[Jim Franklin]

So I was talking to a member at my club and he asked me what some of my favorite courses were. When I told him I preferred NGLA to Shinnecock, he told me it was an old man's course. I said no, it was just pure fun. I then asked him what he shot (supposed to be a 2.1 index) and he said he didn't remember, but drove the first green. My guess is he was close to 90 and that is why he didn't like it.

Why do so many people not "get" NGLA? Plus he likes Arcadia more than Crystal Downs.

[Michael Whitaker]

Plus he likes Arcadia more than Crystal Downs.

That's all you need to know.

[Jim Franklin]

Plus he likes Arcadia more than Crystal Downs.

That's all you need to know.

If you only knew how accurate that statement is.

[Anthony Gray]

  NGLA has quirk and is less traditional which appeals more to the golfer who is out for fun. Some golfers do not like chance.

  Anthony

[JNC Lyon]

So I was talking to a member at my club and he asked me what some of my favorite courses were. When I told him I preferred NGLA to Shinnecock, he told me it was an old man's course. I said no, it was just pure fun. I then asked him what he shot (supposed to be a 2.1 index) and he said he didn't remember, but drove the first green. My guess is he was close to 90 and that is why he didn't like it.

Why do so many people not "get" NGLA? Plus he likes Arcadia more than Crystal Downs.

I get the sense that many golfers value "difficulty" and "challenge" over characteristics that might foster enjoyable golf.  Courses like NGLA that are shorter and wider are somehow deficient because they don't provide a stern test.  Many seem to think that if a hole offers a bailout or allows for less-than-perfect shots, it is flawed.  Modern golfers love bragging about how they "got beat up by a course," and they prize this type of course over one that is actually fun to play.

It's easy to say "to each his own" with this mentality.  But, of course, the push for challenge and difficulty makes courses longer, tougher, and more expensive to build.  This means golf will be tougher, will take longer to play, and will become more expensive to play.  Eventually, the entire game of golf suffers.

[rjsimper]

Does "old man's course" have to automatically be taken as a slight? Think of the courses you might describe as "old man's courses" in the objective sense of the term and maybe it's praise to some.

Having never played there but obviously seen pictures and read countless stories, I don't know that I'd argue against your friend. I might instead just add "...not that there's anything wrong with that"

CPC gets knocked for being too short and old school. Myopia might be the original "old man course".

As someone who hits the ball a relatively long way, often crookedly, is not an old man, and is still capable of shooting 71 or 91 off a low-ish single digit handicap, I like a good old man's course every once in a while.

 

[Mac Plumart]

I "get" the comment and think it makes sense.  I'd bet the better golfers and/or longer-hitters would prefer Shinnecock to NGLA. 

[Anthony Gray]

  With the blind shots and dramatic greens NGLA does offer "fun" and more chance.

  Anthony


 

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:

I'll bet your friend shot nowhere near 90.  Jack Nicklaus and Jim Lipe played it together, and both shot pretty low scores (under 70), so they thought it was too easy and didn't understand why we liked it so much.

I imagine Jack would hate Old Macdonald.

[Sean Leary]

So I was talking to a member at my club and he asked me what some of my favorite courses were. When I told him I preferred NGLA to Shinnecock, he told me it was an old man's course. I said no, it was just pure fun. I then asked him what he shot (supposed to be a 2.1 index) and he said he didn't remember, but drove the first green. My guess is he was close to 90 and that is why he didn't like it.

Why do so many people not "get" NGLA? Plus he likes Arcadia more than Crystal Downs.

I get the sense that many golfers value "difficulty" and "challenge" over characteristics that might foster enjoyable golf.  Courses like NGLA that are shorter and wider are somehow deficient because they don't provide a stern test.  Many seem to think that if a hole offers a bailout or allows for less-than-perfect shots, it is flawed.  Modern golfers love bragging about how they "got beat up by a course," and they prize this type of course over one that is actually fun to play.

It's easy to say "to each his own" with this mentality.  But, of course, the push for challenge and difficulty makes courses longer, tougher, and more expensive to build.  This means golf will be tougher, will take longer to play, and will become more expensive to play.  Eventually, the entire game of golf suffers.

I agree with all of this.

[JMEvensky]

Jim:

I'll bet your friend shot nowhere near 90.  Jack Nicklaus and Jim Lipe played it together, and both shot pretty low scores (under 70), so they thought it was too easy and didn't understand why we liked it so much.

I imagine Jack would hate Old Macdonald.

Do you mean that JN had never played it before he was working on Sebonac?

[Jim Franklin]

Jim:

I'll bet your friend shot nowhere near 90.  Jack Nicklaus and Jim Lipe played it together, and both shot pretty low scores (under 70), so they thought it was too easy and didn't understand why we liked it so much.

I imagine Jack would hate Old Macdonald.

The first time I played NGLA, I shot a 71 and fell in love with the place.

[Bill_McBride]

How many times do you hear 475 yard par 4s being described as a "strong" hole?! Absolutely drives me mad. I even heard someone advocating that the 6th hole at the Valley Club should be lengthened a good 30 or 40 yards because currently the green is in range from the tee and therefore a weak hole. Thankfully the best new courses in the world are being designed by Architects who don't subscribe to these nonsensical views.

Happily there is no way to move either tee nor green back on #6 at Valley Club.   It may be driveable but it is also dangerous.

[Bill_McBride]

NGLA an Old man's course? Perfect! Looking forward to playing it even more now...

Can those who have played it give a sense of the difficulty level from tee to green and the scope to lose golf balls??

You probably won't lose a ball, water is in play on only two holes and only dangerously so on #14 the Cape Hole.

There wasn't much deep rough and the caddies are good.

There are some stout par 4's.  #3, #5, #8, #10, #11, #12, #16, all demand two solid shots.   The shorter par 4's are more demanding of finesse in the approaches.   (Is #5 a full time par 4 these days?  It was a par 5 on the card when I played it in 2007 I think.)

[Tom_Doak]

Do you mean that JN had never played it before he was working on Sebonac?

JME:  No, Nicklaus and Lipe had played their round at National a few years earlier, when the ASGCA convention was there, I believe.  They had no particular interest in playing it again.  I guess if I'd shot 68 or less my first time around, I might feel the same way, but for an entirely different reason.   

[RSLivingston_III]

I see no good reason to convince these people about the quality of the better courses. Let them have there Fazio and Jones family courses and not have them tying up the good courses. If only we could convince them to stay the hell away from the great Scottish courses. I drool over the idea of being able to play multiple rounds on the Old Course.

[Jim Hoak]

I know that preference for one course over another is purely personal--like comparing the architecture of homes or the beauty of one  painting versus another.  I love playing NGLA--with all its quirkeness, it's still wonderful.  I can't understand anyone not liking it.  But, on the other hand, I can't believe that you would say you prefer it to Shinnecock!  Even allowing for personal taste and individuality, that comparsion is not conceivable to me.  But then your friend said he preferred Arcadia to Crystal Downs.  Wow!  I guess I don't understand either of your tastes in courses.  To each his own!

[Jim Franklin]

I know that preference for one course over another is purely personal--like comparing the architecture of homes or the beauty of one  painting versus another.  I love playing NGLA--with all its quirkeness, it's still wonderful.  I can't understand anyone not liking it.  But, on the other hand, I can't believe that you would say you prefer it to Shinnecock!  Even allowing for personal taste and individuality, that comparsion is not conceivable to me.  But then your friend said he preferred Arcadia to Crystal Downs.  Wow!  I guess I don't understand either of your tastes in courses.  To each his own!

Check out this week's golf supplement in Sports Illustrated. 100 Golf Magazine panelists were asked which course they would play if they only could play one more round. Cypress Point won going away, but NGLA got 8 votes and Shinnecock 7. I am not the only one you don't understand. I want to have fun playing golf.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Franklin,

Before understanding the comment, I think you have to have your friend define what he meant by "An Old Man's Course"

Certainly, from the back tees, Shinnecock Hills is harder.
They added back tees to challenge the best players in the World.

That's a choice Shinnecock made when they solicited or were solicited for the U.S. Open.

NGLA has added back tees, randomly, to retain the relevance of the architecture interfacing with the golfer, members and guests.

Now, with the Walker Cup in 2013, they may add additional length, limitedly, to challenge a small select group that may be the best Amateurs in the US and UK.

Those two courses have distinctly different playing personalities.

One isn't better than the other, although one may be prefered over the other, depending on your tastes and mood.

When I think of those gerrymandered composite courses, I wouldn't take one hole from either course and replace it with another.
I think they're perfect, or close to perfect, just the way they are.

Under tournament conditions, when NGLA is F&F, you let me place the hole locations, or just let me select the hole locations from previous qualifying events, and I'll bet your friend anything he wants that he can't shoot his handicap, so ask him to define "old man course" for you, and start getting a syndicate together because we're going to make a fortune.  

[Tim Gavrich]

I wonder if the reason pros dismiss courses for being easy and therefore less than great is due in large part to the fact that they're just accustomed to shooting low scores most everywhere they go.  Seeing a golf course for the first time and failing to break par would probably put a chip on a pro's shoulder to go low the next time.  Therefore, he/she would call that tougher golf course "better" largely because of the whole challenge, rather than the cool stuff that may not always create difficulty.

I shot a pretty low (for me) score the first time I played Tobacco Road and was smitten.  I also made out pretty well at Old White the first time I played it.  And the couple rounds I've played at Yale have not been too high either.

[Ken Moum]

The saddest thing about this line of discussion for me is that even among the 20-handcap hackers I play with, the term "good par four" means it's almost impossible for any of them to make a four.

Whyinhell did we all let "good" and "hard" come ot mean the same thing as adjectives describing golf courses.

When people tell me about hard courses or hard holes these days, I always say the same thing, "In golf, hard is overrated. I prefer interesting courses."

Any fool can make a hard hole, or a hard course.  It takes art and intelligence to make one interesting for a wide variety of golfers.

K

[JWL]

Since my name was mentioned, and an opinion of NGLA was associated with my name, allow me to clarify an apparent misconception.
I did not think NGLA was a very difficult golf course, but I thoroughly enjoyed playing it, and I have said so on many occasions.
I have never questioned why anyone else liked the coursei. I get it, and I fully understand why people enjoy playing it.
NGLA and Shinnecock are two totally different golf courses, and I think very highly of both, but for different reasons.   Neither is perfect, but both are must plays, imho.   

[Jim Franklin]

Since my name was mentioned, and an opinion of NGLA was associated with my name, allow me to clarify an apparent misconception.
I did not think NGLA was a very difficult golf course, but I thoroughly enjoyed playing it, and I have said so on many occasions.
I have never questioned why anyone else liked the coursei. I get it, and I fully understand why people enjoy playing it.
NGLA and Shinnecock are two totally different golf courses, and I think very highly of both, but for different reasons.   Neither is perfect, but both are must plays, imho.   

Thanks for the clarification although it leads to another question. Since neither of these two are perfect, is there a perfect course out there?

[JWL]

Jim
To answer your question, I can only give you my opinion, which is nothing more than that...just my opinion.
I would have to say that I have not seen or read of a perfect course to date.    The evaluating of courses is just so subjective and solely based on the rules/premises that the person doing the ranking has developed in studying/playing courses.   That is what makes golf architecture so  interesting.   What I might like may be totally different than what you might like...and neither is wrong, except to the other person. 
I do believe that when designing courses on certain dramatic sites, an architect can take a safe approach and produce 18 solid holes that would probably not gender any controversy.    However, there may be some really fantastic holes that could have been missed in that routing, but the designer would have to possibly accept a lesser hole(s) around it, just to get to that location on the site.   A possible example of that would be Cypress Point, imho..    15, 16 and certainly the green site at 17 might never have been part of the routing, unless something most likely average was to happen at the finishing hole, which was the result, imho.    So, as great as CP is, and I do have it ranked very high, it is also less than perfect imho.........that doesn't mean however, that when all the options are sorted out, which is what the designer has to do when routing, that the resulting course isn't the very best that could be laid on that parcel of land for the objective presented....and I am not making an evaluation one way or the other on that, because I haven't studied the property enough to know.   I do know that I love the place, and that is all that really matters.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Whyinhell did we all let "good" and "hard" come ot mean the same thing as adjectives describing golf courses.
...

Because we wanted the pros to be challenged on the classics, so we let RTJ heavily, penally bunker them or add ugly ponds.
Because Golf Digest started the lists with the top hardest courses and morphed it into the best courses.


I don't blame those of my generation that equate difficulty with good. It is what has been drummed into them their whole lives.

Go forth and evangelize people!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()