[Thomas Dai]

How to design for the highly skilled while letting everyone else just play ....

This thread title is taken from a suggestion made in reply 37 by Carl Rogers on another thread - see -https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,69926.msg1680661.html#new - to which Jeff Brauer responded with -

Somewhere I have posted a story I have retold many times about the gca playing the course with members during a master plan, finding a short par 5, and recommending it be toughened up.  Then, he birdied the hole, high fives all around, and it dawned on him....I (and by extension, many if not all golfers) love birdies, so why would we design to prevent them?

That said, your thread idea is a good one, which I would tend to answer in philosophical ways, while others would just give random examples.  I did sort of lay out a theory above, based on designing features that don't kill the average golfer, while providing challenge to the better players.

Examples include avoiding:-
Forced carries, which kill the average golfer and don't trouble those who don't top shots regularly.
Narrow play corridors
Wild greens (although gently rolling is just fine, and if we believe conventional wisdom, may bother better players more than average ones.)
Small greens.-
Excessive sand bunkers, especially in high play areas by C players, i.e., front right of green-Deep rough and native areas (it takes strength to get out of those)
-Penal targets (i.e., only one way to play that requires negotiation of hazards listed above.

Maintenance items to be considered are items that can change fairly easily for competitive events, like green speed and rough heights, while remaining playable every day. 
Corridor width, forced carries and excessive bunkering will remain.

That is the kind of balance most courses and architects seem to shoot for.

Thoughts?

And links to previous threads where this has been discussed.
Atb

PS - how about akin to TOC but with re-calibrated golf balls?

[Ken Moum]

There's a reason you see a lot of Royal Dornoch members at Golspie...     I've said for years that Golspie is where RDC members go when they want to have fun. (Mostly, but not entirely, tongue in cheek) RDC is clearly a great course, but is asks so many questions that an average golfer simply cannot answer, it can be a slog.


It's why I love Brora.


And, in reference to you final PS, TOC is just fine from the regular tees for almost everyone who plays it.


An aside about RDC, the last time my wife and I played it, she finished the round and was not a happy camper about how she played the second nine.  I asked her, "You do realize that there are FIVE par fives for women on the back nine, don't you?"


How many men would think a course with that many pars fives in nine holes was a fun day out?


I'll play courses like Royal Dornoch whenever I can, but as an everyday course it's simply too much for me.

[Carl Rogers]

I was thinking about holes where if optimal positioning was not achieved, the golfer might have an awkward stance, poor sightlines, irregular turf, or otherwise small targets that frustrates the straight forward shot.


Of course, the plus 5 golfer can make a spectacular shot or a long multi-breaking putt.


The test for this would be, let's say, after 7 holes, the mini tour player scratches the head wondering why the scorecard reads even par .... and the 13 handicapper thinks the course is playable, fun & interesting.

[Tom_Doak]

The one thing in Jeff’s list where I totally disagree is - unsurprisingly - wild greens.


A wild green doesn’t necessarily make the hole harder.  Some portions of it may gather shots and lead to MORE birdies, while at the same time leaving very difficult putts for someone in the wrong place.  The 13th at Barnbougle is a great example of that.


The wild contours might also help the weak player stop his approach shot.


There is everything to be said for a hole which produces more birdies AND more bogeys and “others”, especially if they don’t always go to the most likely suspects.

[jeffwarne]

sloped, lay of land greens where angles matter
green speeds that allow/encourage/highlight such slope
Corridors that are widish that encourage taking advantage of preferred angles
a few hazards that can be avoided  by playing wide, tacked around or taken on to create strategy(streams, OB, Native grass marked as hazard) Not on both sides.
Limited use of distinctive bunkers that are hazards that need to be considered preferably cut into attractive landforms for maximum visual effect.
Mown rough/native areas except where OCCASIONALLY impacting strategy and marked as hazard.
Fairways NOT mown so tight that contact is uncertain(which eliminates confident and creative shotmaking except for the highly skilled), and high enough that balls end up in uneven lies IN the fairway, not stopped by or against the friction of the rough


St. Andrews fits this bill(as does Goat Hill), but many, many types of courses could as well

[Peter Pallotta]

A pro might average 28 putts per round plus 40 'other strokes' for a 68. A low to mid handicapper might take 32 putts per round plus another 50 strokes for an 82. A high handicapper might average 36-40 putts per round, plus another 60 strokes and come in with 100. The difference between the best golfers and the worst golfers is about 10 putts per round, but also about 20 'other strokes' per round. So: don't increase the disparity, and try where you can to decrease it a little. Design such that the very good players have to hit a few more putts, while the very poor players still don't have to take more than 60 'other strokes'.

[Sean_A]

How to design for the highly skilled while letting everyone else just play ....

This thread title is taken from a suggestion made in reply 37 by Carl Rogers on another thread - see -https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,69926.msg1680661.html#new - to which Jeff Brauer responded with -

Somewhere I have posted a story I have retold many times about the gca playing the course with members during a master plan, finding a short par 5, and recommending it be toughened up.  Then, he birdied the hole, high fives all around, and it dawned on him....I (and by extension, many if not all golfers) love birdies, so why would we design to prevent them?

That said, your thread idea is a good one, which I would tend to answer in philosophical ways, while others would just give random examples.  I did sort of lay out a theory above, based on designing features that don't kill the average golfer, while providing challenge to the better players.

Examples include avoiding:-
Forced carries, which kill the average golfer and don't trouble those who don't top shots regularly.
Narrow play corridors
Wild greens (although gently rolling is just fine, and if we believe conventional wisdom, may bother better players more than average ones.)
Small greens.-
Excessive sand bunkers, especially in high play areas by C players, i.e., front right of green-Deep rough and native areas (it takes strength to get out of those)
-Penal targets (i.e., only one way to play that requires negotiation of hazards listed above.

Maintenance items to be considered are items that can change fairly easily for competitive events, like green speed and rough heights, while remaining playable every day. 
Corridor width, forced carries and excessive bunkering will remain.

That is the kind of balance most courses and architects seem to shoot for.

Thoughts?

And links to previous threads where this has been discussed.
Atb

PS - how about akin to TOC but with re-calibrated golf balls?

There are many examples scattered about the UK. It ain't rocket science.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

There are many examples scattered about the UK. It ain't rocket science.

Ciao

The main advantage of courses in the UK is the closeness of greens and tees [because the courses weren't built for buggies] and the fast-running fairways.  As I mentioned on the Ballyneal thread, the rollout on tight fairways does more good for the shortest hitters than for any other golfer.

[Jeff_Brauer]

The one thing in Jeff’s list where I totally disagree is - unsurprisingly - wild greens.


A wild green doesn’t necessarily make the hole harder.  Some portions of it may gather shots and lead to MORE birdies, while at the same time leaving very difficult putts for someone in the wrong place.  The 13th at Barnbougle is a great example of that.


The wild contours might also help the weak player stop his approach shot.


There is everything to be said for a hole which produces more birdies AND more bogeys and “others”, especially if they don’t always go to the most likely suspects.

TD,


Even as I typed that, I realized I was thinking as much of pace of play as difficulty.  A 4% green average slope is more likely to have the average player's first putt miss (if it's going to, which is likely) by 6-10 feet vs. 2-3 feet typically for a flatter green.  And as noted above, putting is such a big part of the game, it's hard to believe making that element more difficult is going to make a course easier for Joe 6 pack. 


Yes, dramatic green contours can help to get the approach shot closer to the hole, which great players use often.  This is another area where our thought processes are clearly different - I look at average play stats and data, while you often find individual examples to justify certain design features.  Both are true, of course, but the statistical averages, IMHO, are truer more of the time, LOL>


As in, steep contours often work the other way as well, i.e., a steep tier guarding a pin position which makes a shot just 10 feet short of the pin, pinball it's way a lot further out.  Statistically, average golfers can barely hit many greens (although the wild ones would tend to be bigger) much less a certain small part of a green to use the contours.  On balance, I do believe steep contours (like almost any other challenge that cannot be changed, i.e., green speed, mowing heights) hurt the average golfer 4x over the low handicapper/scratch player.


This brings me to another option I didn't list in the post that the OP quotes - most greens with a fairway run up area, adequate in width and depth, and wih fewer hazards, combined with one well guarded 'Sunday Pin" location.  Again, we have to presume the course setup balances the difficulties of pin positions, like 3 each easy, medium, and hard, on most days.  If an event comes up focusing on either lower handicap players or a championship, they can choose to use more difficult pin locations for the day.  Most of my greens were of this type, with only scattered examples of precision approach greens, (i.e., smallish), multi tier greens, or even overall wildly contoured greens.


BTW, conceptually, I still go back and forth on how to contour the Sunday Pin area - wild to make the birdie particularly hard, or flatter to reward the successfully close approach shot? 

[Thomas Dai]

Green size and contours.
One of the most revered of all putting surfaces is the Himalayas at St Andrews, aka the St Andrews Ladies Putting Club. And it’s full of physically weaker, less skilled players, of all ages including the very young and the very old of both genders.
While those who are physically weaker and less skilled, of all ages including the very young and the very old of both genders, might not be able to hit golf balls very far or out of long grass or over trees and forced carries etc they are able to putt. And given the popularity of the Himalayas, aka the St Andrews Ladies Putting Club, they seem quite happy to putt over severely contoured large putting surfaces.
Just a thought.
Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Yes, in theory, negotiating green contours doesn't reflect any need for strength, and is a nice way to balance challenges.  I'm not sure large greens and long putting is any easier than chipping for average players, but it probably is from both the hitting the green and the total number of shots to hole out from any distance, i.e., a 40 foot putt vs a 40 foot chip is probably a few tenths of a stroke easier on average.


Also, fw chipping areas rather than deep rough around the green and/or sand bunkers. 


That said, I think most C and D players prefer playing the ball when it sits on a bit of fluff, not a tight lie. This leads to another thought - higher cuts for the fairways, which reduce spin for better players and give confidence to average ones.  Can bluegrass fairways be making a comeback? 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Here is the full list of design features I tend to use to keep play reasonable for average players and allow, at least with temporary conditions, a full test for better players.  Even with everyday conditions, pin placements hopefully bring a challenge, while C and D players can wisely choose to hit the middles of greens and fairways.  Apologies for the formatting as I cut and paste in from word.  And, additions are welcomed.
Tees and Length -Proportionally distanced tees to get all golfers into a similar club for approach shots to top players.
-Consider realistic cross slopes in LZ, forced carries and layup needs from more forward tees carefully.
-Reduce angles of doglegs via tee placement to outside of hole.

- If detention ponds or native areas off the tee are required by design, situate tees where only the back one or two tees require that forced carry.
 Fairway -At least 35 yards wide, to keep at least 2/3 of C players in play.
-Consider higher cuts, C players prefer fluffy lies, A players hate it because it reduces spin.
 Rough -Recommend as short a cut as possible (1.5-2”, just enough for contrast)
 Corridor Width -At least 63 yards wide, or more, 3 of 4 D players in play. 
-BTW, if you can afford the extra row of sprinklers, it takes:
-75 yards wide to keep 80% of D players in play (split 40R-35L)
-86 yards wide to keep 90% of D players in play (split 48R-38L yards to right)
-A players will automatically use drivers at 68 yard wide play corridor, because they hit that 99% of the time)  Corridors of 63-66 yards wide keep them on their toes and hold in 75-80% of D players.
-No fairway sand bunkers < 180 yards from green, as C and D players can’t reach green anyway.
-Minimal use of heavy trees, native grasses, etc. along fairway corridor.
 Green Size -At least 15% of expected approach shot length for width
-At least 20% of expected approach shot length for depth
(If I presume a large percentage of approach shots will come from maximum distance, then 15% and 20% of 180 yards or 27 yards wide and 36 yards deep)
 Green Shape -Fat middle proportioned as per above
-Avoid forced carries to at least some part of green (try to keep some portion of green front open)
              Short approach – max hazard cover 30-75%
              Medium approach – max hazard cover 20-50%
              Long approach – max hazard cover 10-20%
-Sunday Pin proportioned to about 10%-12% of PGA Tour players/scratch golfers expected approach length, created by green shape, contours, etc.
Sunday Pin greens should make up at least 2/3 of greens. (With only a few each of):
              Precision Greens (i.e., single target, a bit smaller than required for shot by average players)
              2, 3, or 4 sectioned greens (often good on short par 3 and par 5 holes, maybe mid length par 4)
              1 or 2 unusual greens, i.e., ultra long, ultra wide, or ultra big, with unique features.
 Green Contours -Few elevation separations by tier, knob, ridge, etc.  Gently rolling greens rule the day, and should make up at least 2/3 of greens.
-The typical contours on gently rolling greens can vary from 1.75-3% on different greens.
 Green Complexes -Keep green surface as low to ground as possible to avoid kicking missed approach shots further away.
-Avoid long rough. Short rough and fairway chipping areas don’t require strength for recovery.
-Use a perimeter row of irrigation heads, keep natives/trees as far away from green as possible and size the entire turf area as big as possible.  Example
              6000 SF green with 10 foot of rough around – target area =9,000 SF
              6000 SF green with 20 foot of rough around – target area =12,76 SF
6000 SF green with 30 foot of rough around – target area =19,000 SF
6000 SF green with 60 foot of rough around – target area =36,000 SF
 Sand Bunkers -Use as many grass bunkers as sand bunkers -average players like them, better players don’t.
Bunker placements:
-Bunkers left of target zones affect better players more than C and D players.
-Avoid short right of greens (where C and D players miss, but A and B players don’t)
-Most right side green sand bunkers should be nearer to the center and back of the green.
-Reduce or avoid bunkers extending 5+ yards from the front edge of the green, especially on the right side.  Good players won’t come up that far short, average ones will.
-Lateral sand bunkers hurt good players similarly to average ones.  Carry bunkers hurt C and D players more.  Distance limiting fairway sand bunker hurt better players more.
-Consider long strip bunkers along water hazards to save golfers. (especially on right side of fairway where lakes are present.)
-No fairway sand bunkers more than 180 to maybe 200 yards from green – C and D players take themselves out of reaching green at this distance, no need to double punish.

[Ally Mcintosh]

The biggest feature where this can be implemented is lots of short grass around greens that allow weaker players to putt but create tight lies and indecision for stronger players.

[Thomas Dai]

Thanks for the replies Jeff especially the particularly detailed reply 11.
Many insights and thought provoking too. As per a couple of other ongoing threads about appropriate course lengths, playability etc some might not agree with every aspect but that’s all part of the debate.
Atb

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()