Identity vs. Playability for all

[Tim Gallant]

Reading the Spirit of St Andrews, I came across a quote, which sparked a question.


Speaking about Pine Valley, Alister Mackenzie states how easy it would be to create an alternate path to certain holes, thus making the course enjoyable for all. Then this follows:


'The committee know our views, but they invariably reply, "We don't want any golfers at Pine Valley except those bordering on scratch".'


In the world of architecture, this may not be a popular sentiment in our golden age II period, but as all courses (and architects) have now adopted the ethos of playability for all by adding tees and width, is there still something to be said for a course that has a strong identity that bucks this trend?


Is it not better to build a seniors course aimed at seniors, and sod the rest if they don't like it, because they aren't the target audience? It can still be a great course (as Pine Valley was and is) despite really only being set-up for one type of player.

[ward peyronnin]

Tim you sort of beat to the punch as I was crafting a post regarding whether architects have moved away from the obviously penal gross features designers like RTJ relied on for scoring difficulty( and which have been decried for the last 20 years) to greens and surrounds that are becoming more  and more purposely penal?
In another post I describe a course:
Some large majority of the terrain -70-80% -is designed to repel shots; higher % on and around greens.
Greens are built with many microbumps and very little level surface so chipping is extremely difficult and putts slow more or scoot past on even well  judged putts or holes are set on slopes  that penalize all but the most perfect read and stroke. The fat part of the green is often angled well away from the line of charm and often toward big hazards where one shouldn’t be. I have a rather solid short game but whether I was on the short or fat side of the green I felt like I had to hit one of those 2 out 10 shots to have a chance to get up and down. I am a veteran of Doak greens and I can play those; these go above and beyond that.
When I played at Sand Valley i recall many instances where microbumps humps and troughs effected putts similarly. I realized that one of the reasons I think I preferred Mammoth Dunes was that a difficult recovery was at least possible but never do I recall an impossible recovery and putts rolled more true on those greens when read correctly though they were not necessarily easy.

The Red course at Dismal River featured many green surrounds for much of the circumference where 2 foot tall grass right up to the collar just ate the missed ball .
Is this a recognizable trend by designers: to impact playability by designing greens where the player who relies on the short game has to depend more on good fortune that skill to get up and down but the ball striker truly realizes his shot or half shot direction/distance advantage over the less skilled? Tom Doak seemed to imply as much in his response on the Congaree thread

[George Pazin]

Playability will always be an issue for everyone, as it is a highly subjective term. The dirty little secret none dare disclose is that playability is always defined as, playable by me, under my terms, and not playable by anyone who can’t play as well as me, as defined by me. It’s a circular argument thing, self-defining on its merits, as most thinking as these days.


Pardon my cynicism, I just read through the Sheep Ranch threads and was nauseated by the self-referential narcissism within.........

[Thomas Dai]

See Rans profile of Scottsdale Nationals Little Big Nine and the comments in the thread that accompanied it about playability, or rather lack of, for all -
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,66684.0.html
Atb

[Sean_A]

'The committee know our views, but they invariably reply, "We don't want any golfers at Pine Valley except those bordering on scratch".'

In the world of architecture, this may not be a popular sentiment in our golden age II period, but as all courses (and architects) have now adopted the ethos of playability for all by adding tees and width, is there still something to be said for a course that has a strong identity that bucks this trend?

I agree with your sentiment.  Equipment and course bifurcation may be the only way to save courses from club management. Unfortunately, its the modern identity which drives clubs to make their courses less playable!  If pro golf is going to continue negatively impacting architecture, I have no issue with "sacrificing" some of the courses which have already given over to that side of things and just let them get on with it. Paris National was a good example this year for the Ryder Cup.  It was a disaster in terms of playability...sometimes for the pros!  However, the pros don't need all that many courses to conduct business.  The problem comes back to identity.  Some very revered clubs want their coures to retain the "championship status" identity and will do practically anything in that pursuit.

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Tim -
like Sean I think there is indeed something to be said for a course with a strong/singular identity.
But this present age is either the best/most likely time for such courses to be built, or the worst/least likely.
I remember in the last boom time it felt like I could find a new course that was playable for only very good golfers almost as easily as I could find a one that was playable by all.
We're not in a boom time now, and the retail golfer (ugh) isn't getting any younger, and the collective/consensus opinion is pretty clearly on the side of golf courses that you can play with just a putter -- all of which makes the emergence of a brave young soul (architect) and a gutsy old money man (developer) who want to build a PV unlikely.
On the other hand, as Sean notes, this bifurcation issue i.e. the issue of the increasing (distance/length) disparity between the good golfer and the average one, may create/foster a new narrative that makes some very specific/targeted courses more plausible & feasible than ever.

[Sean_A]

Pietro

On the flip side, bifurcation could lead to more courses being truly designed for older generation golfers, women, children etc.  I live in hope because I think catering to these markets is the only way we will see out of the box architecture to any real degree.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Remember Pine Valley is wide. MacKenzie was surely on about the forced carries mainly.


I’m for the odd penal forced carry but I prefer it over a cross bunker or waste area rather than acres of rough.


Of the modern darlings, Gil Hanse sometimes builds forced carries (think Boston GC) from what I’ve seen.

[Tim Gavrich]

One of the eternal truths about golf is that it is a constant struggle to improve, and that that sense of struggle is what attracts the vast majority of players. For many of us, it's addictive, and it's why golfers are inclined to seek out and venerate difficult courses. They don't want to feel like a good score is a false positive.


I wonder if this principle might come into tension with the principle of "playability" at some point. Is there a golf course that is so "playable" that it doesn't really inspire the novice player to want to get better? Wide fairways and punchbowl-like features are cool, but when golfers object to these things, I wonder if it's because they feel they're being pandered to or patronized a little bit.


The course I've played that comes closest to pandering is The Creek Club at Reynolds Lake Oconee, where there are more gathering slopes than I have ever seen on any other golf course. But I thoroughly enjoyed my round there, and it gets a pass from me because it's one of six courses its membership gets to play. I consider "Would I want to play this course again/often?" to be a crucial question when evaluating a course, but I would never want The Creek Club for a sole home course. HOWEVER, it's exempt from that question because of the context in which it was built. (Another, more famous example of this is Tobacco Road.)

[Sean_A]

One of the eternal truths about golf is that it is a constant struggle to improve, and that that sense of struggle is what attracts the vast majority of players. For many of us, it's addictive, and it's why golfers are inclined to seek out and venerate difficult courses. They don't want to feel like a good score is a false positive.


I wonder if this principle might come into tension with the principle of "playability" at some point. Is there a golf course that is so "playable" that it doesn't really inspire the novice player to want to get better? Wide fairways and punchbowl-like features are cool, but when golfers object to these things, I wonder if it's because they feel they're being pandered to or patronized a little bit.


The course I've played that comes closest to pandering is The Creek Club at Reynolds Lake Oconee, where there are more gathering slopes than I have ever seen on any other golf course. But I thoroughly enjoyed my round there, and it gets a pass from me because it's one of six courses its membership gets to play. I consider "Would I want to play this course again/often?" to be a crucial question when evaluating a course, but I would never want The Creek Club for a sole home course. HOWEVER, it's exempt from that question because of the context in which it was built. (Another, more famous example of this is Tobacco Road.)

I would be far more concerned that courses are so boring, expensive or take too long to play that novices would give up on golf.


Ciao