Designing for professionals vs. amateurs.

[Scott Stearns]

Gents-  How does the same design differ for pros vs. amateurs?  Do architects simply lay out the hazards for a 7-8 handicapper, and then go back and build a tee at 300-320 yards?

I understand the idea of leaving a lot of room for the poor player--the 15 handicapper and up.  I am curious whether a reasonably good amateur can/should have  similar choices to the pro--particularly as the am will be hitting a longer club from the same place the pro would in the fair way.

Do you set up completely different challenges for pros than ams ?  very often i personally like the sight lines and the manner of play from the back tee, particularly on a resort course.  But i hit the ball 240 yards (on a good day) and the white tee is over on the side, taking a bunker or a specimen tree out of play.

Again, not talking abt forced carries and stuff--those things are tough to build 5 tees around.  but are the strategic choices a 7-8 handicap am asked to make the same as the pro?  if they are not, then what to you try to do to the pro that you dont do to the am?

Lastly, is controlling spin something an arch thinks bout today?

[Garland Bayley]

I believe that you cannot layout hazards for "professionals and amateurs". You end up with a different course for each by trying to do so.

A. Vernon Macan would lay out hazards for the best players, and give the weaker players a break. Still each are interacting with a different set of circumstances, but they guy who pays the bills gets a break.

[Steve Lang]

   Had the interesting experience last week at Memorial Park, in Houston where the starter added a 4th to our group, turned out to be a guy with his name on his bag, a sr pro who had not gotten though 2nd stage of his Q-School at Woodforest (old Fish Creek - Elkington design).. anyway,

he played the tips, I played the whites and I found myself along side him in the fariway on several holes where we had both played to one side of the fairway..  pro has the spin and control of carry diistance and easily stops ball.. putting for birdies, accepting par...  me.. can get it on some birdie tries, but rely on short game for long or short approach shots and scamble for par more than putting for birdies..

 no contest

[Scott Stearns]

Steve-what were you hitting vs the pro--how many clubs diff?

[Joe Leenheer]

I would find it hard to believe that an architect's design is greatly influence by the average amateur (it's hard to design landing areas for 50 yard slices and topped shots which the majority of amateurs are accustom to...none of which frequent this site ).

I myself would design with the Professional and the "A" Amateur player in mind when it came to the ideal look and intended line of play for a hole, especially considering my course would most likely be hosting a major within a few years  .  After that, I would then attempt to place all other tees so that players playing from those yardages would hopefully enjoy and be challenged as well.   

The PGA of America's "Tee it Forward" initiative must be a nightmare for architects...although I do agree that most people are not playing from a distance that will give then an opportunity to make birdie or par (aka have fun).

I myself got to "play" Architect when laying out a Junior Course at my current facility.  I planned for two sets of tees and based it off of two skill levels.  The total yardages for 18 holes came out to 1830 and 3051 (our yardage from the tips is 6328).  I based the tee location off of what I though would give my junior the best chance to make par (even if that meant part 4's that they can practically drive the green.

My other thought process was I wanted the junior to be able to keep up with mom or dad while playing.  For the shorter tee, most par 5's  or Par 4's with forced carries became  short par 3's.  I know make my juniors all start from the shorter tee until they can shoot "par".  Then they get to move back.

FYI here is the "Tee it Forward" info....

Driver Distance
Recommended 18-Hole Yardages

275      6,700-6,900
250      6,200-6,400
225      5,800-6,000
200      5,200-5,400
175      4,400-4,600
150      3,500-3,700
125      2,800-3,000
100      2,100-2,300
 
The theory is if a Pro hits driver (300) wedge (130)...so should the amateurs (Driver-250, Wedge-100..or Driver 200, Wedge 70).  It's not just about the drives ending in the same position.  That's tough to design for.

[Garland Bayley]

...
The PGA of America's "Tee it Forward" initiative must be a nightmare for architects...although I do agree that most people are not playing from a distance that will give then an opportunity to make birdie or par (aka have fun).
...

IMO the tee it forward initiative is about as misguided as you can get when it comes to strengthening the game.

I would much rather see a remove the stinking ponds and obstructive trees initiative.

In a more enlightened age, the PGA had a remove the cross bunker hazards initiative, and paid an enlightened architect to carry it out.

[Steve Lang]

Steve-what were you hitting vs the pro--how many clubs diff?

Scott,  2 clubs diff,, he was like 40 yards farther off the tee,  one approach from 130 he was hitting PW.. i hit my "soft 8"   he wasn't super long, just consistently very good at working his way to the hole and he really wasn't bothered by anything ( or didn't let on to it) playing from the tips at 7300 yds versus my half-bogey play from the white tees at 6500. 

So I really appreciate that those guys are good and I think that the design for the pros has to be more difficult in their mind than underfoot.

[Ian Andrew]

I guess that’s what we are trying to do at Laval.

“In theory” the 2017 Canadian Open may very well end up at Laval. We have certainly designed a course that fits our philosophy, but we also choose a design approach where we think the set-up of the course can play a far greater role in the difficulty. In our case we have no rough around greens (fits our philosophy) and a lot of contour on them that rolls off at the edges (think Shinnecock Hills greens). The idea is that the combination of firm greens, pins close to drop offs and maintaining the short grass around the greens very short and firm will place greater pressure on approaches and recovery for the professional.

We also believe moving the pins in towards the middle, less firmness on the greens and a higher cut in the greens will make them more playable for the average player. The fact that they can chip and putt a ball onto the green only helps by providing the average player with greater recovery options.

Now to answer your question, we twice have moved a fairway bunker (which there are few – but all have depth) further out to deal with the distance the ball travels. The one aspect we worked very hard on was having the holes dogleg slowly, so that a long ball will have to be shaped to gain an advantage. We had the trees to work with and really borrowed from Riviera to try and achieve the same use of trees and fairway cants.

It’s a lot to think about.

[Carl Rogers]

sugggestion:
- create an elongated landing zone where the pretty consistent, but short, amateur can occasionally hit to the very far edge. 
- position the back tee so that the high club head speed player hits to the middle of this elongated landing zone.
it does suggest perhaps an over abundance of landing zone hazards maybe 40 yards long

[Jason Connor]

What does it even mean to build hazards for the amateurs?

Pros/scratch golfers will have a preferred line of play and the majority of their misses will be close to that line, hence a well-placed hazard can penalize many of their errant shots.

Thinking of my own poor game, I can (and do) hit the ball ANYWHERE.  Usually OB way right is a sufficient hazard for many amateurs even close to bogey golfers.  A particular hazard seems less likely to wreck much havoc just because the bogey golfer's shot pattern is so much more variable. Of course traps short and to the side of greens, especially right, will catch plenty of bogey golfers' balls.

So to me design for the pros and let the amateurs find their own trouble.  Am I wrong?  Furthermore what's the point in penalizing an awful shot?  It seems the awful shot is typically sufficient penalize. Especially since many bogey golfers aren't wise enough to get out of trouble before aiming back at the pin.

[Philippe Binette]

"The PGA of America's "Tee it Forward" initiative must be a nightmare for architects...although I do agree that most people are not playing from a distance that will give then an opportunity to make birdie or par (aka have fun)."

If you follow a strict pattern in the positionning of the hazards (example: all hazards from 250 to 290 from the back tee)... then the course will always penalize the same players or will be easy for the same players.

If you have bunkers on a variation of pattern, depending on the land and the design concept, then everybody will find its challenges and moments of ease.

The truth of the matter is: when an architect is saying: OK the players are going to hit it here, then lay-up there and then approach the green from this angle... well it never happens that way.

Freedom and variety...

[Ian Andrew]

"The PGA of America's "Tee it Forward" initiative must be a nightmare for architects...."

Penguin,

Are you kidding - it's the best initiative to come along in years.
The biggest issue in golf is slow play and that comes from teeing it back ...

[Jim Nelson]

Last year for my birthday, my wife arranged for me to play a round of golf with Charley Hoffman.  God bless her, but I digress.  We played with a couple of buddies (Brad Isaacs of this site was one).  We played at Southern Highlands, our home course, and played 3 against Charley from the members tees (about 7000 yds) straight up.  Needless to say, he crushed us.  But of interest were his comments on the course.  Even from the tips (7500) he said the course is much more difficult for the members because of where the hazards were placed.  He said where he was looking, the course was wide open off the tee while the members (even from the blues) were looking at bunkers, water, and trees, all of which tested our length and accuracy.

Southern Highlands was designed in the late 90's, opened in 2000 and now has no defense for the pros except to grow the rough to US Open lengths and  firm and speed up the greens which is just what they do for the collegiate players once a year.  The course is almost unplayable for the members, but some of the best collegiate players can struggle, particularly if the wind comes up. 

[Philippe Binette]

Ian Andrew:

I was just copying Joe Leenheer  comment to start my thread
 

[Garland Bayley]

"The PGA of America's "Tee it Forward" initiative must be a nightmare for architects...."

Penguin,

Are you kidding - it's the best initiative to come along in years.
The biggest issue in golf is slow play and that comes from teeing it back ...

Au Contraire, slow play comes from slow players. Doesn't matter where they tee it.

[Ian Andrew]

I was just copying Joe Leenheer  comment to start my thread

Sorry Penguin - my bad

I'd grumble at Joe, but I like what he said after that.

[Joe Leenheer]

I was just copying Joe Leenheer  comment to start my thread

Sorry Penguin - my bad

I'd grumble at Joe, but I like what he said after that.

I've printed this and will be framing it to hang above my desk (when I get a desk)

[Jeff_Brauer]

Big supporter of Tee It Forward and yes, slow play comes in part from teeing it back.  You just add 10-15 shots a round from playing too long and that has to add to the time played.

Back on Topic, I keep thinking there has to be a tie in to the Occupy and 1% movement here.  When will golfers who pay the bill start demaning that courses be designed primarily for them, rather than for Tour Pros and low handicappers that make up less than 1% of the golf population?  And, in the case of Tour Pros, will NEVER show up at a particular course?

[Jud_T]

I keep thinking there has to be a tie in to the Occupy and 1% movement here.  When will golfers who pay the bill start demaning that courses be designed primarily for them, rather than for Tour Pros and low handicappers that make up less than 1% of the golf population?  And, in the case of Tour Pros, will NEVER show up at a particular course?

Now there's an Occupy movement I can get behind! 

[Scott Stearns]

never happens.  avg joes want to join courses that host tournaments and are in a hot 100 listing.  As dye says "all i know is that my tough courses all have waiting lists"

i

[Jud_T]

never happens.  avg joes want to join courses that host tournaments and are in a hot 100 listing.  As dye says "all i know is that my tough courses all have waiting lists"

i

all the more reason that someone needs to storm the castle and toss the bums at Digest out! 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jud (and Scott),

I have mentioned that I have seen some real life evidence of players gravitating towards quality, yet easier courses for regular play.  I know that many in the golf biz believe easier equals better, countering the Pete Dye ideas.  I also think Fazio courses, which are generally pretty benign fill up in membership as well or better than Dye and Nicklaus courses, although in each case, I would guess location and total number of high end member types in an area have something to do with it.  Fazio, though, made a career on less difficult signature courses.

I guess I am wondering if too many tough courses got built because "we just know" what golfers do.  A real statistical study rather than sound bites would be interesting.   And a current one.  No doubt in the 90's when Pete made that quote he was probably right.  And, the investment is high, so many members might not change clubs.  But for new folks moving to an area like Palm Springs where they could choose between a Faz, JN, AP, Norman, etc., I wonder what the join rates are?

[Scott Stearns]

I live in NYC--and here the Winged Foots, Quaker Ridges, and Baltusrols are full.  the struggling clubs largely come from the list of easier family clubs. 

Likewise in the midwest, the most prestigious club in a given town tends to be one of the harder layouts for high handicap players.  Take Cleveland, Milwaukee, St Louis for example.

I have no doubt that in a retirement community that easier = more players.

I think that Fazio has done well because he offers a course that can challenge both the good player and the 8 handicap.

So to the question on the thread, how do you create a course that is challenging for both pros and better ams---do you challenge them with the same stuff from different tees, or are the challenges different?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Scott,

That only says that the rich aren't affected by the recession.  Also, that golfers still go for name courses.  Many you list are great play every day country club type courses.

[Norbert P]

   OCCUPY GOLF COURSES ! ! !     Please,  Collared shirts only. 4 hours expected stay.  No tents.  

           (BYOB)


    I just played a golf course in New Ulm, Texas, (outside Houston)  that had the most banal bunkering, often times unpresented (hidden), that was designed with a repetition of raised greens - even one built up on a steep high hillside (?!)  It was conditioned ok but the design fell short of a muni effort and it is in a semiremote place so building a mediocre course seems financially spastic.   I don't think they designed it for either the pro or the amateur, but for the blissfully ignorant.