[George Pazin]

Had a nice long email discussion on Friday with Huck on Friday while the site was down, in which we clarified our thoughts on tests of golf and whether they are fun, relentless, etc. (and even discovered that we could survive 24 hours without golfclubatlas...).

I think our opinions are pretty close, with the exception of my obvious Oakmont bias .

So, in keeping with my recent thread themes, I figured I'd solicit thoughts from others.

How would you define a test of golf?

How would you define relentless pressure?

Feel free to contrast it with what you'd consider tons of fun, if that helps to clarify your position.

[BCrosby]

In the 1920's Joshua Crane thought good courses ought to "control" every shot. That meant that every shot had to negotiate a hazard or meaningful rough. Absent those sorts of fw and green control, the course was viewed as being weak.

So I'll go with that for "relentless".

Not the kind of course I want to play very often.

Bob  

[rjsimper]

Relentless -

The continuous and unwavering demand that the golfer execute perfect or near perfect shots in order to succeed.

Particularly, my opinion on this is relative to tee shots and the requirement for long and straight drives of greater than 250 yards.

To me, relentless is more easily defined by tee shots, not approach shots - there are exceptions to this, but courses I consider to be relentless (Olympic Lake, Congressional Blue) are made so due to the tee shot requirements, not the approaches.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think they are different. I think of a test of golf as a course that encourages different shot types, via angles, wind direction, ground slope and hazards.

The statement "Nothing wrong with an hard hole, even more than once in a while" is often heard here.

I think of relentless as a course with severe penalties for missing smaller targets, regardless of creative shotmaking required.

The statement "Nothing wrong with an easy hole once in a while" not heard here.

[Glenn Spencer]

My definition of relentless is a course that has virtually no holes or very few, where a golfer can reasonably expect to make birdie. A test of golf, to me, means that every facet of your game is examined. Short par 4's, long par 3 or two. Reachable par 5's, not reachable. Dog-legs going both ways. Fairway bunkers and things in the DZ, but not a lot of water hazards in the DZ.

[John Kavanaugh]

I often judge courses by how many balls I feel comfortable starting with.  I usually keep a dozen balls in the back of my care and add as many sleeves as see fit, I like to keep my bag as lite as possible.  Yesterday I four sleeved it and only used one with two balls remaining on my team, yet beat to hell.

So in this system you go from 1 sleeve = easy to 4 sleeve = relentless..with 2 and 3 somewhere in between.

Interestingly wrong on some great courses like Pinehurst #2.  It would be a 2 sleever but is tougher than that.

[JSlonis]

John,

Based on your system, would do define Pinehurst #2 as easy?  You could play there all summer long and never lose a ball, but it is definitely not easy.  You'll wear a ball completely out before you ever lose it.

[Tom Huckaby]

Interestingly, my definition is very similar to Ryan's, although I wouldn't limit it to tee shots.  For me, a relentless course would make these demands on every shot.

And when I played Shinnecock Hills, it was described by my playing partners as "no big deal, all it requires is perfect golf shots."

Said in an ironic, funny way of course.

But that's it in a nutshell - courses that require perfect golf shots are relentless.

And they will never be my particular cup of tea.

As I said in the Prairie Dunes thread, courses that are tons of fun for me relent a little... dole out their punishment in an indirect and slower manner.  You know, kinda like the course across the street from Shinnecock?

TH

[John Kavanaugh]

John,

Based on your system, would do define Pinehurst #2 as easy?  You could play there all summer long and never lose a ball, but it is definitely not easy.  You'll wear a ball completely out before you ever lose it.

I do see that flaw in the system but my real world worries are more based on huge one hole numbers than a total score.  I have trouble calling a course like #2 relentless because I'm never going to be at risk of shooting 100 like at the Ocean course at Kiawah.  Just given the greatness of Pinehurst and the real possibility of losing balls o.b. and this and that I can't see taking off down the first tee with anything less than 9 balls in my bag.  I think 3 sleever is a fair rating.

[Dan Kelly]

... when I played Shinnecock Hills, it was described by my playing partners as "no big deal, all it requires is perfect golf shots."

Said in an ironic, funny way of course.

But that's it in a nutshell - courses that require perfect golf shots are relentless.

I haven't played Shinnecock Hills.

What do you mean by "require"?

"Perfect shots" are "required" to achieve ... what?

What happens to the less-than-perfect shots? Is there a chance to recover from a less-than-perfect shot with a subsequent perfect shot?

Questions, questions, questions!

My definition of relentless is a terrible golf course here in the Twin Cities called Mississippi Dunes, where, after most imperfect shots (and many quite close to perfection), the player is utterly screwed.

[Tom Huckaby]

Dan:

Those are all good and fair questions.

My take was that imperfect shots met an awful fate; either lost ball or a VERY VERY difficult recovery.  And I choose the word "imperfect" intentionally... even the most slightly off-line shots could meet this fate, in many instances - too many for me.

So yes, in many cases at Shinnecock, imperfect shots could be saved by subsequent perfect shots... but as one who hits very few perfect shots to begin with, it was still too much for me.  In most cases, imperfect shots do mean that the player is utterly screwed.

And as I look at Prairie Dunes, it seems that way too much to me also.  But of course I haven't been there.

Contrast to Pacific Dunes, where imperfect shots don't mean you're screwed most of the time - not immediately and directly - but they typically mean you better put on your thinking cap for the next shot - you're going to have to creatively and skillfully get your way back on track.  But if you do so, it can be done.  As opposed to more relentless courses, where in the odd case you find your ball at all, it either means unplayable lie drop, or the skill of a Tiger Woods to get back on track.

I am not Tiger Woods.

 

[Peter Pallotta]

I haven't played many different courses, and none that are ranked among the greats, but I must be lucky, because I can't remember ever playing a course I found relentless.  I usually play the right tees for me (mostly blue, sometimes white), and while I've certainly found some courses HARDER than others, I've never found one that didn't provide the occasional break and the occasional birdie chance (or at least the illusion of such a chance).

I think a truly relentless course -- for my level of skill -- would probably be a pretty dull one, with, say, most/all the greens perched up and bunkered, so not allowing me ever to try to run anything up there, whether out of imagination, fear or a flubbed shot.  Dull in that it would play (and, just as importantly to me, it would look) the same for much of the 18 holes. Tighter fairways with lots of high rough or trees I can't really call relentless, because I can always choose to hit my 18 degree hybrid instead of a driver, and at least live to fight another day/shot.

Peter  

[Dan Kelly]

I think they are different. I think of a test of golf as a course that encourages different shot types, via angles, wind direction, ground slope and hazards.

The statement "Nothing wrong with an hard hole, even more than once in a while" is often heard here.

I think of relentless as a course with severe penalties for missing smaller targets, regardless of creative shotmaking required.

The statement "Nothing wrong with an easy hole once in a while" not heard here.

Well put, Mr. Brauer -- unless I'm misunderstanding you!

Oh, and thanks for your answers, Tom IV.

[Brad Swanson]

Dan:

Those are all good and fair questions.

My take was that imperfect shots met an awful fate; either lost ball or a VERY VERY difficult recovery.  And I choose the word "imperfect" intentionally... even the most slightly off-line shots could meet this fate, in many instances - too many for me.

So yes, in many cases at Shinnecock, imperfect shots could be saved by subsequent perfect shots... but as one who hits very few perfect shots to begin with, it was still too much for me.  In most cases, imperfect shots do mean that the player is utterly screwed.

Tom,
   I must've played a different Shinnecock Hills than you did, as relentless would not be the way I would describe that course when set-up for member play (and I wasn't really on my game when I played there either and still scrapped it around in a respectable score).  There are a few very exacting shots like the teeshots at #11 and #7, but I can't think of too many others that I thought were do or die.

Cheers,
Brad

[Tom Huckaby]

Brad:

You likely did play a different course from me.  I played it from the tips, and rough was pretty damn high, greens were rock hard.  Every imperfect shot was severely punished.

I have do doubt that the course could be softer and with shorter rough, and one could play from short tees... and relentless it would cease to be.

But it also wouldn't be Shinnecock.  That course is SUPPOSED to be relentless.

See, it's not a pejorative term.  Every course should have a reason to be.  Shinnecock's is to be a damn stern test of golf.

It's just not my cup of tea, relatively.  Of course I could enjoy playing there constantly, and would play from shorter tees.  All this is meant only as way of example.

TH

[Brad Swanson]

tom,
   FWIW, we played it as far back as possible, athough the fairways were mowed wider from where they played the U.S. Open a few moths earlier.  It was firm too, but I don't recall the rough being ridiculously punishing.  Certainly it wasn't easy, but I didn't feel beat-up after a not so great 80.

Cheers,
Brad

[Tom Huckaby]

Brad:

We all have our own perceptions... I came off of that course battered and bloodied, having played pretty decent golf for me and barely breaking 90.  And it was not I who coined the phrase "all it takes is perfect shots."

TH

[Doug Siebert]

It sounds like you guys are equating 'relentless' with 'penal'.

So if a penal hole is one where a misplayed shot is punished in a manner out of proportion to the amount of miss, then I guess a relentless one is where that keeps happening shot after shot and hole after hole, and you never get a breather.

[Tim Bert]

John,

Based on your system, would do define Pinehurst #2 as easy?  You could play there all summer long and never lose a ball, but it is definitely not easy.  You'll wear a ball completely out before you ever lose it.

I do see that flaw in the system but my real world worries are more based on huge one hole numbers than a total score.  I have trouble calling a course like #2 relentless because I'm never going to be at risk of shooting 100 like at the Ocean course at Kiawah.  Just given the greatness of Pinehurst and the real possibility of losing balls o.b. and this and that I can't see taking off down the first tee with anything less than 9 balls in my bag.  I think 3 sleever is a fair rating.

As our caddie instructed us on the drivign range at Pinehurst #2, "you only need one ball to play #2."  This was as he was removing all of the balls from our golf bags for storage in order to lighten his load.  In the end, I think we negotiated 2 or 3 balls each, but he was right - I only needed one (and I was all over the place.)

#2 is definitely an exception to the difficulty / sleeve rule.

Now at the Shattuck in my first and only visit, I lost 9 balls on the first 6 holes.  At that pace, it makes the course a 9-sleever.  It doesn't get much worse than that.

[Kirk Gill]

I decided to try and answer this question for myself without reading everyone's responses, so forgive me if I'm being redundant.

First of all, every golf course is a test of golf. Every single one. There are easy tests, and stern tests, and tests that are very narrowly defined, but all courses test golf skills in some way.

And at one extreme of the testing spectrum is the relentless test. One that doesn't let up, for a moment. Fairways that demand precise placement and distance off the tee, hazards that require superior recovery skills, greens that open to specific shots and that have both bold and subtle contouring. Every shot presents an opportunity for success or near-disaster.

I don't know that I've ever played a course like that.

[Dan Kelly]

It sounds like you guys are equating 'relentless' with 'penal'.

So if a penal hole is one where a misplayed shot is punished in a manner out of proportion to the amount of miss, then I guess a relentless one is where that keeps happening shot after shot and hole after hole, and you never get a breather.

Yes. That's the course I described.

[Tom Huckaby]

It sounds like you guys are equating 'relentless' with 'penal'.

So if a penal hole is one where a misplayed shot is punished in a manner out of proportion to the amount of miss, then I guess a relentless one is where that keeps happening shot after shot and hole after hole, and you never get a breather.

Absolutely dead-on perfect correct, at least how I see this silly game.  And I have a very difficult time seeing a course like this as being "tons of fun."

TH

[JESII]

Tom H and Brad S,

One thing that need be included in your conversation about Shinnecock is that they, more than any other US Open course that I am aware of, move their fairways in and out and up and down in preparation and post tournament recovery.

They may not return to their full original width, but they nearly double from the years immediately preceeding an Open. The late summer and fall of '03 was apparently particularly difficult with rough so high and thick that you could bounce your ball off the fairway and only have a 50/50 chance of finding it. That's no good.

Right now, I would imagine the course to be a dream to play, and along the lines of what you like best Tom...
   

"Contrast to Pacific Dunes, where imperfect shots don't mean you're screwed most of the time - not immediately and directly - but they typically mean you better put on your thinking cap for the next shot - you're going to have to creatively and skillfully get your way back on track.  But if you do so, it can be done..."

[Tom Huckaby]

JES:

That makes sense to me.  However, I don't think the course was set up in a particularly difficult manner when I was there - it was nowhere near any USOpen, that's for sure.  Also the rough didn't seem all that terrifying - at least not the "primary."  It was not hack out with a wedge stuff.

No, what got me more, and has me still thinking of this as the ultimate relentless/test of golf course, were the extremely firm greens and very very difficult green surrounds (bunkering, slopes, etc.).  Missing teeshots didn't mean immediate punishment, but missing greens sure did... And since I was faced with so many very long shots into greens, missing greens was inevitable.

"All it requires is perfect shots" was not said by me, but I surely did agree with it.

But maybe I did see it in particularly firm conditions.

TH

[George Pazin]

Huck, one last clarification:

Can you clarify what the result is when you don't hit the required perfect shot?

Say you short side yourself on a green sloping away from you - is it rolling 15 past where you'd like to stop it, or is it off the green?

And then how tough is it to have any kind of reasonable result from this new position? Same/similar to before? Now much easier on the correct side?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()