[Tim Gallant]

Over the last couple of weeks, I’ve been intrigued by the idea of designing courses for one specific type of player vs. playability for all. On the surface, it seems mad that one would design a course that contradicts a lot of what the old masters taught, which was to ensure the maximum pleasure for the maximum amount of golfers.

Following the ‘dark-ages’ of course design, which focused too heavily on ‘championship golf’ and in essence designing courses for one type of player, it would seem crazy to even revisit this notion. But in my opinion, the theory of designing for one type of golfer or audience can work. The watch-out is to ensure that the one type of player that a course is designed for, is not always the same (i.e. high caliber players).

A few quotes that I found interesting over the past few days/weeks:

‘Golf developers should be looking to create their own niche and appeal to a certain segment, rather than trying to appeal to everyone.  Mike Keiser did that prominently by catering to golfers who prefer to walk, but you could also try to appeal to other segments if you wanted -- courses for low handicappers, courses for women, courses for a younger generation, etc.  There are a few courses killing it right now because they've declared their niche and started to identify their natural customers, but most are failing precisely because they're afraid to do that.’ - Tom Doak

A few from the Latest Tourist Sauce Episode on Tobacco Road

‘I don’t care if people think my courses are too hard.’ - Mike Strantz

‘It (Tobacco Road) doesn’t appeal to everyone and I think Mike knew that and I don’t think…he wouldn’t want to build something that appealed to everyone because then it’s not that good.’ - Morgan Stephenson, Tobacco Road Superintendent

‘There was no demand for another, as we call it, fair yet challenging test for every level of golfer. There’s 16,000 of those in America right now and if that’s what you’re looking for, you can find that. But again, there’s no identity there, you can’t sell that there’s nothing memorable or unique about that experience.’ Mark Stewart, Co-Owner Tobacco Road

I also saw Ran's 'Design a Golf Hole' on Golf.com and admired his willingness to call out the fact that many holes have too many tee boxes, and therefore, opted for a design that had two. 

Taking the above onboard, I also really enjoyed reading Keith Cutten’s The Evolution of Golf Course Design, where he looked at what was happening in the world, and related how that might have influenced the progression of golf design philosophy over the past 150 years.

If I think about some macro-trends that we are seeing in the world at the moment, it is that of personalisation and authenticity. Around the world, we are (on the whole), placing more emphasis on experiences over goods and possessions. We are opting for small and bespoke over large and cookie-cutter. Look at the rise of Airbnb, and the fall of massive chain hotels as one example.

We crave authenticity in our experiences, and driven by digital innovation, seek personalised, tailored experiences that are unique and memorable.

Reviewing the above, do we feel we should evolve from challenging but playable for all, and move towards more unique golf courses that primarily cater for one or two groups of players? Should we be considering courses that are only designed for shorter hitters, disabled golfers, professional players, etc? Is it enough to build one set of tees and know that it likely won't be everything to everyone, but it will be something to someone?

Is it good in theory, but can’t work from an economic perspective unless it’s a private course (as in one owner)?

And what are the biggest challenges to overcome to get these types of projects off the ground? Is it the developer?

[Don Mahaffey]

Are you sure the "old masters" really were trying for max pleasure for max golfers?
If there is one thing I've learned in golf it's we often don't really know what golfers want.
What I think the majority want is something interesting, and the idea that you dumb it down for a muni or entry level players is  wrong IMO. Yes it has to be playable, and you want to avoid hazards with no recovery options, but keep it bold and interesting and golfers seem interested. If anything, it seems the guys who compete and are very concerned with score are the ones who want it straight forward and totally predictable.

[Peter Pallotta]

"We crave authenticity in our experiences, and driven by digital innovation, seek personalised, tailored experiences that are unique and memorable."

Tim - good post, good questions. I was struck by that line most. I think that in the coming years the most meaningful bifurcation will not be in equipment but in experience. Some will want ever-more personalized and 'authentic' and bespoke (and exclusive) experiences, while others will/must gravitate to the most collective & common of experiences. And it will be the difference, mostly, between those who primarily value the golf course (unique, far flung, exceptional) and those who primarily value the game (playing it as often and as inexpensively as possible).

[Bernie Bell]

It's an interesting thought experiment, but isn't it hard to see from today's vantage point that many start-from-scratch projects of any sort will be getting off the ground any time soon?  Especially a project that's niche by design?  I agree with Peter's take.  In a stripped down world on the other side, what yesterday was seen by some as authentic, unique and memorable may come to be seen as precious affectations.  "Mere surplusage," as some older lawyers still say.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I was quoted somewhere as saying it was time to "bifurcate golf courses."  I don't recall any discussion here, but I was given quite a horse whipping over in Max's Lounge! A few thought it was just a poor choice of words, given their allegiance to bifurcating equipment, but I thought the comparison was apt.



I have been advocating it for years.  We have enough tour level courses.  Designate those with some new moniker and split all other courses into the existing "championship" or "recreational (and/or other) categories as a potential guide to golfers (would rank much lower now than when I first suggested it with all the info available on the net)  Could include secondary classifications to further describe course intent, like the Classic and Modern nameplates, restored, Avant Garde, minimalist, whatever, but I doubt owner's would accept a negative connotation, i.e., easy, dog track, etc.


And, I still think it makes sense.  In the 1950's broad menu restaurants were popular under the "something for everyone" mantra.  Now, few eat at those kind of places, favoring specialty restaurants.  One size fits all clothing never made any fashion sense.  So, why hasn't the golf market evolved out of everyone playing "7,000 yard championship courses?"  Actually, I think it has.  I know many senior men who won't play a course without a sub 6,000 yard option, no matter how many tees behind them they have to drive by..….but so far, operators have been reluctant to take out those back tees that hardly anyone plays to max out the course at 6800 yards or so.  I think some have, and more will.

I think one of the first things I was told when I got into gca was, "The world has enough tough courses already."

[Thomas Dai]

..... it seems the guys who compete and are very concerned with score are the ones who want it straight forward and totally predictable.

+1
And what's kind of surprising is that those at the top level are the exact skill set of players who would achieve better results in competition with the less skilled, even the very slightly less skilled, were they to play on less straight forward and less predictable courses.
atb

[Mark Pearce]

Are you sure the "old masters" really were trying for max pleasure for max golfers?
If there is one thing I've learned in golf it's we often don't really know what golfers want.
What I think the majority want is something interesting, and the idea that you dumb it down for a muni or entry level players is  wrong IMO. Yes it has to be playable, and you want to avoid hazards with no recovery options, but keep it bold and interesting and golfers seem interested. If anything, it seems the guys who compete and are very concerned with score are the ones who want it straight forward and totally predictable.

Some of my most enjoyable rounds of golf have been on hard golf courses.  I love my games at Elie and Crail but I love Muirfield, loved my game at Carnoustie and having shot more than 100 at Wolf Run went back out again.  But all of those, easy or hard, have in common that a mid-teens handicapper can get a ball round.

[Tim Gallant]

Are you sure the "old masters" really were trying for max pleasure for max golfers?
If there is one thing I've learned in golf it's we often don't really know what golfers want.
What I think the majority want is something interesting, and the idea that you dumb it down for a muni or entry level players is  wrong IMO. Yes it has to be playable, and you want to avoid hazards with no recovery options, but keep it bold and interesting and golfers seem interested. If anything, it seems the guys who compete and are very concerned with score are the ones who want it straight forward and totally predictable.

Don,


I was largely thinking of Mackenzie, who, in Spirit of St A's said 'I do not consider any course ideal unless it is pleasurable for every conceivable class of golfer.' Page 163.


I think your point is valid in terms of what most want - but if you were to design a course for just one type of player (say juniors) - would you design something different to what you would if you knew all types of players were going to be playing the course? And do you think it's worthwhile to have these sorts of courses?


It's difficult because you could say that a place like the Cradle @ Pinehurst is well suited for junior golfers, and yet, most would likely have fun playing it every day. So where do we draw the line?

[Ira Fishman]

Has anyone done/seen an analysis of the courses that have opened in past 20 years or so. We know some of the big name successes. But what about the less well known? Any common themes among why they have succeeded or at least survived? How did they define their target audience?


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

Don,

I was largely thinking of Mackenzie, who, in Spirit of St A's said 'I do not consider any course ideal unless it is pleasurable for every conceivable class of golfer.' Page 163.

Yes, but are you thinking that Mackenzie believed that all courses should be ideal?  Because he didn't say that.  He tried to rationalize the carry [to the left] on the 16th at Cypress Point as not being too difficult for the weak player and that they could always play around the path, but he built the hole.


Let me put it another way: 


The Loop has a ton of fairway area so it can be played reversibly and still have short grass leading into the greens from either direction.  That's one, extreme definition of "ideal".  But if you weren't interested in playing it backwards, and you only wanted to accommodate players who were single-digit handicaps, you could take out 175 yards of fairway on nearly every hole and maintain far less turf -- which is another, extreme definition of "ideal" from an environmental standpoint.


If you do the latter, you're going to need to do other things that impress those single-digit guys, because you're relying entirely on them.  But Pine Valley is like that.  Given the right ground, surely you could build a course in Palm Springs or outside Minneapolis that was like Pine Valley, and find enough members to make it work, as long as you built a course that had a bunch of great holes.


The old saying is "horses for courses".  But it's also possible to turn it around.

[Sean_A]

I don't think it actually requires very different courses to satisfy different player types and desires...except for top players and those who want to act like top players. In which case, plenty of those type courses already exist. I think if women became the focus this would essentially accommodate most male golfers and junior golfers. It's just that many males don't know it yet.

Ciao

[Mike Bodo]

Let me put it another way: 

The Loop has a ton of fairway area so it can be played reversibly and still have short grass leading into the greens from either direction.  That's one, extreme definition of "ideal".  But if you weren't interested in playing it backwards, and you only wanted to accommodate players who were single-digit handicaps, you could take out 175 yards of fairway on nearly every hole and maintain far less turf -- which is another, extreme definition of "ideal" from an environmental standpoint.

Tom, I had the pleasure of playing the Loop (Black) with my brother last July and had a blast! While the fairways are plenty wide, being on the correct side of the fairway in relation to the pin position on the greens is critical. If you're on the wrong side of the fairway, your approach can be a bear. That said, I found the course to be very fair and playable and enjoyed not teeing from from traditional tee boxes. It was the most fun round of golf I had last year. Is that course for everyone? Probably not, but it can challenge the low-handicapper equally as it does the mid-handicapper if the wind is up and the pin positions only accessible to the better players. To me, that's true calling card of a great course. If I want to go get beat up I'll play Arcadia Buffs. But if I want to be challenged and have fun in the process, I'll take the Loop any day.

[Tim Gallant]

Don,

I was largely thinking of Mackenzie, who, in Spirit of St A's said 'I do not consider any course ideal unless it is pleasurable for every conceivable class of golfer.' Page 163.

Given the right ground, surely you could build a course in Palm Springs or outside Minneapolis that was like Pine Valley, and find enough members to make it work, as long as you built a course that had a bunch of great holes.

Thanks Tom! I never thought about the whether Mackenzie thought every course should be ideal or not, but appreciate your point on the 16th. Even with his principles, I believe he thought of them more as guidelines, as opposed to something that needed to be followed rigorously.


On your quote above, I'd be interested to know if you thought that doing something like the above would yield different ideas / courses / holes than one might otherwise produce if one were to put playability for all as the 'ideal'?

[Tim Gallant]

Let me put it another way: 

The Loop has a ton of fairway area so it can be played reversibly and still have short grass leading into the greens from either direction.  That's one, extreme definition of "ideal".  But if you weren't interested in playing it backwards, and you only wanted to accommodate players who were single-digit handicaps, you could take out 175 yards of fairway on nearly every hole and maintain far less turf -- which is another, extreme definition of "ideal" from an environmental standpoint.

Is that course for everyone? Probably not, but it can challenge the low-handicapper equally as it does the mid-handicapper if the wind is up and the pin positions only accessible to the better players.

Mike - great to hear your experience of the Loop! It makes me long for the golf course while under stay at home orders! 


I'm curious if your comment above - do you mean, it just might not be everyone's cup of tea due to its design, or that it there are certain types of players that just wouldn't have a good time on the course?

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:  If you change the assumptions you are working under, and you have an open mind, it can drastically change the style of course you build.


Case in point:  the revamped Memorial Park in Houston.


It was a flat course that didn't drain well, and our two primary users were A) 60,000 annual rounds by the locals and B) PGA TOUR players in the new Houston Open.  If you just look at (A) and (B) you'd probably assume that I'd want this to be an "ideal course for all classes of players," and it would look a lot like what I've been building everywhere else.


Instead, we thought very hard about hosting a PGA TOUR event in a rainy climate.  So:


1.  We not only contoured the fairways so they'd drain, we sand capped them, which I never do otherwise because of expense.


2.  The TOUR's biggest concern in a rainy place is being able to get the course ready after a big rain and get a full field around it.  The biggest headache in that is fixing all of the washouts in bunkers.  So, I asked Brooks Koepka if he would mind if the course didn't have any bunkers, and he said no, he didn't really worry about bunkers anyway, and they were way more of a problem for the municipal players than for TOUR pros.  So, we wound up building a course with only 19 bunkers.


3.  If I built greens with more than 2% slope in the pin placement areas, the TOUR would not use those, so I didn't, even though that's the best way to challenge elite players.


4.  Brooks's most important input was that we should try to make the course exciting for the fans, rather than worrying about defending par for the pros.  He was focused right from the start on the last 5-6 holes and how they would accommodate lead changes and excitement.  So:  lots of half-par holes, more severity around those greens, more water in play than I would ever contemplate.  I even dug an artificial stream!  [In my defense, it replaced a pond that no TOUR player would ever hit into.]




I'm not saying this is a new ideal for design, or that my next course is only going to have 15 bunkers.  If it's at Sand Valley there will likely be sand everywhere you look, so you don't lose a ball in the sedge grasses; if it's on that resort in northern California, it might have zero bunkers. 


All I'm trying to say is if you start from a different place, and change some of your assumptions, it should change what you're doing a lot.  The only reason it doesn't is because most designers think the clients are buying their brand and their signature style, and because it's much easier to just keep putting out clones than to think outside the box [and rethink how the box is built] on every single project.  Even some of my associates have complained that thinking so differently about each site makes the process harder than it needs to be, though those aren't so much the guys who are running the projects for me nowadays.   

[Mike Bodo]

Mike - great to hear your experience of the Loop! It makes me long for the golf course while under stay at home orders! 


I'm curious if your comment above - do you mean, it just might not be everyone's cup of tea due to its design, or that it there are certain types of players that just wouldn't have a good time on the course?

Tim, I know a number of fellow golfers that don't care for the Loop. They find it odd and quirky and don't necessarily care for the reverse playability of it and or lack of formal tees. It's a course that you either love or hate. I've yet to meet anyone that said, "yeah, it's just okay." LOL! But that's where I give TD a ton of props by not playing it safe. On any of his courses, really. Who wants to be mediocre? That said, I love the concept of The Loop and would love to see reversible courses adopted elsewhere if done correctly. Therein lies the key.

[Tom_Doak]

Tim, I know a number of fellow golfers that don't care for the Loop. They find it odd and quirky and don't necessarily care for the reverse playability of it and or lack of formal tees. It's a course that you either love or hate. I've yet to meet anyone that said, "yeah, it's just okay." LOL! But that's where I give TD a ton of props by not playing it safe. On any of his courses, really. Who wants to be mediocre? That said, I love the concept of The Loop and would love to see reversible courses adopted elsewhere if done correctly. Therein lies the key.

Mike:


I'm fine if some people don't like the course and I know they don't, but I'm curious if the guys you are talking about had their minds made up before they teed off, because they consider the concept a gimmick? 


I don't think there are very many features on the course that are much different than on other courses I've built.  I'm curious to hear what if anything stuck out to them as quirky.  Some it certainly looks odd, but that's because of all the short grass coming from the other direction!

[Tim Gallant]

Mike - great to hear your experience of the Loop! It makes me long for the golf course while under stay at home orders! 


I'm curious if your comment above - do you mean, it just might not be everyone's cup of tea due to its design, or that it there are certain types of players that just wouldn't have a good time on the course?

Tim, I know a number of fellow golfers that don't care for the Loop. They find it odd and quirky and don't necessarily care for the reverse playability of it and or lack of formal tees. It's a course that you either love or hate. I've yet to meet anyone that said, "yeah, it's just okay." LOL! But that's where I give TD a ton of props by not playing it safe. On any of his courses, really. Who wants to be mediocre? That said, I love the concept of The Loop and would love to see reversible courses adopted elsewhere if done correctly. Therein lies the key.

I think that's really insightful, and what I was hoping to get to in terms of trying something different (possibly spurred on by having only one type of client in mind), and therefore, not playing it safe!


In the case of The Loop (and Tom, please step in if I'm incorrect), but I believe I heard/read that one of the main reasons another course was built was to increase golfers staying on property. So with a challenge in hand - getting retail golfers to stay longer - an idea (to build a reversible course) was born and while it may not appeal to everyone, it is fantastic for some.


I think there are some other modern examples but this is a very good one.

[Tim Gallant]

I have been advocating it for years.  We have enough tour level courses.  Designate those with some new moniker and split all other courses into the existing "championship" or "recreational (and/or other) categories as a potential guide to golfers (would rank much lower now than when I first suggested it with all the info available on the net)  Could include secondary classifications to further describe course intent, like the Classic and Modern nameplates, restored, Avant Garde, minimalist, whatever, but I doubt owner's would accept a negative connotation, i.e., easy, dog track, etc.

I am laughing out loud thinking of an award hanging in the pro shop of a course in Maryland 'Rated #1 dog track in the Mid-Atlantic'!!

[Mike Bodo]

Mike:

I'm fine if some people don't like the course and I know they don't, but I'm curious if the guys you are talking about had their minds made up before they teed off, because they consider the concept a gimmick? 

I don't think there are very many features on the course that are much different than on other courses I've built.  I'm curious to hear what if anything stuck out to them as quirky.  Some it certainly looks odd, but that's because of all the short grass coming from the other direction!

TD, when I was a member at Western there were a few members that had talked about their experience playing both The Loop and Forest Dunes that didn't care for The Loop for the aforementioned reasons. Either they felt the concept was contrived or simply didn't care for the layout. Forest Dunes, on the other hand, was more their cup of tea. Yet, there were more members who loved The Loop and have played both the Black and Red and had nothing but glowing remarks. A good number of them make a point to stop in Rosscommon each summer on an Up North golfing excursion to play it each year. I finally decided to check it out myself last summer during 4th of July week to see what the deal was and I had the greatest time. It was links style golf with an Up North feel using a non-traditional course setup. I loved the fact that the tees can be placed anywhere. Finding them was a challenge sometimes (LOL!), but I simply loved the randomness of everything. It was a departure from anything I had been accustomed to and that intrigued me. The only thing I didn't care for were the darn black flies!! I had some nice bite marks from my round, but it was well worth the blood that was drawn! 

[Peter Pallotta]

"All I'm trying to say is if you start from a different place, and change some of your assumptions, it should change what you're doing a lot.  The only reason it doesn't is because most designers think the clients are buying their brand and their signature style, and because it's much easier to just keep putting out clones than to think outside the box [and rethink how the box is built] on every single project."

This was really good, and, as always, very clear.
And not to put words in your mouth, but what I took from it is this:
There is 'theory' and 'practice'  -- but in good gca, it's all about the *practice*.

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()