[Jeff_Brauer]

On Mother's Day Weekend, we brought my 79 year old mother in law down, and playing golf was on the schedule.  Given her age, we picked a 9 hole, par 3 course, where a 1970's era apt. complex had decided to offer golf as an amenity, also conveniently making use of the floodplain that went through their complex.  834 yards of front tee golf, nine holes, seemed the perfect venue.


Now, despite having lived within 10 miles of this place, and even passing on the chance to watch my then high school son compete there once, I had never been on the property, much less played it.  There were a lot of surprises -


First, it was well treed and very beautiful, much nicer than you would expect for a $13 golf course.  But, there were some negative surprises to us as well.


- Every hole had some form of water, with 4-5 forced carries, the rest lateral (all but two on the left side, at least).


- The first six greens were highly elevated, probably to keep them out of the floodplain, but tees had no such protection.  Nearly every hole played uphill.


-  Even if fairly level, 6 of 9 greens had 30% slopes up to them, from at least 3 sides.  My mother-in-law quit many holes to avoid the climb.


- To fit the tight property, most greens sloped 30% to the water, so many near misses ended up deep sixed.


We won't go back.  It seems that the design of the course spectacularly failed to meet its objective of a low cost, beginner and casual player, walking course.  Specifically, why build a walker's course and put mountain climbing on every hole?  And, use water and steep slopes so frequently for a course aimed at casual players?


Oddly, even though there were no carts allowed, the course did have a fairly new (or largely unused) cart path system wall to wall.  Other than for the superintendent's access, I wondered why they built that.


I recalled a 1970's Joe Finger article railing against a par 3 course he saw in a seniors complex somewhere, as it featured several over 200 yard par 3 holes.  I am sure many CCFAD courses built in the 1980-90s could be called too difficult at public courses.  Perhaps some courses making concessions to playability when built on environmentally sensitive sites.


Are there any specific courses you have played that you thought were ill suited to their purpose or the players they served?

[Tommy Williamsen]

One course comes to mind as being too difficult. It is the Norman course at PGA West. It is super narrow off the tee. I played with a couple of 18 handicaps. One of them lost a ball on at least every other hole. I realize it is PGA West, but I thought that was a bit much for a public course. I generally drive it fairly straight and I lost a couple of balls as well.

[Tom_Doak]

For starters, how about the thousands of 7000-yard courses that have never hosted a pro tournament?

[Paul Jones]

Cog Hill (Dubsdread) - too difficult for public course.  Probably say the same for Bethpage (Black) - hence the 5 hour rounds.

[Ally Mcintosh]

There have been one or two courses where I’ve watched numerous couples just walk past certain holes because they are unplayable for higher handicaps / short hitters.


One that comes to mind is the par three 17th at Irish Open venue Druid’s Glen: Just too big a water carry even off the front tees.

[Peter Pallotta]

The devil's advocate might suggest that, just as there are no set 'rules' to be followed in gca, similarly there are no pre-determined 'purposes' for a golf course to fulfill. I could argue that Jeff's course excellently serves as a place for golfers to play nine Par 3 holes for the admirably low price of $13. (Likewise, the 7,000 yard course that never hosts a pro tournament nonetheless offers amateurs the thrilling challenge of posting a good score on a 7,000 yard course.) To complain that the $13 course is 'too hard' or that the 7,000 yard course is 'too long' is merely to signal our own subjective pre-judgements & value systems, and to express our own personal assumptions about what other people want/need in a golf course. Better (and more consistent with a 'no rules' philosophy) to simply say that you yourself would design a $13 nine hole Par 3 course to play much easier than that, or that you yourself would design a non-tournament course to play much shorter than that. No?

[Tom_Doak]

The devil's advocate might suggest that, just as there are no set 'rules' to be followed in gca, similarly there are no pre-determined 'purposes' for a golf course to fulfill. I could argue that Jeff's course excellently serves as a place for golfers to play nine Par 3 holes for the admirably low price of $13. (Likewise, the 7,000 yard course that never hosts a pro tournament nonetheless offers amateurs the thrilling challenge of posting a good score on a 7,000 yard course.) To complain that the $13 course is 'too hard' or that the 7,000 yard course is 'too long' is merely to signal our own subjective pre-judgements & value systems, and to express our own personal assumptions about what other people want/need in a golf course. Better (and more consistent with a 'no rules' philosophy) to simply say that you yourself would design a $13 nine hole Par 3 course to play much easier than that, or that you yourself would design a non-tournament course to play much shorter than that. No?

Peter:


I suppose.  Jeff and I are talking from the perspective of having clients, who usually DO have some particular purpose or goals in mind; but you are right that our biases have crept into how we would interpret those requests. 


Many clients in fact have demanded 7000 yard courses from their designers because they think it is marketable as such - but I do think thete are also many of them where the client did not ask for it but the designer thought it a prerequisite for a "good" course even though very few of the customers ever want to play at that length.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom, I'm sure you're right on all counts, as is Jeff. What is striking to me (and why I play devil's advocate) is that this 9 hole course that has in one sense 'failed spectacularly' has in fact continued to survive for over half a century! And, while 7,000+ yard courses are in one sense totally unnecessary, the fact that so many of them have been and continue to be built suggests the opposite, ie that they are meeting some real need/want and fulfilling some specific purpose, however unclear those may be to me.
I'd like to play neither that Par 3 course Jeff mentions nor any 7000 yard course you'd be thinking of -- and yet countless golfers seemingly do want to play them. Which is to say, with Hamlet, that there are more things in heaven and earth golf courses than are dreamt up in my philosophy!

[Phil Burr]

We often discuss the huge differences between professional play and everyday amateur play.  In this vein, perhaps any PGA Tour host course that wasn't built by the tour for the expressed purpose of hosting a pro event is trying to answer to two masters and is probably not ideally suited to one of them.  If I joined a club because I wanted to play it as my home course, I would not select a club that hosts a PGA event because I wouldn't want to give up access to the course so a bunch of fans could spend a week ripping it apart.  And since the pros go super-low on most courses, perhaps I wouldn't want to see my beloved home course lit up like that (or perhaps it would just be a reminder of how far my 8-handicap game really is from being good).  Likewise, I can't imagine wanting to be a member at a TPC, as I can't think of one where spectator considerations don't play a compromising factor in the design.  We'll know the course rating panels have really hit rock bottom when they start factoring spectator friendliness into their scoring.

[Mark Smolens]

Cog Hill (Dubsdread) - too difficult for public course.  Probably say the same for Bethpage (Black) - hence the 5 hour rounds.

There are four courses in the complex at Cog Hill. Mr. Jemsek built #4, Dubsdread, to be a course comparable in terms of difficulty and conditioning to the tonier private courses in the Chicago district, with the potential for hosting major events. Two US Ams and multiple Western Opens later, I believe it fair to say that Dubsdread was completely suited to its purpose for the owner and the players it was intended to serve. No, it's not a course that Jeff could take his mother-in-law to play. But if you think you're good enough to play a course that saw Tiger win there five times, then plunk your credit card down and have at it.


If it's too hard for you, don't play there. The first tee to the #2 course is a pitching wedge away from Dubs' first tee, and there are two more courses located across the parking lot!

[JeffTodd]

Taking a shot in the dark.... Timberlinks?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom, I'm sure you're right on all counts, as is Jeff. What is striking to me (and why I play devil's advocate) is that this 9 hole course that has in one sense 'failed spectacularly' has in fact continued to survive for over half a century! And, while 7,000+ yard courses are in one sense totally unnecessary, the fact that so many of them have been and continue to be built suggests the opposite, ie that they are meeting some real need/want and fulfilling some specific purpose, however unclear those may be to me.
I'd like to play neither that Par 3 course Jeff mentions nor any 7000 yard course you'd be thinking of -- and yet countless golfers seemingly do want to play them. Which is to say, with Hamlet, that there are more things in heaven and earth golf courses than are dreamt up in my philosophy!

Peter, we agree that a course that tries to serve all comers probably serves all comers less than perfectly in order to accomodate the others.  Most owner's have tried to broaden their horizons and potential customer base that way.  I have always advocated for bifurcating golf courses, not equipment, or as Tom also suggested, why build 7200 yards for the 1% that will play those back tees, especially in the future when every acre of irrigated turf may be paid for dearly.


I guess you are correct that it cannot have failed spectacularly if it has survived.  I think my perspective was skewed by playing with a 79 year old woman.  There is an old saying that you can build a course that everyone can play, from Tour Pro to Grandma.  Maybe, but grandma certainly isn't going to walk and play a hilly course, no matter how easy.

[Forrest Richardson]

RTJ Sr. did a course in El Dorado Hills, CA that I found perplexing...toughest "Executive" I ever say. 230 yard par-3s, 450-yard par4s and then every so often a shortish hole wedged between ball busters. I could never figure out who it was for?? Gone now.

[Phil Burr]

Having grown up as a junior player in Sacramento, I remember El Dorado Hills well.  If its stated purpose was to make the better junior players in Sacramento look like total chops at their annual 36 hole junior golf tournament, then the course was ideally suited for its purpose.

[Jason Topp]

One resort in Michigan I visited had 3-4 courses.  The newer ones were cartball courses with fantastic viewers, forced carries and awkward land. 


The original course was 6300 yards and a good if not great golden age layout by Bill Diddell if memory serves.  It had wonderful undulating land, interesting greens and was both playable and interesting for all.


My visit was about ten years ago.  At least in those tough economic times, the original course offered foot golf with giant holes cut in the greens to accommodate soccer balls.  There were not many people playing golf or foot golf at the height of summer.  The others were packed with carts. 


Maybe the owners knew what they were doing with the other courses.  I am not sure I am the best judge of what type of design serves resort clients the best. 

[John Emerson]

For starters, how about the thousands of 7000-yard courses that have never hosted a pro tournament?

Winner!

[Phil Burr]

Or the 8000-yarders that never will!

[Chris Clouser]

There is a place in Crown Point, Indiana that has four nine hole sets.  Three of them are great for public golf.  The fourth was terrible.  Long forced carries on every hole, many of the landing zones were blind behind brush with approaches to the greens nearly impossible unless you hit your tee shot in the middle of the fairway.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Chris,


Sand Creek?  I worked on the original course with Killian and Nugent way back when, but they brought in C. Maddox (I think) for the second course, if this is the one you are talking about. 


Sand Creek was mostly a Ken Killian course, and it showed his artistry more than any other KN course, IMHO.  I always loved that place back in the day.

[Pat Burke]

For starters, how about the thousands of 7000-yard courses that have never hosted a pro tournament?

Or the number of very nice courses that squeezed length wherever they could due to the distances they saw players on tv hitting it

[Ira Fishman]

I found PH8 to be ill suited to its purpose of being complimentary to, but more “resort friendly”, than PH2. It was quite noticeable how many staff at PH made some comment along the line that people found PH8 to be their favorite course. Not Sheryl or I. The green complexes had none of the puzzles or fun of PH2, and many were downright penal. There were some very good individual holes, but the layout overall was awkward and uninspiring.


Ira

[Chris Clouser]

Jeff,


Nope.  Not Sand Creek.  [size=78%]I haven't seen Sand Creek since they completed the last reno.  They were undergoing one when I wrote my Indiana golf book.  Never got back up there to see the final product. [/size]
[/size]
[/size][size=78%]It is White Hawk.   The bad part was that three of the nine hole loops were really good for public golf.  The other loop was built for low handicappers who could carry 200 off the tee on every tee shot it seemed.[/size]

[Cliff Hamm]

Any resort course that is not golf only and has a very difficult golf course. Primland comes to mind. From a tee that plays 6013 yards the course rating is 70.5 with a slope of 139.

[Ira Fishman]

Any resort course that is not golf only and has a very difficult golf course. Primland comes to mind. From a tee that plays 6013 yards the course rating is 70.5 with a slope of 139.

My wife and I really like Primland. Neither of us are good golfers, but we have never had any problems navigating the course. And we have played several times. It is one of our favorite places.


Ira

[Mike_Trenham]

The original layout of UVA’s Birdwood was not designed with walking as a priority.[size=78%]  It was walkable but a real hike. I would say a modest majority of students rode.[/size]
[/size]
[/size]
[/size][size=78%]The new routing by DL3 seems to be a great improvement from what I’ve seen in pictures.[/size]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()