List your “essentials of the test”....

[Joe Hancock]

What does a course need to present for you to feel like it is a complete test of *your* game?


The question comes to mind as I ponder this: If the course needs bunkers to complete the test, why not require things like 300 yard carries over water? Or curving punch shots under tree canopies? Or 200 foot putts?...etc.....


BTW, I really do like sand and bunkers, and having to hit a bending punch shot from trouble....but that doesn’t prevent me from questioning the neccesity.

[jeffwarne]

Firmness when possible and tilt and slope on both fairways and greens to take advantage of this
Tiers(increasingly prevelant as a response to stupid green speeds) simply reward boring aerial golf


Wind is a nice test-if the course allows runups and reasonable width-
I'm increasingly a big fan of "one side width" with a preferred side nearer the trouble and rough and the rest of the golf course on the other side, as opposed to the modern trend of wide fairways with unfindable native gunch surrounding both sides where the strategy becomes "just don't miss wild" because tiers and/or green softness don't reward proper angles(or punish bad angles) as much as attempting an angle near gunch rough threatens. i,e, the risk of 2 shots isn;t worth a 1/4 shot advantage on average.


Watching Kapalua last week was fun, but I'm also enjoying watching Wailea where the gentle fairway turns and firm fairways reward good driving, but if a player drives it in the rough, the open greens allow some kind of play toward the green. Encourages the players to hit drivers, then die by paper cuts as their ball scoots through the green or leaves a long putt/chip.
Of course it'd be more fun to watch if the result of every successful drive wasn't a wedge......

[Mark_Fine]

Joe,

I am not sure I ever really looked at it this way.  I find almost every course I play testing.  I tend to focus more on what inspires my game vs whether I was completely tested.   I like risk/reward.  I Iike variety in the holes. I like to have to shape golf shots.  I like the ground game.   I like most things in moderation and that includes some forces carries, some water, some sand, even some trees, undulations and contour, pretty views, firm conditions, true putting surfaces, fast speed of play, ... Courses with these kind of attributes usually
inspire me and test my game at the same time. 


I have said this here before, there are great courses and there are great tests of golf.  The latter does not always guarantee greatness.  RTJones built a lot of great tests of golf but they all don't inspire me.  Hard doesn't equal great. 

[Kalen Braley]

As a high capper, pretty much any course 

[Sean_A]

What does a course need to present for you to feel like it is a complete test of *your* game?

Joe

To be honest, I NEVER think or worry about how a course will test my game.  For a double digit handicap player the complete test simply is. 

Ciao 

[George Pazin]

Just want to be able to play my misses.

[James Brown]

Hit every club.  Have choices from the tee on several holes other than Driver.  Have to hit a variety of shots around the greens.  Have a few shots that are really scary.  Have at least a few thrilling long shots in the 200 yard range. 

[Ed Brzezowski]

Thinking, the course must make you think.

[MLevesque]

The essentials of a good test for me include:

• Requires me to use most of clubs in my bag
• Par 3's of varying lengths
• Modest length rough and green speeds that promotes a brisk pace of play
• Walker-friendly

[Tim Gallant]

Thinking, the course must make you think.

Ed, I think this sums up my thinking as well. I don't have any more prerequisites, but just ask that the course makes me think all the way around.

[Tommy Williamsen]

One of the reasons golf is different from other sports is that each playing field is different and each course seems to test different aspects of my game. Some courses are tree lined and narrow, which puts a premium on hitting the fairway off the tee. Some courses demand skilled iron play, while others test imagination and putting. I have favorite kinds of courses but do not demand that every course should live up to any preconceived notions.

[Jeff Schley]

If I was a designer (I'm not), I would want to make the players use all their shots, or penalize them if they can't execute what is required.  What comes to mind are the following:

1. Par 4's where you can't hit driver for there is a hazard or fairway runs out, which normalizes the distance hitting the approach shot for all.  You have to use hybrid/fairway metal off the tee or maybe even a long iron for some but hit the same distance into the green.  Can the long hitters stay mentally tough to fight the irritation of not being able to use their strength for 1 hole?

2. Shape shots.  The easiest way is using trees and doglegs, although you could also do so with green complexes that border on a hazard or have a slope to one side greenside that acts as a backstop etc.  I really like courses that have doglegs going both ways, as many can't hit the draw and fade, but have a strong preference.  To require one or the other off the tee or perhaps on an approach is needed IMO to test their entire game.

3. Fairway bunkers that aren't too penal, but are there in the landing areas.  This causes guys to think about where they need to hit the ball off the tee and not just blast. 

4. Several holes that are flat green surfaces to just say to the player, you got to just hit a straight putt and you will be rewarded.

5. Several holes with tiers to force a player to select the right club on their approach shot, not just hit the green, but which level. Above or below etc.

6. VARY the distance of the par 3's please! I hate courses that have all the par 3's the same distance, mix it up and from the tips have at least 1 over 200 up to 230.  I also love one around 100-110.  Force players to use their shortest club and a long iron. You don't need water, but at least a bunker and an elevation change is always great for par 3's.

7. Limit the forced carries to greens.  Don't go all Nicklaus with bunkers and raised green complexes.  It is OK to simply run it up and take the train.

8. 1 driveable par 4, who doesn't love this?

9. No back to back par 5 or par 3 this doesn't space out the scoring opportunities enough.

Is my list too long already?  haha Ok well I thought of more!

10. Utilize the trees for height and having to avoid one side of fairway for approach, but not overhanging branches which stick out halfway into the fairway.  I don't mind having trees on the course (Eisenhower tree), but cut off that one branch that is halfway out into the fairway.

11. No pin placements less than 5 paces from the fringe, it just makes the course tricked up IMO.

12. Have tee box on #1 close to traffic like Riviera for nerves and coolness factor that you are important and on display for everyone is quiet and watching YOU!  Also great to have 18 finish in view of the bar/patio so everyone can watch you.

OK enough for now.))))

[Tim Martin]

If I was a designer (I'm not), I would want to make the players use all their shots, or penalize them if they can't execute what is required.  What comes to mind are the following:

1. Par 4's where you can't hit driver for there is a hazard or fairway runs out, which normalizes the distance hitting the approach shot for all.  You have to use hybrid/fairway metal off the tee or maybe even a long iron for some but hit the same distance into the green.  Can the long hitters stay mentally tough to fight the irritation of not being able to use their strength for 1 hole?

2. Shape shots.  The easiest way is using trees and doglegs, although you could also do so with green complexes that border on a hazard or have a slope to one side greenside that acts as a backstop etc.  I really like courses that have doglegs going both ways, as many can't hit the draw and fade, but have a strong preference.  To require one or the other off the tee or perhaps on an approach is needed IMO to test their entire game.

3. Fairway bunkers that aren't too penal, but are there in the landing areas.  This causes guys to think about where they need to hit the ball off the tee and not just blast. 

4. Several holes that are flat green surfaces to just say to the player, you got to just hit a straight putt and you will be rewarded.

5. Several holes with tiers to force a player to select the right club on their approach shot, not just hit the green, but which level. Above or below etc.

6. VARY the distance of the par 3's please! I hate courses that have all the par 3's the same distance, mix it up and from the tips have at least 1 over 200 up to 230.  I also love one around 100-110.  Force players to use their shortest club and a long iron. You don't need water, but at least a bunker and an elevation change is always great for par 3's.

7. Limit the forced carries to greens.  Don't go all Nicklaus with bunkers and raised green complexes.  It is OK to simply run it up and take the train.

8. 1 driveable par 4, who doesn't love this?

9. No back to back par 5 or par 3 this doesn't space out the scoring opportunities enough.

Is my list too long already?  haha Ok well I thought of more!

10. Utilize the trees for height and having to avoid one side of fairway for approach, but not overhanging branches which stick out halfway into the fairway.  I don't mind having trees on the course (Eisenhower tree), but cut off that one branch that is halfway out into the fairway.

11. No pin placements less than 5 paces from the fringe, it just makes the course tricked up IMO.

12. Have tee box on #1 close to traffic like Riviera for nerves and coolness factor that you are important and on display for everyone is quiet and watching YOU!  Also great to have 18 finish in view of the bar/patio so everyone can watch you.

OK enough for now.))))

It seems to me that the architect would be unduly handcuffed by adhering to the above list as the natural features of the land should dictate the routing and sequencing of the holes. # 9 is a deal breaker for me as there are just too many examples where this rule has been broken with some amazing results. Cypress Point and Ballybunion Old both mete out back to back par three's and par five's with a fair amount of acclaim.

[Jeff Schley]

If I was a designer (I'm not), I would want to make the players use all their shots, or penalize them if they can't execute what is required.  What comes to mind are the following:

1. Par 4's where you can't hit driver for there is a hazard or fairway runs out, which normalizes the distance hitting the approach shot for all.  You have to use hybrid/fairway metal off the tee or maybe even a long iron for some but hit the same distance into the green.  Can the long hitters stay mentally tough to fight the irritation of not being able to use their strength for 1 hole?

2. Shape shots.  The easiest way is using trees and doglegs, although you could also do so with green complexes that border on a hazard or have a slope to one side greenside that acts as a backstop etc.  I really like courses that have doglegs going both ways, as many can't hit the draw and fade, but have a strong preference.  To require one or the other off the tee or perhaps on an approach is needed IMO to test their entire game.

3. Fairway bunkers that aren't too penal, but are there in the landing areas.  This causes guys to think about where they need to hit the ball off the tee and not just blast. 

4. Several holes that are flat green surfaces to just say to the player, you got to just hit a straight putt and you will be rewarded.

5. Several holes with tiers to force a player to select the right club on their approach shot, not just hit the green, but which level. Above or below etc.

6. VARY the distance of the par 3's please! I hate courses that have all the par 3's the same distance, mix it up and from the tips have at least 1 over 200 up to 230.  I also love one around 100-110.  Force players to use their shortest club and a long iron. You don't need water, but at least a bunker and an elevation change is always great for par 3's.

7. Limit the forced carries to greens.  Don't go all Nicklaus with bunkers and raised green complexes.  It is OK to simply run it up and take the train.

8. 1 driveable par 4, who doesn't love this?

9. No back to back par 5 or par 3 this doesn't space out the scoring opportunities enough.

Is my list too long already?  haha Ok well I thought of more!

10. Utilize the trees for height and having to avoid one side of fairway for approach, but not overhanging branches which stick out halfway into the fairway.  I don't mind having trees on the course (Eisenhower tree), but cut off that one branch that is halfway out into the fairway.

11. No pin placements less than 5 paces from the fringe, it just makes the course tricked up IMO.

12. Have tee box on #1 close to traffic like Riviera for nerves and coolness factor that you are important and on display for everyone is quiet and watching YOU!  Also great to have 18 finish in view of the bar/patio so everyone can watch you.

OK enough for now.))))

It seems to me that the architect would be unduly handcuffed by adhering to the above list as the natural features of the land should dictate the routing and sequencing of the holes. # 9 is a deal breaker for me as there are just too many examples where this rule has been broken with some amazing results. Cypress Point and Ballybunion Old both mete out back to back par three's and par five's with a fair amount of acclaim.

Agreed it probably isn't absolute essentials as so much priorities that are dynamic and trade one for the other.  I do enjoy courses more with the above criteria, although I can't think of any that have all of them that I have played.  haha 

[Thomas Dai]

Free draining, easy walking, requires thought to play and is fun.
Atb

[Nick Prafke]

Along with a lot of whats been said already, I really like a course that forces me to used a wide variety of clubs, Its unfortunately rare to find par 4's that require mid/long iron approaches. Another one for me is variety in the par 3's, a good number of courses I have played have all the par 3's essentially the same length.

[Tim Martin]

Along with a lot of whats been said already, I really like a course that forces me to used a wide variety of clubs, Its unfortunately rare to find par 4's that require mid/long iron approaches. Another one for me is variety in the par 3's, a good number of courses I have played have all the par 3's essentially the same length.

Nick-Get old and you will have plenty of mid and long irons into par fours.

[Peter Pallotta]

Free draining, easy walking, requires thought to play and is fun.
Atb

That sums it up for me quite nicely. And yet I am always a bit confused when we talk about a course requiring 'thought to play'. I mean: if I stand on a tee and can consciously recognize that the hole requires 'thought' and that it offers 'choices' and 'options, it's only because those choices and options are obvious and immediately apparent -- which doesn't really demand/lend itself to 'thinking' as I tend to define the term. Maybe a good golf course simply makes you 'look', and *want* to look. After that, you still have to pick and try to hit a *target*, no matter how/why you've identified it as such.

[Tim Martin]

Free draining, easy walking, requires thought to play and is fun.
Atb

That sums it up for me quite nicely. And yet I am always a bit confused when we talk about a course requiring 'thought to play'. I mean: if I stand on a tee and can consciously recognize that the hole requires 'thought' and that it offers 'choices' and 'options, it's only because those choices and options are obvious and immediately apparent -- which doesn't really demand/lend itself to 'thinking' as I tend to define the term. Maybe a good golf course simply makes you 'look', and *want* to look. After that, you still have to pick and try to hit a *target*, no matter how/why you've identified it as such.

I would respectfully disagree and say most holes worth their salt have a "line of instinct" as well as a "line of charm" and this requires "thinking" or "thought to play". Additionally not every design nuance is readily discernible from the tee and often it's this feature that makes a hole good or even great.

[Thomas Dai]

Is not one aspect of thinking searching out the non-obvious?
Pondering well ahead. Chess on grass. 15th club. Mental fortitude when under stress. The 5-inches between the ears and all that.

Atb

[Peter Pallotta]

Tim, Thomas -
You both raise good points/nuances; and I really did mean "a bit confused" in my earlier point.
It is likely another case of how our opinions are shaped by the courses we tend to play most often. On even the 'good' courses I played this past summer, the architects always seemed to 'suggest' that there were options and choices to be made and that thinking was thus involved, but that rarely proved to be the case in actuality; i.e. my suspicions off the tee were almost always confirmed post-facto: the 'risks' were not so risky at all, the 'rewards' were hardly worthy of the name, and just looking with open eyes was all the thinking I needed to do.
Which is to say: I don't question that you both experience (and maybe routinely experience) golf holes that are 'worth their salt', i.e. with lines of instinct that are distinct from lines of charm; with 'secondary' (i.e. non tee shot) choices to be made; and with the need to think ahead as if you're playing 'chess on grass'. 
It is to say that, for me, those wonderful and intriguing aspects of the game are, more often than not, missing from the golf (and golf courses) I tend to play. When I said i was a bit confused, it was to say: I know what *I'm* seeing out there, and so I'm not sure what *you're* seeing out there.
Peter

[Tim Martin]

Tim, Thomas -
You both raise good points/nuances; and I really did mean "a bit confused" in my earlier point.
It is likely another case of how our opinions are shaped by the courses we tend to play most often. On even the 'good' courses I played this past summer, the architects always seemed to 'suggest' that there were options and choices to be made and that thinking was thus involved, but that rarely proved to be the case in actuality; i.e. my suspicions off the tee were almost always confirmed post-facto: the 'risks' were not so risky at all, the 'rewards' were hardly worthy of the name, and just looking with open eyes was all the thinking I needed to do.
Which is to say: I don't question that you both experience (and maybe routinely experience) golf holes that are 'worth their salt', i.e. with lines of instinct that are distinct from lines of charm; with 'secondary' (i.e. non tee shot) choices to be made; and with the need to think ahead as if you're playing 'chess on grass'. 
It is to say that, for me, those wonderful and intriguing aspects of the game are, more often than not, missing from the golf (and golf courses) I tend to play. When I said i was a bit confused, it was to say: I know what *I'm* seeing out there, and so I'm not sure what *you're* seeing out there.
Peter

Peter-I think even cookie cutter north south 375 par fours give you something to think about. Wind, temperature and turf conditions can change the experience on a regular basis and most people I know despite how much they claim to be a purist take note of a pin sheet if it's available. I don't find the experience to be quite as rote an exercise as you are describing on the courses I play most often. This includes a municipal course in Hartford, Ct.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I don't find the experience to be quite as rote an exercise as you are describing on the courses I play most often. This includes a municipal course in Hartford, Ct.

That's no ordinary muni, the first six holes alone can cause an overload of the synapses. 

[Tim Martin]

I don't find the experience to be quite as rote an exercise as you are describing on the courses I play most often. This includes a municipal course in Hartford, Ct.

That's no ordinary muni, the first six holes alone can cause an overload of the synapses. 

Mark Chalfant still hasn't recovered.

[Peter Pallotta]

I was already suspicious just reading "Hartford CT". I don't know the area, but I was guessing it's old dead guy territory, including Donald Ross -- such that Tim's lowly "municipal" course just might be the 2nd best course I've ever played! And then when the erudite and accomplished Jim K chimed in, I knew I was right!