[Bart Bradley]

Can a well-designed, strategic, interesting golf course just be too difficult (small greens with substantial undulations, narrow corridors, very difficult recovery shots) to attract a broad based membership?  Do you know of any examples?

Bart

[Jim Briggs]

Bart,

Its a question rather than an answer, but would you consider a course with small greens and narrow corridors to be strategic, well designed and interesting?  Sounds to me like its obvious what you need to do (i.e., hit the fairway which there is very little margin of error given the narrow corridors, hit the green or your screwed).  Doesn't sound strategic or interesting (no options) to me.

Jim

[David_Tepper]

Bart -

I think a course with a high slope, a number of forced carries and lot of red, yellow & white stakes would discourage some new members, although it would likely attract others. Some golfers relish the challenge of a demanding course, but I think a good number would be discouraged by the possibility of going into their bag to re-load every other hole. I know I would.

DT  

[Mac Plumart]

Bart...good question.

I think David hit on a good point.  And that is a difficult course attracts a different type of member rather than a broad membership base (which you mentioned Bart).

Places in Atlanta that are "players" clubs are Ansley Settindown and Golf Club of Georgia.  Frankly, these course are not "fun" courses.  Rather they are brutal and relentless tests of golf and I'd argue Golf Club of Georgia's Creekside course in unplayable for many golfers.  And, not coincidently, every time I've been to either club I've seen 99% men there...and most are "good" golfers...single digit handicaps.

Now, contrast that with Atlanta Athletic Club...it has one ball buster course and one pleasant course suitable for all skill levels and a par 3 course.  Membership there is varied and broad.  Men, women, children...low handicappers and high handicappers.

Of course, this is non-scientific data I have mentioned...but I feel pretty good about the gist of it.

So, my 2 cents is that...Yes, a course can be too difficult to attract a broad based membership.

[Bart Bradley]

David:

What if you didn't lose a lot of balls but the recovery shots were just so challenging that making pars or even bogeys was hard to do?  I often hear on GCA.com about losing balls, but there are certainly plenty of holes that are just way hard where the likelihood of losing a ball is remote.

Bart

[David_Tepper]

Bart -

I am a 62-year old mid-teen handicap. I do not mind difficult recovery shots, assuming I can get some kind of stance and get my clubhead on the ball in some fashion. I have made plenty of double-bogies in my golfing lifetime and expect to make plenty more.  

An example of a course I would not want to play on a regular basis is Mayacama (Santa Rose, CA), even though it is regarded by many as one of Jack Nicklaus' best designs. Granted, I have played the course just once. My recollection is there is some kind of hazard and/or the risk of losing a ball well in play on almost every hole. Maybe if I played the course (or a course like that) more often, I would feel more comfortable there.

DT

 

[Michael George]

I honestly don't think difficulty detracts from a golf course.  I think lack of playability and fun are the things that may cause a person not to join a club.

For instance, you can have an extremely difficult course where a 15 handicap would not break 100.  However, if that 15 can play every shot and enjoy it, I think that 15 will still belong to the course.  However, if that 15 cannot hit over forced carries and the greens are so small that he can never hit them, then I don't think he would ever consider joining.

For instance, I have played with 15 handicappers that shot over 100 at Oakland Hills and Muirfield Village and they would never join either place.  Likewise, I have played with 15 handicappers that shot the same score at Pacific Dunes, Old Macdonald and Bandon Dunes and they would play those courses the rest of their lives if they could.

[Sam Morrow]

Sure just as some courses can be too easy to attract members, doesn't it go both ways?

[Mark Saltzman]

Depends. What do the magazine raters think of the course? Seriously.

This one is sloped at 149 from the member tees and is doing just fine (and is perenially ranked in the top-3 in Canada):

http://www.nationalgolf.ca/index.php

[Sven Nilsen]

Absolutely.  If The European Club were private, I lived nearby and I had the means and the invitation, I would not join.

I'm glad I played it (40 holes on a beautiful day), but would never join.

[Melvyn Morrow]

The degree of difficulty is in the eye of the beholder, in other words it depends how you came to golf and more importantly how you were taught the game. The course is the point of the challenge; its character is determined by the designer who should throw down the gauntlet from the start.

Alas our problem is first in how people start to play the game, compounded by the lack of actually teaching of how to play the game. The grip and taking shots are fine but don’t stop the lesson after they start to handle clubs correctly. Secondly we have become soft, we or should I say many players moan about courses, in particular the hazards and their apparent severity, which in real terms are not shocking, it’s just the poor level of understanding how to navigate the course.

The aids offered to golfers have certainly not helped nor has the relaxation of course etiquette. Just how far do certain players want to stack the deck in their favour just to get a lower score – sportsmanship has also taken a sever bashing too, as winning no matter the cost seems to be the order of the day, no matter ones skill level.

So no course is beyond a golfer as I believe that Golf's Final Frontier is in The Mind.

Melvyn 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bart,

Historically, I think it's just the opposite.

I know a rather large number of people who joined golf courses that I'd consider very difficult to too difficult.
Courses that I wouldn't join because I wouldn't enjoy myself on a day in and day out basis.
But, like the "Red Badge of Courage", golfers are a strange breed and seem to bathe in the glory of the difficulty of their home course.

I don't get it.

I really, really, really enjoy a challenge, but the challenge would seem to have to be reasonable or attainable.
Challenges that are well beyond the golfers ability to attain, don't interest me and I don't see why they interest the average or better golfer.

I used to play the back tees at just about every course, but today, so many courses have been lengthened to a point that they're beyond my ability to meet the challenge they present.

In terms of notable courses, WFW, Shinnecock, ANGC, PV and many others, on a daily basis, no longer present an ENJOYABLE challenge for me, from their back tees.  NGLA, GCGC, Maidstone and Seminole still do, but, my days from the back tees at those courses may be numbered.

[Jason Topp]

I agree with Patrick.  Difficult courses around here seem to do well.

[Anthony Gray]

No one wants to pay club dues to get beat up.

[Mac Plumart]

I think Bart needs to clarify his question...he says a "broad based membership"...what does he mean by that?

I took it to mean a broad spectrum of golfers...high handicappers, low handicappers, men, women, etc.

If this is the case, a course could do "well" as Jason Topp mentions and still meet Bart's criteria.  It could be one of those "players" courses that I mentioned that has an all-male membership of low handicappers.  They would have to do "well" in terms of having a diverse membership to meet Bart's criteria.

That is, if I have correctly interpretted Bart's question.  But that is why I think a clarification is in order.

[Duncan Cheslett]

I think I might be a member of just such a club.

Wheras us members see interest, strategy, and challenge, others seem to see only 'difficulty' and 'strenuous hill climbs'. Frequently when chatting to other golfers at driving ranges, golf stores etc when I mention my club I am met with a pitying look and a comment like 'Great course, but you must be a masochist to play there every week!' Invariably it turns out that these guys play their golf on a dull flat farmer's field masquerading as a golf course.

I'm sure we could attract more members if we made the course 'easier'. It won't happen though - thankfully!

As for lady members - we've got about six. Other local clubs have hundreds. The difficulty of the course, the hill climbs, and the many long carries from tees appear to be the principal reasons for the discrepancy.

What's wrong with a good hill climb anyway? Golf is my main form of excercise and I see the 200 ft climb to our 18th green as an 'aerobic opportunity'!

[Philippe Binette]

Bart you ask: Can a well-designed, strategic, interesting golf course just be too difficult....

A well-designed, strategic, interesting golf course simply cannot be too difficult... if it's too difficult, it's not a well-designed golf course.

[Philippe Binette]

People would say Oakmont... Oakmont is hard but mostly you hit your balll, find it and hit it again... all you have to do is play it shorter to give you a chance if you find it too difficult.

Courses that are too difficult are the 14 holes with lakes on it, narrow fairway with bunkers on the opposite side of the water completed with greens surrounded by bunkers... those are not well-designed

[Sean_A]

I think I might be a member of just such a club.

Wheras us members see interest, strategy, and challenge, others seem to see only 'difficulty' and 'strenuous hill climbs'. Frequently when chatting to other golfers at driving ranges, golf stores etc when I mention my club I am met with a pitying look and a comment like 'Great course, but you must be a masochist to play there every week!' Invariably it turns out that these guys play their golf on a dull flat farmer's field masquerading as a golf course.

I'm sure we could attract more members if we made the course 'easier'. It won't happen though - thankfully!

As for lady members - we've got about six. Other local clubs have hundreds. The difficulty of the course, the hill climbs, and the many long carries from tees appear to be the principal reasons for the discrepancy.

What's wrong with a good hill climb anyway? Golf is my main form of excercise and I see the 200 ft climb to our 18th green as an 'aerobic opportunity'!

Duncan

Folks must be going soft up north.  In the big scheme of golf Reddish Vale isn't remotely difficult and the only real nasty hole/climb is #18.

Oh my!


Ciao

[Melvyn Morrow]

No golf course should ever be too difficult for a golfer. However we must be very careful in our definition of the word difficult when we link it to golf.  Are we relating the comment to terrain, the designer’s strategic layout or in more severe cases the combination of the two.

If we are referring to terrain then IMHO no shame should be put at the door of the golfer, be it due to age, fitness and general wellbeing. On the other hand if we are falling foul of the designer’s layout, then I say the problem rests with the golfer. By that I mean – and I hope I have chosen my words correctly – golf is a challenge, it lays down that element from the start, it’s the reason behind the success of the game. Yet difficulty is not part of the game, it’s the dilemma faced by the player due to a weakness in his skill levels, however this for the most part can be overcome by addressing the Hole or course in a more open minded way.  That is accept your own limitations, so play to your strengths, do not go at it like a bull in a china shop but pace yourself accepting that your original target be it Par or whatever cannot be achieved, but settle for you best endeavours without over stretching yourself or your game. The result is that you will progress, the next time the course or Hole will not appear so daunting, allowing you to be more relaxed which we all know will assist in improving skills.

Many early inland courses certainly in Scotland were placed upon the side of hills. Courses like Crawford and Alfie’s much loved Arbory Brae, so a certain degree of fitness was obvious from the start, something perhaps lacking in the physical state of many of the modern players with average skill  (the curse of the cart perhaps).








So perhaps we are defining difficult more as a matter of mind and body rather than a degree of challenge offered by the course or individual Hole.

Given time a player can sink the ball in the hole, no matter the severity of the challenge.

Melvyn

[David Whitmer]

I was the pro for seven years at just such a club.

Heritage Club, a PB Dye-designed course outside of Cincinnati, Ohio, is very difficult. There are eleven holes with either a red-staked lateral hazard, a yellow-staked water hazard, or both. On six holes, multiple shots must negotiate hazards. In addition, greens are small and undulating, and on sides of holes where it allows, grass that grows about four feet has been planted. It is very, very easy to lose a golf ball there. Even for a skilled player, it is a challenge to play eighteen holes and not post a double bogey, because there are so many spots where you can lose a ball.

PB even came back a few times after it opened to soften it up. Now, we had a very good membership, especially for a market the size of Cincinnati. But, I played with prospective members quite often, or people who may have won a gift certificate at a charity outing, and many, many times I heard some variation of "Boy, I wouldn't want to play this course every day."

It's a good, solid golf course that tests every club in your bag...not nearly in the same league as Camargo here in town, but what is? But, it is very difficult, and like I said I know from experience some guys said it was too difficult to play every day. However, we found guys that did want to play it every day (it only takes 300 or so), so the club did, and continues to, do very well. 

[Keith OHalloran]

I agree with Mark in regard to effect that ratings can have. If Bethpage Black was private, I would not want to join. I get beaten up when I play the course. It is a long walk, it is a mandatory walk, and there really are limited options to go out late and play a few holes, unless you want to play only 5 holes, and that would have hole 15 as your second of the day. However, I am certain that based on its status, the Black course would not hurt for members.

[Tom ORourke]

If you are a bad golfer then every course is too difficult. My old course was fairly easy but we were doing a lot of reworking of our holes. As many of our members got older, and we had a lot of retired golfers, some number of them felt the updated version was too difficult and left. In S.C. there is the Hollow Creek course, designed by Fuzzy Zoeller and Clyde Johnson. I have heard a number of the female members (don't forget, most courses do have women) say that Fuzzy must hate women because some of the holes are way too difficult. That club has 2 courses so the women stay off that one and play the Nicklaus course. Tough courses may keep golfers out and drive others away.

[Jud_T]

If it got decent Golf Digest ratings and/or held some minor tournaments, then no.  Never underestimate a man's primordial desire to pull out the ruler and whip it out.  

[Tim Martin]

I agree with Mark in regard to effect that ratings can have. If Bethpage Black was private, I would not want to join. I get beaten up when I play the course. It is a long walk, it is a mandatory walk, and there really are limited options to go out late and play a few holes, unless you want to play only 5 holes, and that would have hole 15 as your second of the day. However, I am certain that based on its status, the Black course would not hurt for members.

+1

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()