[Steve_ Shaffer]

DMB, the developer of Verrado, a master planned community in Buckeye, AZ, home of The Raven at Verrado, a very good public course, is planning an "active adult" community with a golf course. DMB has developed such high end residential clubs as Silverleaf (Weiskopf) in Scottsdale ;  Kukui‘ula Club (Weiskopf) in Poipu, Hawaii; Martis Camp (Fazio) inTruckee, California;Glenwild Golf Club(Fazio) in Park City, Utah; The Santaluz Club(Rees Jones) in San Diego, California; The Country Club at DC Ranch (Lehman) in Scottsdale, Arizona; Lahontan Golf Club (Weiskopf)  in Truckee, California and Forest Highlands (Weiskopf/Morrish) in Flagstaff, AZ.

This will be DMB's first "active adult" (55+) community. I don't know if an architect has been chosen but DMB had a focus group last week which I attended.  Here was my input on building a "senior friendly" golf course:

1. No longer than 64-6500y with 3 or 4 tee boxes.
2. Par 4s no longer than 400y or 380y.
3. Par 3s no longer than 160y or 170y.
4. Limited forced carries.
5. Few fairway bunkers.
6. Greenside bunkers  with limited, if any, raised lips.
7. No "roller coaster" greens.
8. does not have to be par 72(10,4&4). Can be par 70 or even 68 or 69.

They do not want another "championship" course at more than 7000y and will be offering a dual membership with Raven or a single membership at the new course.

Bear in mind that many senior golfers (myself among them at 68) are not bombers off the tee. A 200-225 y drive is a good thing for me these days. I like downwind holes.  

What does the Treehouse think of this?  

[Garland Bayley]

Tom Doak has already created the template for your course.

On another thread, Tom Doak proposed a suggest set of hole lengths for an average length course that could be played by all.

Here's the scorecard that works.  Will see if I have time to make up a course for it:

Par 3 holes:  125 - 160 - 180 - 205 - 230 yards

Short 4's:  300 - 320 - 340 - 360 - 380 yards

Long 4"s:  400 - 420 - 440 - 460 - 480 yards

Par 5 holes:  500 - 550 - 600 yards

That adds up to 6,450 yards, par 70.

Let's make up the forward tee yardages be.
95, 130, 150, 165, 195, 260, 280, 300, 310, 330, 350, 370, 380, 400, 410, 430, 470, 520 Total 5545

For a scorecard, we rate par based on player handicaps. This should allow anyone to make a birdie or two from time to time. Not that I think this is that important, but it seems all the low handicap players on this site seem to think players have an unalienable right to make birdies. As these low handicappers age, they threaten that they will leave the game if you don't give them forward tees.

The proposed score card is not all that much larger than a standard scorecard you see these days. It matches in size a scorecard for a course with 5 tees.

The pars are based on USGA handicap index. When you see an entry like <15, <2 that means the pars are rated for male players with index less than 15, and female player with index less than 2. Clearly I am not a expert in these things, so it is a starting point suggestion.

Now let's make the scorecard.

Hole Number        1      2      3      4      5      6      7       8      9     10     11     12     13     14     15     16     17     18    Total
Yardage            320  460  180  420   600  125   380   160  400   500   205   360   480    300   550    340   230   440    6450
Par <4                  4      4     3      4       5     3       4       3     4       4       3      4       4        4      5       4       3       4       69
Par <15  <2          4      4     3      4       5     3       4       3     4       5       3      4       5        4      5       4       3       4       71
Par <26, <15        4      5     3      4       6     3       4       3     4       5       3      4       5        4      5       4       4       4       74
Yardage            280   410  150  370   520   95    310   130  350   430   165  300   410    260   470    280   195    400   5545
Par <37, <23        4      4     3      4       5     3       4       3     4       5       3      4       4         4     5        4       3       4      71
Par <41                4       5    3      4       6     3       4       3     4       5       3      4       5         4     5        5       4       4      74

[Mike Nuzzo]

Steve
A 6000 - 6200 yard course can and should have a two shot hole longer than 400 yards and a one shot hole longer than 175 yds
And I think some interesting greens would make for an interesting course - just because someone is a senior, doesn't mean they are dead too

GJ
I've already built the template for their course

Cheers

[Garland Bayley]

Steve
A 6000 - 6200 yard course can and should have a two shot hole longer than 400 yards and a one shot hole longer than 175 yds
And I think some interesting greens would make for an interesting course - just because someone is a senior, doesn't mean they are dead too

GJ
I've already built the template for their course

Cheers

If you mix green and black tees at Pac Dunes, for example, then Tom has probably built it too.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Thanks for the support Garland

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Mike,

I'm not dead, just not long off the tee anymore. 

 My 7wood is my favorite club .

I'd like  Redan, Punchbowl, Biarritz and  Double Plateau greens.

[Garland Bayley]

Steve,

C.B. MacDonald is dead.

[Sean_A]

Steve

I like the idea of a senior course, but I would never market it as such - tee hee.  If these guys are serious they need to take a trip to England and see few courses which would help conceptualize the idea of shorter course.  One thing I would add is that 6500ish back tees is probably too much.  I would be focusing more on

5900-6200ish

5200-5600ish

4300-4700ish

With par definitely below 70 (maybe as many as 6 par 3s and only 1 or 2 par 5s), except for ladies.

I would also focus highly on a walking course - these old buggers need to walk and golf is the perfect vehicle for doing so.  So a relatively flat course would be in order. 

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Nice idea. Perhaps they should be referred to as something like 'traditional', 'classic' or 'historic' length courses. Calling them 'senior' may cause some players to go elsewhere.

All the best.

[Mike_Young]

If we had matured with matchplay being our form of golf these types of questions would not be asked.   

I'm sure TD, MN , myself and all architects have designed such a model; it's not some earthshaking revelation. 

[Steve_ Shaffer]

All,

This course will be public with seasonal and yearly memberships available to residents so I don't think it will be marketed as a "senior friendly" course.

About 15 miles away is the public Palm Valley GC with 2 courses- a 7000y Arthur Hills design and a 4745y, par 62 Hale Irwin design:

http://www2.cybergolf.com/sites/images/893/Lakes-Scorecard-11_26_12.pdf

Also nearby is Pebble Creek*, a residential "active adult" community with 45 holes of semi-private golf:

1. Eagles Nest 6150y 69.0/119

2. Tuscany Falls- 3 nines

    Falls/Palms 6147y 67.7/119
    Palms/Lakes 6246y 68.6/124
    Lakes/Falls  6031y  67.5/120

* There are back tees beyond the above .

[Bill_McBride]

Steve
A 6000 - 6200 yard course can and should have a two shot hole longer than 400 yards and a one shot hole longer than 175 yds
And I think some interesting greens would make for an interesting course - just because someone is a senior, doesn't mean they are dead too

Hear hear!   

I like challenging greens.  I can't keep up off the tee anymore, but I can utilize an imaginative short game and have fun. 

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Nice idea - there are lots of such golf clubs around here, except that they are not public and not only for seniors.

[Thomas Dai]

"I like challenging greens. I can't keep up off the tee anymore, but I can utilize an imaginative short game and have fun." Great call Bill. Absolutely spot on.

All the best.

[Matthew Petersen]

Steve,

Is this new "active adult" community to be out in the Verrado area?

I know when the first course opened almost a decade ago, they bragged of plans for as many as 7 courses out there. One was going to be resort-oriented, but I always figured that had to include at least a couple "Sun City" type courses. I, for one, would be interested just to a see a "retirement" course built by one of the bigger name GCAs (Not talking Doak or C&C here, I mean like Lehman/Fought who have a relationship with DMB). Most out here are Greg Nash or Dick Bailey and there's an incredible degree of sameness about them as a result.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Matt,

Yes, the planned community and course is within Verrado. There was a Rees jones course planned for the proposed resort there but that is off the books for now. Sun City Festival'sl Copper Canyon was supposed to add another course but that's on hold too. Part of Festival Ranch was supposed to be developed by Lyle Anderson but that won't happen either.

Have you played Corte Bella? It's one of the best in the West Valley. The greens are Tifdwarf and have character. It's now semi-private.

[RJ_Daley]

I once heard Mark McCormick give a forewarning to GCSAA and many club owners in attendance that they must pay particular attention to the retired sector.  He said, "everytime you see a hearst go by, you are loosing your most loyal market share", or something very near that comment.

I also agree that there doesn't need to be much dumbing down of any course from 100 yards and into greens, including interesting putting green contours.  Maybe a slight backing off of severe depth of bunkers.  But, the challenge around the greens is still the main source of senior pride in their games that they know is still fun to compete with their peers.  Also, a good putting green or short game area for practice and a place for singles to linger and putter around, when not playing with groups.  Forget the long ball off the tee.  Make the TPs 225-235 yards and a little extra width.  Yes, 5800-6200 is a sweet spot for senior oriented design, IMHO.  

I also think that ammenities need to be tailored to that senior consumer.  Don't need expensive pools, tennis courts, or fancy stuff.  Just give'em a good shower, maybe even a hot tub for after rounds in locker room, modest easy-use exercise/stretch equp.  Have a grille room with good healthy grub and reasonable drinks so they hang out, and you got a good formula for that all needed profit center, I think.  It is about creating fun, at reasonable price.

Oh yeah, also have a portable difibralator (not lie detector) available in CH and on course, and personel that know how to use it....  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Some nice ideas here, but one is missing....

Make sure there are no steep walks from cart path to tee or green.  Basically, design it all to ADA standards, which work pretty well for senior walking standards, too.

[Tim_Weiman]

Steve,

Several years ago an old friend who was an IMG golf man did a study on a public golf course in Florida.

For thirty days they measured every drive on two holes. The average drive was 185 yards. Only 5% of the drives measured 225 yards. Only 1% reached 250 yards.

Says a lot. Most people can't hit 200 yard tee shots, a point that gets obscured watching the PGA tour on television every week.

Honestly, I wasn't surprised by the study results. As I mentioned in Tom Doak's recent thread, I have watched golfer at a very busy public course in Ohion for more than thirty years and it is clear that even with all the modern technology hitting a golf ball 200 yards is really hard for the masses.

[John Foley]

My home course Champion Hills in Victor NY was designed similarly. 9 hole course that the developer planned as part of an active adult living center. Not many took up that so the members are more familly oriented but we have a few seniors. It's been called a cottage style course. Done by Barry Jordan.

Course is sub 2700 yards from the back tees. Here is the yardages.

Hole 1 - Par 4 - 377 yards
Hole 2 - par 3 - 173 yards
Hole 3 - par 3 - 162 yards
Hole 4 - par 4 - 323 yards
Hole 5 - par 3 - 210 yards
Hole 6 - par 4 - 363 yards
Hole 7 - par 5 - 546 yards (and every yard is a BITCH!!)
Hole 8 - par 3 - 143 yards
Hole 9 - par 4 - 346 yards

All of the holes have good elasticity in a mix of back and one up tee boxes. No one I know complains about the lack of 3K+ yards.

Great mix of tough holes w/ challenge and strategy - greens are very good.

My only complaints in a few long tee to green walks and you can lose a ball on EVERY hole - but for the most part it's wide left or right - the forced carries are very managable .

Routing is below - always open to host if anyone is in the area.

[Gib_Papazian]

Shrieking at terminal velocity towards my inexorable dotage, my major trepidation was the dread of Alzheimer's or impotence - and which was going to get me first. Little did I know that architectural arrogance was going to strike the first blow against my battle to fend off age and infirmity.

Everyone on this thread seems incorrectly focused on distance, which is only a small part of the equation - a point that seems to escape the factory firm drones chained to their drafting table, who obviously never actually watch seniors suffer their monstrous creations.

What is the difference between a 400 yard par-4, with slopes and kick points to encourage crafty approach play along the ground, and a 340 yard par-4 with the putting surface balanced atop something surrounded by bunkers that looks closer to Devil's Postpile than a green complex?

What Seniors, women and 95% of the golfing public enjoy playing are low-profile targets - or elevated greens with more than one way to get the ball on the pad. Why is a Redan so compelling? Well, because it encourages lots of options, not a relentless demand for aerial approach shots to elevated, ribbon-like putting surfaces, oriented perpendicular to the line of play.

Old Greenwood in Tahoe is Complainants Exhibit A. I played behind two couples - on a course sold as part of a retirement community - who already had blood running down their legs by the time they got to #18 tee. Now, for the final insult, these 68 year-olds got to pull out pitons and scale a sheer wall of grass littered with bunkers - before a final assault to a hilltop green, built up another 30 feet to remove any hope of a fun or dignified end to the round.

If somebody wants two examples of the perfect course on which to retire (in the States), Westhampton and Chechessee Creek are the objective. And there is nothing wrong with rolling putting surfaces, just don't shave them to Stimp at 13 and expect Uncle Charlie to putt them with whiskey fingers.
    

[Steve_ Shaffer]

An architect has been selected. He's "well known."   This is not surprising given the developers golf history. "Playability" will be the focus of the course.

An Announcement will be made in a few months when the community opens for business.

[Sean_A]

Gib

Distance for folks who can't hit the ball 225 is quite important. 

There are plenty of excellent examples out there that would work as templates for a short course.  There is no need to reinvent the wheel.  Keep it simple.  Keep it flatish.  Keep it very walkable.  None of these criteria inherently eliminates interest or challenge.  I would love to belong to a well designed, flatish and very walkable course topping out at 6200 or less. 

Ciao 

[Peter Pallotta]

Steve - Many have made good points already, it seems to me. But it also seems to me that we are all missing one key element of the best/necessary approach: i.e. In order to make the best course possible for people who want to play, say, a 6100 yard course, the architect has to actually design that 6100 yard course FIRST -- he actually has to design the BEST 6100 YARD COURSE he can, and only THEN add the OTHER tee boxes, e.g. at 5500, 6400 and maybe 6700 yards.  The problem, from what I've seen and can tell (and for what it's worth coming from me) is that as soon as you or anyone else tells the architect that the course from the tips can be UP TO, say, 6700 yards, 9 out of 10 architects will go right ahead and design this course as they have dozens of others before - i.e. they will design the best 6,700 yard course they can, and then LATER slap down a few other tee boxes as 6400 and 6100 and 5500 yards. And I just don't think that works/is ideal. Sure, the 'numbers' will work -- the architect can say, "What's the problem: from THERE it is a 240 yard carry but from HERE it's only 170 yards, with nothing to carry".  And yet, in ways both subtle and obvious, I'm almost sure that this "Senior Player" course would feel much like any other one, with nothing to make it MOST fun and interesting from the ideal/target set of tees, at 6100 yards.

Peter

[Gib_Papazian]

Sean,

I am not suggesting that distance is irrelevant. I am suggesting that if the green complexes are impossible to negotiate without the aerial game, you've eliminated a sizable percentage of the players and more than half of the seniors and women.

Actually, Neal and I were having a discussion some time back on the subject of what can euphemistically be called "inclusive architecture." The idea is that each hole should theoretically be arranged in such a manner that a player can complete it with only a putter. In other words, along the ground from tee to green, using the contours of the topography to direct their ball in the desired direction - or to skirt or tack around interior hazards.

For lack of a better term, I've always referred to this as "playing chutes and ladders," a favorite childhood game of mine. My recollection is the putter theory originally came from Peter Thomson in an interview many years ago. This might be the key to designing inclusive golf courses. It strikes me as backwards the way half these firms do their cuts & fills - especially in trying to present an interesting or original green complex.

Why always cut in front of the green and then build up the putting surface? How about just the opposite? Playing into an amphitheater - even a punchbowl of sorts - has a more intimate feel. Not for every hole, but being able to get the ball close to the pin a variety of ways is key to the enjoyment of golf for the weaker player.

Arranging the topography to welcome the ball onto the putting surface  - as opposed to constantly shouldering it away - keeps everybody in the game. Forced carries onto the putting surface over deep bunkers, with no way to bounce in the ball from a different angle, is anathema to the roots of golf.

Punitive rough is insanity on a course frequented by seniors and women. Obviously, what constitutes "punitive" is in the eye of the beholder and I'm a bit dogmatic on the subject. My opinion is that arbitrary rough lines have no place in the game of golf. In fact, I would strive for no rough at all - most of the time all it does is mask poorly conceived architecture. If you play the angles right, then you get rewarded. If not, then pay the penalty. Asking Milton and Constance Rutherford to hack their ball out of even 1" rough accomplishes nothing and compromises their enjoyment. If you want to design a senior track, make the challenge 90% intellectual, not 90% physical.

And though every trap does not have to be a splash bunker, watching Saul Bernstein and Abe Goldman try to climb out of those idiotic traps at Lake Merced is painful. A hazard ought to present a reasonable challenge for seniors. Throwing Mrs. Havershire down a well with her sand wedge and expecting her to splash the ball out of perdition is lunacy.

Our courses in America are too hard for weaker players and we ought to strive to design them as close as possible to Prestwick or Lahinch or North Berwick or Swinley Forest, where it is a joy to play - even for the very elderly. I believe that women give up the game in droves not because it takes too much time, but because our paying fields are often little more than thoughtless obstacle courses.

End of Rant.      

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()