[David Wigler]

I have been playing with this in my head since we started discussion Fazio more.  Is there a difference between a "Great" golf course and a "Great" test of golf?  IMO a great golf course is interesting, enjoyable, thought provoking and sticks in your head.  A great test of golf is challenging, mentally taxing, demanding, and sticks in your head.

Great Golf Course - Not Great Test of Golf
Shadow Creek
World Woods - Pine Barrens
Reflections Bay
Double Eagle
Rustic Canyon


Great test of Golf - Not Great Golf Course
Bellerive
Valhalla
Oakland Hills
Greenville C.C.
PGA West Stadium


Great on both scales
Prairie Dunes
Victoria National
Olympic
Cuscowilla
Old Memorial
Bandon Dunes
Pete Dye GC

Does this concept make sense?  Do the two types exist?  Where do other courses rank?  

[Chris Kane]

Wouldn't the truly great courses rank highly in both categories - although the whole thing has been skewed by the distance saga.

[David Wigler]

Chris,

That is what I am getting at.  I am not sure.  Oakland Hills is certainly considered by many a "Truly" great golf course but while I agree that it is a "Truly" great test of golf, it does not have the features that I used to describe great golf course.  Conversly, Pacific Dunes is considered a Great golf course, but without a vicious wind, it is not much of a test of golf.  Is Pine Valley great on both scales?  I have not played there.  Is Merion a great test of golf?  Cypress Point may be the highest score of all on the Great golf course scale but where does it fall as a test of golf?

[John_Conley]

Wiggles:

How many times have you played WW-PB (this for the guy with the initials thread!)?

It is a great test of golf.  There is more strategy off the tee for a course with wide fairways than any other place I can think of.

Of course, it takes a couple rounds to notice this.

FWIW, that's my opinion - humbly!

[Tim Weiman]

David Wigler:

I would probably agree the concept makes sense.

If you just wanted to build a course that was hard ("great test"), that would be easy.  However, if you want to build a course that is interesting for a wide variety of skill levels ("great course"), you face a much bigger challenge.

Of course, some may question whether "great test" really equates to difficulty, i.e., GD's "resistance to scoring".  But, deep down, I think this is really what people have in mind.

[David Wigler]

John,

I have played WWPB twice.  It is exactly because of those wide fairways and banking that I did not feel it was a great test of golf.  I did feel it was a great golf course though.  This is in contrast to Primm Valley Lakes, which has the same wide fairways but does not inspire me and therefore fails on both tests.

Tim,

I thought a lot about "Resistance to scoring."  In my mind, it was the only criterion for great test of golf.  If so, The Bear in northern Michigan would be a Great Test of Golf and I do not think it is.  The course has to be hard and demanding but fair and thought provoking.

[Robert Kimball]

I agree with most of your list -- especially cuscowilla!!  I do think that  Cypress should be in the overall scene, and what about Pine Valley?   :-/
  SFGC could also be in the overall selection, and another Tillie gem -- bethpage black now deserves mention.  
  Basically, its an interesting subject that could be lobbed back and forth all day.  Which isn't a bad idea for a monday.

[Tim Weiman]

David Wigler:

One other point: I do not share your view that absent a vicious wind Pacific Dunes does not present a great test of golf.  Think about the mid handicap player taking on the following shots:

 #1 - Approach
 #2 - Approach
 #3 - Approach
 #4 - Entire hole (trying to make par)
 #5 - Tee shot, recovery shots
 #6 - Approach
 #7 - Entire hole (trying to make par)
 #8 - Approach, recovery shots
 #9 - Tee shot
#10 - Tee shot
#11 - Tee shot
#12 - Bump and run around green
#13 - Entire hole (trying to make par)
#14 - Recovery around the green
#15 - Placing second shot
#16 - Approach shot from awkward lie
#17 - Tee shot, recovery shots
#18 - Entire hole (trying to make par)

So, often when we talk about "great test" we think about how the course plays for low handicap or scratch players.   They're a pretty small minority.  There is plenty "test" at Pacific Dunes for the vast majority.  Besides, I wouldn't go thinking calm winds will prevail during my visit.

[David Wigler]

Tim,

Point taken about the low handicapper.  I have never heard from a high handicapper who has played the course.  Even in normal winds, from what I have seen, it is not a hard golf course.  I am going to guess that you broke 80 without much problem.

The interesting point is that I do not mean it as a criticism in any way.  Shadow Creek is first on the list of courses that are not great tests of golf and in my top five favorite courses on the planet.  In fact, I love everyone of the courses in that category.

[John Foley]

Dave,

If it take a look at your lists and throw in another cut, it appears that "Great Test of Golf" are demanding, private, members are low handicappers type course and "Great Golf Course" are wider fairways, somewhat less strategic & higher handicaps can enjoy it just as much. If I also throw in the "Great on both Scales" list, your going to find "Great Test of Golf" for the most part in these demanding members courses somewhat exclusively.

How much does resistance to scoring really have to mean to a great test of golf?

For the masses what one says is a great is very, very different than what another says is great.

fwiw

[David Wigler]

John,

Interesting take.  In the great on both scales category, I have two public courses - Cuscowilla and Bandon Dunes and on the test of golf side, I have one - PGA West Stadium.

The more I think about it, the more I see your point.  If a course was exclusively a great test of golf, it would fail as a public course because the mid/high handicapper who funds these courses would not pay to get beat up day in-day out (PGA West and TPC Sawgrass being exceptions because of how unique they are).

A course like Double Eagle is the perfect "Members course".  It is fun, challenging and enjoyable.  You could play it every day.  You would also have an artificially low handicap and get killed when playing a money match at Oakland Hills.

I would think that the great on both scales would be considered great by the masses and the GCA types.  I would think that the GCA types would tend to lean towards the great tests though while the masses would tend to lean to the great golf side.

[A_Clay_Man]

I want to respond to this post but I don't know where to begin. And let me say I don't consider myself of any higher intelect, I am just voicing (ok writting) my thoughts and opinion.

First off, what the hell is "resistance to scoring". Scoring for who? My only resistance is between my ears. Secondly, as the first list points out, individual opinion of what is within the parameters of thier own definitions is just that, opinion. i.e. I agree with John Conley that wwpb is full of strategy, at least more than on any other TF course, I've seen.

What bothers me when playing a place for the first time is mostly a feeling like I've had this shot all day. NCGA's Poppy Ridge is a perfect example of that.

I saw a JN interview recently where he actually quantified the secret as variety variety variety.  But I believe it's more than just variety. It is an indescribeable feeling one gets when that variety works well. CPC is the perfect example. It's almost intangable and thats what makes a place great.

[THuckaby2]

Adam - well said.  But just to clarify, "Resistance to Scoring" is indeed one of the nine criteria by which Golf Digest Magazine raters evaluate courses, as required by the surveys we do.  It is briefly defined as "how difficult, while still being fair, is the course for the scratch player from the back tees."

As I say, it's just one of nine criteria... but it fits well with how at least some people would define a "test of golf".

TH

[David Wigler]

Acknowledging that I know Mike Vegis's answer - There is no question that the Ocean Course is a great test of golf.  Is it a great golf course?

If so, then it is an example of another public facility that meets both criterion.

[Tim Weiman]

Since I introduced "resistance to scoring" to this discussion, let me clarify or further explain my thinking.

Unless I'm missing something, a "great test" usually refers to something which tests all aspects of one's game or, more simply, difficulty.  The former is the politically correct; the latter is what some really mean, especially when describing courses like Cypress Point or Pacific Dunes as lacking the quality of "great tests'.

The only time I've ever heard Cypress Point severely criticized was by a well traveled, scratch player who just thought the course was too easy.  He is the type who would prefer to play Firestone from the tips.

I can see a difference between "great course" and "great test" if one really means the latter is about difficulty (GD's "resistance to scoring").  However, if you really have the politically correct version of "great test" in mind, then I can't understand how this varies from a "great course".

David Wigler:

Unfortunately, my game was in such horrible shape when I played Pacific Dunes that I was closer to 90 than 80.  It doesn't take too many totally screwed up tee shots to do that!

[David Wigler]

Tim,

I will take another shot at what I am getting at.  It is not exactly “Resistance to scoring,” as much as demanding golf with multiple options.  Olympic requires the ball to be worked many different ways and truly uses every club in the bag.  It probably does not score really high on the GD "Resistance to scoring" scale because you can go pretty low if you execute the shot required but it scores very high on my "Test of Golf" scale.  Conversely, the Norman Course at PGA West is nothing but improperly cantered landing areas throwing balls into hazards and OB stakes.  Your only option on the tee is to hit the shot to impossible precise locations or take double bogeys.  It must score unbelievably high on the GD "Resistance to scoring" scale but very low on my Test of golf scale, as there are no thought provoking decisions or demands.

Does a course demand multiple shots and reward their execution?  Does a course require multiple strategies and approaches to score?  If yes on both - Great test of golf.

Can a course induce a scratch golfer, playing well, to put up a big number?  If yes, high resistance to scoring. I think there is a difference.

Dave - You are right on Blackwolf Run.  The Golf Club would also fit this group.  Dye is probably the master at producing my definition of great tests of golf.

[THuckaby2]

WHOA!  Wait a second there... I put Olympic WAY up there in Resistance to Scoring... remember just what those tips represent... US Open tees, Dave... you know, where the winning score is even par... admittedly the let the rough grow to hay and shave the greens for Opens, but even in normal conditions, a scratch has to play VERY well to shoot even par from the tips.  From a set or two up, sure, it can be had.  But the tips make for a lot of long shots into small targets....

So my feeling is Olympic Lake scores well on both Resistance to Scoring AND "test of golf" as you define it.

I get what you're saying about the difference - I just don't agree with this one example.  

TH

Tim,

I will take another shot at what I am getting at.  It is not exactly “Resistance to scoring,” as much as demanding golf with multiple options.  Olympic requires the ball to be worked many different ways and truly uses every club in the bag.  It probably does not score really high on the GD "Resistance to scoring" scale because you can go pretty low if you execute the shot required but it scores very high on my "Test of Golf" scale.  Conversely, the Norman Course at PGA West is nothing but improperly cantered landing areas throwing balls into hazards and OB stakes.  Your only option on the tee is to hit the shot to impossible precise locations or take double bogeys.  It must score unbelievably high on the GD "Resistance to scoring" scale but very low on my Test of golf scale, as there are no thought provoking decisions or demands.

Does a course demand multiple shots and reward their execution?  Does a course require multiple strategies and approaches to score?  If yes on both - Great test of golf.

Can a course induce a scratch golfer, playing well, to put up a big number?  If yes, high resistance to scoring. I think there is a difference.

Dave - You are right on Blackwolf Run.  The Golf Club would also fit this group.  Dye is probably the master at producing my definition of great tests of golf.

[David Wigler]

Tom,

This is why "Resistance to scoring" must be so hard to quantify.  I have only played Olympic twice and from the tips both times.  The course is extremly mentally taxing.  Without Gib telling me the proper shot to try, I do not know how I would have done.  That written, I played really well both times and had no problems scoring after executing the shot.

Contrast that to the Ocean Course, where no matter how good I play, I cannot break 80.  The course is just beyond my talent (And that is from one tee up from the tips).

[John_Conley]

"Resistance to Scoring" seems to be more dependent upon course setup than layout.

[THuckaby2]

Interesting... I have a completely different perspective.  I've played Olympic Club Lake many times, only once from the tips though, and it slaughtered me as bad as Shinnecock did.  I mean that was HARD.  I guess it comes down to length off the tee... for an average hitter like myself, that's a long golf course made even longer by the slopes.  Conversely the Ocean (I assume you mean OClub Ocean) I found very doable, from whatever tees....

I guess we can explain this because you are more like John Daly and I'm more like Calvin Peete or Mike Reid. Yep, we sure as heck are gonna find different tests of golf!

But re Olympic Lake, I still go back to the pro events there.  Hard for me to call that course anything but very strong in resistance to scoring - even when the Tour Championship was held there, and conditions were very benign, the pros scored quite high.  Oh I fully agree it is indeed mentally taxing - one does need to figure it out and our Amenian brother is great help for that - I just ALSO found it to be damn difficult by ANY DEFINITION also.

That's why I say it meets both Resistance to Scoring AND Test of Golf... brains and brawn are required.

TH

[A_Clay_Man]

This criterior seems like it is more telling about the rater than the course.

After all, if I want to know how tough a course is, don't I just look at the slope/rating?

[Dan_Belden]

This is a good topic. The question of resistance to scoring is interesting.  I have a great example for GCA.  Recently after the Senior PGA at Firestone South, one of Fazios most senior designers was saying that if the Senior Pros thought this course was hard, and I think only Fuzzy broke par, wait till they get to Caves Valley.  " It is the most difficult course we have designed".  Well I think Watson and Pooley tied at 7 under, and there were 64's and 65's etc...  The point is even some of the most senior designers don't have a clue about the pro game.  
   How does this relate to resitance to scoring.  Well first you have to decide what type of player you are talking about.  And then can a 20 handicap effectively know what would make a course difficult for the expert player, and vice versa. I don't know?
   Jones Senior probably built some of the best tests of golf with his hard par easy bogey philosophy.  Firestone South and North are great exampes.  Greenlefe West, Presidents club etc..etc.. Are any of them really great golf courses. Not in my oppinion, but they are all superb tests of golf for the expert player, and are very playable for the high handicapper.
   I don't think it is resistance to scoring that makes or breaks a course, but the quality of the shots that are at hand. Great shots like  going for the green in two on 13 at Augusta.  16 at Cypress, 15 at Cypress, 5 at Pine Valley, or the 2nd at 13.  The 2nd on the  13th a Pacific Dunes.  The anticipation of these wonderful shots seperate these courses from the others.  The tee shot on the 18th at Firestone is alot of fun, but it is not great.  Dan

[David Wigler]

Tom,

My bad on the Ocean course.  I thought that the Mike Vegis comment would make it clear that I was talking about the ocean course at Kiawah.  Olympic Ocean is a cute golf course but not great on either standard.  Oh, if they had only built the Raynor......

[THuckaby2]

Dave - I thought that's what you meant, I just never heard Kiawah Ocean Course referred to without the "Kiawah" and given Olympic does have the Ocean course next door, well.... you can understand my confusion!

Never been to Kiawah, but from what I see on TV, oh yes, that's just a stone brute that kicks everyone's butt.

But re Olympic Lake... you're still gonna have to convince me that is anything but excellent on Resistance to Scoring anyway!

TH

[Stephen Brown]

I truly believe the Ocean COurse is both a great golf course, and truly a great test of golf.  God help the golfer at Kiawah when the wind blows.  This course is an amazing challenge from the back tees.  I am very excited about the changes, and look forward to playing soon.

Steve

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()