[Matt_Ward]

George:

Playability is the new politically correct buzzword when a course doesn't provide sufficient warm and cuddly hugs to shots poorly executed. No sense taking ownership when the course can be tagged as the appropriate fall guy.

Keep in mind, I truly believe recovery is fundamental to the game because perfection is not attainable. Courses should provide for reasonable opportunities to provide for times when things go astray. We do agree on that element.

Recovery options will vary depending upon the nature of just how poor the previous shot was played. Unfortunately, as I said previously, if the standard of playability is TOC -- then many, many American courses will suffer in comparison and that doesn't hold just for the desert type courses.

George, let me say this in conclusion -- so that there's no doubt. I believe playability is needed -- I've played way too many courses where the difficulty meter simply goes through the roof. When you see courses with plenty of water and OB -- check out a ton of Florida courses in this regard --you can see that the average Joe / Jane will not be having any measurable fun during their time there.

Mistakes need to be punished in direct proportion to the lack of execution demonstrated. That doesn't mean a lost ball or hitting out of hay-like rough because the fairways are too tight or to constricted with high grass and the like.

Recovery exists at Black Mesa -- as I described in an earlier paragraph. Of course, it's essential that golfers follow the Clint Eastwood expression, "A man's got to know his limitations," and play the appropriate tees when playing.

George, when one speaks about high handicap golfers I think it's good to set some limit on just how high is high. If we are speaking about people who just started the game and can't advance the ball without literally teeing up every shot then frankly no visit to just about any golf course will be a fun experience. If you are referencing people who are in the rough ball park of "average" -- say handicaps of 15-20 for men and 20-30 for women then we can certainly have some floor for discussion purposes.

Just try to realize what I said earlier -- good architects can make holes / shot tougher than they actually are. Golfers with higher handicaps can easily be distracted by all the "commotion" the architect uses and it can have a big time impact when they attempt to execute. Better players are more able to block out the distractions. The "psyche out" elements are part and parcel of the tools many architects use and those who complain are falling back upon a ready-made excuse to validate their own egos and at the same time throw such courses under the bus.

[George Pazin]

Okay, that was a really good post I think I can work with.

George, when one speaks about high handicap golfers I think it's good to set some limit on just how high is high. If we are speaking about people who just started the game and can't advance the ball without literally teeing up every shot then frankly no visit to just about any golf course will be a fun experience. If you are referencing people who are in the rough ball park of "average" -- say handicaps of 15-20 for men and 20-30 for women then we can certainly have some floor for discussion purposes.

This is the crux of the difference between us. I view the high handicapper as a guy who is between 20-30, and simply only gets out infrequently. Guys like me. I can hit the ball plenty far, farther than many, but every now and then - maybe 1 in 10 shots - I'm just going to hit a terrible shot; a fat shot that goes 40 yards, a ball that goes 50 yards right or left of its target, whatever. I can still get around in less than 100, I can hit the overwhelming majority of my shots airborne and even kinda pretty at times. I just lack consistency in a big way, and on a course like Black Mesa, hell, EVEN a wonderful course like Black Mesa, I am going to be reaching into my bag for a reload too often for my tastes.

Maybe there isn't an answer for part-time golfers like me. But I can tell you, I could play the Rawls Course every day and be a mighty happy guy.

[Andy Troeger]

George,
The one thing where I don't think you give BM enough credit is that I've found over a few rounds there that almost every time you hit one in the desert, if you really pay attention to where it goes, you can find it and often times hack it back into play in some form. Sure, some are lost and others are unplayable, but I bet 50% of my desert balls have been played. Its MUCH better in that respect than most desert courses and I think Pat Brockwell and his staff put some effort into that.

Its not the most playable course I've ever seen, but for a tough desert course they do about as well as one can expect. Its not a poster child for an unplayable course by any means. I can see how if you only play it once or twice that it seems tougher and less playable than it does once you know where you're going.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

I concede if you have someone who is a 20-30 and likely hits as many ground balls as he does in getting the ball airborne than it would behoove such a person to play a course with 100-yard wide fairways, bunkers that are at best cosmetic and greens which are devoid of any real contours.

Sure, such courses exist and it's better for such folks to head to those layouts and avoid anything of the caliber of Black Mesa.

Andy:

Agreed.

Black Mesa is far more playable than many other courses which could easily claim the tag of being unplayable -- save for those with low handicaps and the like.

One time plays can often tilt the feelings of people who cannot hit the ball consistently -- a future play can demonstrate that Black Mesa is indeed much more user-friendly than a one time visit permits.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

That's pretty dismissive.  Maybe George wouldn't mind playing 40-yard-wide fairways, dodging the occasional deep bunker and dealing with difficult greens -- he hasn't complained about any of those things.  He just doesn't like to lose balls and take drops.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

The issue of playability rests to some degree on what I said previously.

You may not have read what I posted previously. So here goes again ...

You have certain people who hop on the bandwagon of "playability" when in reality the architect is often responsible for causing such players to be psyched out when playing such holes. In sum -- the architect makes the hole "appear" to be tougher than it is actually is. Instead of realizing that common ploy - the player opts instead to fall back and say there's a lack of playability.

Why should a player look inward -- better to find some excuse or reason to cover up their own failure. 19th holes are filled with such discussions.

Better players are able to weed out distractions caused by a skillful architect's attempt to build fear, or at minimum hesitation, for a player to execute at a level necessary to succeed. At times, even that fear or hesitation can happen to the best of players. Pete Dye was quite good at understanding the mentality of the better players and designing courses to instill such hesitation in their overall shot execution. Those same players would often critique Dye as being "unfair" or that his courses were "unplayable."

Tom, it's important to separate courses like Black Mesa from those clear examples of where numerous drops -- likely balls being lost and a gauntlet of other obstacles that would cause such courses to be nearly unplayable save for the lowest of handicap types. I have played courses where the limitations for anything other than sheer perfection are required. I fully understand and clearly see those courses as being limited and being unable to provide a form of entertainment for a wide variety of playing abilities.

I concede such overly penal courses exist. I don't lump Black Mesa specifically falling into that bandwagon and for all the talk I hear about the course being unplayable or that it doesn't allow for shots to be played when things go astray -- I've yet to hear clear and specific hole examples where that occurs. The width and playability are there -- Black Mesa is not the prototype of what you see in Scottsdale with some of the layouts there with 90-max acres and then severe penalities for anything but the best of drivers time after time.

When people make blanket declarations -- be prepared to read comments from me, and possibly others, who are dismissive.

One other thing -- there are courses across the pond -- I've made it a point to highlight Dunluce at Portrush where the fairways are kept too narrow in many instances and where the hay-like rough is just a few steps off the playing areas. Courses of that type are not thought of as unplayable because of an Irish address, but in point of fact are save for those players best able to execute with utter precision they are extremely demanding with little tolerance for anything less than perfection. Never do I hear a word about such courses -- it seems desert courses of the USA are the prime whipping boys for "playability" when the reality I have personally experienced says such a dilemma is not relegated only to that area of the USA.

Last item -- when you have people who are so infrequent as players it can be a bit much to think that just about ANY SHOT played that fails needs to be treated with kid gloves. Yes, it would be nice to have a course like TOC --but that's more of the optimum given the nature of the terrain many new courses are often built. I champion playability but the case for such a situation must be based on clear and supportable instances that demonstrate such a limitation. Minus the details I see such generalized proclamations as more of a displacement exercise than anything else.

[Ian_L]

I was thinking about what I consider playable, and I realized (predictably) that it coincides with my game.  I'm a 12 handicap who is a fairly consistent iron player for his index but often has trouble off the tee.  So naturally, my definition of "playable" is fairly wide driving corridors.  I don't mind hazards up against greens as long as I'm given room to avoid them. 

Like George, I hate losing golf balls off my drive.  As I thought more specifically about holes I do and don't like, I realized what I dislike is having the potential for a lost ball on both sides of the fairway, even if I do have considerable room for error.  This is because I don't feel like there's anything I can do to strategically avoid the dreaded re-tee.

For example, I liked the drive of the 3rd hole at Pacific Dunes more than the 15th (both par-5's).  On the 3rd hole, I felt like I could safely steer away from the gorse by playing out to the right side of the fairway (I don't mind forced carries off the tee as long as I can clear them with an OK shot).   On the 4th hole, I didn't mind having the cliff to my right because I knew I could simply aim at the bunker if I wanted to, take my medicine pitching out, and avoid penalty strokes, which I in fact did on one occasion.

On the 15th, though, I felt helpless, even though the playing corridor is huge, because gorse encroaches both sides of the fairway.  Was this intentionally done to scare the player like me?  I don't know.  I think holes like the 15th do have their place on a golf course, and I'm not advocating for unlimited room as a requirement on one side of every fairway.  For me, though, the 3rd and 4th holes were more "playable" than the 15th.

[Jeff Fortson]

I would include course conditions into the "playability" factor.  I would consider certain conditions I have played in high-level competition playable for scratch and professional players but not for th 6 or 7+ handicappers.  When a course gets EXTREMELY fast and firm with HIGH rough good players can work the ball closer to their targets and less skilled golfers can't.  Width might help in these circumstances but it won't nullify it.  The firmer the ground, the narrower the effective targets become.

You could argue wind, and other typical weather conditions could play factors as well.  Great question and thread.


Jeff F.

[Sean_A]

Mistakes need to be punished in direct proportion to the lack of execution demonstrated. That doesn't mean a lost ball or hitting out of hay-like rough because the fairways are too tight or to constricted with high grass and the like.

I think this is the sort of logic which I don't really agree with.  Its too formulaic and tries to eliminate the element of a good break or even the idea of accommodating poor shots - which after all is an extremely subjective idea.  Poor for who?  Granted, I don't have much time for championship courses presented for championships only because the fun factor is balanced out in favour of the challenge factor.  Of course, there is likely a divide of opinion on what this balance should be depending on one's handicap.  As a newly appointed double digit player I am decidedly in the camp of the long cappers and want all the playability I can get.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

You're right about Portrush.  The funny thing is that if you asked them why the roughs are so fierce, they'd probably tell you to look inward, that they have set the course up for good players and you're just a complainer.

However, Portrush could make their course more playable quite easily if they'd either widen the fairways or just get out the rough mowers a couple of times a month, like they did when I played over there 15-20 years ago.  [I might not give it the same rating based on last summer's set-up.]  Desert golf, on the other hand, is always saddled with some degree of the playability problem George mentions. 

[TEPaul]

Since this is a thread on "playability", I'm going to throw something in here I normally wouldn't have before last Wednesday evening.

Having said that, I do realize that various people have various and different definitions on what "playablility" is, but I was pretty impressed by what Ron Prichard said last Wednesday evening in his "talk" here in the "barn" gathering in Philadelphia (after I had some time to really consider what he meant).

He said:

"I hate buzzwords like "shot values" and "playability". If you want to make me really mad mention "playability."

I think what he meant was too many golfers tend to just look at a golf course strictly from the perspective of their own game (forgetting how different it may be from others) and that most all golfers just assume that their games should be treated equally (playability-wise) in the context of something like par or GIR.

Ron said he believes good golf architecture should simply offer ALL golfers various options and then it becomes up to them to figure out what is reasonable for them or not. He did add that most don't really figure that out very well.

Is it any wonder really when too many become fixated on some buzzwords that generate IDEAS like an expectation of equitableness of results for all----eg par, GIR etc in the context of "playability"?

[George Pazin]

Matt:

That's pretty dismissive.  Maybe George wouldn't mind playing 40-yard-wide fairways, dodging the occasional deep bunker and dealing with difficult greens -- he hasn't complained about any of those things.  He just doesn't like to lose balls and take drops.

What Tom said.

I don't know what more I can add. I've made my points - they have little to nothing to do with width, deep bunkers or difficult greens - and you don't seem to accept them. Fine, I guess it's simply time to agree to disagree.

I would include course conditions into the "playability" factor.  I would consider certain conditions I have played in high-level competition playable for scratch and professional players but not for th 6 or 7+ handicappers.  When a course gets EXTREMELY fast and firm with HIGH rough good players can work the ball closer to their targets and less skilled golfers can't.  Width might help in these circumstances but it won't nullify it.  The firmer the ground, the narrower the effective targets become.

Well said. I've often wondered what happens at almost any desert course on a windy day.

Andy -

You may certainly be correct. My observations are from 2 rounds one day at the GCA outing back in '03. I don't recall the surrounds being particularly playable, though I also don't remember them being as unplayable as a couple of other desert/canyon courses I've played.

Tom P -

You are correct in stating that I am evaluating BM specifically with regard to my own game, but in case you missed it, that is the very essence of the disagreement between Matt and me. He believes BM is very playable for the high handicapper, I disagree. I'm quite certain many golfers would find it very playable, some might even find it easy (Doug Wright sure tore it up while carrying my 200 lbs to a rare victory).

I'm sorry to hear that Ron Prichard doesn't like the word playability, but it does sounds like his definition of good golf architecture fits with mine.

Sean, nice post, couldn't agree more.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

You missed my point because of your narrow focus on just desert type courses. If you played across the pond you'd find more than a few top tier name courses that have overly narrow fairways, excessively high roughs, bunkers to the max and greens tough to reach in any number of situations. Frankly, the urge to condemn desert course is laughble because the double standard is applied to these other courses. I mentioned Portrush -- it is by no means the only such course.

Sean:

With all due respect -- there's nothing formulaic about it. I never said luck / good or bad breaks have no place but if the disproportionate elements of any course are tied to a random nature of luck being so critical to the playing of any course then you have nothing more than poorly thought out course -- whether it be one that is entirely too demanding or too easy.

Accomodating poor shots is not something I dismiss and I have said so SEVERAL TIMES. The issue is that plenty of courses today -- and frankly a good number of the old time greats cannot provide 100-yard wide fairways with nary a penalty for wayward shots. TOC is a wonderful ideal in this regard -- the emphasis being IDEAL. Keep in mind, such places like Pine Valley and Oakmont, to name just two, are though to be among the world's top ten courses -- they are not easy to play for many people -- especuially the types George P advocates such as the 20-30 handicap types who play only a few times per year.

I never advocated courses ONLY for championship only type play. However, I did state that if playability is the be-all / end-all it needs to be properly understood given the limitations that many sites have. No doubt entertainment for the broadest range of players should be accomodated whenever possible. But, when you have people consistently moving divots further than they hit their balls -- when you have people hitting grounders or spraying tee 50-60 yards to one side or the other -- it's extremely rare that just about any course can provide that sort of playability.

Sean, re-read very carefully what I posted previously -- often times the architect is successful in making holes look harder than they are. Often times the weaker player is susceptible to such ploys and instead of owning up to that illusion the player will then resort to the playability argument to cover up their own failures.

TEPaul:

Well said.

Players need to figure out what the architect does provide -- the avenues are there -- provided the player knows full well what their own limitations are. Generally speaking, most players, usually adopt the displacement theory because it shoves the architect / course inthe culprit role.

Tom D:

Hate to disagree with you. All desert golf is NOT THE SAME.

There is this fallacy that desert courses are equivalent to one another in terms of playability. That's not the case. Black Mesa has plenty of space between holes - in fact, you can actually drive from one hole to another should you spray it that far. There is ample playability for shots that miss the target lines -- many of the fairways are also 40 yards across if not more and when I hear the playability argument I see it as a quick displacement by the player.

Many desert holes look harder than they actually play. The "deception" element the architect provides is what makes the weaker player quiver when attempting to execute. Better players are able to block out such clear ploys by the designer and therefore can execute without being lulled into a series of mistakes when making shots.

I don't doubt TOC is the ideal playable course. Many modern courses don't have that kind of elasticity but they are still playable for 90% of the players -- if not more.

Last item on Portrush -- the fairways can either be narrow and knock down the hay-like roughs or widen the fairways and keep the hay-like roughs. Either way would work for many more players to enjoy.

[George Pazin]

Matt, it is exhausting discussing things with you.

When did I ever state that there are no courses overseas that don't fit my definition of playable for the high handicapper?

When did Tom D state all desert golf courses are the same? He merely stated that many suffer under my definition of playable for the high handicapper.

My main argument with you is that I think you have a very different idea of how a high handicapper plays the game than I do. You seem to go by the USGA ratings manual - bogey golfer only hits the ball 200 yards, etc. - or you seem to think I'm talking about absolute beginners who struggle to get the ball airborne, people who should really not even be on golf courses. I happen to believe there are a heckuva lot of guys out there like me, who hit the ball plenty far, plenty high, but our misses are pretty bad, simply because we are part-time golfers. As I said earlier, maybe there is no good solution to this problem, at least not in regard to courses with difficult terrain, but I'd like to think there is.

I do think your points about visual intimidation are valid, but I think there's a heckuva lot more to designing a course for all levels of golfers, pros to 30 handicappers, than just wide fairways.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

I can say the same thing about you George -- exhausting and failure to acknowledge even the most basic of facts.

You are the guy who harps upon desert golf not being your cup of tea and from that belief comes the logical extension that desert golf really doesn't provide for your defintiion of playability.

You keep bitching and moaning about the playability -- lack thereof from Black Mesa. When pressed to provide specifics you don't. You argue for courses to provide for people with 20-30 handicaps who play infrequently and hit shots astray. I pointed how Black Mesa can accomodate such players to a reasonable degree.

Architects can fool players that certain holes / courses are tougher than they actually appear. This psyche out situation clearly impacts those who are prone to distraction because of the ploys arhitects use to throw them off their game. Instead of such players understanding the nature of what architects are doing it becomes the usual whine about playability not being present.

How bout such players just admit they need to get a bit better in terms of their execution? How bout such players understand the mental tricks that architects have been using for years to make them unsure or hesitant on their club selection / execution, etc, etc.

I also said this -- the issue of playability is ideally represented in the likes of TOC. Courses built on difficult terrain do not have the exact luxury that TOC demonstrates.

I don't doubt playability is a needed item. I mentioned courses across the pond because desert golf is deemed to be the worst culprit for lack of playability. That's not the case at all and frankly one needs to identify specific courses with clear examples outlined to show me where those situations arise.

I have always believed that having recovery shots available is needed because no course should demand utter perfection. People will miss shots but those misses need to be within a realm of reality. Someone missing a fairway by 40-50 yards should not be harping about a lack of playability when fundamentally such a player needs to really look inside themselves and say they need to get a bit better if they have any hope in posting a score remotely near their handicap.

 

[TEPaul]

Here's a reply from Ron Prichard to an email I sent him about this thread and particularly to his feelings about the post above I made about what he said Wednesday night about not really appreciating buzzwords like "playabililty".

I guess I should check with him about whether he wants me to post the entire email but I have in the past and he's never said anything other than; "Go ahead and post everything."

Again, as I've said many times before, Ron might be registered on here but he always seems to prefer to reply off the site to questions asked to him on the site.




"Hi Tom;
                 I had a great time wednesday evening, with some good conversation and some good laughs. I look forward to another such event - sometime, and thank you for inviting me. You are a really special guy, and if anyone in your family ever raises doubt, have "him" call me.
 
                 I think your comments on the posting regarding "playability" pretty well hit the mark.
 
                 What I'm really expressing is my firm belief that a majority of folks who play golf really don't understand the nature of the game - the special character.  Let me slowly type a quotation from Robert Hunter's "Links" written in 1926:
 
                        "The first golfers must have been seafaring folks, loving strenuous battles with nature: and whether facing the hazard of the ocean with boat and sail, or the hazard of a sand dune with ball and stick, they were thrilled with the hope of victory and not cowed and depressed with the fear of failure and it's penalties.  They did not look upon the ocean or the links, with their various degrees of hazard and their unequal penalties, for the lack of skill and for failure, as places of torment; but as wonderful fields for glorious achievements."
 
                          To such men, golf and it's hazards must have appeared in quite a different light than those who have known them only on the inland courses. Even today, those who have been brought up in the tranquil meadows often find it difficult to understand why good money should be squandered to mutilate their lovely pastures, to erect mounds, to sink pits, and to generally rearrange and upset everything for the sole and malicious purpose of transforming a peaceful and dignified pastime --  which they have come to call golf -- into a source of irritation, bitterness, and despair. Every manmade hazard into which they fall is looked upon as a needless torment. The pastoral game known to these men may be delightful, and to them all-sufficient, but it is not the royal and ancient sport born on the links. Had it been left to the men of the pastures, golf would have never been born, and if it is allowed to generate in their hands, it will disappear."
 
                Clear enough???
 
                And another thing Tom;
 
                                            I read Kelly Blake Moran's comments in reference to the thoughts I expressed on wednesday evening, and if he listens carefully; my comments will answer his questions.  I don't claim to have all the answers, and the last thing I have time for is to get into any philosophical conversations with other architects. They must choose their own path in life.
 
                                            My first journey to visit Scotland, England,  and Ireland - to study, sketch, and photograph many of the great links courses was in 1971, (27 years ago), when some of the most vocal architects on this website were still in kneepants. I went over there with the purpose of education after a brief and helpful conversation by phone with Pete Dye. Two years later I returned and spent two months in St. Andrews. (I had been placed in charge of completing all the design work and then field work for "the dupliction of The Old Course - in Japan"). The work in Japan was never started due to the client's inability to acquire one small piece of land, but all the design work had been completed. Since that time I've made many trips to study and restudy great old golf courses from Royal Portrush to Royal St. George, and I don't do this to boast of my efforts. I make this effort for personal reasons - to improve at my work.
 
                                              So, when it comes to a discussion whether or not there is value studying the classics - I'm not here to convince anyone. This is a profession which only requires a nail and a hammer to hang a sign claiming one is a "Golf Course Architect", and too many have done only that.
 
                     I wish you the safest and most peaceful Christmas;
 
                                                                   Ron   

[TEPaul]

About Ron's comments in his email about anyone in my family saying something bad about me have "Him" call Ron-----I'm not sure what to make about that on comments from my own family but you should all take special note of how Ron said have "Him" call (Ron). I guess the implied meaning in that is that Ron really doesn't want to call my wife about bad things she might say about me and my addiction to GCA and this site. Ron is a very wise man! 

As to his mention of reading Kelly Blake Moran's comments on this thread, I sort of wondered how Kelly may take that but I know Kelly pretty well and I feel if anyone truly understands and appreciates both the quest for and value of one's true feelings about architecture, even despite disagreement with others, it's definitely Kelly. And so I believe he would certainly understand what Ron said and value it.

That's why I think it adds so much to this site to encourage particularly the architects who participate with us on here in one way or another to express what they really feel and mean about anything at all. I think they do, they pretty much have in the past, and it's been getting even better that way on here, in my book. 

[Sean_A]

George:

You missed my point because of your narrow focus on just desert type courses. If you played across the pond you'd find more than a few top tier name courses that have overly narrow fairways, excessively high roughs, bunkers to the max and greens tough to reach in any number of situations. Frankly, the urge to condemn desert course is laughble because the double standard is applied to these other courses. I mentioned Portrush -- it is by no means the only such course.

Sean:

With all due respect -- there's nothing formulaic about it. I never said luck / good or bad breaks have no place but if the disproportionate elements of any course are tied to a random nature of luck being so critical to the playing of any course then you have nothing more than poorly thought out course -- whether it be one that is entirely too demanding or too easy.

Accomodating poor shots is not something I dismiss and I have said so SEVERAL TIMES. The issue is that plenty of courses today -- and frankly a good number of the old time greats cannot provide 100-yard wide fairways with nary a penalty for wayward shots. TOC is a wonderful ideal in this regard -- the emphasis being IDEAL. Keep in mind, such places like Pine Valley and Oakmont, to name just two, are though to be among the world's top ten courses -- they are not easy to play for many people -- especuially the types George P advocates such as the 20-30 handicap types who play only a few times per year.

I never advocated courses ONLY for championship only type play. However, I did state that if playability is the be-all / end-all it needs to be properly understood given the limitations that many sites have. No doubt entertainment for the broadest range of players should be accomodated whenever possible. But, when you have people consistently moving divots further than they hit their balls -- when you have people hitting grounders or spraying tee 50-60 yards to one side or the other -- it's extremely rare that just about any course can provide that sort of playability.

Sean, re-read very carefully what I posted previously -- often times the architect is successful in making holes look harder than they are. Often times the weaker player is susceptible to such ploys and instead of owning up to that illusion the player will then resort to the playability argument to cover up their own failures.

TEPaul:

Well said.

Players need to figure out what the architect does provide -- the avenues are there -- provided the player knows full well what their own limitations are. Generally speaking, most players, usually adopt the displacement theory because it shoves the architect / course inthe culprit role.

Tom D:

Hate to disagree with you. All desert golf is NOT THE SAME.

There is this fallacy that desert courses are equivalent to one another in terms of playability. That's not the case. Black Mesa has plenty of space between holes - in fact, you can actually drive from one hole to another should you spray it that far. There is ample playability for shots that miss the target lines -- many of the fairways are also 40 yards across if not more and when I hear the playability argument I see it as a quick displacement by the player.

Many desert holes look harder than they actually play. The "deception" element the architect provides is what makes the weaker player quiver when attempting to execute. Better players are able to block out such clear ploys by the designer and therefore can execute without being lulled into a series of mistakes when making shots.

I don't doubt TOC is the ideal playable course. Many modern courses don't have that kind of elasticity but they are still playable for 90% of the players -- if not more.

Last item on Portrush -- the fairways can either be narrow and knock down the hay-like roughs or widen the fairways and keep the hay-like roughs. Either way would work for many more players to enjoy.

Matt

I did read what you wrote, that is why you were quoted and that is why I spoke to the quote.  You called for proportional penalties and I disagreed with that notion.  I also pointed out that playability is a subjective area.  You apparently don't believe so and thats fair enough.  If this is the case, how do you explain your disdain for Portrush and love for other courses folks think are too unforgiving?  Both ideas can be correct. 

BTW - It isn't only George and Tom D which get an over-riding sense that you are mostly interested in courses where the drive is the star of the show.  I too get this sense.  Perhaps you better explain yourself rather than blame others for the confusion - if there is any.

Ciao

[Bradley Anderson]

It seems to me that the term playability would mean the degree to which something is or is not playable.

But the rules of golf cover unplayable situations for the most part don't they? And where there are issues that set up truly unplayable lies, most clubs will fix those issues without delay.

So the term is kind of silly isn't it? 

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

Allow me to reiterate an item that I may not have clear originally.

Great golf design provides clear and distinct differentiations between great shot and poor shots. There are degrees involved when you have great design. It's not simply all or nothing. Poor design often fails to provide for such distinctions and as a result it can mean that the weaker player will be confronted by these "either or" situations I just mentioned.

Playability, as I mentioned before, is often confused by the weaker player because he often fails to realize that good architects are quick to make holes appear tougher than they are. The "psyche out" ploy works very well because weaker players often fall prey to being unable to get over what they think they see and as a result such indecision will creep into their execution.

Let me point out that I love the foundation that lies at the heart of Dunluce at Portrush. The layout is indeed a glorious and setting and need not be doctored to have extreme narrow fairways and hay-like rough to bolster what lies at the core of his greatness. I have no "disdain" for Dunluce -- I have "disdain" for the inane thoughts that having the course prepared in such a manner is needed in order to bolster the design. Big difference.

What I said is that desert golf in the USA is panned by certain people because of the "either or" scenario in shotmaking that many see as being a negative. I have spelled out -- in the event you didn't notice -- that not all desert golf is the same. There are major differences and when people slap a tag on such courses they are not really being diligent in their analysis.

The course that's been in question is Black Mesa and whether it provides for recovery when shots go astray. I have spelled out that BM does provide for playability with due reasonableness. If someone wants playabilty to provide for ANY MAXIMUM POORLY PLAYED SHOT IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES then it's likely they will be disappointed. I have opined that plenty of courses which are built on demanding sites cannot be expected to rise to the level of what you see with playability at TOC. However, I do agree, and have said so plenty of times, that playability is a necessary item because great design provides for elasticity in how it handles a range of golfers.

Clearly, some who insist on maximum playability will wince if they see a course that is bit particular in terms of what is expected with the players.

I have said that one needs to look at courses on a case-by-case basis to determine if playability is provided. No doubt some of the weaker players will take issue that MAXIMUM playability is not present to their liking. As I said previously, many times players will lob the charge of lack of playability when a more accurate portrayal is how architects have "convinced" these players of this belief simply by adding a "psyche out" design ploy which gets into their heads prior to shot execution. Better players are better able to zone out such elements. That's one of the reasons why they are better.
 
Last point you raised -- I have mentioned many times on other threads the qualities of courses that are not overly demanding but do require careful thought. Sean, there is "confusion" because weaker players fall back on citing the "playability" defense when the reality is that they have succumbed to ploys architects have long used to make holes LOOK TOUGHER than they appear. I have played with many such players over the years and it never surprises me to hear them say how such and such a hole is unfair but then when they really understand what the architect is doing by playing mind games with them the wherewithal to execute can and often does improve.

One last thing -- taking direct ownership for one's failure on the golf course is as old a story line as one can offer. Plenty of 19th hole discussions start with the displacement argument -- it's not me the golfer who is responsible for the reasons why my duffed shots were treated in such a manner -- it's the golf course that's to blame.

I have never said certain courses lack a meaningful playability component. There are a ton of courses in Florida which are lined with OB on one side and plenty of H20 on the other. When you factor in winds that can whip up to 30-40 mph on certain days the probability for meaningful playability is literally tossed out the window. Ditto for particular desert courses that are extremely limiting to who can play such layouts. Guess what -- there are certain links type courses where this feature also occurs.

I agree with George on having some meaningful playability elements that will allow recovery shots to be made. I have opined many times that seeking perfection should not be the core of any course -- allowing recovery when playing holes is needed because it permits players to get back into the hole without feeling the need for silly and repetitive lost balls and side-way pitch outs to the fairways with SW's and the like.

I hope what I have further added helps with your understanding of thinking on this subject.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Matt,
You might have better luck getting folks to understand your opinions about playability if you drop the demeaning tone. There'd be less animosity and more truth spoken if you called a 'weak player' what they are, 'less skilled'.

'Bout the same difference as calling someone stupid, when all they are is ignorant.

 

[Matt_Ward]

Jim K:

Fair enough.

I can simply say the distinction between lower and higher handicap types. I meant no offense -- just poor usage on my part.

Thanks for the suggestion.

[George Pazin]

Matt, I really honestly don't know what facts you want me to acknowledge.

Your opinion of Portrush, that it is penal as currently set up? Fair enough, I can accept that.

My "bias" against desert courses? It isn't a bias, it is an outright expressed preference, one that I repeat virtually every time I discuss a desert course.

That Black Mesa is playable for the high handicapper? That's clearly an opinion, not a fact; even if I agreed with you, it would still be an opinion. I can believe the surrounds are more forgiving than I remember, but I sure did see a lot of opportunities for lost balls out there.

That some golfers "don't know their limitations"? Sure, I can accept that opinion. Seems kinda like this applies to golfers of all persuasions, from lowly ole me to big boy Philly Mick.

That there are some golfers who can't hit the ball airborne? Sure, I can accept that, though I'd say those folks are beginners, not 20-30 handicappers. Back when I kept an index, I used to play about once a week, during the summer time. Never practiced at all. I routinely shot in the low 90s on a very easy course. I rarely hit a ground ball. But I do hit wild shots, both then and now.

In this discussion of playability, I have merely attempted to flesh out folks' opinions on what it means to them. Clearly it means different things to you and me - and that's okay. I can accept it if Tom D or Jeff Brauer or Baxter Spann or Spann or whoever tells me that there are some courses - maybe even the majority of courses - that will never fit my definition. That doesn't mean they're unplayable, it means they are courses I should avoid.

I happen to believe that BM is a course where, if someone who is a wild-off-the-tee high-handicapper, he may want to consider other options. I'm sorry if that offends you. But that is my opinion, not a fact of any sort. And your opinion, that he should give it a go, while admirable, is still an opinion, not a fact of any sort.

It sounds as if there's a pretty big gulf between your definition of a high handicapper and mine as well. I see plenty of folks who can get around the majority of courses in about 100 shots, yet can still hit the ball airborne and even with a relatively decent degree of accuracy. I'm not talking about beginners, I'm talking about the occasional golfer. For someone who I thought felt it was important to grow the game, you sure seem to hold such folks in low esteem.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

Let's be clear -- the use of the word "preference" is the fancier way of saying "bias." No problem for either way for it to be said.

George, let me try to help you out -- you play Black Mesa one time and then make the definitive leap to say it's a course you should "avoid." That's really strong stuff based on a one time play.

Fair enough.

I've had the opportunity to play the course numerous times and generally in the company of a mixed bag of people -- a number of whom would fit the description you mentioned. I didn't hear back from them that they thought the playability or lack thereof prevented them from having fun and being able to play recovery shots when things went astray. No doubt your interpretation is yours -- an opinion.

You say there's an opportunity for lost balls. Geeze, if that's what uis holding back Black Mesa then there better be a long line in front of that NM course given the sheer number of courses I've played that would a have a far deeper appetite for balls that be lost. Keep in mind, a number of these places are uniformly thought of as great courses. Under your strict definition, these too would be courses you would avoid. So be it -- for you.

George, I have seen and played w golfers who routinely play a round and will hit grounders and can still fit the 20-30 handicap range you implied. You simply defined your own game and anyone who fit that description -- there are others who can still meet that handicap range and do what I mentioned.

George, if you see Black Mesa as limited -- by the manner you define playability so be it. I am not offended -- I just don't agree.

You then lose me when you say I don't golfers of that type in "high esteem. Now that's not true -- I simply said plenty of times that those who express the argument of a lack of playability often run to the basic displacement argument - that something is wrong with the course itself -- that nothing is wrong with their game. I said before clever architects can make holes to appear tougher than they are. That visual "psyche out" can really play with the mind of the higher handicap types. It can really impede their execution levels and for many of them they are not even aware of what is happening.

George, you may not believe this but a number of higher handicap types actually like playing courses like Black Mesa and even Wolf Creek because they know they are both demanding in their own way -- but should they connect on that one glorious swing the very thought that they have been able to succeed in such a situation is what not only makes their day but encourages them to come back and often times bring others in tow with them. No doubt the likelihood of total consistency is not present -- but the joy in overcoming the odds can be a really grand experience when it happens. You may sense that such people are odd or quite different than you -- but this zest to overcome is what drives interest for many people and can help spur others to take up the game. The flat boring courses sometimes really put to sleep such players more than you might realize.

Thanks for your thoughts ...

[Sean_A]

Sean:

Allow me to reiterate an item that I may not have clear originally.

Great golf design provides clear and distinct differentiations between great shot and poor shots. There are degrees involved when you have great design. It's not simply all or nothing. Poor design often fails to provide for such distinctions and as a result it can mean that the weaker player will be confronted by these "either or" situations I just mentioned.

Playability, as I mentioned before, is often confused by the weaker player because he often fails to realize that good architects are quick to make holes appear tougher than they are. The "psyche out" ploy works very well because weaker players often fall prey to being unable to get over what they think they see and as a result such indecision will creep into their execution.

Let me point out that I love the foundation that lies at the heart of Dunluce at Portrush. The layout is indeed a glorious and setting and need not be doctored to have extreme narrow fairways and hay-like rough to bolster what lies at the core of his greatness. I have no "disdain" for Dunluce -- I have "disdain" for the inane thoughts that having the course prepared in such a manner is needed in order to bolster the design. Big difference.

What I said is that desert golf in the USA is panned by certain people because of the "either or" scenario in shotmaking that many see as being a negative. I have spelled out -- in the event you didn't notice -- that not all desert golf is the same. There are major differences and when people slap a tag on such courses they are not really being diligent in their analysis.

The course that's been in question is Black Mesa and whether it provides for recovery when shots go astray. I have spelled out that BM does provide for playability with due reasonableness. If someone wants playabilty to provide for ANY MAXIMUM POORLY PLAYED SHOT IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES then it's likely they will be disappointed. I have opined that plenty of courses which are built on demanding sites cannot be expected to rise to the level of what you see with playability at TOC. However, I do agree, and have said so plenty of times, that playability is a necessary item because great design provides for elasticity in how it handles a range of golfers.

Clearly, some who insist on maximum playability will wince if they see a course that is bit particular in terms of what is expected with the players.

I have said that one needs to look at courses on a case-by-case basis to determine if playability is provided. No doubt some of the weaker players will take issue that MAXIMUM playability is not present to their liking. As I said previously, many times players will lob the charge of lack of playability when a more accurate portrayal is how architects have "convinced" these players of this belief simply by adding a "psyche out" design ploy which gets into their heads prior to shot execution. Better players are better able to zone out such elements. That's one of the reasons why they are better.
 
Last point you raised -- I have mentioned many times on other threads the qualities of courses that are not overly demanding but do require careful thought. Sean, there is "confusion" because weaker players fall back on citing the "playability" defense when the reality is that they have succumbed to ploys architects have long used to make holes LOOK TOUGHER than they appear. I have played with many such players over the years and it never surprises me to hear them say how such and such a hole is unfair but then when they really understand what the architect is doing by playing mind games with them the wherewithal to execute can and often does improve.

One last thing -- taking direct ownership for one's failure on the golf course is as old a story line as one can offer. Plenty of 19th hole discussions start with the displacement argument -- it's not me the golfer who is responsible for the reasons why my duffed shots were treated in such a manner -- it's the golf course that's to blame.

I have never said certain courses lack a meaningful playability component. There are a ton of courses in Florida which are lined with OB on one side and plenty of H20 on the other. When you factor in winds that can whip up to 30-40 mph on certain days the probability for meaningful playability is literally tossed out the window. Ditto for particular desert courses that are extremely limiting to who can play such layouts. Guess what -- there are certain links type courses where this feature also occurs.

I agree with George on having some meaningful playability elements that will allow recovery shots to be made. I have opined many times that seeking perfection should not be the core of any course -- allowing recovery when playing holes is needed because it permits players to get back into the hole without feeling the need for silly and repetitive lost balls and side-way pitch outs to the fairways with SW's and the like.

I hope what I have further added helps with your understanding of thinking on this subject.

Matt

I agree that differentiation between great shots and poor shots is one element of course design, but I believe that differentiation is not required to be obvious.  Any attempt to create graded punishment depending on how bad the shot is over the course of 18 holes is a complete waste of time imo.  That is traditional USGA logic for the US Open and it is a logic I wholly reject.  The do or die/bowling alley/hack out hole has its place in design, but it should be used sparingly as an additional test rather than become the main test of the game.  How that particular test is defined is impossible to state unless we know the class of player we are talking about or (and importantly) if it really is a do or die shot and there is no other way around it.  Don't misunderstand me, the do or die shot ala 17 at Sawgrass has its place and I don't believe anybody of any level would claim these sorts of shots need to be eliminated from the game.  The question is how are these tougher holes to be incorporated into the overall design to make courses better for all classes of players? 

The current thinking for many archies is to add a load of tees to reduce the yardage for the lesser skilled players.  I think this is being done for two main reasons.  First, the land chosen for some sites is unsuitable for golf.  So what in effect happens is that different levels of players can play a different course. Personally, I think is an abomination of design and any hole that requires 5 sets of tees based on length needs to be re-thought.  Perhaps the do or die or even very tough shot concept should not be employed, but because of dodgy sites these sorts of shots appear more often than the high capper can deal with and when we consider who the major customer of nearly every course out there is, this can't be clever.  The second and from the other side of the coin, archies pander too much to the high capper.  What is wrong with a 25 capper right/lefting his ball around in 100 shots so long as he has a way to do so?  Why does there need to be so many length based tee choices if the course accommodates the high caper? 

The concept of playability is a tough one to grasp, but at heart, its base line has to be the high capper or why does the concept exist at all?  For the good players, even if the a course is setup terribly, they are in a competition so it is the same for everybody.  We can't use the same criteria for high cappers because they play mainly for fun, a bit of exercise and chance to gab with mates.

Ciao     

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()