How do you define playable?

[Matt MacIver]

I agree it doesn't pass George's test.  

But I think to carry the hill is something like 175 yards from the middle tees?  The ground game is NOT an option for this hole, and I love the ground game...but I also love the mental aspect of this hole.  There's always the option of choosing the right tees for your game, but who wants to play the greens when only the first hole requires it?  

Tough call, for me, I guess, but in my definition, this one is playable.

[George Pazin]

George,
Congratulations, you've narrowed it down to about 7 golf courses that are playable.

   

Always happy to please a poster....

Obviously this is a theoretical discussion, not a strictly practical one. It's similar to discussing an "ideal" course, if that exists. Garland is simply applying my definition of what I consider playable, but there are many folks who don't agree with my definition, even on this thread.

I would argue that there are a heckuva lot more than 7 courses that fit my definition, however.

In some respects, though, I must admit I'm challenging the point of something like Pine Valley. Not PV specifically, because I know that PV was built to test the championship level golfer, not the average golfer who gets out maybe once or twice a month, but courses that have attempted to follow its lead. Repeated carries off the tee that really don't challenge a low handicapper, but drastically punish a high handicapper, are really nothing more than ego strokers, in many respects.

Having said that, my understanding is PV caddies can find almost any tee shot, so maybe it almost fits!

[Jim_Kennedy]

George,
Just joshin' you!

I don't know if it's possible to ever get a good definition of what's playable. If you are going to base it on carries then a WF is probably more 'playable' then many an 'average' course you'd find.
What about narrow fairways, or a tee shot from a chute, they're every bit as unplayable for some. Even if you use TD's definition, i.e., no forced carries 100/150 yds from the green, you'd still have to include massive width to accommodate the crooked among us.

I just don't see the same 'ideal' as you, but keep chipping away at it.    

[Garland Bayley]

Of course then we could define "Van de Velde playable".   I saw a clip from the commercial he made making a 6 on #18 after losing the open. He did it with a putter. The shot I saw him make was a left handed pitch over the burn onto the green using the flange on an Ping Anser style putter to help loft the ball. I suppose he drove right handed off a tee, and putted right handed. The intervening shots where he needed loft I suppose were done left handed.

[George Pazin]

George,
Just joshin' you!

I don't know if it's possible to ever get a good definition of what's playable. If you are going to base it on carries then a WF is probably more 'playable' then many an 'average' course you'd find.
What about narrow fairways, or a tee shot from a chute, they're every bit as unplayable for some. Even if you use TD's definition, i.e., no forced carries 100/150 yds from the green, you'd still have to include massive width to accommodate the crooked among us.

I just don't see the same 'ideal' as you, but keep chipping away at it.    

Fair points, indeed.

The reason I posed the question about playability is that I believe all too often these days, playability is simply "Play from the right tees", as though transforming a 150 yard carry off the tee to a 70 yard carry solves the inherent problem.

And, for the record, I hate tee shots from a chute - maybe more than anything else!

 

[Richard Boult]

How many 150 yard hazards resulting in lost ball and penalty stroke do you find on the great links courses of the world? (you know, the origins of golf)

Don't plenty of links courses have 150 carries over gorse? That's likely a lost ball or penalty stroke too. Seems to me that if a golf course is developed along the coast, it has dunes and gorse to carry, if it's in a forest, it has trees to maneuver, if it's in Minnesota, it has lakes to carry... Not sure how the "origins of golf" have to do with playability?

[Garland Bayley]

Don't plenty of links courses have 150 carries over gorse? ...

Name one.

[Matt_Ward]

I've read this thread from first to last post -- a few thoughts.

Guys, wake up -- there are a number of people who could not hit Kansas from the Oklahoma state line.

Guess what?

Those types of courses do not fail because there are people who can't hit the ball at all.

Maybe the issue is a simple one -- THEY NEED LESSONS !!!

Geeze, what a novel thought.

Black Mesa is certainly playable -- PROVIDED -- you play the correct tees that tie directly to your golf ability.

If one starts to brow beat Black Mesa then people should be chirping like morning birds about Pine Valley -- or a host of other such courses.

The bigger issue is when pop-gun players whine and bark about a course being unplayable when the sad reality -- often completely ignored -- is that they played the course from tee boxes in which they cannot cope.

Don't blame the course -- blame the player for their own stupidity.

[Joe Hancock]

Matt,

Unaccomplished players suffer not only in distance, but also in direction. The people who didn't hit Kansas from Oklahoma may have sliced it into Missouri or hooked into Colorado.

Playing the correct tees only gets a bad player through the round quicker, it doesn't make them better.

Joe

[Garland Bayley]

Matt,

I thought you said you read the whole thread. You did not offer a different definition of playable, so we must assume you were using the one used in the thread. By that measure you are way off base. Oakmont is playable. Black Mesa is not.

If you give a little latitude to the playability definition as George did, then Black Mesa becomes marginally playable (provided you don't get bit by a rattler)

[Andy Troeger]

Regarding Black Mesa...

The green tees (not the forward, but the second set) play 287 on the 1st hole. Its at MOST 125 yards to clear the hill and fly to the fairway.

Black Mesa is not a course you can dribble a ball of the tee even from the forward set without having it end up in the desert. However, from the forward tees there is also no hole that's a longer carry than the 1st to reach the fairway (and I'm saying that going through the yardage book).

Garland, with all due respect your comment about kissing the ball goodbye if you hit over the hill is a bit off. A guy I played with hit it over there and he found his. In the times I've played there I've found my ball 80% of the time I hit it in the desert, higher than just about any course I've played in a desert setting. If it were rattler season you'd have a point, but not for the fact that ball isn't sitting out there in view most of the time. If you truly could not find your ball, that would change my opinion of the course because it is difficult to keep the ball out of the desert.

Black Mesa is certainly not in the top 50% in terms of playability. Its probably not in the top 75%, however, all courses considered its certainly NOT the poster child for an unplayable course.

Wuskowhan Players Club to me might be a better example. With 23 forced carries its tough for the higher handicap but its width makes it pretty simple for a good player on their game. When I look at playability one thing I look at is whether a course plays hard for the weak player but easy for the strong one. Coyote Crossing in Indiana struck me that way too because of forced carries over a creek. Neither are bad courses, just not the most playable.

I've never been to Britain, but does anyone care to claim you can't lose a fair amount of golf balls on some of those famous links courses especially if you hit the ball a bit crooked? If anyone cares to make that argument I'll listen, but remember, not everyone gets spectators and forecaddies

[TEPaul]

"Suffice is to say that I don't consider a course playable when more than a few forced carries of ANY length is required."

Sean:

This point and question has been worked over on here for years.

The real issue is playable for whom?

I reject the contention by some on here that a course like Pine Valley can never be considered "ideal" because it has far too many forced carries.

The question becomes "ideal" for whom?

The course was not designed for hackers----it was designed basically for good players.

Does this fact make the course, the quality of its architecture etc, etc, in some way deficient or unideal?

Not to me. Matter of fact, I think it probably is the ideal, in the sense it tests the game well of those that golfers should strive to emulate as best they can.

Catering to the lowest common denominator may be useful in democratic theory but not necessarily in great golf course architecture.    

[Matt_Ward]

Garland:

Black Mesa is VERY PLAYABLE -- when played within the scope of one's true golf handicap.

We agree to disagree.

TEPaul:

Kudos to your comments on your last post. Thank God PV has not seen fit to be "player-friendly" and lose all semblance of what has and continues to make it great.

[Jim_Kennedy]

George,
I'm with you, I'm not a big fan of hitting it out of a chute either, but that wouldn't deter me from playing such a hole (especially if it came late in the round, like the 18th at Augusta, although the forced carries I would face on a few of the holes prior to 18 might make me wonder about the playability of the course on the whole).  

We make about 750,000 balls a day in the U.S., our drowning of some of them every now and then, in a vain attempt at a forced carry, is good for their population control and our egos.

[Garland Bayley]

Regarding Black Mesa...
...

Garland, with all due respect your comment about kissing the ball goodbye if you hit over the hill is a bit off. A guy I played with hit it over there and he found his. In the times I've played there I've found my ball 80% of the time I hit it in the desert, higher than just about any course I've played in a desert setting. If it were rattler season you'd have a point, but not for the fact that ball isn't sitting out there in view most of the time. If you truly could not find your ball, that would change my opinion of the course because it is difficult to keep the ball out of the desert.

...
(emphasis added)

Well Andy, guess you need to change your opinion of the course! I hit a big hook, followed by a big block off the first tee. No trouble clearing the hill, but no way to get a line on where the ball ended up. Lost them both!

[Garland Bayley]

Garland:

Black Mesa is VERY PLAYABLE -- when played within the scope of one's true golf handicap.

...

I assume this is you attempt to define playable. However, I have no idea what you mean.

[George Pazin]

What Matt means is that if you are a high handicapper who only hits his drives 150 yards, BUT hits them straight every time, AND if you hit your irons straight every time,WITH no mishits, AND if you play the right tees, THEN Black Mesa is playable.

It's certainly not Black Mesa's fault, nor the designer, it's simply one of the shortcomings of desert golf.

I leave it to others to determine whose definition of playable makes more sense.

The math geek in me is suggesting we introduce a new term, pleasantly playable, we'll call it P playable. This terms removes the literal problems with my definition, and instead offers a subjective interpretation. We can even introduce a scale! 1 to 10.

I haven't seen a desert course yet that approaches the P playability goal of 10. But I have only played about a half dozen, so maybe I just haven't played the right ones. CORRECTION: I found Fazio's Primm Valley Desert course to be very playable. The desert areas were very playable.

I've been pounding the myth of appropriate tees for quite awhile now. It's one of the most glaring problems in golf course design, imho.

[Jim_Kennedy]

George,
In your new scale for PP courses, is 10 a 'stand up' course and 1 a 'sit down'?  


p.s. I'm sorry George, I couldn't help myself. I take what you are saying seriously and I am generally in favor of playability.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

There is no "myth" concerning appropriate tee boxes. The myth is about the self-proclaimed ability level of people who have little on that front and decide to blame the course instead of doing a bit more self introspection.

George, don't know if you only played Black Mesa but if that's the case -- you missed plenty. There is room off the fairways to play recovery shorts. Recovery doesn't mean you can escape with no penalty and reach the green in regulation.

Black Mesa hands out penalities on a proportionate basis in direct regard to the quality of the shot played. I define that as an exceptional layout because there's this silly notion that all courses must be as wide as Kansas in order to be the prototype of what constitutes quality design. There's also the compansion falsehood that all desert golf is woefully deficient.

The reality is that Black Mesa does provide for recovery and to Baxter Spann's consider credit there are several different options when playing any of the holes there.

Knowing thyself as a golfer is the first thing many people quickly jettison because it's so easy to blame anything else than to look a good bit inwards for the real answer.

Garland:

I'll repeat what I said for the hard of hearing.

People who play the wrong tee boxes then bitch and moan about unfair a particular course is -- when the more sane solution is to play from forward tees and choose your clubs more appropriately when playing.

I've seen plenty of high handicappers whine, bark, howl, to list just a few criticisns.

Black Mesa is playable when people accept their own limitations and adjust accordingly.

For God's sake -- send someone to Dunluce Links at Royal Portrush and if they play as haphazardly as they do at Black Mesa the same situation applies. Is Dunluce then a poor golf course because of the stupidity of the people who don't know what they can and cannot reasonably do on a golf course.

Unfortunately, instead of pointing the blame at oneself -- the general tendency is to point the finger at the golf course and say, "it's not me -- 'it's the course."

I've played Black Mesa more than a few times -- don't know how many times you played it -- have been paired with a mix bag of different levels of golfers and to a person they enjoyed the course immensely. They acknowledged its demands but were smart enough to play from tee boxes that provided them with a fun and challenging day within their golf ability levels.

[George Pazin]

Yeah, I suppose I should just play all the desert courses from the forward tees and only play with my short irons.

 

[Jim_Kennedy]

George,
As an adjunct to your 'playability' scale maybe you could come up with a 'skipability' (too much carry?, skip this hole) scale for those who just have to try playing the unplayable.

I really like what I saw on my one visit to FI, on some holes green markers are placed in the fairway ahead of whatever trouble looms from the back tees.
So, you can take out that old ball that's been rolling around in the bottom of your bag, take a whack at it, and if you don't clear the gunk you don't have to stand there emptying out your remaining cache, just move ahead to the green tees and hit from there.

 

[Garland Bayley]

Yeah, I suppose I should just play all the desert courses from the forward tees and only play with my short irons.

 

I just can't figure how I am going to clear that hill on #1 with my sand wedge.    Assuming of course I hit my sand wedge online.  

[Kalen Braley]

Yeah, I suppose I should just play all the desert courses from the forward tees and only play with my short irons.

 

I just can't figure how I am going to clear that hill on #1 with my sand wedge.    Assuming of course I hit my sand wedge online.  

Garland,

Perhaps golf is just not your sport.  Have you thought about raquetball or tennis?  Or maybe even badmiton??    

[Andy Troeger]

Garland,
The area left of #1 is probably one of the worst on the course. Either way, its a BIG fairway hidden behind the hill. As you said, its a BIG hook and BIG slice to lose the ball there.

I've hit it in the desert on #2 right (found), #3 right (found), #5 right twice (found both), #9 left (found), #10 left (lost), #13 left (lost), #14 left twice (found both), #17 left (found), and #8 right (found). Seeing as many of these shots were plenty offline, that's pretty reasonable in my opinion, maybe you need to look harder!  

I think George has a point about desert courses in general, but Black Mesa is among the best of bunch at trying to allow some recovery chances. Matt describes this pretty well IMO. For a course that gets praised here frequently, Desert Forest to me is the example of lost ball desert golf if you hit it off line. No one yet has expained to me how that's fun. It makes BM look wide and easy.

[Garland Bayley]

Well at least you people admit that Black Mesa is a desert course.

When I first complained about playing desert golf and it's related problems at Black Mesa, I got flamed with statements saying Black Mesa wasn't a desert course.  

Andy,

I found plenty of my off line shots at BM (for that matter, I even parred from rattlesnake area). It is just that on the first hole, they disappear behind the hill, which makes them harder to find.