Opinions on course difficulty---from supers!

[TEPaul]

Frankly, it never occured to me before to think of course difficulty in the opinions of supers, at least not in some collective sense.

Over the years I've been aware of the opinions of supers on the difficutly of their courses but only in an individual context.

Individually, I've found them to be all over the map on the difficulty of their courses---some do like their courses to be extremely difficult and others seem to think excessive difficulty is over the top and perhaps foolish, and perhaps more work.

I don't exactly have an opinion to offer on the subject, at least not now---it only occured to me it may be a most interesting subject indeed.

I sense---nay, I feel, the opinions of supers on this issue or the opinions of supers on almost any issue to do with courses, architecture and certainly how maintenance relates are some of the most important and interesting opinions of all.

How do you supers on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com feel about the subject of your course's difficutly? How do some of you all out there feel your super feels about the difficulty factor of your course?

[Craig Sweet]

We think we can set our course up to play extremely difficult...we often talk about the architectural features we like and dislike and what we would change if we could...I know that might scare some people, but we live with this course everyday and there are some architectural features that just don't work...either from a maintinence or a playability point of view...

But back to difficulty...we have to do a fair amount "dumbing down" of our course set up in the interest of speeding up play and catering to our higher handicap clientel..that is just the way it is...but from time to time, I set it up to be different...lengthen the par 4's to play 430 yards+....mix up the par 3's so they range from 125 yards to 200 yards....put some pins in dicey locations...for the regular players you have to keep it fun and not let it get boring...

[Peter Pallotta]

Bump. I thought it was a very good topic to begin with, and Craig's interesting post has me hoping for more.

Peter

   

[Joe Hancock]

I too think it is a very appropriate topic. I'm holding off a bit, as I think I view things a bit different as a super and an owner.....

Chime in, fellow turfheads....

Joe

[Don_Mahaffey]

Tom,
My course is not open yet so I can't comment on it in particular.
But my feeling in general after working on golf courses for the better part of two decades is this:
1. Architects are, in general, intent on challenging the longer shot, which of course gives the higher handicapper the most problem.

2. Building courses that give the player a chance to get near the green in one piece, yet challenge him once he gets there are great for the poorer player, yet drive the better player nuts.


3. A triple breaking putt maddens the better player, yet delights the weaker player, provided he didn't have to open 2 new sleeves to get to the green.

[Brett Morris]

I used to keep in mind that the average golfer has a handicap of 18, so setup was in mind of a member who only gets to play over the weekend and wants a bit of time out from work to enjoy a round of golf.  Speed of play is a big issue, particularly in daily fee or resort, but it also has to be a challenge for the lower handicap member.  I think it was Pete Dye who once asked how do you define the average golfer.  His reply was one who drives past an easy course onto a more challenging one.

For monthly medals, matchplay championships, pro-am events, it was always tricked up a bit and played alot harder.  The members expected it and enjoyed the new challenge, but they certainly didn't want to be belted around the head week in week out.

I think a Superintendent can find a nice balance between the two where it can easily be tweaked to increase or decrease difficulty.  It's their golf course after all  

[Casey Wade]

From a golf professional, superintendant relationship, it is imperitive that the super play his golf course on a regular (weekly) basis to get his own feel on general difficulty.  He can then train the staff better on some do's and don'ts based not only on player's suggestions but also his own.

I have worked with supers who hardly ever played, maybe twice a year, and I found it more difficult to discuss course difficulty with him than my current super who is about a 13 handicap, but plays about once a week.  

IMHO, the super gets to see his course from two different angles, agronomically, and playability.

[David_Elvins]

From a golf professional, superintendant relationship, it is imperitive that the super play his golf course on a regular (weekly) basis to get his own feel on general difficulty.  

Others may have different experiences, but a lot of the very good superintendents I have come across rarely play their course.  A good superintendent should be able to get a good feel for the course without playing it.  

[Casey Wade]

From a golf professional, superintendant relationship, it is imperitive that the super play his golf course on a regular (weekly) basis to get his own feel on general difficulty.  

Others may have different experiences, but a lot of the very good superintendents I have come across rarely play their course.  A good superintendent should be able to get a good feel for the course without playing it.  

My apologies David.  I was using my own experiences with the superintendent's I've had the pleasure of working with.  But what is rarely?  Once a month? Once every two months?  This would still be more than what the one super I worked with.  

I also agree that a good super should be able to get a feel.  But should and does are two different things that I feel can be narrowed by the super playing and seeing not only the agronomics, but also the playabilty

[Steve Lang]

 

I'd suggest that playing isn't as important as walking the course.. its been a while, but I had the experience once on the WCC North Course, with the supt walking through.. talked to him a bit and off he went..  always thought that had to be the best way to judge a course, by "feet on"..

[Craig Sweet]

The one thing that I have noticed with my super is he sees everything...he plays maybe once a week in a league, but while he's on the course working he "sees" things that you would think he might overlook...things that are easily overlooked....he has a sixth sense that comes from 15 years of doing this work...and he knows that certain problems occur in certain areas every year so he's looking for it well before an untrained eye sees it...

Back to difficulty....I have noticed that the two new courses in the area have raised the standard for set up, and the difficulty level acceptable....thus, there is a stronger feeling that the set up on our course can be more challenging without driving anyone away.

[Troy Alderson]

Tom,

I tend to side with making the golf course as easy as possible for daily play.  I play to the average handicap in the US and I enjoy playing golf when I score well as do most if not all golfers.

I believe that most golfers want a difficult set-up so that their handicaps are high when they go to play in tournaments and can win flights.  There is also the stigma of having the most difficult golf course in the area or nation if you are a top 10 golf course.

Difficult set-ups should be reserved for special tournaments that occur a few times a year.  I like to set-up the last day of a tournament as the easiest day if I can get the golf pro to agree.  That way alot of movement occurs on the leader board and makes it more exciting, giving everyone a chance at glory.

A superintendent has the best eye for the difficulty of the golf course, especially when the superintendent plays golf.  I remember an 18th hole with large juniper trees in the left center of the fairway landing area.  I would have loved to take down the biggest and farthest to the center to open up the landing area more.  Only the big drivers could get past the trees and if you did not you had to hit a low shot under the trees to land on a green that slopes away from play.  It was a hard green to hit in regulation.

I tried to set up 6 holes easy, 6 holes average, and 6 holes difficult for daily play.  Settiing up all the holes as one or the other will not bring the golfers back again.

When you are trying to move golfers through the golf course, make it easy and fun to play.  Leave the difficult set-up for the tournaments.

IMHO,
Troy

[ed_getka]

 Building courses that give the player a chance to get near the green in one piece, yet challenge him once he gets there are great for the poorer player, yet drive the better player nuts.

That is a great place to start.

[George Pazin]

Tom,
My course is not open yet so I can't comment on it in particular.
But my feeling in general after working on golf courses for the better part of two decades is this:
1. Architects are, in general, intent on challenging the longer shot, which of course gives the higher handicapper the most problem.

2. Building courses that give the player a chance to get near the green in one piece, yet challenge him once he gets there are great for the poorer player, yet drive the better player nuts.


3. A triple breaking putt maddens the better player, yet delights the weaker player, provided he didn't have to open 2 new sleeves to get to the green.

Maybe one of the best posts I've seen on here - no surprise considering the source!

[ed_getka]

When you guys are talking about playing easy, what exactly are you talking about? Rough length and thickness, green speeds, pin positions?

[TEPaul]

Don Mahaffey said:

"1. Architects are, in general, intent on challenging the longer shot, which of course gives the higher handicapper the most problem.

2. Building courses that give the player a chance to get near the green in one piece, yet challenge him once he gets there are great for the poorer player, yet drive the better player nuts."


Don:

Philosophically, I don't have any problem with #1, do you? The poorer player today needs to realize what his capabilities are before attempting some long shots and the best the architect should do for him is to give him a less risky alternative. However, the poorer player should realize that alternative may cost him a shot if he can't make it up on the next few.

Why do you say that #2 drives the better player nuts?

[TEPaul]

"When you guys are talking about playing easy, what exactly are you talking about? Rough length and thickness, green speeds, pin positions?"

Ed:

Yes, certainly all of that.

Let me give you an example of difficulty that some may question but I wonder if it's legitimate.

Take the 1st and 10th greens at Oakmont. Those two are extremely difficult to hit and hold on approach shots and obviously many golfers come up short on them. But all those golfers should probably realize a strategic reality of those holes and use it to their advantage to save strokes.

For instance, it has been said that Ben Hogn when he won the 1953 US Open intentionally played his approaches to those two greens over the green and then chipped back all four days. His explanation was he preferred to play from behind the green with his third shot rather than his fourth.

Higher handicappers should learn from that strategic lesson of Hogan's even if it means for their fourth shot rather than their fifth.

But that is an example of extreme difficutly.

Another old adage that applies here was from Tommy Armour when he advised that all golfers should try to hit shots that made their next shot easiest. Clearly by that Armour meant a golfer should try not to take extreme risks if he wanted to score well over the long haul.

[Joe Hancock]

Well, a couple comments...

To Steve Lang:

I like walking the course, but it is more of an observation on course presentation. I look for things that need tidying up and that sort of thing. Otherwise, from a playability standpoint, I really can't tell hoiw the ball is bouncing, or rolling, or reacting to the wind. Yes, I can make some guesses, but I need to play the course at least once a week to know what the playing conditions are.

Ed Getka:

Everything on the course matters. However, it matters more on some courses. A course with ample auxilary tee boxes can be set up more or less difficult based on distance than, say, my course, which only has one tee box option for each set of tee markers. On top of that, my tees are not very large, so tee angles and distances can't change too much. We manage more for even wear and tear than we do for course set up reasons.

Pin placements are an area we focus on for variety. I give my guys great freedom in using edges and toeing the line on slopes. We don't have many unpinnable areas, so we utilize all of it, with an average of two or three "interesting" (read:who would put that pin THERE?!) positions each day. That provides fun and challenge for everyone, regardless of ability.

Rough depth is a big thing to me. We normally keep ours just under 2 inches anyway, but when we're getting ample rain, we just mow more often so the daily player who isn't very strong (Now, I didn't actually say WOMEN or SENIORS, so lay off.... ) can find and extract their ball. When we get in a drought such as we are currently, the short roughs become thin and treacherous to offline shots, bringing every obstacle into play, whether it be tree, bunker, creek, etc. This obviously affects the harder hitting player, as their ball travels with more initial velocity.

Green speeds are maintained to be fun, first and foremost. They should be smooth and of reasonable speed for the design of the greens. Since it's Sunday, let's use Collosians 3:21 as a guideline: "Fathers, do not exasperate your children, lest they become discouraged."

Joe

[Steve Kline]

I know you didn't direct the question at me, but it does drive the better player buts, but in a good sense I think. My home course is not overly long but has very undulating greens - sometimes internal contours and sometimes just straight slope. This weekend I hit the ball well enough to shoot 66 but shot 71. I missed 5 or 6 birdie putts within 15 feet - all because I was on the wrong side of the hole and having to be tentative and play a lot of break on those putts. It drove me insane and I was a little hot at myself after the round. But it provides and great and interesting challenge. So it keeps the good payers from one putting as much as they would on flatter greens while the average player still has his share of 3 putts no matter what. I know I must hit the fairways to control my shots to the green to leave the ball on the proper part of the green. Each green has different parts you must hit to depending on the hole location. It's maddening, but a tremendous amount of fun, especially in a little wind.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Don Mahaffey said:

"1. Architects are, in general, intent on challenging the longer shot, which of course gives the higher handicapper the most problem.

2. Building courses that give the player a chance to get near the green in one piece, yet challenge him once he gets there are great for the poorer player, yet drive the better player nuts."


Don:

Philosophically, I don't have any problem with #1, do you? The poorer player today needs to realize what his capabilities are before attempting some long shots and the best the architect should do for him is to give him a less risky alternative. However, the poorer player should realize that alternative may cost him a shot if he can't make it up on the next few.

Why do you say that #2 drives the better player nuts?

Tom,
No I don't have a problem with architects challenging the longer shot as that is obviously a given on any full length golf course. My problem is when the longer shot is disproportionately the primary challenge while the putting surfaces themselves are basically tame. I see this a lot and IMO, it's without a doubt the simplest type of architecture to produce. Pinch in the landing area, grow long rough, line the edges of the narrow fairways with hazards, and design green complexes that require aerial approaches. This is the "tour style" and it is repeated a lot. And, just throwing some short tees out there doesn't make it "playable for all golfers". It's boring architecture.

BTW, I believe that playing out of the rough separates players of different levels more than anything else. Have you ever seen a 60-year old lady hit out of 3 inch rough? What she can do and what a young man with some golfing ability can do out of the rough is miles apart.

To answer your second question. IMO, the better player typically thinks the challenges he should face on the golf course should start with demanding tee shots that reward accuracy and length and punish crooked shots. After that he thinks the greens should be fortified enough to require precision approach shots, usually of a single variety, and again punish wayward shots. Lastly he thinks the greens should be fast, true and fair. I’ve played enough with good players, both professionals and amateurs to have heard all the “where are the windmills and clown mouth” I care to hear. Severely contoured greens are considered unfair by many good players.

I'll concede that what I wrote above contains gargantuan generalizations. But, I do believe that when we talk about what the elite player wants, my generalizations are a lot closer to the truth than any about options or strategy.
The last thing a better player wants is to be challenged by some guy who finds a way to hack his way close to the green in regulation. Especially if the hack then finds a way to negotiate a challenging green and the elite player does not.

I base my opinions on having hosted many top amateur, club pro, and PGA qualifying events; as well as personally competing in many amateur events. I've also been around golf courses for a while and have received boatloads of valuable advice and input over the years. So, that's my opinion on course difficulty.  

[mike_beene]

Weds at Oakmont I heard one of the caddies say something about a Mr Paul.I did not think more about it until I saw this thread.Tell me I didn't blow a chance to meet a legend.

[Peter Pallotta]

To anyone who's posted: I might be reading the posts wrong, but no one seems to have mentioned the relationship between maintenance practices (for harder/easier course set-ups) and the architect's-design's orginal intent, e.g. the  option for a run-up shot on a green with a wide opening up front, and thus no rough up there at the opening; or a fairway that's tilted severely and thus ideally requires a draw to keep the ball up the slope-side, but only if the fairway is running fast etc.

Do those kind of maintenance questions/issues not come up as often as I imagine, especially in terms of making the course harder/easier? Or, pehaps I shouldn't be trying to generalize one way or another from your posts?

Peter    

[TEPaul]

Don:

Very fine answers to my questions on post #19. Thanks.

Basically, it's one of the hardest things to do to convince good players that architecture should allow players who are not very good to get lucky and tie them or beat them with shots that don't seem skilled or well thought out.

My only answer----and the only one I think is effective, is if they can't handle that kind of thing they aren't particularly mentally strong competitors.  

You know that old saw---"that's the way the ball bounces"?

Take that out of architecture and golf completely and you'll probably gut the entire game.

[Mike_Cirba]

This is a great topic where I don't have much to offer, but did want to encourage the participants to continue to educate us.

Interestingly, I played a round recently with a very learned course architect who commented to me that superintendents were the unsung, unseen, and sometimes unwitting  contributors to course architecture over the years.

[RJ_Daley]

Also, I'm not a super, but I think I recognise certain sly humor when having attended a few super conventions and seminars regarding their ability to 'set-up' THEIR courses tough or everyday playable.  

I think that with some older courses, as stated above, there aren't enough teeing ground options to effect angles to favored LZs.  So, the issue on toughening set up is obviously mowing lines (not very flexible in context of moving them in or out at will) and Height of cut rough depth.  Then, the auxillary thing to that is firmness in the FWs to cause a ball to have more chance to bound into trouble.  Approaches to greens and greens surrounds are also an area that the super has some crafty flexibility.  Both in firmness, HOC and collar width.  Again, for the requirement for everyday play, the width can't be too variable to arbitrarily tamper with the collar.  Most obvously, the firmness of greens and speed relative to pin placements is the huge factor.  We all know that.

But also, the style of golf course is critical to allowing the super to do certain maintenance things to alter the difficulty.  Look at Whistling Straits last week.  How differently would that course have played if they (directing the super to do so - which he could have if desired) firm up the approaches.  For a short time of the tournament, assuming no or little rain and proper drainage in the foregreens, he could have gotten the foregreens rock hard, and that would have made a huge scoring difference (IMHO).  I wrote about how they brought some mowing lines in and left a few bunkers outside the FW cut, since the 04 PGA.  They could on a long term basis go back to bringing the bunkers on those holes back within the FW lines with more FW around and behind them (8 and 13 for sure). Parkland courses have different considerations to alter maintenance due to the corridors of play.  

Our super is a county department head and pretty much has complete control and oversight for all golf course and club house operations.  He has been there many years.  I never have seen him play a round of golf in the 17 years I've been there.  I have been to a super seminar and observed his conversation with his peers.  I think he knows every trick in the book as to how he can alter to the max how "HIS" course plays.  He can schedule little maintenance things as short as a week in advance to tweak it up for competitions.  Like most any other super similar to Joe Hancock, with their skin in the game, they need and want the course to play efficiently for all on a regular basis.  But, if they are feeling a little creative, or their course is holding a toon-a-mint, they know where they can futz around to make things more challenging.  

[Tags:]

Tags: