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.


Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why Don't They Build Some Easy Courses?
« Reply #50 on: June 03, 2011, 08:08:57 AM »
When's the last time anyone here played from markers with less than a 125 slope?
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Why Don't They Build Some Easy Courses?
« Reply #51 on: June 03, 2011, 08:22:23 AM »

I did not suggest that you need to take lesson only beginners whatever age they may be.

I fear Design and the R&A have not been what they should have been over the last 50 years or so. The tendency has been easy or easier but for what actual purpose when discussing let alone playing Golf.

As for Crail’s Balcomie 13th Hole have you played it under their Old Tom Tournament banner when the Tee is some approx. 8 yards further back forcing the carry over the chasm? 

Melvyn


Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why Don't They Build Some Easy Courses?
« Reply #52 on: June 03, 2011, 08:23:29 AM »
When's the last time anyone here played from markers with less than a 125 slope?

Merion West tips out at 6000 yds with a slope/course rating of 69.2/122. Although not easy an absolute blast to play.  

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why Don't They Build Some Easy Courses?
« Reply #53 on: June 03, 2011, 08:25:11 AM »
Jud,

I'm pretty sure Crail (Balcomie) has a slope of <125. If there's a more enjoyable course in Scotland I'd be surprised.

Jim Franklin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why Don't They Build Some Easy Courses?
« Reply #54 on: June 03, 2011, 08:48:34 AM »
Mike -

He played up a few boxes, I do not remember the total distance from where he played. I certainly wasn't sandbagged as I have played with him on the other courses there and watched some BIG numbers go up. Since he is a client, I do not gamble with them so we keep everything friendly. He also can hit some shots, he is not a total misfit. As most amateurs, he loses waaaay too many strokes around the greens.

And Rock Creek is the funnest golf experience I have had. I understand Wolf Point is pretty fun too so I do look forward to potentially seeing that one day. I have a client that has a house near Port Lavaca so I need to visit.
Mr Hurricane

Andy Troeger

Re: Why Don't They Build Some Easy Courses?
« Reply #55 on: June 03, 2011, 09:06:22 AM »
The Creek Club at Reynolds Plantation is a great example of a "look tough, play easy" course. There are a lot of visually striking hazards and some forced carries, but because of slopes that funnel balls toward the hole in many cases the target area for approach shots is often even twice the size that you might guess from the fairway or the tee. The trend that I noticed was that approaches had to be played aggressively--because of the bowl shaped greens and backboards it was tough to actually go long and most of these shots returned to the flag or the middle of the green. The average golfer would seem to benefit pretty greatly from this, as some of their mediocre shots end up in the same place as the good player's "good" shot. The criticisms I've heard of the course, and Jim Engh's work in general, is that it doesn't reward good play enough because of this effect.  The effect on the short game is more pronounced than the tee-to-green aspect, IMO. It only works to a point, however, and tends to help golfers that can get the ball in the air. If golfers can get over the fronting hazards, regardless of shot trajectory, they'll be in pretty good shape most of the time. I definitely scored better there (probably 5-7 shots compared to my trip average over 10 rounds) without really feeling like I played better as a 9 hcp give or take.

And admittedly...its fun to play well and shoot better scores. Creek Club scores well on my fun meter to be sure.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2011, 09:10:07 AM by Andy Troeger »

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why Don't They Build Some Easy Courses?
« Reply #56 on: June 03, 2011, 10:45:03 AM »
Scott,

Correct, Balcomie and Elie both have slopes of 113 (as I think I mentioned earlier).  Mac played Balcomie in May.  I have played medal competitions on both in the last 9 months.  Elie may be more enjoyable than Balcomie.  I can't make my mind up on that one.
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why Don't They Build Some Easy Courses?
« Reply #57 on: June 03, 2011, 12:44:55 PM »
... But at a ski area golf course you can pick and choose your level of difficulty, and challenge yourself as you see fit on any particular day. ...

Kirk,

Were you quoting CBM here?
;)
"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

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why Don't They Build Some Easy Courses?
« Reply #58 on: June 03, 2011, 12:46:36 PM »
When's the last time anyone here played from markers with less than a 125 slope?

Every day Jud, every day.
"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

Greg Tallman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why Don't They Build Some Easy Courses?
« Reply #59 on: June 03, 2011, 01:33:09 PM »
Greg - It is the client that decides these things not the architect. It is easy to say on here thats what I would like to see but the reality is the commercial world.... a new golf course with no bunkers is a very brave route, the majority wont like it or at least will interpret the course with faults.

Tom Doak is as talented a marketing mind as there is in the golf design business... he could sell it, and more to the point the uniqueness of it, to a potential client while saying he would be happy to come back in and bunker it up if it was not well received.

There ya go Tom... you have your challenge.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why Don't They Build Some Easy Courses?
« Reply #60 on: June 04, 2011, 04:33:11 PM »
I have recently seen some data on some of my comparable courses in various areas.  It appears that after some initial hoopla and rankings, which drives play at most new courses out of curiosity, that as far as I can tell, a nice, and well rated course that is golfer friendly will draw more play than one that is tougher.

So many courses are built for the good player, the intial hoopla, photos, etc., but over time, it doesn't appear to me that this matters as much to the guys who pay the bills.  They play were they don't get beat up, but not too easy, and mostly, where they don't lose a lot of golf balls.  At $2-4 a pop, and me counting the average Joe losing about 7-8 balls a round, that extra time, frustration and $15-$30 in "hidden greens fees" drives them away.


I will also say that my directive at Firekeeper was to keep it fairly easy, and upon first playing, I felt I did that.  Some mid handicap folks I know, who had played it early and then also played Fortune Bay report its 6-8 shots easier.  I admit I wonder how it will affect its ranking and perception on the Kansas Golf scene, but am happy we met our client brief and think it will be popular.

So, we accomplished the goal of easier, although some may think it needs to be easier still.  Not sure just how easy to make a golf course, but there are lots of little things that add up to strokes for the mid level player that really ruin a day of fun golf - in order - length, water, long grass, bunkers edging too close over the front of the green, etc.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why Don't They Build Some Easy Courses?
« Reply #61 on: June 04, 2011, 04:43:11 PM »
 Not sure just how easy to make a golf course, but there are lots of little things that add up to strokes for the mid level player that really ruin a day of fun golf - in order - length, water, long grass, bunkers edging too close over the front of the green, etc.

Jeff,

I think you've answered you're own question.  Avoid these (you could add a bunch of trees in play to the list), yet make the course challenging, interesting and toss in a bit of rub of the green and you've got yourself a winner.  Nothing better than a 6500 yard course where you don't lose a ball, don't feel beat up afterwards, but have to check your scorecard to figure out why you still couldn't score better...

P.S. Firekeeper sounds like an interesting and possibly influential project, congrats...
« Last Edit: June 04, 2011, 04:49:23 PM by Jud Tigerman »
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Phil Benedict

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why Don't They Build Some Easy Courses?
« Reply #62 on: June 04, 2011, 07:56:10 PM »

What is the point of an easy course? Where is the challenge, the motivation to play the game?

We have thousands of easy and easier courses in the world, just add the bloody cart saves you breaking out into a sweat and to stop the stress of thinking just  use distance aids – Christ guys all you have to do is walk a little to the ball, and use the club that the aids have selected for you, then return to the cart for a well-deserved rest – that my friends is easy and IMHO totally self-defeating and a betrayal of the spirit of the game –BUT IT’s EASY.

But Guys I thought we all wanted to play GOLF which for its sins is regarded as a game with many challenges, easy or easier in not in the job description of Golf.

Or are you telling me that The Meek will inherit the world after laying waste all the achievements of Man. 

Melvyn



I couldn't help but think of Robbin Williams' routine about golf when I read this.  "F..k no, they do it 18 times."

Do kids want to go to college because it's hard to get laid?



Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why Don't They Build Some Easy Courses?
« Reply #63 on: June 05, 2011, 11:06:15 AM »
Mark - Mikes questions are about courses being built now.

Adrian,

Let me suggest Castle Stuart. I've played several times and while I have reservations about it, it is a fun course. It also flatters your handicap with the super wide open fairways and greens on a lot of the holes, which account for my main reservations, and which I suppose is why a lot of people find it fun. It is however a bit of tourist course with few multiple plays and I wonder how it would really stack up as a members course for instance. I suspect the fun of the intial few plays may disappate and their would be a move by the membership towards putting in additional hazards/tightening it up etc but perhaps not.

Niall

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Why Don't They Build Some Easy Courses?
« Reply #64 on: June 05, 2011, 11:07:42 AM »

Phil

18 easy holes, tell me how long before you get bored, however throw in a test or challenge and your spirit within will stir if not rise to the occasion. Unlike your comment blood will rush to our brains if we faced a challenge, whereas with yours it rushes to another organ (some may need a distance aid to find said organ or resort to an electronic aid to generate satisfaction as they are well passed rising to the challenge).

So what is it Phil are you an EASYRIDER requiring aids for any out of place adventure? ;)

Melvyn

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why Don't They Build Some Easy Courses?
« Reply #65 on: June 05, 2011, 11:30:22 AM »
Niall - Castle Stuart looks lovely, I am eager to see how the pro's get on. Easy will mean something a bit different to everyone of course. Shorter is easier, no bunkers is easy, flat greens are easy, no trees, no rough, no water, no contours, ie flat ground etc etc. The problem is the less inclusion of these possibles the more you are taking the very ingredients away from an interesting course. If the architect chooses to do it I suspect it will get altered later. We continually see clubs add tees, bunkers, plant trees at courses to add interest and make it tougher. You can talk about TOC and say it is easy, but it has a lot of carries over rough and gorse, I dont think a first timer could get round. I still maintain its very hard in 2011 to build a one size fit golf course and what a good player wants a lesser player will not want, vica versa of course. I just dont see people staying at a club if its too easy, but it is degrees of and I think the probable secret is a 7000 yarder from the very back tees that has say half of them 70 yards back from the normal tees, get the pars 5 holes 570 for the tips but 500 for normality, same with the long fours, the normal course plays near 6000 yards which I think is the ideal length for most people. Very few golf courses got built over the last 10 years under 7000 yards that have had decent budgets. CS works on this principle, and it has other tees at 7400 yards for championships so that length cant be deemed easy course IMO but I understand what you are saying re width etc, it will be interesting if it stays wide for the Scottish Open.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2011, 11:52:45 AM by Adrian_Stiff »
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Tim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why Don't They Build Some Easy Courses?
« Reply #66 on: June 05, 2011, 01:38:04 PM »
Why does one immediately draw a parallel between hard/, short/easy?  I don't subscribe to this notion as I can make any short course hard as nails and a long course relatively easy.  I think the crux of easy vs hard was touched on by Jeff B.  It has more to do with width and the aspect of not "getting beat up".  Now, if every hole looks like a driving range, just to play easier, then you lose the visual element one desires - no matter how well they can play.  Plus, how many even journey back ti te 7000+ tees? 1, maybe 2%?  Most players play 65-6800 yds at most and many won't venture much over 6000.
I just played Hirsala GC  just west of Helsiinki today. It opened a few years ago and was penned by an Irish Architect David Jones (anyone know anything about him?)  The main complaint I've been hearing about this place was how narrow it was and that it eats balls. A member we played with said on the 1st tee, "you drive will dictate your score - keep it in the fairway and you should do okay, miss the fairway and you will see high numbers."  Now I paced several fairways and 30 yds seemed to be the norm.  But there was very little rough before the course morphed into trees, moss covered granite bolders and the like.  Having 14 shots determine your score it a bit much I think.  And, from the number of golf balls I found in the "rough", I'd say the lost ball tax was quite high.
So, a course without no option forced carries, ample rough where one can find and advance the ball is what the majority of players are looking for. Everything else, in my opinion is extoranious.
Coasting is a downhill process

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why Don't They Build Some Easy Courses?
« Reply #67 on: June 05, 2011, 09:10:05 PM »
Tim,

I have been conducting an informal survey of how wide corridors need to be to avoid lost balls, but not look like driving ranges. It is a fine line!

I played some of my own courses over the years and find that a tree to tree corridor (obviously swaying back and forth a bit) of 70 yards is too narrow.  Repeatedly, on courses cleared 70 yards wide (to accomodate the old three row irrigation systems) at least one of four mid handicappers in my foursome was in the woods on EVERY hole.  On about a quarter of the long holes, there were two balls in.  Think about that - 70 yards, and about t least 18 of 56 tees shots lost, or 30%.

At  a course cleared about 75 yards, the numbers go down a little. On a recent round, the mid handicapper (long and wild) managed to lose or search for 8 tee shots out of 14, while other, straighter hitters (including me) only searched for an average of 2-3 - dropping the lost or nearly lost tee balls to 15/56 or 27% if corridors were widened to 80 yards.  Of those 15, I estimate half were probably "just in" the woods, and half "way out" so an 80 yard clearing would probably drop the lost tee shot ratio to 7-8/56, or 12.5-15%.  Those last five yards of turf make a dramatic difference in how many lost balls there are, and how "beat up" the golfer may feel.

Short version - triple row srpinklers is brutal.  4 rows is much better.  How did we play golf on single or double row systems?

I didn't focus on topped tee shots, but recall a USGA study where about 25% of aveage golfers tee shots don't go 100 yards.  Wherever we add native areas/ponds/deep rough in front of tees that causes lost balls, we can expect a few more tee shots of the average foursome to cause some slow play.

All this flies in the move from outside golf to reduce turf for environmental reasons.  Maybe the real solution is more turf, but far less inputs.  Keep it just good enough to find a ball and mow, etc.

Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why Don't They Build Some Easy Courses?
« Reply #68 on: June 05, 2011, 10:36:30 PM »
I got into a conversation with my brother about the most fun courses we've played, inspired by a thread here.  He said Yale and I sort of jokingly said Canaan.

Canaan is a 9-holer in Northwestern Connecticut that was one of the first courses I played as a kid.  Bordered by the Canaan River, the course had wide fairways, few bunkers and it was pretty hard to lose a ball.  It was uncomplicated and, dare I say the word, easy.

Since the majority of golfers can barely cope with the myriad of challenges offered by golf, wouldn't it be nice if there were more courses where you could hit your ball without having to worry about where it's going to go, walk up to it and hit it again (and again).

Not everyone needs a challenge to have fun.

Phil,

I think the answer to your question lies in just one word.  "WIDTH"

Width equates to FUN.
It accomodates all golfers.

I think that's why NGLA and GCGC have withstood the ultimate test, the test of time.


Tim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why Don't They Build Some Easy Courses?
« Reply #69 on: June 05, 2011, 11:53:44 PM »
Jeff, perhaps you answered your own question.  We (they) didn't build golf courses in forests.  They also didn't build as many single hole corridor courses so there were adjacent holes on which to find you wild and long buddies ball. In order to eliminate that driving range look, you can put "blinders" on the beginning of the hole and allow for "hidden" open areas in the landing areas.  Always a pleasant surprise to find more room up there than you thought when standing on the tee, watching your ball sail into what you believed, was never,never land.

Also, the quest for the Elevated tee ground, to provide that Golf Digest panorama of the golf hole contributes to how far off line an errant shot will travel. Plus add in wind and things can get ugly, real fast.
Coasting is a downhill process

Ken Moum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why Don't They Build Some Easy Courses?
« Reply #70 on: June 06, 2011, 01:12:19 AM »
I will also say that my directive at Firekeeper was to keep it fairly easy, and upon first playing, I felt I did that.  Some mid handicap folks I know, who had played it early and then also played Fortune Bay report its 6-8 shots easier.  I admit I wonder how it will affect its ranking and perception on the Kansas Golf scene, but am happy we met our client brief and think it will be popular.

So, we accomplished the goal of easier, although some may think it needs to be easier still.  Not sure just how easy to make a golf course, but there are lots of little things that add up to strokes for the mid level player that really ruin a day of fun golf - in order - length, water, long grass, bunkers edging too close over the front of the green, etc.

I just played Firekeeper for the first time this morning. Our group was me an 11 index, a friend of mine at ~14 and my wife at ~17.  

In a moderate breeze, it's probably "easy" enough for most mid-cappers.  But the foursome of two couples ahead of us spent a LOT of time looking for their golf balls at least two or three times on the back nine. I suspect that in our prevailing summer wind out of the southeast, some of those east-west holes are going to eat a bunch of balls.

I can tell you my wife hates holes like 10 where she has to lay up with a 7 wood, and is left with a longer second shot than her tee shot.  

One thing that affected my enjoyment of your work is the screwed up tee arrangement they've employed.  I saw that you built five teeing areas on evey hole, and the course website lists lengths of 4705, 5800, 6300, 6825 and 7445.

But they only have four sets of markers out, and the card replaced the 5800 and 6300 sets with 6235 .

I like something around 6,000, so we played those tees.  But the course actually played pretty close to 5,800, leading to some awkward situations with layups etc.  

I know none of that is your fault, but does bring up a point of interest to me.  Specifically that course operators can make it tough for golfers like me who have a good idea of what tees they should play to enjoy an architect's work.

K
Over time, the guy in the ideal position derives an advantage, and delivering him further  advantage is not worth making the rest of the players suffer at the expense of fun, variety, and ultimately cost -- Jeff Warne, 12-08-2010

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Why Don't They Build Some Easy Courses?
« Reply #71 on: June 06, 2011, 07:31:37 AM »

Easy or hard should not be used within the language of Golf or even within a golfing dictionary.

Words with real meaning such as challenge, traps, hazards which in truth I believe define many a course I have played in the past. I do wonder if some of us are interested, if even up for the challenge of playing the game of golf. Some whimper about the colour of the grass, the quality of the rough, the deepness of the bunkers, apparently totally oblivious that these areas on a golf course should be avoided  and that they are there because of poor skill or unable to read the GCA.

Mention the word PENAL and it’s a question of lighting the blue touch paper waiting for the a chorus of protest to devour the point in question. That is, I suggest, does the modern golfer understand the principals of the game. Alas I must say I certainly wonder.

The Game is not just about getting the ball down a hole in the least number of strokes, its about navigating a golf course either accepting the Designers challenge to test ones skill or take the alternative safer option (not to be confused with the easy options) facing and addressing all the hazards both man and natural that face the golfer in his efforts to play the game by hitting the ball down the hole in the least number of strokes.  Without the hazards/traps/GCA there is approx. zero to hold ones attention; it just becomes a methodical game of hitting the ball as far as you can utilising the new technology as much as possible, ignoring the great hazards and courses of yesterday’s golfers, but at least you got your ball down in the least number of strokes. Its pure madness, it’s the journey that makes the game, hence my dislike for the cart. It’s the body and mind working together to achieve the shot and trying to outsmart the Designer and course – more so as one is doing it on one’s own steam unaided by the distance markers/devices.

WE live our lives as if we are playing golf; we face the problems and work around or through them, sometime successfully, sometimes not. Should we fail we start again, seeking a new path, but its never easy, its very seldom given to us on a plate, we have to strive for every drop of success, be it with girlfriends, wife, family children and grandchildren or friends perhaps works, but without all that our lives would be meaningless, unfulfilled and verging on the empty when we look back once we reach (if we are lucky) 3 score & 10.

The modern game with its technology, aids and carts have made the journey fruitless, meaningless and empty, so we have made a good score but in doing so have we have not risen to the challenge, not pushed ourselves, just gone alone for the ride, only noticing the emptiness it all has when we are old and have time to reflect upon our lives.

Life is not easy or fair for the majority so why should they expect that golf would be easy – is it because we have been pampering the golfer, not for the sake of the game but to make money.

Pity we can’t make the day to day life of the majority easier, in the same way we have made golf easier for the vast majority, yet in the end I wonder what the real cost or should I say sacrifice means to the individual player as I question if we can call a player who rides and distance user a real golfer.

It’s not a question of going through the motions, it’s a question of being committed and rising to the challenge powered by our own minds and bodies.

Melvyn
   

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why Don't They Build Some Easy Courses?
« Reply #72 on: June 06, 2011, 07:46:11 AM »
Ken,

I will pass that on.  I have had five tees converted to four by many course operators, who say golfers "prefer it that way" and that five tees is "too confusing."  BTW, the course isn't officially measured, and the yardages just came off the rendering.  I know we added some forward tees, like the one on ten to avoid the water carry, so they are probably a little less than the card shows all around.

Melvyn,

You may be right, or you may be wrong in the big picture, but we do know others still seem to enjoy golf, distance aids, carts, friendship over a test of golf, etc.  Not many view their weekend recreation as some sort of committment to challenge their minds and bodies, as much as a chance to get away from it all and relax.

I think we should let human nature be human nature and accept that!
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Why Don't They Build Some Easy Courses?
« Reply #73 on: June 06, 2011, 07:51:16 AM »

Jeff

I agree with you regard human nature, but which human nature are you referring to that found in GB or that found on your own shores?

Melvyn

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why Don't They Build Some Easy Courses?
« Reply #74 on: June 06, 2011, 08:04:50 AM »
I agree with you regard human nature, but which human nature are you referring to that found in GB or that found on your own shores?
Melvyn,

As I recall you have never been to the United States.  You really should go, you know, it's a great country with great people.  Like the UK it has its fair share of jerks, too.  However, human nature is human nature and I don't detect any difference across the Atlantic.  One sad facet of some human nature is the need to tiresomely repeat stupid, pointless and simply rude little jibes, based on ignorance.  Your tedious and continued digs at Americans fall squarely within that category.  Please stop it.
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.