Should Golf Course Architecture Accomodate Poor Play

[Mike Hendren]

As my game continues a rather dramatic decline, I find my reaching into the bag for another ball all too often.  

Should golf course architecture accomodate poor play - particularly off the tee?  Can it not accomodate poor play while at the same time penalizing the player 1/2 stroke at a time?  Isn't that enough?  Isn't recovery and a hard-earned par an integral and satisfying part of the game?  

I lost exactly one ball in six rounds in Scotland a few years back.  

This is an area where I think the Golden Age guys have it in spades over the modern practitioners and a testament to protecting par around the greens.

Mike  

[Cliff Hamm]

Courses that are not over treed generally do that.  There should be a preferred angle into the green with relatively wide fairways.  Taking the preferred angle should require more precision and risk and perhaps distance but reward the golfer with a better angle to the pin.  It seems Ross did this exceedingly well.

[Andy Troeger]

Mike,
   I feel that courses should accomodate poor play as long as the golfer plays the correct tees for his/her ability. I don't really think trees have that much to do with it, more so water hazards, out of bounds, wetland areas, and on some courses long grass areas create the major problems with leading to lost balls and increased frustration.
   To me the major issue should be that holes with those features should have either a wide landing area or a bail out area somewhere for the weaker player to miss. This area doesn't have to be a wonderful spot to play from, but at least something to give everybody a chance to enjoy the course.

[Jeff_Brauer]

To me, its a matter of degree, both in the big picture and on every individual course.

In the big picture, 90% of golfers are bogey plus golfers, so I suspect about 90% of the courses need to accomodate them first and foremost, and try to make accomodations for occaisional high level play.  On those courses, perhaps 90% of the holes should have a way for the average player to play them.

Usually the market decides that for the gca.  The great old courses were all designed as solid tests for white males in their prime.  History indicates that those are not the only golfers on the planet, so as time goes on, design sort of changed.  So, while we all love to discuss the best of the best, the simple fact is that those courses by and large already exist, and most new courses don't need to attain that level.  For every Sand Hills, there out to be nine Joe SixPack courses.  I think we are probably building a little higher level than that, as standards rise.

The problem with hard coures is that whatever you do to punish the mistakes of good players, you punish the average golfer 4X.  Which is why faster greens and deeper rough are so popular a choice at tourneys - you can change those the other 51 weeks a year.

[Bill_McBride]

MacKenzie's design philosophy rewarded the player able to drive close to a hazard, be it a barranca or a bunker.  There is almost always plenty of room to hit away from trouble -- refer to #16 Cypress Point! -- but that adds 1/2 a stroke to your score unless the next shot or the recovery is precise.  

But nowhere in that careful equation does it say that you can top a shot in the right direction, or slice one into the barranca, or leave it in the bunker twice, and make a par.

I think golf course architecture is a guideline on the ground, with no guarantees without good performance!

I share Mr. Hendren's disappointment in failing skills, but it is still possible to relish good golf architecture in your mind if not in the field.  Thank heavens.

[Lou_Duran]

Bogey,

I know what MacKenzie says about a course providing challenge, enjoyment, and interest to the most.  Largely, his courses do that for the "bottom" 95+ percentile of golfers.

Golf for the pros and "tour amateurs" is a completely different animal.  I can't see how you can design a course that is all things to all people.  And for that reason, I see nothing wrong with different types of courses built, maintained, and operated for specific target markets.  

[Philippe Binette]

For that reason... playability for everybody... Royal Melbourne might be the ideal course built by man..

A challenge for the top players, a lot of fun for every handicap, wheter you game is good or not on a particular day, and perfect for my mother who hits the ball about 85 yards...

A lot of fairway, cool greens, many shot option (I believe going around this course with a putter might be one of the most fun experience there is in golf)

[Matt_Ward]

Bogey:

How poor is the poor play you are describing?

Frankly, I know people who could not hit Kansas from the Oklahoma State line -- they would sooner hit Missouri.

Should the cutting edge architecture be "dumbed down" to deal with these situations?

I don't see the point in accomodating people with 35+ handicaps who often play the wrong tees and are habitually slow.

[Jason Topp]

To me the ideal course is one where it is nearly impossible to lose a ball.  Barring that situation, I don't think there should ever be a need to search for a ball.  If it is in a water hazard, you know it and do not need to perform a search to determine your fate.

  I do not believe it is necessary to dumb down a course to create such a course.  Interlachen, Minneapolis GC, Somerset and just about every other golden age course in the Twin Cities either has been or is set up so a search for a lost ball is very rare.

I disagree that trees are the primary culprit on this issue.  Water hazards, unmown areas, high rough, uncleared brush and out of bounds all are much bigger culprits.  My view is that someone who is way offline is going to screw up their score anyway, it is just a lot more enjoyable if you don't have to lose balls on top of the misery of your game.

I can only think of one modern course on which lost balls are not a regular occurrence due to the presence of these features on most holes.  I think modern architects fail to pay sufficient heed to Mackenzie's priniple that the annoyance of a search for lost balls should be avoided. I think that the game suffers because of the difficulty in "hooking" beginners or very marginal players on the game.

[cary lichtenstein]

The poorer player needs to find courses that suit his game. I know several players at Admirals Cove, the Bear Club and the Ritz who have all dropped out because they can't play any of those courses.

My own father quit his home club in Chicago because the fairways were too narrow.

In my posts about Lakota Canyon, I repeatedly said that the player who sprays the ball should stay away.

[Wayne_Kozun]

The great old courses were all designed as solid tests for white males in their prime.

Is that why the top two golfers in the world, who don't fit this description, can overpower these courses?

It's interesting that there are two players of colour in pro golf and they are ranked #1 and #2.

[Tom_Doak]

To answer the original question:  how can a golf course NOT accommodate poor play?  No matter what we build, we can't stop people from playing badly.  

I'm with Jason on this one.  As long as you can't lose a ball, a course is okay whether it's easy or hard.  Yes, a course will attract a different audience depending on its level of difficulty, but if you write off too many players at the start, good luck with the bottom line.

Apart from Bethpage Black ... does anyone know of a very hard public course which does a thriving business by attracting better golfers?

[Wayne_Kozun]

Apart from Bethpage Black ... does anyone know of a very hard public course which does a thriving business by attracting better golfers?

Pebble Beach?  Pinehurst #2?

[Joe Hancock]

This could be a "growing the game" question in disguise. All courses must accomodate poor play, but not necessarily ALL poor play. If you guys that have been away from entry level golf for awhile only knew how bad some play is...you'd understand there is no possible way to design for it.

Joe

[Forrest Richardson]

Wm. Flynn: "Accuracy, carry and [then] length."

Golf architecture should focus on these three demands. In this order. When it does, all levels of play have fun.

[Dan Herrmann]

I think the problem is that architects of today are constrained by envronmental (wetland) issues, while the Golden Age guys simply drained them and built over them.  

This need to preserve wetlands/riparian areas leads to long forced carries or a lot of lateral hazards.

(don't get me wrong - I'm an environmentalist, but I love great golf architecture too)

[Cliff Hamm]

To me the ideal course is one where it is nearly impossible to lose a ball.  Barring that situation, I don't think there should ever be a need to search for a ball.  

 
I disagree that trees are the primary culprit on this issue.  Water hazards, unmown areas, high rough, uncleared brush and out of bounds all are much bigger culprits.  My view is that someone who is way offline is going to screw up their score anyway, it is just a lot more enjoyable if you don't have to lose balls on top of the misery of your game.

How are trees not a major, if not primary culprit, for lost balls?  If one becomes wild many balls are lost in the woods. If the brush underneath is perfectly cleared and the woods not deep yes it is the brush not the trees that cause the problem.  Most public courses, however, do not clear brush well enough and if we are talking woods not just a strand of trees balls will be lost.

It is incredibly frustrating to follow the group that is shooting 110 and they spend 5 minutes or more looking for the ball in the woods. I can spray the ball with the best of them at times but don't waste time looking in the woods.  At the same time, there are courses I choose not to play because the trees are the primary culprit.  For those familiar with NE public golf Cyprian Keyes, a Mungeam design, comes quickly to mind.  Just too tight off the tee for my taste.  If  lost balls are to be avoided bowling alley fairways lined with trees too deep to count must also be avoided.

[George Pazin]

Great post, Jason.

Cliff, I don't think Jason means trees aren't a factor, just that there are many other ones that create penal play for the poor golfer. I agree completely with you on searching for balls in the trees. I glance around for about 10 seconds max before I continue on, and I'd gladly give people in front of me a free ball if they'd do the same.

This is a subject that is unfortunately near and dear to my heart - I'll have to think about it some more before I share more thoughts.

[James Bennett]

Bogey,

I too agree with Jason.  

Who I dont understand are these guys (above) who think that a golf course has to impossible for the duffer in order to be challenging for the scratch.   The fact is, most hazards which kill the duffer are almost entirely irrelevant to the scratch.   Apparently watching duffers suffer must be some sort of an ego boost to the scratchers.  

DMoriarty

one of the intriguing things is the number of duffers who believe that those very hazards which only they get in following a bad shot should be retained!  They consider that such shots should be penalised, because they are so bad.  Of course, in many situations, the penal design encountered doesn't have a 'bail-out' option for a safe lay-up (ie the hole often proivdes hazards on the left, the right and the front, albeit all of them a long way away from where a better player would go with a bad shot.  The lesser player sometimes has no option but to try a 'hit or miss' shot.  Soemtimes may be ok, but often isn't.

If the duffer understood the concept of strategic design, then they would not 'object' to the removal of their favourite hazards.  I have found the better golfers to be less interested in hazards that do not generally affect them.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

As my golf continues to decline I now appreciate more when the architect has considered me as well as the good player.  I like to be given the option of attempting to carry a bunker at 175 yards out from the tee to give me a better line to the green and I like it when someone has put in a line of cross-bunkers 40 yards short of the green on a hole on which my approach will be played with a 5-wood and a good player is coming in with wedge.  For that good player both bunkers are irrelevant, but to me they are exciting.  They were probably put there during the golden age and I offer up a prayer of thanks that they have not been removed or filled in.

However, I am now more aware of intimidation: the compulsory water carry, the high shot over trees, and so on. Some of the drives at Yale intimidated me, yet never at Winged Foot did I feel intimidated.  No, that doesn't mean I played well at Winged Foot - I was abysmal - but there was plenty of width, I could see what I had to do, and knew it was possible, if I played as I am supposed to at my level and from the appropriate tee.  When I failed to execute a particular shot I was aware that Tillinghast had considered that possibility and some of the most interesting approaches to the greens were not from greenside bunkers where a shot nearly good enough might finish, but from the swales, slopes and depressions beyond those bunkers where a solid slice or hook might finish.  Coming up 30 yards short of a green was also often fascinating, with lots of options of floating a pitch, pitch-and-run, flat-hit 6-iron or perhaps even a long putt.  Because of the contouring of the greens, their attendant bunkers and moundwork and the possibility of some mischievous pin positions I still got much pleasure out finishing the hole with a 7 or 8 if at some point I had been called upon to be creative, and on almost every hole I was.  

[Jason Topp]

 
I disagree that trees are the primary culprit on this issue.  Water hazards, unmown areas, high rough, uncleared brush and out of bounds all are much bigger culprits.  My view is that someone who is way offline is going to screw up their score anyway, it is just a lot more enjoyable if you don't have to lose balls on top of the misery of your game.

How are trees not a major, if not primary culprit, for lost balls?  .  For those familiar with NE public golf Cyprian Keyes, a Mungeam design, comes quickly to mind.  Just too tight off the tee for my taste.  If  lost balls are to be avoided bowling alley fairways lined with trees too deep to count must also be avoided.

Cliff:  I think we are actually in agreement.  I have played Cyprian Keyes and, even worse, Stowe Acres.  On both of those courses, the presence of forests and undergrowth make ball searching a regular occurrence.  I would consider both of these courses examples of modern courses that fall very short of my ideal.  

My view is based on older midwestern courses with big trees and no underbrush, rather than forests lining the fairways.  I like the challenge of hitting punch shots under such trees, curving shots around them or hitting windows in them. I also appreciate their beauty.  When maintained with low rough and through proper clearing of less desireable trees, they provide the opportunity for interesting recovery shots without requiring much in the way of searches.

Dan:  I agree that environmental restrictions probably play a role with respect to modern design having more challenges in preventing lost ball searches.  I would be interested in the views of those in the industry as to whether environmental concerns as well as the permitting process make it too difficult to replicate the approach of golden age courses on this issue.

[Phil_the_Author]

Mark,

It comes as no surprise to me that you would find that "never at Winged Foot did I feel intimidated." Tilly believed strongly in allowing for his courses to be playable by anyone while presenting a greater and greater challenge the better a player was.

About one of his constant themes practiced dyuring his PGA Course Consultation Tour from 1935-7, he wrote, “I am the duffers’ Santa Claus, for over 20 years I have championed the cause of the ‘forgotten man’ of golf, the duffer who cannot break 90 and who comprise over 90% of our vast army of golfers. The future progress of this game depends entirely upon the active interest of the average divot-digging member. The trend has been to sock the helpless and hopeless dub with courses that are almost impossible for them to negotiate. I am against it, the P.G.A. is against it and every sound thinking professional is against it. I am the duffers’ candidate, and shall continue to defend them until my last breath.”

[Brent Hutto]

I disagree that trees are the primary culprit on this issue.  Water hazards, unmown areas, high rough, uncleared brush and out of bounds all are much bigger culprits.  My view is that someone who is way offline is going to screw up their score anyway, it is just a lot more enjoyable if you don't have to lose balls on top of the misery of your game.

I already have the game that Mr. Hendren fears that his game is becoming and I think Jason has it just right. For those of us who don't hit the ball reasonably straight and/or play golf with those who don't hit the ball reasonably straight the most frustrating thing in golf is not the scorecard but the time spent poking through underbrush, executing search grids in ankle deep rough or reaching for a reload after splashing a ball into a wetlands area (swamp). Trees with no branches below head high and with well-groomed pine straw or firm mulch underneath can present a scoring challenge without any particular lost-ball penalty. The main thing to avoid is repeated intervals during which the golfer can not visually ascertain the location of the golf ball.

I spent a good bit of this past weekend in the company of other double-digit handicap golfers who hit unpredictably offline shots and there is a sinking feeling that becomes familiar as you watch the 100th ball of the weekend take a bounce into ankle-deep grass bordered by unmaintained scrubland. You know that the entire foursome will spend the next three to five minutes tramping around hoping to find their own or their companions golf ball among all the abandoned Top-Flites, Noodles and ProV1x's nestled down in the vegetation. It's not the worst way in the world to spend 200-odd seconds of your life but as the round enters its fifth hour you start losing sight of the idea that you're out having Fun!

Then on your last day you play a course where the rough is cut to a uniform 1.5-2" and the golf ball is visible from 30-40 yards away almost every time. And the lower branches are trimmed from the trees, which are surrounded by the same medium-length rough instead of clumps of brush. And you shoot the same 102 score that you carded the day before except you do it in 4 hours, 10 minutes instead of 5 hours, 25 minutes.

My point is, it ain't that hard to maintain a course for challenge (from the proper tees, yes) and pace of play. I have no sympathy for a 15-handicapper who insists on taking five hours to shoot 125 from the 7,300 yard tees. I have no end of sympathy for the 15-capper who wants to play that course from 6,250 yards at a reasonable pace but prefers not to abandon three sleeves of balls in order to finish before the sun goes down.