Course difficulty post restoration.

[corey miller]

Brian made a post about Shoreacres being easier post restoration.  I hear this often at my own club and would like to know if anyone has examples to offer and in what way the courses have been made "easier"

I do know the argument that cutting trees makes the course easier (15 years ago all courses needed cutting), but what other common restoration tactics make a course "easier" ? or does a restoration make a course harder?I believe in most instances it should be a wash on difficulty but the course should be more "fun".

Keep in mind the average low handicap member thinks the course is "easier" and the high-handicap most often thinks the opposite.

[Tom_Doak]

I always tell clubs that I don't think restoration work will make the course easier or harder, but usually a bit of both in different places.  The goal is to make it more interesting.


That's the first I've heard someone say Shoreacres is easier now.  For most, the danger of having balls roll off the edge of the green and away has made it somewhat harder.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Well, I think those comments about Shoreacres may need to be clarified.


The work that was done there also coincided with the arrival of a new green keeper and the playing conditions have changed substantially over the past 5 years.


Tee to green, it is not a hard course at all especially now that the fairways are WIDER and the course has ~1000 fewer trees.
But, just like Chicago GC, the fun starts when you get near the green complexes.


I agree that SA was pretty benign as it was relatively short, in great shape with wonderful greens that rolled well @ ~ 10-11.


NOW that is a different story entirely. FWs are fast/firm/down/brown...etc.
PLUS, several back tees have been added on par 4s (2, 5, 7, 10, 16) making it a real test with holes that are now 475-495! (Except 2)
Combine that with the masterful integration of bunkers and greens there and that the speed is now 12+ and you have a course that has reintroduced the ground game and made the player think on every shot.


Shoreacres may be the exception, not the rule, when it comes to restorations.
Otherwise, I would contend that, post restoration, most courses are easier:


1. Wider FWs
2. Larger greens
3. Brand new bunker sand
4. Less trees and obstacles
5. In some cases, new perfect greens and new perfect FW grasses
6. Better drainage

[corey miller]

I tend to agree more with Tom than with Ian but would offer that two maintenance practices Ian mentions should/may make the course more difficult.

Wider fairways are not necessarily "easier" if the fairways better integrate the land movement and the bunkering into the fairway cut? 

Also, lower cuts and larger greens areas allow for balls to roll off (no collar) as well as allow for more varied and difficult areas of the greens to be used. 

All out the window if a course always plays slow but tell me where I am wrong.   

[Tim Fitz]

Might the question of whether a post-restoration course is "easier" or "harder" also depend on the skill of the golfer?

I am a high handicapper and find that post-restoration courses tend to play "easier", largely for the reasons Ian identified.  While the rolloffs on/around the greens may make the course harder, some of us are seldom hitting into the greens with a long irons due to misses left/right/short.  That added defense doesn't penalize us quite as much as someone more likely to hit the green in regulation.

I love that the wider fairways have brought danger into play more directly (fairways cut directly into bunkers), but those bunkers (at least those left and right of the fairway) were in play for us high-handicappers anyway.  Now the wide fairways with less trees  give us more room to miss and still have a decent chance on our next shot.  That makes golf more fun!

This may all be a long way of saying that I agree with Tom - post restoration courses are certainly more interesting.  They may be harder in some respects and easier in others, but I contend that where the course is harder is more likely to impact the better player.

[Tom_Doak]

Shoreacres may be the exception, not the rule, when it comes to restorations.
Otherwise, I would contend that, post restoration, most courses are easier:


1. Wider FWs
2. Larger greens
3. Brand new bunker sand
4. Less trees and obstacles
5. In some cases, new perfect greens and new perfect FW grasses
6. Better drainage

Well, offsetting those factors would be these:


a.  Firmer fairways that let drives get further out of position
b.  Greens more prone to letting balls slip off the edge
c.  Faster and firmer greens
d.  More difficult options for hole locations at the margins of said greens, and
e.  Added back tees, which are often part of projects even when they are called "restorations"


Overall, I think it's often a wash.  I think there can be an exaggerated placebo effect for a while, as some players convince themselves the course is harder or easier, but it wouldn't last long.


And more than that, I just don't understand why everyone is so obsessed with whether the course is "harder" or "easier".  The difference is only going to be a fraction of a stroke either way, and the Slope System will offset any changes in scoring or handicap. 

[Matthew Sander]

Brian made a post about Shoreacres being easier post restoration.  I hear this often at my own club and would like to know if anyone has examples to offer and in what way the courses have been made "easier"

I do know the argument that cutting trees makes the course easier (15 years ago all courses needed cutting), but what other common restoration tactics make a course "easier" ? or does a restoration make a course harder?I believe in most instances it should be a wash on difficulty but the course should be more "fun".

Keep in mind the average low handicap member thinks the course is "easier" and the high-handicap most often thinks the opposite.

Corey,


Not to rain on your thread, but I think you misinterpreted Brian H's comment regarding Shoreacres. His statement was that it was a pushover pre-restoration...not post.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Shoreacres may be the exception, not the rule, when it comes to restorations.
Otherwise, I would contend that, post restoration, most courses are easier:


1. Wider FWs
2. Larger greens
3. Brand new bunker sand
4. Less trees and obstacles
5. In some cases, new perfect greens and new perfect FW grasses
6. Better drainage

Well, offsetting those factors would be these:


a.  Firmer fairways that let drives get further out of position
b.  Greens more prone to letting balls slip off the edge
c.  Faster and firmer greens
d.  More difficult options for hole locations at the margins of said greens, and
e.  Added back tees, which are often part of projects even when they are called "restorations"


Overall, I think it's often a wash.  I think there can be an exaggerated placebo effect for a while, as some players convince themselves the course is harder or easier, but it wouldn't last long.


And more than that, I just don't understand why everyone is so obsessed with whether the course is "harder" or "easier".  The difference is only going to be a fraction of a stroke either way, and the Slope System will offset any changes in scoring or handicap.

Well, considering that Tom has done myriad restorations on world-class courses and I....well, shit....i've just played a few of them.... ...i cede to him for sure.


But, it brings up the issue that was also recently discussed about architecture vs. maintenance practices. It cannot be assumed that all courses that undergo restorations will also seek "firm and fast" conditions post-restoration. Nor can it be assumed that their original architect's intent was to have greens "more prone to letting balls slip off the edge". (Like SA does so brilliantly.)

While I happen to love those features, others - from my direct experience on a grounds/greens committee - definitively do not. Shoreacres' work was unique in many ways. The best feature about it was that it did not have a committee and a bunch of meddling hobbyist members competing for mind share within the club. One or two guys got to drive the process. That's rare....and VERY fortunate.

[Ira Fishman]

Unfortunately, the perception that some of restoration elements would make a course easier probably prevents some courses from going down the road.  I only have a sample of one for my statement, but a couple of months ago I sent the Chair of our Green Committee the Doak and Hepner essay "Restoring Your Home Course" and suggested that several of the items (green size, mowing lines, and pruning trees) could be done without major expense and emphasized that they would not make the course easier.  The Chair is a great guy and a very good golfer.  I knew from the outset because he plays a lot with other good golfers that wider fairways, less tree interference, and bigger greens would sound like a recipe for making a short course defenseless.  Hence, no response from him.  Oh well.


Ira

[Ian Mackenzie]

Unfortunately, the perception that some of restoration elements would make a course easier probably prevents some courses from going down the road.  I only have a sample of one for my statement, but a couple of months ago I sent the Chair of our Green Committee the Doak and Hepner essay "Restoring Your Home Course" and suggested that several of the items (green size, mowing lines, and pruning trees) could be done without major expense and emphasized that they would not make the course easier.  The Chair is a great guy and a very good golfer.  I knew from the outset because he plays a lot with other good golfers that wider fairways, less tree interference, and bigger greens would sound like a recipe for making a short course defenseless.  Hence, no response from him.  Oh well.


Ira

Make your fairways firm and raise the rough by an inch and lets see what he says then....;-)
Sadly, his closed mindedness really should disqualify him from holding that position at your club.

[Peter Pallotta]

I find that, as my skills improve a bit and I get a bit better at golf, I'm losing less shots off the tee and on my approaches and losing more shots on and around the greens.
Maybe it's just my imagination: maybe when every chip or putt was for a bogey I just didn't notice or care as much. But if it's true, I can certainly see how for some golfers a renovation that, among other things, makes the greens & surrounds more interesting and nuanced could indeed make the course harder; while for other golfers the exact same renovation could make the course seem easier. #Renovation as Rorschach Test

[Mark_Fine]

My goal in almost any course improvement project is to make the course more challenging and thought provoking for the better player while at the same time more fun and enjoyable for the higher handicappers.  And yes, this can be done    I am also a strong believer in shorter tees as they can serve a wide variety of purposes.  We have even built tees so a championship 18 hole course can play as 18 short holes (call them all par threes if you like).  This draws out more players and adds additional variety to the golf course.  These tees are also great for beginners just learning the game and can at the same time test the best players in a different way.  I sometimes just advocate setting up shorter sets of tees (placing markers in the fairway) almost anywhere to accomplish a similar purpose. 

I am also a believer as many here stated before me, that wider doesn't mean easier and expanding greens actually can make things more challenging (especially for the better player). 

[Blake Conant]

USGA handicaps are open to the public.  Track the stats pre and post restoration and see for yourself.  select an equal number of 0-5s, 6-15s, and 16+ and compare their handicaps pre and post reno/resto. 

[Duncan Cheslett]

I am also a believer as many here stated before me, that wider doesn't mean easier and expanding greens actually can make things more challenging (especially for the better player). 

Absolutely.


I'd take a 50' chip over a 50' putt any day.

[Mark_Fine]

Expanding greens (particularly well designed greens that have just shrunk over time) adds much more than just longer putts.  It brings back strategy and hole locations that have been lost over time and reconnects the green surface to the surrounding contours and hazards.  On well designed green complexes, some of the most interesting and tempting hole locations are close to the edges.  When greens shrink these hole options disappear.  Bringing them back rekindles original strategy and adds challenge.  Think of it this way, on a small green even a very good player tends to aim for the middle of the green as they know that they will have a makeable putt from almost anywhere on the putting surface.  A weaker player is almost always just trying to end up somewhere on the green.  If that same green is expanded (older greens sometimes shrink to half their original size), now the whole dynamic changes.  The better golfer no longer just aims for the middle of the green when the hole location is now tucked to one side or the other.  They are now tempted to play closer to the hole which not only leads to short siding themselves more often but brings the green surrounds/hazards back into play.  The weaker golfer on the the other hand just sees a bigger target to aim for and still just aims for middle of the green.  The game has gotten easier for them while at same time has gotten more challenging and thought provoking for the better player.  Everyone wins

[BCowan]

Expanding greens (particularly well designed greens that have just shrunk over time) adds much more than just longer putts.  It brings back strategy and hole locations that have been lost over time and reconnects the green surface to the surrounding contours and hazards.  On well designed green complexes, some of the most interesting and tempting hole locations are close to the edges.  When greens shrink these hole options disappear.  Bringing them back rekindles original strategy and adds challenge.  Think of it this way, on a small green even a very good player tends to aim for the middle of the green as they know that they will have a makeable putt from almost anywhere on the putting surface.  A weaker player is almost always just trying to end up somewhere on the green.  If that same green is expanded (older greens sometimes shrink to half their original size), now the whole dynamic changes.  The better golfer no longer just aims for the middle of the green when the hole location is now tucked to one side or the other.  They are now tempted to play closer to the hole which not only leads to short siding themselves more often but brings the green surrounds/hazards back into play.  The weaker golfer on the the other hand just sees a bigger target to aim for and still just aims for middle of the green.  The game has gotten easier for them while at same time has gotten more challenging and thought provoking for the better player.  Everyone wins

Great post.  I agree and experienced that 2 times with Belvedere this year. Curious if anyone else felt that way post green expansion.

[Ira Fishman]

During the conversion of Pine Needles greens to Bermuda, they expanded/restored some of them, and I thought the new pin locations to add benefits to an already wonderful course.


Ira

[PCCraig]

Brian made a post about Shoreacres being easier post restoration.

Is that a joke?


I just spent the weekend playing in The Founders Cup (their member-guest). We were in the low handicap division and played the golf course from the "new" back tees. The greens were running extremely fast (well over 12), and were rock hard even despite all the rain Chicago has gotten.


In no way what so ever should Shoreacres be considered an "easy" golf course. It certainly was 10 years ago when it played softer and shorter, but no more. The course now is all about pin locations, strategy, and setting yourself with the best angles. Birdies can be had with correct angles, but get out of position and you can easily make a double after being pin high in par.


The back tees make some holes like the 5th play 490 yards from the back tee. On Saturday I had to hit Driver / 3-wood to get to the green (which since it was so firm bounced and rolled back left of the green). There is nothing easy about the 10th hole, either, for example and that hole has changed very little.


The golf course is extraordinary now after the changes. It is anything but easier, in my opinion.