[David Davis]

If I purely pick on my home course. Personally, I think it's a great course and one of my favorites. Several of my friends all between +1 and 5 hcp think it's not fun because they don't score well, there is too much wind, the weather is bad, the rough is too high and unforgiving, there is no margin for error, it's too expensive losing all those balls and finally the best of all because it ruins their confidence. As a guest it only costs them €30 to play so that's not bad.

To me it's the ultimate challenge and I'd play happily everyday. It's always fun in that I want to go back in hopes of putting it all together once and getting the breaks as well to finish a good round completely and hold it together till the end. However, in 150 rounds I've only broken 80, 8 times which is humbling to say the least. Something I manage on other courses most of the time.

However, that being said this summer I've often felt it's too tough and unfair, bording on not fun, a brutal test of golf. An average score of 86 (over 3 rounds) should have no right making a Top 5 placement in a club strokeplay championship. Or do you guys disagree? Mind you assuming you have 50 players participating with hcp's of 5 and lower and only about 30 above that, many of which turn in no returns.

So fun is very subjective, relative to your ability level and subsequest level of enjoyed and endured masochism clearly.

[Tom_Doak]

My response is the same as what I posted on the other thread.  I am sure there are some people in the golf industry who look down their noses at a course that's only "fun".  They may think they know better than the rest of us, but they are more likely to be pretentious or even sanctimonious people who have missed the point of golf entirely.

[Ally Mcintosh]

My response is the same as what I posted on the other thread.  I am sure there are some people in the golf industry who look down their noses at a course that's only "fun".  They may think they know better than the rest of us, but they are more likely to be pretentious or even sanctimonious people who have missed the point of golf entirely.

I'd have to agree with this in principle.

Yet there are times when the sado-masochism kicks in and you want to continually test yourself against a beast of a course that just requires taming... The challenge provides the achievement, even if you never rise to that challenge and are constantly beaten back... Then again that achievement provides its own element of fun, even if it is retrospective.... Perhaps like climbing Mount Everest?... Climbing Gullane Hill is about my limit however...

[Mike Sweeney]

However, that being said this summer I've often felt it's too tough and unfair, bording on not fun, a brutal test of golf. An average score of 86 (over 3 rounds) should have no right making a Top 5 placement in a club strokeplay championship. Or do you guys disagree? Mind you assuming you have 50 players participating with hcp's of 5 and lower and only about 30 above that, many of which turn in no returns.

So fun is very subjective, relative to your ability level and subsequest level of enjoyed and endured masochism clearly.

I have not seen anyone mention which set of tees they are or are not having "fun" from.

I have a new rule at Yale. When I break 80 for the first time in a season, I will move back to the back tees. Tomorrow (hopefully) I will still be teeing it up on the member tees and having fun!

I did hit 80 once this year, so maybe I missed that par putt on purpose at 18!

6750 does not sound long these days, and I will sometimes move back on a few holes at Yale to make it more fun (see #2), but if some pretty good college players can't break 80 from the back, how am I?

6400-6500 is pretty much the perfect yardage for me to have fun, both Shinnecock and National if anyone is asking.  

[Jared Kalina]

Ughh....you guys are something else.  

Obviously, we are all playing golf for fun.  My quote, out of context, makes me look like an idiot.  I may grow grass for a living, but I assure you I'm no idiot.  So let me clarify real quick.  

My "fun" quote was specifically in reference to those Ballyneal-over-Sand Hills loyalists.  Now, that's totally fine if you prefer BN over SH, I could see why one would go that route, but it makes my skin crawl when the only reason given is that "it's more fun" without any justification of why it is more fun.  Is it the green complexes? Is it the options?  The variety in the par 3's or the bunkers or different tee options?  So when one just makes a blanket statement that one course is just more fun without any logic behind that statement, I assume you just have the rose-colored glasses on and nothing can/will change your mind.  

Hence, the now infamous quote was born.

I love FUN golf courses.  I am no rankings whore.  One of my favorite courses in Nebraska is a little public track in Ogallala called West Winds.  It features a 95 yard par 3, a front that is totally different than the back, and the first hole is a par 3.  Tons of quirk throughout the place.  Short, and flat, and tons of FUN.  But nobody in their right mind is calling West Winds 'good' from an architectural standpoint. Golf dorks and architecture students alike are not going to fly in from all over the country to study West Winds.  Nonetheless, it is an absolute blast to play.

So go on for as long as you like tearing that sentence apart, but I move up a teebox all the time in adverse conditions, I play 15 dollar greens fee courses with regularity, and I've never gotten my ass kicked up and down all the way around a golf course and said "man, that was SO good and SO much fun."

I got to go to work, can't defend it anymore.  Have fun with it all you want from this point on.

[Alex Lagowitz]

Some of the greatest courses in the world are both fun and good.  The challenge today is defining what is good.  One can always judge emotion and experience to determine if a course is fun, but then again, what constitutes a good course.

Many of the PGA tour courses are not that fun for a 30 handicap, but for a scratch golfer may be fun because they truly test the golfer's ability.  Being a low handicap myself, I often find easy courses "fun", but I don't particularly like hitting wedges into every green.  That's why I also prefer long courses because I get to hit different shots test my ability.  Nothing is more gratifying than hitting a long shot exactly the way you planned it.  For that reason, a long and boring course is not fun, because it is very one-dimensional and doesn't allow you to "think".

Thus, for me, a good course is where I am forced to make decisions and hit shots that test both my physical golfing ability and creativity.  If you are playing well, it can certainly be fun and gratifying.
The only players who would say that a fun golf course is not good is maybe a select few on the PGA tour who don't understand golf architecture; ask any knowledgeable pro and they'll tell you they prefer classic, strategic golf courses (that are FUN) over the boring, penal courses they play week in and week out.

[Scott Szabo]

I'm inclined to give Jared a pass on his post.  Sometimes it's difficult to express one's thoughts through words.  Some are simply better than others at doing so; I for one, am one of the worst. 

[Scott Szabo]

I love FUN golf courses.  I am no rankings whore.  One of my favorite courses in Nebraska is a little public track in Ogallala called West Winds.  It features a 95 yard par 3, a front that is totally different than the back, and the first hole is a par 3.  Tons of quirk throughout the place.  Short, and flat, and tons of FUN.  But nobody in their right mind is calling West Winds 'good' from an architectural standpoint. Golf dorks and architecture students alike are not going to fly in from all over the country to study West Winds.  Nonetheless, it is an absolute blast to play.

I have a group of about 20 or so guys that, once a year, make the trek through western Nebraska for a week-long outing.  West Winds is one of the stops along the way.  Corey and his staff treat our little group like kings, and there's not a one of us who doesn't recognize and appreciate the effort.  He throws together a steak dinner for our group after our round, and comes out and joins us for a drink and some story telling.  It is one of our favorite stops along the way.  We will be going back every year, and I think that says a lot. 

[PCCraig]

"Fun" is like most things... completely subjective. I understand why a 20-handicapper who hits it 220 yards off the tee might find short wide open golf courses that have greens that put an emphasis on putting more fun. I also understand why a + handicap find find that course to be boring and would prefer a course that is more of a challenge.

GCA tends to defend all things "fun" ie short and quirky too hard as most of the posters here I've played with tend to be more along the lines of a 10-20 handicapper. Guys like JR Potts who hit is a mile and is a low digit handicapper who might enjoy a longer, harder course are more rare.

[William_G]

as in snow skiing, a double black diamond run is no fun to an intermediate skier, whereas in golf an intermediate golfer can still play the toughest courses w/o breaking a leg, it would still be no fun

[Jason Thurman]

Remember that Jared said this in his first post. He's not talking about "When guys on GCA.com say a course is 'fun,' it typically means it's not good." He's saying "When the average golfer calls a course 'fun,' it's typically a way of saying 'it isn't very good, but I like making birdies on 420 yard par 5s with tee shots off a cliff.'"

The things I think are fun include options, risk/reward, terrain that can be used to feed the ball, contoured greens, centerline hazards, and enough width to keep from losing balls. That's probably true for most GCAers, give or take. But the average player (the one we always complain about because he evaluates courses mostly by conditioning) uses the word "fun" as a consolation adjective for a course that stinks but on which they scored well and thus don't want to demean too much for fear of also demeaning their good score.

No one wants to say out loud "I shot a good number playing a JV course."

[Phil McDade]

Jared:

Welcome to the site. From a veteran poster, I'd only suggest having a stiff drink on Ben's Porch if you plan to take the debate here on GCA all that seriously. Like Tom Doak's views on golf generally, I've always viewed GCA first and foremost as a fun place to visit.

Just as an explainer, there is a long and (I think... ) honorable tradition here on GCA of vigorous debate among participants about the merits of Sand Hills vis-a-vis those of Ballyneal. See this monster, 14-page photo thread/WWE smackdown for an example:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,44990.0.html

I will say this (having never played either course): in reading about the relative merits of each course, and talking to those who have played them, those who favor Sand Hills always seem much more defensive about it, as if those who might prefer Ballyneal simply don't understand SH, or have inherent biases that factor into such an opinion. Why do you think that is?

[Carl Johnson]

"Fun" is like most things... completely subjective. I understand why a 20-handicapper who hits it 220 yards off the tee might find short wide open golf courses that have greens that put an emphasis on putting more fun. I also understand why a + handicap find find that course to be boring and would prefer a course that is more of a challenge.

GCA tends to defend all things "fun" ie short and quirky too hard as most of the posters here I've played with tend to be more along the lines of a 10-20 handicapper. Guys like JR Potts who hit is a mile and is a low digit handicapper who might enjoy a longer, harder course are more rare.

Agreed.  I play golf for fun.  It is not how I make my living.  For me, fun course = good course.  Not fun course = bad course.  Is it possible to build a course that just about everyone (excluding those negativists who seem to find fault with everything) would agree is fun and therefore a good course, for them, pretty much regardless of age, skill level (assuming a resonable amount of playing experience), and ball pounding ability?  I don't see why not, assuming one is accepting of a variety of tees (length, tee to green).  (I think this issue has been visited here before.)

[Josh Tarble]

In my opinion, fun and challenging are typically two different types of courses.  Fun you can play awful and still enjoy. Challenging means you have to play well to typically enjoy it.

I think what makes courses great is when they are able to combine the two...typically resulting in great, strategic courses.

[Bill_McBride]

I will say that typically when I hear a course is "more fun" than another, it typically means it's not as good.  

Discuss.

I will start by saying I like National more than Shinnecock, most likely because I find it to be more fun.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

[Richard Choi]

Fun means different things to different people. Higher handicap players have more fun if they can manage around the course without losing a box of balls and low handicap guys have more fun if their game is more challenged (with everyone else all over the place in between).

To me, the true greatness of a golf course is being fun to as wide swath of players as possible. It is probably also the reason why I believe so many links courses are great because their inherent character makes it more fun for a wide array of people.

[JMEvensky]

Fun means different things to different people. Higher handicap players have more fun if they can manage around the course without losing a box of balls and low handicap guys have more fun if their game is more challenged (with everyone else all over the place in between).

To me, the true greatness of a golf course is being fun to as wide swath of players as possible. It is probably also the reason why I believe so many links courses are great because their inherent character makes it more fun for a wide array of people.

Said better than I could have.

[Jim Colton]

Ughh....you guys are something else.  

Obviously, we are all playing golf for fun.  My quote, out of context, makes me look like an idiot.  I may grow grass for a living, but I assure you I'm no idiot.  So let me clarify real quick.  

My "fun" quote was specifically in reference to those Ballyneal-over-Sand Hills loyalists.  Now, that's totally fine if you prefer BN over SH, I could see why one would go that route, but it makes my skin crawl when the only reason given is that "it's more fun" without any justification of why it is more fun.  Is it the green complexes? Is it the options?  The variety in the par 3's or the bunkers or different tee options?  So when one just makes a blanket statement that one course is just more fun without any logic behind that statement, I assume you just have the rose-colored glasses on and nothing can/will change your mind.  

Hence, the now infamous quote was born.

Jared,

 I don't think anyone took your quote out of context. You said 'typically' twice, which to me makes it seem like a general statement that is worth exploring further. I believe that any bold statement such as this is fair game for its own thread.

 Thanks for adding further context to your statement.

 EDIT: Jared, the more I think about it, I can't help but wonder how often you're hearing this statement to get to the point that your feathers are ruffled? Even with my rose-colored glasses on, I wouldn't suspect more than 2-3 out of 10 golfers who have played both courses would rank Ballyneal higher than Sand Hills. With a club as secure in its place in the world as Sand Hills, I can't imagine anybody associated with the club should lose any sleep over this.

 The truth is, people can value a golf course for all sorts of reasons, for better or worse. I don't get too jazzed over lush conditions or ultra fast greens, but that might be the definition of nirvana to others. Others value prestige, exclusivity or history above and beyond things like routing, shot values (assuming one can even define it to begin with) or walkability. Some people like a golf course simply they are supposed to like it. Or maybe somebody had a career round, or caught the course on the wrong day or had some memorable moment that brings a smile to their face whenever they think about the course. It's impossible to break this down into a formula for one golfer, much less a collective right or wrong answer on what separates good from great (though Ron Whitten has tried). The good news is there are different opinions and different golf courses to fit just about everyone out there.

 It's interesting that you bring up Ballyneal, because it is one of the best examples I can think of a course that intentionally doesn't try to be all things to all people. Other than maybe Old Macdonald or Bandon Trails, is there a more polarizing course out there? Maybe all of these loyalists that you come across have already self-selected to enjoy that type of golf considering they are willing to travel to the middle of nowhere for a golf course.

[John Kavanaugh]

Jim,

I as a member of Dismal have also heard the statement that Dismal is more fun than Sand Hills.  It is a given when this is said that Sand Hills is the better course.  It is no different than talking of the fat girls being a fun date.  We all get it.

[Jim Colton]

John,

 No doubt about it, Sand Hills is the king. I don't expect it will ever lose its spot as #1 modern in my lifetime (maybe DR2 will give it a run!), which hopefully means it will be classic or neo-classic or not-so-modern by that point in time.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Heard an old line from a southern guy this morning that might apply to fun vs hard:  He said their rough didn't penalize, it sodomized.  That doesn't sound like a lot of fun to me.......

[Carl Rogers]

A number of these responses skirt the edge of the question at the interface of fun, the admiration of the course's design and finding the right level of challenge for your game.  For me they are all tied together.

Is the Ocean Course at Kiawah fun? If you play it at 6200 yards on a relatively still day??  Or do you just observe and admire its design and not worry about your game?

Is Harbortown a fun course?  Tobacco Road is a really fun course.

[Jason Thurman]

A number of these responses skirt the edge of the question at the interface of fun, the admiration of the course's design and finding the right level of challenge for your game.  For me they are all tied together.

To me that's the key. We're way too quick to say "That hole is ridiculous, a 240 yard par 3 to a tiny green over water" despite the fact that we play that same holes from the blue tees at 170 yards and par it more often than not.

Some courses are tough and crappy, but most good courses strike a magical balance of fun and challenging from the correct tees. The onus is still on the golfer to choose the correct tees though.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I will say that typically when I hear a course is "more fun" than another, it typically means it's not as good.  

Discuss.

I will start by saying I like National more than Shinnecock, most likely because I find it to be more fun.

Jared is misguided !

[George Pazin]

Jared, just so you know, Pat Mucci is having fun with you.

----

For me, a fun golf course allows you to find your ball and play it, minimizing Rules interference (ie. where do I drop?), and offers interesting shots (more interesting than, what's my yardage?). Under those guidelines, I don't see how a fun course would not also be a good course, but that's my idea of good, not everyone's.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()