[Mike_Young]

I am really becoming confused reading the "production house" threads and the "one be bad, one be good" scenario.  16000 golf courses and we are talking of 100 on about three or four different list.  OK....
Without intending to offend any good amateur players here, would it not be fair to say that for a player to be competitive in state events or national events then his golf needs to be almost all consuming....it is a rare exception when the kids, family or any other events can take the place of the golf....We all see it and for many guys that really have no chance it is like being trapped in Class A, B or C baseball.  I mean 150 guys in the world can actually play and only a few of them are at the top of their games for more than a few weeks per year. 
So, that leaves us with about 95% of the players that can break 95 and even less that can shoot 80.  And about 1500 that care enough about architecture to discuss it.  Now that is not to say that each club doesn't have one or two "scratch" players that know more about design than any of us( especially regarding how trees can make a course tougher).  And much of the renovation cost today are steered by these types that think length is everything along with fast greens and perfect sand.
BUT...so many of these fine top 100 courses are not accommodating and there just isn't a reason why they could not be.  Like it or not Tom Fazio has made a career out of designing accommodating golf courses that look much more difficult than they are.  Tom D on the other thread discusses how some of his top courses are not that difficult.....ok...why is this...What makes a course where the guy that plays enough to shoot 85 wants to play it and enjoys it....
I'll take a couple of stabs at it....
1.  He has to have an easy bogey whereby he thinks that the next day he can correct and make par or better on the same hole...and in most cases this has to do with fun green complexes on holes of reachable length....
2.  Many of the green side bunkers are lateral and not in front thus allowing the run-up
3. And he has to have room to drive the bal...
I think this is why so many are in love with the ODG stuff....and I agree....
The market is going away because our courses do not fit the market......retirees buy homes where they can play the course....not fight it...
How do we accommodate?

[Sean_A]

I am really becoming confused reading the "production house" threads and the "one be bad, one be good" scenario.  16000 golf courses and we are talking of 100 on about three or four different list.  OK....
Without intending to offend any good amateur players here, would it not be fair to say that for a player to be competitive in state events or national events then his golf needs to be almost all consuming....it is a rare exception when the kids, family or any other events can take the place of the golf....We all see it and for many guys that really have no chance it is like being trapped in Class A, B or C baseball.  I mean 150 guys in the world can actually play and only a few of them are at the top of their games for more than a few weeks per year. 
So, that leaves us with about 95% of the players that can break 95 and even less that can shoot 80.  And about 1500 that care enough about architecture to discuss it.  Now that is not to say that each club doesn't have one or two "scratch" players that know more about design than any of us( especially regarding how trees can make a course tougher).  And much of the renovation cost today are steered by these types that think length is everything along with fast greens and perfect sand.
BUT...so many of these fine top 100 courses are not accommodating and there just isn't a reason why they could not be.  Like it or not Tom Fazio has made a career out of designing accommodating golf courses that look much more difficult than they are.  Tom D on the other thread discusses how some of his top courses are not that difficult.....ok...why is this...What makes a course where the guy that plays enough to shoot 85 wants to play it and enjoys it....
I'll take a couple of stabs at it....
1.  He has to have an easy bogey whereby he thinks that the next day he can correct and make par or better on the same hole...and in most cases this has to do with fun green complexes on holes of reachable length....
2.  Many of the green side bunkers are lateral and not in front thus allowing the run-up
3. And he has to have room to drive the bal...
I think this is why so many are in love with the ODG stuff....and I agree....
The market is going away because our courses do not fit the market......retirees buy homes where they can play the course....not fight it...
How do we accommodate?

Mike

You seem to focus on the architecture, but the most accommodating courses are the affordable courses.  Great golf is a wonderful experience, but solid, affordable golf is where its at.  My guess is that not many of these sort need to worry if their architecture is accommodating. 

Ciao

[Mac Plumart]

Mike and Sean...

I think you are both right to some extent.

Price is certainly an issue...no doubt.  But like Jeff B. said on another thread, most golfers want a course that they can play everyday, which I think lines up with what Mike has said in terms of accomodating.

Accomodating lines up with a lot of the ODG's had to say (IMO) and that means...

-you don't want to loose balls or waste a lot of time looking for one

-if you miss a green, you don't want to get a penalty stroke...you want a chance to recover with perhaps a challenging shot, but not an impossible shot

-if you hit the green on your approach, you want the ball to hold the green...that means soft and accepting greens.

-and I think interesting greens is a must (but maybe that is just me).

-and like Mike mentioned open fairways so that you don't have to have precision off the tee to avoid penalty shots.

I could probably think of a bunch more, but I'll spare you guys.

[A.G._Crockett]

Mike,
I think an "accommodating" golf course would be one where I could play with a scratch golfer and an absolute chop, and all three of us would leave the course thinking that:
     a. we had fun.
     b. we probably should have shot a lower score, and probably will the next time on that course.

I agree with you that way, way too many courses just aren't much fun to play, at least not more than once.  That may be the difference between some of the ODG's and more modern stuff that makes the ODG's so revered here.  But there are a lot of guys, yourself included, who are currently building courses that fit those two qualifications.

I agree with Sean that affordability is also a key, and it may well be that the two go hand in hand.  Courses that aren't overbuilt to start with can charge less; the whole atmosphere of the place is better as well, which also plays into "accommodating."

[Mark Pritchett]

Walkable

Good variety of holes (Short, Long and Mid length Par 3's, a short Par 4, at least one par 5 that is reachable for the average golfer), maybe a blind shot or two

Manageable rough

Interesting greens

Opportunity for fun recovery shots

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

When it comes to architecture, I think it's wide fairways.

When it comes to hospitality, I think it starts with the people at the top.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
I think an "accommodating" golf course would be one where I could play with a scratch golfer and an absolute chop, and all three of us would leave the course thinking that:
     a. we had fun.
     b. we probably should have shot a lower score, and probably will the next time on that course.

AG,
Agree 100%....that's what I meant to say....

[Jimmy Chandler]

at least one par 5 that is reachable for the average golfer

There is no such par 5, unless you want a par 5 that is less than 450 yards from the regular men's tees.  The average male golfer drives it less than 200 yards.  I'm a better than average golfer, drive it slightly longer than average, and have reached a legit par 5 in two shots maybe 2-3 times in my life.

[Ken Moum]

I joined an accomodating club in 1998.  It's a Donald Ross that had 35-40 yard fairways, trees, but not too many of them, and very small greens.

The average golfer found it fairly easy to negotiate, even if he never really shot the kind of scores he thought he should. Compared to some of the areas courses with tight, tree-lined fairways it was a lot of fun to play.

But about 5 years ago our superintendent, under EXTREME budgetary pressure, made what I now consider a desperate move to save some money.  He eliminated something like 5 acres of fairway maintenance by narrowing them.

We now have 25-30 yard fairways, and for much of the summer, that former fairway, with lots of sun and a bit of irrigation is now almost unplayable rough.

Copmbined with a little tree planting, and the growth of some older ones, has sucked teh fun out of the place.

K

[Mark Pritchett]

at least one par 5 that is reachable for the average golfer

There is no such par 5, unless you want a par 5 that is less than 450 yards from the regular men's tees.  The average male golfer drives it less than 200 yards.  I'm a better than average golfer, drive it slightly longer than average, and have reached a legit par 5 in two shots maybe 2-3 times in my life.

Let me clarify my statement a bit.

A Par 5 that the average golfer, and by "average" I mean a 10 or so handicap, might be tempted to go for the green in two after hitting a really good drive.  My home course has one that is about 470 yards (510 from the tips) and if you hit a good drive on the right side of the fairway you can have a go of it with your second shot.  Some holes can be shorter than the card yardage if you take a certain side of the fairway.  Also, where tees are placed on a given day, wind, firmness of the turf, etc. can have an effect as well.

[Chris Cupit]

1.  For a strong majority of the market (75-95%) it's not about the golf architecture   Most people could care less about what we love to talk about on this site.

Most golfers want:

1.  Affordable golf.  VERY affordable golf--for seniors that can mean $20-$30 and for others $40 is a good number asssuming:
2.  The course is in fair to good condition--greens roll smooth and "hold".  This means for the most part they will hold about anything.
3.  Tees that are level and par three tees with grass.
4.  Firm, wide fairways (and soft greens)
5.  A relatively "empty course" that has speed of play in the 4 1/2 range (daily fee course)
6.  A beverage cart (I still refuse!)
7.  Plenty of cart paths and 90 degree rule all the time.  Cart path only is a death sentence for many (American) golfers.
8.  Light rough, no blind shots, clearly "defined" water hazards.  Fairway bunkers that you can hit a three iron out of--no steep lips.
9.  Greenside bunkers that have a little too much sand--fluffy is better than "no sand" in a bunker.  Of course buried lies are unacceptable.
10.  The ability to walk at anytime at no charge.
11.  Friendly staff who doesn't act like they are doing you a favor by taking their money.
12.  Junior friendly
13.  Right now, golfers want a "deal".

[Tim Nugent]

Mike, here in Chi-town, some of the most packed courses are the Cook County Forest Preserve courses.  Poa greens, no Bent fairways (except one). They are Bluegrasss and until Billy Casper Golf took over the management, there were no fairways, everything was mowed at the same height. Oh yeah, maybe a fairway bunker here or there. No driving range.  But, they are cheap and the lots are always full. The last one I worked on Indian Boundary, my job was to replace 13 asphalt pads and astroturf with real grass tees.  They also grassed in most all the bunkers (but left the cavities). Some paths at greens/tees - none in fairways and the course is flat as a pancake

What this tells me is most of the posters are on the right track:
Cheap golf
wide fairways
hazards not relevant
open, not tree-lined, golf
minimal clubhouse - ie pro shop counter, snack counter and a john (all in 2,000 sf)

These are you best golfers,  but they are your average golfers - women, seniors and blue collar younger guys, couples, family (including inter-generational) and juniors. And there are a hell of a lot more of them than us archophile snobs.  Plus they vote with their wallets.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

BUT...so many of these fine top 100 courses are not accommodating and there just isn't a reason why they could not be.

Mike:

That's one reason why IMO, that they are not top 100 courses.

An accomodating course is one that a golfer will return to year after year. Even if he shot 10 over his handicap, he'll at least be able to analyse the round and see what he can do differently on his next visit. He can see where he can improve and the possibility to better his score is a real one. Could you say the same about many of these so-called top 100 courses?

[Jerry Kluger]

Mike: My impression is that you are asking a whole bunch of questions and trying to combine them.  I think that many of Tom D's courses aren't that difficult because of where they are located, and by that I mean that they have to be playable in all conditions and you have to have wide fairways and ground game options when you have as much wind as can occur at Ballyneal, Pacific Dunes, Kauri Cliffs, etc. Those courses are easy until the wind starts blowing.

On the other hand, accommodating players in retirement areas like Florida is a much different story.  My experience has been that at most of these communities you have very few single digit handicappers - the better players seem to have memberships at other clubs.  So you need to accommodate these players by giving them options and not putting them in difficult situations,i.e., you must be able to get to the fairway or the green without having to hit over water.  I can tell you that when you have a course which is not accommodating you can wind up with a bunch of unhappy and discouraged golfers.   

[Bill_McBride]

Mike, here in Chi-town, some of the most packed courses are the Cook County Forest Preserve courses.  Poa greens, no Bent fairways (except one). They are Bluegrasss and until Billy Casper Golf took over the management, there were no fairways, everything was mowed at the same height. Oh yeah, maybe a fairway bunker here or there. No driving range.  But, they are cheap and the lots are always full. The last one I worked on Indian Boundary, my job was to replace 13 asphalt pads and astroturf with real grass tees.  They also grassed in most all the bunkers (but left the cavities). Some paths at greens/tees - none in fairways and the course is flat as a pancake

What this tells me is most of the posters are on the right track:
Cheap golf
wide fairways
hazards not relevant
open, not tree-lined, golf
minimal clubhouse - ie pro shop counter, snack counter and a john (all in 2,000 sf)

These are you best golfers,  but they are your average golfers - women, seniors and blue collar younger guys, couples, family (including inter-generational) and juniors. And there are a hell of a lot more of them than us archophile snobs.  Plus they vote with their wallets.

And a nine hole golf league every summer evening starting at 5 p.m.  I love that in the Midwest. have never seen it anywhere else in America or elsewhere!

[Jim Sweeney]

Seems like the list of accomodating features includes: No forced carries, generous fairways, greens open in the front.

I would add shallow bunkering and no "mountain climbing," (thank you Dr. MacKenzie) if one is afoot.

Low price is certainly accomodating, though not archirtectural.

Also not architectural, yet accomodating, is good customer service. I sometimes play at a public course where the management compaaonis staff show uo fifteen minutes before the forat starting time (mine), so there is almost no chance to warm up at the range before play! Definitely non-accomodating!

But that is not architectural, which I think is what Mike wanted to know about.

[Jason Topp]

My test for a well designed "accomodating" course is whether you can move back (or forward) a set of tees and have fun. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Here is NGF's Golf Enjoyment Scorecard for 2008:

They asked 850 Core golfers (25+ rounds per year) to divvy up their enjoyment of playing golf across 10 factors, and here is what they learned. The people and the golf course account for over half of golfers' enjoyment.

Ball striking is important - all golfers need some positive reinforcement. That feeling of "shot euphoria" adds to everyone's enjoyment and keeps golfers coming back.

The last six factors: scoring, weather, amenities, course aesthetics, exercise and competition add to, but certainly don't significantly drive the enjoyment of golf for most golfers (of course there are always exceptions). Scoring itself accounts for less than 10% of total enjoyment. And competition isn't for everyone. It accounted for only 3% of all Core golfer enjoyment.

People: the people you play with     19%
Course conditioning: greens are most important 19%
Course design: challenging, memorable design    17%
Ball striking: hitting some good shots    12%
Score: how well you score                    8%
Weather: come rain or shine                    7%
Amenities: the clubhouse, range, 19th hole,      6%
Course aesthetics: the flora, fauna and feeling   6%
Exercise: the good walk spoiled   4%
Competition: vying to win a match   3%

Figure somewhere in there, there is a kernel of an answer.

[Jim_Kennedy]

.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()