Not thinking clearly ...... again ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

No, this isn't about Tom Huckaby, although it could be.

Why do clubs become obsesed with making their golf course more difficult ?

And, why would they introduce features that interface with and impact every level of golfer, rather than just the best golfers ?

Why introduce penal features that are beyond the ability of the medium to high handicap golfer ?

[Daryl David]

Pat,
I remember when I first was able to join a club and was looking at different alternatives, members from the clubs always wanted to make sure you knew that their course was the most hard.  Around the community it was a constant measuring of one club against the other jockeying for position of most tough.  I think ego has a lot to do with it.  

Recently a club I belong to had a college kid shoot an incredible score and suddenly everyone is wondering what is wrong with the course.  Why not say "wow what a player"!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Daryl,
I couldn't agree more. Ego does have a lot to do with it. I've also run across some clubs where they have kids who are promising players (and that their close to ready playing the PGA Tour) so the course isn't nearly going to be long enough, let alone tough enough.

[RJ_Daley]

Tommy, this makes me wonder about excellent courses we have collectively tauted here over the years.  Let's take Rustic Canyon.  I've heard comments that the FWs are wide and it isn't challenging off the tee.  Yet, let's say they do 60000 rounds a year. (maybe more in So Cal weather all year)  What percentage are sub par rounds?  Pat asks a good question.  Why do clubs, and even public venues like RC, obsess on constantly tweaking to make it harder when even at shorter, often thought of easier courses, they really aren't allowing that many sub par rounds?  If a course is fair, not tricked up, not excessively long, yet doesn't yield more or significantly more sub par rounds as a percent of rounds played than some median measure we could all agree was a reasonable percentage, then what is the lunacy in brainstorming to make it harder?  If the course yields slightly more good scores of near par, but only as a reward to exceptionally good play, then why worry about it and think it has to bring even great players to their knees?  Where is the joy in that?

[Doug Siebert]

Patrick,

Why do clubs become obsessed with making their course more difficult?  I think that's self evident:
  1) ego
  2) belief that "tougher" = "championship" = "better"
  3) better players prefer tougher challenge, and better players are more likely to be the decision makers at a club

As to your question about why they introduce features that make the course tougher for every level of golfer instead of just the best golfer, isn't that simply because its difficult to find features that only affect the best players?

Other than moving the tips back/putting them at a worse angle, it is really hard to make things more difficult for better golfers without making things more difficult for average or poorer players.  The only other thing I can think of is adding deeper, softer sand to the greenside bunkers to encourage higher trajectory shots that fly into a bunker to bury.  Aside from those two things, what can an architect do to make things harder for the best golfers without also affecting the difficulty level for everyone else?

[Joe Perches]

Let's take Rustic Canyon.

yes, let's.  Except for 7.

I've heard comments that the FWs are wide and it isn't challenging off the tee.

True and false.  There are many 50 to 60 yd wide fairways, but you really should hit a target width of 30 or so, otherwise, oops.

What percentage are sub par rounds?

As you know, exceedingly small.

Pat asks a good question.

Pat?   Really?

If the course yields slightly more good scores of near par, but only as a reward to exceptionally good play, then why worry about it?  Where is the joy in that?

I like your question better.  I've of course no real answer though.  Perhaps there's some honor or more likely financial benefit in golf course difficulty ranking.

Hurts so good?

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

It's human nature, but I'm sure you knew that.

That some golf and some golf architecture should be a real "test" is a mentality that goes way back and is probably responsible for producing some of the greatest American designs---eg Myopia, Oakmont, NGLA, PVGC, HVGC, Pinehurst #2, and probably Merion East after a time. In each of those examples the designers spoke of the necessity for an increased "Test"---in some cases they spoke of that old concept known as "shot testing". Crump spoke of creating a "testing" or "training ground" at PVGC so the regions best players could more successfully compete on a national level.

The concept even back then did create some controversy---and some of those courses were originally criticized by some architects as being too hard and in a sense undemocratic.

This was a reality way back then and it probably still is today.

The key is to produce a course that works best for its club's membership but that's by no means something that can be standardized. For instance, for some reason, the entire membership of Oakmont, and even the less skilled members of the club are very proud of the extreme difficulty of their course and they have been for well over fifty years now.

This is why I think "difference" in architecture is an important thing to promote----eg that there should be plenty out there to satisfy everyone. It's why I created my "Big World" theory.

There is another very real element to this whole dynamic of "easy or hard" too that's being utilized more and utilized better every day, and that is so much of the "easy or hard" equation can be produced and managed through maintenance practices and not just through architecture.

The clubs that understand how best to vary their maintenance practices and set-ups for all the playing levels of their memberships will logically be the most successful in this context.

Frankly, the renewed interest in "firm and fast" maintenance programs has already come a long way to satisfying this over-all goal.

[BCrosby]

The issue is frequently the survival of the club. If a club's golf course is not perceived as being a top tier course in the region, the continued existence of the club can be at stake. Especially if it has an older membership. Especially in areas where there is lots of competition among clubs for younger members.

It's often the only way they can draw new, younger members. Otherwise, they lose that pool of younger members to the better courses.

It's less about them wanting to lengthen courses. It's more about them thinking they have no real choice.

Bob

[TEPaul]

"Why is this the thirteenth thread about the "travesty" of making courses longer and harder?  Is this horse dead yet?"

redanman:

Don't you know why yet?

It's because Patrick needs at least thirteen threads to do the same thing---eg blame whole memberships for what he thinks is wrong with various golf coures. And then that gives the likes of Tommy Nacarrato the chance to claim that whole memberships have huge egos.

The underlying reason is too many on this site just need to continue to find ways to lay blame or blame other people.

My philosophy is that if you want to begin to get people's attention and get them to consider doing something different from what they generally do the best policy to get them to listen to you is probably not to begin by blaming them first.  

[Tom Huckaby]

No, this isn't about Tom Huckaby, although it could be.

Classic!
I must admit I saw that Topic title and shuddered... but I am so vain.
 

And I have no answers for your questions, btw, other than to echo Tommy's thoughts about ego... courses do seem to want to keep up with the Jones (pun perhaps intended).

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Why is this the thirteenth thread about the "travesty" of making courses longer and harder?  Is this horse dead yet?"

redanman:

Don't you know why yet?

It's because Patrick needs at least thirteen threads to do the same thing---eg blame whole memberships for what he thinks is wrong with various golf coures. And then that gives the likes of Tommy Nacarrato the chance to claim that whole memberships have huge egos.

The underlying reason is too many on this site just need to continue to find ways to lay blame or blame other people.

My philosophy is that if you want to begin to get people's attention and get them to consider doing something different from what they generally do the best policy to get them to listen to you is probably not to begin by blaming them first.  

TEPaul,

This thread isn't about what's been done in the past, it's about what's being done currently and what's being planned for the future.

Surely, even you can understand the difference.

And, who do you hold accountable for the disfigurations that have taken place on wonderful, classic or "Golden Age" golf courses ?

Oh, I forgot, you came up with, and adhere to the theory that the same forces responsible for crop circles came in on various nights and altered/disfigured these golf course without the memberships knowledge .

Redanman,

If you don't think a thread has merit, click off, rather than snipe at it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Redanman,

It's got NOTHING to do with courses I've played.

It's got to do with courses that are contemplating changes.

[tonyt]

better players prefer tougher challenge, and better players are more likely to be the decision makers at a club

Bingo.

And what is worse, better players often have little understanding of exactly why some holes can cleverly offer a range of scores via the most subtle of nuances. So long as the scoring average for the hole isn't high, many would prefer it to be altered to increase the scoring average even if it means stripping the hole of some of its propensity to spread scores, and therefore much of its intrinsic merit!

[David Lott]

The answer to the companion question, "why do so many golfers play from tees that are beyond their ability" may provide some guidance. Mainly, because many golfers overestimate their abilities. Otherwise most golfers would not notoriously underclub either.

In fact very few courses are too hard if the golfer plays from the proper tees. (Golf may be too hard for some golfers, regardless of where they play from, but very few golf courses are.)

Play from the proper tees on any well designed course, and the "too hard" problem diminishes greatly.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The issue is frequently the survival of the club. If a club's golf course is not perceived as being a top tier course in the region, the continued existence of the club can be at stake. Especially if it has an older membership. Especially in areas where there is lots of competition among clubs for younger members.

If the merits of the architecture aren't apparent, added length will not bring it to light.

It's often the only way they can draw new, younger members. Otherwise, they lose that pool of younger members to the better courses.

A better course isn't necessarily a longer course

It's less about them wanting to lengthen courses. It's more about them thinking they have no real choice.

In other words, you're saying it's the "default" option, is that correct ?

[Doug Siebert]

better players prefer tougher challenge, and better players are more likely to be the decision makers at a club

Bingo.

And what is worse, better players often have little understanding of exactly why some holes can cleverly offer a range of scores via the most subtle of nuances. So long as the scoring average for the hole isn't high, many would prefer it to be altered to increase the scoring average even if it means stripping the hole of some of its propensity to spread scores, and therefore much of its intrinsic merit!

The solution is to educate them in statistics so they understand that standard deviation of score is at least as important as average scores in determining how challenging a hole is.

A "tough par, easy bogey" par 4 with a scoring average of 4.5 in a club championship might appear to be very challenging, but if there were only two birdies and two others, it isn't very interesting probably just long and/or lined with deep rough that requires a layup if you miss the fairway.  A par 5 with an average of 4.5 appears weak, but if it offered up a half dozen eagles and 4 doubles in the club championship its more challenging on the mental side because you know the low scores are there for the taking, but do you risk disaster to obtain one?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Doug Siebert,

Noone keeps those statistics.

And, a snapshot of play during a club championship is a flawed and insufficient data base upon which to draw conclusions that will have far reaching ramifications.

If you can't educate members on the menu prices of juice versus soda, what chance do you think you have in educating them in statistics and standard deviations ?

It's an unrealistic perspective.

[TEPaul]

"And, who do you hold accountable for the disfigurations that have taken place on wonderful, classic or "Golden Age" golf courses?"

Patrick:

Unlike you I don't hold anyone accountable for the disfigurment of courses because it's what was done in that era before restoration or preservation became a general interest with classic architecture. There was virtually no course and no architect who didn't do it up until about 20 years ago. One needs to understand that fact and obviously you don't. Up until about 20 years ago neither the word nor the concept of restoration of any kind---eg to architecture or maintenance practices was even heard of.

You need to begin to understand that or understand it better.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Unlike you I don't hold anyone accountable for the disfigurment of courses because it's what was done in that era before restoration or preservation became a general interest with classic architecture.

I'm delighted to find out that alterations and disfigurations are no longer occuring.  When did those processes stop ?

I'm curious to find out because I still see alterations and disfigurations occuring.

There was virtually no course and no architect who didn't do it up until about 20 years ago. One needs to understand that fact and obviously you don't.

Then it's your position that it was OK because everyone was doing it.   That the more classic courses were altered/disfigured, the more acceptable the process became ?

Up until about 20 years ago neither the word nor the concept of restoration of any kind---eg to architecture or maintenance practices was even heard of.

Then how do you explain the continuation of the process of alteration/disfiguration ?

You need to begin to understand that or understand it better.

You need to understand that courses continue to be altered/disfigured