[Adrian_Stiff]

Playable golf courses for all handicaps, challenging for a scratch golfer yet not demanding for a beginner, designed to test all levels of skill......I think this is unachievable now, quite simply courses for pro's are too tough for beginners and courses with flat greens, few bunkers, no water, no rough will be too easy. The length aspect of back tees/front tees is not enough.

Design some tough and some easy.

[Don_Mahaffey]

I think golfers have always enjoyed it when they play well, and they measure playing well by what they score.

Every supt. will tell you if you want to keep the most people happy most of the time, move the tees up, but make them think they're playing it long, cut easy pins, and keep the fwys firm and the greens soft. You’re always doing your best when they score well.

If you want to hear good things about your course when you host a tourney, you talk to the guys who finished at the top, not to those who missed the cut.

Jeff's course manager is just repeating what his customers are telling him and he knows how to keep most of them happy. These are the same golfers who think a course is in great shape if every blade of grass is the same dark green, the ponds are a very nice dyed blue look, and the flowers are in bloom.

Luckily, we have some golfers who like things a little different than most.
I do think it's up to those of us in the golf biz to do some education and not just react to what many want by supplying watered down golf.

[Rich Goodale]

Excellent post, Don

Even for those of us who think we "understand" GCA, when a course is finely tuned (fast and firm, pins in complex positions) we will inevitably struggle.  We, however, will grow a smile of admiration on our face whilst struggling whereas others will grow a frown of contempt.

I think the answer to this conundrum is to to try keep a course reasonably tuned from day to day, but juiced up for competitions.  Let the casual players enjoy their day, but let the serious players be challenged (I'm asuming that compettions are conducted regardless of handicap, of course).

But what do we do with the raters?  Tune the course up for them on their whim, or accept their outrageous slings and arrows when then do a drive-by on the day when you are top dressing the greens?

Ric h

[Philippe Binette]

Adrian,

I don't think design for everybody is unachievable, Royal Melbourne can be played with a putter (from the forward tees) and still challenge the pros.

Like Sarazen once said, with all the money but in golf design and construction, I can't believe they still haven't built another Royal Melbourne

[Sean_A]

Playable golf courses for all handicaps, challenging for a scratch golfer yet not demanding for a beginner, designed to test all levels of skill......I think this is unachievable now, quite simply courses for pro's are too tough for beginners and courses with flat greens, few bunkers, no water, no rough will be too easy. The length aspect of back tees/front tees is not enough.

Design some tough and some easy.

Woh - is this an archie capitulating to the obvious?  Would ths mean the idea 5 sets of tees is a nonsensical?  Jeff, you supporter of a lowly southern hockey club, are you paying attention to this turn coat?  Whats up with breaking ranks and all?  Maybe Adrian needs a quite word...

Ciao

[Anthony Gray]

  Design Interest. This may become the new catch phraise.

  Anthony

[Tom_Doak]

It really puzzles me when some experts (Jeff Brauer) tell me I'm designing courses which are too difficult in the interest of defending par, while other experts (several here) tell me I'm designing courses which aren't challenging enough to really good players.

I suspect it means that I'm on the right track.

I have never been a big proponent of "defending par", despite my training in the Pete Dye school.  I've always just thought of making holes that were a) interesting and b) fun to play.  Jeff's friend's prescription for the future seemed to rule out too many things that might make a course interesting, for my tastes.

I do think that trying to build a bunch of holes which are challenging for Tour pros makes it almost impossible for amateurs to have any fun.  However, there are ways to build a hole which the pro thinks is hard (because it's hard to make birdie) but where the average player can easily make pars and bogeys.

[Philippe Binette]

It all depends on the perception of difficulty.

To me, a course where I hit the ball, find it, and can have a swing at it (fairly open, not too many water hazard or wooded area) is never overly difficult... which is in the way most of Tom Doak's course are...

On the other side Tom Doak's course tend to be hard on and around the greens... If a tour guy is playing well, he might not see the tough around the green part... but the average guy who struggles with the short game might pile up a big score...

but

I don't think a course is hard when you play 7-8 shots more because of tough up-and downs... because you really think you can do better with a couple of better chips or putts

but it is a hard course when those 7-8 shots more are due to drops from water hazards, or on a course where you hit 9-14 fairways (like tour guys) but the 5 times you miss it's complete disaster... then you feel that you can't really do better.  On those courses, the tour pro will use his go-to shot and miss on the proper side, while average players can,t really do that

[Adrian_Stiff]

Phillippe- Its back tothe pleasing some and not others. Some will like the challenge of difficult greens and recovery shots from non sand, others may feel the game should reward hitting greens and accurate tee shots. I hated scoring badly when they were mainly putts, I felt hitting 13 greens and shooting 77 just wasn't fair (ofcourse I am wrong)..I was a bad putter.
Tom D's style is neither right or wrong, there is no exact way, but the style makes sense and replicates the way the game was intended to be played, personally I like it. I am not sure if Tom Doaks courses could stage a PGA event because perhaps the driving would not be difficult enough and to make it difficult would probably contradict the whole principle of the intent. Equally does that matter, I am sure TD could do a 'tuff 1' if wanted.
Royal Melbourne and St Andrews can by and large be played by anyone, but finding a new bit of land and doing it is going to be tough.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Playable golf courses for all handicaps, challenging for a scratch golfer yet not demanding for a beginner, designed to test all levels of skill......I think this is unachievable now, quite simply courses for pro's are too tough for beginners and courses with flat greens, few bunkers, no water, no rough will be too easy. The length aspect of back tees/front tees is not enough.

Design some tough and some easy.

Woh - is this an archie capitulating to the obvious?  Would ths mean the idea 5 sets of tees is a nonsensical?  Jeff, you supporter of a lowly southern hockey club, are you paying attention to this turn coat?  Whats up with breaking ranks and all?  Maybe Adrian needs a quite word...

Ciao

I have read this a few times and don't quite understand, or I have been misunderstood.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Anthony,

I hope so. I will trademark it.

TD, I did say "maybe."  I guess I do have that perception mostly because of TT, which was designed for college tourneys, just like I designed Colbert Hills for college tourneys, at the risk of making it too hard for the average guy.  As a matter of fact, all of these conversations I have had are a result of designing a new course 100 miles away with specific instructions from a business plan to not make it as hard as CH to attract play.

Phillipe,

Another couple of good points. I recall many saying (including Pete Dye) that the reason Pinehurst is so popular is that you can't lose a golf ball. I think he is right.  And, as I said earlier, RM proves that MacKenzie, among others did design a course that is challenging but playable.  For that matter, why do we like GA courses more than say, Doral?  It might be fewer water hazards, fewer OB and fewer lost balls, period.

But beyond that, I still say its a matter of degrees.   As someone pointed out there is a bigger gap in the pro game and even top ams now.  I recall that Frank Beard year on tour diary.  He said the difference was that pros could pull off a certain shot 7 out of 10 times to maybe 4 out of 10 times for a top am.  Now, pros have so much more distance that they can pull off shots no one else has a shot at.  They also get more spin, more this, more that, etc.

Its still a matter of degrees.  Lets say I design a carry bunker.  Making it 3 feet deep instead of 6, and requiring a carry of 260 off the back tees instead of 275 may open up the carry strategy to infinitely more golfers.  Like the former Augusta, if they opt to go far outside the bunker, the extra distance and maybe a moderate bunker are still likely to cause a bogey, maybe 33% of the time instead of all the time.  Is that rolling over dead?

Lastly, I think we all acknowledge different design styles - the US Open style seeks to punish most missed shots with rough and bunkers all around.  The muni style is a highway.  Even in between, some architects tend to punish, some tend to reward.  Some defend par/targets (partially or fully) and others set up features in combinations to encourage certain types of shots - high, low, etc.

I am certainly not ashamed to be in the encouraging camp of architecture vs. the defending par mode.

Don is also right. My managers comments were truly along the line of keeping his customers satisfied.  A lot of it is maintenance. In another discussion a good player wanted to retry another of my courses later this year when it firmed up and played fast (to get more roll of course)

Of course, the only statement of irrefuteable fact here is that I suppport a lowly southern hockey team.....

[David Kelly]

I was watching The Spirit of Golf episode on Nicklaus this past weekend.  He was saying that he considered a course he designed successful if it was good for the client.  What he said next surprised me.  He said, "it may not be good for golf, but if it is good for the client and his business model, then it was a success."

Its disheartening to me that Jack put himself into this position at this point in his life. Running around for 30 years and putting his name on any course or development that would pay his fee may have been financially successful for him and his family but I think there could have been a way for him to make money and still build courses that were good for golf.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think you are taking that a bit the wrong way.  For many, it was disheartening that JN designed tournament cousre after tournament course early in his career for places that were never going to have a tournament. Now, he has said he realizes that courses can have different functions - attracting members is always the number one function since we know that defunct courses don't play very well in any case!

What makes you think his early, tough courses were good for golf, or at least better for golf than his more player friendly courses?

[Anthony Gray]

  Are there golf courses and then tournament golf courses?

  Anthony

[Garland Bayley]

I think this person you talked to, however respected he/she may be, is wrong.  I've never met anybody that enjoys playing golf on a runway.

Where do you think Matt Ward records his long drives that he goes on and on about?

[Mike_Young]

Mike Young:

Rather than "sell to the masses... live the with classes", I thought of this old saying after reading Jeff's initial post:

"An architect should never lose sight of his responsibility as an educational factor in the game. Nothing will tend more surely to develop the right spirit of the game than an insistence upon the high ideals that should inspire sound golf architecture." - Wm. Flynn

Should golfers be educating architects? Or vice versa? Or some kinda combination of these two?

Is that the same Flynn guy that designed Merion?

Education?......isn't it fair to say education flows both ways in everything..... 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike Young:

Rather than "sell to the masses... live the with classes", I thought of this old saying after reading Jeff's initial post:

"An architect should never lose sight of his responsibility as an educational factor in the game. Nothing will tend more surely to develop the right spirit of the game than an insistence upon the high ideals that should inspire sound golf architecture." - Wm. Flynn

Should golfers be educating architects? Or vice versa? Or some kinda combination of these two?

Is that the same Flynn guy that designed Merion?

Education?......isn't it fair to say education flows both ways in everything..... 

Education?  Is that really a tried and true design criteria or is our job just to provide a fun and perhaps challenging (or occaisionally, a challenging and perhaps fun) course?  Do building architects feel the need to educate everyone who walks in the door about the wonders of Frank Lloyd Wright, or the design of the Vatican?  Or, does the designer of a 7-11 just need to get customers from the door to the beer cooler?

[Mike_Young]

Mike Young:

Rather than "sell to the masses... live the with classes", I thought of this old saying after reading Jeff's initial post:

"An architect should never lose sight of his responsibility as an educational factor in the game. Nothing will tend more surely to develop the right spirit of the game than an insistence upon the high ideals that should inspire sound golf architecture." - Wm. Flynn

Should golfers be educating architects? Or vice versa? Or some kinda combination of these two?

Is that the same Flynn guy that designed Merion?

Education?......isn't it fair to say education flows both ways in everything..... 

Education?  Is that really a tried and true design criteria or is our job just to provide a fun and perhaps challenging (or occaisionally, a challenging and perhaps fun) course?  Do building architects feel the need to educate everyone who walks in the door about the wonders of Frank Lloyd Wright, or the design of the Vatican?  Or, does the designer of a 7-11 just need to get customers from the door to the beer cooler?

I hope that 7-11 guy has done it enough to be educated on the best way to get to that beer cooler.....as you are aware.....it's those little things you learn that aren't seen or known by the ones that don't know any better.....that's why this site is in such awe of the ODG's....and it is the reason so many assume they can do it their first time.....oh well....

[Bradley Anderson]

Jeff,

He's referring to the guys who .....

  pick up every ball within 3 feet of the hole
  leave cigar butts all over
  don't rake their bunkers
  don't replace divots
  don't fix ball-marks
  park their carts as close to the green as possible
  hit in to the groups in front of them
 
..... because to do otherwise isn't fun.
 

[David Kelly]

What makes you think his early, tough courses were good for golf, or at least better for golf than his more player friendly courses?

It doesn't matter what I think but it is disheartening to me that he builds courses that HE thinks are not good for golf.

[Matt Day]

as a manager (not highly respected  ) of a busy public facility for the past seven years I've been involved with a lot of course changes that were designed to make the course more interesting to more people.

What we have done is basic stuff but has worked really well (not to tell you guys anything you don't know)

- new fairway bunkering that added interest for the better players but were out of reach from the tee for average golfers
- challenges on the green without being too hard. We can pin it tough if we want too but for day to day golfing its reasonable
- greens where possible have an area where the ball can be run onto the green, although it isnt necessarily going to guarantee the best result
- as new tees have been built added where possible distance to give us more options

As I write this we will do today around 600 rounds for 36 holes, our daily average is around 480 all year long. What we hear continually is that course condition is the main reason for our success, followed by design and interest. The other major feedback from better golfers is that they want quicker greens and that's a fair point, but this has to be weighed up against speed of play and skill of the beginner.

If we went down the path of reducing player numbers for a higher gree fee, green speed and firmness would increase.

Reading forums such as these has helped significantly in how I manage the course, and things such as tree reduction in play areas that a few years ago weren't on the radar are now a priority to improve the enjoyment  of the golfer. Enjoyment to me is a key word, and that's a major reason in why I think my track get the continued repeat business.

I'm thinking of doing a photo course tour in a few weeks if anyone's interested, it hopefully will show how a public course in Australia can provide a good product at good price on a medium level budget

[Ian_L]

If all this is true, then why do so many courses flaunt their high slope ratings?  Do you ever see an ad that says: "our course is so easy, anyone can break 100!"?

[Adrian_Stiff]

If all this is true, then why do so many courses flaunt their high slope ratings?  Do you ever see an ad that says: "our course is so easy, anyone can break 100!"?

Ian - Golfers like the 'idea' of playing great courses, ones that are difficult and perhaps fall in love with the magazine/signature carries to island greens. Reality is they play their average game score badly and get wounded, they will not play these courses regularly, the wounds heal and a year later they are back taking on another.

Matt- When you are doing those daily numbers, you are doing everything right, sounds like you need to change nothing. The interesting comment you made was first up they feel conditioning is important, this is very true of Mr UK Average aswell.

[Randy Thompson]

Jeff,
Congrats on this thread, by far the most interesting topic I have seen come across the board in two years. Good golf design has no cook book reciepe to follow(if it did we all would be bored to death) and the world of golf needs all kinds of courses and variety, all courses are good for golf, even the ones where you carry a piece of rug to place on top of the sand and hit your fairway shots and putt on greens of sand topped with burned oil. Excellent topic! You get my vote for the arm chair thread award!

[Dan Smoot]

Had an interesting discussion with a respected golf course manager the other day, basically asking what features of courses I have designed were popular and unpopular.  (I do this regularly)

The summary of his response was that the features that made holes fun to play were the most popular.   Features that raised scores were not.  "Good Features" in his opinion (gleamed from golfers on his course and other GOOD players) included

Wide fw (not for strategy - just allows golfers to bust a driver)
Big Greens - to allow players to hit more greens in regulation rather than face chip shots
Flat Greens - no tricks, ability to make a birdie on many holes if close enough to the pin
Reasonable recovery shots, including chips.  Most players hate chips that "run away from them"
Feeling comfortable off the tee
No awkward shots where a tree blocks or forces a shot around.

Basically, the Tour Pro philosophy of "The course shouldn't EVER hurt you" is in the mind of the better club player now, which I guess I knew.  The funny thing is, he asks why I would ever put a feature in a golf course that would cause a bogey.  I replied "Well, I guess its the old gca and RTJ idea of "defending par", ya know".

His response?

"Those days are over!"

Thoughts?

What a boring game.  I would be tempted to sell my clubs.  This rivals the attitude "Let's not challenge Johnny, we might hurt his self esteem".  I am not favoring a penal golf course.  However, when I put the ball in the wrong place, when given options, there should be consequences and the opportunity to play the next shot.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()