[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

So you are saying you wouldn't join Seminole if you thought the rough should be cut 1/4" higher?  Somehow I doubt it, but could be wrong.

Basically, you are confirming what I have been saying - presentation decisions which affect architecture were found best for the better (presumably, but not always) better player and implemented, whether first discovered under a club tournament preparation, etc. They are aimed at the better golfer (perhaps one who is not now a member) and lesser golfers are left out of the decisions, primarily as a business decision, an angle I hadn't codified yet in my mind.

Its funny that many here decry "dumbing down courses." That seems to have been the motto as well at many fine clubs over the last 60 years, but the methods used are still in question here for many.

Hard to believe we could trade five posts on a subject where we basically agree.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

So you are saying you wouldn't join Seminole if you thought the rough should be cut 1/4" higher?  Somehow I doubt it, but could be wrong.

I would join Seminole irrespective of what they did to the rough.

Basically, you are confirming what I have been saying - presentation decisions which affect architecture were found best for the better (presumably, but not always) better player and implemented, whether first discovered under a club tournament preparation, etc. They are aimed at the better golfer (perhaps one who is not now a member) and lesser golfers are left out of the decisions, primarily as a business decision, an angle I hadn't codified yet in my mind.


Jeff, that's only true in certain situations.
I've seen other clubs do just the opposite.
Cut the rough, water the greens, etc., etc..
A lot depends upon the culture and history of the club.

You have to remember that Seminole is a very windy golf course, hence fairway width remains an important architectural ingredient.

Rarely, if ever, have the fairways been altered.
And, with Bermuda rough, letting it get deep hasn't been the club's response, it would be too difficult for the older members.

Instead, to retain the challenge, the greens and surrounds are kept fast and firm.
Being next to the Ocean and subjected to good winds make this easier.  It would be far more difficult to achieve these conditions 5 or 10 miles inland.

If I could pick the elements that have preserved the challenge over the years it would be the integration of the wind with the architecture.

Seminole, like NGLA feeds mis-hit shots into trouble, be it bunkers, rough or tight fairway.  Hence, the margins get slimmer as the wind increases.
 
Its funny that many here decry "dumbing down courses." That seems to have been the motto as well at many fine clubs over the last 60 years, but the methods used are still in question here for many.

There are different ways to "dumb down" a golf course.

However, if a club hopes to keep itself vibrant and attractive I think it has to retain its competitive challenge.  It has to present and retain a sporty, fun experience.  How the club goes about doing that can be determined by available real estate, the architecture and the maintainance conditions.

You also have to differentiate between a "GOLF CLUB" and a golf course within a residential community.  For purposes of discussion, let's stick with "Golf Clubs"

Hard to believe we could trade five posts on a subject where we basically agree.

Not really.
I'm flexible when I want to be  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Well, I have never seen you be flexible, so I will take your word for it.

I understand that with a universe of over 5000 private clubs in the US that some dumb down, some retain heritage, etc.  I understand that wind plays a part in the design equation, more at some places, others at less.

As I said early in the thread, I don't like using US Open courses to illustrate a point (although that happened to be a very germain point) I hate using Pine Valley or any other top 50-100 course in the list because of its unique site or history.

While I may not be envisioning housing courses in my post, I am envisioning the narrowing of fw at typical members clubs somewhat below the top courses but well above average.  That is, after all, where most courses in this country lie, quality wise.

Your economic theory, added to your post above regarding available real estate makes me add another reason to my fw narrowing theory - as the dimensions of golf courses grew, and memberships/play increased, older courses planted trees to increase safety, which is more important than strategy IMHO, (lots of lawyers at clubs, you know).  In that way, narrower fairways served as the greater good for the greatest number of golfers, regardless of strategy, difficulty, etc.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
You say "rough is elastic"?  It may be if the fairway and rough are the same grass but that is very often not the case.  Furthermore, moving hazards is not exactly elastic either.  You don't just pick up bunkers, streams or ditches,... and move them for one event, and then move them back.  Your, what I call "ribbon fairway" concept, has lots of holes in it.

Here is an interesting excerpt taken from the site  http://www.leaderboard.com/abcs.htm  It talks about the difference between course ratings and slope and bogey golfers vs expert golfers.  It is interesting about the statements regarding fairway width  

-------------------

"Can you give me an example of how Course 3 can have a lower rating but a higher slope than Course 1?

The thing to keep in mind is that the challenges a course presents to scratch golfers are usually different for bogey golfers. Take two identical courses and call them Course 1 and Course 3.

Each course is situated in wooded land, such that all fairways are lined by trees.

Now let's make these courses just a bit different from each other:

On Course 1, we'll cut the trees back from each fairway an additional 20 yards on either side. On Course 3, we'll widen the greens 10 yards in each direction.

What happened to the scores?

Well, the expert golfers turned in better scores on Course 3 because they know how to take advantage of bigger greens and they are also pretty straight hitters, so the woods were not really a factor for them on either course. Even so, the expert golfers know how to minimize the damage to their scores after an errant drive.

But the bogey golfers aren't so fortunate. A much greater percentage of their drives ended up in the woods on Course 3 and (once there) it was more difficult for them to get out of trouble. So by the time they reached the green, their scores were pretty swollen to begin with.

Ask the bogey golfers which course was more brutal and they universally responded that Course 3 was the most difficult because the fairways were less forgiving.

Ask the scratch golfer that same question and the response comes back, "Course 1 was more difficult... smaller greens."

Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

I alluded to the seperation factor as contributing to the narrowing of fairways in an earlier post.

There's no question in my mind that those who planted the trees never dreamed that the mature drip lines would encroach upon the playing corridors.

When it did the fairways were moved in.

I've also seen mature trees with extended drip lines force a change in the mowing patterns simply because the tractor driver didn't want to get clocked by an overhanging limb, and thus, the fairway lines grew narrower every year.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()