[Joe Bausch]

That is the title of an article put up on the web today here:

http://www.golfcourseindustry.com/news/news.asp?ID=4052

The text of the article is as follows, and I wonder what the archies think about this:

Pace of play is an issue often discussed at the player level. But, members of the American Society of Golf Course Architects (ASGCA) are also addressing this at the design level.

“A properly designed, well-drained course with ample playable areas, properly placed bunkers, visible water hazards and smaller greens usually plays fastest,” says ASGCA president Steve Forrest. “ASGCA architects work with developers to design courses that are challenging but not overwhelming.  This keeps play moving without detracting from the player’s overall experience.”

Courses offering faster play usually benefit from a combination of factors including quality professional management, and the cooperation both of those playing and those directing play. However, according to Forrest, faster play also results from course designs that pay special attention to routing designs and tactical layouts of tees, greens and fairways.

“Common sense tells us that shorter, wider courses will play faster than longer, narrow ones, particularly for the average and beginning players,” Forrest says. “But, other design elements should also be taken into account.”

Here are other design elements which, considered along with the myriad other design issues, can work to speed play:

Multiple tees: Another common sense element—but one that must be considered in conjunction with how tee placement and length affect proper shot alignment—is the number and placement of multiple tees.

Flatter, smaller greens: When greens have fewer severe undulations, three putt frequency is reduced. Smaller greens also lessen the number of three putts, and reduce the time spent lining up putts.
Strategic fairway mounding: Fairways can be designed to contain slightly errant shots by strategic mound placement.

Easily-visible yardage marking: Vertical yardage markers, or markers that are otherwise quickly identifiable, with accurate yardage information will speed play.

[Kyle Harris]

Not one comment about the distance from the green to the next tee...

...how myopic.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kyle,

Yes, short green to tee walks affect speed of play. Its not always under the gca control in housing courses.  And, there probably was a strict word limit on the article, which I can attest to writing for the same publication!

For that matter, I can think of a few other things to add (and probably did, as I recall an ASGCA article from years ago that I contributed to)

Specifically, design that encourages golfers to:

1.  Exit the back of the green, rather than walk back into play
2.  Enter the green from the sides or back if coming off their cart
3.  Take the shortest route to next tee


And, no mention of eliminating:

Blindness, so golfers can play as fast as possible,
Short holes where golfers who duff a shot wait to reach the green in two,
Reachable par 5's and driveable par 4's early in the round, etc.,
Sand bunkers front right of green,
Deep rough and native grasses to reduce ball searches

Or adding

Sand bunkers as save bunkers to keep lost balls to a minimum,
using pine straw or light rough for same,
containment mounding, but not so much that cart travel to fw from behind  the mounds in uneccessarily long

Add in really looking at individual hole length to reduce shots altogether (such as 320 rather than 280 yard par fours from the forward tees which force even the best women 140 yard hitters to reach a par 4 in three, rather than 2 shots.

[wsmorrison]

Does the ASGCA really endorse these proposals?  Should pace of play dictate design?  What pace of play is considered problematic?  I see some of these ideas as a recipe for creating boring designs and mediocre golfers with a mindset overly concerned with "fair" being the primary focus of designs.   George Crump, Hugh Wilson, William Flynn, Albert Tillinghast and others thought that more challenging golf courses would create better golfers.  That's why they built some of the courses they did.  I'm not saying all courses should be championship designs, but they shouldn't all follow the directions stated in the ASGCA suggestion either.  >95% of the rounds at Merion East are 4 hrs or under.  Culture more so than architecture dictate pace of play.  Look at the pace of play in the UK on some very difficult courses.  Some portions of the proposal are flawed.   If time is a factor, build more excellence in 9-hole courses.  That is a better solution.  Clubs will cost less to develop and charge less to join or charge for daily fee.

Flatter, smaller greens: When greens have fewer severe undulations, three putt frequency is reduced. Smaller greens also lessen the number of three putts, and reduce the time spent lining up putts.

Is the need to design smaller/flatter greens in order to reduce the number of 3-putts really a good idea?  Does it speed up play?  Average players will miss small greens with more frequency.  Wouldn't a recovery from bunkers or rough around these small greens take more time than an additional putt?  Why would a lack of challenge inherent in small flat greens be a draw to the sport?  Is this what our society needs?  Dumbing down our sport and other challenges so we can feel good and hurry home?

Strategic fairway mounding: Fairways can be designed to contain slightly errant shots by strategic mound placement.

This rarely looks halfway decent and again funnels balls back into play creating a false sense of ability.  Nicklaus, Jones, and others built horrible looking alleyways with mounding (strategic or otherwise) on either side.  I hoped we were past such nonsense.

Easily-visible yardage marking: Vertical yardage markers, or markers that are otherwise quickly identifiable, with accurate yardage information will speed play.

I'm not so sure.  I certainly don't think giving in to the fairness doctrine and  taking away feel is good for the sport.  It will dumb down creativity in the future ranks of golfers everywhere.

Change the culture of players.  For the most part, I don't think you have to change the way golf is designed.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Wayne,

I was waiting for someone to point out that those proposals aren't for everywhere and sometimes counter good design. No argument there.

Speed of play (or lack thereof) is said to reduce interest in golf.  I don't think anyone argues this too strongly.  Most course operators are interested more in getting more rounds around and in interesting more golfers to come to play and play more often.

If the design responds to THOSE concerns, it would look very different than one that responds to a private club, limited membership, low handicaps, etc.  Almost by definition, it won't be great in terms of pure golf, but it might be pretty good in terms of pure golf in America in how it plays for the masses and works for the Owners.

There might not be a discussion board devoted to it, but there you have it!

[Jon Wiggett]

Change the culture of players.  For the most part, I don't think you have to change the way golf is designed.

Well said Wayne or would the ASGCA have us playing roughless flat executive courses?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Wayne and Jon,

To answer your questions, ASGCA doesn't endorse anything in particular.  Each members is expected to design for his/her own clients needs.  As to general information aimed at those in the industry, these are ideas that are aimed (probably in response to a question) at those who do have these concerns.

Frankly, probably 90% of cousre owners are eating up this argument and these ideas. It is a real concern and a lot more practical to design to customer concerns.  After all, only on golf club atlas is the customer never right. At real courses, they probably work under the mantra that the customer is always right, not in need of someone telling them they need some kind of changing.   Hey, if they wanted that, they could have stayed home with the nagging wife and not come to the course at all. 

[Adam Clayman]

Jeff, Are these suggestions almost exactly similar to what came out of the K&N office back in the seventies?

[wsmorrison]

Jeff,

Thank you for taking my stance in the manner it was intended.  What are your thoughts about smaller greens speeding up play?  It doesn't make sense to me unless there are fewer bunkers and not long and thick rough surrounding the greens.  You can't simply make the greens smaller and expect faster play.  I think the opposite would occur. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam,

Not sure, but if they did, I probably wrote them.  But, I think I penned some similar suggestions in the 1990's. Designing for speed of play is a topic I bet ASGGA HQ gets bombarded with on a regular basis.

BTW, other than green contours at ANGC, most of those precepts applied there, don't you think?  Maybe the spectator mounds were added later.

Wayne,

I never really answered your slew of questions but some are interesting.  For example, was there a decline in Golden Age handicaps because the courses were so much better, as hytpothesized by Wilson, et al?  I don't know but think I have read where over the last 30 years or so, the average handicap has remained constant, despite changes in equipment, design, etc., so I kind of doubt it.

I am not sure the idea of fast goes over to fair as you suggest.  Fast means fast. I do agree though - My ex and I played Royal Melbourne in less than three hours following a ladies league.  Culture (and match play) are part of slow play or fast play.  But, we have been trying to change the culture of American golfers for a long time, without any visible success.

I do agree that smaller greens would seemingly lead to more chips, which can't be any faster than three putts, esp since there would be more pressure to make the first one for up and down to many players. I have looked at the idea of green size and come to the conclusion that mid size greens - 6-6500 sf probably strike a good balance in a lot of ways, including speed of play.

[Bill_Yates]

Well, well, well.  So that's who read my GCA interview. 

While architects do not determine the pace of play on a course, that's the day-to-day job of the course management team, architects do determine how long it should take to play, and how easy or difficult the course will be to manage.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bill,

Love your work. Look at it often.  Not sure if most of that stuff comes from your interview or not, but I do know ASGCA is aware of your findings, so maybe.

BTW, would you agree that the worst possible long grass is the 50% kind - in that you may have a chance to find your ball? I think light rough or truly deep natives discourage hunting, but medium, scruffy rough, like wispy tall fescues that offer a chance of finding it, encourage using all ten of the five minutes allotted by the rules for the search!

[Bill_Yates]

Jeff,
Thanks!  I was being a bit facetious. 

Forrest Richardson and I spoke with Steve Forrest on this very subject and I am glad to see they are moving forward.  There is a lot of potential for improving the game without dumbing down the courses or constraining the architects in any way.   With insights and an objective way to measure the impact of a design on those who will manage it and those who will play it, architects could have a bit more info to consider when approaching their final design for a site.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()