The competitive-recreational spectrum of golfers and golf course architecture

[Tim Gavrich]

I'm part of the Golf Advisor team now, and my latest piece there talks about how some golfers are more competitive (i.e. keen to get better, often tend to keep score, often tend to play a match with their buddies) than others.


https://www.golfadvisor.com/articles/competitive-vs-recreational-golfer-17643.htm



In the article, I framed it in the context of choosing courses to play on a golf trip, but I think our own golf dispositions probably guide our general stances toward a lot of courses, with the greatest courses being pretty universally loved.


We've been talking about Streamsong a good bit lately; I wonder whether the debate over people's preferences there ties into this way of thinking about one's own stance toward the game.


Having only played the Blue, I'm not able to weigh in on the debate, but from what I've heard and read, I would posit that more competitive golfers may tend to prefer the Red, and more recreational golfers may tend to prefer the Blue.


What would be some other courses where one's affection would be driven or hindered by his or her spot on this spectrum?

[Derek_Duncan]

Tim,


I don't think the differences in Red and Blue are so great that you could neatly plot them on your continuum. They may favor slightly different aspects (i.e. Red--driving, Blue--short game), but not to a major degree.


Even though I'm squarely in the Competitive category, I think most of the great new destination resorts like Bandon, Sand Valley, Cabot, Barnbougle, etc. offer what both the competitive and recreational player are looking for. That's why they're great.


A better place to look to see how a player's predisposition might effect choice of golf course is Scotland. Can recreational players enjoy themselves at Carnoustie? Can competitive players adapt to quirky 6,200 links with par of 68?

[Jeff_Brauer]

It would be interesting to know the spectrum.  I suspect the 80-20 rule favors the recreational golfer, but there are more blends than a trendy coffee house.


Not that the main purpose of the majority of golfers is typically reflected in design briefs.  While we try to accommodate, too many design briefs are based on keeping scores high for a pro tourney that will never materialize.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:  just out of curiosity, what % of your clients have mentioned a concern about whether the course would be perceived as difficult enough to host a professional tournament?


For myself, thinking backwards:
1. A site I looked at with Mr Kohler in Asia, where nothing came to pass
2. The Renaissance Club, where there was a deal to host a WGC event until permitting delays nixed the deal
3. Cape Kidnappers, where Mr Robertson wanted to be sure the course was long enough to host the NZ Open
4. Pacific Dunes, where my response to Mr Keiser was "you've already got a course for that, next door"
5. High Pointe, where I quickly disabused the client of this notion by explaining "They don't pay to play your golf course, you've gotta pay them, in the seven figures."


So only about 10% of my projects.

[Garland Bayley]

Jeff:  just out of curiosity, what % of your clients have mentioned a concern about whether the course would be perceived as difficult enough to host a professional tournament?


For myself, thinking backwards:
1. A site I looked at with Mr Kohler in Asia, where nothing came to pass
2. The Renaissance Club, where there was a deal to host a WGC event until permitting delays nixed the deal
3. Cape Kidnappers, where Mr Robertson wanted to be sure the course was long enough to host the NZ Open
4. Pacific Dunes, where my response to Mr Keiser was "you've already got a course for that, next door"
5. High Pointe, where I quickly disabused the client of this notion by explaining "They don't pay to play your golf course, you've gotta pay them, in the seven figures."


So only about 10% of my projects.

Wicked Pony?

[Tim Gavrich]

It would be interesting to know the spectrum.  I suspect the 80-20 rule favors the recreational golfer, but there are more blends than a trendy coffee house.


Not that the main purpose of the majority of golfers is typically reflected in design briefs.  While we try to accommodate, too many design briefs are based on keeping scores high for a pro tourney that will never materialize.

Jeff--


FWIW - and I don't know that we captured an accurate cross-section of golfers - but I was intrigued that in the little survey we embedded in the article, the split was about 80-20 in favor of "competitive" golfers. But like I said, there are any number of factors that probably prompted that.


Derek--


Definitely agree that the crème de la crème courses provide significant enjoyment to golfers across the spectrum, and that that's a good goal to work toward. But the vast majority of courses are imperfect, and so my thought was that if golfers can know what their tastes are, that will help them choose better courses to play.


Erin Hills stands out to me here as a course where the farther you are toward the recreational side of the spectrum, the less I think golfers are going to enjoy it. As a more competitive, I really liked it - perhaps a little more than some seem to.  I haven't played it but from what I hear, Gamble Sands might be a converse case.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,


That surprises me, but then again, that is why I like unbiased research.  We all tend to believe our beliefs are universal, and usually, well....they aren't. I say keep on trying to figure it out so the rest of us can design for it.


Tom,


I wouldn't say I have had tournament difficulty officially in many design programs, but I can't count the number of times the 18th has to finish below the clubhouse so we can see a tournament end, or standing on a tee, and hearing comments about "If the Tour Pros came here, what would they shoot?"  Or that someone on the owner's side asks about tournaments in early meetings.


So, it seems to me to unofficially be in the back of everyone's heads. 

[Mark Fedeli]

Interesting.


I'm not sure you can compare all "competitive" golfers equally. Those who only enjoy match play are as much a different breed from the individual score keepers as they both are from the completely recreational types.


As far as Streamsong is concerned within that context, I would think that those who prefer match play would also greatly prefer the Blue, with the card and pencil players preferring the Red. Blue largely has bolder features that are less traditional than what is found on Red, with luck and randomness being more important factors as well. All things that would appeal to the match player.

[Jason Topp]

I am not sure I buy the claim in an article that a competitive golfer prefers a more testing course. A fun golf course is a fun golf course whether one plays it from a competitive or a recreational mindset. 


I do find that when I am playing in a stroke play competition I have less fondness for features that can blow up your score such as out of bounds, lost ball opportunities or water hazards that lead to a nasty drop location.  I find that I need to play very conservatively around such features which yields a better score but is not that much fun. 

[Jeff Schley]

I am not sure I buy the claim in an article that a competitive golfer prefers a more testing course. A fun golf course is a fun golf course whether one plays it from a competitive or a recreational mindset. 


I do find that when I am playing in a stroke play competition I have less fondness for features that can blow up your score such as out of bounds, lost ball opportunities or water hazards that lead to a nasty drop location.  I find that I need to play very conservatively around such features which yields a better score but is not that much fun.

Jason i cosign your thought on OB and hazards. If playing for fun I blast and play carefree, if in any sort of competition all the sudden that OB white stake looks like the Washington Monument and the water hazard like Lake Michigan.  Mind games and such is golf with mental toughness to stay in the present and have execution thoughts.

[Derek_Duncan]

I am not sure I buy the claim in an article that a competitive golfer prefers a more testing course. A fun golf course is a fun golf course whether one plays it from a competitive or a recreational mindset. 

This is a good point. I don't think the so-called "competitive" golfer is looking for a more difficult course. There are 20-handicappers who fit the competitive definition. It's just that they're trying to make a good score and thinking about results more than the recreational player, no matter what the course is.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Thinking about it, I guess I would have to agree that all golfers basically check to see what they shoot, and want to shoot within 5 shots either way of their typical or expected score, so they are competitive in that way.

[Tim Gavrich]

I am not sure I buy the claim in an article that a competitive golfer prefers a more testing course. A fun golf course is a fun golf course whether one plays it from a competitive or a recreational mindset. 


I do find that when I am playing in a stroke play competition I have less fondness for features that can blow up your score such as out of bounds, lost ball opportunities or water hazards that lead to a nasty drop location.  I find that I need to play very conservatively around such features which yields a better score but is not that much fun.

Jason--


Appreciate your thoughts. As to your first sentence, I have found that a lot of golfers who equate (perhaps falsely, in many cases) difficult golf with good golf would generally be located more toward the competitive end of the spectrum. My own personal experience suggests to me that the more recreational golfers would be less likely to be bummed out by a course being quite easy, if that makes sense. I fully concede that there are exceptions on both sides, though.


I do agree with your second sentence, but again I think those more or less universally beloved courses don't need to be considered with regard to the spectrum I'm thinking about.


I'm struck by your observation that it's less fun to play conservatively, even though you shoot lower scores. I'm tempted to extrapolate from that statement that you may locate yourself more toward the recreational end of the spectrum, despite how much fun I know you have playing for signed dollars!


To me, yes, fun golf shots and holes are enjoyable in a vacuum (Jim Engh's Creek Club at Reynolds always sticks out to me here as a course I find to be the bees' knees despite being very much a recreational/"fun"-oriented course), but I find the ultimate pleasure in solving the riddle a course poses through sensible tactical play, leading to a lower-than-usual score. Interestingly, the most satisfying round of competitive golf I've played in recent memory was one of the most conservative I've ever played, but I executed my game plan and felt a great sense of accomplishment for having done it. Also, the course was not one that's ever going to win any architecture awards.


Mark--


That's a terrific point, and a corollary to a one of the central debates we have on this site: what makes a course better suited to match play or stroke play? I would offer that, for better or worse, the subset of competitive golfers who play match play to the near-complete exclusion of stroke play are a very small one. I always think about Tobacco Road as the ur-match play course.


Jeff B--


Ultimately I don't think the survey we embedded in the article meets the standard of "unbiased research," but I do think it may say something about the Golf Advisor audience at the very least. I do find it interesting just how overwhelmingly the respondents put themselves in the "competitive" category despite the well-known fact that handicaps have been pretty much flat over the recent decades. Much as golfers want to get better, it's not clear that they're achieving those stated goals!

[Mike_Young]

Tim,
Do you think Golf Advisor is good for golf?  I must assume yo do.

[Sean_A]

I am likely wrong, but it is hard for me to take the competitve aspect of the game seriously when handicaps are in use....and when I see what guys on tv can do.  This has been a long held belief (since I was 19!) and probably the reason I consider myself an overwhelmingly recreational player who very much favours matchplay.  I am not good enough to be a competitor for any meaningful prize (meaningful in my eyes anyway) so I try not to pretend..too much.  Consequently, I freely admit to generally seeking out courses with character (which can often mean less difficult courses) and am happy to play forward tees. 

Ciao

[Jeff Schley]

I really enjoy the possibility of playing someone who is 15 shots better or worse then me with the handicap system.  Like bowling when you can play handicap as well, golf has this system to level the playing field.  I admit it isn't perfect as it measure your "scoring potential" but it is a very good system provided people input the proper scores and don't piss away strokes in casual play to juice their HC.  It is one of the jewels of the game that we have, which softball, tennis, checkers or whatever the hell else people do as they get older don't have. 

[Mark Fedeli]

Thanks, Tim. I am definitely in that minority that lives for match play but absolutely never keeps stroke play score. I try to play well on each hole, but I don't track the overall. I find that much more satisfying than being bummed for the 145th time in a row that I didn't break my all-time best score.


And similar to Sean's point, I'm not a big fan of handicaps. I do appreciate that a system exists to better level the playing field, but I wish it wasn't detailed down to a single stroke. I am happy to play straight-up against anyone up to 4-5 strokes better than me.


In most other recreational sports, we just accept that others might be slightly better than us, and we try to improve in order to put up a stiffer challenge. But the precise nature of handicapping in golf has created a kind of player who will demand their stroke or two instead of just playing straight-up. I don't relate to that.

[Garland Bayley]

I am likely wrong, but it is hard for me to take the competitve aspect of the game seriously when handicaps are in use....

Strange attitude. Two of my most exciting and competitive matches have been with big difference in handicaps. At Kings Putter, I went up against William Grieve with him giving me 17 strokes. The match went to 18 where he holed a difficult putt for par to tie the match. I was on the same line inside him putting for par also. I didn't compensate for the difference in pace of our respective putts, and was not able to hole mine. The other was against Ben Stephens at Buda at St. Enodoc. I don't remember exactly how many strokes I got, probably in the neighborhood of 11 or 12. I won a bunch of holes downwind, and Ben won a bunch into the wind. At the 17th, I manage to use my stroke to win a hole into the wind with a pair of bogeys. 18 was right into the wind. Ben was the only one that day to reach the green in two and par the hole which easily halved the match as I struggled with the wind.