[Frank M]

What does it mean to describe a golf course as playable? Is it just another way of saying it’s easy? It’s a course you can play without losing golf balls? It would seem to me that every course is “playable” no matter how difficult, easy, tough a walk, good or bad a design, etc., if you can physically play it.

[James Brown]

What the hec does it mean to describe a golf course as playable?


Is it just another way of saying it’s easy? It’s a course you can play without losing golf balls?


It would seem to me that every course is “playable” no matter how difficult, easy, tough a walk, good or bad a design, etc., if you can physically play it.


 

How many balls would the average golfer lose in playing it?  How many forced carries? How many three putts?   Those are my benchmarks. 

[Jason Topp]

Lost balls is a very good proxy. 


Many golden age courses can be played with one ball. 

[Matthew Sander]

Obtuse thread of the day!

[Brian_Ewen]

Obtuse thread of the day!

Which we need more of IMO.

[Adam Lawrence]

Lost balls is a very good proxy. 


Many golden age courses can be played with one ball.

By whom?

[Jim_Coleman]

   I golf is a sport intended to be played walking, Ledgerock is not playable.

[Rob Hallford]

Interesting.  I'd say that while I can read a James Joyce novel (I either understand or can look up all the words), I would not call his work very "readable".  Two points here.  1) There are people who enjoy Joyce and get something out of his work, I just put it down after laboring through 10 pages--it's not worth it to me.  So, it's a personal perspective thing.  2) Reading, like golf, is about fun--for me.  Saying that I did not find Bethpage Black terribly playable simply means that I didn't enjoy it (deep rough, long waits between shots, trying to stop a 5 iron on the hood of a car).  NB:  this doesn't mean I didn't appreciate it.  It's awesome, in the literal sense of "inspiring awe", but not very playable as I experienced it.  Others differ on this point.

[Peter Pallotta]

Interesting how that word is used, especially in the days of 6 sets of tees (whether on a Nicklaus or C&C resort course). I think as a marketing term it means something like: "No one playing the correct tees will score horrendously worse than they should've expected to score".  Brussel sprouts are certainly "edible", as long as you don't expect to like them very much.   

[George Pazin]

Interesting.  I'd say that while I can read a James Joyce novel (I either understand or can look up all the words), I would not call his work very "readable".  Two points here.  1) There are people who enjoy Joyce and get something out of his work, I just put it down after laboring through 10 pages--it's not worth it to me.  So, it's a personal perspective thing.  2) Reading, like golf, is about fun--for me.  Saying that I did not find Bethpage Black terribly playable simply means that I didn't enjoy it (deep rough, long waits between shots, trying to stop a 5 iron on the hood of a car).  NB:  this doesn't mean I didn't appreciate it.  It's awesome, in the literal sense of "inspiring awe", but not very playable as I experienced it.  Others differ on this point.

Terrific post, well done.

[Carl Rogers]

Propose this definition: Can the 20 handicapper, playing with in the rules, record a stroke play score?

[Kalen Braley]

Obtuse thread of the day!

 

[Adam Lawrence]

Propose this definition: Can the 20 handicapper, playing with in the rules, record a stroke play score?

What characterises a 20-handicapper?

[Carl Rogers]

Propose this definition: Can the 20 handicapper, playing with in the rules, record a stroke play score?

What characterises a 20-handicapper?

Severe Inconsistency.

[Adam Lawrence]

Propose this definition: Can the 20 handicapper, playing with in the rules, record a stroke play score?

What characterises a 20-handicapper?

Severe Inconsistency.

I guess my point is that there's no one 20-hcper. I once played in a golf day at the Berkshire (Red course) with a chap in his 70s, who had clearly been a decent player in his time. But he couldn't carry the heather from a lot of the tees, and once in it, there was no way he could get it out. The course was basically impossible for him, although probably a majority of golfers would characterise Berkshire Red as a pretty forgiving course. But equally there are guys who hit the ball hard and, when they make good contact, give the impression of being decent players. But from swing to swing, they do not know what is happening. They can lose balls _anywhere_ and, if they're having a bad day, any course can seem hard. And there is every variation between these two extremes.


Golf is a virtually impossible game to define in advance. Anything and everything is possible.

[George Pazin]

Propose this definition: Can the 20 handicapper, playing with in the rules, record a stroke play score?

What characterises a 20-handicapper?

Severe Inconsistency.

When were you last a 20 handicapper?


Nice post, Adam. 20s come in all shapes and sizes, as do every other level of golfer, from beginner to pro.

[Peter Pallotta]

Adam's last two lines are very good (and insightful, pithy, and most importantly, likely *true*).
And yet, many of the world's 'Top 10' courses have been on that list for many years now, and the number of new courses that have recently opened/debuted in the Top 100 lists is striking -- which seems to suggest that, for raters at least, the 'average game' has indeed been "defined in advance", and exceedingly well. 

[Carl Rogers]

Propose this definition: Can the 20 handicapper, playing with in the rules, record a stroke play score?

What characterises a 20-handicapper?

Severe Inconsistency.

When were you last a 20 handicapper?


Nice post, Adam. 20s come in all shapes and sizes, as do every other level of golfer, from beginner to pro.

Not sure I agree.  There is a basic skill set all golfers lower than a 12 handicap have.


Probably when I was 11 or 12 years old, I was 20 handicapper. 


Some 20 handicappers take many shots to escape a bunker, some cannot carry a shot off the fairway 100 yards and so forth.
Example,  I am afraid many 20 handicappers could not get over Rae's Creek or the Pond on ANGC's Hole 15 no matter how many tries. 


That get's to my first comment about be able to post a stroke play score per the rules.

[Dan Herrmann]

What the hec does it mean to describe a golf course as playable?

Playable to me means no forced carries of over 175 yards.   Most greens can be played using the ground - no bunker directly in front of a green.    Options for golfers of different skills.   


An example of a world-class playable course is Merion East.   You can play the whole course through the air.   Or on the ground.   A 25 handicap lady wouldn't have any problems playing there.   


Take 16 as a perfect example - the "less skilled" player could completely avoid the quarry by bailing out to the right.   Yeah - there's no way they would score a par, but par is not the goal for everybody.

[Adam Lawrence]

What the hec does it mean to describe a golf course as playable?

Playable to me means no forced carries of over 175 yards.   Most greens can be played using the ground - no bunker directly in front of a green.    Options for golfers of different skills.   


An example of a world-class playable course is Merion East.   You can play the whole course through the air.   Or on the ground.   A 25 handicap lady wouldn't have any problems playing there.   


Take 16 as a perfect example - the "less skilled" player could completely avoid the quarry by bailing out to the right.   Yeah - there's no way they would score a par, but par is not the goal for everybody.

Dan


But the issue is that your figure of 175 yards as a top limit of forced carries is totally subjective. If you can only carry the ball 170 yards then a course with a bunch of 175 yard forced carries is impossible for you.


The only truly playable course in this context is one with no forced carries AT ALL (which almost certainly would be pretty uninteresting for a large proportion of golfers).


And even then, forced carries are by no means the only issue. Width is crucial for playability -- a golf course with 20 yard wide fairways and lost ball rough everywhere else is unplayable for the vast majority of golfers, irrespective of forced carries. But you can never have enough width if total playability is your goal -- even if your fairways are 150 yards wide, someone will come along who hits his driver hard enough, with so little control, that he will miss a good few.


Yet unmoved, wild 'native' areas are a critical contributor to the ecological sustainability of a golf course -- they provide habitat for wildlife and they reduce the amount of inputs needed to manage the site. So it is about finding a balance. This is basically true of everything in golf design. Maybe about everything in life!

[Sean_A]

I played a course today which is grazed, so great use of the land in terms of providing food for my belly and keeping rough managed.  The fairways were fairly narrow, but they didn't need to be wide with managabe rough in nearly all places.  There are a few opportunities to lose a ball in hazards, but not many.  Basically no fairway sand, so again, quite managable.  No par 5s so yardage less then 6000 from daily tee.  Courses such as this are what I would call playable. There are other more testing designs which I would say are playable, but just as Adam states, its about a balance.  Its not a perfect formula for playable, but once we go down the road of formulas then we may as well stop searching for good golfing country.  Everytime test, challenge or championship design is mentioned its one more step away from playable, but that ain't necessarily bad.  All courses can't be all things to all people....thankfully.

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()