Is it possible to design a course for the 20 handicap and the + handicap golfer?

[Jed Peters]

Jed:

I suppose it's possible to make any course suit this line of thinking, if you want to make them all 7600 yards from the back tees.  But that is a waste of a lot of real estate, and it will stretch out the course to make it a pain to walk.

Sebonack definitely worked out to be tough enough for the great players, and somehow we got it to be walkable as well.  Not sure it's playable enough for every 20-handicap, though.

Tom:

I have only seen pictures of that course, and it seems that it'd be difficult for the "average" club golfer to get around there adequately, like they could at Pac. No doubt, the two courses have very different identities/reasons for being, but I'm just saying.

Was the amount of length/difficulty more dictated by JN or by yourself? Or collaborative?

[Jed Peters]

As everyone knows, I hate "formulas" for design.  One of the things I dislike about the suggestion for angling tees is that it lessens the variety of the course if the doglegs are all sharper for the back-tee player, and all gentler for the middle-tee player.

It seems like good players always want to dumb down the course from the middle tees.  Why shouldn't the members enjoy a variety of holes?  And why does every hole have to be hard?

Tom:

This is the genius of Pac, like I've said it before. I've played every tee box here, including the all-the-way-forward tees on some holes, and the fact that you THOUGHT about every level of golfer to present some fun/great golf experience was HUGE to me. That is what has impressed me most about Pac.

On some holes the "whites" are better holes than from the "tips"!

[Adrian_Stiff]

Brad- I think its just a blonde v brunettes situ. Some simply like tough holes and you are right that many think an easy hole can for some reason not be a great hole. I quite like the easy half par holes, the 290 yard par 4 for instance, but a 250 yard par 3 I think I would tend to dislike more. a 470 yard par 4 or 480 yard par 5 I dont have an issue with either way, par is meaningless really, but is part of the game generally there is a liking for a hole to be a short 5 rather than a long 4 amongst a normal golf membership, so I think normal handicap golfers prefer easy. Golf is part of the entertainment business and we are here to make people enjoy their golf. I played PGA West and came off with a headache and whilst I enjoyed it, it was hardwork really; Pebble beach  i found easy; I think different courses will please different markets and its possible to produce a course that the majority of golfers ie up to 20 hcp could enjoy. I think to produce something that a pro or a 30 hcp golfer could enjoy is probably not doable.

[Jed Peters]

Jed,

I think its possible, although getting harder.  I think the ANGC/strategic model still rules, at least presuming the new rough doesn't stay in place all year and the greens roll something less than 13 for regular play.  

The lessons learned there seem to be:

Multiple Tees - (Reduced Dogleg and Fw Angles, Forced Carries and Hole Distance)

Wide Fw at 200-220 Yards, Fw narrower as tee shot distances increase

Light or No Rough (except for tournaments of consequence)

Minimum of Forced Carries, Use more lateral hazards

Minimum of Sand Hazards, Use more grass hazards

Minimum of Water Hazards

Consideration of Hazard Placement -

   General - Left to right side ratio of about 2:1
   FW - Mostly at distances played by better players (lack of  distance is penalty enough for missed shot)
   Green - Mostly Mid Green rather than green front (esp. on right side)

Generally Larger, Rolling Greens with a few "Sunday Pins" and lots of flatter spots in between

We could add "containment fairways" and "save bunkers" but I don't think those are strictly necessary.  I wish there were some new dramatic thoughts on the subject, but I haven't really seen any, here or anywhere!

Jeff:

Very well thought out post.

I like your propositions here.

[Tim Bert]

Now take Pac Dunes. Pac, to me, is a WAY more fun golf course. It's short enough to not have to play a long iron into  every green, it's got bumps and rolls, there aren't a lot of forced carries, the ball runs to greens if the ball's missed, etc. etc. But I think Pac would LAY DOWN if good amateurs/playing pros played it every day or in a big tournament, even compared to Trails and Bandon Dunes (from the tips).

I think another consideration we need to take into account is stroke play vs. match play.  Pac Dunes is a much better match play course in my opinion.  As a low teens handicapper, I can make a par or birdie on any hole out there.  At the same time, I can (and have) thrown up an 8 or worse on almost every hole.  I would also love to watch Tiger vs. Phil out there in a match, even though they might devour the course without 25mph wind.

To the mid-handicapper what makes PacDunes so difficult is the looming blow-up.  #1 giant pit of sand dune death to the right off the tee.   #4 giant ocean on the right and destructo dune to the left of the green.  #6 pit of death to those that come up short.  I could go on and on.  I absolutely love the course, but Bandon Dunes plays much easier for me in a stroke play format.  Bandon Dunes is a solid test of golf, but it doesn't present a blow-up option on every hole.    I would guess due to the length with tees at the tips it would also play more difficult for the pros.

So, why isn't Bandon Dunes in this discussion?  Is it too easy for the pros because it is just about right for the mid-to-high handicapper.

[Jeff Doerr]

I think the big problem is getting people to play the right tees. The 20 handicapper who needs to, "see the whole course" is a curse to all.

If I remember it right, Crosswater at Sunriver makes a big jump from the white tees as you go back. I played the blues at 6800 something and the carries where challenging but not impossible for a 6 or 7. Walking by the back tees I thought I'd get my butt kicked from those. The white tees were another story, they seemed super close (6,000 at altitude?).

I remember thinking that the resort high handicapper could navigate this BIG course from the whites and do ok. The very back tees looked like they could challenge the best.

[Jed Peters]

I think another consideration we need to take into account is stroke play vs. match play.  Pac Dunes is a much better match play course in my opinion.  As a low teens handicapper, I can make a par or birdie on any hole out there.  At the same time, I can (and have) thrown up an 8 or worse on almost every hole.  I would also love to watch Tiger vs. Phil out there in a match, even though they might devour the course without 25mph wind.

To the mid-handicapper what makes PacDunes so difficult is the looming blow-up.  #1 giant pit of sand dune death to the right off the tee.   #4 giant ocean on the right and destructo dune to the left of the green.  #6 pit of death to those that come up short.  I could go on and on.  I absolutely love the course, but Bandon Dunes plays much easier for me in a stroke play format.  Bandon Dunes is a solid test of golf, but it doesn't present a blow-up option on every hole.    I would guess due to the length with tees at the tips it would also play more difficult for the pros.

So, why isn't Bandon Dunes in this discussion?  Is it too easy for the pros because it is just about right for the mid-to-high handicapper.

I have said before that Pac is by far the better match play course....for any golfer.

Bandon Dunes has tees you have never seen, even playing there a bunch of times. They can stretch it to 7400.

[Sean_A]

I absolutely believe its possible to entertain 20 cappers and + players.  It is probably necessary to err (such as with some of the ideas Jeff mentioned) on the side of the 20 capper, but I think many + players will and do buy this logic so long as they are having fun.  I think some on this thread are over-estimating how good + players are.  I have seen plenty of + players beaten by 5-7 cappers on their day.  There are plenty of courses about such as Dornoch that satisfy both ends of the spectrum admirably.  I also think Adrian is right in that a course like Painswick can be a great equaliser.  A decent player can go low around there.  

Ciao

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think the big problem is getting people to play the right tees. The 20 handicapper who needs to, "see the whole course" is a curse to all.

That is a problem. If a 180 yard hitter plays tees that make most of the par 4's more than 360 yards, and par 5's of more than 540 yards, he has up to 14 more shots per typical round.  Similar stats come up for the 230 yard typical male golfer.  And of course, that presumes the same amount of missed greens, which would go up with longer approaches and the same number of duffs, which would go up with the greater number of shots.

A typical player shoots 90 in 4.5 hours or 270 minutes, so we can figure 3 minutes a shot, or 40 extra minutes on average just from playing too long a tee.  Yes, you could argue that some of that is travel time that has to be made from tee to green anyway, but it would be at least 14 extra minutes, and  probably more like 20.

On many longer courses these days, I try like heck to hide the back tee on the first few holes as my contribution to getting players to go up a tee.

[Jed Peters]

 I think some on this thread are over-estimating how good + players are.  I have seen plenty of + players beaten by 5-7 cappers on their day.  

Even the Patriots lose once in a while too, sean. (That's american football, for you!)

But on a daily basis, as a consistent quality course, I think people on here vastly underestimate competitive amateurs or playing pros and how good they are.

An example is at the last GCA outing at my club, the question was asked to Kyle Phillips about our short par 4 (361) 4th and how it was not realistically drivable even for playing pros. It plays something like 303 from the white tees.

I just watched someone put it in on the green, pin high last weekend from the "unreachable" tees. And he's not even the longest in our club.

Our 610 yard par 5 5th that runs slightly uphill and requires a 300+ carry to avoid ESA that cuts into the fairway was hit the same day by ANOTHER player in our group with driver/5 iron.

[AndrewB]

Jed, what you're describing is the ability to hit the ball a long way, not being a good player.  One may lead to the other, but I've seen plenty of bad golfers that can hit the ball a long way.  As Tom Doak said in the other thread, "everyone can drive it far now".

I generally agree that most people overestimate how good scratch or plus handicap players are, thinking they are just a whisker away from being a Tour pro.  Especially the way the USGA calculates handicaps.

[Joe Bentham]

  Not only is it possible, it should be the goal of any GCA charging for his services.
As for Pacific Dunes laying down, it just don't happen.  All of the good rounds I've seen out there have been a result of one golfing his ball and thinking his way around the course, regardless of conditions.
And besides, Golf courses aren't designed without the weather being taken into consideration.  Tom built Pac knowing it would be played in 20-30 mph wind the overwhelming majority.  If there is 10 days a year when that doesn't happen, so be it.  Good for the folks playing those days.
The reason IMO, Pacific holds the attention of low and high handicappers is the tee shots.  There isn't a hole on the course where there isn't a ideal spot to be in those wide fairways.  The width allows the higher handicapper to spray the ball a bit of the tee, but if you want to score you need to be focused on a specific spot.
Bandon Dunes does not hold up to that same test (in fairness though some of that is due to maintaince decisions).  And in order to challenge the low guys you'd have to set the course up at a length that would be unplayable for the high handicappers.
There are a lot of issues in this discussion besides design.  Technology has widened the gap between high and low handicappers.  And intent, why we play golf, has a lot to do with it.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

yes yes and more yes It is in the tees and green complexes to me

[Sean_A]

Jed

To my way of thinking, unless a guy can shoot consistently in the 60s on a course with a card in his hand, then he is being sufficiently challenged.  That sort of scoring just doesn't happen all that often from players on the lower rungs of good amateurs.  For instance, a few years ago Golf World used to host a champion of champions a Woodhall Spa.  Club champions were (this tourmament may still be going on) invited to play over a few days.  These guys were mainly in the +2 to 2 range - good players.  They didn't tear up Woodhall - which is about 7000 yards from all the way back, but I doubt these guys played the full length.  The winner would usually be a few under par.  Besides, the short tees at 6500ish yards had two shots off the par so they aren't really any easier than the backs in terms of shooting under par.  I would say courses like this give quite good amateurs all they can deal with AND Woodhall is only one of many courses that can host second tier events.

Ciao

Ciao

[Jed Peters]

Jed, what you're describing is the ability to hit the ball a long way, not being a good player.  One may lead to the other, but I've seen plenty of bad golfers that can hit the ball a long way.  As Tom Doak said in the other thread, "everyone can drive it far now".

I generally agree that most people overestimate how good scratch or plus handicap players are, thinking they are just a whisker away from being a Tour pro.  Especially the way the USGA calculates handicaps.

Andrew, there is a premium on hitting the ball straight though, no?

And the guys I'm talking about you're familiar with (Vince Venard drove the par 4 and Erick Justesen hit driver-5 into the 5th).  So they're long and straight!

[Jed Peters]

 Not only is it possible, it should be the goal of any GCA charging for his services.
As for Pacific Dunes laying down, it just don't happen.  All of the good rounds I've seen out there have been a result of one golfing his ball and thinking his way around the course, regardless of conditions.
And besides, Golf courses aren't designed without the weather being taken into consideration.  Tom built Pac knowing it would be played in 20-30 mph wind the overwhelming majority.  If there is 10 days a year when that doesn't happen, so be it.  Good for the folks playing those days.
The reason IMO, Pacific holds the attention of low and high handicappers is the tee shots.  There isn't a hole on the course where there isn't a ideal spot to be in those wide fairways.  The width allows the higher handicapper to spray the ball a bit of the tee, but if you want to score you need to be focused on a specific spot.
Bandon Dunes does not hold up to that same test (in fairness though some of that is due to maintaince decisions).  And in order to challenge the low guys you'd have to set the course up at a length that would be unplayable for the high handicappers.
There are a lot of issues in this discussion besides design.  Technology has widened the gap between high and low handicappers.  And intent, why we play golf, has a lot to do with it.

Joe:

I'm anxious to play with you in our group! I'd like to see if you can impart any knowledge into how Chanon gets around the course, and to see if you can help him do it better.

Are you saying Pac doesn't lay down for Jamie? I'd bet he can consistently go mid 60s there.....and he's the best player at the course (naturally speaking, of course!) isn't he?

[Jeff Doerr]

On many longer courses these days, I try like heck to hide the back tee on the first few holes as my contribution to getting players to go up a tee.

Jeff, I've noticed this on a few courses, I like the intentionality of what you are talking about.

The other issue already mentioned a bit is getting the green contours to really challenge the birdie putt. Most players can 3-4 putt no matter what their handicap. Getting the greens to require a precise approach to have a chance for birdie is critical. Thankfully there seems to be a move away from the non-golden age tabletops with a tier or a slight tilt.

[Jed Peters]

The other issue already mentioned a bit is getting the green contours to really challenge the birdie putt. Most players can 3-4 putt no matter what their handicap. Getting the greens to require a precise approach to have a chance for birdie is critical. Thankfully there seems to be a move away from the non-golden age tabletops with a tier or a slight tilt.

I think that putting green contours are perhaps the best way to defend birdie or "going low".

If you want to score well, you have to putt well.

[AndrewB]

Jed, I don't know the holes you used as your examples so I can't comment on whether hitting it straight is important on them.  My point really was that isolated examples of driving greens or reaching holes in two is not in and of itself indicative of how good a player is.  Score is really the only thing that matters and there are a lot of ways to get the ball in the hole.

And, my intent was not to imply that the players you used as examples were bad players.  Sorry if it came across that way.  I have had the opportunity to play a few rounds with Erick in tournaments and he's certainly a fine player.

[Jed Peters]

Jed, I don't know the holes you used as your examples so I can't comment on whether hitting it straight is important on them.  My point really was that isolated examples of driving greens or reaching holes in two is not in and of itself indicative of how good a player is.  Score is really the only thing that matters and there are a lot of ways to get the ball in the hole.

I hear ya.

I'm just putting forth those examples as 16 members of GCA had the opportunity to play them and (almost) universally brought up the same thoughts--that no one would be able to do those things and that the hole (short par 4 fourth) should be modified accordingly.

And I hear you that score is really the only thing that matters...but when you're hitting 4 wood when others are hitting 5 iron, it's certainly easier to get the 5 iron close!

[Doug Siebert]

But the simple fact is that every golf course now has members who can drive it 280 and hit 5 iron 200; the old standard of a 460 yard par 4 is just driver 7 iron for them. Golf would be much easier for me if I never hit more than 7 iron into any par 4 hole.

So?  Golf would be much easier for me if I hit it as straight as you probably do

[Doug Siebert]

On many longer courses these days, I try like heck to hide the back tee on the first few holes as my contribution to getting players to go up a tee.

The Anama Colonies Golf Course that's about a half hour from me here in snowy Iowa has a few holes where the only way to get to the back tee is to get your ass out of the cart and walk up a fairly steep hill.  Even though the back tees are comparatively short these days at under 6900 yards, I can certainly notice a difference in the wear and tear on those teeboxes.

So just make all your back teeboxes inaccessible by cart and you'll probably cut out 90% of the people who don't belong there (and perhaps half of those who do )

[Philippe Binette]

I don't think anybody ever designed a course for everybody, it's a totally false statement from any architect... hell is the Old Course was for the 20 + handicap, it wouldn't be OB right all the way...

I think you can designed a course for everybody who kind of has an idea of where is golf ball is going... the rest of the players, give them good green contours, plenty of rooom to run the ball on the greens and some width...

you'll never make a course wide enough for everybody...

you can think about design for a tour calibre player, decent club players, an old men who hits the ball consistently 130 yards, but there's no way you can specifically design a course for the big stupid cart-player who step on every tee and wak the driver as hardas he can...

that's where the teaching of golf is really off the world, you have to teach people how to play golf, not make nice swings... even if that mean showing to a 6 feet 200 pounds guy to half swing the ball to hit a ball 140 yards with 10 yards of fade to start with...

All the mechanics and technique is relevant to somebody who can play golf...

[Doug Siebert]

TOC should be fine for slicers, so long as they are honest with themselves about their slicing.  There's plenty of room to aim left.  Yeah, the angles of approach aren't as good, but 20+ handicappers don't care about that stuff anyway.  Or at least shouldn't worry themselves too much if they end up with an angle of approach that makes birdie near impossible and par difficult.

[Philippe Binette]

The Old Course is as close as ideal for everybody, so is Royal Melbourne in my mind... the thing is, as long as people don't know how to PLAY golf, all the courses are wrong,
tee should be inclined to help slicers, not enough width here, too slopy there, greens should hold more, bunkers are too severe, grass is too long, bushes are trouble, to many holes into crosswind, cross bunkers is too hard a carry (but a river is fine!!!!) no mounds to prevent ball from going too far off line...

This way maybe Oakmont is perfect, it's tremendously hard for everybody.