"Too easy" versus "too hard" ...

[Jeff_Mingay]

Further to my bunker thread ... on the same project we've been accused of making some holes "too easy" and others "too hard".

For example, at the long par 4 2nd hole greenside bunkers were removed = too easy. But at the par 3 3rd, greenside bunkers were significantly deepened = too hard. At the par 3 16th, trees were removed to widen the corridor of play off the tees = too easy. But at the par 4 17th hole, big and deep greenside bunkers were restored = too hard.   

Perhaps we're on to something 

[Jeff_Brauer]

I was doing a two hole remodel once.  First one we placed fw bunker right.  Owner said wrong place, everyone would be in it.  Thought he would like the second hole with FW bunker left.  Didn't like that one because "no one would be in it on the left side."

There is that odd sense many have for bunkers of seeing "too little" or "too much" business.  I also have trouble determining just what is the "right amount of business" a bunkers should see.

Obviously, your client doesn't like deep bunkers, preferring perhaps quantity of hazard over difficulty.  Not all that unusual, really.

As to widening the par 3 corridor, I wonder if your critique was a hooker or slicer?  For some reason, I get more comments about a corridor needing widening from those who hook the ball.  Generally these are better players who think the course ought to give them room to start the ball right, whereas the average slicer/average golfer rarely seems to think in those terms.

[Paul Gray]

I guess you have to be recognised as an artist, but then that's very easy for someone that doesn't rely on the pay cheques to say and not so easy in practice. But nobody tells a top chef how he or she should do things. Try adopting the 'this is my art' attitude in Burger King though and see how long you last serving rare burgers to the masses.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Jeff,

I was in another situation recently where we removed bunkers off the tee at a par 4 to bring the fairway closer to a natural hazard that runs along the length of the hole, left. There's also a bunker right off the tee. The fairway at this hole is quite narrow and tilts pretty severely right to left toward the natural hazard.

The committee felt it was important to create a bit of a counter slope where we filled the bunkers on the left (not a bad idea, I agreed), otherwise the hole would become "too hard". I then suggested that perhaps the right fairway bunker should be removed too, to allow golfers more latitude relative to the slope of the fairway (and prevailing wind). The committee felt that would make the hole "too easy".

You can't make this stuff up  

[Mike_Clayton]

The 490 yard par 5 8th at Victoria in Melbourne is a classic example. Formerly a very good hole but one which had, by the 1970s, become a very 'easy' hole was made harder by the planting of trees in completely the wrong place. They made the hole both 'harder' and poorer.
We took out the trees, bringing the beautiful greenside bunkers back into view and making a quite wide driving space - defended by a new bunker 280y off the tee - replacing the old one at 230.

'Too easy' some cried.
Why not call it a par 4 - because that is what it's been for at least 40 years?"
'Too hard' they cried.

It's the same hole - easy to make 5 but hard to make 4. Such a frustrating debate.

It gets tiring when people judge every piece of work by how the changes affect the difficulty of the hole.Many times holes are improved by making them 'easier'

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

I would probably have suggested a minor counter slope along the creek, too.  I always want to make sure the LZ doesn't unintentionally kick balls into a 2 shot hazard.  Narrow fw and big cross slope doesn't sound just too hard, it sounds dangerously close to unplayable.

I would probably also recommend taking out the bunker right, especially if the green was guarded right. If you play too conservatively, all you need is a worse angle from the far right. 

I have never really understood the mentality of supplemental hazards on the far side of water (although I have done it for looks a few times)  If you have water left, shouldn't you in general be able to bail out right?

[Jeff_Mingay]

Mike,

I have a similar situation ... coincidentally at Victoria, British Columbia. I've been asked to think about how to make the 451-yard par 5 17th hole there more challenging. My immediate answer (after thinking about it for 30 seconds) was, change par on the scorecard to 4. It's then, suddenly, the most difficult hole on the course, not the "easiest".

Perceived problem at our Victoria is, then total par would drop to 69. I've argued that par 69 would make the club's great old course (est. 1893) more distinctive - and "harder", like many members want it; and, I've cited all of those other great courses throughout the world where total par is less than 70, to no avail (yet).

[Terry Lavin]

Hard does not always equal fair.  Easy doesn't always equal fun.

Obtaining the balance without compromise must be what separates a great design from the mundane.

[Peter Pallotta]

Hard does not always equal fair.  Easy doesn't always equal fun.

Obtaining the balance without compromise must be what separates a great design from the mundane.

+1

And then the ability to ignore the chattering masses is what separates the happy successful architects from the drunkards....

[Paul Gray]

Hard does not always equal fair.  Easy doesn't always equal fun.

Obtaining the balance without compromise must be what separates a great design from the mundane.

+1

And then the ability to ignore the chattering masses is what separates the happy successful architects from the drunkards....
[/quote

And +2

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

I have had that challenge.  One thing I can also say is that cutting off tee shot length with cross bunkers or even necking it too far down never seems to be popular, even on a hole like that.  They want to hit the driver.  Not sure, maybe bumpy fw contours?

I like your out of the box thinking.  Here is another - anyone with a birdie on the hole must by drinks for the entire club as a local rule.  Most would be laying up to protect their wallets......maybe eagles cost a steak dinner for all!

[Niall C]

Further to my bunker thread ... on the same project we've been accused of making some holes "too easy" and others "too hard".

For example, at the long par 4 2nd hole greenside bunkers were removed = too easy. But at the par 3 3rd, greenside bunkers were significantly deepened = too hard. At the par 3 16th, trees were removed to widen the corridor of play off the tees = too easy. But at the par 4 17th hole, big and deep greenside bunkers were restored = too hard.   

Perhaps we're on to something 

......but did they say the holes were interesting and worth playing ?

Niall

[Garland Bayley]

Anyone calling your holes too interesting?

[Ben Sims]

Further to my bunker thread ... on the same project we've been accused of making some holes "too easy" and others "too hard".

For example, at the long par 4 2nd hole greenside bunkers were removed = too easy. But at the par 3 3rd, greenside bunkers were significantly deepened = too hard. At the par 3 16th, trees were removed to widen the corridor of play off the tees = too easy. But at the par 4 17th hole, big and deep greenside bunkers were restored = too hard.   

Perhaps we're on to something 

Well you know what I think. I think the membership will only come to appreciate the initiative once they consider how a hole played vs. how it will play. 16-17 has the potential to be one of the quintessential sequences in all of Macan's portfolio. I also think that unless many of those greens get regraded (which I don't think is part of the plan?) that each hole will retain it's difficulty in spades.

 

[Jeff_Mingay]

It would be nice if more golfers thought in terms of "interest and distinctive beauty" than simply "easy and/or hard".

[Bill_McBride]

Mike,

I have a similar situation ... coincidentally at Victoria, British Columbia. I've been asked to think about how to make the 451-yard par 5 17th hole there more challenging. My immediate answer (after thinking about it for 30 seconds) was, change par on the scorecard to 4. It's then, suddenly, the most difficult hole on the course, not the "easiest".

Perceived problem at our Victoria is, then total par would drop to 69. I've argued that par 69 would make the club's great old course (est. 1893) more distinctive - and "harder", like many members want it; and, I've cited all of those other great courses throughout the world where total par is less than 70, to no avail (yet).

Just tell them you lasered 17 and OMG, it's really 476 yards par 5.  No one will know the difference.   What a great course!  Is #4 (is that the uphill par 4?) not the toughest par 4 anywhere?   So many unique holes at Victoria, Canada's Pebble Beach!