[Joe Schackman]

As I've learned more and more about architecture I've wondered about this exact line. I grew up in the dark age of architecture and my opinion of a "good" golf course has changed quite dramatically in the last few years (since my first trip to Bandon).

But there is a very small part of me that still expects to be beat down by a course and if I shoot the number that I want there is a little voice in the back of my head that says "was that too easy? Did you earn that?"

[Ed Homsey]

I don't know if the course I'm about to describe fits Ian's definition of pandering, but here 'tis.  This course/club has a very good reputation, though the folks at a nearby course/club always claim they are the best.  I was thrilled to get on this course and, over the next few years, played it often.  The first reaction to looking out over the course was, "omigod, there's bunkers every where".   As I recall, there were well over a hundred.  What I soon discovered was that the bunkers offered no particular challenge.  The fairway bunkers were very flat.  No face.  So, there was not particular reason to avoid them.  I found them easier to hit from than the rough surrounds.  It's not that I intentionally hit into them.  It's just that they played no part in my strategy on the hole.  They were just "eye candy".  And, then Ian came along and installed bunkers that had teeth to them.  They became true hazards, that you really had to take into account.  I think the course came alive, and I'm fairly certain that "The Old Man" is smiling at the result.  It's a fun course to play.

[Jeff_Brauer]

As I've learned more and more about architecture I've wondered about this exact line. I grew up in the dark age of architecture and my opinion of a "good" golf course has changed quite dramatically in the last few years (since my first trip to Bandon).

But there is a very small part of me that still expects to be beat down by a course and if I shoot the number that I want there is a little voice in the back of my head that says "was that too easy? Did you earn that?"

Joe,


Therein lies the rub.....most golfers don't want it to be too easy, but don't want to get beat up, either.  Striking that balance of meeting "golfer expectation" over such a wide range of golf abilities and perspectives seems to be what its all about in design.


You can look for things that kind of challenge good and bad golfers, like using side hazards more than frontal hazards, because good players rarely come up short, so front bunkers have little impact, but average golfers do, so front bunkers have a lot of impact.  Whereas, everyone misses laterally, only to different degrees.


I believe chipping and putting challenges don't trouble the average golfer that much, while challenging the good player, too.  If you three putt, at least you don't lose a golf ball.  Recovery challenges (i.e., hitting out of trees) should be about as much fun for any type of player, IMHO.


We also have multiple tees to vary the challenge to different levels.  And to attempt to make any carry challenge we create somewhat doable by most golfers using the appropriate tee.


I try to create interesting shots, but perhaps pander by not making hazards extremely difficult so as to avoid a potential beat down.  But, every so often I break the r just for interest.  I think all golfers appreciate variety, about equally.


But, all in all, its really every architects opinion as to just how much interesting golf vs. penalty and hard challenge the "average" golfer wants. 


I may have told the story, but shared a national interview with Steve Smyers, who was describing his latest design, with a design brief to make it the toughest course in the world.  I answered that with all due respect, my career is trending the other way, towards more playable golf courses, perhaps even pandering ones in Ian's narrative.  We all take our own journey in design, but I have seen and designed enough tough courses (There are two states where my courses have the highest slope rating, and I debate whether or not I should be proud of that) to feel golf needs a bit more pandering moving forward.


Basically, every course is different in its design brief, and the only judge of design is whether you ended up somewhere near where you intended to when you started.

[Joe Schackman]

As I've learned more and more about architecture I've wondered about this exact line. I grew up in the dark age of architecture and my opinion of a "good" golf course has changed quite dramatically in the last few years (since my first trip to Bandon).

But there is a very small part of me that still expects to be beat down by a course and if I shoot the number that I want there is a little voice in the back of my head that says "was that too easy? Did you earn that?"

Joe,


Therein lies the rub.....most golfers don't want it to be too easy, but don't want to get beat up, either.  Striking that balance of meeting "golfer expectation" over such a wide range of golf abilities and perspectives seems to be what its all about in design.

It is a challenge I do not envy because how can you be expected to strike that balance when I'm not even sure where my personal line is...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joe,


And it varies every day for every golfer!  In most locales, it is quite possible to vary the challenge by simply playing a different course, but that concept is not usually put in the design brief.  Basically, the owner wants his course to be suitable to all, no matter what the mood.

[Ryan Farrow]

Ian, I am glad your brought this up. These kind of golf courses are not good for the game. This is not the future of golf and I am fairly certain they will be tinkered with in the near future.


Yes there is a line, and the good player certainly knows it and they will speak with where their wallet.

[Sean_A]

But there is a very small part of me that still expects to be beat down by a course and if I shoot the number that I want there is a little voice in the back of my head that says "was that too easy? Did you earn that?"

This is the very essence of the difference between playing the game and playing for score...and one reason why matchplay is the superior scoring method.  I never walk off a course and ask if it was too easy.  That question is irrelevant so far as I am concerned. The only people who should be asking that question are experts.

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - I see your point and I take you at your word. But look at your recent experience at Pine Needles. One can hardly lose a golf ball, to water or anything else, but a 10 capper would be very hard pressed to shoot/break 80 from the 5800 yard markers.
The course isn't "too easy". Isn't that, for you, part and parcel of its charms?

[Don Mahaffey]

A lot, like almost, architects pander to the high handicapper.
And I think it's a mistake because it seems most good players and golf experts think they know what's best for the high handicapper, but few ever actually listen to them. And many don't know how to design a challenging course without using hazards. 

[Sean_A]

Sean - I see your point and I take you at your word. But look at your recent experience at Pine Needles. One can hardly lose a golf ball, to water or anything else, but a 10 capper would be very hard pressed to shoot/break 80 from the 5800 yard markers.
The course isn't "too easy". Isn't that, for you, part and parcel of its charms?

Pietro

For sure!  But golf is a big world and in my small corner I leave room for all levels of difficulty.  However, it is far more likely that I will dislike a course because it is too difficult rather than too easy.  In fact, if you ask me, a 10 capper stating a course is too easy is a bit too cocky for my liking. If folks want to call that pandering it is their prerogative, but for me that isn't the case.  I am mindful of weather and how it can enhance the difficulty of a course. So to me it makes sense for archies to keep their powder dry and let mother nature do as she will. 

Ciao

[Carl Rogers]

Where is the talk of "fun" in this thread?


Usually on the site, there are favorite themes such as:
-Small or few forced carries that helps the higher handicap
-Fewer Water Hazards
-Giving the golfer the possibility of recovery shots
-Speeding up play
-alternate routes to green to avoid severe hazards
-disdain for the 155 slope courses


Is that pandering?

[Jason Topp]

Where is the talk of "fun" in this thread?


Usually on the site, there are favorite themes such as:
-Small or few forced carries that helps the higher handicap
-Fewer Water Hazards
-Giving the golfer the possibility of recovery shots
-Speeding up play
-alternate routes to green to avoid severe hazards
-disdain for the 155 slope courses


Is that pandering?

I think the point of the thread is whether pursuing those goals too far or in the wrong way can ultimately undermine the quality of a golf course.  For me the answer to that question is undoubtedly yes. 


Some examples that strike me as pandering:


1.  Repeatedly providing extra room on the right of the fairway to accommodate a slice or blocked tee shot.  Many resort courses do this.

2.  Placing bunkers far enough away from the intended line or landing spot that they do not really tempt an aggressive shot.


3.  A short par 4 in which it does not matter where an aggressive tee shot is placed - resulting in basically a long par three. 


4.  Unnatural big slopes to the side of the fairways to cause wayward shots to return to play


One traditional design feature that might be pandering - punchbowl greens. 

[Tim Gavrich]

I haven't played as much golf as some, but over the years observing a lot of mediocre golfers, I've reached a conclusion that for a lot of people, golf is an outlet for the venting of frustration.


I think a lot of golfers, perhaps at a subconscious level, actually almost enjoy hitting bad shots and enjoy playing poorly, because it allows them to get upset in a way that day-to-day business and family life doesn't really permit, at least without serious consequences. The stakes are so low in a round of golf that there's latitude to have a mini-meltdown, wallowing in a round that's going off the rails. I've noticed that I've become a better player as I've done less of this. I still have my moments, but I keep them short.


Are "pandering" course annoying because they provide fewer opportunities for golfers to let off steam through bad play?

[John Kavanaugh]

Some of us need discipline to stay focused. While it was fun for a day when a substitute teacher would show up it did no one any good over the long run.

[Joe Schackman]

But there is a very small part of me that still expects to be beat down by a course and if I shoot the number that I want there is a little voice in the back of my head that says "was that too easy? Did you earn that?"

This is the very essence of the difference between playing the game and playing for score...and one reason why matchplay is the superior scoring method.  I never walk off a course and ask if it was too easy.  That question is irrelevant so far as I am concerned. The only people who should be asking that question are experts.

Ciao

Sean - I guess "too easy" is a bit of a broad statement. But I do play for score as I generally play with my dad and we don't play matches. I have a number in my mind that is my goal for the round and I do like a little challenge to reach that goal but I don't want it to be impossible either.

Trust me I'm no expert.

[Tim Gallant]

Where is the talk of "fun" in this thread?


Usually on the site, there are favorite themes such as:
-Small or few forced carries that helps the higher handicap
-Fewer Water Hazards
-Giving the golfer the possibility of recovery shots
-Speeding up play
-alternate routes to green to avoid severe hazards
-disdain for the 155 slope courses


Is that pandering?

I think the point of the thread is whether pursuing those goals too far or in the wrong way can ultimately undermine the quality of a golf course.  For me the answer to that question is undoubtedly yes. 


Some examples that strike me as pandering:


1.  Repeatedly providing extra room on the right of the fairway to accommodate a slice or blocked tee shot.  Many resort courses do this.
2.  Placing bunkers far enough away from the intended line or landing spot that they do not really tempt an aggressive shot.
3.  A short par 4 in which it does not matter where an aggressive tee shot is placed - resulting in basically a long par 3. 
4.  Unnatural big slopes to the side of the fairways to cause wayward shots to return to play


One traditional design feature that might be pandering - punchbowl greens.

Well said Jason.


I was wondering about the revetted pot bunkers that are usually encountered on links courses in the UK. For sure they are not natural, and yet, they are not only accepted, but admired as much for their difference to many inland bunkers (flat and uninteresting) as their difficulty (many a true .5/1 stroke penalty depending on lie and aggressive inclinations).


Certainly these courses could pander to the visiting golfers by putting in more 'natural looking bunkers' that are both more playable and less of a penalty, but I'm not sure that makes a course better. Only easier.


Edit: I'm not saying that a more natural-looking bunker can't be penalising, only that this is a mere excuse for making the hazard less penalising to ensure the player has more fun (because in their mind lower score = more fun).

[Terry Lavin]

I watched a bit of Matt Ginella's description of Streamsong Black.  He was effusive in his praise, but to tell you the truth, it did seem like the course he was describing could fit this elusive "pandering" moniker. Mind you, I've not seen the course and I'm sure Ginella would object to any such architectural "equivalency" to pandering, but Matty G. seemed to go out of his way to talk about how easy it would be to make par or birdie on a lot of holes.

[Peter Pallotta]

I like to keep score.
And if I shoot an 85 on Course X but hit it lousy pretty much all day, I know that on the better/more interesting Course Y that 85 would've been a 95.
Now, if Course X is a modest, run of the mill muni or local public course, I wouldn't hold my 85 against it -- being playable and inexpensive for all us hacks is what it was built for/designed to be.
But if Course X is instead an expensive out of the way resort course designed for the well-traveled golfer, and I shoot 85 when it should've been a 95, then that's pandering -- and that would annoy me, because they're selling (and I'm paying a for) a much better and more engaging and interesting course than that.
Btw - the most influential architect of the modern era? Apparently, it's Tom Fazio. The same trick he used to keep second-home-owners happy is now being used (by some) to keep retail golfers happy. There was something dishonest and even disrespectful of the game back then; and there is something dishonest and disrespectful (of the game, of golfers, and of the craft of gca) right now.

[Sean_A]

I surely would like to see some of these pandering courses folks talk about.  You know, the ones where people routinely shoot five strokes under their handicaps. What are the names of these courses?

In the UK, one possible candidate is Crail.  Though I think it is easy to play to one's handicap (weather cooperating), not for a 10 capper to blitz the place.  Gullane #3 is also another candidate.  Though, its hard to say such old courses are pandering more than technology compromised their virtue to some degree...especially Gullane #3...for in my experience there are few courses as graceful as this. 

Ciao

[Derek_Duncan]

I watched a bit of Matt Ginella's description of Streamsong Black.  He was effusive in his praise, but to tell you the truth, it did seem like the course he was describing could fit this elusive "pandering" moniker. Mind you, I've not seen the course and I'm sure Ginella would object to any such architectural "equivalency" to pandering, but Matty G. seemed to go out of his way to talk about how easy it would be to make par or birdie on a lot of holes.

That's an interesting take by Ginella. Three or four caddies mentioned to me that they were worried there was enough trouble on the Black for the average resort player that rounds were going to creep into the 5.5 hour range.

[Terry Lavin]

I may have uttered an incomplete take on Matty G's review as I only saw a portion of it. Howard (King of the Links) has a link to the whole review that might throw some shade on my impression.

[John Kavanaugh]

Next time I'm depressed I'm gonna binge watch Matty G reviews. It's got to be a healthier alternative to my most recent self destructive behavior.

[Carl Johnson]

Sean - I see your point and I take you at your word. But look at your recent experience at Pine Needles. One can hardly lose a golf ball, to water or anything else, but a 10 capper would be very hard pressed to shoot/break 80 from the 5800 yard markers.
The course isn't "too easy". Isn't that, for you, part and parcel of its charms?

I agree with Sean -- medal play against the course is meaningless to me.  My interest is how the course works out for match play.  Do the competitors, in match play, have a reasonable chance to compete against each other (from the standpoint of raw difficulty, such as long forced carries, lots of water in play, etc., etc.) yet with enough challenges that the thinker, the strategy player, can come out o.k., or better, against a player who doesn't think things through.  Also, I agree with another poster who pointed to the importance of greens in differentiating and difficulty.  Challenging greens, both from a pure putting standpoint and from an approach shot standpoint are great differentiaters.

[George Pazin]

I surely would like to see some of these pandering courses folks talk about.  You know, the ones where people routinely shoot five strokes under their handicaps. What are the names of these courses?

This is my guess as to the definition of pandering courses, by people who rank/rate golf courses: courses that accentuate skills that favor OTHER golfers, not themselves.


I think that if someone loses to another golfer they assume to be inferior, playing match play OR stroke play, they tend to look at why, and think, it must be the course, not me. It's easier to say a course that provides width is too easy, if your own forte is hitting fairways. Or a course is too short, if your strength is going deep.


I think in the end, that too many golfers want courses that highlight their own strengths and penalize others weaknesses. A pandering course is therefore one that accommodates your opponent's weaknesses and fails to reward your own strengths.


The reality is pretty much 180 degrees in the opposite direction.

[Peter Pallotta]

George - we all have our own (differing) experiences; and those experiences influence and inform our posts here.
My guess is that Sean plays the majority of his golf on courses designed before 1930; and that for a special treat he'll play a modern course like the Renaissance Club.
I play the majority of my golf on courses designed after 1970, mostly modest publics built on what used to be farmland; and when friends want a special treat and a 'fancier' experience we play the Country Clubs for a Day built in the late 90s and early 2000s.
A lot has changed, fundamentally, in those 70 years, from the 1920s and 30s to the 1990s and 2000s -- both in terms of how and why architects built their courses, and, more importantly, in terms of the average golfer's expectations (in terms of difficulty and score etc.)
Not surprisingly, Sean doesn't understand/agree with my POV and I don't understand his.
I see pandering all over the place (including via what I read here about some big name modern courses); he doesn't. Naturally, since even when he thinks of courses that might fit the bill he thinks of a (golden age) course like Gullane.
The one great golden age course I have played is Crystal Downs. It was probably a 'resort course' back in its day, and today it is not overly long and does not have a high slope rating, and is eminently playable -- and yet it kicked my ass from start to finish, and I shot some 15 strokes higher than my average. Meanwhile, I play a CCFAD that is longer and might even have a higher slope rating than CD, and I can score 5 strokes lower than my average.
Why? Because that designer is pandering to the average golfer and providing width for its own sake and hazards that are out of play save for a vicious slice or hook and greens that have meaningless contours with big flat areas where (not coincidentally) the pin always seems to be placed.
At CD, on the other hand, I could play pretty easily out of the rough, but if I was on the wrong side of the fairway (as I often was) I was in more trouble than I realized; and I could hit quite a few greens and have many putts for par and even for birdie, but if I ended up above the hole or on the wrong side of a shelf/slope (as I often did), I again had no idea until afterwards of how dead I was. And that is the difference, to use Ian's original distinction, between playability and pandering.
Peter

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()