't expect to have a great traveling handicap when visiting the likes of Oakmont, Medinah #3, and the like.

I was trying to ask the same question that Pat did above.  Why are these courses considered great?  I think major championship pedigree is the single biggest reason that these courses are considered great by the golfing populous.

[Sean_A]

Oh Mr. Craig, you may have just touched on something I consider very important with your above comment...

It seems many people don't enjoy playing hard "Championship" stlye courses (IE Butler, Medinah, OFCC, Hazeltine, Oakland Hills, etc...) which raises the obvious question: if no one enjoys playing them then why are they "great?"

Two "great" courses that I have played that I, in fact, wouldn't enjoy playing every day are Kiawah Ocean and Seminole.  Why?  They are too damn difficult for me to play.  Seminole the day I played it had 20 mph winds, BRICK hard greens stimped at 13 with ridges and slopes feeding balls into bunkers.  I've played Kiawah Ocean in 20, 30, and 40 mph winds.  Each and every time I've played it, it has been amazingly great and fun...but mentally exhausting.  So, I wouldn't want to play it/them every day as they are too difficult for my current skills.

HOWEVER, if I played them everyday there is no doubt about the fact that my golf game would improve significantly and my course handicap would travel quite well.  And if I was a tournament player, I think I would become a fierce competitor and a threat to win at each and every course I travelled to.  (Assuming I could survive the demoralization what would occur at the beginning of my every day golf at these types of courses).

I believe this is a BIG factor in many courses being defined as great.  They are great tests of golf.  Only the best golfers can score well on them.  In fact, I believe many of them were built for that specific purpose...to take golfers to another level competitively.  Furthermore, I believe Oakmont fits that bill...and I am sure a few others as well which were built right around that time.

So, I think GREAT courses fit into a few categories.  Perhaps two of them being, playable by the high handicap and a challenge for the scratch man...AND...courses that are simply sheer tests of golfing skill.  Play on the testing courses and your game will improve significantly over time.  Play on the more fun courses and your rounds might be more "fun" less stressful, but don't expect to have a great traveling handicap when visiting the likes of Oakmont, Medinah #3, and the like.

I was trying to ask the same question that Pat did above.  Why are these courses considered great?  I think major championship pedigree is the single biggest reason that these courses are considered great by the golfing populous.

JNC

As I tried to explain above, perhaps because at one time (and possibly still) they were great. 

Ciao

[Tony_Muldoon]

By blackburrie!

Great topic.  

I hesitate to say it but.... RCD is too tough for me to enjoy on a daily basis
Also any Pat Ruddy lkinks course Iakve played

Birkdale, Waterville - charmless slogs

and (say it aint so) Portrush, Muirfield in the tough bracket

Oh and (based on one play) Woodhall Spa _ flat and boring, without the bunkers you have nothing at all of interest

Most of aboive based on single plays.   But at the prices they charge I'm unlikely to try again.  

[Gene Greco]

The same could be said of Winged Foot, Baltusrol, Ridgewood, etc., etc..
Played from the proper tees, those courses are all enjoyable day in and day out.

I agree completely with Patrick.  

So far all the courses mentioned have great merit.

Oakmont and Winged Foot West are two of my very favorite golf courses and I would be delighted to play either every day for the rest of my life.

[Mac Plumart]

Why are these courses considered great?

If anyone has the motivation, I'd love to see a thread on that question.  We could go course by course right down the Top 100.  Pick any list you want.

I think that would be interesting.

[Steve Kline]

Fantastic idea Mac. The courses by country section sort of does this but I would like to hear from everyone else to. Hopefully people will be able to support their statements about the architecture with pictures for those that haven't played the course.

[Jud_T]

Isn't this a bit of an oxymoron?  If you wouldn't want to play the course every day, from virtually any tee, how can it be considered great?  Aren't we really talking about very difficult, long Championship layouts where we respect how they test the best players but aren't very much fun for most golfers, even on occasion?   And if a course has uninteresting greens, can it really be great? good perhaps, but great?  I can understand how big hitting scratch players can see some of these courses as a fine test, but is it really great GCA if the challenge is so one-dimensional?

[Mac Plumart]

Jud...

Great points.  Food for thought and serious deliberation.

[Chris Buie]

Gene, if you don't mind me asking, what do you usually shoot on Oakmont and Winged Foot?  My round about point being that I personally would not enjoy playing a course day in and day out where I shoot 10 strokes more than I do on most other courses.
To answer the original question you would have to define what great is.  As Mac said previously a lot of the courses are great tests.  That is fine, but that is not my definition of a great course.  The course that gives me the maximum amount of pleasure is my definition of great.  It's an individual thing.  And for me, it goes beyond the architecture of the course.  It is the overall experience. 
Don't get me wrong.  I enjoy tough courses.  I love hitting 4-irons instead of wedges into par-4's.  A pro told me the other day that his course can play 7,900 from the tips.  That is where we will be playing it and I will enjoy that even if shoot some of the numbers Morrissett has been putting on the board this summer.     But would I enjoy a brutal course day in and day out?  Not so much. 
I obviously am after a great experience not a great test.  I already know the parameters of my golfing capabilities.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Firestone cc

[Matt_Ward]

Jim F:

Agree with your choices -- I can certaiinly add a few others as well.

[Jay Flemma]

People tell me the Red Course at Bethpage is great, but every time I play it, I wish I played the Black...

[Greg Tallman]

Mid Ocean - Not that I did not enjoy it but given the opinions of others for whom I have a great deal of respect for I would say perhpas I underappreciated it. Still one of the better courses I have played but I don't think as highly of it as most others... and I do not know why... just don't get that "this is great stuff" feeling.

[Jim_Coleman]

    Don't like Galloway National (which shows up on some lists) even a little bit, let alone to play every day.  Routing is awful.  Long treks from 5 to 6, 11 to 12, and 15 to 16.  Not to mention that you walk past #8 4 times  (when playing 7, when playing 8, after finishing 8, and after teeing off 9).  The green on #2 is unhittable; the green on #3 is weird; the quarry on #15 is too far short of the green to be relevant; and the bailout on #16 offers the best angle to the green - the opposite of risk/reward).  And, the course is too penal for my taste.

[Mark Chaplin]

Tony Muldoon - Woodhall Spa is probably the cheapest world top 100, UK top 20 course to play without a member present at around £65/$100.

I can see the argument about the bunkering but that is like saying take away the contouring at Sandwich and it's ordinary.

[David Sneddon]

For me, Carnoustie is a course I would not want to play every day.  I played it several times in my teens and it was by far the most exhausting course I've ever played, no matter if you card a 74 or 94.  I've always felt that Carnoustie robs you of your golfing soul.

Dornoch on the other hand, I'd play twice a day for the rest of my life and die a very happy man.  Pac Dunes would be a close second.

[Ivan Lipko]

I'll answer to the question which course that is considered great you don't find great at all?

I have played the following top100 courses:

Valderrama, TPC Sawgrass, Harbour Town, Kiawah Ocean, Whistling Straits, Bethpage Black, RSG, Sunningdale Old, Pinehurst No.2

From these I am sure TPC Sawgrass, No.2 and Harbour Town do not belong. The first one -  because it is in an awful condition during the winter and is absolutely artificial and contrived. The second just because it is built on a very average piece of land and is poorly kept. The third one because it is very monotonous, tight and actually a bit boring.

[Bill Gayne]

Waterville didn't resonate with me as it has with others. I'm not sure why. The setting is beautiful and there's nothing I can point to in the design that was offensive or that could not be overcome.

It was a one time visit so it may be just the day that the biorhythms weren't in-synch.

[Brian Brady]

Muirfield Village - who knew there were so many hills in central Ohio?  I felt like I was miles away from the clubhouse on the 3rd green, and then again on the 7th tee.  What a trek, and I didn't enjoy the beating I took that day. 

I agree with the previous poster about playing Camargo everyday and not getting tired, such a variety of shots/lies there, wonderful place to be.

[Philippe Binette]

I haven't played Troon, only walked it... but I can see how it could be boring and plain hard for the average guy... but a crazy effort for the championship player

[JWinick]

I would nominate Butler.   What's most puzzling about Butler is the fact that they keep making the course harder, yet they will never host a tournament.  What's the point of torturing your membership just so you can revel in a Nationwide player shooting an 85?

[Ulrich Mayring]

I'm going with a real shocker: Royal St. George's, because it's just too big!

It's a great, great course, one of the best in the world. But an everyday course must be more intimate, less championshippy and a bit rougher around the edges. If I were a member at Sandwich I would try to find someone at Deal, who wants to swap

Ulrich