"B-List" Courses

[tincup]

[quote="Robert@"]Dave
Courses got harder as players got better..with the stock courses players that play the game today would more then likely birdie every hole. Very few real courses are difficult enough to test the better players.As a designer its not pleasing when you spend months building a course to have players shoot the lights out on it the first or second time out..wheres the challenge? Without some difficulty in a course players play it once or twice then file it away..is that worth building a course?
[quote]

Robert,
Don't get the wrong impression. There are very few courses (especially among the A and B class courses) that we just "play once or twice and file away". If it is a nice course, but plays relatively easy under "normal" conditions (like a lot of the Real courses), then we just crank up the conditions to give the course some bite. Nearly any course is a challenge when you are playing Long/Very Dry/Strong conditions.

Dar

[Robert@]

And rightly so...but I`d still be willing to bet that even under the toughest conditions you guys are still shooting well under par on those stock courses. Yes? No?

The point I was trying to make to Dave is that he hasnt peeked in his potential,thinking that the stock courses are mostly the only ones he will be able to shoot well on. If he continues the courses that he wasnt able to finish on will come into view for him. Still challenging yes but not impossible.

[SteveHorn]

PGA 2000 is the only game I've ever played where I consistently show some emotion. Rather it be when I hit a bad shot or shout "yeah baby" when I sink that long birdie putt or tough chip in. There's an extra feeling of pride if you go low on a tough course.

[Indy Anna Jones]

Dave, one way you can determine the relative toughness of a course is by bringing up the scorecard and checking the rating. For example, Congressional is rated 1.20, +7. I have to admit I've never figured out how they determine these ratings (although I think the length has an awful lot to do with it) I've still found it a pretty good guide. Until your shooting/scoring improves more, you might be more content with playing courses with the lower ratings.

But to be honest, I still find the stock courses fairly challenging (with the exception of Couer d'Alene) mainly because the greens are so "bumpy." Our group played the Pete Dye course last week on L/D/G and L/D/B and only managed around -3 for 9 holes.

[ADC]

Some of the stock courses are great, the libraries are just dated. Glen Haven has, what, 10-15 rough blends? I think Barren Hills, one of the better blending jobs among stock, has 6?

Difficulty boils down to terrain shaping, right? Especially at the greens. Or, am I wrong?

[Indy Anna Jones]

I think there are different challenges to be met. Generally I don't like wide open courses (the exception is that I love links courses) which is one reason I was so bent out at what Jack Nicklaus has done with the real Muirfield Village by removing so many of the lovely trees. Yes of course greens are a big part of a tough course (Dammpa's Coyote Bluff is a beautiful course but severely "handicapped" by almost all perfectly flat greens. IMO it's not much fun making a 40-50' putt as easily as a 5'-er)
but, never having been a strong woods or long iron player, I find that most of my favorite courses are the ones that I have to make a really good shot with a long club to get inside my birdie range. Uphill, downhill, sidehill... these raise my blood pressure into the danger zone! I also like those courses (Firestone, JJ's Hallam Valley, my Carolindi Forest) that you need to get on the correct side of the fairway or you're going to have to fight the trees on your next shot. And reversing what Dar said, if a course is playing too hard for your skill, you can always crank down the volume. I also think it's fair to say that if you're used to shooting -2 or -3 and suddenly you're shooting -5 -6... well, you're meeting the challenge.