Patrick,
An interesting theory, to be sure. The biggest loser, as it were, in accommodating public/average golfers is the cross hazard, which CBM used a lot.
That said, we know the cross hazard rarely troubles the modern player as it did when balls didn't have the lift. They still trouble the average golfer. So, is leaving cross hazards out (except for maybe a single example as an "homage" to the old days) really dumbing down the design, or just adapting for both modern good and average play?
Things do change over time, and sticking with an old golf concept might be akin to continuing to build the Edsal, no?
Jeff,
I guess the question comes down to: To what level does the architect diminish the challenge in order to accomodate a golfing public that doesn't have the will to stand up to a sterner challenge ?
Where will that slope end ?
What's really amazing to me is the challenge some courses, like Hollywood presented, when the equipment and ball didn't come close to matching the performance of today's equipment and ball.
In part, I think the shift in emphasis, from match to medal play is greatly responsible.
Patrick, and GJ,
Wholly crap! What attitudes......
Truthfully, it is part of the problem that everyone in the golf business simply loves golf, golf courses, and the golf experience. So, courses tend to get designed that way.
If we took a survey of why the average American golfer plays, (and some have) its not about beating the golf course at all. Its about beating your friends for a nickel about half the time. (Camaraderie) along with exercise, etc. These surveys show that all the average golfer wants to do is shoot within 5 strokes or so of their normal score. Sure, once or twice a year they love the idea of playing the best courses in town, and every other year, those who can afford it take a buddies trip to Pebble or Bandon.
I get the impression that if the marketing guys got a hold of golf course design, the challenge would be reduced greatly, and yes, in your eyes, they would be pandering to those "without the will to stand up to a sterner challenge." IF we design for the customers who are going to play the golf course, it stands to reason they will enjoy it more. Is giving the crowd what they want such a bad thing?
What business model is successful in "teaching those people a lesson?" Or, trying to elevate their tastes from action flicks to opera?
Surveys also show these disturbing facts - the average golfer hits only 5-15 good shots a round. "Good shot" means airborne and in the right general direction, so the bar is pretty low. Less than 5 good shots on average, and golfers quit. So, my comment on the frontal bunkers is that I have actually seen the frustration of an average player hitting a "good shot" that the architect has repeatedly turned into a bad shot for them. When they hit the good shot, they wish to be rewarded.
And, going back to my comment earlier, in general, if cross hazards punish average players 4-5X good players (and it may be 10X) and there are OTHER challenges we can design in, why use them often? Usually, enviro restrictions cause us to use them more often than we would otherwise, which is why I rarely use full cross bunkers at a green or fw. (I do like a fortress green every so often!)
Or put another way, does the good golfer need every type of challenge on every course, every day, such as a Redan, Cape, etc. holes? Of course, on a Cape hole, with tee positioning, a wide fw (which in no way diminishes the actual challenge of the Cape) and other factors, we can usually make it work okay for others. Naturally, helps if the water is on the left, not right.
That sort of thing is what gca's have been doing for decades. The great thing is, a few have built great courses for either good players or that twice a year outing, which is fine. What we are talking about is the courses ten miles from golfer X front door and what they should be like.