Enjoyable Difficulty in Golf Design

[wsmorrison]

There seems to be two distinct ways of designing difficulty in golf course architecture.   The player reactions to the different methods can be interesting.  Speaking with Tom Paul and others about what makes Shinnecock Hills so difficult when on the surface it doesn't appear as difficult as it plays and the Oakmont thread prompted this.

The first method utilizes overt techniques such as absolute length, narrow fairways with trees and bunkers pinching landing areas, narrow openings to greens, acute slopes and internal contours on greens, deep bunkering and the like.  

Examples (some of the above features on each course) include Winged Foot West and East, Oakmont, Aronimink, Medinah #3 and others.

The second method is not nearly so easy to figure out.  This includes taking prevailing winds into account, perceptual miscues, shot testing set ups including uneven lies, reverse canting to the shot demand, lines of instinct differing from ideal lines of play, front to back slopes of greens, and the use of near and far fairway lines to ehance tee shot demands (14th at Shinnecock and the 17th at TCC, Pepper Pike are fine examples).  I think Shinnecock Hills is a great example of this sort of design difficulty.  Do you agree?  Can you think of others?

Do the above overtly difficult courses contain some of the less obvious design difficulties?  Are there courses not mentioned that transition between the two?

Does the second set of design features create enjoyable difficulty compared to the more traditional type of difficulty presented at Oakmont, Winged Foot, etc.?  This isn't to say that I don't enjoy playing courses like Winged Foot and Oakmont which I absolutely love.  But a course like Aronimink for some reason doesn't resonate with me.  Then there's Bob Crosby whom I respect immensely and he simply loves Aronimink.  When healthy (not at all the usual these days) and playing reasonably well, length is not an issue for me on these courses.  

Does the use of rakes in traps originate in the raking of bunkers at Oakmont?  Where were they first used to groom bunkers?  They were first used at Lancaster CC in 1931.

[Kyle Harris]

Wayne,

I am reluctant to place Oakmont in strictly the first category. I may be misreading your intent though. You did ask how the courses in the first category may bridge themselves to the second, so here goes:

Using the first hole at Oakmont, for example - a long 460 yard opener. However, the hole plays much shorter than that number as it downhill and the green slopes away from the golfer. This, in and of itself, plays against the general feeling that the shot can be aired all the way to the hole. 460 yards on the card in the golfer's mind becomes 380 yards in practical application. The features of the course negate a golfer's informational advantage and cast doubt on his round.

Same goes for the par 3 8th, which is now apparently 285 yards. Here, most golfers are forced to run the ball on the green and play a "non-natural" style of play to make par.

Rolling Green and Huntingdon Valley are both Flynn courses that can rub the golfer the wrong way through angles and slopes. Making 390 yard par 4s play more like 420 yard par 4s because of angle and counterbalance of slope.

In a modern example, Makefield Highlands plays to about 7100 yards from the tips, yet features three drivable par 4s and two reachable par 5s. To me, this bridges the gap quite nicely, as the premium of angle and distance are balanced hole-to-hole and shot-to-shot. A long drive may yeild the optimum angle on one hole, while a shorter, more though out position off the tee may yeild better results on the next.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pine Valley #5

[George Pazin]

I'm sure everyone is getting sick of my posts on Oakmont, but using your criteria, Oakmont is much more of the second type than the first.

The first method utilizes overt techniques such as absolute length, narrow fairways with trees and bunkers pinching landing areas, narrow openings to greens, acute slopes and internal contours on greens, deep bunkering and the like.

Oakmont certainly doesn't rely on absolute length, there are almost no trees left, the fairway bunkers don't really pinch down fairways, and many greens have wide openings. The fairway width doesn't seem narrow in an absolute sense to me, either, but I haven't seen the other courses you reference in person, so I could certainly be wrong about this.

On the other hand,

The second method is not nearly so easy to figure out.  This includes taking prevailing winds into account, perceptual miscues, shot testing set ups including uneven lies, reverse canting to the shot demand, lines of instinct differing from ideal lines of play, front to back slopes of greens, and the use of near and far fairway lines to ehance tee shot demands...

I don't know that there really is much of a prevailing wind, as the routing tends to loop all over the place, and every hole save a few is highly exposed to the effects of the wind. There are certainly perception miscues, uneven lies abound, and there are more good front to back sloping greens than any other course I'm aware of. I think the lines of instinct do differ from ideal lines as well, but I'd have to think more about that.

I agree wholeheartedly with your premise regarding different types of tests. A lot of it boils down to subtle tests versus overt tests, "direct tax" versus "indirect tax" of misplays, etc. I just think that Oakmont gets miscast as a first category-type test, when in reality it is more of a second category test (using your categories).

[wsmorrison]

Tommy,

I'd say all of Pine Valley is enjoyable difficulty.  

George,

My reference to designing with the prevailing wind in mind was exactly as you describe, that is the wind comes from all quarters during the round and constantly makes you consider its effect; triangulation.  I didn't mean to infer that holes were simply into or with the wind.  I guess you're right and Oakmont doesn't really fit the first category all that well, maybe only in terms of length.  The bunkers and ditches are pretty removed from the centerline but do come close to some of the ideal landing areas.  I'm not at all sick of your posts on Oakmont, there's other posts that make me a lot sicker  

[cary lichtenstein]

I played Aronimick once and I loved every mininute of it.

[wsmorrison]

Cary,

That's what many say about Aronimink.  Why did you find it so?  I think the greens are outstanding.  But to me the bunkering is more penal than strategic and the par four and par five holes are generally long and straight.  The middle of the fairway is the best place to be on just about every hole.  What exactly did you find lovable about the golf course?

[Adam_F_Collins]

This is interesting to me as well - and what I want to know is HOW is "Enjoyable Difficulty" designed?

Why is Pine Valley so fun - when it is also so penal?

It can't be just the difficulty, because we know that many have followed that path to a dead end. Difficulty in itself does not make a golf course fun.

What other factors come into play to balance the pleasure with the pain? What of these factors can be controlled by a designer?

[T_MacWood]

Difficulty is an important element.

[wsmorrison]

It is an important element, Tom.  But frankly, anyone can design difficulty.  It is achievable by making overt demands such as the ones I mentioned earlier.  But there are components of design that can go beyond difficulty and offer the golfer a more complete experience.

Winged Foot is a magnificent course.  The clubhouse and grounds are as good as it gets.  There isn't much topographic movement but it is used as best as possible.  I've only walked the West Course once and played the East Course once.  So I may be incorrect, but it seems the way these two courses create shot demands are mostly found in the green complexes alone.  The entrances to a lot of greens are narrow requiring a precise ground game or very accurate approach play.  The bunkering around the greens are superb and very demanding.  The greens themselves have a lot of slope and contours.  These are some of the most difficult greens I've ever seen.  My mindset seeing these two courses is that they are meant to be difficult, that's what the club wanted and this is how Tillinghast presented difficulty.  I love the courses and relish the variety offered over most other golf.  Other designers took a different approach.  One isn't better than the other but the results are different.

Winged Foot has more fun in it than say Medinah or NCR (both I only know from TV so my examples may very well be wrong) and other long and narrow courses. Certainly USGA setups can take enjoyable difficulty courses and create simply difficult courses.

What makes Shinnecock Hills so hard, yet fun to play?  As AFC asked, what makes Pine Valley so much fun when it is clearly so penal?  What makes Merion so benign looking and short on the scorecard yet extremely difficult?  Variety is one factor.  The demands at Shinnecock and Pine Valley change with each hole.  There isn't as much of a unity to demand such as found.  It might be the tee shot on one hole, it might be the approach on another, it might be both on still another.   I think the balance and flow of demand has more variety.  I don't know Oakmont very well at all (less than WF) but George made a good case for Oakmont not really being in the difficult camp but it too has enjoyable difficulty.  Naturalism is another factor to me.  I enjoy a challenging golf course that looks natural, even when it might not be.  This is one reason why I like the shot demands of engineered courses but they aren't quite as enjoyable to me as natural designs.

I like a variety of courses, in total all kinds of courses make for interesting play.  But I'm trying to get my finger on enjoyable difficulty.

[Mike_Young]

Wayne,
I have never thought of it as "enjoyable difficulty" but wouldn't you say that is the same thought as "easy bogey/hard birdie"?  IMHO the weaker player is satisfied with a bogey.  and since most golfers don't study architecture they don't realize many times why they made bogey, especially  if it is due to green influences or green surrounds instead of narrow fairways, length or water.  And seems this type of course is much easier to adjust as to difficulty.

[T_MacWood]

"...the use of near and far fairway lines to ehance tee shot demands (14th at Shinnecock and the 17th at TCC, Pepper Pike are fine examples)."

Wayne
How does this design element work?

Some other reasons Shinnecock is so challenging:
* a very difficult set of par-3's
* only two par-5's (16 is one of the better par-5s in golf)
* good length at par-70
* heavily bunkered today (120-130 bunkers en echelon for maximum strategic effect) and probably twice that number when built
* very good use of the site's natural features, especially elevation changes
* small greens
* penal rough
* constant change in direction which combined with the wind creates a lot of challenge

[Jeff_Brauer]

Wayne,

I think your last post answered your question best.  Courses that have a variety of challenges are more enjoyable, regardless of the penalty levied for an unsucessful shot.  Feathering a slight fade to a tucked pin is just as much of a challenge whether that bunker is ten or two feet deep.

As someone wrote, anyone can design difficulty, but the problem is, a la Medinah or possibly Oakland Hills, is that they do it as a "one trick pony" relying again and again on the same type of penalty, whether pinched fw, pinched approaches, or heavily contoured greens.

Its possible to locate a mix of  hazards and non hazards so that the player attempting the difficult shot to the preferred fw area or the pin vs. the green middle may find difficult hazards with the most likely type of miss - ie, overplaying the hook, for example, while the player who bails out right might not find any severe hazards, but only a more difficult recovery shot. (ie makes bogey, but no reason to make any more)

The unenjoyable part comes in when you are trying to play safe and find as many hazards as if you fired at the pin. While there should be a birdie attempt reward for taking a risk, there should be a reward of simple bogey and possible par for playing safe, too!

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
Several years ago I played Winged Foot-West and Shinnecock back to back, both for the first time. Going into it I thought I would prefer Shinnecock, immediately after playing both my opinion was they were about even, with perhaps a slight edge to WF.

Both courses were difficult but enjoyable. The non-championship WF has a couple of fun par-5s and one or two shortish par-4's to go with its very stout par-4s which adds to the enyoyment factor. This combination and variety of hole lengths is why SH is so enjoyable IMO.

WFW also has the most interesting set of greens that I may have ever run across. In fact it was those greens that made the greatest impression upon me after the back to back rounds (WF & SH)....I couldn't get them out of my mind. At that time I had never seen or played anything quite like them.

Interestingly as the years have gone by my preference has moved slightly toward Shinnecock...I suspect the reason is it is difficult to remember the complexity of those WFW greens....the subtle contours fade from the memory more easily than the bold features at Shinnecock.

[BCrosby]

Wayne -

Great topic. All of this is pretty central to gca, yet rarely discussed. At least not without people reverting to unhelpful bromides about penal v. strategic courses.

At one level, "enjoyable difficulty" is precisely what the outpouring of literature on golf design in the last half of the 1920's was about. Against popular conceptions that "harder means better", Mack, Hunter, Simpson, Behr, Thomas - the whole pantheon - were trying to articulate a better way to think about (a) golf design and (b) a better, more enjoyable way to play the game. The two issues were never separate for any of them.

"Enjoyable difficulty" is a good way to summarize the views of the good guys in that debate. Golf ought to be not just a challenge, but a fun challenge. Two very, very different things.

I might put your point a little differently. What distinguishes great courses from merely hard courses is that the risks on great courses are voluntary. You engage them only if you want to, depending on your scoring ambitions or skill level. That's what makes the difficulties of those courses enjoyable. You choose to take them on.

Courses that are merely difficult don't give you that choice. Risks are imposed. They are mandatory. Shot after frickin' shot. Every player without regard to skill or scoring ambition, has to deal with them. There's no opting out.

Exhibit A-1 is the USGA course set-up manual. Exhibit A-2 is lots of highly ranked courses, including WF, the big O, Baltusrol, TCC, P'tree, PII and others. (We will have to agree to disagree about where Aroniminck fits. )

Those big, hard, kick ass courses are all places that I have a limited interest in revisiting. Turns out those were also the kinds of courses that MacK and Jones - quite consciously - designed Augusta NOT to be like.

Bob

[ForkaB]

As usual, the Beatles nailed this one.

"Was she told when she was young the pain
Would lead to pleasure?"

[Tim Taylor]

Adam,

I would venture to say that a lot of the enjoyment comes from the "Holy sh*t, I'm playing PINE VALLEY" factor.

Of course, I've never played Pine Valley. My wife's deceased grandfather played numerous times and everytime we talked about it he got a twinkle in his eye. He was a long time member at Tavistock CC.

TimT

This is interesting to me as well - and what I want to know is HOW is "Enjoyable Difficulty" designed?

Why is Pine Valley so fun - when it is also so penal?

It can't be just the difficulty, because we know that many have followed that path to a dead end. Difficulty in itself does not make a golf course fun.

What other factors come into play to balance the pleasure with the pain? What of these factors can be controlled by a designer?

[Adam_F_Collins]

Adam,

I would venture to say that a lot of the enjoyment comes from the "Holy sh*t, I'm playing PINE VALLEY" factor.

That's most certainly correct, Tim. The aura of exclusivity and the reputation of the course surely affect the experience. But Pine Valley has enjoyed a great reputation almost since it's opening. We also know that it has always had a reputation for being extremely difficult - perhaps more so than any other "highly rated" classic course. That is why it seems like a good one to discuss.

How does a very penal golf course manage to be so enjoyable? And for those who've played it - have you ever not enjoyed yourself playing there? If so, why not?

How does the design manage to keep you happy through your difficulties? Because we all know that difficulty alone is not enjoyable.

[Tom_Doak]

Adam:

The trick to the appeal of Pine Valley is the same as something I wrote a long time ago about PGA West.  The holes are so awesome visually that even if you manage to hit just one or two good shots in a round, you will believe those were the best shots you've ever hit in your life, and you'll remember them forever and forget however many others it took you to finish 18 holes.  And everyone manages to hit one or two good shots out of 100.

[Adam_F_Collins]

Is it that simple TomD? Or is that simple at all...?

Can an architect manufacture 18 "awesome-looking" holes and in the process, create a great golf course?

[Tom_Doak]

Lord knows there are a lot of people trying to do just that.  But everybody's idea of "awesome" is a bit different, so it's not that easy to hit the mark.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Is it possible that without the US Open, and all the Hogan stuff that goes with it, the first method might have just died out?

[wsmorrison]

I don't know, Lloyd, it sure is possible.  Here's an account of the 1951 Open that supports your claim that the momentum started right there:

From:
Major 'Monster': Oakland Hills rich in golf history
by Vartan Kupelian, Golf Press Association

"...here is a history to the quote and the truth is the gist of the quote -- the reference to Oakland Hills' South Course as "a monster" -- was uttered by Hogan but was not originally his.

At the 1937 U.S. Open, won by Ralph Guldahl with Snead as the runner- up, the field had dominated Oakland Hills with low scores. When the 1951 U.S. Open was awarded to the club, its members were concerned that with the advances in technology 14 years later -- where have we heard that before? -- the South Course simply would not be able to cope with the best golfers in the world. Oakland Hills set out to do something about it by hiring Robert Trent Jones to muscle up the course. He did so by taking out the original Donald Ross bunkers and adding new sand traps and pinching in the fairways at the new, more distant landing areas.

The effort received plenty of publicity. Golfers, hearing about the changes, commented freely about the new, tougher Oakland Hills. It was the talk of the Tour and the preview of the U.S. Open focused not on the competitors but rather on changes to the golf course. The discussions gained momentum as the tournament approached.

It peaked when Willard Mullin, the noted cartoonist, had a work published in the New York World Telegram reflecting the tenor of the upcoming U.S. Open.

Mullin's cartoon depicted Oakland Hills as a fire- breathing "monster." The "monster" cartoon was justified when only two subpar rounds -- par was 72 -- were shot during the U.S. Open. Hogan fired his final-round 67 for a 287 total, 1-under-par.

When asked about his round afterwards, Hogan referred to Mullin's cartoon -- that's where the "monster" came from -- and said, "I am glad I brought this course, this monster, to its knees."

The remainder of Hogan's quote included this sentiment: "This is the greatest test of golf I have ever played and the toughest course."


All of a sudden, it was reinforced in clubs across America that this had to be the way to remodel a course, Hogan just about said so.  Oakland Hills sadly desired to repair their broken egos and Robert Trent Jones was asked to make this ill-advised contribution to golf.  It sure got him a lot of work.  Too bad Flynn didn't live longer to extend his influence.  All of the early greats had died and Jones stepped into the void.