What do Low Handicappers Look For?

[archie_struthers]

 


I think that the better players look for a game, some regular competition, whether it be formal or informal.

Most of my pals would rather play in a good game at an average course than play a great course with a bunch of stiffs (sorry)!

Pace of play, course conditioning (firm and fast) , and the like all ad to the draw. But I think most low handicappers are looking for a "game" , and if you've got some nice practice facilities its a big plus.

[Guy Phelan]

I would tend to agree with a lot of what is said above about what the low HDCP player likes.  In many of my conversations with my golf buddies here in the Philly area I'm always surprised to see & hear what everyone likes when it comes to golf course architecture.  There's no denying that a good number of low HDCP players have the pencil & card mentality.  Unfortunately, that way of thinking really narrows the focus of what they like.  

Fairness becomes the ultimate virtue.  The problem is, fairness doesn't always go hand in hand with good architecture.
 
Upon learning of what these guys "like", I would place myself firmly in the minority of the Low HDCP crowd.  

*I don't mind blind shots once in a while, I like firm and fast conditions, I like it when the golfer is forced to actually think a bit.  I don't mind undulations that can cause the odd bounce, I don't mind the uncomfortable feeling when a hole isn't all framed out in front of you.  I like a bit of quirk, and I absolutely love a wonderfully designed, challenging greensite.*    

Jamie,

I agree with what you have written and add only two things - 1.) I don't want to play in 5 hours, even if it is competitive
and
2.) I do want to have someplace to practice

Guy

[Sean Leary]

Huckaby,

I thought you liked every course!
 


Jeff,

I guess you could say I am like Huck.  Depending on how the putts fall, I am anywhere fom 0-6.
As for courses, I like crazy greens and bunkers that challenge the tee shot.  Nice greenside bunkering is a plus too.

Young Skywalker,

Umm, when exactly have you been a zero?

By the way, you are exactly like Huck.  It's uncanny, really....

[Jordan Wall]

Sean,

For a few months I have been taking lessons, and practicing ALOT.
I shot 69 at Jackson a few weeks ago, in between the snows (I think it was two and a half weeks ago, on a Saturday).
Better yet, I didnt even keep my score.
My friend did, and he never told me what my score was until the last hole, though admittedly I was keeping track in my head.

When we play again, you'll see, I'm not lying.
Lessons have done me some good!

[Joe Bentham]

Most low handicappers have little patience for the subtleties of design that we all enjoy so much.  If they struck it well off the tee and soundly struck their approach they think the reward should be a makeable putt, never mind that they where in the wrong half of the fairway entirely.  Most low handicappers like a course where everything is in front of you, they care little for local knowledge.  Most low handicappers think they should be able to show up some where new and if their game was on, score well.

[JR Potts]

Most low handicappers have little patience for the subtleties of design that we all enjoy so much.  If they struck it well off the tee and soundly struck their approach they think the reward should be a makeable putt, never mind that they where in the wrong half of the fairway entirely.  Most low handicappers like a course where everything is in front of you, they care little for local knowledge.  Most low handicappers think they should be able to show up some where new and if their game was on, score well.

I kind of agree.

[Sean Leary]

Jordan,

You are a fine golfer and I am quite impressed by your game, particularly since you are so new to the sport. You can certainly play

However the difference between a 0 and 3-5 (where I think you are) is enormous.  I hope and think you will get there ( I myself haven't been able to and probably won't) but you aren't quite there yet...

[Guy Phelan]

Most low handicappers have little patience for the subtleties of design that we all enjoy so much.  If they struck it well off the tee and soundly struck their approach they think the reward should be a makeable putt, never mind that they where in the wrong half of the fairway entirely.  Most low handicappers like a course where everything is in front of you, they care little for local knowledge.  Most low handicappers think they should be able to show up some where new and if their game was on, score well.

Joe -

I have been fortunate to have been blessed with an adequate game (0) and also that I found architecture (cut my teeth on Tillinghast) so intriguing from an early age... The course I grew up playing is Five Farms in Baltimore and the correct side of the fairway is so important as is the correct quarter of the green. Generalities are often misleading.

Guy

[JR Potts]

Jordan,

You are a fine golfer and I am quite impressed by your game, particularly since you are so new to the sport. You can certainly play

However the difference between a 0 and 3-5 (where I think you are) is enormous.  I hope and think you will get there ( I myself haven't been able to and probably won't) but you aren't quite there yet...

I totally agree.  While I know nothing of Jordan's game, there is a world of difference between a 0 and a 5.  I was a 5 when I graduated High School.  I am a 0 now.  During college, I was a +2.  While it only seems like a couple of shots that can be passed arond amongst friends, those shots are a huge indicator of where one's game is at when you get into the lower levels.  

As most of the other working stiffs who carry low handicaps like me can attest, we feel the difference, big time, during the highs and lows of the summer swing of a couple of shots.  Those shots matter!

But from the sounds of it Jordan, you are heading in the right direction....quickly.  Keep it up!  

[Jordan Wall]

Jordan,

You are a fine golfer and I am quite impressed by your game, particularly since you are so new to the sport. You can certainly play

However the difference between a 0 and 3-5 (where I think you are) is enormous.  I hope and think you will get there ( I myself haven't been able to and probably won't) but you aren't quite there yet...

We need to play again.

I dont think you would believe the difference.

Also, my right hand is now 180* (almost) from where it was in August.  remember how bad that was
 

[Chris Cupit]

Jeff,

I recently re-did my course and I also wanted to create a course that "good golfers" would rave about.  I think that for better (and usually) for worse, golfers often look up to or defer to better players regarding what is a good course.  I do think that while they are a very small percentage of golfers, they do shape alot of local opinions.

Good, low handicap golfers want a "tough but fair" course.  They love a course that looks tough but plays easy.  Most are not really scratch players but like to think of themselves as "almost pros".

They want fast greens but "receptive" greens.  They have always just played a friends course "where the greens were rolling a 13"

Firm fairways, "consistent" bunker sand that never plugs and that is a little on the firm side.  Never make a "good golfer" hit a wood on a par 3!

They don't like long par 4s much if it makes them hit more than a 5 iron into the green.  They love length if it can be neutralized--downhill.  They like courses long on the scorecard that play shorter.  They love "risk/reward" holes and reachable par 5s.

They hate blind shots and they feel that fairway bunkers should always allow you to reach the green with your next shot.

They like definition for the tee shots, but the rough should be minimal.  Yardage markers are important.  Pace of play is important--they would all play in three hours if the group in front would let them!

Seriously, range balls are important and they want good practice targets and a nice short game area.  Also, while I think the trend is about dead, most of the requestsI get for a mens' only grille  is from my "better" players.  They want a patio area where they can look out over the course.

[Bill_Ryzewski]

I find it interesting that this has turned into a first person account of what low handicappers look for .

In my experience the majority of scratch players get pissed off if they have an uneven lie in the fairway or find themselves with in a three putt situation (tricked up!). I agree with Joe and Chris.

regards,
bill

[W.H. Cosgrove]

I find it interesting that this has turned into a first person account of what low handicappers look for .

In my experience the majority of scratch players get pissed off if they have an uneven lie in the fairway or find themselves with in a three putt situation (tricked up!). I agree with Joe and Chris.

regards,
bill

So has this become a rant against low handicaps?  

I have been thinking of the one thing that gets a player back to a course.  Beauty is nice whether it be the cart girl or the scenery, nice conditions are a plus, but the one thing that intrigues me is thought.

The need to think your way around a course.  Holes can be long or short but do they offer a variety of puzzles to solve?  And once presented with the puzzle do you have the game to solve it?  Simply narrow doesn't work, tough bunkers isn't enough, its the GAME and how to solve it in fewer strokes than your opponent.  I want to win the quarter at the end.  

[BigEdSC]

Things I look for:

1.  Good Greens

2.  Good Greens and

3.  Good Greens

To explain:

Lets say I place 10 balls six feet from the hole.  When I make 10 good strokes, the ball should go in 10 times.  When I put a good stroke on 10 putts six feet from the hole, I don't want to see four of them miss left, four of them miss right, and two go in.  I don't want to see the ball hopping and the ball not holding its line.  If you have consistent good greens, the golf world will beat a path to your door.

[Tom Huckaby]

Ed:

While smooth greens are the bomb for sure... well... I'm not sure that's all that is required to make a course worth playing.

The greens at THE RANCH at SILVER CREEK are wonderful - perfect bent grass, stimp about 10 usually but can be made even faster, gorgeous and smooth.

The golf course truly might be the worst I have ever played.

How one arrives at the greens matters a bit also.  

[BigEdSC]

Huck
     Just replying to the subject line.  Even though I look for a lot of different things, good greens can make you overlook a lot of bad things about a course.

[Tom Huckaby]

Ed:  but that's my point.  No matter how great the greens are, if the means of getting to them sucks, the course sucks.

But I would agree that good greens are something to seek out.

TH

[rjsimper]

Ed:  but that's my point.  No matter how great the greens are, if the means of getting to them sucks, the course sucks.

But I would agree that good greens are something to seek out.

TH

Good greens are something that helps make things good...but a great course can overshadow mediocre greens, whereas great greens can't overshadow a mediocre course.

Huck's example of the Ranch is probably a good one (I've never seen the place, but I am certain based on Huck's comments that there are rabbits with legs growing out of their heads, squirrels with 3 eyes, and vultures with bloody feathers circling the property at all times) but the good greens there do not qualify it as a course worth seeking out.

On the converse, the greens at Bandon, while interesting from a design standpoint, are really not very good greens by the average golfer's definition.  They're long, shaggy, slow, etc.  Yet, low handicappers (and high ones alike) still flock to the place.  I would put good greens near the bottom of my top 5 or top 10 list.

But, this does not discount the truism that in ALL cases, good greens improve the golf experience over poor greens, especially for the low handicappers who expect to make 10 footers.

[Tom Huckaby]

Well said, Ryan.

And you have THE RANCH pretty well-assessed.

 

[BigEdSC]

Though I have never played the Ranch, but I've played Bandon two years ago.  The greens there are consistent.  My original post where a putt from six feet that goes everywhere on a bad green, I did not see that at Bandon.

What I am trying to say is that a well struck putt should go where it is intended.  

I'm sure that everyone here can gives examples of great courses with crappy greens and crappy courses with great greens, but I was responding to the question.

[Tom Huckaby]

Ed:  I get that - you look for consistent greens.

I guess my question is then:  is that enough to make you happy?  That is - say you accept that THE RANCH absolutely sucks tee to green, but that the greens are very consistent, true and fast.  Would that be enough for you to enjoy the course?  To seek it out?

I think I know the answer, but I just want to make sure.

 

[George Pazin]

I look at this topic a little differrently.

The reason DLIII's statement rings true is the credibility associated with someone's opinion. Let's face it, for the vast majority of the golfing populace, a low handicappers opinion is going to carry more weight. How many low handicappers are going to listen to high handicappers' opinions? Not many, if you ask me. Heck, I know there are people on this site that don't place much value on my opinion, since I outed myself as a high handicapper.

As for what low handicappers like, I don't think it differs much from high handicappers. I think most golfers like a course that feeds their egos, along with the requisite absurdly high conditioning. Nice views, both landscape and gender-wise, is a plus, but it isn't make or break.

Beyond that, for places other than the special resorts, it probably mostly comes down to supply and demand.

Just one high handicapper's opinion....

I guess I'm a bit more into instant gratification type of golf success than other low 'cappers... that's why as I read through George's very cool series on Merion...

Could someone please direct me to this series on Merion?

 

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

You can likely understand why I made that slip; I can't
be the only regular here who has Merion on the brain lately.

 

Obviously I meant Oakmont.

In any case good call re perceptions... yes, for whatever reason, right or wrong, those of low handicappers tend to be trusted more.  I'd guess it's because the assumption is that most low handicappers simply play more and are more into the game than high handicappers... Which is likely true just logically when one takes it as a generality, but obviously fails in many specific instances.

TH

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think having GOOD greens is just an obvious must, but a course needs more, its a product that sits on the shelf along with other products and whilst it must have the right ingredents to do the job, in some respects its the pretty packaging to make it stand out, that prettyness is in many forms.
Chris C made some good points I feel, perhaps summed up;  the low handicapper likes to be conned into thinking he is better than he is. I think a lot of low hcp golfers really like the idea of keeping their low handicaps.

[Scott Szabo]

For me, variety throughout the round speaks volumes.  Best examples I can give from recent play are Sand Hills and Ballyneal.  Both have long holes and short holes alike; some that turn left, some that turn right; some play uphill and some play downhill.  You can challenge a bunker or play safe -basically there are options galore, and that allows for play by all handicaps.

You're not getting drilled with long hole after long hole, which some people equate with the quality of the course.

Also, course conditioning goes along way for me.  I love fast, true greens, but don't mind playing slower ones if the contouring of the greens require that.  But they should be consistent.