[Mike_Cirba]

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

I hear you there, buddy. 

Beautiful spot, lovely views, sweeping vistas.

Good, in fact, for just about anything but a golf course.

[Garland Bayley]

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

  Anthony

Too many cliffs off your slice side?

[Rob Rigg]

Garland,

Good point - I think width off the tee is a big factor in making courses more enjoyable.

For fairly long hitters who are inconsistent, umm like me, the distance of the course does not necessarily make a huge difference to score. If the mojo is on then you can shoot a decent score from the tips or from the reds and if it is off then it is a nightmare from any set of tees.

If landing areas are narrow then you are 250-300 yards down the middle 4 times a round, in the rough 6 times a round and off in the boonies 4 times a round. Make the corridors a bit wider and you are in the fairway more often and not in the boonies at all.

I think all of the modern residencial golf courses have made the game tougher on the average golfer because it is impossible to have wide corridors and every developer wants to have a "championship" course of at least 7000 yards.

My hope for golf courses in the future is that architects are given sufficient land to build something that is strategically challenging for the single digit handicap and wide enough for the average golfer to enjoy.

If the land isn't meant for golf - don't build on it (please!!!!).

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think its just too hard to generalize about an entire generation of courses by over 200 architects.  Is it any correlation to the fact that we just saw Doral on TV that this thread comes up?  Do we subconsciously attribute what we see on TV to all courses - in this case, too much water?

I also have to ask what is "enough width?"  Most new courses I play and design have fw averaging 40+ yards wide.  I associate narrow fw with older courses where tree planting programs have caused the fw corridors to narrow.  Are modern courses too narrow?

I agree green speeds have made even recent greens a bit too tough - see my comments to Lou Duran on another thread. I just can't seem to build them flat enough to avoid critisicm in some corners.  While I agree with TD that putting is within anyone's physical skill, golfers practice too little, and they practice putting least of all.  Large contours mean bigger misses, which means more 3 and 4 putts.

Length?  With multiple tees I don't see it as being a huge factor. In fact, I see more seniors feeling comfortable teeing off at less than 6000 than demanding more than 6000 yards - which I used to think they did, kind of like TD describes Pete Dye.

Most of my courses come in at a slope in the 125-130 range.  However, probably the most talk about my courses are Colbert Hills and the Quarry - which have back tee slope ratings of 151 and 145 (I think) which leads me to believe that we think about tougher courses more than we actually play them.  Just a thought about perceptions, etc. as they relate to gca.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Each person will have a different reason as to what makes a course difficult for him or what may ruin the experience, but IMO yes most modern golf courses are too difficult for the majority of players.

Golf has changed so much in the last 10 or so years, the level has gone up drastically and you need to be +5 handicap to compete at main tour level. Courses that are fine for the top players are too difficult for lesser players and perhaps impossible for high handicapper because of the water factor. The different range which players hit from tee is crazy, easily 100 yards that never really happened in the old days, from a design point of view it's hard to keep hazards and points of interest for both players. Some hazards will be out of play for a better golfer, but most will figure for the lesser player, the bunkering for the better player at 330, perhaps intervenes as the 2nd shot for a lower standard. Three putting and difficult greens can be very annoying, they certainly make the score add up. Narrowness has always really been there.

I think a lot could be helped by using a limited distnce ball, the same courses could more easily be enjoyed by more without moving hazards or stretching the tees back. Not a lot you can do about water, but I do think by and large golfers like water.

[Richard Hetzel]

Or quite simply, REMOVE the Championship tee markers with the exception of tourneys, club championships and the like. Just because you "have" the 7100+ yard behemoth on site, doesn't mean you have to set it up to play that way each and every day!

People will play the options they are given them on any particular day.

I am around a 12 handicap (4 kids no practice time) but I look to play around 6500-6600 each and every time out. If all they have is 6850 or 6250 with nothing in between, I am most likely am going to move up a set rather than play back at 6850 with a slope of 139.

Set the courses up properly for every day play and the rest will solve itself.

[Sean_A]

I don't know folks.  When I look at some of the stuff Tillie and Flynn did all those years ago, the courses of today don't strike me as anymore difficult for a decent player.  For higher cappers, yes, courses are often too long and elements such as water which create many more do or die situations or water down the wings situations than in the Golden Age.  All in all though, I don't think I have a huge issue with difficulty because those courses are easy enough to avoid - unless its classic old courses that have been made stupidly hard just for the odd tournament.  My issue is really with the lack of subtlety these days.  Too many archies are trying to wow golfers with picture perfect scenarios in god knows what locations that aren't really anything near ideal for golf.  I would like to see a return to thinking man's golf with an emphasis on ball placement rather than length.  I have said it before, but archies should be looking for ways to challenge the golfer with less yardage not more.  There are every few courses which have any need to be longer than 6500 yards and I dare say that a great majority could be built around the 5800-6200 mark if done cleverly.  

Ciao  

[Philippe Binette]

They are for the most part...

It's not about too many ponds or too many bunkers, it's about the placement of them and the room to get around.

There's too much zone defense or double cover formation on modern courses... lake on the left bunkers on the right, bunkers both sides of a green etc.
Basically, there's too much insignificant stuff.

If you look at the Old Course, the play left strategy will not allow you to score, but it will allow you to play safely.

The reason with it works for everybody is because the configuration of the green and the strategy of the holes are connected...

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

They are for the most part...

It's not about too many ponds or too many bunkers, it's about the placement of them and the room to get around.

There's too much zone defense or double cover formation on modern courses... lake on the left bunkers on the right, bunkers both sides of a green etc.
Basically, there's too much insignificant stuff.

If you look at the Old Course, the play left strategy will not allow you to score, but it will allow you to play safely.

The reason with it works for everybody is because the configuration of the green and the strategy of the holes are connected...

you just hit the nail on the head.  in many cases traditional courses have just as many bunkers/hazards.  they just give you many more ways to navigate them. plus the best traditional courses use hazards so well psychologically as optical illusions.  i love when i play an old classic course for the first time and realize a bunker that seemingly sits right in front of the green is actually 40 yards short of it.  also the old masters were good at penalizing poorly struck drives by placing hazards in places that you would only visit when trying to miraculously recover from trouble.

[Chip Gaskins]

I am going to pick two modern courses I actually like, but I think are simply too hard.  Caves Valley and Mayacama.

They are too long from the back tees and the greens are too fast for even a single digit handicap to have an enjoyable time.  It is just a slug to get around.  They are good golf courses, but so was my college freshman chemistry exam, it doesn't mean I enjoyed it.

On the flipside, I think Ballyneal, Bandon Trails, and Tobacco Road are three of the most fun courses on the planet. 

So I am not sure the indicator is new versus old...

Architects should just lie on the scorecard and let us keep our manhood and but still have fun

[Mike_Trenham]

I would exclude the too many bunkers part from the argument.

Are modern courses built with more bunkers than those in the 1920s and will the center line bunkers, cross bunkers and approach bunkers of today be removed by green committees in the future.

What we see today as fun classic era courses are really courses where green committees and consulting architects of past generations have removed so many of the original bunkers on a course because they only effected the average players.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff B, Sean A - your posts make a lot of sense to me.

Mike H - I've been thinking about this all day. I don't play a lot of different courses or a lot of rounds. All the rounds are on public courses and most are on newer courses. I'm not a good player.  I can't speak in relative terms (i.e. compared to old classic courses), but generally the answer is "no" - I don't find the courses I play too difficult.  In fact, with the penchant for elevated tees and other tricks of the trade that make rabbits feel like tigers and keeps them coming back, the courses are usually easier than the scorecard/yardage/slope rating would suggest.  (They just don't make 7,000 yards like they used too.) But to belabour the point, I tend to play the right set of tees for me. 

Peter

[Doug Siebert]

Garland,

Good point - I think width off the tee is a big factor in making courses more enjoyable.

For fairly long hitters who are inconsistent, umm like me, the distance of the course does not necessarily make a huge difference to score. If the mojo is on then you can shoot a decent score from the tips or from the reds and if it is off then it is a nightmare from any set of tees.

If landing areas are narrow then you are 250-300 yards down the middle 4 times a round, in the rough 6 times a round and off in the boonies 4 times a round. Make the corridors a bit wider and you are in the fairway more often and not in the boonies at all.

I think all of the modern residencial golf courses have made the game tougher on the average golfer because it is impossible to have wide corridors and every developer wants to have a "championship" course of at least 7000 yards.

My hope for golf courses in the future is that architects are given sufficient land to build something that is strategically challenging for the single digit handicap and wide enough for the average golfer to enjoy.

If the land isn't meant for golf - don't build on it (please!!!!).

I don't even care if the fairway is wider (though I won't complain if it is)  Just leave a bit more room between the "no go" zones on either side.  There are plenty of courses that look really pretty in photos with all the tree lined fairways and such, but the trees are so thick that if you hit your ball into them you don't even look.  If you tried you'd probably get Lyme disease or mauled by bears.

It doesn't matter to me if the fairway is 10 yards wide or 50 yards wide, if the "can find your ball" zone is 60 yards wide, I'm going to lose at least one ball and perhaps a half dozen or more on a bad day in the course of a round there.

I know, I know, the argument will be about the cost of land.  I'd believe it, if it wasn't for the fact that this type of course is often the type that uses a hell of a lot of land.  You have several minute cart drives (mandatory carts, typically) between green and tee on multiple occasions, and you can rarely see one hole from the next.  They aren't saving on land, they are just saving on cutting down fewer trees.  I realize that costs money too, but it has to cost the course owner money in the long run from less play by people who find the course overly frustrating.

Even on a good day at such a course it just kind of leaves me feeling a bit worn out because I'm always stressed on every full shot where a few yards is the difference between a recoverable mistake and a reload.  Over and over, all day long (you guys who always hit it straight don't know what this feels like, I know)

[Adrian_Stiff]

Or quite simply, REMOVE the Championship tee markers with the exception of tourneys, club championships and the like. Just because you "have" the 7100+ yard behemoth on site, doesn't mean you have to set it up to play that way each and every day!

People will play the options they are given them on any particular day.

I am around a 12 handicap (4 kids no practice time) but I look to play around 6500-6600 each and every time out. If all they have is 6850 or 6250 with nothing in between, I am most likely am going to move up a set rather than play back at 6850 with a slope of 139.

Set the courses up properly for every day play and the rest will solve itself.

No, this is not the answer. Some people are say 12 hcp but hit it 280 some are 12 hcp hit it 200. Some want long, as soon as you did that the longer hitters would complain, its better to allow men of different standards to play off different tees in the same group. At my home course I enjoy it off the yellow tees, I do not enjoy it off the white tees.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Doug Siebert,

That is where some of our environmental concerns come into play - tree preservation, habitat preservation, turf limitations have all meant less turf, more natural areas that lead to the situations you desribe. 

From a playability and even maintenance cost perspective, a low maintenance turf probably works best for outlying or transition areas.  But many slow growth turfs - like buffalo grass - don't take substantial traffic when unwatered and can't go on the cart path side and has to go where there really won't be a lot of traffic.

[Mike Hendren]

My issue is really with the lack of subtlety these days.  Too many archies are trying to wow golfers with picture perfect scenarios in god knows what locations that aren't really anything near ideal for golf.  I would like to see a return to thinking man's golf with an emphasis on ball placement rather than length.  I have said it before, but archies should be looking for ways to challenge the golfer with less yardage not more.  
Ciao  

Brilliant. 

Is it perhaps easier to design a long course than a short one, other things being equal?

Bogey

[Sean_A]

My issue is really with the lack of subtlety these days.  Too many archies are trying to wow golfers with picture perfect scenarios in god knows what locations that aren't really anything near ideal for golf.  I would like to see a return to thinking man's golf with an emphasis on ball placement rather than length.  I have said it before, but archies should be looking for ways to challenge the golfer with less yardage not more.  
Ciao  

Brilliant. 

Is it perhaps easier to design a long course than a short one, other things being equal?

Bogey

Bogey

I am no archie so I don't really know if distance or lack thereof is harder to design for.  I get the impression that even if archies wanted to turn the tables on distance they don't have enough control of projects to really go whole hog.  I spose its like any of these soft science fields - everybody is an expert to the point where archies don't really have control of their own field - much like teachers.  That said, with the dull as dishwater stuff that is built it isn't surprising that many developers/owners gets involved - though it is probably for all the wrong reasons such as marketing tick boxing.   

Ciao

[Philippe Binette]

Part of it is marketing too..

we have a championship course (even though no championship will ever be played on it).


Crystal Downs, as difficult a course there is, 6500 yards... most architect can't do something like that...

I imagine it would be hard to sell to most owners;
don't worry, I'm going to built you a 6600 yards course par 71, with not many bunkers but a lot of subtle, on the edge stuff that would be frustrating for most people at first but they are going to love it after a while.

[George Freeman]

Part of it is marketing too..

we have a championship course (even though no championship will ever be played on it).


Crystal Downs, as difficult a course there is, 6500 yards... most architect can't do something like that...

I imagine it would be hard to sell to most owners;
don't worry, I'm going to built you a 6600 yards course par 71, with not many bunkers but a lot of subtle, on the edge stuff that would be frustrating for most people at first but they are going to love it after a while.

Philippe,

I was going to bring up Crystal Downs...I'm glad you did.  Hard to understand why courses just aren't built like that anymore (barring a few exceptions). 

Good point re: the hard sell.  As it is with everything in life, from stocks to report cards:  It's all about expectations...

[George Pazin]

I wonder how much easier many modern courses would be if they simply mowed the rough a little shorter, and/or kept it less lush and dense.

[Richard Hetzel]

Or quite simply, REMOVE the Championship tee markers with the exception of tourneys, club championships and the like. Just because you "have" the 7100+ yard behemoth on site, doesn't mean you have to set it up to play that way each and every day!

People will play the options they are given them on any particular day.

I am around a 12 handicap (4 kids no practice time) but I look to play around 6500-6600 each and every time out. If all they have is 6850 or 6250 with nothing in between, I am most likely am going to move up a set rather than play back at 6850 with a slope of 139.

Set the courses up properly for every day play and the rest will solve itself.

No, this is not the answer. Some people are say 12 hcp but hit it 280 some are 12 hcp hit it 200. Some want long, as soon as you did that the longer hitters would complain, its better to allow men of different standards to play off different tees in the same group. At my home course I enjoy it off the yellow tees, I do not enjoy it off the white tees.

IMO a course that was designed properly will play right from every set of tees.....

[Carl Rogers]

Is the amount and height of the rough an issue along with a wider course. 

Did any of the old dead guys ever like high rough?  I would guess not.

On the other hand isn't bunker maintenance today a lot better?

[Joe Hancock]

On the other hand isn't bunker maintenance today a lot better?

I think the only golfers to benefit from this "improvement" is the low handicapper. The high handicapper(and even in my case, lower handicapper) still struggles with any sand.

Just my opinion,

Joe

[JMEvensky]

On the other hand isn't bunker maintenance today a lot better?

I think the only golfers to benefit from this "improvement" is the low handicapper. The high handicapper(and even in my case, lower handicapper) still struggles with any sand.

Just my opinion,

Joe

Joe Hancock,I couldn't agree more.

Spending excessive $'s for bunker maintenance might the least "valuable" expense for the vast majority of golfers.Unfortunately,you can never convince them of this.Most think that their sand-play problems could be fixed if only the bunkers were maintained better.

[Anthony Gray]

  What is ment by "bunker maintenance"?

  Anthony

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()