The value of excitement and thrill

[Tommy Williamsen]

The other day I found myself talking about courses I love because of the excitement of the shot and the thrill of execution.  Some shots are just thrilling. Whose heart does not beat a little faster on five at Pine Valley or 15 and 16 at Cypress or three at Mauna Kea. Three of those you just want to survive while holes like 15 at  Cypress you are thinking two but are afraid of an X.  Some courses provide excitement from the first shot through the last putt.  Royal County Down falls into that category.  Who can't wait to climb the hillock to see of your tee ball is indeed in the fairway. Some shots are exciting because of the penalty for failure.  Other shots are thrilling because of what the ground does for them. Ballyhack has a few holes where the shot to the green is exciting because of what may happen when it lands.  The second shot on one--will the ball stay up or roll back down?  The tee shot on three--is it going to roll toward the pin or roll into three putt territory? Too many shots where failure is doom and the course is too penal and lacks a certain balance.  Too few and it becomes boring.  What strikes a good balance?

[Carl Rogers]

Sleepy Hole Golf Course 2 minutes from my house in Suffolk, VA is a fairly straight forward, but not bad, parkland municpal course until the 18th hole.  Located between the clubhouse and the Nansemond River, it requires 2 heroic carries over wetlands and a green that back left slopes toward the water.  The hole is in extreme contrast to rest of the course.  It could only be the finale of the course.  Any other hole in the middle of the round would make all the succeeding holes profoundly ant-climatic.  See the first Confidential Guide.

[Tommy Williamsen]

So, by the lack of response, am I to take that excitement is not a big part of good design?

[Rob Marshall]

I think Pebble has a great balance. 2nd shot on 8. If you're not excited standing over your second shot on 8 you must be dead. Tee shots on 7 and 18. Doesn't get much better than that.

[cary lichtenstein]

So, by the lack of response, am I to take that excitement is not a big part of good design?

For me, it always was, but I 'm guess that for the most part, on this board, it represents a forced carry which is universally disliked.

I always called it eye candy, and I rated courses higher when it was there

[Mark Pearce]

I don't agree that it means a forced carry at all.  When I first read Tommy's post I thought of the tee shot at the Postage Stamp or at Silloth's 9th.  Short irons to small greens with plenty of trouble if you miss.  Or, similarly a mid-iron to the 7th or 13th at Muirfield.  Plenty of excitement on shots like those.

[James Brown]

I think Pebble has a great balance. 2nd shot on 8. If you're not excited standing over your second shot on 8 you must be dead. Tee shots on 7 and 18. Doesn't get much better than that.

Second on #8 is possibly the most exciting shot in golf.  Especially if you lay back too far and have 210.   For the amateur golfer, it's the best you'll get.  Can anyone offer up a better option?

(Maybe tee shot at #1 TOC?)

[Tommy Williamsen]

So, by the lack of response, am I to take that excitement is not a big part of good design?

For me, it always was, but I 'm guess that for the most part, on this board, it represents a forced carry which is universally disliked.

I always called it eye candy, and I rated courses higher when it was there

I think the thrilling shot can include a forced carry but it can have other qualities as well. The 18th at Four Streams is a medium length par five.  The way the hole was designed was to hit a good drive then hit a second shot to the top of a hill from where the green becomes visible and you are left with about 100 yards in. Hit a really good drive and you can give the green a go.  There are two major problems.  The shot is blind and the terrain around and in front of the green heaves and rolls.  A shot may end up on the green or anywhere else, but it most certainly will be in a position to hit the third shot, even of you aren't gonna like it.  Walking up the hill to see where the ball ends up is pretty exciting.

[Josh Tarble]

Tommy,

In my mind the courses at Streamsong are excellent examples of your question.  I think they are a great example of different kinds of excitement.  At the Blue there are a few blind shots, a few forced carries and times of "where is my ball going to end up" while at the Red, it seems most of the excitement is "can I execute this shot." 

I don't know if one is better than the other, but I believe the very best courses weigh those types of thrills without putting too much emphasis on one or the other.

[Adam Clayman]

Tommy, I'd include visually stimulating, in the definition of excitement. One of my earliest recollections of feeling something primordial on a golf course happened in the desert. Watching the white ball travel through the differing colors of it's backdrop, from green to brown, to blue sky, and back again, triggered something in my hyper thalamus. That same feeling is accentuated exponentially on a hole like the 8th Pebble. But, as Golf likes to be a counter intuitive enigma wrapped in a bratwurst bun, that excitement is still there when playing in a pea soup fog, or in the dark.

[Kevin Lynch]

I didn't respond initially, because I thought it was a given that excitement and thrill were integral to a great design.  Also, there are so many elements to thrill that it's hard to encapsulate them (as illustrated by the various examples given so far).

I don't believe these moments need to involve forced carries or significant penalties (it helps), but I think the common theme is that they are outside of the "standard" shot (i.e. beyond the simple metric of a distance).  For example, a 30 foot putt where you have to aim 40 degrees away from the hole can be a thrill.  One similar example for me is a chip from just short of #9 at Ballyhack to a front pin.  I love the excitement of chipping past the flag, watching it crest on the green slope, and then start tracking back towards the hole.

The exciting shots can vary from the subtle to the extreme, but it's the deviation from the standard challenge that gives you the thrill of execution.

On the extreme side, you have examples like going for Tobacco Road's 11th in 2.  Watching your ball hang in the air is a thrill as you contemplate whether you'll have an eagle putt or a sand shot from a 25 foot chasm.  I particularly like this hole, because even if I come up short, I know I have the opportunity to pull off an exciting recovery (getting a birdie from the chasm was just as exciting for me as the time I hit the green in two).  You already know how I feel about Ballyhack's 6th.

Somewhere in the middle of the continuum is the excitement of blind shots.  I particularly love these because the thrill is extended beyond the initial execution.  When I face an elevated approach, you have the thrill of watching whether it crests the hill safely onto the surface or bounced back towards you.  But then you also experience the building anticipation as you near the green, ready for the reveal.  There doesn't need to be a severe penalty, but a 130 yard uphill approach (playing like 150) is superior to a standardized flat shot of 150 yards.

A good course can also provide the exciting option, for which the degree of excitement is in the player's hand.  On Ballyhack's 4th, you can try the "standard" aerial approach, but you're also given the exciting opportunity to hit the lower trajectory shot and watch it take the slopes. 

There's also the thrill of execution when there's a bonus for pulling off a certain shot shape.  For example, the tee shot at Dormie's 4th significantly rewards a running hook.  If I can execute that shape, there is a definite "bonus" thrill beyond the standard drive execution.  On top of that, the tee shot is blind, so if you execute the drive, you get that additional excitement of seeing just how far it ran.  Dormie's 4th doubles down on the excitement, because you can take the standard high approach to the middle of the green, or aim for the area 15 yards left of the green and watch it kick towards your target and slowly run across the green.  Cory Lewis suggested that option to me, and to this day, pulling it off is one of the most exciting shots I've hit in my career.

I could go on with many examples, but there's no doubt thrill & excitement are essential.

I don't think you can have too much excitement and thrill on a golf course, as long as it is varied.  Where I think it becomes a problem is when a course only resorts to the extreme versions of thrill (i.e. severe penalties or forced execution).  As we've seen, there are so many other non-penalty driven ways to provide excitement along a continuum, whether it be pure aesthetics, fun execution options, visual intimidation, bold fairway/green contours or blindness.

But once you are able to get away from the repetition of extreme thrills (the stereotype of forced carries), why would you ever want more "standard" shots?


I suppose this entire thread just affirms for me why I'm an Elevation Whore.  Topography simply allows for a greater variety and deviation from the "standard." The potential for excitement (in varied forms) is so much higher when you have some movement.  This topic also confirms why Ballyhack is one of the best designs I've played.  There is so much excitement and it is in varied forms throughout the course from the extremes (driving the green on 6, getting home in two on 10) to the moderate (uphill approaches on #1, #5, #14), and then at the small feature level (multiple chipping / putting options on holes like #5, #9, #14 etc).  I could go through hole-by-hole and find some exciting deviation from the "standard" without feeling like those thrills were contrived or repetitive.