[BCowan]

George:  There is a huge difference between conventional wisdom in the golf business, vs. common sense.


Conventional wisdom says:
Par 72 is important
7000 yards is critical for marketing
Long par 3's are unpopular
Long par-4's need to be 500 yds
Every course should be designed to appeal to every level of player
You've gotta have 5 tees (or 6)
Greens need to be flat
Greens need to be big
Greens need to stimp at 11
Everyone wants a cart
You need a big clubhouse
Etc.


That's conventional wisdom.  Barnbougle is 0-for-the above.

 


Tom I don't consider that conventional wisdom.  I consider that more modern platitudes and stream lining.  The Golden Age I consider more conventional wisdom. 

[Peter Pallotta]

There must be at least 6 conventional wisdoms at play:
There's the conventional wisdom of that segment of the high-end golf business in which Tom D and a few others *don't* work.
There's the conventional wisdom of that segment of the high-end golf business that Tom D and a few others currently *dominate*.
There's the conventional wisdom regarding golf architecture that sufficiently tests the best golfers in the world, as most consistently espoused by the USGA and its wannabe minions/clubs.
There's the conventional wisdom of the classic course-private club golf restoration business that every architect and consultant and Golden Age expert alive today is jockeying to be part of.
There's the conventional wisdom of that segment of the retail-golfer-focused golf business created and sustained almost singlehandedly by Mike Keiser.
There's the conventional wisdom promoted by a handful of high-profile golfing media in print and (mainly) websites that is largely parroted here and is increasingly reflected in the rankings/ratings.
And there's the conventional wisdom of that segment of the modest/public Doak 2s golf business that provides low-cost alternatives to millions of average golfers.
You want to create a truly new and interesting golf course? Mix up *all* these conventional wisdoms and blend them together seamlessly to create a golfing experience that *transcends* all such categories and conventions.
*That* might turn out to be a truly great golf course; but sadly it won't likely ever be built --because you'd never find a client rich and/or brave enough and hardly find an architect good enough to pull it off.
And even if it did get built, it wouldn't crack the Top 100 on *any* list -- such is the power of conventional wisdom and of vested interests.

[BCowan]

http://www.golf.com/courses-and-travel/photo/2017/08/16/top-100-golf-courses-united-states-2017
 

US top 100.


IN-  Holston Hills, Franklin Hills, Orchard Lake, Canton Brookside, Kingsley, and Mid Pines


OUT-  Oakland Hills South, Honors, Calusa Pines, MVGC, and Scioto

[Peter Pallotta]

For architects, here's a hint re: creating a "mixed category-conventions" course:

Take Crystal Downs as your model. 
Add about 500 yards in length (mostly spread out, dramatically, among the Par 3s and 4s).
Have three sets of tees - back, middle, front.
Build it on sandy soil.
Take out a few trees, but plant several others (already full grown).
Make it public.
Replicate the 8th hole exactly, using lasers and topo maps to get the contours just right -- and indicate clearly on the card that this is a "replica of the famous 8th hole at Crystal Downs, one of the very finest Par 5s in the world". 
Allow yourself to build at least 1 and preferably 2 long forced carries.
Keep the majority of greens just as they are, but flatten a couple -- and keep them all running fast. 
Make some fairways, including the 1st, more canted (create the cant by earth-moving if you have to.)
Limit the number of fairway bunkers, but make them all deep and penal. 
Have cart paths, and carts -- with no GPS. But white stakes at 150 yards and blue ones at 200 aren't gonna kill anyone.
Get Don M to create the most basic and inexpensive irrigation system he can.
Please don't give me much quirk or blindness; even Crystal Downs itself is actually 'all there in front of you'.
Have returning 9s - people can play 9 or 18; there are no other 'loops' of 3 or 6 holes.
Pick a 'fair' number re fairway widths and options -- say, 45 yards -- and then make that width immutable by not using grass/rough but tall native plants and thick shrubs and fescue etc...all of the 'lost ball' variety.
Give me a proper 'card' - with Pars and Yardages and slope& stroke ratings indicated, and tee boxes that are clearly tee boxes. 
Live a little - create a faux old stone farmhouse ruin and plop it down somewhere around the 14th hole, with benches and ball washers and water dispensers. And have benches at every tee box.
Have a stream meandering through the property, a wide stream the serves as a cross hazard on several holes and placed to take driver out of the hands of the longest hitters. A pond or two wouldn't hurt either -- but I don't want to seem crazy.   
Build an almost ridiculously old-fashioned club house but that's yet big enough for everything -- except weddings. Serve fish and chips, burgers, salads, bacon-and-egg sandwiches and (as the inexpensive item) hot dogs. Always make sure you have plenty of fresh coffee, a few brands of bourbon, and lots of cold domestic beer.
After you think you've finished, give Joe H free reign for a few days and a big machine to sit on and let him have a go messing with it.

[Garland Bayley]

...I don't want to seem crazy.
...

Good luck with that. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Yes, but I'm hoping "crazy like a fox"...


I know: probably not 

[Thomas Dai]

Par 72 is important
7000 yards is critical for marketing
Long par 3's are unpopular
Long par-4's need to be 500 yds
Every course should be designed to appeal to every level of player
You've gotta have 5 tees (or 6)
Greens need to be flat
Greens need to be big
Greens need to stimp at 11
Everyone wants a cart
You need a big clubhouse
Etc.

That's conventional wisdom.  Barnbougle is 0-for-the above.

A top-100 where to even get on the list a course needs a Barnbougle like 0 in relation to the above categories might be interesting.
Bet they'd all be interesting to play as well, and fun and most likely more challenging than initial thoughts or appearances might suggest.
atb

[Niall C]

David
 
In your first sentence you identified one of the weaknesses in my idea which really centres on the practicality of it. How many have played all the candidates the requisite number of times to make judgement ? Probably none. For a kick off anyone attempting it, apart from having impeccable contacts and a fairly deep pit of money, would need to have a good idea of eligible courses to start with. I suppose if you start with the existing rankings plus others you’ve heard good things about, you could come up with a list of possibles.
 
You would still need to have an almost unlimited amount of time to be able to play all the possibles. Assuming for top 100 you have say 500 (?) possibles, and you then need to play them say 5 or 6 times, then that’s 2,500 to 3,000 rounds on courses spread all over the globe. That’s a few decades of near non-stop golf, so as I say, not really practical.
 
However getting back to your question as to how many courses, apart from my home course, have I played (a number of times). Actually quite a few, as I’m fortunate to live in a part of the world where the best golf is still relatively cheap and accessible although that is changing. Likewise my friends, and what I’ve noticed is that my views and that of my friends does tend to differ from that of overseas golfers/panellists playing the same courses over here. I’d deduce that one of the reasons for the difference is the locals know the courses better because they have played them more. That’s got to be true all over the world I’d have thought ?
 
Niall

[David_Elvins]

You were specific in your points for example about Ellerston's 9-11 holes. 9 and 10 being in my opinion very strong risk reward par 5's that high reward strong tee shots but do have very interesting tee shots. I think the second shot on 9 may suffer slight from the encroachment of trees but do understand that this is essentially works well with the strategy of the hole in trying to make you take a clear choice of weather to go for it in two and risk not clearing the trees or carefully lay up and be face with a somewhat tricky second shot and an uneven down hill lie on the third. I see it as have a strong risk reward characteristic including a very interesting and challenging 2nd shot should you choose the safer layup option or perhaps are forced into it with a less than ideal drive.


10, another par 5 offers a completely different theme, choose which side of the fairway based on the centerline tree or for long hitters fly it over the trees on the right. The second shot is very interesting due to the left side being taken out of play. however the best line of approach to the green is most certainly from as close to the dry wash creek bed as possible. Play it safe to the right where there is tons of width and then be faced with a tricky approach to the very interesting and shallow green from that angle. I personally thing those two par 5's are strong than any par 5 at Lost Farm based on my 2 plays.

David,


I think Ellerston can be a bit underated by the Australians and Lost Farm over-rated and I was about to come to your defence.  However I can't agree with any of the above.  The second half of the 9th and tenth holes at Ellerston are very average, IMO.  There is no real risk reward decision on either of them is way to skewed towards laying up.  The first time I played there, one of the good GCA golfers birdied all par 4s at Ellerston hitting something resembling, Driver, 6 Iron, Wedge on each hole.  I don't think the pitch on the 10th is particularly difficult and I question the contrived nature of the creek runnning across the front of the 9th green when the course already has creeks or gullys running in  front of the green on 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, and to a lesser degree 16 and 17.  As for Lost Farm, I think the Par 5s are close to the highlight of the course.  The diagonal element of the drive on 1 is fantastic and ties in so well to the orientation of the green.  The tee shot on 8 is fantastic the way that the slope is used to funnel balls hit conservatively further away from the hole, followed by blind strategic elements on the second shot and a couple of terrifying hazards around the green.  10 can look bland but has some really cool features around the green.  The tee shot on 12 ties in so well to the cross bunkers on the second shot.  All 4 holes play well as 2 or 3 shots holes in a variety of winds.  I don't see anyway the Par 5 s at Ellerston are similar.  All 4 of them are about playing conservatively and conventionally and not getting out of line.

[David_Elvins]

A good rater should be able to play a course 1 or 2 times and work out whether it is the type of course that would reveal more and more detail with further plays.  Ran might be one of the best at this. 


Just because a rater visits courses once doesn't neccessarily mean his ratings list will be skewed towards courses that wow on first appearance but lack depth. 

[John Nixon]

"There's no secret as to why Pine Valley has been ranked No. 1 in the World by GOLF Magazine since 1985. Uniquely beautiful and brutal, 99-year-old Pine Valley serves up multiple forced carries on holes that hopscotch from one island of turf to the next."
Brutal? Multiple forced carries? That's what it takes? I know there's no point in fighting tradition, the conventional wisdom, or East Coast Private Bias, but it sounds like a course full of no fun to me. Pass.

[George Pazin]

George:  There is a huge difference between conventional wisdom in the golf business, vs. common sense.


Conventional wisdom says:
Par 72 is important
7000 yards is critical for marketing
Long par 3's are unpopular
Long par-4's need to be 500 yds
Every course should be designed to appeal to every level of player
You've gotta have 5 tees (or 6)
Greens need to be flat
Greens need to be big
Greens need to stimp at 11
Everyone wants a cart
You need a big clubhouse
Etc.


That's conventional wisdom.  Barnbougle is 0-for-the above.

Okay, so it is a definition thing. I think of conventional wisdom as old school principles - width, less rough, etc. - and unconventional more like water strewn courses with slopes of 150+ or even Desmond Muirhead type stuff.

[jeffwarne]

Can you rank a course fairly/properly when forced to play a set of tees not suitable for your game?
Should you rank it based on where you were forced to play?
 or where you saw the tees located more appropriate to your ability/taste/sense of history.






I never understand how someone can downgrade outstanding courses such as Northwest or Cape Arundel for being "too short",
then rate a famous Big gun "Championship" course highly where they were forced (or voluntarily) played a set of tees the same length as the courses they downgraded for lack of length.
Playing a course far in front of the tees suited to your game often eliminates/changes the intended strategy off the tee and while it can occasionally be fun, it's generally not what the architect intended(whatever that means)---even moreso than a course simply outdated by technology.
i.e. Being forced to play yellow tees 100 yards in front of back tees neuters tee shot strategy far more than a course that is simply short from being older and has the strategy built into that length plus or minus 10-15%.


Which is why I far prefer the less famous gems so well profiled on this site that simply have the traditional red, white blue and give you the choice.


For what it's worth, many courses are wonderful from the "tee of the the day" Deal for example
Others not so much-especially if they're set up for a big outing

[Rich Goodale]

There are and always have been 25-30 courses that stand out from the crowd.  If you get by #30 you are just picking nits.  31+ is just marketing, not quality.

[David Davis]

David
 
In your first sentence you identified one of the weaknesses in my idea which really centres on the practicality of it. How many have played all the candidates the requisite number of times to make judgement ? Probably none. For a kick off anyone attempting it, apart from having impeccable contacts and a fairly deep pit of money, would need to have a good idea of eligible courses to start with. I suppose if you start with the existing rankings plus others you’ve heard good things about, you could come up with a list of possibles.
 
You would still need to have an almost unlimited amount of time to be able to play all the possibles. Assuming for top 100 you have say 500 (?) possibles, and you then need to play them say 5 or 6 times, then that’s 2,500 to 3,000 rounds on courses spread all over the globe. That’s a few decades of near non-stop golf, so as I say, not really practical.
 
However getting back to your question as to how many courses, apart from my home course, have I played (a number of times). Actually quite a few, as I’m fortunate to live in a part of the world where the best golf is still relatively cheap and accessible although that is changing. Likewise my friends, and what I’ve noticed is that my views and that of my friends does tend to differ from that of overseas golfers/panellists playing the same courses over here. I’d deduce that one of the reasons for the difference is the locals know the courses better because they have played them more. That’s got to be true all over the world I’d have thought ?
 
Niall

Niall,


To me it seems we all agree that playing a course multiple times in the ideal world is better than one and done. The craziest golf nuts I know, guys like Paul Rudovsky and Bob McCoy can't even come close to touching on what you are suggesting and both seem to have been doing this for many years. I'm going to fall into the I'll take what I am fortunate enough to receive and be satisfied with it category. You did however, drop the numbers down to 5 or 6 visits and I will aim to at least do this with my very favorite courses should the opportunity arise.

[David Davis]

I think Ellerston can be a bit underated by the Australians and Lost Farm over-rated and I was about to come to your defence.  However I can't agree with any of the above.  The second half of the 9th and tenth holes at Ellerston are very average, IMO.  There is no real risk reward decision on either of them is way to skewed towards laying up.  The first time I played there, one of the good GCA golfers birdied all par 4s at Ellerston hitting something resembling, Driver, 6 Iron, Wedge on each hole. 


DD: Well I successfully went for 9 on the first round there and I'm not that long a hitter. The next round I laid up, indeed driver 6 iron but the wind had picked up straight into our faces. Both greens are in my opinion very interesting with varying levels of undulation. Very little dirt was moved so the dry washes and creeks which in fact do not front the green but bring interesting angles into play and off the top of my head are on varying sides of the greens i.e. running at diagonal angles to the ideal lines of play in the two cases we are discussing are exactly what makes them interesting. Your friend, clearly an excellent player could most likely play nearly all par 5 anywhere in the same way if he has that much control to do it on all the par 5's at Ellerston. Or he got lucky or was on fire, it happens. He could of also with good drives went for a couple in two and brought eagle into play. Tough for me to say but if he navigated his way around and was 4 under for the par 5's I guess we are talking another level of player and I doubt that proves anything about the architecture. I didn't birdie them all. But I did do that at Royal Birkdale so does that make that course average as well? Pine Valley has waste areas on a large number of the holes, not sure it's worse off for it.




I don't think the pitch on the 10th is particularly difficult


DD: So let's say it's not particularly difficult, what's that mean? Poor architecture?


 As for Lost Farm, I think the Par 5s are close to the highlight of the course.


DD: Ok, fine I accept that. Are they better than C&C's other par 5 designs? If those 5's are the highlight of the course then perhaps that's why there is a percentage of people like myself that find Lost Farm less than spectacular, less than Top 100 material for a reason.


The diagonal element of the drive on 1 is fantastic and ties in so well to the orientation of the green.


DD: I agree that the diagonal angle was very interesting and we played it into a 4 club wind. The second shot was rather pedestrian and the shot into the green was pretty cool as well however, for me that doesn't add up to a world class hole nor one of C&C's best.


The tee shot on 8 is fantastic the way that the slope is used to funnel balls hit conservatively further away from the hole, followed by blind strategic elements on the second shot and a couple of terrifying hazards around the green.


DD: 8 is 550+ meter par 5. It's not reachable for many people unless the wind is blowing pretty hard behind you. This fantastic feature you are mentioning becomes less fantastic for me when it has little strategy involved. No matter what I have to lay up whether I'm 20-50 yds further doesn't to me make that much difference when there is nothing challenging your 2nd shot. Hit it better I have to lay up with a 5-7 iron, hit like you say a bit left and end up slightly further from the holes then I hit 4 iron or rescue and no matter what I'm playing for a given distance on my approach so little issue there and why this feature is cool, I hit 3 wood wide on this hole both times off the tee and made par twice because I missed my birdie putts. Nothing wrong with that but nothing great about it really either. Again, not one of C&C's best par 5's in my book and I'm not trying to be snarky about it just don't see the same brilliance as you explain in comparison to there other stuff. It's solid and it's fun yes.


By the way my favorite stretch of holes was most likely 3-6 for what it's worth. I thought they were excellent.






10 can look bland but has some really cool features around the green.


DD: 10 had a cool tee shot the rest was average except all the wallabies that wanted us to feed them and came up begging. My room looked straight down this fairway. it could of been right out of Trump Aberdeen's course had it had a raised green in the dunes. Still some cool undulations around the green in most cases a world class hole doesn't make. Clearly opinions vary here.




The tee shot on 12 ties in so well to the cross bunkers on the second shot.  All 4 holes play well as 2 or 3 shots holes in a variety of winds.  I don't see anyway the Par 5 s at Ellerston are similar.


DD: 12 was perhaps the best of the par 5's for the reason you mentioned. Also in the right winds adds an element of risk reward to the tee shot. I liked this hole but again, far from being one of C&C's best in my opinion.


All 4 of them are about playing conservatively and conventionally and not getting out of line.


DD: Here we simply do not agree which is fine. You could easily say the same about Lost Farm and I think there is far more interest in the shots you have to play at Ellerston and way more interest at Barnbougle.


It's just an opinion but like you I've seen quite a few golf courses and also feel I can back up my statements. I absolutely love links golf as well. Yet still much favor Ellerston over Lost Farm's, very standard C&C product. I've been trying to figure out exactly why I even thought Streamsong Red was quite a bit better than Lost Farm.

[Kalen Braley]

I think Tom got it exactly right.


Conventional wisdom is the body of ideas or explanations generally accepted as true by the public and/or by experts in a field.
And when you think of the vast vast majority of courses ever built... they are boring, bland, uninteresting and full of conventional concepts

The ones on this list are the exceptions....foregoing what most other courses are built too..

[Jim Franklin]

"There's no secret as to why Pine Valley has been ranked No. 1 in the World by GOLF Magazine since 1985. Uniquely beautiful and brutal, 99-year-old Pine Valley serves up multiple forced carries on holes that hopscotch from one island of turf to the next."
Brutal? Multiple forced carries? That's what it takes? I know there's no point in fighting tradition, the conventional wisdom, or East Coast Private Bias, but it sounds like a course full of no fun to me. Pass.

The forced carries are not brutal for the average player. You need to be able to get the ball airborne and if you can't, play another sport. It is a hard golf course, but manageable. The caddies are terrific at finding wayward shots too. I have played with a few guys that struggled off the tee and they had tough days, but they were all smiles at dinner so it must not have been too bad. And the greens are about as good as they get. Fun pin placements everywhere.

[Michael George]

Conventional wisdom says:
Every course should be designed to appeal to every level of player

I find this item of "conventional wisdom" the most interesting to talk about. 

How would you define the term "appeal"?  Is this a slight departure from Dr. Mackenzie's thinking about having a way for every golfer to play a hole (even if it results in a higher score)?  I don't think so, but do wonder how you think about it.

I have long thought that golf courses did not need to be everything to everyone.   There is a place in golf for the penal and the strategic and for the difficult and the easy and for the wild and straight forward. 

I would like people's thoughts on this item though.

[Keith Phillips]

"There's no secret as to why Pine Valley has been ranked No. 1 in the World by GOLF Magazine since 1985. Uniquely beautiful and brutal, 99-year-old Pine Valley serves up multiple forced carries on holes that hopscotch from one island of turf to the next."
Brutal? Multiple forced carries? That's what it takes? I know there's no point in fighting tradition, the conventional wisdom, or East Coast Private Bias, but it sounds like a course full of no fun to me. Pass.

The forced carries are not brutal for the average player. You need to be able to get the ball airborne and if you can't, play another sport. It is a hard golf course, but manageable. The caddies are terrific at finding wayward shots too. I have played with a few guys that struggled off the tee and they had tough days, but they were all smiles at dinner so it must not have been too bad. And the greens are about as good as they get. Fun pin placements everywhere.

I agree with Jim.  As an erratic 14 I've made my way around PV quite comfortably the two times I've been able to play.  It is generally forgiving off the tee with approach shots presenting the greater challenge.  Try as I might I've never lost a ball there! 

[Garland Bayley]

"There's no secret as to why Pine Valley has been ranked No. 1 in the World by GOLF Magazine since 1985. Uniquely beautiful and brutal, 99-year-old Pine Valley serves up multiple forced carries on holes that hopscotch from one island of turf to the next."
Brutal? Multiple forced carries? That's what it takes? I know there's no point in fighting tradition, the conventional wisdom, or East Coast Private Bias, but it sounds like a course full of no fun to me. Pass.

It seems to me that it doesn't matter what your handicap is, if you strike down on the ball and have no problem getting it airborne, then you probably can get around quite comfortably. Your score may not be the best, but you can get around, because the carries are mostly not over water. Right now if I hit it in the trees, pitch it out of the trees, hit it in the trees, pitch it out, ... So what's the big deal with a half acre of sand? I've been in 3 acres of sand at Chambers Bay.

[Tom_Doak]

It seems to me that it doesn't matter what your handicap is, if you strike down on the ball and have no problem getting it airborne, then you probably can get around quite comfortably. Your score may not be the best, but you can get around, because the carries are mostly not over water. Right now if I hit it in the trees, pitch it out of the trees, hit it in the trees, pitch it out, ... So what's the big deal with a half acre of sand? I've been in 3 acres of sand at Chambers Bay.

The operative word there is "comfortably".  All these defenses of Pine Valley seem to distort the reality that fear and intimidation are a big part of its challenge, and of its appeal.  As Dr. MacKenzie observed, people get a thrill out of carrying a hazard, especially if it is not quite so difficult as it appears:  and, indeed, the carries at Pine Valley are not impossible, and the landing areas are relatively generous.  However, the penalty values at Pine Valley, neutered somewhat since I first saw it, are still enough to frighten the golfer who has dealt with the consequences of a bad shot a couple of times, causing a tighter grip and exponentially increasing trouble from there on out.  Staying comfortable with it is not quite as easy as the posters above have described it, and that is both its appeal, and its potential curse.

[George Pazin]

As Dr. MacKenzie observed, people get a thrill out of carrying a hazard, especially if it is not quite so difficult as it appears...

Sometimes I think Dr. Mackenzie gave his fellow golfers too little credit. I don't know how it works with the raters, who by necessity are often one time players, but I think the average joe who plays a course more than a few times comes to understand, at least on some level, the difference between a mild thrill over making a 150 yard carry and the much more important task of hitting the proper side of a fairway or green.


My home course, the highly renowned North Park Golf Course (I think it just missed this year's rankings by a few thousand spots), has a 9th hole that features a par 5 of about 500 yards. The last 250 yards are up a modest hill - not enough to really throw off your clubbing by more than a club, but enough to affect your shots. And at that 250 mark, there is a ridge. The thing is, being short of the ridge doesn't put you in a water hazard, or a bunker, or anything other than an awkward stance that likely prevents you from going for the green (I'm assuming you're not a tour pro who cranks out 250 yard shots off awkward stances with regularity).


There is a thrill on the tee shot, waiting for it to land, to see if you made the carry - and that thrill does increase a bit when they occasionally move the tee markers back 20 yards - but it doesn't make or break the hole. I think that sort of carry is far preferable to the standard sort.


But then again, I've never been accused of having conventional tastes.


Too many golfers rate/rank based on things other than reality.

[Peter Pallotta]

Off George's post:
Yes, on a 2nd playing there are few shots less fun than a carry over a hazard you (now) know is easier and shorter than it first appeared. Even a lowly and peace-loving rabbit finds this galling, and rebels against the insult. Genuinely and truly test me with a cross hazard (and thus call forth my best effort) or don't bother with one at all. Cants and contours and even wider (than apparent) margins of error on ideal lines are all preferable to these kinds of faux-carries. Maybe in Dr Mac's time, when the equipment of the day meant that even a good golfer could quite easily mishit a shot, such carries provided at least a (repeated) thrill, if not (usually) a challenge. But with today's balls and clubs, nothing short of a complete flub/chunk/whiff will prevent a shot from carrying a faux-hazard.
And as soon as I realize that, the golf hole goes from being an interesting one to being a boring one.

[Tom_Doak]

Off George's post:
Yes, on a 2nd playing there are few shots less fun than to carry a hazard you (now) know is easier and shorter than it first appeared. Even a lowly and peace-loving rabbit finds it galling, and rebels against the insult. Genuinely and truly test me with a cross hazard (and thus call forth my best effort) or don't bother with one at all. Cants and contours and even wider (than apparent) margins of error on ideal lines are all preferable to these kinds of faux-carries. Maybe in Dr Mac's time, when the equipment of the day meant that even a good golfer could quite easily mishit a shot, such carries provided at least an (repeated) thrill if not (usually) a challenge. But with today's balls and clubs, nothing short of a complete flub/chunk/whiff will prevent a shot from carrying a faux-hazard.

I'd like to believe you guys, but I've noticed that where our courses don't put out tee markers at all, not many people choose to tee off from the spot where they will just barely be able to make a carry ... unless they know their opponent is ten yards shorter than they are.  Otherwise, they tend to tee off from a spot that will give them the second shot they want.  And that seems to me to be driving the demand for multiple sets of tees.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()