[Ally Mcintosh]

Excuse me starting this thread. I seem to be in chatty form at the moment.


The Top-100 GB&I thread (and the differences between what panels might regard “best”) has me putting this out there.


When you consider where a course sits in a “best” ranking, do you prioritise a course with numerous fun shots and loads of variety; but one that doesn’t suit keeping your score? Or do you prioritise a course that challenges you to make decisions in order to finish your 18 holes with a card in hand?


They are not mutually exclusive. But I play two very different kinds of golf. I often *enjoy* the first kind of course more, for fun, for a laugh, with friends… But it’s the second kind of course that keeps me coming back. This throwaway the scorecard and pencil is liberating for sure. But the essence of golf is also about thinking your way to getting the ball in the hole in as few strokes as possible.


In other words, there has to be an element of you against the course over 18 holes. And the best courses are the ones that make you want to concentrate on that time and time again.


What says you lot?

[Peter Pallotta]

The best golf course I've ever played had me paying attention from start to finish -- because it was intended to do precisely that, with the architect having designed it with that priority always in mind, i.e., the golfer's continual engagement, in all of its many and varied forms. If architects today make any other goal than that their most important one -- and currently the fashion is to prioritize 'fun', as if that can be proscribed and automatically manufactured -- the resulting golf course is never going to be great.
IMO

[Sean_A]

Pietro

Greatness is over-rated.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

The best golf course I've ever played had me paying attention from start to finish -- because it was intended to do precisely that, with the architect having designed it with that priority always in mind, ie the golfer's continual engagement, in all its many and varied forms. If architects today make any other goal than that their most important one -- and currently the fashion is to prioritize 'fun', as if that can be automatically manufactured -- the resulting golf course is never going to be great.
IMO

Thirty or forty years ago, courses were aimed at good players, because they were the ones who broadcast whether those courses were worthwhile.


Since then, the rankings have usurped that, and the panelist class are not all "good players" by the old definition.  They are 50+ guys with the time and means to travel and weigh in on all these new courses and renovations.


What is generally less appreciated, but more impactful, is that the same change has taken place for the people who develop golf courses.  It used to be that more of them were good golfers, but generally nowadays, they are older and were too busy making $$$$$$$$$ to ever get that good.  And their target audience is "retail golfers" like themselves, on courses open to the public, where they don't want to write off a portion of the potential customer base by making the course too hard.


Places like Bandon Dunes have had an outsized impact on redefining what the ratings are all about, for better or for worse.

[Jim Hoak]

I think the best golf courses are those where I can remember in some detail almost every hole a few years later.
I also--as I age--prize a course that I can play and have fun playing it, as opposed to one that "beats me up."  My days of seriously challenging my game are--maybe regretfully--past.

[Sean_A]

I never got the impression Bandon Dunes was cake walk for good amateurs. Is this the case?

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

TD -
 
I don't think being continually engaged means being continually challenged. But I do think 'fun' should be a natural byproduct of good golf course design and not its primary goal.

Fun for me emerges out of an architect's intention to keep me on my toes -- sometimes by a range of recovery options and demands, sometimes by hole locations that can't be directly accessed, sometimes by beauty, sometimes by fearsome hazards, sometimes by a series of half par holes that alternate between brutish and benign, etc.

Did Dr. Mac intentionally design for the 'good player' in particular, or specifically for the golfer looking for 'fun' -- or instead did he simply design the most consistently interesting and engaging golf course he could? I assume the latter to be the case.

PS
Sean: yes, instead of 'great' let's say "golf courses that I think best, and most enjoyable".

[Sean_A]

TD -
 
I don't think being continually engaged means being continually challenged. But I do think 'fun' should be a natural byproduct of good golf course design and not its primary goal.

Fun for me emerges out of an architect's intention to keep me on my toes -- sometimes by a range of recovery options and demands, sometimes by hole locations that can't be directly accessed, sometimes by beauty, sometimes by fearsome hazards, sometimes by a series of half par holes that alternate between brutish and benign, etc.

Did Dr. Mac intentionally design for the 'good player' in particular, or specifically for the golfer looking for 'fun' -- or instead did he simply design the most consistently interesting and engaging golf course he could? I assume the latter to be the case.

PS
Sean: yes, instead of 'great' let's say "golf courses that I think best, and most enjoyable".

Yes, in my experience, Dr Mac did aim for the most interesting and engaging design he could achieve on a property. But I don't think many archies thought they were deviating from this line of thinking. Its just that Dr Mac was exceptional.

Well sure, most archies on most projects know they aren't going to achieve greatness unless we include good courses that are great designs. Afterall, aren't these the courses that many archies think are overlooked?

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

TD -
 
I don't think being continually engaged means being continually challenged. But I do think 'fun' should be a natural byproduct of good golf course design and not its primary goal.

Fun for me emerges out of an architect's intention to keep me on my toes -- sometimes by a range of recovery options and demands, sometimes by hole locations that can't be directly accessed, sometimes by beauty, sometimes by fearsome hazards, sometimes by a series of half par holes that alternate between brutish and benign, etc.

I think this is right and goes part way to what I was aiming at.


In essence, I’m saying that the “best” courses (in terms of Top-100 rankings) should be ones that can keep you engaged in your scorecard from the 1st tee to the 18th hole; rather than ones that just provide a series of individual “fun” golf shots but don’t necessarily keep you tuned in to your overall performance.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ally - if memory serves, in a few short weeks you will be playing the very same golf course I described above as the best I've ever played, and as keeping me continually engaged  from start to finish, with the golden age architect seeming to have made his design priority neither 'fun' nor 'challenge' but instead consistent interest. I will be very interested in seeing whether your thoughts and experience aligns with mine.

[Tom_Doak]

TD -
 
I don't think being continually engaged means being continually challenged.

I don't think so, either.  Have you seen any of my work? 


But I can assure you that many clients today have little to no stomach for challenging the good player.  They want that "easy bogey" that Robert Trent Jones espoused, that was the ruination of design in the post-WW II era.

[Sean_A]

TD -
 
I don't think being continually engaged means being continually challenged. But I do think 'fun' should be a natural byproduct of good golf course design and not its primary goal.

Fun for me emerges out of an architect's intention to keep me on my toes -- sometimes by a range of recovery options and demands, sometimes by hole locations that can't be directly accessed, sometimes by beauty, sometimes by fearsome hazards, sometimes by a series of half par holes that alternate between brutish and benign, etc.

I think this is right and goes part way to what I was aiming at.


In essence, I’m saying that the “best” courses (in terms of Top-100 rankings) should be ones that can keep you engaged in your scorecard from the 1st tee to the 18th hole; rather than ones that just provide a series of individual “fun” golf shots but don’t necessarily keep you tuned in to your overall performance.

I don't understand why having a card in hand is a necessary qualifier.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

TD -
 
I don't think being continually engaged means being continually challenged. But I do think 'fun' should be a natural byproduct of good golf course design and not its primary goal.

Fun for me emerges out of an architect's intention to keep me on my toes -- sometimes by a range of recovery options and demands, sometimes by hole locations that can't be directly accessed, sometimes by beauty, sometimes by fearsome hazards, sometimes by a series of half par holes that alternate between brutish and benign, etc.

I think this is right and goes part way to what I was aiming at.


In essence, I’m saying that the “best” courses (in terms of Top-100 rankings) should be ones that can keep you engaged in your scorecard from the 1st tee to the 18th hole; rather than ones that just provide a series of individual “fun” golf shots but don’t necessarily keep you tuned in to your overall performance.

I don't understand why having a card in hand is a necessary qualifier.

Ciao

Because in the end, playing golf has an element of competitiveness. Matchplay is one side of that but Strokeplay / Stableford is the other.


If a course doesn’t hold your attention enough that you frequently want to “score the best you can”, then it just becomes a practice field.


This is just one take on it. But when I think of people rating “best” golf courses, I don’t think that messing around and inventing shots just because the ground contours offer that, has any place in the adjudication of how good a course is, unless those shots are options that you would pull out regularly in a medal play round…


I also think that courses that offer up too many crapshoots and / or compromised shots in order to score well do not hold some golfers attention in trying to post a medal round….


I agree when ranking “best” courses that challenge shouldn’t be at the forefront and that engaging interest should (see Peter and Tom). Playability for a higher handicapper is key but I also think playability for a low man is something that isn’t often discussed, is a different consideration and is almost as important. Short courses can be very playable for a low man (Gullane 3) or they can be frustrating (Corballis) to the extent that they are better used as practice fields rather than competitive golf courses.


None of the above should be taken as me advocating “championship” golf courses over other types (although I am still confused why the word “fun” seems to automatically be set against “championship” when people compare. Fun can cross all types of golf).

[Sean_A]

I don't make any distinction between medal and match play so far as quality goes.

I think we have to be careful not to personalise what a course should be to be top 100 material.

In terms of satisfying good players, that's why I think courses like Sandwich and TOC are among the very best I have seen. High cappers can happily get around them with minimal pain and good players are continually engaged. But these are elite courses, not the fringe examples we have been discussing.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

I don't make any distinction between medal and match play so far as quality goes.

I think we have to be careful not to personalise what a course should be to be top 100 material.

In terms of satisfying good players, that's why I think courses like Sandwich and TOC are among the very best I have seen. High cappers can happily get around them with minimal pain and good players are continually engaged. But these are elite courses, not the fringe examples we have been discussing.

Ciao

Only thing I’d clarify to what you are saying above is that I see no difference in requirements for fringe courses as I do for elite courses if they want to be considered in the Top-100 of GB&I.

[Sean_A]

I don't make any distinction between medal and match play so far as quality goes.

I think we have to be careful not to personalise what a course should be to be top 100 material.

In terms of satisfying good players, that's why I think courses like Sandwich and TOC are among the very best I have seen. High cappers can happily get around them with minimal pain and good players are continually engaged. But these are elite courses, not the fringe examples we have been discussing.

Ciao

Only thing I’d clarify to what you are saying above is that I see no difference in requirements for fringe courses as I do for elite courses if they want to be considered in the Top-100 of GB&I.

Presumably the courses further down a list exhibit less (or less consistently) of the top 100 qualities of those near the top of list?

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

I don't make any distinction between medal and match play so far as quality goes.

I think we have to be careful not to personalise what a course should be to be top 100 material.

In terms of satisfying good players, that's why I think courses like Sandwich and TOC are among the very best I have seen. High cappers can happily get around them with minimal pain and good players are continually engaged. But these are elite courses, not the fringe examples we have been discussing.

Ciao

Only thing I’d clarify to what you are saying above is that I see no difference in requirements for fringe courses as I do for elite courses if they want to be considered in the Top-100 of GB&I.

Presumably the courses further down a list exhibit less (or less consistently) of the top 100 qualities of those near the top of list?

Ciao

That makes sense. But they would still hold those qualities. There are some courses that are unique, tremendous fun with a bunch of variety that are not high on the qualities I talk about. These kind of courses should be celebrated for what they are, not by nominally throwing them in to a Top-100 list.

[Sean_A]

I don't make any distinction between medal and match play so far as quality goes.

I think we have to be careful not to personalise what a course should be to be top 100 material.

In terms of satisfying good players, that's why I think courses like Sandwich and TOC are among the very best I have seen. High cappers can happily get around them with minimal pain and good players are continually engaged. But these are elite courses, not the fringe examples we have been discussing.

Ciao

Only thing I’d clarify to what you are saying above is that I see no difference in requirements for fringe courses as I do for elite courses if they want to be considered in the Top-100 of GB&I.

Presumably the courses further down a list exhibit less (or less consistently) of the top 100 qualities of those near the top of list?

Ciao

That makes sense. But they would still hold those qualities. There are some courses that are unique, tremendous fun with a bunch of variety that are not high on the qualities I talk about. These kind of courses should be celebrated for what they are, not by nominally throwing them in to a Top-100 list.

So are we talking about a percentage of top 100 characteristics or just a matter of you know it when you see it?

When you use a word such as nominally for a subjective exercise it does throw me off a bit. Are you suggesting that rankings are objective?

Ciao

[Ira Fishman]

Ally,


It would be instructive for me if you could give additional examples of where you think a course considered “best” gets too much credit for being fun relative to keeping a good player focused on the challenge of posting a good score. I have played 15 of the lists on the recently published Golf magazine GB&I Top 100, and would say that perhaps Elie is the only example among the ones I have played, although after number 8, I am not so sure particularly relative to its par. However, I am not a good player so certainly would learn from other examples. Maybe Brora or even NB for a long hitter? But that probably depends on the wind.


Thanks,


Ira

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ira,


There’s subjectivity / individuality in this as well (like there is with any made-up criteria for ranking, including fun, strategy, variety, playability)… but a few courses where I can imagine myself giving up on the desire to hold a medal round include:


- Perranporth (which started this thread - difficult landscape which compromises shots)
- Tralee (which has too many penal shots for you not to make a few huge mistakes)
- Askernish & Ardfin I haven’t played but believe to have deathly rough and be regular lost balls.
- Ballybunion Cashen (which is exactly why it doesn’t make these kind of lists)


I think Elie is an eminently playable and fun course where there is enough for low handicappers to always keep them interested.


I have made this point before but I also think there are difficult medal courses - like The Island - that get a lot of credit for ground contour that isn’t really used. The Island is not “fun”. It is bloody hard!

[Ira Fishman]

Ally,


Many thanks. I mistook the thrust of your point: I was thinking that you believe that fun but not suitable for focusing on score get too much credit. I have not played the four you mention but now get the sense that you mean courses where the architecture produces higher scores without sufficient fun. Come play Butler National in the Chicago wind some day! I did it many years ago when I was a decent player, played well, and barely broke 100.


Re The Island, our one play (to be remedied next year I hope) was actually great fun even though the course is indeed difficult. Perhaps because it was a bit windy so the ground game (my preferred option) was a necessity. It remains among my favorite courses, and 6, 11, 13, 15, and 18 among my favorite holes. I even embraced the weirdness of 14.


Ira

[Thomas Dai]

May I suggest that forced carries play an important role in the fun vrs score debate. A player can pretty much always play a hole conservatively if they are able to easily reach all the fairways or carry across severe areas of terrain and thus they can both have fun and keep a medal card. When this isn’t achievable then the fun element within the game dissipates and keeping a medal card becomes nye on impossible and when this occurs golf becomes disheartening, and if the game becomes disheartening then, well, why bother?
Atb

[Ally Mcintosh]

You didn’t really mistake the thrust of the thread, Ira.


Sometimes I think - anecdotally - that raters / aficionados / golfers visit courses and over-egg their “rating” because they are focused on “look at this cool shot, look at that cool shot”.


Oft times a course with cool shot after cool shot isn’t necessarily a good, coherent medal play course for all standards of golfer.


Sometimes that is because it is big, brawny and penal with guaranteed lost balls. Sometimes it is because the landscape is so awkward and of a poor scale for “ideal” golf.


The above is not a definitive. It is merely a discussion point.

[Mike Hendren]

Pietro

Greatness is over-rated.

Ciao

Sean, ironically I was thinking about starting a thread by asking if some courses are too great. Your post resonates with me.

[Tom_Doak]

Pietro

Greatness is over-rated.

Ciao

Sean, ironically I was thinking about starting a thread by asking if some courses are too great. Your post resonates with me.

Start it.  I'd like to see what people think constitutes "too great", and why.  Just for laughs.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()