Becoming unplayable?

[Jonathan Davison]

To all the architects - When designing a golf hole, at what stage does it become to difficult or unplayable for the average golfer.
I am not regarding weather conditions or maintenance issues.
If strategic options are available can a golf hole still be unplayable?

[Tom_Doak]

Jonny,

That's a tough one because it depends on your definition of "unplayable."  

To a 36-handicap pretty much every hole at Pine Valley is unplayable, but they chose to go that way to make the holes dramatic and outstanding for better players.  Some clients will be okay with that, and may even encourage it.

A course is much more likely to become unplayable for the average golfer if the trouble spot is past the tee shot.  You can skirt a difficult tee shot with forward or alternate tees, but if you've got a 150-yard forced carry in front of a green, a lot of people are just finished right there.

[peter_p]

Eastmoreland became unplayable when the masterminds of the World Masters Games decided to place senior women there and  they got to the back side.

[Jeff_Brauer]

.....When designing a golf hole, at what stage does it become to difficult or unplayable for the average golfer?

.....In my experience, generally not until opening day!

(insert rim shot here)

But seriously, though.....good question.

I am always amazed at where high handicap (and who am I kidding, even my shots) often end up.  For total unplayability, there are some rules of thumb -

Minimal forced carries, with none over 150 yards from senior tee and 90 yards from the forward tee.  Minimum forced carries to greens.

Turf areas for most holes about 225 feet wide (about 75 yard minimum, with 83 or more preferred)

Fairways that hold balls - ie no excessive cross slopes over perhaps 5% (maybe up to 9%, depending on turf)

Greens with cup areas at 2.25% or less)

Minimal blind shots, and especially blind water hazards.

Sand bunkers you can't see out of are tough, as are bunkers placed on the front right of greens or other high play areas.

Too many long holes, like over 600/500/250 yard par 5/4/3 holes, even with forward tees.  They cause an extra shot per hole which is no fun.

As to EXACTLY when it becomes too tough, that is hard to tell. Obviously nothing wrong with an occaisional force carry, narrow fw, contoured green, etc. Wind of course, plays a role.  However, at some point, if the designer breaks too many of these rules on too many holes, it gets too hard.

I guess most of us would know it when we see it, but perhaps some others could contribute some other "excessively used features" that would tip the scales the wrong way.

[Bill Gayne]

At the beginning of the design process is the bias:

1. To make a really tough golf course and then ease up?

or

2. Make an easier golf course and push up the difficulty level as the designer see's appropriate?

[Mark Brown]

I think with the trend of holes getting more difficult as you get closer to the green, greensites are becoming the hotbed of contention. When you start building crowned grees with steep fall-offs, false fronts, hazards on both sides of the green, closely-cut chipping areas, the necessity of navigating
difficult slopes and double breaks, then the course can be out of play for many golfers, even ones who hit the ball fairly well.

How many of us have stood and watched our less coordinated playing partners go from one hazard on the left to another hazard on the right of the green -- or putt the ball off the green and have a 20 yard pitch left. And obviously, the firmness and speed of the green can maginify all of this.

I think it's getting harder and harder to make a course both challenging to the good player and playable to the not-so-good player, and it's very hard to strike a happy medium without creating discontent with one group or the other.

Example: Put a high-handicapper on Cuscowilla when the greens are firms and fast - he's done, just like at Oakmont.
We can't be all things to all people so I think some courses are just going to be too difficult to less-skilled golfer.  

[Mark Brown]

Im back. Another discussion is the impact of technology in the area of maintenance. As a 9 handicapper, they're already cutting grass on fairways and chipping areas for my taste. Shorter isn't necessarily better. I like fast greens but when it gets to a point where I'm playing defense all day that's no fun. Chipping areas are cut so tight that they're becoming putting areas because it' so easy to chunk it.

And with fairways -- I like having at least a half-inch cut, or there's no margin for error. I can't pick it clean like the Tour players and my iron game is suffering. Many times I end up hitting a punch shot so I get better contact. But that's no
fun either.

And what I don't understand is why this isn't being discussed often and openly. Is it a case of fragile egos not wanting to admit that they can't do what the pros and top amateurs can do?

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

I've broken about four of your rules above at Stone Eagle.  Perhaps you should come out and play it this winter to evaluate my qualifications for the ASGCA!

[Kelly Blake Moran]

I'm really into excessive slopes in fairways, pin areas in the 3% to 4.5% range, blind shots, blind bunkers.  Its time to stop treating the average golfer like a child, and give them something specail for their money for godsake.  Rules Rules Rules

[TEPaul]

I think an architect has to just be very careful and cognescent of things like topographical obstacles and how, and most particularly WHERE he uses them on various holes. When going through that excercise he has to keep the entire spectrum of the levels of golfer in mind.

There're a number of holes in this world, some famous and some disasterous that apparently that wasn't exactly done. I call it a strategic or conceptual disconnect!

Some excellent examples of some famous ones would be Merion's quarry hole, NGLA's #3, Merion's 18th, PVGC's 5th and 18th, probably the Road Hole, and obviously the ultra famously photographed CPC 16th has always hung right on the edge of a conceptual disconnect and unplayableness for some. But they all made it to fame and that fact alone probably says a huge amount about the adaptability of challenging and fascinating golf architecture and how it can be "anti-formulaic" in many ways.

But there are others that couldn't seem to get there. Not to pick on one architect because he's a good friend of mine but some of the holes of Hanse's Inniscrone seemed to suffer bigtime from conceptual disconnect even after a number of years in play. Those holes would be #5, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17 and 18 (for some players).

Playbable or becoming unplayable? It's a strange one. Hard to tell why some make it and some don't. It sure isn't easy to tell by just looking at them.

[Jonathan Davison]

Thanks for the thoughts.
I am currently working on my major design project and have a couple of holes which may be very tough. I have tried to push the limits a bit in terms of slope and the width of fairways in relation to the shots?
The site is very exposed and within the outskirts of Edinburgh which is not the ideal environment for possibly some tough holes?