The Fun Factor and Architectural Superiority

[Mark Pearce]

There is one recurring theme in threads of this sort that I have a real problem with.  That is, that a course that is difficult (and perhaps even one where a higher handicapper cannot play, or has little hope of playing, to handicap cannot be fun.  That is not my experience.

The first (and only) time I played Carnoustie I was a 19 handicapper.  I shot 104 in pouring rain and wind.  My wife, who I was playing with, also struggled.  As soon as we finished and despite being soaking wet from the rain we went back to the starter to see if there was any chance of going out again.  It was difficult but fun. 

Recently I had the good fortune to play at Yale, just after the NCAA Eastern Division finals there.  The greens were so slick that I struggled enormously on the front 9, taking 24 putts.  It is a notoriously difficult course.  It is in the three most fun rounds of the year for me (the others being at Charles River and Silloth on Solway).  Three years ago I shot 100 (as an 11 'capper) at Wolf Run.  Another very difficult course.  Another fun experience.

This afternoon, I will be playing with a client at Slaley Hall on the Hunting Course.  It will be difficult.  I almost certainly will fail to get close to handicap (I never have on that course).  The company will be good but the course will not be fun.  It never is.

My view, for what it is worth is that great architecture can be difficult for weaker golfersbut can still be fun.  Anyone can design a course that is difficult.  Greatness is for those who can achieve difficult but fun.  For all standards of player.

[DMoriarty]

Sean:

My question or questions to you were not rhetorical. However, judging from your last post perhaps what you should've just said in the beginning was all I really care about with greatness or whatever is what I think it is. If that's the case maybe the following was not the best or most accurate thing to say on here.



"However, the ultimate test of greatness is when a course can challenge and provide entertainment for all levels of players, but still keep a bit of humour/whimsy about it."

I am unsure of the meaning of this post nor why my thoughts aren't accurate.  You or anybody else may disagree and that is fine with me.  As others have opined, there are no absolutes when it comes to architecture or art.  I spsoe this is one reason folks can come up with such terrific and imaginative work.  Which is partly why I think there should be an element of eccentricity and even controversy in any great design.

Ciao   

I don't understand the perceived problem, either, but then I like your definition about as well as any, and especially like your addition of the element of whimsy or quirk (so long as it doesn't seem forced.)

My only difference would be that I no longer care whether the very best golfers are challenged or entertained.   I am not sure it is still possible to challenge and entertain them without ruining courses for the rest of us.  And I'd much rather cut them loose ruin great courses trying to accommodate them.  

[Adam Lawrence]

Philosophy 101: The subjective/objective debate is as old as the hills, and is found in virtually every area of 'art'. One one level, there is no absolute reference point for what a golf course should be, unless you want to take a pure utilitarian viewpoint, which in golf terms would translate as 'the best courses are those that are most fun for most people to play'. This is superficially attractive, but it leads us to unappealing conclusions when courses that are justly regarded as great are unfavourably compared to seemingly lesser venues, just as utilitarianism leads inevitably to the conclusion that it is better to be a happy pig than a dissastisfied Greek philosopher.

But pure subjectivity is not a credible position either, as it leads inevitably to the conclusion that if I think a Big Mac is better food than a great steak, my view is equally valid as yours that it isn't. Or in golf terms: my contention that Pacific Grove is a better golf course than Cypress Point has the same validity as Jack Nicklaus saying the reverse.

Art, and I'm including golf courses in this category for the sake of the argument, is 'group objective'. Objective judgements can and are made based on the collective subjective viewpoints of qualified individuals. They are not truly objective in the same way that statements such as 2+2=4 are, but they emerge from the communication and criticism of members of a group. They are subject to revision if new facts emerge, or new opinions convince the members of the group to change their minds, but they are more than pure subjectivity. Thus we can say 'TOC is a better golf course than Balbirnie Park' and it means more than just a pure subjective opinion.

blimey....

This is by far the single best post on this thread and it should be read several times. 

Adam,

How much do you think status quo bias affects the group's ability to internalize and react to new facts?  Does this explain why 80 of the Golfweek composite top 100 are Classic courses? 

Probably quite a lot, but then it should do. If knowledge is founded on collective opinions, subject to debate and criticism (peer review, if you like) then it follows elegantly that our knowledge becomes more reliable and secure over time. In essence, the judgement of the ages is more reliable than that of a shorter period, which is more likely to be affected by fashion and natural human enthusiasm for what is new and fresh, not to mention that fewer individuals will have had the opportunity to express opinions, and the peer review process will have been less rigorous.

I sound like Edmund Burke here, which is pretty depressing to someone who's identified as a lefty all his life, but we shouldn't reject the judgement of time lightly. If something has been regarded as great for a long time, it probably is, although classical music shows us that canons can be turned upside down - Bach, for example, was entirely forgotten for the best part of a hundred years after his death.

[Sean_A]

Sean:

My question or questions to you were not rhetorical. However, judging from your last post perhaps what you should've just said in the beginning was all I really care about with greatness or whatever is what I think it is. If that's the case maybe the following was not the best or most accurate thing to say on here.



"However, the ultimate test of greatness is when a course can challenge and provide entertainment for all levels of players, but still keep a bit of humour/whimsy about it."

I am unsure of the meaning of this post nor why my thoughts aren't accurate.  You or anybody else may disagree and that is fine with me.  As others have opined, there are no absolutes when it comes to architecture or art.  I spsoe this is one reason folks can come up with such terrific and imaginative work.  Which is partly why I think there should be an element of eccentricity and even controversy in any great design.

Ciao    

My only difference would be that I no longer care whether the very best golfers are challenged or entertained.   I am not sure it is still possible to challenge and entertain them without ruining courses for the rest of us.  And I'd much rather cut them loose ruin great courses trying to accommodate them.  

David

I am with you.  What is "greatest" isn't nearly as important as what appeals to me, but I do recognize the difference.  I am not in the buinesss so I don't have to worry about what others think of as the greatest courses.  While I don't share your view that building courses for all to be challenged and enjoy is impossible, I would probably agree that it is a goal no longer worth pursuing.  Still, one cannot blame an archie wanting to build a "course for all".

Mark

I think some folks are looking at great courses and their difficulty on a "play every week" basis.  This may be a meaningless criteria, but in the context of this thread valid.  I know I have no interest in playing difficult courses as my weekly game.  Burnham is right on the edge for me.  I would prefer something a bit easier, but still with some character.  Unfortunately, where I live this ideal is hard to come by.

Ciao  

[Mark Pearce]

Sean,

My father in law is 82, plays off (but rarely to) 12 and plays 2/3 times a week at Muirfield.  He loves it.  The Northumberland isn't a great course but it is tough, particularly when the wind blows.  I don't consider it a fun course and, to some extent at least, that's down to its toughness and the unrelenting need to be accurate.  Frankly, I suspect I'd have more fun playing every week at Yale because, tough as it is, every hole involves fun shots and I'd lose fewer balls playing badly.  I simply don't believe that it is not possible to design a fun course for weekly play which is also tough.  Indeed I suspect (albeit from just one play) that Yale fits the bill.  Certainly the members I played with were weaker golfers than me and seemed to enjoy it.

Mark

[Sean_A]

Sean,

My father in law is 82, plays off (but rarely to) 12 and plays 2/3 times a week at Muirfield.  He loves it.  The Northumberland isn't a great course but it is tough, particularly when the wind blows.  I don't consider it a fun course and, to some extent at least, that's down to its toughness and the unrelenting need to be accurate.  Frankly, I suspect I'd have more fun playing every week at Yale because, tough as it is, every hole involves fun shots and I'd lose fewer balls playing badly.  I simply don't believe that it is not possible to design a fun course for weekly play which is also tough.  Indeed I suspect (albeit from just one play) that Yale fits the bill.  Certainly the members I played with were weaker golfers than me and seemed to enjoy it.

Mark

Mark

I am not suggesting it is impossible to design a fun course which is tough - aren't TOC and Sandiwch prime examples?  I am suggesting that on a relative scale of difficulty, the tough courses tend to be less fun and less people want to play them week in and out.  I could be wrong, but I even get that sense with the wing nuts on this site and it is nowhere near representative of what the average golfer wants.  Of course, our ideas of toughness may be totally different.  Not only that, but some tough courses, such as Muirfield, are playable for all.  I suspect the nastiness of Muirfield only really comes out in the summer with harsh rough.  There are a great many tough courses which are tough no matter the weather or season.  Depite winter winds, the championship links tend to be quite forgiving most months of the year.  Not to the point where they are EVER easy, but the challenge to fun ratio is in better balance - imo.  This is one reason why I think links golf is the ultimate expression great design.  The weather and seasons are allowed to lay their part and in a very real sense one can pick his level of difficulty.  This is quite a unique concept when usually the alternative for choosing is shorter tees which often means less interfacing (Muccism) with the intended design. 

Ciao

[TEPaul]

Sean Arble:

Here's a legitimate question for you---and definitely not a rhetorical one.

Does your Fun Factor have anything to do with what you shoot on a hole or a golf course?

[George Pazin]

There is one recurring theme in threads of this sort that I have a real problem with.  That is, that a course that is difficult (and perhaps even one where a higher handicapper cannot play, or has little hope of playing, to handicap cannot be fun.  That is not my experience.

The first (and only) time I played Carnoustie I was a 19 handicapper.  I shot 104 in pouring rain and wind.  My wife, who I was playing with, also struggled.  As soon as we finished and despite being soaking wet from the rain we went back to the starter to see if there was any chance of going out again.  It was difficult but fun. 

Recently I had the good fortune to play at Yale, just after the NCAA Eastern Division finals there.  The greens were so slick that I struggled enormously on the front 9, taking 24 putts.  It is a notoriously difficult course.  It is in the three most fun rounds of the year for me (the others being at Charles River and Silloth on Solway).  Three years ago I shot 100 (as an 11 'capper) at Wolf Run.  Another very difficult course.  Another fun experience.

This afternoon, I will be playing with a client at Slaley Hall on the Hunting Course.  It will be difficult.  I almost certainly will fail to get close to handicap (I never have on that course).  The company will be good but the course will not be fun.  It never is.

My view, for what it is worth is that great architecture can be difficult for weaker golfersbut can still be fun.  Anyone can design a course that is difficult.  Greatness is for those who can achieve difficult but fun.  For all standards of player.

Terrific post, and it ties in with what I asked earlier, for people to define their terms. I'm also amazed by the number of people who think lesser golfers can't enjoy the challenge a difficult course may present.

For me, golf course architecture all comes down to how, not how many, which is somewhat of a paradox in regard to the game itself.

[TEPaul]

Mark Pearce:

Your post that George Pazin quoted gives me great hope and contentment. You obviously have quite the sophisticated (read; "Unself-centered" or "unself-consumed") "Fun Factor" somewhere within you! God Bless you, my man!

[Tom_Doak]

I'm not sure why this thread bothers you.  I am in no way trying to separate architectural merit from golfing merit.  In fact, I am combining them.  What a hole offers a golfer is a result of it's routing and the strategy implemented by the architect.  Those two aspects of architecture are what create a particular hole's golfing merit.

I think the rest of your post is a round about punt to subjectivity (regardless of how much Tom Paul may drool over it).  Moreover, your subsequent post attempting to articulate the difference between golfing merit and architecture merit is confusing.  At what point does the discussion of whether people care about man made vs nature made come into this conversation?  I'm not sure what a perceived over-emphasis on man made v nature mad has anything to do with architectural and/or golfing merit?  Perhaps I need to define my terms.  When I say "can a golf course have superior architecture and be less fun than another golf course," I am not asking any questions about what was built and what wasn't.  

I am asking, quite simply, in the pie of "great" architecture, is there a piece for "fun"?  After 31 years, what, in your opinion, constitutes a great golf course?  Routing?  Green complexes?  Quirk?  Interplay with the existing land and surroundings?  Fun?

Or, at the end of the day, does superior routing, green complexes, quirk, variety, naturalness, etc. lead to a fun golf course and therefore a "great" golf course?

Why is Oakmont great if it is no fun?  Why is North Berwick so much fun if it is not "great"?

JC:

Maybe I am missing your point.  We've had several threads in the past where people tried to separate their idea of "architecture" [which they define as what the architect changed/built] from the end product, and I thought in your one post you were doing the same thing.

So, to answer your questions:

What, in my opinion, constitutes a great golf course?  All of the above, plus a lot of other things you did not mention.  The sum total of golf is more than what can possibly be included in any particular 18 holes.  There is room for variety.  Indeed, I often argue with Ran because I insist that a truly great course has to have an element of originality to it, and he doesn't.

Why is Oakmont great if it is no fun?  It wouldn't be, if your assumption was actually true.  But Oakmont [like Pine Valley] can be great fun if you take it in the right spirit and don't worry too much about what kind of score you are piling up ... if you just take it one shot at a time and enjoy those challenges.  There is much, much more to it than to most other long, straightforward championship courses which only require you to hit long and straight; it is a really one-of-a-kind design.  The only thing I don't like about Oakmont [even more than Pine Valley] is that the membership seems to revel in breaking the back of the golfer and NOT letting him enjoy each shot.

Why is North Berwick so much fun if it is not "great"?  Again, you're making an assumption that it's fun for everyone.  For a certain class of really good players, North Berwick is not as much fun as it is for you and me.  They don't think it challenges them enough.  Here, I might argue that they are obfuscating a bit, and that they are really more bothered by the fact they don't go as low as they want to, and we might beat them with strokes there.  But I've heard that opinion enough times from players I respect to wonder if it isn't also partly true.  And unfortunately, those sorts of players don't appreciate the originality aspect, either.

So, then you have to ask yourself on whose behalf you are pronouncing courses "great" ?  Some insist a course isn't truly great unless it challenges the Tour player or at least the scratch player; others say it's all about fun.  And that's why it's still a subjective exercise, when all is said and done ... because everyone has just as different a definition of "fun" as they differ about "great."

[TEPaul]

TomD:

Your last post is another excellent one----a bit more detailed and explanatory than your other good one on this thread (#18).

I could be wrong about JC, but it seems he is not quite understanding the importance you are placing on "subjectivity"----eg the ability of any particular golfer to pretty much understand what it is he likes (even if he may not be able to completely articulate why).

It seems like he is wanting to know what the actual building blocks of architecture or golf are to be able to built some kind of general consensus of opinion.

[Steve Strasheim]

Seems like we are lumping together two separate activities. Playing golf and admiring the course architecture have different platforms for evaluation. When playing, fun is primarily scoring. When admiring architecture, fun is a combination of factors including everything from how artificial hazards are placed to the nature surrounding the course.  I believe playing comes first.

For example, I belong to a Pete Dye course that is one of the best rated in the state. I have had a few friends over the years who have declined to play there saying "I'm not sure my game is up for that course". What they are really saying is it's not fun to lose a half dozen balls and struggle to break 90, or 100. If they could score better, they would then be able to have fun and admire the architecture. The average, average golfer, is often too busy trying to add up their score to slow down and admire the course.

[George Pazin]

For example, I belong to a Pete Dye course that is one of the best rated in the state. I have had a few friends over the years who have declined to play there saying "I'm not sure my game is up for that course". What they are really saying is it's not fun to lose a half dozen balls and struggle to break 90, or 100. If they could score better, they would then be able to have fun and admire the architecture. The average, average golfer, is often too busy trying to add up their score to slow down and admire the course.

Steve, you should read a thread I posted about two years ago titled something like "How good to you have to be to appreciate Pete Dye?" or something close to that, I think you'd find it an interesting read.

[Niall C]

Sean,

My father in law is 82, plays off (but rarely to) 12 and plays 2/3 times a week at Muirfield.  He loves it.  The Northumberland isn't a great course but it is tough, particularly when the wind blows.  I don't consider it a fun course and, to some extent at least, that's down to its toughness and the unrelenting need to be accurate.  Frankly, I suspect I'd have more fun playing every week at Yale because, tough as it is, every hole involves fun shots and I'd lose fewer balls playing badly.  I simply don't believe that it is not possible to design a fun course for weekly play which is also tough.  Indeed I suspect (albeit from just one play) that Yale fits the bill.  Certainly the members I played with were weaker golfers than me and seemed to enjoy it.

Mark

Mark

I am not suggesting it is impossible to design a fun course which is tough - aren't TOC and Sandiwch prime examples?  I am suggesting that on a relative scale of difficulty, the tough courses tend to be less fun and less people want to play them week in and out.  I could be wrong, but I even get that sense with the wing nuts on this site and it is nowhere near representative of what the average golfer wants.  Of course, our ideas of toughness may be totally different.  Not only that, but some tough courses, such as Muirfield, are playable for all.  I suspect the nastiness of Muirfield only really comes out in the summer with harsh rough.  There are a great many tough courses which are tough no matter the weather or season.  Depite winter winds, the championship links tend to be quite forgiving most months of the year.  Not to the point where they are EVER easy, but the challenge to fun ratio is in better balance - imo.  This is one reason why I think links golf is the ultimate expression great design.  The weather and seasons are allowed to lay their part and in a very real sense one can pick his level of difficulty.  This is quite a unique concept when usually the alternative for choosing is shorter tees which often means less interfacing (Muccism) with the intended design. 

Ciao

Mark/Sean,

If I may interject slightly in your conversation perhaps a distinction should be made between tough and challenging. I'll use two courses to illustrate the point, Silloth where I was a member and Glasgow Gailes where I'm a member now.

Silloth just grows in my estimation the longer it is since I last played it. Its a course that while ranked 4th hardest in the UK according to Golf World is great fun with a variety of challenges ranging from diagonal carries, blind and semi-blind approach shots, some fairly penal contouring round the greens, a lot of sideways roll on some of the fairways, elevation changes etc. The key for me is not only the challenge but the variety of challenges that make it fun. Nearly every hole offers an element of recovery for wayward shots.

Gailes on the other hand ,with its straight away gorse and heather lined fairways, presents a fairly singular challenge and that is the challenge of hitting the ball straight. Recovery options are limited when your knee deep in the ubiquitious heather. Its what I would call tough. Sure you get a buzz when you're playing well but you get that anywhere. You sure as hell don't call it fun when you're not playing well whereas at Silloth you can play indifferently and have a great time because there's always an interesting and challenging shot to be faced.

Niall

[JC Jones]

TomD:

Your last post is another excellent one----a bit more detailed and explanatory than your other good one on this thread (#18).

I could be wrong about JC, but it seems he is not quite understanding the importance you are placing on "subjectivity"----eg the ability of any particular golfer to pretty much understand what it is he likes (even if he may not be able to completely articulate why).

It seems like he is wanting to know what the actual building blocks of architecture or golf are to be able to built some kind of general consensus of opinion.

Tom Paul,

You are wrong.  I completely understand the importance he is placing on subjectivity.  I just don't buy it as an argument here. 

Tom D asks "it depends on who says it is great."  Let's start from this spot, the collective rankings of the various publications.  This is why it is important to understand Adam L's post regarding collective objectivity. 

[JC Jones]

So, then you have to ask yourself on whose behalf you are pronouncing courses "great" ?  Some insist a course isn't truly great unless it challenges the Tour player or at least the scratch player; others say it's all about fun.  And that's why it's still a subjective exercise, when all is said and done ... because everyone has just as different a definition of "fun" as they differ about "great."
[/quote]

I am not pronouncing the course great, the collective publications are.  Generally, within a few spots here or there, the same characters show up in the top 20 or so courses.  Those are considered to be the "great" courses by the collective.  Therefore, those courses are objectively, great.

In your opinion, would you consider all of those courses to be fun?  Also, in your opinion, are there courses which aren't considered great by the collective, but, in your opinion, are more fun than any of those "great" courses?

[Steve Strasheim]

George,

That does sound like an interesting read.

Thanks for pointing it out.


[/quote]

Steve, you should read a thread I posted about two years ago titled something like "How good to you have to be to appreciate Pete Dye?" or something close to that, I think you'd find it an interesting read.
[/quote]

[TEPaul]

JC:

Perhaps you are right on your #90 post. Therefore, I will let you continue to discuss it with TomD without my participation or opinion, because TomD certainly does know his stuff individually (in other words I have always found him to have some very interesting personal ideas about golf and GCA not necessarily articulated by others), in my opinion, and he also has the added benefit of being part of and having been part of some pretty important ranking and rating magazine lists (Adam L's your so-called collective opinion) and such over the years, not to even mention his pretty unique early book on architectural opinion---"The Confidential Guide."

[DMoriarty]

Terrific post, and it ties in with what I asked earlier, for people to define their terms. I'm also amazed by the number of people who think lesser golfers can't enjoy the challenge a difficult course may present.

For me, golf course architecture all comes down to how, not how many, which is somewhat of a paradox in regard to the game itself.

George,

I agree that Mark's post is a good one.   At the very best courses, enjoyment and challenge should walk hand in hand.  And it seems to me that some (but not all) of the supposedly great but hard courses would be great fun to play.  What surprises me is that some of those claiming that lesser golfers can't enjoy the challenge of a course like Oakmont seem to have actually played the place!    

Are these guys just plain wrong, or are they simply reacting to what Tom Doak describes as that club's revelry "in breaking the back of the golfer and NOT letting him enjoy each shot?"  I know that my reaction to Bethpage Black has much more to do the back (or at least wrist) breaking nature of the set up and changes rather than anything to do with the original architecture.

And if clubs and courses like Oakmont and Bethpage are setting out to break the back of the golfer then shouldn't we be condemning them rather than celebrating them?    After all, what could be worse for golf than destroying the elusive balance between challenge and enjoyability at those few places it actually exists?  

I've seen a number of quality courses on the low end of golf drop in esteem when those in charge couldn't manage to take care of what they had.  Shouldn't the courses on the high end of golf receive comparable treatment?   Why aren't we panning clubs which fail to protect and preserve the delicate balance between challenge and enjoyability?  

What good is great architecture if a club insists on negating it in the quest the difficult, relevance, and a Championship Test?

[TEPaul]

"And if clubs and courses like Oakmont and Bethpage are setting out to break the back of the golfer then shouldn't we be condemning them rather than celebrating them?    After all, what could be worse for golf than destroying the elusive balance between challenge and enjoyability at those few places it actually exists?  

I've seen a number of quality courses on the low end of golf drop in esteem when those in charge couldn't manage to take care of what they had.  Shouldn't the courses on the high end of golf receive comparable treatment?   Why aren't we panning clubs which fail to protect and preserve the delicate balance between challenge and enjoyability?  

What good is great architecture if a club insists on negating it in the quest for difficulty and relevance?"



I would say to even begin to understand the questions you asked above, and certainly to understand what the true and accurate answers to them may be and/or really are you would pretty much need to have a real familiarity not only with the likes of the golf courses of Oakmont and Pine Valley and their history but also a pretty good familiarity with what their members think about their golf courses or have thought about them at any particular point in time.

You have neither, and you've admitted it on here a number of times. So why do you make the kinds of assumptions you do and the kind of conclusions you do about what those clubs are trying to acheive, as well as whether people such as yourself should condemn them? I do have that familiarity with both (both courses, their histories and a pretty signficicant slice of their memberships over time).

Therefore, you can continue to pontificate on and on about things you really don't know or you could choose to listen to others who do know and then carefully consider what they mean.

Without even knowing much of the foregoing just mentioned, for you to even ask what good is great architecture if clubs like Oakmont and Pine Valley insist on negating it in a quest for difficutly and relevence is both insulting to those clubs and historically uninformed. The fact is the creators of both (Crump and Fownes) set about creating both courses with supreme difficulty and challenge in mind for a particular purpose that they both articulated and those courses and clubs have been that way ever since. The next question is-----do the memberships of either largely oppose the way those courses are and the way they were originally created? Of course without knowing anything about either of them you really aren't in any postion to know any of it, are you David Moriarty?  

[Andy Troeger]

Adam,

How much do you think status quo bias affects the group's ability to internalize and react to new facts?  Does this explain why 80 of the Golfweek composite top 100 are Classic courses? 

JC,
Where did you come with this stat? The only composite list I've seen was unofficial, posted by Mac based on score, and I think had 54 Classics and 46 Moderns.

[Tom_Doak]

JC:

You mean this is a RANKINGS thread?  I had no idea we were talking about THAT.

Each of the three main rankings has its own way of doing things.

GOLF DIGEST tries to define what a great course is, and then makes all of its panelists assign points for how each course fits the various criteria included in its definition.  You can probably tell by my previous posts here that I am not a big fan of this.  I think they are trying to make an essentially subjective exercise, seem objective, by introducing a bunch of numbers [all of which are still arrived at subjectively].

GOLFWEEK improves on GOLF DIGEST's formula [borrowing from GOLF Magazine] by asking its panelists to rank courses against each other.  They do provide some potential criteria for panelists to consider, but don't require them to go against their own opinions because of the suggested criteria.  The only problem with GOLFWEEK's rankings is that because they came after the other two magazines' rankings, their panelists already had an idea of what the results should look like ... that, and because they insist on keeping modern courses separate, you can never really know how their top modern courses are really regarded vs. the top classic courses, which is the one thing everybody really wants to know.

GOLF Magazine's rankings are something I had a lot to do with creating.  Originally I was asked to help write a definition for what we were voting on, and I declined, telling the editor that I thought it would be stupid for him or me to try and tell Arnold Palmer or Deane Beman or Brian Morgan what a great course was.  We wanted to know what THEY thought they were.  But instead of a semantic exercise like your thread, we just decided to try and identify a diverse panel from all parts of the golf world -- Americans and foreign correspondents, men and women, Tour pros and 20-handicaps, photographers and superintendents and architects -- and then let their collective opinions form a consensus.


The fact that there are differences between the three rankings stems entirely from how they are put together, and the subjective viewpoints of the various panelists.  [Not to mention that due to financial and logistical constraints, they all fail to cover the entire golf world as effectively as one would like.]  If they all operated from the same definition -- say, GOLF DIGEST's -- I would guess that they would STILL be just as different, because the panelists would still have differing viewpoints and would imprint those biases onto the numbers they submit.

In fact, the only thing that establishes a basic consensus is a certain amount of peer pressure among the panelists of the different mags.  Once a course makes one of the lists, it tends to get more consideration on the others.  If it weren't for that, I suggest there would be much LESS agreement between the three lists, and then the whole process would be seen for the subjective exercise that it is.

[George Pazin]

George,

I agree that Mark's post is a good one.   At the very best courses, enjoyment and challenge should walk hand in hand.  And it seems to me that some (but not all) of the supposedly great but hard courses would be great fun to play.  What surprises me is that some of those claiming that lesser golfers can't enjoy the challenge of a course like Oakmont seem to have actually played the place!    

Are these guys just plain wrong, or are they simply reacting to what Tom Doak describes as that club's revelry "in breaking the back of the golfer and NOT letting him enjoy each shot?"  I know that my reaction to Bethpage Black has much more to do the back (or at least wrist) breaking nature of the set up and changes rather than anything to do with the original architecture.

And if clubs and courses like Oakmont and Bethpage are setting out to break the back of the golfer then shouldn't we be condemning them rather than celebrating them?    After all, what could be worse for golf than destroying the elusive balance between challenge and enjoyability at those few places it actually exists?  

I've seen a number of quality courses on the low end of golf drop in esteem when those in charge couldn't manage to take care of what they had.  Shouldn't the courses on the high end of golf receive comparable treatment?   Why aren't we panning clubs which fail to protect and preserve the delicate balance between challenge and enjoyability?  

What good is great architecture if a club insists on negating it in the quest the difficult, relevance, and a Championship Test?

These are all excellent questions. I can't really answer almost any of them, as they require speculation about many courses I've never seen and courses of which I'm certainly not privy to member intentions regarding setup, etc.

But when has that ever stopped any of us on here?

I personally question Tom D's premise that Oakmont is out to break anyone's back. While I personally would prefer less rough (or even no rough, as an experiment), I believe the members at Oakmont believe they are in fact highlighting the architecture of the course by presenting it in its full difficulty. It's interesting to me to look at the demands of Oakmont relative to the demands of other championship-testing courses. Oakmont is not brutally long - many of the longer holes are significantly downhill, and conditions are kept universally fast, so there is maximum roll on drives (frequently seen as a good thing on here for many different reasons). Oakmont does not generally have brutally long carries to reach the fairways or greens, as some courses do. Oakmont does not rely on water hazards and other penalty strewn hazards (which other courses rely upon far too heavily, imho). Most of the holes actually allow run up approach shots, if one so desires.

Oakmont combines 3 principal elements to create its challenge - brutal bunkering, heavy rough, and the best green complexes in the country (come on, let's stop kidding ourselves that Augusta's or #2's are even close.... ). Of these, I personally only see heavy rough as back breaking; I'll leave it up to others to determine if that element of Oakmont's presentation is too much. The other two elements are primary components of top notch architecture, imho. Can't see where the lesser golfer isn't capable of handling these, as long as he is not overly obsessed with score. I'd sure hate to see someone argue for dumbing down Oakmont to help lesser golfers feel better about themselves - I'd rather see golfers accept the challenges presented and forget about their score.

Should we criticise clubs for not maintaining what they have? I don't know, I take each case as individual examples, and I know very little about the specifics of each to say with any sort of authority that clubs are not doing their job as protectors. Heck, I'd lay a lot more blame on the USGA & R&A for that.

I know you and Tom P have big problems, but I think he is right on the money with his question to Sean Arble about Fun Factor and scoring.

[Mac Plumart]

I don't think this thread is about ratings or rankings per se, but to get a handle on Adam Lawrence's collective opinion I think these lists are great proxies for that collective opinion.  Each one is a bit different but yet tries to identify the "best" courses, but each one has many of the same courses on it.  This is why I come up with the idea that good architecture isn't purely subjective.  If it was how could these proxies for great courses be so similiar.

You could argue "groupthink", "herding", and the like...but look at the list Tom Macwood posted from 1939 in the "In My Opinion" section of the site.  It has many of the exact same courses and these courses have stood the test of time, stood the test of passing fads and fancies and are still regarded as great.

Greatness in a golf course is something I don't think is entirely subjective.  However, I believe fun is.  Greatness, perhaps, can only be identified by educated observers and practitioners.  While fun can be had by anyone and for different reasons.

Defining what is great, therefore, just might be the trick.  But perhaps it is the timeless entertainment that the challenge of the course provides.  Each one offers different challenges, but each one can entertain even the best of golfers over time.  And by entertain, I don't mean laughs and giggles after 12 beers.  I mean entertainment derived through all consuming highly focused golf.  Golf in a Ben Hogan like trance.  Golf with the weight of playing your best round on the line.  Golf with major championships on the line.  All consuming golf.  Mentally stimulating...thinking through shots, calculating alternate routes, risks and rewards, making decisions based on your abilities and then being forced to execute...and therefore physically stimulating.  No distractions...no horns blowing, no kids playing their backyard right by the course.  All encompassing golf.  This type of golf will captivate and entertain real golfers, regardless of handicap, for eternity. 

Does score matter.  Hell yes it does, but in a relative sense.  On a truly great course maybe breaking 90 is the goal for one, while breaking par is the goal for another.  The absolute score is irrelevant in many cases as the course and the players skill dictates what the target score for the round can be.  But that is the idea of golf...to battle the course and see who wins.   

It is weird that for years and years, this debate has been going on and yet no one can settle on the answer to what makes a great course.  But if the same courses get ranked in our proxy as the best decade after decade, haven't we already admitted what greatness is?

[George Pazin]

It is weird that for years and years, this debate has been going on and yet no one can settle on the answer to what makes a great course.  But if the same courses get ranked in our proxy as the best decade after decade, haven't we already admitted what greatness is?

Has anyone come up with an adequate answer as to what is great art? Literature? Not surprising to me at all we can't seem to come up with a definition for great courses.

Please don't anyone say "I know it when I see it". I hate self-defining standards, even if it's someone I truly trust and respect - just seems to reek of hubris.