[A.G._Crockett]

Guys, unless ones intent is to design a totally penal, heroic hole with no relief from any tee [a type of hole I feel totally misses the boat in todays scheme] there are all kinds of options open to accomodate all levels....planning for strategies that challenge all players is one of the most exciting parts of design....any fool can create a tough hole that few can play, real talent resides in a persons design that allows for high and low handicaps, women, beginners, juniors and seniors to enjoy and improve their game.

Think strategy 101, combined with tee angles that minimize forced carries as they progress forward, combine the same thought with fairway features, allow for a safe route and bailouts, with at least opening angle to the green and presto!...something that most could play.
Now to challenge the better player you just do the opposite of what I just said...and all on the same hole!

thats what Curves of Charm are.

Paul,

Your comments are nothing more than vague generalities.

Tell us how you design a golf hole that caters to every level of player, equally, from beginer to expert, from long hitter to short hitter.

It isn't as easy as you would lead us to believe.[/color]

Patrick,
I don't think Paul said it was easy.  He said it was exciting, that there were all kinds of options, and that it was "Strategy 101" COMBINED with tee angles, etc.
I hope that you are fortunate enough someday to play on some of the golf courses that Paul has worked on; they are not only excellent, but do exactly what he is talking about in this post.  

[paul cowley]

OK Pat.....I'll bite, but only one hole conceptually......just close your eyes and imagine a flat but draining canvas [kind of like a football field]....the holes corridor is straitaway, with no trees and no perceptable elevation change and the wind has not blown but twice this year.....you have a post type marker at the back tee position, one at the turn point 850 ft out [although there is no turn]...and then another post about 350 ft farther out.......Imagine now a gently sweeping 's' curve that starts at the back tee, curves to the left, sweeping out 100ft from the centerline before it returns to, and passes thru the turn point......it then continues out to the right, maybe 40 ft or so past the centerline before finishing smoothly at the green post......this curve becomes the holes strategic curvature, its strategic centerline.
The tees will all align on this curve moving forward.
The fairway can roughly follow this curvature.
The hazards can start parallel to either side or bothsides.  Driving becomes a cape strategy, especially from the back but lessoning as you go forward with the tees.

The green aligns with the forward tee, sloping left to right with the green open in front along this alignment.
Greenside bunkering can be either side.

The better player chooses to bite off as much of the fairway according to the desired second shot length, with the greeside bunkers in play but not as much a concern.

The lesser player plays to a more open and straightaway driving area and the second shot hazards are more side to side, not carrying.

Pat, I think I am going to take a break from this while I
 go shoot myself ......please don't assume any blame, I can assure you my problems preceeded this thread.
sincerely, paul

[Patrick_Mucci]

AGCrockett,

Maybe you missed this comment with respect to how easy it is.

Its really not that hard to design for multi levels of play....its almost harder not to.....

I'm an equal opportunity golfer, I like to play all courses.

As to Paul's comments, I can only go by what he types and unfortunately the internet makes it difficult to gleen more.

Paul,

I understand your example, but, it's over simplified, broadly describing two fixed, types of players and not the wide spectrum of golfers who play the game.

If a feature near a green is a challenge to the better player, it almost has to be, inherently, a challenge to the lesser player.

Designing for the entire spectrum of golfers is a difficult if not impossible task.

Certainly, there has to be a minimum level of performance inherent in the architecture, otherwise, there would be NO challenge.

[paul cowley]

someone please call 911



 

[George Pazin]

If a feature near a green is a challenge to the better player, it almost has to be, inherently, a challenge to the lesser player.

This is certainly true. In fact, I'd say if something is a challenge to the better player, it is a bigger challenge to the lesser player.

But is there a reason to believe the lesser player doesn't want a challenge? I know I definitely do. All I'm saying is that I don't want the death penalty for failing a challenge. A very difficult recovery is more than penal enough.

A forced carry over a very penal cross bunker is one thing - a forced carry over water or a deep ravine is another. A forced carry for the better player is simply a matter of choosing the right club. For the lesser player, it's a matter of actually hitting the shot right and choosing the right club.

As I said, if your definition is challenging for the better player but easily playable for the lesser player, you will likely fail in your attempt to design for all levels and would probably be better off designing for one or the other. But if it simply to provide challenging shots where there is hope for recovery, I think it's more than possible to succeed in your efforts.

[A.G._Crockett]

If a feature near a green is a challenge to the better player, it almost has to be, inherently, a challenge to the lesser player.

This is certainly true. In fact, I'd say if something is a challenge to the better player, it is a bigger challenge to the lesser player.

But is there a reason to believe the lesser player doesn't want a challenge? I know I definitely do. All I'm saying is that I don't want the death penalty for failing a challenge. A very difficult recovery is more than penal enough.

A forced carry over a very penal cross bunker is one thing - a forced carry over water or a deep ravine is another. A forced carry for the better player is simply a matter of choosing the right club. For the lesser player, it's a matter of actually hitting the shot right and choosing the right club.

As I said, if your definition is challenging for the better player but easily playable for the lesser player, you will likely fail in your attempt to design for all levels and would probably be better off designing for one or the other. But if it simply to provide challenging shots where there is hope for recovery, I think it's more than possible to succeed in your efforts.

I think that the challenge for a better player inherently being a challenge for the lesser player assumes a lot, especially the distances from multiple tees and the angles of those tees.  Two examples:

1. a small creek fronting the green on a par five.  The lesser player may not be able to come close to the creek in two, much less the green, and the hazard is reduced (at least somewhat) in difficulty.  The better player is making a strategic decision that may lead to a 3 or a 7 that the lesser player isn't faced with.  (The creek would only be as great a hazard for the lesser player if they were so much lesser that they can't get a wedge airborne, in which case, the premise above is true.)

2. From the back tee on a hole, the better player is faced with bunkers by the green (par 3) that are much less of a factor for the lesser player due to a different angle of the forward tees.

I see no reason to believe that all difficulties around a green should necessarily be as bad for the lesser player.

[George Pazin]

...(The creek would only be as great a hazard for the lesser player if they were so much lesser that they can't get a wedge airborne, in which case, the premise above is true.)

I'll grant you the fact that forward tees can make certain bunkers not come into play. But something like a creek in front of a green is a big problem for high handicappers.

I can hit a wedge airborne. I can hit a wedge 130 yards. The problem is, I can also chunk a wedge 20 yards. Put water in front of a high handicapper and it is an undeniably harder shot mentally if not physically.

My biggest difference between two successive holes illustrates this. I was playing a 390 yard hole where water is the last 80 yards. I hit a weak tee shot, was left with 210 to the center of the green, so I did the sensible thing and laid up to about 110 yards. I then hit 3 consecutive wedges into the water before I pulled out my 9 iron and hit it 20 yards over the green, then chipped and 2 putted for a cool 13. The next hole was a 185 yard par 3. I was steaming. I hit the purest 6 iron I've ever hit to the absolute back of the green - it probably flew in the neighborhood of 200+ yards. It hit and sucked back 3 feet, something I almost never do. I then drained a 90 foot putt (paced it off at 30 paces) with a gigantic break for a 2. 13-2.

Water has an unbelievable effect on high handicappers.

[A.G._Crockett]

George,
I agree about the effect of water on high handicappers, and I think a relatively large body of greenside water is a penal feature for most of us.  I was really thinking about a small creek that would affect the second shot of the low handicapper more than the third shot of the high handicapper.  

We can all chunk wedges, and obviously the high handicapper chunks more of 'em.  But if they can get the ball airborne at all, the type of greenside feature that I'm referring to should have a reduced impact.  (Of course, if they can't get the ball airborne with a wedge, all bets are off.)

I guess what I'm really talking about here is the "easy bogey, hard par" approach that you hear people say about some great courses like ANGC or #2.  It just seems to me that most of what accounts for that occurs around the greens.

BTW, my default miss with a wedge is the opposite of yours.  I can hit my wedge 120, but if I miss it, I ususally hit it about 180.  For most of that distance, the ball is about 2 ft. off the ground and a grave danger to all in the vicinity!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

AGCrockett,

Sooner or later everyone eventually gets to the green, and as such, if that area provides a substantive challenge to the better player, the lesser player encounters it as well.

You can't provide a substantive challenge for the better player at the green end without affecting the lesser player to the same or greater degree.

You speak of alternate angles or corridors of play for the lessor player, as if their ability allows them to play a precision game, when it clearly doesn't.

While they might conceptualize a line of play, their inherent lack of ability prevents them from executing it.

[paul cowley]

"and now we're all alive again 'cause we are the Irish... and now we're all alive again 'cause we are the Irish soldiers"....jaysus its good to be back!........and Pat Mucci said "You can't provide a substantive challenge for the better player at the green end without affecting the lesser player to the same or greater degree." tis not always true.

We frequently exclude frontal or greenside bunkers in favor of low mounding especially when the green is sloping away from the aforementioned....the better player generally has a more difficult shot with less predictable control when trying to get it close from the short grass, while a player of lesser abilities usually prefers to play almost any shot from the grass as opposed to from a bunker.
....just stayin alive....tryin to design for THE variety of abilities.

[A.G._Crockett]

AGCrockett,

Sooner or later everyone eventually gets to the green, and as such, if that area provides a substantive challenge to the better player, the lesser player encounters it as well.

You can't provide a substantive challenge for the better player at the green end without affecting the lesser player to the same or greater degree.

You speak of alternate angles or corridors of play for the lessor player, as if their ability allows them to play a precision game, when it clearly doesn't.

While they might conceptualize a line of play, their inherent lack of ability prevents them from executing it.

Patrick,
I agree that virtually any challenge will be a greater challenge for a lesser player, and that around the green this may be especially true; that's what being a lesser player is all about!  (This kind of reminds me of a thread a year or so ago about whether better or lesser putters would be more impacted by extremely difficult greens.  I think you and I view that exactly the same.)

However, I wasn't writing about an alternate angle of corridor of  play that the player chose. I was writing about design accomodations like a forward teeing ground on a par three that was at enough of a different angle to minimize a bunker that a better player would have to deal with differently from a back tee position.  I know you've seen this done, just as forward tees take some fairway bunkers out of play, or allow lesser players to negotiate doglegs, or remove water just in front of the back tees from play, and so forth.

[paul cowley]

AG....I'll fake enough for him to follow, but you've got to score ....

[A.G._Crockett]

"and now we're all alive again 'cause we are the Irish... and now we're all alive again 'cause we are the Irish soldiers"....jaysus its good to be back!........and Pat Mucci said "You can't provide a substantive challenge for the better player at the green end without affecting the lesser player to the same or greater degree." tis not always true.

We frequently exclude frontal or greenside bunkers in favor of low mounding especially when the green is sloping away from the aforementioned....the better player generally has a more difficult shot with less predictable control when trying to get it close from the short grass, while a player of lesser abilities usually prefers to play almost any shot from the grass as opposed to from a bunker.
....just stayin alive....tryin to design for THE variety of abilities.

See, this is why you build golf courses and I don't!

[George Pazin]

You can't provide a substantive challenge for the better player at the green end without affecting the lesser player to the same or greater degree.

I still don't understand why you think a lesser golfer won't appreciate a challenge around the green.

I know many lesser golfers, and I don't think a single one would complain about a couple shots lost around the green, as opposed to shots lost in water hazards, OB, or overly penal rough that causes lost balls.

Dave M is on the right track with his suggestion of allowing someone to play a round with a single ball.

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Pazin,

I NEVER said that a lesser player doesn't like a challenge.

Dave Moriarty,

That's a rather broad and vague statement.

AGCrockett,

I agree that softening the angle of attack on the shorter tees helps the lesser player at the begining of the hole, as well as further into the hole.

Paul Cowley,

If you exclude frontal or greenside bunkers the better player benefits more than the lesser player.

The better player will always have more ways, more shots in their repetoire, and as such, can avail themselves of chinks in the armor of the greenside defenses.

But, I understand the intent of creating alternate routes of play.

The question is, does the lesser golfer see them, does he understand them, and will he use them.

There is a wonderful, large schematic that used to hang in the locker-basement at NGLA,  It showed alternate routes of play for the par and bogie golfer.  

It looked great up on the wall.
It was clear for all to see, just how the course could be played by golfers of different abilities.
But, something funny happened to those golfers when they stood on the first tee.  They ignored the perfect roadmap created by CBM or some other kind soul.   The were lured to the rocks of destruction by temptation and ego, and once lured, no amount of logic, no guiding advice from their caddy or fellow golfers could get them back on the proper paths, so clearly defined by CBM.

As Mike Tyson said, "Everybody's got a game plan until they get hit."  And, in golf, for most golfers, their game plans vaporize when they stare down the first fairway and are lured and challenged by the architecture.

In golf, we all aspire to play well, to get better, and the only way you get better, the only way you gain great satisfaction is to execute a shot previously thought to be beyond your ability.   That's part of the lure of the game, that grand challenge.   And no amount of pre-game planning can overcome that lure and challenge.

But, I understand what you're saying.

[paul cowley]

Pat Mucci...excellent post.
 I come more from the creation side while you are more aligned from the play side...and I'm sure we both broadly overlap......great Tyson quote.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Cowley,

One of the things I find disturbing in golf is the trend to remove architectural features that challenge golfers.

Today, it's not unusual for clubs to have membership rolls that differ substantially from just 5 and 10 years ago, let alone 20-40 years ago.  There is less continuity amongst the membership, fewer connections to the architectural and cultural history of the club, and as such, I see members, new to the game and new to the club, attempting to remove architectural features that don't integrate with thier particular games.

Mostly, these features are branded as "unfair" to a segment of the membership, and they are selfishly targeted for extinction.

In the old days, you were told to "suck it up", to improve your game, to rise up to the challenge that the feature presented.
Today, you're told that the club is considering or working on having that feature removed.

The problem with that thinking is, "Today Germany, tomorrow the world".

Once one objectionable or controversial feature is removed,
a laundry or hit list is created and all of the features come up for review, evaluation and/or eradication.

Taken to its intended conclusion, the field of play, the golf course becomes mundane, uninteresting, unchallenging, and, the game loses it's lure and challenge.

That's why I take a philosophical exception to the concept of designing for the entire spectrum of abilities.

Once you focus on and intentionally skewer your designs to accomodate the weakest of players you inherently eliminate the challenge and the lure of the game, you leave less to aspire to, and as such, you create a product that could be deemed, mediocre at best, for the skilled player.

[paul cowley]

Pat...I would agree with you concerning trends with established courses. My focus is really more on new design features and methods to challenge as many as possible.
 The mound versis bunker scenario I mentioned previously is a design device used to offset what technology and maintenance practices have allowed for in the de-fanging of bunkers for the better player....how often have we heard ' such and such would rather be in a bunker'.

 Occasionaly I play with some replica clubs pre-1890, and when using them even todays bunkers are to be avoided at all cost....one shot at least, true traps.....hardly the hazard they were in the past

thats why well designed, closely cut mounds and swales in the green complex can challenge a better player more than just another bunker.....and the lesser player would always prefer to be on grass than in the sand.

...and lets leave the 'Curves of Charm' theory for latter please...I need TP to help ....he's making me read Behr and I figure once I finish, he will owe me one

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Cowley,

I understand the distinction between existing courses and new courses, but, the desire to eliminate the challenge, architecturally, knows no bounds.

One has to be careful not to ameliorate that challenge.

One of the other factors that weighs upon that slippery slope of making courses more "fair" and eliminating the challenge is speed of play.

With rounds taking longer and longer, the architecture, not the golfer and the culture of the golfer is attacked, softened and disfigured in order to eliminate the challenge and improve the speed of play.  A misguided concept if I ever saw one.

I would agree that the randomness of the lie on mounding near the green might be the lie of choice for the higher handicap while the bunker might be prefered by the lower handicap.

However, the ability to execute a shot that avoids the bunker probably isn't within the higher handicaps repetoire.

The corridor of play might be there, but the ability to recognize it, formulate a prudent game plan that employs it, and execute it are usually beyond their golfing abilities.

I don't know if it's a good thing to mold and soften architecture to accomodate the needs of the lesser skilled.

In general, I think it diminishes the overall challenge, lure and experience that makes the game so special.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave Moriarty,

How would you view GCGC with it's wide fairways but highly penal bunkers ?

Would you say that it's user friendly to high handicappers ?

How would you view Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes ?
Are they high handicap friendly ?

Pebble Beach ?
Sand Hills ?

Or, do you feel that there's a certain level of ability required to successfully navigate those courses and most others ?

By high handicap I mean those at 24-36 and higher.

[paul cowley]

I think the broadest measure of playability for the higher handicaps are the least lost ball or forced carry situations.....something DavidM suggests as well.

Pinehurst #2 comes to mind as probably the highest ranked course in this category........balls here probably wear out more often than become lost.

Many well regarded links courses have similar playability characteristics.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Cowley,

As to Pinehurst # 2, I'd have to disagree.
Out of bounds and lost balls are common.

Today, with ESA's lost balls, even though they are visible and retrievable are a common occurance.

Environmental issues make it far more difficult to ameliorate or eliminate certain hazards.

Water, OB and ESA's can be inherent design features beyond the control of the architect.

How does the TOC fare in that department.
Pebble Beach, Cypress Point, Bandon Dunes, Pacific Dunes, Friar's Head, Maidstone, NGLA, ANGC, Winged Foot, Riviera,
Seminole, Pine Valley, Merion, Sand Hills, GCGC and Shinnecock ?

If the lack of the opportunity for a lost ball is your criterion for determining good golf course architecture, I'd have to disagree.

[George Pazin]

Patrick -

After reading your last few posts to Paul and Dave, I feel I understand your position better.

I would never recommend eliminating architectural features to benefit the lesser player, EXCEPT:

I would try to reduce the number of death-penalty features: water, OB, unrecoverable ravines.

If there is a suitable avenue around these features - i.e. the hard par easy bogey strategy - then I don't have a big problem. But I'm not a fan of penalty shot reloads without other options.

[Mark_F]

Sean,

This is very different however, from a course that everybody wants to play.

You say Pennard, I say Porthcawl...

They say Cruden Bay, I say Royal Aberdeen...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()