Variety Vs. Greatness

« **on:** January 14, 2008, 12:21:29 PM »

Many on this website insist that a great course must challenge the elite golfer while remaining playable for the high-handicapper. Certainly some courses achieve this balance more effectively than others and should be praised for their versatility.

But isn't the adherence to this "versatility formula" ultimately a hindrance when it comes to creating the greatest variety of golf courses. Couldn't some courses be considered among the greats even if they are built for a sole purpose such as:

1) Championship Tournaments
2) Learning the game as a beginner
3) Emphasizing tee-to-green prowess over short game aptitude
4)...etc., etc.

I find that many courses are great at what they are great at, yet those who simply prefer a different style of course frequently criticize them.

Would you genuinely insist that all courses should appeal to you directly or should each course be allowed to possess unique characteristics to the point where it has its own constituency -- even if many do not fit your tastes?

« **Reply #1 on:** January 14, 2008, 12:35:27 PM »

Kyle,

Good Question. I for one think a course with a lot of shot and visual variety is a great one. Courses that challeng elite players (say, Firestone) but are repetitive and boring because they strictly measure the challenge and provide it hole after hole, not so much.

Of all the players a course can appeal to, I think its getting harder to cover the broad spectrum from beginner to tour player. I think a course should focus on some sub set of those players, whichever end it picks, or somewhere near the middle.

I have several courses out there that are considered great by average players and I am happy with that, rather than the idea that there are 30,000 miserable players/rounds, but if a tour pro came to play, he would be challenged.

However, for all but, and even for the Tour Pros, there is a subtle difference in the architecture of penalizing misses and encouraging a wide variety of "appropriate" shots for good players by bunker placement, contours, doglegs, green slopes, etc. And, in most cases, if you grow the rough on these courses, they can encourage shots and punish to the degree necessary to keep tourney scores as high as you want them.

« **Reply #2 on:** January 14, 2008, 12:40:18 PM »

Many of this site, for example, believe that a golf course like Oakmont is almost unduly difficult, and so it does not appeal to their senses (and they may have no desire to ever again set foot on the grounds), but somehow they still might declare it "Great." Other courses, such as TPC of Sawgrass, might fit into this category. Many people couldn't play these on a daily basis, for so many reasons.

Or perhaps the two notions are mutually exclusive. I actually don't believe that it is possible to appeal to everyone, and so I don't believe that it is the job of the designer to try to appeal to everyone. Courses should be designed to meet the needs of the client, and whatever he or she wants from it, and if they have done their homework properly, the market will support them. But not every course is destined for some elusive quality of "greatness," and I believe that some must be designed to appeal to some people, and some must be designed for others. In the same way that there are hundreds of kinds of cereal on the shelf, all of which in some way function as a meal, so too should their be choices with golf and golf courses. But each course will not appeal to everyone. No chance.

« **Reply #3 on:** January 14, 2008, 03:50:02 PM »

Quote from: Steve Burrows on January 14, 2008, 12:40:18 PM

Many of this site, for example, believe that a golf course like Oakmont is almost unduly difficult, and so it does not appeal to their senses (and they may have no desire to ever again set foot on the grounds), but somehow they still might declare it "Great." Other courses, such as TPC of Sawgrass, might fit into this category. Many people couldn't play these on a daily basis, for so many reasons.

Or perhaps the two notions are mutually exclusive. I actually don't believe that it is possible to appeal to everyone, and so I don't believe that it is the job of the designer to try to appeal to everyone. Courses should be designed to meet the needs of the client, and whatever he or she wants from it, and if they have done their homework properly, the market will support them. But not every course is destined for some elusive quality of "greatness," and I believe that some must be designed to appeal to some people, and some must be designed for others. In the same way that there are hundreds of kinds of cereal on the shelf, all of which in some way function as a meal, so too should their be choices with golf and golf courses. But each course will not appeal to everyone. No chance.

And beyond those categorizations, some weak players prefer brutal tests, even at the cost of a 7-hour round and 3 dozen balls.

Oakmont is a great example of a course designed for a very specific "population." I think Shadow Creek may have the most specific target audience of all, given that it was designed to alleviate some of Steve Wynn's (the principal financier's) vision limitations. Bayonet is also a classic example, as it features many doglegs from right to left because a military officer who was a slice-prone lefty designed it.

Perhaps the biggest key to producing the greatest variety of golf courses is to have a disparate population of wealthy golf entrepreneurs.

News:

Kyle Henderson

Variety Vs. Greatness

Jeff_Brauer

Re:Variety Vs. Greatness

Steve Burrows

Re:Variety Vs. Greatness

Kyle Henderson

Re:Variety Vs. Greatness