Do We Need to Build Any More Tough Courses?

[Jeff_Brauer]

On my mounds thread, Tom Doak mentioned that one of his objections to my theories was that he was trying to make a course tougher, with fewer bunkers.

I didn't take the time to ask him then why he wanted to make the course tougher, but I generally don't believe in building hard courses (there are exceptions in my portfolio, though)

Given that 90 plus % of golfers are, always have been and always will be high handicappers, that there is less time for play and even less time for practice, etc. should any new course really built tough, considering the big picture?

Granted, its a free country, and anyone with money is free to build whatever type of course they want.  On one level, I would hate to degree that there will be no more great courses built.

On another level, I wonder if over doing and over hyping tough courses, whether by owners or gca's is detrimental to the long term future of the game.  I think most players want to play a course (most of the time) that allows them to shoot within a few strokes of their normal score.  Maybe once or twice a year they want a tough test.

So, if 90% or more of golfers want moderate tests, do we need to build harder courses?  Or do we have plenty?

Or, should we focus on interesting or stimulating courses, which I define as ones having intersting shots (like punchbowls, redans, etc. and possible historic references and brand new concepts) but rather moderate penalty for missing.  And in some ways, I believe that would reduce strategy, but make golf more appealing to many more potential golfers.

What say ye?

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

Difficulty is vastly overrated.   At least difficulty derived largely from penalty shots, extreme length, high rough, and ultra-fast greens.

Fun is vastly underrated.  At least fun as derived largely from interesting placement of hazards, courses where the ball actually rolls, courses where the playing surfaces heave and dip, and cause one to think about where to best land the ball to achieve a desired outcome after it stops rolling.

"Pleasurable excitement" is still the goal. 

[Paul Jones]

I think tougher courses add to the slow play problem.

[Jason Topp]

Yes.  I'd like to see tough courses without an abundance of water or forced carry hazards.

The critical thing is to create interesting courses.  Tough courses are often interesting. 

I really enjoyed playing Southern Dunes in  Arizona (formerly Royal Dunes) with Tom Yost last week and I think I enjoyed it in part because it was built as a tough course for good players.  It was possible for one to play safely to wide fairways and get around the course, but one was constantly tempted by tough bunkers to take agressive lines off the tee and greens were defended by menacing bunkers and contours.  I thought the hazards made the course more interesting and contrasted sharply with most desert courses I have played built in the last ten years or so where (for example) I would lose a shot to the right, only to find extra grass hidden to accomodate that miss.

[Bill_McBride]

I think Jason is on the mark.  I saw that at Southern/Royal Dunes as well.  The course actually plays tougher for the ambitious player (not necessarily the better player), the risk/reward shots tend toward the risk side.  I think a really good course is playable for the guy who plays conservatively and is potentially very difficult for the guy who takes chances to improve his score.

In the words of the immortal Clint, "A man has to know his limitations."

[MargaretC]

Jeff:

I love links and links-style courses.  I do want challenge, but not the draconian torture of impossibly fast greens, etc.  I want a course to make me think of various strategies and challenge different aspects of my game.  When I play with my husband, I sometimes play from the men's tees because I like the challenge.

While it maybe true that the difficulty of a course can impact pace of play, more often than not, pace of play is simply the result of golfers who aren't ready to play when it's their turn and lack consideration of those around them.  These types can take 5 hours on a simple par 3.

Meg

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff -
I can't imagine the situation has changed much since the days when Darwin wrote about rabbits and tigers. Then and now, most of us are rabbits, but we don't want ours noses rubbed in it - we don't want to FEEL like rabbits.
I think then and now, the architect's greatest trick is having rabbits sometimes believing they're actually  tigers -  without us realizing how we're being conned, or to what extent.
Peter

[Rob Rigg]

I think we need more playable and environmentally responsible courses.

They can be strategic, which can make them tough for the tiger golfer, but they can also be rather simplistic or natural in appearance and navigatable for the average golfer.

For a course to truly work for the bogey golfer they need to be able to aim for the middle of the fairway and the middle of the green on a consistent basis.

Then to challenge the low handicaper they need to be forced to aim for a specific side of the fairway/green depending on pin position.

I do not think this is a simple proposition, but it would appear that some of the C&C designs probably do this quite well?

[Joe Hancock]

I think we need more playable and environmentally responsible courses.

They can be strategic, which can make them tough for the tiger golfer, but they can also be rather simplistic or natural in appearance and navigatable for the average golfer.

For a course to truly work for the bogey golfer they need to be able to aim for the middle of the fairway and the middle of the green on a consistent basis.

Then to challenge the low handicaper they need to be forced to aim for a specific side of the fairway/green depending on pin position.

I do not think this is a simple proposition, but it would appear that some of the C&C designs probably do this quite well?

You willingly addressed what you think about playability, but I would also be interested to hear what your ideas about environmental responsibility might include.

Joe

[Rich Goodale]

I am of the view that ALL golf courses are hard, and also that there are far too many courses out there, particularly new ones, which are much harder than they need to be.  There is also the ancillary problem that making a golf course harder seems (at leat to me) to logarithmically inflate the cost of design and construction.  Tim Weiman once wisely said something to the efect of:  golfers do not want to pay more, they want to play more.

Environmental "sustainability" is a nice (if vague) concept which is good, all things being equal.  Econimic sustainability, on the other hand is anything but vague and should be the ne plus ultra in designing new venues for our game.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

Most of my courses are not considered "hard" -- the slope ratings come out surprisingly low (to everyone but me).  I think I'm doing some stuff that the slope ratings don't take into account.

But I do think a course has to be perceived (by good players) as "challenging" in order to be well received, so I'm looking to do things that make them think it's hard, especially things that the average golfer might not notice much.

One example you mentioned last week is building greens which fall off in back without a buffer of rough or mounds at the back to stop you.  That SHOULD make the course harder for the average player (who can't stop his approach shot as easily) ... but the 15-handicap misses the green short 75% of the time anyway.  At the same time, the visual fear induced by having no backstop makes good players nervous, and often they underclub, making fewer birdies in the process.

[Nicholas Coppolo]

Define "Tough"....

I've always felt that we should strive for golf courses that have a low slope rating and a high course rating, something like 120/75....so that spraying the ball and missing greens will still result relatively easy bogey.  I think birdies should require great shots and/or putts on EVERY hole, even drivable par 4s and reachable par 5s.  I think "easy" holes should mean you can miss a shot and still make par, and hard holes should make par difficult to achieve even with solid play.

I haven't found many courses that fit this mold.

I don't derive much satisfaction from shooting a great number on an easy course with greens sloped towards me and mounding containing my shots.

[Mike Wagner]

Building a "tough" course that limits itself to simply being "tough," I believe, is a mistake.  Where's the actual fun in that?  What is totally acceptable in my mind is to build enough tees to let a player decide what they want to do. 

Erin Hills is a great example of this.  I played 4 rounds from 7100 to 7800 - it was great.  I also played one of those rounds with a woman who hit the ball very well, flew just under 200 yards.  She played the appropriate tees and had a magnificent time.

Tough for tough's sake = boring.

[Sean_A]

Nevermind about about tough courses, do we need to build any courses?  Shit, even car companies these days have wised up and stopped building cars when folks don't buy them!

Ciao

[Jerry Kluger]

I think that the vast majority of golfers have never found a course to be too easy - on the other hand, they often find a course to be too tough.  What I have found to be disappointing is what most golfers find to be too tough.  Sure, forced carries over wetlands or water, etc., can make a course too tough for many players as can really deep bunkers.  But what disappoints me is how most golfers don't like greens with significant contours.  Personally, I loved the greens at Sand Hills, Ballyneal, Hidden Creek, etc., but then I talk to my friends who play golf and they don't like greens which have anything more than gentle slopes.  The fact is that when you are playing to a small audience at a private club then you can do what you want and make whatever adjustments are necessary.  But look what happens to places such as North Palm Beach CC, a municipal course, where I have been told that the players hate the greens as the contours are too severe. 

[Carl Rogers]

A question ...

If Pinehurst No.2 had no rough, no more than 8 to 9 on the stimp for green speed, and was played at 6700 to 6800 yards, would it meet the category of not exceptionally difficult for the 15 handicapper but enough course for the scratch golfer, if they were forbidden to use their driver?

[MargaretC]

Nevermind about about tough courses, do we need to build any courses?  Shit, even car companies these days have wised up and stopped building cars when folks don't buy them!

Ciao

I understand what you're saying in terms of absolute numbers, but among the total are a lot of mediocre courses, don't you think?

Meg

[Rob Rigg]

Joe,

I am not a GCA nor involved in course maintenance so I am simply refering to a couple of basics like using grasses where possible that are native to the environment which would result in less water use, keeping the course as F&F as possible, especially during the summer, moving as little dirt as possible, using sites that lend themselves to golf course use (ie - not building courses on the moon or creating an oasis in the middle of a desert).

I tend to agree that there are probably enough "average" golf courses now, although it is great to see a "special" new course come online like Chambers, Tetherow, OM, Castle Stuart, etc.

We do not need more 7600 yard monsters with fake lakes, non-native grasses and vegetation that needs heavy watering etc etc.

I think we need "well rounded" courses that can challenge the spectrum of skill, which is difficult to create so the premium going forward will be on the architect, not the developer and his ability to sink a few million into a course so he can build a bunch of homes around it.

[Jon Wiggett]

But I do think a course has to be perceived (by good players) as "challenging" in order to be well received, so I'm looking to do things that make them think it's hard, especially things that the average golfer might not notice much.

I think this comment touches on one of the most misunderstood concepts in golf/life. Challenging does not mean difficult but rather couses the player/person to take notice of the problem (easy or difficult) laid out before them. As an example I often think of Kilspindie just outside Gullane. It is not the most difficult of courses but makes you think a lot about how to takle the problems it poses. Carnoustie on the other hand makes most of the decisions for you when in Open mode. I respect Carnoustie for the purity of the problem it presents. I enjoy Kilspindie for the diversity challenge it offers. I prefer Kilspindie

[Sean_A]

Nevermind about about tough courses, do we need to build any courses?  Shit, even car companies these days have wised up and stopped building cars when folks don't buy them!

Ciao

I understand what you're saying in terms of absolute numbers, but among the total are a lot of mediocre courses, don't you think?

Meg

Meg

IMO the mediocre courses are the bread and butter of the game.  Sure its lovely when you stumble across a very good course with the prices of a mediocre muni, but the heart of the matter is affordable access and that is what most of the mediocre courses provide.   

Ciao