[Ian Andrew]

 I’ve been thinking about this for a while. I’m struggling with a particular golf course – popular with other players – that I seem I don't respect on principal - because I believe it’s pandering to the player.

It’s not like I’m a good player, but when architecture is designed to help me play well, I feel like I'm being pandered to. Perhaps that's just me. It’s happened a few times, where I’ve played really well, but felt empty because I know the golf course was designed to make me feel good. Even though golf makes me miserable at times, I prefer to earn my successes - and live with my failures.

I like width, so this is not about width. I’m a fan of shorter courses and mix yardages, but it has nothing to do with length, because both courses have length. I love feeder slopes and open fronts, punchbowls greens and all that cool shit that makes architecture interesting and fun. It's not a knock on fun playable municipal courses which I respect greatly and will defend.
It’s something far beyond that … it’s a philosophy of ... well ... reward.

Looks pretty - and plays easy ...

The courses have lots of bunkers, but almost everyone defined the lines, explained the path, framed the setting - created a showcase. But almost none of the bunkers made me make a hard choice. Each made me “comfortable.” I don’t want to be completely comfortable – just as much as I don’t want to play eighteen holes in fear.

It struck me that the designs were made things to work out well. Who cares where you miss, there’s always a road waiting to bring you home.

Am I alone or do others find there’s a line in the sand between playability – which I really like – and pandering to the player’s ego which I clearly disagree with.

[Tom_Doak]

I'm not sure if there is a distinct line between the two, but I have surely seen some Pandering in recent years, and it really bothers me because it's been praised in the same terms as some of my own work.  And I would never build a course that didn't challenge the golfer.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Looks pretty - and plays easy ...strokes the ego - great for selling lots and memberships.

[Sean_A]

Ian

Its difficult to know what you consider pandering without examples.  I am not sure I have ever seen a course which is all about pandering to the golfer, but my idea of pandering VS playability may be very different to yours.  I recall wondering about a few holes at Bulls Bay being incredibly wide, but not the whole course. I also recall this discussion concerning Castle Stuart and I fall firmly in the playability camp.

Ciao 

[John Kavanaugh]

I'm not sure if there is a distinct line between the two, but I have surely seen some Pandering in recent years, and it really bothers me because it's been praised in the same terms as some of my own work.  And I would never build a course that didn't challenge the golfer.

Tom,


Is there one hole at Pacific Dunes that is not textbook perfect? Not that there is anything wrong with that.

[Daryl David]

This discussion reminds me of some of the interviews with DMK around the time Gamble Sands opened. While he never said he was “pandering”, he certainly made it clear the design was not supposed to challenge the player, but rather ensure a low score and good time.  I’m ok with that, as he owned up to it. That said, I agree with Ian. It leaves you somewhat unsatisfied when your done playing regardless of how low you go.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ian - a month ago I made/used exactly the same distinction in an exchange with an architect, ie playability vs pandering.
As you note, it is an elusive distinction: it's not necessarily about length or width etc, and yet we know it when we see it, or, more accurately, when we *feel* it.
Strange that I should get annoyed with a course/architect who is so clearly trying to ensure I have a good time. But I think that's it, ie it's that he has put *himself* and his ideas of what I want, and his hopes for popular (and thus future) work ahead of what *I* want and need -- which is a terrific golf course that challenges and beguiles both.
And that the attempt/charade is so *obvious* rankles even more. I feel like saying "Please, at least *try* to fool me -- try to make the lie a convincing one".
When for all its aesthetic charms a golf course glorifies options yet limits the (real, and often hidden) consequences; when it provides more than ample width yet without significant (but often obscure) meaning and relevance; when it celebrates its short 4s and 5s not in relationship to/as counterpoints of the other holes in the routing, but instead as undeniable goods in and of themselves; when it pretends to use short grass surrounds as an enemy when it was clearly (the proof being in the pudding) meant to be my friend; and when dramatic and difficult looking green contours actually serve mainly as framing for large flattish areas of easily pinnable (and make able) putting surface, then I suspect that the architect and his course is pandering to me.
I don't like it in movies, I don't like it in music, I don't like it in books, I don't like it in political discourse, I don't even like it in personal relationships. Why would  I want it in golf courses? But, as Jim suggests, it does seem to 'work' for many others when it comes to golf -- and they are clearly willing to pay big dollars for it.
Peter

[Mark Kiely]

I've felt this way on some banked Fazio fairways that seem like almost any decent shot gets rewarded because the farther off line you are, the steeper the bank to kick it right back in the middle. Then again, I found the very course I'm thinking about a lot of fun, too. But it did feel cheap at times.

[Peter Pallotta]

PS
And for those who might not know, Ian walks the talk.
He designed the coolest, shortest Par 3 I've ever played. Only a 100 yards long, it is playable all right, but it's also devilish.
And then there is the friendly, playable 18 holes with housing course he designed on a nearly dead flat piece of land -- but with one of the most enjoyable and challenging set of greens I've seen.
In both instances, my experience with Ian's work came when I   usually played with the same group -- an older well travelled 5 handicapper, a solid 10-12, a very long hitting 16 or so, and me, essentially a decent beginner. None of us hardly ever talked or even thought about 'architecture' back then...but we all immediately knew and agreed that the Par 3 was terrific and that those 18 greens were among the best we played in the entire GTA. (They remind me of the greens at Lakeside, a Herbert Strong design from the 20s).
Which is to say: You don't have to pander in order to impress a wide range of golfers.

[Alex Miller]

Haven't played it, but we're talking about Gamble Sands right?


It appears so wide and so modest in undulation for its width that it stands out among all courses I can recall. If it is, it's an interesting case study especially with the context of the Castle Course being in DMK's resume. Perhaps an overreaction?

[Tom_Doak]

Haven't played it, but we're talking about Gamble Sands right?

I'm pretty sure this is not about Gamble Sands.  I think I know what course it is about, but it's up to Ian to decide if he wants to be specific.


I do agree with Mark Kiely, that Tom Fazio was one of the first to build courses that really pandered.  I think it was his way of separating himself from Nicklaus and Dye; plus he knew that most of the wealthy people buying homes in those developments were not especially good golfers.  [See my review of The Quarry at La Quinta in the Confidential Guide.]

[Niall C]

Ian
 
Hats off to you for raising and indeed articulating very well a topic I’ve been thinking about myself. As an average to OK golfer who hangs on to a single figure handicap by dint of a decent short game and avoiding medal competitions, I’m not really too enamoured with long, tight courses with multiple forced carries.
 
I do however like to be challenged. I suppose it comes down to the nature of that challenge that makes the course interesting. What I don’t find interesting is wide open fairways with no particular advantage as to positioning, indeed I find that deadly dull. On the face of it that might sound a contradiction to my earlier comment on tight fairways but there is more than one way of making a hole interesting.
 
Sean referenced Castle Stuart and previous discussions with regards to it and I was most definitely on the side of thinking CS had too many nothing shots to really be called a great course. In truth CS doesn’t pander when it comes to some of the greens but an awful lot of the par 4’s and par 5’s have one or two shots that cry out for a craftily placed hazard or landform to lend some interest.
 
But worse than that, they move the tees to allow for the wind. Do me a f***ing favour. It’s Scotland. It gets windy. That’s part of the game !!   - anyway, sorry about that outburst but it was you who started the conversation 
 
Niall

[Sean Leary]

I have played 30 plus Fazio courses and Gamble Sands 10 times or so now.


Gamble Sands is in a league of its own as far as this topic goes.  I enjoy it a ton, but can't make the upper echelon of courses for this very reason. Sure, hole locations can be set to provide more challenge, but they won't make you think the way that a truly great course.


Never played a Fazio that was even close  to this one in my mind.

[Kalen Braley]

Ian,


The main problem I have with your original premise is...given the massively enormous spectrum of playing abilities and individual strengths/weaknesses that varies from player to player, I don't know how an architect could ever possibly achieve this for even most players, much less all players. Perhaps you could build a bunkerless, flat, tree-free, rough-free, short drive and pitch course...which clearly this is not the case based on your description, and then it would be pandering to most.  But I can think of very few courses that fits this bill.

[Niall C]

Kalen


Was that not what the line of charm was all about ? About tempting the golfer to take on trouble when their was a safer and potentially costlier (in terms of strokes) route to the hole ?


Niall

[Peter Pallotta]

Imagine:
Instead of golfers having (score-based) handicaps and courses having stroke holes and slope ratings, we had the Golfing Spirit Index and the Pandering Scale.
Golf Course X might be given a "1" (ie, low) on the Pandering Scale, which would make it most suitable to Golfing Spirits of 8-10 (ie high). That way, those rare golfers who actually play the ball as it lies and the course as they find it, and who relish the challenge of wind and of contoured greens, and who play for their best score from the same set of tees throughout (ie the 8s and above) could see that a given course was a 6, or 8 or 10 on the Pandering Scale and know immediately that it wasn't a course for them, that they wouldn't like it.
And vice-versa, of course: a 3 on the Golfing Spirit Index would know to gravitate towards courses that scored 7 or more on the Pandering Scale, because that type of course would best provide the kind of "fun" they were looking for.
Everybody would be happy!

[Alex Miller]

Imagine:
Instead of golfers having (score-based) handicaps and courses having stroke holes and slope ratings, we had the Pandering Scale and the Golfing Spirit Index.
Golf Course X might be given a "1" (ie, low) on the Pandering Scale, which would make it most suitable to Golfing Spirits of 8-10 (ie high). That way, those rare golfers who actually play the ball as it lies and the course as they find it, and who relish the challenge of wind and of contoured greens, and who play for their best score from the same set of tees throughout (ie the 8s and above) could see that a course was 6-10 on the Pandering Scale and know immediately that it wasn't for them. And vice-versa, of course: a 3 on the Golfing Spirit Index would know to gravitate towards courses that scored 7 or more on the Pandering Scale.
Everybody would be happy!

Deserving of its own thread! Love it.

[JESII]

Is it about the severity of the hazards?  A flat, boring, painless bunker could be replaced by one a bit more interesting and we feel much better for having avoided it.


We've all played short easy courses that we enjoyed...was that enjoyment based on the accomplishment of avoiding a handful of potential bad spots?

[George Pazin]

It struck me that the designs were made to bring you pleasure. Who cares where you miss, there’s always a road waiting to bring you home.

Am I alone or do others find there’s a line in the sand between playability – which I really like – and pandering to the player’s ego - which I clearly disagree with.

To me, there are playable courses that pander, and playable courses that don't, and the latter are far preferable.


Most seem to think that when someone like me asks for playability, that I'm asking for easy, with no penalty for misses. I can't speak for others, but I'm certainly not asking for that. I'm merely asking for the ability to play the difficult shot that may ensue without having to figure out my drop area. And I'm asking that I not lose my ball in deep rough.


It really is that simple. You don't have to pander to be playable. I like the challenge of trying to hit the proper side of the fairway but I don't like the challenge of figuring out which tees to play or how to throttle back to keep a drive in play (and by in play, I mean not having to figure out a drop area or take an illegitimate drop because I don't want to screw the people behind because I can't find my ball in the rough).

[Don Hyslop]

With the majority of most golfers' scores consisting of putts, I tend to think that courses that have eliminated slope and resulting breaks in their greens have reached the pandering stage. We have a hole on our local course that had a pretty good slope to the point that you had to make sure your approach was below the pin. I you went above the pin, you were faced with a serious putting challenge. I enjoyed the hole as it was a short par 5 but you had to put your approach in the correct spot. Sadly enough members complained about this original design that the superintendent rebuilt the green taking the severity of the slope away. Now just a regular everyday green. More pars less fun.

[Tim Gavrich]

I haven't played everywhere (yet  ), but I'd like to think I've seen a good sampling of courses, and I can think of just one that might fairly be described as pandering to the golfer: The Creek Club at Reynolds Lake Oconee.*


Except I find the Creek Club to be one of the coolest golf experiences I've had, because it dares to cross the line of acceptable outcomes for mediocre shots. You can miss a club long or left or right on certain holes and end up with a short birdie putt. It's wild and crazy, but in a way that lowers the golfer's score, rather than raise it. And that's intentional, so Jim Engh deserves lots of credit for accomplishing his mission


Of course, the most important reason why the Creek Club succeeds is its context. It's not some standalone public or private course; rather, it's one of six courses, available only to members who can access not just it but the five other Reynolds Lake Oconee courses, which all fit within the broad parameters of "normal" golf course design.


This is all to say that I believe before we level a charge of Pandering as a strike against the course, we'd do well to consider its context. I think we can tolerate, and indeed appreciate, more weirdness at a course like the Creek Club, where it's not the only one its clientele are playing regularly.


*The only other course that might come to mind here is Tobacco Road, but I think it's an essential member of the canon, if you will, of golf courses, again because its context permits and invites us to love how strange it is.

[Bruce Katona]

Likely outside of this group, but most of the customers we had (back when I was in the golf bus.) wanted a course that "looks hard, played/fair/easier".  Why?

Most of our customers/members want to sit around after a round or over dinner with their friends regaling them over the great shots they hit, how they had a nice score, how their handicap is slowly coming down.  Almost none of those paying customers wanted to say- "I had back to back snowmen on 14 & 15 to cruise in at a cool 98...a ball OB on 14 and a 4 putt on 15...man this course is tough."


 Just not going to attract repeat business or long term members with that strategy unless the member list is something out of the Forbes 500/Baltusrol/ NGLA etc.; but what do I know, we just used to try to have to make money in this business.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen


Was that not what the line of charm was all about ? About tempting the golfer to take on trouble when their was a safer and potentially costlier (in terms of strokes) route to the hole ?


Niall

Niall,


I think line of charm as I understand it, is a great thing to aspire to as an architect.  But the reality remains the same that most players who will play it are just trying to hit the fairway much less one part of it. 


I get that on paper not pandering sounds good....I just don't see how this can be adequately explained in implementation.  We have a small few examples of really hard to most and conversely really easy to most....but everything else is in the soft and squishy middle that's hard to define.


I have a buddy I've played many many matches with over the years and even though we roughly play to the same handicap, we get it done in vastly different ways.  Tee length, short game, course management, streaky vs steady eddie, gambling vs conservative, draw vs. slice.


I guess I'm just having a hard time how an architect can account for all the millions of permutations of playing strategies, golfer ability, maintenance-meld, weather, etc to arrive to a conclusion that a course panders....

[John Kavanaugh]

I'm sorry that golfers are paying more to play less. The man behind the curtain just wants them to have a good time. Resort golf is dead to me.

[Peter Pallotta]

I call it "Golden Age Lite".
The bottle looks the same and it tastes vaguely similar -- but you never get a buzz off it, no matter how much you drink.
A well-known architect in my neck of the woods was a master of it; though back then he bottled it under the "Country Club for a Day" label instead of "The Resort Course" brand.
Either way, it was premium priced and marketing driven. All the cool kids drank it, and wrote it off as a corporate expense.
I drank it too, but later realized why I was never comfortable and felt like a fraud doing it: ie because I couldn't afford it, and was too insecure to say "this doesn't satisfy" when everyone else was praising it to the sky.
Interestingly, back then the Golden Age original they tried to mimic seemed to be Augusta National (with tamer greens); today, the model seems to have shifted to Kingston Heath. Befitting the new global golfer/marketing/brand, I suppose - from Atlanta to Australia!
Peter

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()