Anyway, he and his buddies couldn't agree on which was their favourite course. St Andrews Old Course is The Old Course, and he had goosebumps teeing off on the 17th. But between Carnoustie and Kingsbarns, there was some debate. Carnoustie was really hard - either “a beast” or “the big guy”. According to one point of view, it was a real test of golfing ability. From another point of view, it was almost unfair, since it wouldn't allow you to score well, even if you were hitting good shots. Depending on which side you take, then, Kingsbarns was fair, since it punished you for a bad shot but rewarded good golf, or alternatively it was just not as testing.
On my less-celebrated home course, the same debate continues endlessly in a smaller way, at the moment partly inspired by the state of the rough. There are some who think the rough is too thick and it's too easy to lose your ball. Others (including myself) are of the view that you should really be hitting the ball into the rough (although we all do) and that the whole point of the rough is to be trouble.
One lady I know is considering changing golf clubs, and she told me about one of the clubs she is thinking about. The course is lovely, she says. The rough isn't too thick, there aren't any water hazards... a bit like Goldilocks' porridge, it's just right. On the other hand, one of the other ladies I play with came to our club because her old course wasn't hard enough. It wasn't very long, there were no water hazards...
So the moral of the story is that there's no perfect temperature for porridge. Actually I think there is such a thing as a fair test, although exactly what that is I'm not sure. Not too hot, not too cold... you know. I should take up writing for American sitcoms I'm so good at moralising at the end.
(Totally cute cat photo from Scott MacLeod Liddle on Flickr)
