[Chris Buie]

So I was having a drink tonight with a GCA friend and I brought up this question I had considered asking on here. He said I should post it. So, have at it if you care to. The question is specifically about the difficulty level. Which course have you played that was too easy? And, by the way, do you remember what you shot?

[Tommy Williamsen]

This is an easy one.  It is the easiest course I played in years.  Regents Glen in York, PA.  I shot 68.

[Sam Morrow]

I'm just a chop but I would love to find an interesting course that is to easy.

[John Kavanaugh]

Pacific Dunes. Shot 71 in February. I need fewer par 3's down the stretch to choke up a round with my driver.

[Chris Buie]

Would you guys say those courses are too easy?

[jeffwarne]

North Berwick
Shot 70 right off the plane,partner played to his handicap ------got killed by a 10 who shot 76 and a 15 who shot 77 -net 59 between the two of them

Worked out good for the rest of the trip though after the Commissioner "adjustments"

Love the golf course though so it wasn't "too" anything,
nonetheless a tough place to give 15 shots in benign conditions

[Chris Buie]

Well, let me try again.
I'm asking about a design that you would say was significantly flawed because of insufficient challenge.

[Sam Morrow]

Well, let me try again.
I'm asking about a design that you would say was significantly flawed because of insufficient challenge.

Chris,

 Do you have any examples, I would imagine that any course like that would be rudimentary from an architectural standpoint.

[Mark Saltzman]

Chris,

I've never played one. 

I played with a very good player a couple of days ago who told me that while the greens are lots of fun, Old Elm in Chicago is too easy to play on a regular basis.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Regent's Glen isn't necessarily a flawed course.  It has some good holes and has some of trouble off the tee.  It is very short and the greens are not all that interesting. 

[Andy Stamm]

I'm in the no course is too easy camp. If we're talking a real course (not par 3 or pitch and putt or something), there is no too easy, I just need to shoot a lower number.

As someone who plays a reasonable game, people always try to steer me to the 'best' course around, which is usually just the hardest. It's very hard to convince them that that's not even on my radar, I'm looking for how much I like a course, value, etc. but not really difficulty at all.

[Chris Buie]

Chris,

 Do you have any examples, I would imagine that any course like that would be rudimentary from an architectural standpoint.

Sam, that's a good question. Thanks for the input. Actually, I don't have any examples. I can name a lot that are too redundant, uninteresting, too difficult for the vast majority, etc. but I don't recall any that I would say the design is too easy - except for scratch players.
I do know courses where a scratch player would not be strongly challenged and they would most likely shoot a very low score. Would they say those courses are "too easy". Some would probably - certainly they would not be up for having such courses in their personal rota. Scratch players make up 1/2 of 1% of the players so I personally would not make them the prime consideration when it comes to course design. Yeah, for those players I think you could say there are courses that are too easy.
This is not a subject I thought through a great deal before posting. I probably should have done a bit more - sorry about that. Still, I do think it is a subject worth exploring and that something worthwhile can come from it.

I'm just a chop but I would love to find an interesting course that is to easy.

I agree! There are a lot of really interesting courses that are highly challenging - like Oakmont. An interesting course that is calibrated on the lower end of the challenge continuum is something that I think would be nice to see more of.
Well, that will have to do for now.

[Bill_McBride]

What course have I played that was too easy?

I can't think of one that was too easy, you still have to get the ball in the hole!

I have played too many courses that weren't interesting or fun, but that's another question. 

[Ken Moum]

Which course have you played that was too easy?

I've been saying for years that it's easy to make a golf course hard, but it's very hard to make a golf course that's interesting.

To answer your question, nope, I never played one that was too easy. I have played a few that were short and dopey, but not too easy.

Ken

[Sean Leary]

The Old Course from the regular tees. Didn't have a full second shot into a par 4 until 16. Hit every green until 17. I was a 5 handicap or so at the time.

[Mark Chaplin]

Sean all TOC needs is a brisk breeze and it's a different proposition, like any links.

[Ronald Montesano]

What defines "too easy," or is that the proposition here? Should an initial thread have been called "what makes a course too easy?"

I suggest to our boys golf team that an interesting way to play a round or two in the spring is to move up to the most forward tees a their home courses (the one that they should know the best) and play for score. If they can't shoot career lows with wedge or less in their hands, they've exposed to critical faults that will hold them back in their desire to be competitors: they are uncomfortable going low and their wedge games are lacking.

Is "too easy" directed at the recreational player or the highly-skilled one? We have both on this forum, so I would expect that varying answers would come.

I equate "too easy" with architectural disinterest, which leads to zero subtle hazards and few apparent ones. We have some ridiculous courses in western New York whose only purpose is to offer a place to play. That's fine for the regulars, who want nothing more than camaraderie and exercise at a non-Olympic pace.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Answering that perception issue is important for a gca.  Golfers really don't want to play a too easy course, nor do they want to get beat up on their daily rounds.  Matching that perception and hitting that "sweet spot" for the courses typical clientele is always an issue.  Similar to the length question on another thread.

I am working with two public courses right now on master plans.  Every day golfers at a bunkerless course have determined that 7-12 bunkers would be "just right" and at a course with 7 bunkers, the golf committee thinks 7-12 MORE bunkers would be "just right."

I have also seen courses where the middle tees leave nothing but short irons into the greens and have had golfers tell me that a succession of holes with that makes a course "too easy."  On one of the courses above, there are no real senior tees so they play the reds - which pisses them off to play from the ladies tees, but also leaves the course just a little too short for them at 5000 yards.  The solution is a new set of red tees at 4000+/- and a slight repositioning of the existing reds to convert them to slightly longer tees for the seniors, at about 5250 yards.  (its a par 70 course)

[Brad Tufts]

I would second North Berwick.  Usually a links course played in weather shows its teeth no matter how easy it may play in benign conditions.  I shot -1 this summer on a first play in easily a 40mph wind.  I will second the "love the course" notion though.

Another is Eastward Ho.  Again, playing it in crazy weather may change things, but I hit it all over the map and had no trouble scoring.  Another fun place.

Four Mile Ranch in Canon City, CO.  I've played two rounds here, from the tips, in what seems to be the normal benign conditions.  This Jim Engh course is full of punchbowl greens and thin Colorado air and elevated tees.  I'm a cumulative 5-under in two rounds.  Fun, scenic course, but I think two plays is probably enough.

Waverly Oaks in Plymouth, MA.  Lots of birdie opportunities.

Easier courses are always "fun" because you can go low, but after a couple times beating it up it gets much less interesting.

[Tom_Doak]

I am working with two public courses right now on master plans.  Every day golfers at a bunkerless course have determined that 7-12 bunkers would be "just right" and at a course with 7 bunkers, the golf committee thinks 7-12 MORE bunkers would be "just right."

Clearly, then, the sweet spot is 12-14 bunkers per course.

Either that, or both clients think they can only afford 7-12 more bunkers than they already have.

[Chris Buie]

Nice comments guys. Ronald I think your piece is particularly well done.

What does define too easy? A really good question. Not sure I have a really good answer to that. I can picture a course that is too short - where you don't get to hit various clubs not being engaging - and not something you would desire to play except perhaps as a lark. But lets leave out courses where you are only flipping wedges into the green. Lets consider a course where there is a reasonable amount of length.

The fact is there are hundreds if not thousands of courses that clearly exceed the capabilities of "average player" and no walk in the park for the somewhat better than average player.

I don't really understand that.

How many interesting courses are there that are the opposite? That is, not difficult to play?
A main point I'm making here is that too many of the courses that have been built have been calibrated too highly on the difficulty scale. That just seems absurd to me. What are we trying to do here? I'm not talking about courses suitable for scratch players. There are already a boatload of courses for those chaps. I'm talking about courses for the other 98%. Why would an arch want their afternoon to be filled with high degree of struggle they can't cope with well? I don't think it need be that way. Why not go more in the other direction?
I was struck by a comment Mr. Mucci made recently about a relatively new high profile course. He had gotten feedback that it was too difficult. It was an innocuous comment but I was struck by it. A lot of thought had gone into the design of this course.
I just wondered why on earth would they want to make it overly difficult for the vast majority of players? Would it not be better for it not to be so demanding? The average golfer is quite busy with matters outside of golf. They do not have a great deal of time to practice. Very hard to be a really sharp player under those circumstances. It's not so easy to be a sharp player when you do get to practice for that matter. It's not an easy game and that is probably why a lot of people don't pursue the game.
As I said, I'm not concerned with the scratch player here because there are already so many courses that will accommodate that very small percentage of players. How many courses accommodate the skill level of the vast majority of players? Why would a designer not want to pursue that?
I understand that designers have patrons they have to accommodate - and that many if not most of those owners (unwisely IMO) want a big burly course. I can't criticize a designer for the courses they turn out in such a scenario - although I'd probably make the effort to question the owner about what he wants. What kind of afternoon do you want your members and guests to have? Why would you not want maximum pleasure to be the goal?
Ross said golf is meant to be a pleasure and not a penance. I could not agree more. That doesn't necessarily mean easy. I personally enjoy playing some of the well conceived courses that are rated very high on the challenge scale. I don't want to play them all the time though. And (obviously) I think it would be much, much better if more if not most courses were designed with the skill of the average or even less than average player in mind.

Golfers really don't want to play a too easy course

Jeff, do you have a definition of too easy?  Examples of courses? You've heard from people that played a course of reasonable length that said it was too easy?
I'm not trying to rough you up here Jeff. I am just truly curious.

Well, I don't know that my take on the matter is correct. It's just an idea I consider from time to time - not fully formed quite yet. Ideas go through an evolution. It comes up and one considers it gets feedback on it - maybe its worthy, maybe not so much. Still fun to explore them in congenial company.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Chris,

It's like porn...I know it when I see it!

It really does vary.  Most courses have tried hard to either be all things to all people (mostly with multiple tees and a "moderate" number of bunkers)  Few courses really, really look at their most frequent customers and design around them.  Studies show that most people who play your course live within ten miles of it, so a study of the age, income, demographics of your immediate area might tell you a few things about design.

I recall old articles (by Joe Finger, I think) lamenting a pro signature championship course in a retirement community in Florida!  Right on, brother, but another thousand of those have been built in the last 30 years since the article.

[Mike Hendren]

IMHO Cypress Point Club is the easiest great course.

This coming from someone with the nickname:

Bogey

[Ronald Montesano]

I'll embellish a bit...

The ground game...I remember watching an approach clang off a greenside sprinkler head and repel away...ultimate rub of the green I learned as a youth. What if the course (intentionally or otherwise) were laid out to funnel bad shots back into play, like bumpers in the gutters of a bowling lane?

Fast and firm...although we hold this like as holy, like the pronouncements in the Koran, doesn't it make the game/course easier for toppers of the ball?

Backstops...doesn't matter if they are bunkers or mounds, or even fences...anything that rebounds a ball destined for oblivion makes the game easier.

Let's look at the elements of the course:

Tee deck...aim it at the center of the target, rather than askew. Laser-level it flat, to remove any spin influence (sidehill, uphill or downhill), elevate it to give added carry and roll ~ anything else?

Fairway...other than the aforementioned "funnel" effect ~ anything else?

Greens...flatten them, then tilt them slightly toward approach to keep balls from bounding over. No pitch, no undulation...simple, basic putts.

Hazards...no OB, no water, no sand.

Now, here's the next thought...does boring make easy? If the golf is boring, will you preserve your focus and continue to score well (the easy factor) or will you tire of the absence of challenge and declare the course something else?

[Jud_T]

There is no such thing as too easy in golf (anyone shoot an 18 at mini-golf lately?), only too monotonous and unimaginative.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()