We like quirky fun designs because we're hackers (?)

[Jud_T]

A light bulb went off recently- Maybe I prefer strategic fun courses because I'm a hacker.  I know this may seem obvious but hear me out. A bit of background- I didn't take up the game until my mid 30s and am ecstatic to break 90.  However, I have been fortunate to have been able to play a wide variety of courses, including many of the the highest rated in the world.  My favorite courses are ones with plenty of strategy around the greens and a variety of options off the tee.  I have no problem with the rub of the green or the blind shot.  I like firm and fast conditions.  However, my friends and business associates who play to the low to mid single digits seem to feel differently.  They like courses that really test their game for length and accuracy.  They have no issue with a lot of forced carries or repetitive tree-lines chutes off the tee.  Water hazards are their friend.  They hate nothing more than the blind shot or rub-of the green.  They like courses that seperate the men from the boys, god damn it.  Do we like all this minimalism and quirky green complex stuff because we're hackers and we can't cut it at anything over 6600 yards?  Are there any guys out there who play to a 4 or less who actually PREFER places like Lawsonia, Kingsley, Pac Dunes etc. to the really tough championship layouts on all the top 100 lists?

[Rob Rigg]

Hi Jud,

I am currently off a five so slightly higher than your criteria.

I really enjoy the same tracks as you do. I love links courses that are firm and fast where you make or break your round at the greens provided you can get your ball in play off the tee. I don't mind shooting at banks off the green or landing the ball short in the hopes working the ball to the hole. I think strategy and challenge make the game fun. I never obsess about score.

I have spoken to more than a few scratch golfers who do not see things at all like I do - although I admit my outlook on the game is probably rare for anyone. Many (not all) VERY good golfers play for the 140 seconds a round that they are actually in motion. They don't care how they get around the course - walking or cart - they just want to fire at the pin and they get PO'd if a course makes it hard for them to score - they don't see the entire layout because they are good enough to pick targets for every shot and hit them most of the time.

Ironically, this was my first season playing in about ten so I started the year off a 15 - the reason that I have scored better this year than ever before is because of this site and my changed outlook on the game from when I played in high school and college. ie) enjoy the walk, enjoy the course, enjoy being out with friends, use your time playing to re-energize yourself for life, don't worry about score. The more interesting the course, the more fun I have.

Your proposed "hacker" attitude has actually made me a better golfer - in terms of both enjoyment and scoring.

[Ronald Montesano]

I'm a 3.7 and  i like golf.  I enjoy quirky courses because I have a creative side that likes punching three woods, bumping hybrids, and shaping/creating shots.  I enjoy penal courses with forced carries because I like to test myself under pressure:  can I hit the necessary shot when all is on the line?

Case in point:  Scott Witter's par four 14th hole at Arrowhead, outside of Buffalo, has water up the right side and OB left, all the way to the green.  There is a wide landing zone for a 200 yard shot off the tee, allowing a 100 yard pitch into the green.  Rather than hit the 4-iron tee shot, I aimed the driver up the edge of the pond and let it fly...It turned left just enough to reach terra firma.  Although I was left with only about 30 yards to the green, I made par on the hole, rather than birdie, when my lob wedge bit extra early.  The birdie was not my ultimate goal on that hole; rather, I hoped to prove that I could trust the driver under pressure.

[Jud_T]

Rob-

Great stuff.  It took me about 10 years to learn to really enjoy myself on the course and not blow up at the inevitable blow-up.  I'll never forget the look on a friend's face at Pinehurst #2.  We were coming up hole #5, and he ( a solid 5 hdcp) had just hit a gorgeous long iron into a 2 club wind that barely had rolled off the green to the right front.  He stepped up and hit what looked like a very good chip, which came up about a foot short of the cup and proceeded to roll all the way back down a swale to his feet.  He looked as if he was going to self-immolate!  Steam was literally almost coming out of his ears and he came very close to walking off the course...Goofy golf as far as he was concerned....

Ronald-

Thanks for the insight! That would never occur to us hackers!  

[Sean Leary]

Jud,

If you are a hacker so to speak, how do you have options off the tee? Options off the the tee me sounds like you know where your ball is going.

[Dale Jackson]

Jud, I look at this interesting topic differently.  Most of us on this site prefer strategic, fun, quirky and unusual.  Some are high handicap, some are low, some are scratch.  What we have in common is a thread back to how the game was first played.  We prefer a game grounded in match play and amateur golf.

The too long, narrow, target oriented game is a recent invention.  The professional/elite amateur wants predictability and easy decision making.  They put an emphasis on repeatability and a linear relationship between level of skill and result.

That large numbers of the golfing public have grown to prefer the "professional" style game reflects society's focus on professional elite sports brought to us by television.  Many only know what television has shown and taught them, they do not take the time or have the interest to learn about the other style of game.

All sports, indeed all entertainment it seems to me, suffers from the same dynamic.  Society has forgotten the joys and attendant unpredictability of amateur sports and "amateur" entertainment.  Television shows us only perfection in sports (endless highlight reels showing only the best plays in each sport) and perfection in the arts and other entertainment (perfect musicians perfectly recorded) and we have lost the joys of playing sports imperfectly, and participating as, and listening/watching amateur musicians actors, etc.

To bring this short diatribe back to your original subject, we do not prefer strategic and quirk because of out ability or non-ability, we merely prefer the game of golf as it was first played and, in my opinion, prefer the style of game that remains its purest expression.

I say revel in strategy, minimalism and quirk.  BTW, this from one of the 4 and unders you referenced in your original post.

Jud,

If you are a hacker so to speak, how do you have options off the tee? Options off the the tee me sounds like you know where your ball is going.

Sean, I think a well designed course offers options to all levels of players.  Perhaps the ability of some to see those options and assess the best route is, at times, out weighed by an inability to execute properly.

[Rob Rigg]

I think Dale makes a very good point - you will probably find that almost everyone on THIS site is a big proponent of strategy regardless of handicap. And while competitive in a match are out to enjoy the course and the company more than anything else. Play a round with Mike "The Stick" Wagner and you will find out that a + golfer can love getting out there, being creative and having fun.

I think the "options" for all golfers on strategic courses comes from the ability to choose driver, 3 wood, or iron off the same tee depending on how much they are willing to bite off - whether a scratch or bogey golfer. Most modern penal designs call for either a straight driver or a straight any other club in the bag - where is the fun in that? A draw or fade with driver to cut a corner and down the middle with hybrid or fwy wood which will leave a longer second but more achievable drive is obviously a more interesting proposition and challenge.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Jud:

I don't think you can generalize. I believe all of us on GCA.com have one thing in common: we appreciate golf course architecture. This means we like quirky courses, ones which allow strategy to shine, ones where there isn't always fairness and predictability. As you can tell from the previous posts, low and high handicap golfers can both appreciate this types of courses.

Dónal.

[Jud_T]

Dale-

Excellent point. It even extends to junior golf in the states.  My son, a 10 year old, has begun playing in junior tournaments, all of which are held at medal play thus far.  He is already obsessed with his score, to the point where I've begun hiding the scorecard from him when we play and getting him to focus on the match at hand.  He can't enjoy himself unless he's got a chance to shoot a personal best or reach some sort of gross target.  I'm tempted to start organizing a junior match play series.  The focus is all on tournament results and what it means for college recruiting at the high school level.  If you're not a +3 by the time you graduate high school you can forget about getting a scholarship to a top tier golf program.  These 10 year olds are out there grinding over every 3 footer.  If the PGA tour wasn't so beholden to the advertiser dollars, they'd hold a lot more tournaments at match play.  But god forbid Tiger gets eliminated in an early bracket or that a match doesn't go to the 18th hole for television...How great would it be if the PGA championship went back to match play? Then it would no longer be the weak link of the four majors!!

[Melvyn Morrow]

Hacker, who me - No, just a golfer.

I repeat my comment from last years post, regards quirky which reads as follows

Quirky – No golf courses are just Golf Courses – quirky is a modern term being used to describe a natural golf course. I expect the word has become acceptable in areas that do not have a balanced PH with its surroundings or a modicum of normal natural nature to relax the golfer. So anything non man made is now to be described as quirky.

So, quirky is alien to me as I see no quirks, I just see a beautiful course in total harmony with its surroundings, rough at the edges, smooth and perhaps undulating to its centre leading to the ultimate pleasure of life, the struggle to return from whence we came. But certainly not quirky, just unbelievably natural and enjoyable.   

Melvyn

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jud,

As a "hacker" the critical, required design element necessary for you to enjoy the golf course is ....
"fairway width"

Without it, there can be no joy for the hacker.

NGLA can be as quirky as it gets, yet, it's both challenging and fun, due in large part to fairway width.

My fear concerning NGLA is that someone will request/mandate that the fairways be narrowed for the 2013 Walker Cup.
That would be a terrible mistake.

[Tyler Kearns]

Jud,

As a "hacker" the critical, required design element necessary for you to enjoy the golf course is ....
"fairway width"

Without it, there can be no joy for the hacker.

NGLA can be as quirky as it gets, yet, it's both challenging and fun, due in large part to fairway width.

My fear concerning NGLA is that someone will request/mandate that the fairways be narrowed for the 2013 Walker Cup.
That would be a terrible mistake.

Pat,

It is hard to believe the need to narrow fairways for a match-play event, but I know that your fear will likely materialize at NGLA for the Walker Cup. What makes match-play so fascinating is watching golfers attempt to play from out-of-position after a wayward stroke. Narrow fairways and long rough limit that ability, and the golf suffers as a result.

TK 

[JMEvensky]

As a "hacker" the critical, required design element necessary for you to enjoy the golf course is ....
"fairway width"

I think this is simplistic.

I'd concede width is one of the elements necessary for a hacker's enjoyment,maybe even the most important.However,what you're saying,IMO,is that each element of scoring resistance detracts from a hacker's enjoyment.

Reductio ad absurdum,if you removed bunkers,green contours,OB,rough,and water hazards,then hackers would be overwhelmed with joy.Unfortunately,you wouldn't have much golf course left.

The only hackers who find joy in design nuance are on this website.

[Patrick_Mucci]

As a "hacker" the critical, required design element necessary for you to enjoy the golf course is ....
"fairway width"

I think this is simplistic.

It's not simplistic, it's the core design element necessary to produce enjoyment amongst hackers.

Without it, there is no joy in playing a golf course that's beyond the golfer's ability.

I'd concede width is one of the elements necessary for a hacker's enjoyment,maybe even the most important.

However,what you're saying, IMO,is that each element of scoring resistance detracts from a hacker's enjoyment.

I'm not saying that.  You're saying that.
But, there's an element of truth in the concept that the more severe the features/hazards, the less enjoyment the hacker will derive.

This is the classic "balancing act" that an architect must perform, the dual role that features have as a core function, that of presenting a sufficient challenge for the skilled golfer while NOT presenting an overwhelming challenge for the poor golfer.

But, it all starts on the tee, where wide fairways will accomodate the poor golfer, and also challenge the skilled golfer by mandating prefered angles of attack on the approach shots.

Reductio ad absurdum, if you removed bunkers,green contours,OB,rough,and water hazards,then hackers would be overwhelmed with joy. Unfortunately,you wouldn't have much golf course left.

I disagree with that.
The inherent lure of the "game" is that of getting the ball from point A to point B in as few strokes as possible.

Landforms and/or the architect's introduction of features to thwart that effort merely add dimensions to the "game"

The only hackers who find joy in design nuance are on this website.

What survey allows you to draw that conclusion ?

[Jon Wiggett]

Jud,

I am playing at around scratch. I really like 'quirky' golf courses. They are more interesting to play and make you think alot more. If I wanted to enjoy hitting lots of perfectly executed shots landing where I wanted them to then I would be on the driving range all day (I hate the driving range!!!) I enjoy having to invent shots and looking for different ways at playing the same shot.

[JMEvensky]

Pat,please pass on the pink,it's too hard for me to read.Plus,greens and reds seem to convey more bombast.

There's only an element of truth?Give me a break.I certainly concede wide fairways will accommodate poor golfers,but isn't that just delaying the inevitable?At some point,doesn't the hacker have to deal with some hazard/design element which was put in place to resist scoring?

Hackers are hackers because they suck at golf--anything that makes golf harder just makes them suck even more;irrespective of which end of the hole they find it.

Where the Hell is Huckaby when I need him?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,please pass on the pink,it's too hard for me to read.
Plus,greens and reds seem to convey more bombast.

It may be a keyboard problem, as I click on the word, "green".

There's only an element of truth?
Give me a break.I certainly concede wide fairways will accommodate poor golfers, but isn't that just delaying the inevitable?
At some point,doesn't the hacker have to deal with some hazard/design element which was put in place to resist scoring?
Eventually, every level of golfer meets at the green.
As to "hackers" dealing with hazards and design elements at some point, part of the answer lies in what constitutes a hacker.
I don't think that handicap alone defines a hacker.
A short ball striker, who is a high handicapper, may be fairly consistent in their game.
In order to discuss architecture as it relates to "hackers" I think you have to first define what constitutes a "hacker"

But, one thing is for certain, wide fairways allow the game to be tolerable/enjoyable for high handicaps and hackers alike.
It all starts at the tee.
Wide fairways eliminate pressure and the need for absolute accuracy for HH's and H's, thus giving them hope and a chance to enjoy the challenge presented by the hole from the get-go.

If a "hacker" was greeted by narrow fairways flanked with hazards and OB, the game wouldn't hold much in the way of enjoyment.
It's only wide fairways that give the "hacker" the notion that he has a fighting chance and that he can enjoy himself in meeting the challenge.

Hackers are hackers because they suck at golf--anything that makes golf harder just makes them suck even more;irrespective of which end of the hole they find it.

Again, that would depend upon the definition of what constitutes a "hacker"

Where the Hell is Huckaby when I need him?

He's looking at the scenery, far removed from some golf course he's playing.

[John Keenan]

As someone all too well versed in hackers being one I would agree width is a HUGE factor in making a course playable. I would not that I have played courses with fairways on the narrow side and had a good time because while the fairways were narrow I had the ability to get a shot that moved the ball ahead  a substantial length. The killer is a narrow fairway with no real chance for  second shot. The loss of a second shot can be due to lots of items such as,heavy trees, high rough, or some other factors that in effect leaves you with no real shot. That my friend is a deadly combination.

[Anthony Gray]

  Jud,

  Great insight. This is the source of my love for Cruden Bay. Two par 4's under 300 yards. GIVE ME MORE OF IT.

  Anthony

[DMoriarty]

Some years ago I took a look at some shot dispersion data from the USGA and came to the tentative conclusion that better golfers tended to miss horizontally (left and right) while duffers tend to miss vertically, hitting it significantly shorter than intended, but relatively more online.  This makes some common sense; it is a real trick to "duff" or "foozle" it 40 yards off line, especially if the ball only goes 80 yards total.   

So I've never quite understood this business about how wide courses only benefit the hack.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave,

Wide fairways don't mean that the golfer has the entire fairway in which to approach the green from the prefered angles.

There's a deceptiveness in wide fairways.

The best example might be the 17th at TOC or the 7th at NGLA, both similar in the angular green.
If both holes are played as par 4's due to modern length, despite the wide fairway, approaches from the left half face a far more daunting mission than those from the right.  In effect, the fairway is half its width to the better player.

To the lesser player, who can't reach the green in two, the same applies.
Second shots hit to the left half of the wide fairway face a killer approach/recovery while second shot hit to the left half of the wide fairway face a far more benign approach/recovery.

The key to a good golf course with wide fairways used to be the angle of approach into the green, determined by the orientation of the green and the surrounding terrain and hazards.  Today's aerial game (distance, height and spin) have somewhat muted this important relationship.

However, today's I&B allows mid to high handicaps to hit the ball a long way, hence, width is A, if not THE critical factor for high handicaps.

Anythony Gray,

Then you'd love NGLA which starts off with two 300 yardish par 4's, both of which are drivable due to the terrain.