Why does GCGC resist scoring so well, with so little ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

The golf course is on a fairly flat piece of land, not long, with very wide fairways, open fronts on most of the greens, very little contouring within the greens which transition seemlessly from the fairways, so what makes it so difficult to score on ?

It does enjoy an almost daily breeze and the greens have some slope to them, but nothing severe, save for the 16th green.

What is it about this course that makes scoring so difficult ?

And, what lessons can be learned from that ?

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

So many of us have not seen the course.  Can you begin to tell us why you think it is so?  It sure isn't discernable from an aerial photograph.  I do like your point that what is learned should be  applied to future projects and possibly forestalling redesigns.  

[ed_getka]

Patrick,
   On what basis do you think the course is difficult to score on? I certainly don't have the game, as you know, to make that determination. Is this opinion based on tournament scores?
   How many greens are sloping away from your approach shot? I seem to remember there being subtle tilts to a number of greens where your ball would curl as it rolled through the green, that it would take local knowledge to deal with.
   My general impression was that NGLA resists scoring a little better given the longer distances golfers are hitting the ball. Having played the courses on consecutive days that was my feeling. As I stated I don't really have the game to be able to really pick up on resistance to scoring, as my golf swing is all the resistance required for me to get beat up on the golf course.
    The seamless blending of fairway into green at GCGC seems to contribute to resistance to getting your ball where you want it. I think it makes depth perception trickier.
    I would be happy to play GCGC anytime. I think the takeaway message is that a course doesn't have to have a lot of bells and whistles to challenge you and to provide a very enjoyable round.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,

I'd prefer to comment at a later date.

Ed,

Tournament records, my experiences and the experiences of others form the basis of my comment.

The course seems so easy, yet it's hard to score on.

[Michael Moore]

Which course is GCGC?

These abbreviations are becoming more presumptuous by the day.

[Jfaspen]

Garden City Golf Club

check out the profile.

jeff

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

A few things come to mind, two of which are fairly unique to GCGC.

1) The low-profile, extension of the fairway greens tend to slope with the flow of the existing terrain, often away from you and almost always with a significant tilt from side to side.  Balls tend to get away from you very quickly on such greens, and stopping a ball near the hole is always a challenge.

2) The deep pot bunkers which abound the grounds are very penal and difficult.  A visit to just a couple of those a round would quickly escalate anyone's score.

3) The open property seems conducive to the vagaries of the wind playing to full effect.  It's clearly a much windier site than most "inland" courses.  

4) There are many "half-par" holes, so the course plays much longer than total card yardage.  Shorter holes where one feels they should score (i.e. 1, 2, 9) are all fraught with danger and the long par fours can play very long.  

In many ways, the course is America's version of Royal Lytham, and we all saw how tough that played against par in the last Open there.  

[Mike_Sweeney]

The course seems so easy, yet it's hard to score on.

"At first I did not think it very difficult, for I was hitting a pretty straight ball..... Those deep pits and narrowing fair greens were the severest possible test of us Western chaps."

Chick Evans
after the 1913 Amateur Champioship

I doubt that I hit it as straight as Chick Evans, but the greens (and surrounds) remind me of Merion. Excuse me Merion Golf Club in Ardmore, Pennsylvania which is located on the East Coast of The United States of America.

Certainly the greens and styles of both courses are completely different, but trying to get the ball close to the hole on both courses on second shots if difficult. Same with recovery shots. On both courses, I think of them being second shot courses where the drive sets up the second shot to the green.

It has been an interesting back and forth recently on the flat course versus hilly course debate. It is hard to compare BB, oops Bethpage Black, and Garden City because they play so different. I always say there is a little Huckaby in me, and I like them both.

[Scott_Burroughs]

....remind me of Merion. Excuse me Merion Golf Club in Ardmore, Pennsylvania which is located on the East Coast of The United States of America.

East or West course?  

comeback:  "the West course isn't in Ardmore...."



Back on topic....

Patrick,

Your question reminds me of when I play Ross courses.  They always look like they should be easy outside of the tilted greens (short, short par5's, often not overly heavy on hazards, contiguous routings that allow wayward shots to be found on neighboring holes, etc.), but I never seem to score well on them.

Haven't played GCGC to contribute otherwise.

[Mike_Sweeney]

East or West course?  

comeback:  "the West course isn't in Ardmore...."

Scott,

Au contraire! My comments may be more applicable for The West!

[Greg Stebbins]

I think the reason for this is that when playing the course stroke play, you must always be aware of where you cannot hit it.  On just about every hole a big number can lurk with a wayward shot.  It is because of this that I play the course very conservatively during stroke play and therefore probably don't give myself enough true birdie opportunities to shoot a low score.  

On most courses, if you take a risk going for a tight pin, you are confident that at worst you will make bogey, at Garden City, you can be in a pot bunker or in a terrible lie in the rough where you might hope to make bogey.  

In match play or best ball format where you can afford to make a mistake, I think low scores are very possible.  In stroke play, it is tough to convince yourself to take risks.  For example, on #11 I always hit iron off the tee in stroke play, driver in match play.    Same thing on #4.  The importance of hitting the fairway is greater than putting yourself in a better position to make a birdie.

[Geoffrey Childs]

I think the reason for this is that when playing the course stroke play, you must always be aware of where you cannot hit it.  On just about every hole a big number can lurk with a wayward shot.  It is because of this that I play the course very conservatively during stroke play and therefore probably don't give myself enough true birdie opportunities to shoot a low score.  

On most courses, if you take a risk going for a tight pin, you are confident that at worst you will make bogey, at Garden City, you can be in a pot bunker or in a terrible lie in the rough where you might hope to make bogey.  

In match play or best ball format where you can afford to make a mistake, I think low scores are very possible.  In stroke play, it is tough to convince yourself to take risks.  For example, on #11 I always hit iron off the tee in stroke play, driver in match play.    Same thing on #4.  The importance of hitting the fairway is greater than putting yourself in a better position to make a birdie.

Now Pat- when I mentioned this about the hazards at GCGC in the context of the Hidden Creek thread you scolded me that the fairways were very wide and those fierce hazards with flags marking them were hardly in play. It was and is I think a major distinguishing factor between the courses.

That description about hazards at GCGC applies from my VERY limited experience with the course.  It applies well to courses like Ganton and Woodhall Spa to name a couple of others with characteristics similar to those you mention for GCGC.  It is in part in my opinion why those course get the great praise they correctly deserve.

GCGC if I also recall has more then one green that runs away from front to back.  That's a feature that affects scoring very well if you are not fully aware of what the ball will do when it lands.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff Childs,

GCGC has two greens that run away from you, # 10 and # 13.

As you play # 7 the 10th green is but 30 yards away.
Those that don't observe the runaway nature of # 10 green are condemned to suffer its consequences.

As to the deep bunkers with the warning flags, # 4 is unreachable by all but the longest players, and probably not into a wind.  Since the second shot is typically layed up, getting in that bunker on a relatively short par 5 doesn't have disastrous consequences.  # 10 does come into play for less than long drivers and is dire.  # 14 is a flanking, not a centerline hazard on a short par 4, that is out of reach for most, with the green only 120 or so yards away.  
# 17 does come into play for less than long hitters, especially into the prevailing wind, but, it's a short par 5, still reachable in three if your ball comes to rest in the bunker.

Hence, I don't find those features as the cornerstone to impeding scoring.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

What is it about this course that makes scoring so difficult ?

Pat-

  First, I've only seen aerials, and through the fence.  A few weeks ago, we corresponded, and you said the rough was cut down--this was about 3 weeks ago, around qualifying for the Travis.  

But I have some questions  

1.  What is the usual character of the rough?  By this, I mean, is it the type or of the nature that balls sink into, leaving even physically strong players not much of an option to hit more than short iron at most out?

2.  Is it very easy to miss fairways, for, say, a 5 handicap?  

3.  From what I've seen, the greens look relatively small.  Is this true?  How big are they, on average?  

3a. As a subset of #3, and this is only a thought, due to the small size of the greens, is it possible that they are receptive to only well struck shots?  

3b.  As you've obviously played many rounds there, have you found that the greens do not hold a shot from the rough?  

4.  Is it due to the design of the greens, running away from the player?  (Excerpted from Mike Cirba's post)

4.  Do you think it could be psychological?  Perhaps not in a large-scale sense of, say, Sawgrass, or Bethpage Black, but more subtly, and that leads players to perhaps a small degree of hesitation, or doubt in their mind, leading to a swing made where they're not 100% confident?  

 

[wsmorrison]

Does Garden City maintain its course under ideal conditions for its architecture?  If so, is the ideal maintenance meld for a course such as Garden City so different from the norm that players have difficulty adapting?  How does the prevailing winds effect play on the majority of holes?

Speaking in general, since I've never been to Garden City (well, the course anyway since my sister lives in the town) I would say a course that is firm and fast through the green under above average wind conditions is difficult, especially in quartering winds, as the wind will push the ball and the firm ground will exacerbate the movement.

If the greens are firm so that the ball will hit and bounce around with the slopes, it can be difficult to get at pins, especially tournment pins.

When you throw in deep pits, narrow fairways (quoting Chick there) and small greens and you have the recipe for high scores.  I bet the scoring spectrum is that some guys go low but the majority of the field is scratching their heads after their scratch tournament.

[TEPaul]

I have no real idea why GCGC would resist scoring as well as Pat says it does but looking at the course if they did apply that type of course's Ideal Maintenance Meld to it it would likely resist scoring more than it may now. I do remember in the last few years Pat and others saying the course was maintained a bit too soft for the way the course was designed.

My own course has now pretty much applied its Ideal Maintenance Meld and it certainly has become a bit more resistant to scoring because of it. It simply makes players think more about what they're attempting to do.

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

I know some of the restoration work and minimal redesigns complicate the analysis, but could you put together the required statistics (handicap changes I guess) that will allow us to look at the empirical scoring results under different maintenance practices?  Former vs. ideal.

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

That would be very hard to do. Trust me, when the course is firmed up "through the green" and the greens surfaces are of the ideal firmness with the speeds we run now the course is harder to score on for most everyone.

I believe more shots are lost on and around the greens compared to a year or more ago.

What I'm trying to do now is really monitor opinion and results to be more sure that green speed has not gotten excessive for our greens. Personally, I feel it has or is very close to that and as some know at these speed levels playability is effected exponentially in a very small band!

This green speed thing is really insidious---I'm beginning to see the little details of how a membership reacts incorrectly to it and tries to handle it incorrectly. It is dangerous to a course if not understood and not checked.

Very few at my course actually think the greens are too fast or have gotten too fast. This has truly amazed me. They think we've been screwing around with our pin rotations and making them a lot more difficult which of course we have not been doing.

Frankly, we've been making them a bit easier compared to a few years ago because we have to with our increase in speed by about a foot. Very soon our pin rotations will be getting boxed down to too few rotation positions, and at that point our membership, like almost all memberships who face this problem of green speed that's too fast for their particular greens will start recommending that we redesign and soften areas of our greens so we can keep an acceptable amount of pin rotations and also keep the speed up.

This green speed issue is really insidious---and now I'm beginning to see exactly how it gets played out deleteriously to certain courses. Our greens do not need to be changed (with the possible exception of that little area on #7 which I feel is my fault!).

I plan on being there to slam the door on touching our green surface slopes and contours though.  That I believe is where this issue of green speed must start and stop.

I swear they're probably a good number of golfers in my club who think when they putt a ball uphill with our present high green speed that if they come up short the greens are still too slow.

I think what I may need to do next is hire an 8th grade physics teacher to come in and talk to my membership and give them a basic lesson in the laws of physics.

I am strongly proposing that we use this new gcisinc.com green speed statistical monitoring process. I'm proposing that even GAP offer it as a service too. I think all courses should try it. It sure can't hurt and potentially it can teach them a lot about this issue of excessive green speed for particular courses.

[Gary_Nelson]

What is it about this course that makes scoring so difficult ?

Patrick,

How do you know that scoring is difficult on this course?  On what do you base your opinion?  Is it based on member's difficulties in "going low"?

I've not played GCGC so I don't know the answer.

Gary

[Sam Sikes]

garden city is easy.  shot -4 a couple of weeks ago at first glance.  Seriously though, gc mens is one of my favorite courses of all time.  Something about the place is so special, yet the ground is all but boring.  Somehow emmet and travis were able to make more out of nothing than ive ever seen.  GCGC is a case study on how to design a golf course imo, regardless of the land.  It is a must see.

[George Pazin]

Gary -

I believe Patrick is referring at least in part to how well GCGC (sorry Michael) has fared in recent Met events and other events where both pros and top amateurs compete. I believe Robert Mercer Deruntz (who has been described to me as perhaps the best golfer on this site) posted a few weeks ago about how Met pros failed to go low in events in recent years and even provided a link to the scoring.

Of course, Shivas would (wrongly) dismiss these guys as shirt folders....

[Gary_Nelson]

George,

Might there be the "jitter" factor in these Met events that causes great golfers (ie. Mr. Deruntz) to score worse than usual?

I'm wondering if the resistance to scoring might be mental... in the case of these tournaments.

Would these same golfers still score badly at GCGC when playing a casual round?

[TEPaul]

"garden city is easy.  shot -4 a couple of weeks ago at first glance."

Sam Sikes:

I don't know who you are, maybe you're a great player I've never heard about but I'd like to see you shoot a couple of "easy" -4s in GCGC's Travis and I can pretty much guarantee you that you'd win the thing hands down taking out some pretty good national mid-am types in the process. If you think you can do that at GCGC in the Travis and you're an amateur I think you should seriously think about trying to get yourself an invitation to the tournament.

I've been saying for a lot of years not that for most good players a course is easier or harder not really due to the architecture but due much more to the maintenance practices applied to courses like a GCGC.

None of this is what some call "going over the top" either. Read what Davis Love says about the tour pros on some of these older courses and scoring---it's basically the very same thing.

Of course most on here aren't willing to believe what Davis Love says. The guy only plays top flight golf for a living but that sure doesn't stop some of the "geniuses" on here from telling everyone they know better than he does. And if they don't say that they say everything he says is a lie anyway because the guy has about a $4-5 million annual deal with Titleist.

In the last few weeks some of the old time regulars on this website say they think it's been sliding recently so they don't participate that much these days. I'm beginning to think they might be right.

[TEPaul]

"Might there be the "jitter" factor in these Met events that causes great golfers (ie. Mr. Deruntz) to score worse than usual?
I'm wondering if the resistance to scoring might be mental... in the case of these tournaments."

Gary:

You're kidding right? Some of these guys who participate on here and who play some pretty high caliber amateur tournaments play about as much tournament golf as some tour pros do. For most all of them there is no "jitter" factor in playing those tournaments. Most all of them probably got over stuff like that years ago when they first started out.

The reason a course like GCGC is harder to score on than a normal day is because the course is set up differently for a tournament like the Travis at GCGC that fields some pretty good players. That's what makes the difference to those good players. This type of thing is certainly not unique to GCGC---its been the same way at PVGC's Crump Cup, Merion's Wilson Invitational and Seminole's Coleman for years now.

I'd venture to say that if the USGA ever does bring the US Open back to Merion East and Merion and the USGA sets that course up for the US Open the same way they have for one or two of the past "Wilsons" the club and the USGA would probably get their heads handed to them and the ones handing it to them would be the touring pros!  

[George Pazin]

Gary -

As the immortal Bobby Jones said (paraphrasing here), there's golf, and there's tournament golf. They are not the same animal.

If one considers resistance to scoring to be a true test of a course, I believe one must also add in the pressures of tournament golf.

Resistance to scoring when playing a casual round means relatively little, IMHO.

Yet another reason to hate the rankings....