Are Modern Courses Simply Too Difficult?

[Mike Hendren]

Someone on the Palmetto thread offered an opinion that the course is not too difficult and mentioned The National Golf Links of  America in the same context. 

Please spare me the "if you're not good enough practice / quit" lectures. 

Are modern golf courses too difficult?

Bogey

[PThomas]

yes, too many are, which i think discourages new players

and a big part of it is that they are too long....where is it written that the shortest set of tees must be 5000 yards?

[Matt_Ward]

Michael H:

Yes, there are such courses -- a good recent one being Pound Ridge in the Westchester County (NY) area.

But, often time it's the players who bite off too much in believing they have the game to handle such situations.

People will not move up to forward tee positions because they think they have the capacity to handle the requirements that other tee locaitons provide. Then instead of looking honestly at themselves and making the adjustment -- the easier reply is to trash the course.

I would think that for most players a layout of 6,500 yards is more then enough to handle.

Like I said at the outset -- there are a few courses still coming forward that are immensely trying because of the elements that have been included. So in summary -- I see the answer to your question as being a bit of both.

[PCCraig]

Golf courses can be made easier by playing the correct set of tees. Many 15 handicap players should be playing at about 6500 yards on average. On many of the tough brute courses such as at Kohler the same player should be playing at 6250 yards.

But this is in a perfect world and obviously doesn't happen. Hence why the courses are getting "tougher."

[Anthony Gray]

  Which new courses are too difficult?

  Has enyone played Barnsley Gardens in GA? It is too difficult for me.

  Anthony

[JMEvensky]

Golf courses can be made easier by playing the correct set of tees. Many 15 handicap players should be playing at about 6500 yards on average. On many of the tough brute courses such as at Kohler the same player should be playing at 6250 yards.

But this is in a perfect world and obviously doesn't happen. Hence why the courses are getting "tougher."

Not trying to be a prick,but doesn't this presuppose that the only thing which distinguishes good/bad players is length?

There are good players who are short and bad players who are long.Using Kohler(WS) as example,a 15 handicap could tee off from the middle of most fairways and have trouble keeping it in double digits.There are just a lot of X's for hacks on that golf course,irrespective of the tee markers they play.

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

perhaps the better question is "are modern courses any fun?"...

there are some old courses that are hard as can be, but b/c of quirk and fairness, people can play them over and over again.  many modern courses are built for the sole purpose of being hard, and i think thats a shame.

[Tom_Doak]

The question is HOW are they too difficult?

a)  Too many bunkers
b)  Too severe greens
c)  Too much water
d)  Too long

I think in the past few years, (c) too much water has been lowered as one of the factors.

Obviously, I'm not a big proponent of (b).  I know it drives some people batty, but I still firmly believe that greens are the business end of a golf course, and that putting is not beyond the physcial ability of any golfer, even if many are lousy at it.

(a) Too many bunkers is a factor, but not as big a factor as some say.  When was the last time you played a course and went in more than 3-4 bunkers over the course of a round?

I agree with those who peg (d) as the real problem, or more accurately, (d) combined with all the others.  I'd rather play a course that was shorter and full of features, than a course which is longer but has less features.  But modern architects build all the features and then ALSO put in a set of tees at 7100 yards.  They say those tees aren't for the regular golfers -- in fact, they're not for even 0.5% of the paying customers -- but putting in the 7100 yard set of tees has the effect of dragging everyone back to play one set of tees further back than they should be.  If the back tees were 6600 yards, the members would happily play from 6200, and all would be well.

[Anthony Gray]

perhaps the better question is "are modern courses any fun?"...

  Oh my God.........We have found a scholar!!

  Anthony

[Mike Hendren]

Thanks for weighing in Tom.

I am generally a proponent of defending par around the greens and as a result believe modern courses are too difficult tee to green. 

Perhaps it is easier for the modern architect to snatch strokes from the bogey player through water, length and excessive bunkering rather than to slowly extra strokes through cunning and guile.

Bogey

[Anthony Gray]

  Bogey,

  Have you been to Bandon? If so what do you think about the playability of the courses?

  Thanks,

  Anthony

[Mike Hendren]

Anthony,

I found each of the Bandon courses to be fun and playable for a wide skill level, though Doak showed a rare mean streak at Pacific's 18th

Bogey

[PCCraig]

Golf courses can be made easier by playing the correct set of tees. Many 15 handicap players should be playing at about 6500 yards on average. On many of the tough brute courses such as at Kohler the same player should be playing at 6250 yards.

But this is in a perfect world and obviously doesn't happen. Hence why the courses are getting "tougher."

There are good players who are short and bad players who are long.Using Kohler(WS) as example,a 15 handicap could tee off from the middle of most fairways and have trouble keeping it in double digits.There are just a lot of X's for hacks on that golf course,irrespective of the tee markers they play.

If a 15 handicap makes a bunch of X's from the middle of the fairway then think of how much harder the course gets once they move to the back tees, where almost every hole would be an "X."

I don't think how far you hit it has anything to do with it as it is more about how straight and consistent you are as a player. From the up tees, the fairway gets bigger and easier to hit, the ball is furthur down the fairway where a player can hit a 7 iron instead of a 3-wood, which means they have a chance of hitting the green. I would call that more fun than making X's all day, the problem is an ego gets in the way for many.

There are many courses that I will tell my buddies that it is just not fun from the Tips of some of the newer long 7300+ yard courses. When I play the tips at these courses you feel like you are playing 18 par-5's.

[Tim Bert]

Bogey

My home base has 36 holes of modern golf. Both are playable for hacks like me. In particular the 10th on our South Course appears to have been designed specifically with high handicappers in mind.

You are welcome toin me any time. No charge.

[Tim Nugent]

TD, dittos, perhaps that's why I like the links courses across the pond and will never play Spyglass again (went back just to give it another chance and decided i was right the 1st time - too long - too hard for me).  Give me a quircky course like Prestwick or N. Berwick, Cruden Bay for fun, Troon, Muirfield and Dornach for when I think I can actually play this game and St A for a change of pace and that's all I need.  Nothing over 6800 thank you very much (6400 all the better).

The problem with Modern courses IMO is they are fairly linear.  Big offices turned out criteria courses.  By this I mean they followed a set of criteria that transcended the individual sites.  Plus, the inner-office politics tended to cause associates to revert to the mean.  Many of those that left the office and are now flying solo are freer to push the envelope because they aren't just carrying out the masters orders but following their own convictions.  Plus, in the field, they have more freedom do adjust on the fly if something isn't working out, instead of having get things blessed from Mt High.

Plus, the Modern Age seems to be dominated by Collaborations with (or work done solely) by Pros.  Regardless of how many Pro/Ams they play, I don't think most have a clue as to how the average golfer plays.  Most of those Pro/Am Am's are probably in the upper eschelons of golfers and are by no means average.  So, their view of the golfing public is skewed to the better side of the spectrum.  Hence, they pushed courses that were long and open down the middle with hazards along the sides.  They all but forgot about defending the line of charm.

I hope that our friend Ian Andrew (whom I think was on the cusp of doing some really good solo work - if he ever got the chance) isn't brought back to the mean in his new partnership with Mike Weir.  Time will tell.

[Anthony Gray]

 I am glad to have common ground with the new posters Jay Kirkpatrick and Tim Nugent.

  A course should be fun. Too many new courses are of "cookie cuter" form. Tim's mention of Cruden Bay and North Berwick shows insight to how much fun a course can be that does not confirm to the modern mandates of course design. Natural or quirk depending on how you see it adds to the enjoyment and gives variety. These courses are not consumed by length.

 Anthony

[Garland Bayley]

The question is HOW are they too difficult?

a)  Too many bunkers
b)  Too severe greens
c)  Too much water
d)  Too long

I think in the past few years, (c) too much water has been lowered as one of the factors.

Obviously, I'm not a big proponent of (b).  I know it drives some people batty, but I still firmly believe that greens are the business end of a golf course, and that putting is not beyond the physcial ability of any golfer, even if many are lousy at it.

(a) Too many bunkers is a factor, but not as big a factor as some say.  When was the last time you played a course and went in more than 3-4 bunkers over the course of a round?

I agree with those who peg (d) as the real problem, or more accurately, (d) combined with all the others.  I'd rather play a course that was shorter and full of features, than a course which is longer but has less features.  But modern architects build all the features and then ALSO put in a set of tees at 7100 yards.  They say those tees aren't for the regular golfers -- in fact, they're not for even 0.5% of the paying customers -- but putting in the 7100 yard set of tees has the effect of dragging everyone back to play one set of tees further back than they should be.  If the back tees were 6600 yards, the members would happily play from 6200, and all would be well.

IMO, This completely misses the real reason. They are too narrow! That reason probably doesn't occur to Tom since he builds them wide enough. I think Tom pegs distance for the wrong reason. Tom builds them shorter than 7000 yards, because he can make really fun short par 4s and short par 5s. Also, because getting them to reach 7000 yards means the par 5s can become boring slogs for the high handicapper. However, last I checked 7200/18 = 400. I may be an old high handicapper, but I have no problem with 400 yard holes as long as they have sufficient width. On an optimal path it is driver - 7 iron. On a big slice path it can be driver - 5 wood. With tail wind it has been driver - wedge.

It appears to me that as courses got longer they have not gotten proportionally wider. This has been alleviated some by ball technology. If I had been forced to play high spin balls in my youth, instead of rock flites, I would have had a terrible time negotiating courses with my U turn slice.

[Anthony Gray]

  Garland,

  More cliffs.

 Anthony

[Tim Nugent]

Garland, your narrow=my linear.  Totally concur.  However, a 30 yd wide, straight fairway feels much narrower than a 30 yd wide fairway the serpitines back and forth around ridges, bunkers, depressions the protrude into the line of charm.  However, this can result in the need for enough land to contain what would otherwise be a 60 yd wide fairway.

We'll see what happen with Georges armchair architect contest,  Lord know he gave them more than enough room to provide ample separation between even 60 yd wide fairways.  It will be interesting how many put the above features alongside the fairways and how many use it to penetrate them. 

[Dale Jackson]

It is probably fair to say most posters on this site are single digit players - of course there will be some exceptions.  For all those golfers in that category and who think 6,500 yards is a good length for a 15+ player, I urge you to go your nearest public play facility and watch as the majority of players in that category struggle to make it around that course at that length.

Most high handicap players cannot drive the ball 250 yards, most are in the 200 - 230 range and are not accurate.  Certainly yardage is the biggest problem with modern courses in many ways; cost, real estate, water used, cost of maintenance, time per round ...), and Tom is exactly right, having those 7,000 yard plus set of tees does result in most players moving back to a set of tees further than they should be playing from.

Tom Doak and other modern architects realized this long ago and we should only hope common sense prevails and courses advertising themselves as the longest course in (insert name of state/province/country) become a thing of the past.

[Jason Topp]

If this were the 1980's I would say yes but I believe beginning with Tom Fazio and contunuing with most courses built in the last 20 years that the answer is no. 

For example - the first desert courses were exceedingly tight and penal - the original version of Gold Canyon, the original version Fred Enke in Tucson, Desert Forest and La Paloma.  I recall liking Troon North when it opened because it gave the player more room off the tee. 

By contrast modern designs usually give ample room off the tee.  Troon North now seems narrow especially when compared to We-Ko-Pa Saguaro, Chricaua, and many others.  Forced carry approaches are relatively rare, there tends to be hidden extra room for a ball to stay in play that is short and right, and slopes often funnel shots back in play.  I have not seen a course built in years that did not have a set of tees in the 5800 yard range for higher handicaps or shorter hitters.

I'm in favor of making a course playable as long as the course still presents interesting challenges.  I tend to differentiate good modern courses by the interest they present off the tee.  Many recent courses suffer in my view by failing to present interesting decisions off the tee and instead are 2nd shot courses. 



Unfortunately, I think many modern courses sacrifice interest for playability.     

[Garland Bayley]

It is probably fair to say most posters on this site are single digit players - of course there will be some exceptions.  For all those golfers in that category and who think 6,500 yards is a good length for a 15+ player, I urge you to go your nearest public play facility and watch as the majority of players in that category struggle to make it around that course at that length.
...

OK, If I say my nearest public facility is Chambers Bay in all its glorious width, then how struggling do you think it will be. All I can say is currently my handicap at my club here in Washington is 23. It probably would be higher at Chambers Bay, but yet I missed one fairway all day and spent my time waiting on the good players.

[Tom_Doak]

Dale:

Thanks for your comment, although the thought was hardly my own.  I remember Pete Dye telling me about 25 years ago that the only way to make his courses playable from the members' tees was to build them at 5800 yards, and then lie on the scorecard and swear they were 6200 yards.

[Matt_Ward]

Here's the deal that many don't realize.

Many of the people who should play at lesser distance tee boxes are the ones who don't wish to do that. I see it plenty of times -- there are guys I play with who play BB on Long Island and they insist on the back tees and then bitch and moan when they can't carry the ball over the targets.

In sum -- they want it both ways. They want to SAY they played from longer tees but they don't want to face the music that they dont' have the game to handle such situations time after time.

In my mind, anything up to 6,500 yards should be more than sufficient for 75% or even more of those who are playing.

The problem is that a good deal of the players with higher handicaps - especially those who hit it far but have little idea on where it's landing -- want to play from longer distances for the "once in a lifetime" connection when they do hit it.

[Carl Johnson]

The question is HOW are they too difficult?

a)  Too many bunkers
b)  Too severe greens
c)  Too much water
d)  Too long

As an elderly gentleman golfer of the higher handicap variety who enjoys the game, here's my personal take on these factors.

Bunkers - the number of bunkers is not a problem for me if I have a reasonable chance to avoid them.  We recently almost doubled the number of bunkers on my home course, yet many (but not all) of the new ones are not in play for me.  As for the ones that are, I'm working out the best way to avoid them.

Too severe greens - yes, if they're cut too fast.  If the only way to stop a putt from above the hole from rolling 15 feet past is to hole it, then from my perspective, the green is too severe and I don't enjoy it.  I actually find more slope to be more fun, as long as the pace is reasonable.

Too much water - I'd say "too many forced carries, over water or whatever."

Too long - I'd say "not a sufficient number of teeing options."  I have no problem playing from a "shorter" set of tees, even from the forward tees, if appropriate for my game.  Again, my own course recently added significant length, but at the same time made good adjustments to the teeing grounds.  Now I play from a shorter set of tees than before the changes, yet ones that hole by hole suit my ability much better.  My usual opponents are younger, longer hitters who play from one of the longer sets of tees.  We do the standard handicap adjustments for playing from different sets of tees and go on with it.