How good does the course you play most have to be?

[Andy Hughes]

Like most folks on this site I love to play a great course.  Royal County Down, Pine Valley, and Cypress Point have all been great experiences.  But I don’t play that quality of course every day.  I will retire in March and will move to a small resort in the Virginia Mountains.  The golf is passable but certainly not great.  In fact it is just between good and decent.  I will keep my memberships at the clubs to which I belong now but will not get there as much as I used to.  I have been asking myself, “Do I play golf because I love to hit a golf ball? Or Do I need an excellent course to make the round enjoyable?”  I don’t really know the answer yet.

Tommy, I likely play Sligo Creek more than any other course because it is fun to play with my little guy and he can sorta get around Sligo.  I suspect you've been there; a truly excellent course  

[Michael George]

The one quality that a course must have is playability.  If the course is not playable for the type of player that you are, you cannot have fun.

In addition, it has to cater to your lifestyle.  I have little time and small windows to play.  I belong to a stag club with a small membership because it has no tee times and allows me to play in 2-3 hours.  In addition, I don't want to deal with the soap opera at some clubs so the atmosphere at my club works very well for me.

Everything else is gravy. Do I like gravy?  I love it, but I can enjoy my turkey and stuffing without it.

[Sean_A]

I'm with Sheehy, but likely not with quite such a high bar of excellence.  I don't have any interest in a weekly time investment for a course which doesn't produce emotion from me.  I know this from experience and consequently I don't belong to a club local to me.  That is a choice I make and I don't think I play the game for the wrong reasons because of it.  That said, I don't care if others want to invest time in that sort of thing.  Live and let live.  

Ciao

[Tommy Williamsen]

A lot of my golf has been a quick nine holes in the evening between afternoon work and meetings at night.  I find that if I play little games as I go it creates more fun regardless of the course.  Sometimes I will thow a ball into the woods and try to hit a low running hook or a big high slice to get close to the green. Or I'll toss a ball into a green side trap and step on it. It is the challenge that excites me.  If I am playing with friends at a boring course I find it barely tolerable. I wish it weren't so but I am afraid it is.  I hope that in retirement I might find that just the delight of a well stuck ball is enough thrill. We'll see.

[JMEvensky]

Tommy, I'm with you 100% but according to JMEvensky you are playing golf for the wrong reasons. This is the kind of stuff on GCA I really can't abide. No nice conversation can be allowed to develop without some dismissive pronouncement as this. Usually with little in the way of meaningful justification. I really wish this would change about this site.

What's your first language?Apparently not English.I'll try to keep it monosyllabic for you.

What I typed was that,if you need a good/great golf course to get excited about PLAYING GOLF,then you're PLAYING GOLF for the wrong reasons.People who enjoy playing golf will play anywhere.It may be more enjoyable at CPC,but like sex,even playing golf on a bad course is better than not playing at all.

IMO,those for whom a round at any course below good/great is not worth playing are just looking at golf courses--not playing golf.

Brian,as an FYI,nobody gives a damn what you can or can't abide.

[JMEvensky]

...never mind...

Too fucking late.

[Mac Plumart]

It needs to be good, interesting, with a good membership.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

I think it very much depends on the outlook of the person, and this is probably influenced by the quality of courses played, as well as how often you are fortunate to play good quality golf. I need to have a course within ten minutes drive of me, so that I can pop over in the evenings for a quick nine holes. My home course is better than the average in Sweden, but I'd certainly switch to a less interesting course, if it resulted in more golf.

First and foremost, I love playing golf; my appreciation of golf architecture comes in second. I love the competitive side of golf and my aim is to reduce my handicap; this is what motivates me to play. This may change as I get older and realise that I will never play off scratch  
I'm a card carrying member of the scorecard-and-pencil brigade. I think golf would lose it's appeal if the architecture became more important then the playing of the game. That's why I sometimes worry that getting too focussed on the architecture risks destroying the buzz I get from just playing.

I have no problem with Sean & Brian's viewpoints; I just hope I never feel that way.  

Although I've been fortunate to play a handful of great courses, my whip-it-out top 25 courses list would pale in comparison to most on this DG. I don't have the opportunity to play many courses, so I'm grateful when I get a chance to play even a less than average course. Whether I play the course or not then comes down to value for money.

[Carl Johnson]

Tommy, I'm with you 100% but according to JMEvensky you are playing golf for the wrong reasons. This is the kind of stuff on GCA I really can't abide. No nice conversation can be allowed to develop without some dismissive pronouncement as this. Usually with little in the way of meaningful justification. I really wish this would change about this site.

What's your first language?Apparently not English.I'll try to keep it monosyllabic for you.

What I typed was that,if you need a good/great golf course to get excited about PLAYING GOLF,then you're PLAYING GOLF for the wrong reasons.People who enjoy playing golf will play anywhere.It may be more enjoyable at CPC,but like sex,even playing golf on a bad course is better than not playing at all.

IMO,those for whom a round at any course below good/great is not worth playing are just looking at golf courses--not playing golf.

Brian,as an FYI,nobody gives a damn what you can or can't abide.

People play golf for different reasons - reasons that are right for them. I don't see the point of judging anyone's motives for pursuing a pastime, you obviously disagree but there we are...

I'd say we're talking about apples and oranges.  It's a salad, in the end.  Both are important.  The playing with friends, competition, fun, fun, fun ('til her daddy . . . ) is apples; the nature of the course architecture is oranges.  Both entirely valid.  So, I'd say that the original question focused on the course architecture.  Putting aside the comraderie, fun aspect, how does the architecture of the course come into play?  For me, it doesn't have to be a "great" course.  Based on my limited experience, even playing from the most forward tees, I think the courses that most players define as great would not suit me.  On the other hand, I do not want a course with no architectural challenges.  If I have an advantage . . . if any . . . I think it's thinking through the options on any given shot.  So, I want a course with options.  Whether it's a great course, or not, I don't know.  But it does have to be good enough present me and my competitors options.

[BHoover]

It needs to be good, interesting, with a good membership.

Well said. For me, my home course needs to be good enough to keep me interested in playing it regularly. Whether that means architecturally significant or just plain fun, I can't say for sure. It just has to keep me interested. As important is whether I have enough friends at the club that I can play with and also meet new guys every now and then.

My current home course is a fun course (could be much better with far fewer trees and better bunkering...we are working on that...hopefully). But more than that, it also has a young, involved membership and a strong walking culture. It also is decidedly not stuffy or unnecessarily fancy. It also is more affordable than some of the high end clubs in town.

That said, my ideal home course would be Canton Brookside, Kingsley or Canterbury...if only one of them could be moved one of them down to Columbus.

[JC Jones]

It needs to be good, interesting, with a good membership.

Well said. For me, my home course needs to be good enough to keep me interested in playing it regularly. Whether that means architecturally significant or just plain fun, I can't say for sure. It just has to keep me interested. As important is whether I have enough friends at the club that I can play with and also meet new guys every now and then.

My current home course is a fun course (could be much better with far fewer trees and better bunkering...we are working on that...hopefully). But more than that, it also has a young, involved membership and a strong walking culture. It also is decidedly not stuffy or unnecessarily fancy. It also is more affordable than some of the high end clubs in town.

That said, my ideal home course would be Canton Brookside, Kingsley or Canterbury...if only one of them could be moved one of them down to Columbus.

Well said, Mac and Hoover.  No doubt any club with either of you is a club well worth being a part of.

[Joe Leenheer]

If I order a steak...it's a Filet and it better be outstanding.  

It I take time away from my family and work to play golf...I'm not playing a hamburger of a course.

Not to say I couldn't have fun playing a pedestrian course (and I  do eat hamburgers)...but who has the time for that?

[Mike Sweeney]

I live in NYC and within 100 miles there are probably 50 "great courses".

Here is my home course:



 

[William_G]

well done Mr. Sweeney  

I was thinking that any course can become like a driving range if it is a "0" on anyone's scale, yet you could still play it for practice while looking to play all the gems you have in mind

now of course, if you have no gems in mind, then the wine you are drinking or golf course you are playing daily should be good enough to suffice your tastes

also I think that course you play most often will evolve over time as well as how good it needs to be

some say s?x gets better as you get older, and I would agree with that
 
 

[Sean_A]

...never mind...

Too fucking late.

Lovely sentiment, well put.

Ciao

[Jud_T]

It has to suit your game and your GCA preferences IMO.  Believe me, playing several hundred rounds on a course that doesn't will get old before you do.  A course with interesting greens that doesn't overwater would be a bare minimum for me.

[hhuffines]

Damn Mac, you've got me rethinking my involvement with my home club...

[Brent Hutto]

It has to suit your game and your GCA preferences IMO.  Believe me, playing several hundred rounds on a course that doesn't will get old before you do.  A course with interesting greens that doesn't overwater would be a bare minimum for me.

So if no such course existed within, say, 100 miles of your home would you just not play golf? Or play a dozen rounds a years at out of town courses?

[Jud_T]

It has to suit your game and your GCA preferences IMO.  Believe me, playing several hundred rounds on a course that doesn't will get old before you do.  A course with interesting greens that doesn't overwater would be a bare minimum for me.

So if no such course existed within, say, 100 miles of your home would you just not play golf? Or play a dozen rounds a years at out of town courses?

I'd move. . I'd probably play a lot less golf around home.  Mind you the standard I'm talking about doesn't have to be a fancy private club.  In fact you're probably more likely to find firmer, albeit scruffier, conditions at an off the run public.  As it is I play most of my golf away.  My go-to club at home costs a dollar a hole with free replays and fits the bill pretty well.

[Scott Warren]

When my home course was crap, I'd play all around Sydney in open comps as the variety kept me interested.

My last 20 on Golflink often had 10-12 courses on it.

Now I belong to a more engaging home base, I only really play away from home when travelling or to catch up with mates at their club.

Having a home course you wake up and want to play every day is a great thing.

[JC Jones]

It has to suit your game and your GCA preferences IMO.  Believe me, playing several hundred rounds on a course that doesn't will get old before you do.  A course with interesting greens that doesn't overwater would be a bare minimum for me.

So if no such course existed within, say, 100 miles of your home would you just not play golf? Or play a dozen rounds a years at out of town courses?

I'd move. .

Tempting

[Chris Mavros]

If my only options were decent or average courses, I would still play because I love to golf and hitting the ball some where would still be satisfying.  But I would do everything I could to find a home course that I found interesting, engaging, challenging and fun, as the experience is enhanced exponentially.    

[Jim Tang]

As I've gotten older, and perhaps a bit wiser, I've found golf is now more about who I share a round of golf with, rather than how great the golf course I'm playing is.

[William_G]

As I've gotten older, and perhaps a bit wiser, I've found golf is now more about who I share a round of golf with, rather than how great the golf course I'm playing is.

amen to that

if it was my last round ever, it would be with my wife and kids

[Tommy Williamsen]

I have been retired for seven years since I began this thread. I found that the quality of the course doesn't make as much difference as I feared. I have been able to shoot my age at my home course, and enjoy playing with other seniors. I even have moved up a set of tees, but I find that I go to Ballyhack (2 hours away) twice a month for two or three days at a time. Of course, at the moment I am laid up with foot surgery until September, so the rounds I presently play are Zen rounds. Boy have I played well.