The Better Player

[Adam_F_Collins]

It seems that a great deal of time is spent discussing and fretting over how the golf course can be made to continually challenge the "better player".

Better players are a small percentage of golfers (if you consider a better player to be one that plays consistently within single digits, relative to par.)

But being a better player by definition, means that the game is not as challenging for you - that's why you're better.

What are some of the areas of focus or "weaknesses" of the better player? What are things which the architect can use to defend the golf course, but which do not make the game really any more difficult for the higher handicap player?

I think of things like:

The long bunker shot
Length combined with the need for accuracy
Uneven lies
Rough
(to tell you the truth, it seems to me - from my own experience, that to a high handicapper, rough is no big deal at all. You can find it, you can still take a whack at it - you're happy not to be in the trees...)

What else is there?

It seems like a really tough part of the process - the better player.
From what I can tell, being a better player doesn't really mean you know anything more about what makes a course good or bad. A lot of them that I know just want length, fast greens... - and that's about it.

Maybe the best "defense" against the better player is to just give them length and fast greens - and then forget about them. They'll probably love you for it.

[James Bennett]

I recall in Doak's 'Anatomy of a Golf Course' that an inverse relationship between difficulty and green size could work.

Take a hole where the 'better player' will consider getting on for two (this could be a par 4 or a par 5).  For the lesser player, it will be a three shot hole, so an option for them might be a positional play from where an effective pitch can be played if the skill is applied.  However, the 'better player' will find it a challenge with his second shot approach, and encourage him to improve his game in this area, or to develop his recovery game to meet the challenges of the hazards that he encounters.

By contrast, the short par 4 is often a small target green surrounded by bunkers.  Doak commented that this is the occasion a lesser player has of hitting a green in two, and he is faced with a small target with fearsome hazards and a mid-iron!  Meanwhile, the 'better player' can attack this target with a wedge - the small target is large enough not to pose a challenge.

I liked you conjecture about what lesser players and better players would prefer.  Assuming we are interested in testing skill, then some potential for recovery is required (otherwise, that sand hazard has as much skill test as a small, shallow water hazard).  Do severe, small pot bunkers provide a test of skill?

With firm and fast greens, I know of many 'lesser players' who are happier playing a ground game shot from 25mm (1 inch) light rough at say 100 to 150 yards out, whilst 'better players' will struggle with spinning a wedge from the same position.  Note, firm and fast and ground game options are necessary.

[Dave_Miller]

It seems that a great deal of time is spent discussing and fretting over how the golf course can be made to continually challenge the "better player".

Better players are a small percentage of golfers (if you consider a better player to be one that plays consistently within single digits, relative to par.)

But being a better player by definition, means that the game is not as challenging for you - that's why you're better.

What are some of the areas of focus or "weaknesses" of the better player? What are things which the architect can use to defend the golf course, but which do not make the game really any more difficult for the higher handicap player?

I think of things like:

The long bunker shot
Length combined with the need for accuracy
Uneven lies
Rough
(to tell you the truth, it seems to me - from my own experience, that to a high handicapper, rough is no big deal at all. You can find it, you can still take a whack at it - you're happy not to be in the trees...)

What else is there?

It seems like a really tough part of the process - the better player.
From what I can tell, being a better player doesn't really mean you know anything more about what makes a course good or bad. A lot of them that I know just want length, fast greens... - and that's about it.

Maybe the best "defense" against the better player is to just give them length and fast greens - and then forget about them. They'll probably love you for it.

Greens with subtle breaks and challenging reads.
Dave

[Jason Tetterton]

This may be to simple of a response or not the correct one, but I look at Pinehurst No.2.  I think this fits.  It's a challenge to the better golfer, but the average golfer can still get it around.

[A.G._Crockett]

Landing areas off the tee that become progressively more narrow, and cause the "better player" have doubts about which club to use off the tee.

High risk/reward factors that tempt the better player much more than the lesser player.

Uneven lies in the fairway at wedge distances the lessen the advantage of length somewhat.

Firm but slow greens.