News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


David Harshbarger

  • Karma: +0/-0
The Personalized Golf Course
« on: March 22, 2011, 08:08:31 PM »
Here's a little thought exercise based on some of the themes from this site: the corrupting influence of yardage and handicap, the strategic downside of multiple tee boxes, technology.

What if every time you went to the course, you got to play the strategic challenge the architect intended, regardless of whether you hit the latest hot ball and big clubs, or an old set of hickories, with a swing grooved through 70 years of practice, or a swing on the way to a 70 year groove?

First, you wouldn’t be on a conventional course available today.  Sure, you probably have a choice of tee boxes, but does every tee box bring into play the key strategic challenges?  Or, would you be willing to move from gold to the white to the blue from hole to hole to experience the challenge as it is meant to be?  Willing?  How would you even know?

Imagine, however, that instead of 5 tee boxes, and one choice before the round, you could provide the Pro at the shop some simple information about yourself, how far you drive, your standard yardages on your irons, maybe whether you are comfortable with forced carries or not, and in an instance, the Pro would hand you your own personal scorecard, with the recommended or required tee locations for you for every hole, tee selections that make sure you are playing the clubs, and facing the strategic challenges the architect intended?

How would this work?

1st, the simple info at the pro shop:

Driver:   300
3-Iron: 225
5-Iron: 195
7-Iron: 165
PW: 135
Comfortable w/Hazards: Y

My playing partner:

Driver: 240
3-Iron: 185
5-Iron: 165
7-Iron: 145
PW: 110
Comfortable w/Hazards: Y

Out of the printer comes our scorecards, and we’re off.

The first hole, a Par 4 with water on the right, a bail out area on the left, with the preferred approach into the green from the right.



On the scorecard, for me, Tee location “M” (the tips).  For my partner, Tee location “I”.  Why?

The architect designed the first hole to be a mid-length par 4, designed for Driver, Mid-Iron.  From the tips, the yardage is 490.  From tee I, it’s 410.  (You see, it’s right there on the scorecard.) Both players are out on the course, and the hole is playing to the design.  The strategic option exists for each: play to the right, challenge the water for the better approach, or stay safe mid-to-left and take a lesser angle into the green.  If we both hit our “typical” drive, My partner is closer in, but that’s good, he needs to be closer to fly a mid-iron.  We finish the hole.  On to number 2.

As the opener, the strategy on number 1 was simple.  On number 2, the architect has conceived a hole with 4! Strategic puzzles.  On any given day, he expects you to be confronted with 1 of these, and based on your abilities, your selected tee location will present that challenge to you.

The hole is a par-4 with a flat plateau.  There’s a pot bunker in the middle (1), just before a diagonal fall off to a section of fairway that slopes right and away towards a creek (2).   A level layup area sits in front of the creek that crosses in front of the green (3).  The green is up a slight hill (4), protected on the right by a bunker.  The green is more receptive to a shot from the left of the fairway.



The architect has conceived four distinct challenges.

1. Driver to 1, the pot bunker. The strategy: lay up in front of the bunker, hit the full driver potentially landing in the bunker, or try to play to the left of the bunker for the advantageous approach.
2. 3 wood to Bunker (or Driver to 2).  Here the screws tighten.  Play less than a driver to stay on the plateau, when you know that you can clearly drive the bunker?  Play the driver to the left and use the terrain to run out to the layup area?  
3. Driver to 3, the layup area.  Here, is the wise choice to fly the layup area, or to use a lesser club to run down the slope.
4. Driver to green.  The most diabolical of all.  Who can resist the 1 in 100 shot to fly the green on the short Par-4, even with the creek and trap waiting?

Unbeknownst to you, the Pro has set this to challenge 4 today, drive the green.  You, the long hitter, are hitting from tee location “D” (290).  Your partner is at “B” (230).  (In the group behind you, the testosterone fueled bunch has asked to play the long course.  They’ll be teeing it up at the tips all day.  See what they are missing?  They probably don’t.)

And so the day goes, every hole, a tee location selected for you, based on your abilities and preferences, aligned with the architect’s strategic intent.  

What is different, if anything, in this approach, relative to just moving the tee markers?

First, the assumption is that the architect knows this is how the course is going to be operated.  Holes are designed with multiple challenges in mind, a la Thomas’ course-within-a-course.  The architect is working with the freedom in mind that to a large extent, the strategic challenge will be accommodated by placing each golfer at the appropriate starting point, or at one of many starting points the hole supports.

Second, some of the challenges of equipment and ball flight are overcome.  Of course, you can only keep building the tee grounds back so far, but for advances that make the white tees easier and easier for the average golfer, you don’t have to rebuild the white tees, just let those golfers tell you where you need to put them.

Third, the course is always setup to play a variety of ways. No need to move the tee locations up, just specify a different spot.

Fourth, to the extent golfer’s begin to understand that the course will respond to length by getting longer, the golfer’s need to increase length will be lessened.  

Fifth, there’s great opportunity to mix and match the challenges between groups.  On some holes, players with different abilities may be starting together, on others, apart by great distances.  Earlier in the day, when the wind is calm, players play one place, but as the wind picks up, the “windy tees” are brought into play. A group with different skill levels may be able to play from the same tees, each facing strategic challenges conceived by the architect, but different based on their skill.  The options are largely unlimited.

Sixth, the four horsemen of the dumbing down, Par, Yardage, Slope, Rating Index are put on notice.  Every round could conceivably have a different slope, rating, and yardage, and even variations in Par.  

So that's my thought exercise.  
« Last Edit: March 22, 2011, 10:32:13 PM by David Harshbarger »
The trouble with modern equipment and distance—and I don't see anyone pointing this out—is that it robs from the player's experience. - Mickey Wright

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Personalized Golf Course
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2011, 08:22:52 PM »
David,

Interesting exercise:

First impression is that it'll be a hell of a challenge to get one of the architects to plug in their intent for each unique player characteristic.

Second thought, and it just occurred to me or I would have posted it on the "not fitting the eye" thread, is that the real challenge and interest of golf to me is to figure out how to play the awkward shots as opposed to the clear cut ones. There are holes that offer an advantage to one player and I get real joy in figuring out to overcome that disadvantage. Maybe I've not fully comprehended what you're thinking about here, but that opportunity seems to get lost.

Thanks.

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Personalized Golf Course
« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2011, 08:23:28 PM »
Who is the freakin' guy?!?!?  I love him!!!  

David...I need to re-read and re-read your post there to make sure I get what you are saying, but a first blush it is a really cool idea.  I may have to steal your idea when I build The Plumart National Golf Links of the United States.  Great food for thought!!!
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Personalized Golf Course
« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2011, 08:26:11 PM »
I think you meant to post this.

Here's a little thought exercise based on some of the themes from this site: the corrupting influence of yardage and handicap, the strategic downside of multiple tee boxes, technology.

What if every time you went to the course, you got to play the strategic challenge the architect intended, regardless of whether you hit the latest hot ball and big clubs, or an old set of hickories, with a swing grooved through 70 years of practice, or a swing on the way to a 70 year groove?

First, you wouldn’t be on a conventional course available today.  Sure, you probably have a choice of tee boxes, but does every tee box bring into play the key strategic challenges?  Or, would you be willing to move from gold to the white to the blue from hole to hole to experience the challenge as it is meant to be?  Willing?  How would you even know?

Imagine, however, that instead of 5 tee boxes, and one choice before the round, you could provide the Pro at the shop some simple information about yourself, how far you drive, your standard yardages on your irons, maybe whether you are comfortable with forced carries or not, and in an instance, the Pro would hand you your own personal scorecard, with the recommended or required tee locations for you for every hole, tee selections that make sure you are playing the clubs, and facing the strategic challenges the architect intended?

How would this work?

1st, the simple info at the pro shop:

Driver:   300
3-Iron: 225
5-Iron: 195
7-Iron: 165
PW: 135
Comfortable w/Hazards: Y

My playing partner:

Driver: 240
3-Iron: 185
5-Iron: 165
7-Iron: 145
PW: 110
Comfortable w/Hazards: Y

Out of the printer comes our scorecards, and we’re off.

The first hole, a Par 4 with water on the right, a bail out area on the left, with the preferred approach into the green from the right.



On the scorecard, for me, Tee location “M” (the tips).  For my partner, Tee location “I”.  Why?

The architect designed the first hole to be a mid-length par 4, designed for Driver, Mid-Iron.  From the tips, the yardage is 490.  From tee I, it’s 410.  (You see, it’s right there on the scorecard.) Both players are out on the course, and the hole is playing to the design.  The strategic option exists for each: play to the right, challenge the water for the better approach, or stay safe mid-to-left and take a lesser angle into the green.  If we both hit our “typical” drive, My partner is closer in, but that’s good, he needs to be closer to fly a mid-iron.  We finish the hole.  On to number 2.

As the opener, the strategy on number 1 was simple.  On number 2, the architect has conceived a hole with 4! Strategic puzzles.  On any given day, he expects you to be confronted with 1 of these, and based on your abilities, your selected tee location will present that challenge to you.

The hole is a par-4 with a flat plateau.  There’s a pot bunker in the middle (1), just before a diagonal fall off to a section of fairway that slopes right and away towards a creek (2).   A level layup area sits in front of the creek that crosses in front of the green (3).  The green is up a slight hill (4), protected on the right by a bunker.  The green is more receptive to a shot from the left of the fairway.



The architect has conceived four distinct challenges.

Driver to 1, the pot bunker. The strategy: lay up in front of the bunker, hit the full driver potentially landing in the bunker, or try to play to the left of the bunker for the advantageous approach.
3 wood to Bunker (or Driver to 2).  Here the screws tighten.  Play less than a driver to stay on the plateau, when you know that you can clearly drive the bunker?  Play the driver to the left and use the terrain to run out to the layup area?  
Driver to 3, the layup area.  Here, is the wise choice to fly the layup area, or to use a lesser club to run down the slope.
Driver to green.  The most diabolical of all.  Who can resist the 1 in 100 shot to fly the green on the short Par-4, even with the creek and trap waiting?

Unbeknownst to you, the Pro has set this to challenge 4 today, drive the green.  You, the long hitter, are hitting from tee location “D” (290).  Your partner is at “B” (230).  (In the group behind you, the testosterone fueled bunch has asked to play the long course.  They’ll be teeing it up at the tips all day.  See what they are missing?  They probably don’t.)

And so the day goes, every hole, a tee location selected for you, based on your abilities and preferences, aligned with the architect’s strategic intent.  

What is different, if anything, in this approach, relative to just moving the tee markers?

First, the assumption is that the architect knows this is how the course is going to be operated.  Holes are designed with multiple challenges in mind, a la Thomas’ course-within-a-course.  The architect is working with the freedom in mind that to a large extent, the strategic challenge will be accommodated by placing each golfer at the appropriate starting point, or at one of many starting points the hole supports.

Second, some of the challenges of equipment and ball flight are overcome.  Of course, you can only keep building the tee grounds back so far, but for advances that make the white tees easier and easier for the average golfer, you don’t have to rebuild the white tees, just let those golfers tell you where you need to put them.

Third, the course is always setup to play a variety of ways. No need to move the tee locations up, just specify a different spot.

Fourth, to the extent golfer’s begin to understand that the course will respond to length by getting longer, the golfer’s need to increase length will be lessened.  

Fifth, there’s great opportunity to mix and match the challenges between groups.  On some holes, players with different abilities may be starting together, on others, apart by great distances.  Earlier in the day, when the wind is calm, players play one place, but as the wind picks up, the “windy tees” are brought into play. A group with different skill levels may be able to play from the same tees, each facing strategic challenges conceived by the architect, but different based on their skill.  The options are largely unlimited.

Sixth, the four horsemen of the dumbing down, Par, Yardage, Slope, Rating Index are put on notice.  Every round could conceivably have a different slope, rating, and yardage, and even variations in Par.  

So that's my thought exercise.  
« Last Edit: March 22, 2011, 08:47:14 PM by Garland Bayley »
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

David Harshbarger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Personalized Golf Course
« Reply #4 on: March 22, 2011, 08:42:59 PM »
Garland,

I am chagrined, the images are in the wrong order and they didn't show . I'm going to lose my techie badge if I keep this up. Thank you for the clean up.

Jim,

The advantage to the architect is knowing that if he establishes the teeing grounds, there's a system in place that will put players at the right spot to start the adventure.  He doesn't really have to know all the details, just that there will be a sliding scale and it will be handled.

On the relative advantage question, maybe this complexifies the round too much, but maybe not.  I would expect you would always be able to say "pair us together", and you both face the both playing round.  But, that might also mean that you are both playing against the architect (albeit different strategies based on your skills) on each hole.
The trouble with modern equipment and distance—and I don't see anyone pointing this out—is that it robs from the player's experience. - Mickey Wright

Michael Blake

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Personalized Golf Course
« Reply #5 on: March 22, 2011, 08:47:02 PM »
Would every course have 18 sets of Robert Trent Jones runway tees as the only tees?

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Personalized Golf Course
« Reply #6 on: March 22, 2011, 08:49:03 PM »
Garland,

I am chagrined, the images are in the wrong order and they didn't show . I'm going to lose my techie badge if I keep this up. Thank you for the clean up.

...

Go to my post, in which I have now changed the image order, and push the quote button. You will see how image posting is done. Compare it to your attempt.

"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

David Harshbarger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Personalized Golf Course
« Reply #7 on: March 22, 2011, 08:54:47 PM »
Would every course have 18 sets of Robert Trent Jones runway tees as the only tees?

I ran this by some friends at work and they assumed all kinds of different configurations, like tees running perpendicular to the line of attack, or a grid of teeing locations. 
« Last Edit: March 22, 2011, 08:59:39 PM by David Harshbarger »
The trouble with modern equipment and distance—and I don't see anyone pointing this out—is that it robs from the player's experience. - Mickey Wright

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Personalized Golf Course
« Reply #8 on: March 22, 2011, 09:02:18 PM »
David,

I guess my point was that you would have to get the architect to tell you what "the right spot" for each player is...and you would also have ot go on the assumption that the right spotfor the architect is what makes the game the most interesting for me.

As to the first, I don't see it happening...the second, not sure those are the holes I like best.

Admittedly, my intelect is in low gear at the moment...

David Harshbarger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Personalized Golf Course
« Reply #9 on: March 22, 2011, 09:02:37 PM »
Who is the freakin' guy?!?!?  I love him!!!  

David...I need to re-read and re-read your post there to make sure I get what you are saying, but a first blush it is a really cool idea.  I may have to steal your idea when I build The Plumart National Golf Links of the United States.  Great food for thought!!!

Mac, you'll be the only one ;)  
The trouble with modern equipment and distance—and I don't see anyone pointing this out—is that it robs from the player's experience. - Mickey Wright

David Harshbarger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Personalized Golf Course
« Reply #10 on: March 22, 2011, 09:09:01 PM »
David,

I guess my point was that you would have to get the architect to tell you what "the right spot" for each player is...and you would also have ot go on the assumption that the right spotfor the architect is what makes the game the most interesting for me.

As to the first, I don't see it happening...the second, not sure those are the holes I like best.

Admittedly, my intelect is in low gear at the moment...

Jim, from what I've read about the ODG is that they would have an idea like Driver Niblick for the hole. That's what I'm trying to recapture. The Architect says "strategy for this is Driver/Mid-Iron" teeing area has spots for the 95% of Driver/Mid-Iron distances found in the public, and the individual player is directed to the spot that matches their skill.

That said that doesn't preclude the player saying "put me on the white course". 

Or, it doesn't preclude the club putting together a "branded" course that represents a certain type of challenge.
The trouble with modern equipment and distance—and I don't see anyone pointing this out—is that it robs from the player's experience. - Mickey Wright

Will Peterson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Personalized Golf Course
« Reply #11 on: March 22, 2011, 09:14:55 PM »
Although I don’t know if it was done to keep the architects intention for each hole in mind, Cherokee CC in Madison, WI has something similar to your idea.  In the pro shop on the wall are about 10-12 different scorecards.  Each one is a different setup of the course.  They differentiate them by yardage, but they allow for every golfer to pick his/her ideal course.  They range from junior tees (2500-3000 yards) to the “Stricker” tees (his father in law owns the course) which were built for him and are over 7200 yards.  Each card has a different mix of the courses 4 or 5 sets of tee markers to give you the desired total yardage.  I think it is a great idea, although I do have some issues with how a couple of the courses were set up.

Jim Nelson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Personalized Golf Course
« Reply #12 on: March 22, 2011, 09:26:37 PM »
David,

I guess my point was that you would have to get the architect to tell you what "the right spot" for each player is...and you would also have ot go on the assumption that the right spotfor the architect is what makes the game the most interesting for me.

As to the first, I don't see it happening...the second, not sure those are the holes I like best.

Admittedly, my intelect is in low gear at the moment...

Are you guys talking about golf?  Are those golf course sketches?  What site am I on?
I arise in the morning torn between a desire to improve the world and a desire to enjoy the world.  This makes it hard to plan the day.  E. B. White

David Harshbarger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Personalized Golf Course
« Reply #13 on: March 22, 2011, 09:53:14 PM »
Will,

How have the members taken to the multiple cards?

Jim,

My artistic capability topped out at Pictionary.  That's some of my best work ;)
The trouble with modern equipment and distance—and I don't see anyone pointing this out—is that it robs from the player's experience. - Mickey Wright

Jim Nelson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Personalized Golf Course
« Reply #14 on: March 22, 2011, 10:36:56 PM »
I spent a lot of time responding and then got timed out.  Rats!.. Well, I guess I was a little too wordy.  Here goes again.

I was not really making fun of your sketches for their artistic merit, as whenever I put pen to paper, it looks like bad etch-a-sketch.  Rather I thought they, and some of the comments, were funny in a suggestive sort of way. 

On a more serious note, I really think you are talking about designing a course on which players can adjust their teeing relative to their skill levels, course conditions, weather etc.  I am sure this is an over-simplifcation, but that is just what Ballyneal does, as least for me.  Much has been said about the course on this site, but it dos not have formal tee boxes in the RTJ method.  Rather, they are free form and, except for the occasional tournament, there are no tee markers.  Some people do not like this approach, preferring the structure of the USGA which tries to level the competitive playing field.  But there is nothing level about Ballyneal, and it does not end with the undulating fairways and greens.  Rules of golf are followed, but that's about it.  Cross-country golf?  Go try it.  Match play where those with honors put down their peg at a play of their choosing?  Ballyneal is a perfect venue for that classic method of play.  Different, not for everyone, but unique gem.
I arise in the morning torn between a desire to improve the world and a desire to enjoy the world.  This makes it hard to plan the day.  E. B. White

David Harshbarger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Personalized Golf Course
« Reply #15 on: March 22, 2011, 10:50:12 PM »
Jim,

On the drawings, No harm, no foul. If you can do etch a sketch you are way beyond me.

I didn't know that Ballyneal had that free form style. That is very cool. 

I need to into that more. 

Dave
The trouble with modern equipment and distance—and I don't see anyone pointing this out—is that it robs from the player's experience. - Mickey Wright

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Personalized Golf Course
« Reply #16 on: March 22, 2011, 10:54:47 PM »
David
I like your idea
I don't think you need to change the golf course to personalize it for someone
Give the course your info on facebook and it gives you a combo set of tees

When I play, I tee off in the exact places that are the most fun for me or our match

Cheers
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Will Peterson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Personalized Golf Course
« Reply #17 on: March 22, 2011, 11:30:07 PM »
David,

I am not really sure.  I played the course with an assistant pro friend of mine.  We talked about it briefly with the assistant in the shop, but we really didn't get into much detail.

I did have a few issues with how they did it.  They had four yardages for the par 3's and each par 3 could play each of them (I think they were 150, 175, 200, 225).  For the longest couple of cards, you would pick to start with the longest or the shortest and then move the next step on the next par 3.  I really didn't have a problem with this part, although they could have been more creative.

What I didn't like was how they mixed the 4's and 5's on the card we played.  I don't know if this held true for the other cards.  We decided to play the 6900 card, the first in from the "Stricker" tees.  This set put us at the tips for all par 5's and at the first set in for all the par 4's.  This made all the par 5's unreachable in two (all over 550) and repetative 3 shotters.  It also took out all the long par 4's.  I don't believe we played one over 420. 

Both of us were decent players (around scratch) but aren't that long and didn't want a slog, so we picked the 6900 yard course.  I think it would have been a lot more fun if one or two of the par 5's would have been played at 500-525 and a few of the par 4's over 450.  This provides a much better mix, and would have been more fun which would seem to be the idea of having so many cards.  I welcome the challenge of multiple 450+ par 4's in a round, but get bogged down when that is all you see.

All in all, I liked the system, but think that it could have used some tweaks to get the optimal mix.

David Harshbarger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Personalized Golf Course
« Reply #18 on: March 23, 2011, 07:37:01 AM »
Will,

Sounds like an interesting concept.  Are each of the cards given USGA slope and course ratings?  

Mike, the facebook approach and existing tees as Will played would definitely get you a match, and of course an idea like this would have to sweep the golf world to get clubs to retrofit, and that isn't happening.

To me, a key component of this idea is that the architect has left instructions about the strategic intents of the holes, so that tee locations can be assigned to ensure that intent is experienced.  That might be a stretch, but in reading this site, especially about the ODG, they often had particular challenges in mind for each hole.  Equipment changes left those intents in the dust, so this idea is in part a response to that.

Off to work.....

« Last Edit: March 23, 2011, 08:35:09 PM by David Harshbarger »
The trouble with modern equipment and distance—and I don't see anyone pointing this out—is that it robs from the player's experience. - Mickey Wright

Steve Kline

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Personalized Golf Course
« Reply #19 on: March 23, 2011, 08:19:41 AM »
I think a better solution is the UK model where there are two sets of tees - regular and medal. The regular tees are played by everyone unless it is an event. Everyone plays the same course and deals with all challenges created by the architect as best he can. I think the notion of multiple tee boxes has gotten out of hand. It is at least somewhat repsonsible for long green to tee walks.

David Harshbarger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Personalized Golf Course
« Reply #20 on: March 23, 2011, 08:57:28 PM »
I think a better solution is the UK model where there are two sets of tees - regular and medal. The regular tees are played by everyone unless it is an event. Everyone plays the same course and deals with all challenges created by the architect as best he can. I think the notion of multiple tee boxes has gotten out of hand. It is at least somewhat repsonsible for long green to tee walks.

Steve, you make a great point.  There's a lot to recommend the simplicity of you against the course.  Clearly, I'm not suggesting that, what would the point?  One of things I read about some GA architect was the belief that no matter your skill level, you ought to be able to get around and be challenged.  The nature of the challenge, however, would vary by your skill level: long hitter tests the ability to hit a precise drive, shorter hitter bails but faces more challenging approach.

What I'm suggesting is an approach where each player gets to experience the challenge facing the long hitter.  They may still bail, but they aren't forced to bail just because they don't have club.

One other thought.  Practically speaking, for me, there are one set of tees.  I don't play the red or gold tees, I don't play the blue or black. I expect many golfers are the same way, and by their choice, unless the super sets up the course with significant changes in tee marker placement,  the course is pretty much always the same, and the strategy I face is the strategy that exists based on my skills and the standard tee locations.

That said, my thought puzzle is a complexifier.  There's great merit in the simplifying view, too.
The trouble with modern equipment and distance—and I don't see anyone pointing this out—is that it robs from the player's experience. - Mickey Wright