I recognize that the bent of most on here is to play courses and holes that are "fun", "strategic", and attainable by players of all handicap levels. Philosophically, I agree, generally, because the alternative often seems to be courses that are either enormously long, formulaic, or penal.
However, I played a course today that has me betwixt and between and causes me to really reconsider some dearly held golfing values.
At one time, Moselem Springs (George Fazio 1964) was included in Golf Digests Top 100 courses. The only major title held there was the 1968 US Women's Open, where Susie Berning won with a +9 score (289). Going into the day, I assumed that it would be a long, brutal, tight test, with little interest.
However, I was wrong. Fairways are rather wide, although the course does play reasonable long at over 6800 yards for a par of 70 on land that is rather hilly, but not overbearing. The rough was kept short, there are only a handful of fairway bunkers, and water is minimally used. What's more, for those of us who detest massive earth moving, I can think of few courses that fit the land better, or where holes are routed more naturally.
Yet, you HAVE to hit the driver well, or you are looking at a day of long iron approaches to sizable greens that are perilously contoured. You also have to hit the drives to preferred areas, dependent on pin position, which changes day to day.
I can't tell you the number of times today where I hit approaches to what seemed to be reasonably safe areas of the green, only to find that I was left with putts that broke in the range of 8 feet or more. In a way, the challenge was similar to what is provided at ANGC, where the actual target is significantly smaller than what is obvious from the fairway.
Moselem is one of those courses where someone could hit 14 greens and shoot 78. The speed of the greens wasn't even up to summertime levels, yet I had very few putts that I played inside the hole. What's more, trying to hit approaches to the proper areas of the greens, particularly with longish clubs, was challenging to say the least, and required working the ball with every club.
I know we tend to look askance at architecture of the 60s, and probably with good reason in most cases. Yet, I have to wonder after playing Moselem Springs whether it's not just a matter of not being up to the challenge at times, and whether our own inadequacies at being able to pull of the required shots aren't a part of it.
Tom Doak gave it a "6" in "The Confidential Guide", and seemed to have issue with a couple of long, uphill holes, as well as the fact that 3 of the par threes play downhill. I also have to wonder if other's who have played there saw those things as drawbacks, because I have played few courses with a better set of par threes, demanding though they may be.