After a little more reflection (aka "sleep")....

A "Member's Course" is one which has world class architecture and on which you would happily play every day, but on those rare days when you happened to bring your "A" game, you might feel just a little bit cheated that the challenge was just not quite enough.

Alternatively, a "Great Course" also has world class architecture, but always challenges you, and beats you up so often that you need to get away from time to time to re-learn the fact that golf can be "fun."

As Sully and a few others have said, there are a very few courses that are both.

As Matt says, one thing that separates the Members from the Greats is the seemingly incessant demand for length on the latter, although I think this length criterion is more related to approach shots than tee shots.

Essentially, on both courses you can lay up, but unless you are Tiger, laying up will cost you on the great courses and only mildy irk you on the member's ones.

Just an aside
in a 1926 article by CV Piper (then the USGA's Green Committee Chair) on the ideal golf course, he included 'length' as a factor, and thought that 6,500 yards was about right. No mention of different sets of tees, and I don't know what the 2007 equivalent is...maybe 6,500 yards

Peter

Richard: Is this not a description of many of the classical courses which are now being overtaken by technology?  The second part of your definition is what concerns me - that if you bring your "A" game the course is not quite enough of a challenge.  Mind you my game has never been that good for such a consideration, but in any event a course such as Somerset Hills would immediately come to mind or perhaps even Plainfield.  Locally I would think of Columbia CC in Chevy Chase, Maryland.  A great old course on a small piece of property which is loved by the members but perhaps 5% of the membership could overpower the course.

Wasn't NGLA considered too difficult by some when it first opened?

RFG;

At last a concept I really 'grok'. I like these purely subjective definitions.

If it is a test for me, but not really some place I wanna keep returning to, then it is not a 'Members Course'. If it is an exciting course that is irresistable, but not really a clear test of all my golfing skills, it is not a 'Members Course". If it is neither, nyet!

But if it is both, then it is a happy 'Member's Course', where my heart has clearly joined the club! I AM a 'member', regardless of the objective status of those playing the course.

 

Doug

Courses that are both:

Shinnecock Hills
Sand Hills (member's course from middle tees, great course from double diamonds)
Pebble Beach

How about ANGC, played from the proper tees?  TOC?  

A good members course is St. Louis CC.  

Rich:

I can't answer your question with a quick one-way reply for all golfers. Clearly, those golfers who lack the firepower will shy away from WF / West because they know the inevitable will fall upon them and frankly few golfers wish to get beat-up over and over and over again.

From the standpoint of self-interest and for the fact that they can enjoy all the Tillie elements -- in a lite fashion -- they can play them via QR and Fenway. Nothing wrong with that and for many a good bit more fun.

Believe me, I have a number of guys I have played with over the years and when they hear I'm heading out to Bethpage Black they might come a few times but after they find out that their pop-gun tee shots and failure to achieve consistent trajectory with their approaches won't suffice and they'll be quick to offer a variety of excuses -- real and otherwise.

No doubt some of the courses you mentioned -- and others listed -- were likely "championship courses" at one time but because of natural evolution and because of equipment advances the "separation" point took place between those at the very top end of the spectrum and those representing the general avid golf population.

No doubt there are a few courses in the world that can easily fit into both categories. People have mentioned TOC and I certainly agree with that example. One can even include Pebble Beach although on some of the more challenging days there the idea that PB doesn't have some sharp fangs can be a good bit misleading.

Rich, the key thing to remember is that most people assign "greatness" as it pertains to THEIR GAME. That's why for me the ratings of courses from a group consensus perspective purpose has little real meaning.

There's nothing wrong with assigning tag names to courses -- e.g., member / championship -- but it's clearly very important to know who is doing the tagging and what type of game they bring to the table when such applications do in fact occur.

Seems kinda like the main thing lacking from the listed courses is the ability to stroke some golfers egos, whether through showing off the long ball or grinding out the slogging par.

George:

Read what was posted by me and others sharing the same sentiment.

Nothing wrong at all with member's courses - but there's little doubt that from the standpoint of the better players they do lack the next level of intensity.

That doesn't mean member's courses are inferior architecturally -- it's just that they do not have the TOTALITY from all sides of the game equation. Frankly, very few do.

One other thing -- those who lack the game often bemoan those who do and often cite the factors of those having a long game or ability to adjust to even more exacting shot values as being nothing more than ego related when that is not the case. No doubt a sign of personal insecurity / one's own golf game is at work here.

Andy:

Let me point it this way ...

Many championship tee players can understand and see the qualities of what member's courses can provide.

I'm not so sure it works that easy in reverse.

The guys who bemoan distance are generally the guys who don't have it in their games. I see both categories as interesting elements within the broader area of design. Like I said previously, few have it both ways.

I'll say this -- I see Black Mesa as being one of the few which does.

Matt,

In what way do you define the next level of intensity?

A constant stream of 475 yard par fours and 580 yard par fives?

I don't see what is wrong with a 6500 yard course that only has a couple of those sorts of holes, especially of the Prestwick Sea Hedrig type, but a number of driveable/short par fours to test long driving, as well as a long par three or two for your long irons.

Isn't that a description of many of the best, and old, members courses?

In the truncated Australian Open at Victoria Golf Club in 2002, the 9th and 17th holes, both newly lengthened to over 600 yards, played below par for the (Short) week.  

Conversely, the potentially driveable 297 metre 15th played right on its par of four.

At the Australian Masters at Huntingdale this week, the four easiest holes will be the par fives - and two of those are, again, over or very close to 600 yards.

All

I'm changing my definition for this comparison to:  "Members Courses" and "Examinations."  The "Greatest" courses in the world are both.

All decisions of the judge are final.

Mark

Muirfield is a great example, if....you don't play from the championship tees in any sort of wind, and even from the front tees you play match play.  The impenetrable rough makes any medal round a grind (not that I've played a medal round there!), which may be one of the many reasons that its members are so devoted to match play--it makes what is an examination for the elite players a great course for members too.

George

All golfers have egos, including you.  All (that I know) enjoy challenging their own game, obviously at levels of challenge consonant with their abilities and tolerance of failure.

Jim

You are right that the word "relentless" is important.  It is the difference between a game of stroke play golf in competion and match play golf with friends.  Truly great courses feel right for both types of play.

Andy

Good point re: Crystal Downs and Set up.  The same is true for most British Open venues and for shorter courses that have great architecture (from the tee to the hole).  However, I think a ball-busting set-up of Crystal Downs or say Dornoch (which in the latter case might involve cutting the rough rather than growing it) would be extremely interesting, but just a little bit short of a Final examination due to the lack of enough tests of length.

Matt

My touchstone for the revelation that great golfers are differnt from you and me (well maybe not you in this case) is the 6th hole at Spyglass.  I used to watch the best pros 30 years ago stand up on that back tee and fire their drives over the RH fairway bunker with seeming impunity, whereas I had to try a power fade between the bunkers to maximize my distance, because I couldn't make the carry.  I'm sure you have your own touchstone.  Maybe around the greens at Pebble ?

Thanks y'all

Rich