Do low handicap players only favor "obvious" and "certain outcome" courses ?

[Matt_Ward]

The reason I ask this is that a few people have communicated to me about their thoughts on course design. Each of them (there were four separate messages) is a low handicap player -- no higher than five (5).

Each of them expressed a total dissatisfaction in playing courses where "obvious" and "certain outcome" courses. I quoted the words just posted because two of the people said as much.

I pushed each of them in our dialogue about the need for making players think before simply grabbing for the big stick and wailing away. One of them mentioned to me that anything less than a few stout par-4's is nothing more than sporty and "tricky" golf.

I wonder if it's a massive generalization to say that lower handicap players want definite -- or near definite outcomes in their overall assessment of a course. I also wonder if low hanidicap players disproportionally abhor the odd bounce or the "quirk" elements that a few people on this site embrace as an absolute must. My own personal favorite courses are a balance between the two patterns but I wonder if low handicap players are so obsessed with score that design elements that conflict with that are then deemed less so.

Doak mentions this in a round about way in CG and I have to say I found it odd being the devil's advocate in such discussions when a number of people on this site erroneously see me in the other role.

Comments ?

[JR Potts]

Guilty, expecially when I was playing competitively - but now that my game is going to crap, I'm actually enjoying the quirk a whole lot more.

[Bill Brightly]

Embracing quirk is an acquired taste, one that I think many low handicaps never grow to like. To be fair, the average scratch golfer spends so many hours practicing so that the outcome is NOT left to chance, so it is understandable that they get a little upset when the shot they hit is thwarted by a random bounce.

I have FAR less sympathy for the Bomb and Gouge low handicappers who equate course difficulty with length. I LOVE to get those guys on short courses where they have to THINK and listen to them moan!

[Andy Troeger]

You'll find exceptions, but I think more low handicappers than not tend to prefer the obvious and certain outcome types of courses. Many championship courses fit the bill better than the short quirky courses. I think this is partially the reason for the disconnect between this group and the Golf Digest panel, which is mainly made up of competitive low-handicap golfers.

[John Moore II]

Low handicap players want good shots to be rewarded all the time, especially when WE are playing well. But at this point, I, myself, have mellowed out a little bit and figure that as long as I hit the shot I wanted to hit but the result turned out wrong, then I either had a wrong yardage (my fault) or just got a bad break (in which case I might get a little bit grumpy, but so long as it doesn't nestle up against a brick wall or something, I'll be fine. Now, if I hit a bad shot and it takes a bounce and gets worse, I'll be smoking, but mostly because I'm irritated at myself for hitting a poor shot.

[Mike Nuzzo]

I found it odd being the devil's advocate in such discussions when a number of people on this site erroneously see me in the other role.

Matt
You're a politician.
Do some people think you lean too far right?
And others think you lean too far left?

[Sean_A]

This is really a question about expectations and mislabelling.  Balls don't bounce randomly - this is physics folks.  I don't know how often I have heard whinging from guys when the ball did exactly as one would expect - if they were thinking straight or maybe thinking at all.  Its easy to blame luck, randomness or whatever folks want to call it and that is not an exclusive trait to low cappers.  However, I can understand guys getting uptight about having to play through rough from the tee or fairway to have a good chance of staying on the green.  That isn't to do with luck though.  It is more to do with the line between measured skill and the course presenting opportunities to display that skill being too fine.  The one major exception is the greens.  When they are bouncy it can feel like randomness because we have no reasonable to discern what will happen.  One just has to hit the ball harder than he would like and accept some balls will never have a chance to drop.  That said, like the guy who gets luckier the more he practices, the observant guy with more experience of course is luckier in negotiating its devious turns. 

Ciao 

[Matthew Rose]

I'm about a 5 and I like to play short courses once in awhile. Personally, I get a lot of enjoyment out of the precision aspect of the  game. I've always been kind of a weak wedge player, so I actually like getting the chance to test my wedge game.

Hitting driver-hybrid all day isn't fun for me. I don't know why it would be fun for anybody.

[Doug Siebert]

I don't think it has to do with low handicap golfers but those who play competitively (where competitive may mean private betting in a foursome, not necessarily a traditional tournament format)

I don't fit the mold at all, but I don't play competitive and long since quit playing any side bet games.  I just like to play and create my own challenges, so I love stuff like windy days where the ball may blow off certain parts of the green, or quirky holes where it seems like no strategy is a good one, at least not consistently.  I know the kind of guys you are talking about here, and they HATE this kind of stuff....thus why I generally don't play with them.  I'm sick of listening to them whine for three holes about the spike mark that cost them a birdie on #7!

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Low handicappers probably find it much harder to accept "bad" bounces as they really cannot afford to make too many mistakes. A 5 handicapper that drops a shot early on in a round because of a "bad" bounce is going to feel the pressure a little more as he's used up 20% of his allowed bogies. He can only make 4-5 mistakes in a round. I think low handicappers will also be more critical about course condition and also things such as pin locations.

I have to wonder about those in the 5 handicap range. I used to be one of them, and hope to be again. Any time I hear of a 5 handicapper scoffing at a 6000 yds course, I just say to myself "If you're so bloody long that you need to play 7000 yds courses, then why are you still playing off 5?. You're short game must be a disaster."

I do think that all courses should have at least one of two "stout" par 4s in the 440-460 yds range.

[PCCraig]

99% of great (+2 or better handicap) golfers do. It's the main reason why so many PGA Tour players complain after US Opens and skip Brittish Opens...they hate anything that takes their skill out of the equation. However, if "quirk" allows said better player more birdies due to the fact that they can overpower or overskill a golf hole...then they'll love it.

[Steve Kline]

As a low handicapper (currently 0) and still playing competitively, I must be in the minority based on the opinions expressed here. I love quirk and apparent randomness. It forces me to challenge my thinking on the best strategy to play the hole. Of course I see what you guys are talking about at my home course all the time. The course is not long from the tips (about 6,800 yards) and most good players are never hitting more than an 8 iron to a green. But the fairways can be tricky to hit, there are LOTS of uneven lies, the wind is usually blowing, and the greens have a tremendous amount of slope. They get mad when they hit the green and have no chance of two putting. But my thought is you have to know the spots for certain pins where you absolutely cannot hit the ball. This is what makes golf fun to me and if my home course didn't have that I would get bored with it quickly.

[Matt_Ward]

Shivas:

Love the post !

I had a few heart palpitations before I dared read on ...

Mike:

I consider myself a pragmatist -- politically and otherwise.

I enjoy a full range of courses and have opined on quite a few of them here. Unfortunately, it's e-z for people to tag certain people who post here and then believe they are always one-dimensional types. I enjoy courses that are unpredictable but the unpredictability cannot be the bedrock element for nearly all the shots one plays.

[JMEvensky]

I don't think it has to do with low handicap golfers but those who play competitively (where competitive may mean private betting in a foursome, not necessarily a traditional tournament format)

I think you're right about the first part,not so much about the parenthetical part.

The more important that scoring is to a player,the more reviled is quirk.

[Tom_Doak]

Each of them expressed a total dissatisfaction in playing courses where "obvious" and "certain outcome" courses. I quoted the words just posted because two of the people said as much.


Comments ?

Matt:

Can you please check this sentence?  I can't understand whether you DO think low handicaps generally like "obvious" courses or whether you are saying they DON'T like them.

The one thing most low handicappers believe which bothers me the most is that a short par-4 should always reward a good tee shot (meaning a 250 yard tee shot in the fairway) over those who lay up.  The problem is that many people can't hit a 250 yard tee shot and that means they are screwed for their seconds.  My belief is that the short par-4 must give the shorter hitter a chance at birdie and a chance for par with reasonable play, and that it's insane to make it too difficult for them in order to please the elite.

[David_Madison]

You'll find exceptions, but I think more low handicappers than not tend to prefer the obvious and certain outcome types of courses. Many championship courses fit the bill better than the short quirky courses. I think this is partially the reason for the disconnect between this group and the Golf Digest panel, which is mainly made up of competitive low-handicap golfers.

I agree that most lower handicap players prefer straight-up courses to ones with quirk and apparent luck. I believe that lower handicap players here in the US prefer courses with two specific characteristics. The first is a focus on an aerial game versus one where the use of the ground plays the dominant role. The second is an absence of blind or partially visually obscured shots. At the same time, it's my experience that older, better players are far more tolerant of (and often outright enjoy) quirk, luck, and less obvious outcomes than are younger better players.   

I do not believe that most Golf Digest Panelists are competitive, low-handicap players. Many may have been at one time, but I'm not so sure presently. I've been to panelists gatherings, and the playing ability is far more varied than that. Yes, it skews lower than that of the general playing public, but I'll bet not all that much lower than those here. I believe that the intent when bringing on panelists is that one's handicap is mid-single digits, but I've seen a bunch play who can't break 85 or 90. Perhaps the reason for the disconnect is that those on this board are more intensely interested in the history and groundings of golf course architecture, and the course values inherent in the courses studied is different from the cross section of courses most often seen and evaluated by the majority of the panelists.

[JMEvensky]

The one thing most low handicappers believe which bothers me the most is that a short par-4 should always reward a good tee shot (meaning a 250 yard tee shot in the fairway) over those who lay up.  The problem is that many people can't hit a 250 yard tee shot and that means they are screwed for their seconds.  My belief is that the short par-4 must give the shorter hitter a chance at birdie and a chance for par with reasonable play, and that it's insane to make it too difficult for them in order to please the elite.

I agree with the idea that a 250 yard drive in the fairway should give an advantage over a lay up.Why isn't that just risk/reward?

[Andy Troeger]

David,
I wonder if it depends on the state--almost every panelist I've met in New Mexico is active in the state golf association and their competitive events. Some of them are better players than others but almost all of them compete. I say that though as one who hasn't played a stroke play event in 10 years and doesn't even carry an official handicap anymore, so I'm kind of at the other extreme.

[archie_struthers]

 

Most of the scratch amateurs and particularly young up and comers like architecture that plays to their skill sets...most young bombers love long courses that require bombs off the tee .... don't like you taking that driver out of their hands
... most older seasoned vets like a golf course that makes you work the ball and keep it in front of you,  control being their edge


Sean Arble ...bad bounces do happen , I'd suggest that it's more karma than physics ...we all have periods of good and bad bounces if you play enough....don't tell me Norman wasn't snakebit ...just watch the tapes

You just have to learn to overcome them , usually with a great putting touch

[Jon Wiggett]

Matt,

yes I think many low handicappers think the shot's outcome should be predictable. However, many players who have learnt there games on 'quirky' golf courses or have been exposed to them often appreciate the interrest this type of golf hole/shot presents. I prefer a quirky golf course but then again I don't earn my money through playing (or atleast try to ).

Jon

[Tom Yost]

It has been my observation that many skilled golfers are not fond of greens with bold contours.  My theory on that is that putting can be a great equalizer.  There are golfers with crappy swings that can putt very well and I think this is offensive to the good player.  Perhaps they feel that once they have successfully negotiated the hole and arrived safely onto the green, they deserve a birdie and certainly no more than a par.   

[Tom_Doak]

 Perhaps they feel that once they have successfully negotiated the hole and arrived safely onto the green, they deserve a birdie and certainly no more than a par.   

Tom:

It sounds as though none of them have taken to heart Bob Jones' description of his aims at Augusta National ... I'm on a plane so can't quote it directly right now but I will look it up tomorrow if nobody beats me to it.

[Carl Rogers]

Each of them expressed a total dissatisfaction in playing courses where "obvious" and "certain outcome" courses. I quoted the words just posted because two of the people said as much.


Comments ?

Matt:

Can you please check this sentence?  I can't understand whether you DO think low handicaps generally like "obvious" courses or whether you are saying they DON'T like them.

The one thing most low handicappers believe which bothers me the most is that a short par-4 should always reward a good tee shot (meaning a 250 yard tee shot in the fairway) over those who lay up.  The problem is that many people can't hit a 250 yard tee shot and that means they are screwed for their seconds.  My belief is that the short par-4 must give the shorter hitter a chance at birdie and a chance for par with reasonable play, and that it's insane to make it too difficult for them in order to please the elite.

Tom,
Intended or not the 320 yd 7th at Riverfront is one of the hardest holes on the course.

[Garland Bayley]

I don't get a chance to play a quirky course with a low handicapper very often, but it certainly left me with a smile on my face the last time I did it. As a 21, I played Astoria CC with a 3 in a rather moderate wind. I shot 88 to his 85, and other than being assigned to his team at the event, enjoyed hearing his complaints about the dunes and the wind the whole way around.

His home course is about the most predictable Ted Robinson design around. Whereas, the front 9 (not that much of the original is left) at my course was built by the builder of Astoria CC.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

Thanks for the correction ... meant to say low handicap types have a preference for "obvious" and where "certainty is the main element of consideration for them.

Tom, curious to your comment on the short par-4 side of things -- fair to say your love for them is tied to your strength in that regard? In CG you cite your love for the putter but don't really give much emphasis to the driver side of things.