The Modern Theory of Golf Course Architecture

[Don Mahaffey]

Nothing is more disappointing to me than reading about how the "public" golfer doesn't appreciate good design.
It is an implication that pops up often here, and is a constant golf industry mantra, as if good golf is only reserved for the pretty people.
Good golf is appreciated by all golfers. They may not be able to describe a Redan, but they'll pay to play it.

[Tom_Doak]

TD,

I guess it depends on what kind of course you are designing.  I played Old American with Tripp Davis and he explained a similar philosophy of hiding fairways.  I understand it, but might not use it often on a resort many are going to play one time, unless maybe with a caddy.  Or a public course, except maybe once or twice for interest.  For most public golfers, golf is hard enough as it is. 

I always think the guy coming off the green will realize that he played the hole wrong, and that will make him want to play it again.  I'm sure that won't work for everybody, but I would hope it would work for enough to keep the place busy.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Nothing is more disappointing to me than reading about how the "public" golfer doesn't appreciate good design.
It is an implication that pops up often here, and is a constant golf industry mantra, as if good golf is only reserved for the pretty people.
Good golf is appreciated by all golfers. They may not be able to describe a Redan, but they'll pay to play it.

Don, that may very well be so.  At least I hope it is, but have heard comments both ways on non standard modern stuff.

That said, my response is probably right on for course managers, who in my experience are almost universal in their quest to minimize design features that confuse or challenge in such a way that it slows play.  And, of course, those are the guys who hire us ni most cases.....LOL

[Don Mahaffey]

That said, my response is probably right on for course managers, who in my experience are almost universal in their quest to minimize design features that confuse or challenge in such a way that it slows play. 

How's that been working out for them?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

In general, pretty well, I guess.  I don't think we can attribute lost rounds to course design, if that is what you are implying, really.  Bigger macro economics pictures.

But, since you mentioned it, I do recall a major management company President telling me during a presentation that he has never had members complain when they change the course to make it easier........that one has always stuck in my mind as the end user bias, along with the typical comments I hear.

[Tom_Doak]

I do recall a major management company President telling me during a presentation that he has never had members complain when they change the course to make it easier

That is pretty interesting, considering that when I've dealt with green committees people always express concern about whether a suggested change will make the course easier ... and I do mean ALWAYS.  I've commented before that there seems to be a real fear behind it, as if making any move that made the course easier would be tantamount to admitting that they are bad golfers.

[Joe Sponcia]

Tom,

I think you hit the nail on the head.  The average member doesn't get 'easy' in the context of what is good for the game and his fellow man.  I have debated/argued with 22's with horrible slices that share my wife's swing speed about width and trees - and it's like pulling a string on their back's, "it'll make the course too easy".  When a player shoots a high round at a tough course, his ego is left perfectly intact - everyone has trouble he reasons.  When he shoots a high number at an 'easy' looking course with wide fairways and no trees, he just stinks (in his mind).  They never admit this, but the 'hard' course makes them feel better than the 'easy' one does.  Fun and speed of play be damned. 

Green committees are the worst defenders of par on the planet, largely because they can vs. their public playing counterparts who can't ad hoc random tree plantings.

[Joe Sponcia]

"We agree that somewhere, RTJ got focused on those 0.005% who are tour players.  I guess we all do, more than we should and design the 300 yard LZ narrow, and the wider 250 yard LZ is wider".

Jeff, I'm guess I'm asking why the continued focus on such an elite player since many courses never host a pro tournament?  Is that the ultimate accolade, to create a design the PGA or Web.com selects?   

"And, again, tell me what wide is?  I tend to go back to the early days of American golf, where the play corridor was set by the max sprinkler throw of those old centerline sprinkler, usually 180 feet/ 60 yards.  Then, double row at 65-70 ft. spacing made fairways about 120-140 feet wide, where coverage was good, and the rough getting coverage to about 200 feet.  Corridor slightly wider, but fw slightly narrower. Typically green designs followed suit.

Jeff, I would say 45+ is a good start.  Most 15's and above need 20-25 yards of width on both sides wouldn't you agree?  The problem is if the fairway is 30 yards wide and trees are hanging over the edges.  I have seen this make the fairway play tighter haven't you?

I thought many of the sprinklers in the late 50's and 60's covered around 30 yards (single row), not 60? 

"Interesting question as to why so many clubs and designers bunker greens for the top 1% or less.  I guess no one wants anyone shooting 62 on their course if a top level tournament comes to town. I don't agree its worth toughening up a course for that, but obviously many do.  So, we agree.". 

I don't get this either?  It seems the PGA guys can shoot 62-65 on any course if they playing well, so why ruin it for the other 51 weeks of the year?   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joe,

I have been making the same case as you for years, but in an RTJ thread, its not about what we think, I guess.

I agree 40-45 is a good start.  As to sprinklers, the old ones were on 90 ft spacing, so yes, 30 yard radius, 60 yard diameter.

As to the easy vs. hard thing, please note that it appears TD is talking about equity owned clubs and green committees and I was quoting the head of a company that manages non equity clubs and public courses. I wasn't there for all of the supposed comments he heard to summarize that its always more popular to make it easy, and I guess he could be projecting his opinion, but I took him at his word.

Even in equity clubs, I hear the pros and top players poo poo wider fairways, and the average players are usually cowed into silence, but probably agree wider is better.  On the other hand, some prevailing thought is that narrow fairways help the straight as an arrow, 180-200 yard hitter over the wild, 300 yard hitter.  But, stats don't back up those stereotypes.

[Patrick_Mucci]

That is pretty interesting, considering that when I've dealt with green committees people always express concern about whether a suggested change will make the course easier ... and I do mean ALWAYS.  I've commented before that there seems to be a real fear behind it, as if making any move that made the course easier would be tantamount to admitting that they are bad golfers.

Tom,

In all my experiences with private courses, I've also encountered a universal resistance to making a course easier.

And, in all my experiences with private courses, almost universally, when an outside competition is held, the course has it's defenses honed, in an attempt to make it more difficult.

For some reason, golfers began to equate difficulty with quality and as such golfers seem to want to make their golf course more difficult when an outside competition is conducted.

Higher scores seem to be interpreted as a reaffirmation of the worth/quality of the course.

A tangential issue relates to the removal of trees and the perception that it automatically makes their course easier, ergo, there's resistance to the movement.

Fortunately, when courses like Oakmont, Shinnecock and NGLA remove their trees, it give credibility to the process and somewhat defeats the premise that tree removal makes the course significantly easier.

Some courses are harder/easier than others and it seems to me that length, more than anything else, is a primary factor.

[Garland Bayley]

... when I've dealt with green committees people always express concern about whether a suggested change will make the course easier ... and I do mean ALWAYS.  I've commented before that there seems to be a real fear behind it, as if making any move that made the course easier would be tantamount to admitting that they are bad golfers.

My take on this is that the members of a club have learned to maximize their results on that course given their talents. They do not want things made easier for the other guy who has a different set of talents, and might be able to overcome his deficit to the first member.

[BCowan]

Mike,

My impression from the few times I met him was that he was always about at least partially suppressing the competition.  He came to a few ASGCA meetings solely to let everyone know to vote against this guy or the other.  When I was membership chair, he asked me to breakfast one day.  We had a nice conversation where he seemed to know more about me than I would have ever imagined.  He complimented my work in the field and within ASGCA.  He then told me he wouldn't be there for the membership vote, but would like me to put his votes in for him.  I agreed and pulled out a notepad, to which he responded, "No need, my votes are no, no, no, no, no, and no. I think you can remember that."

Like Tom, I treasure my few moments like that with Trent.  My first was at age 12, when I wrote about a potential job and got a nice letter back from him encouraging me. (probably sort of standard, and only signed by him, but I was thrilled).  Another moment was at the 1995 Ryder Cup where I had dinner with him and Junior.  He went on and on explaining the changes he had made to Oak Hill.  RTJ II a few times suggested maybe his memory was vague, but Jones shut him down, saying "You weren't there Bobby, but that is EXACTLY how it happened."

He was like a politician in how he made you feel as the most important man in the room, even if it was just to get something from you. No doubt he was the master marketer and salesman.  Rees inherited that skill, too.

Wow.      Kinda of fraternity ish if you ask me.  I bet Tesla kinda felt the same way in his respected field.