My main focus on designing a course for women would be to emphasize their ability to hit the ball straight. Lots of women can hit the ball on a string into a ten- or twenty-yard area. If you designed a course around that ability, even if it was short, I think it would be pretty challenging for the boys . . . especially if the fairways doglegged at distances suited to women, and guys had to hit over the corner to a tight landing area in order to cash in on their advantage in strength.
Hi Tom,
Previous studies have shown that women tend to be less proficient on short shots around the green. At least that is true for professional level players in each sport. A quick perusal of articles on the Internet promotes the idea that women, in general, spend less time practicing their short games. Here's one representative article from 2010:
https://www.golfdigest.com/story/putting-matthew-rudy
Theoretically, would your ideal women's course feature less challenging green complexes? Might you shy away from the deep greenside bunker, or a particularly sloped or undulating green? How about a green perched above the fairway, with short grass all around?
Similarly, I'm curious about how you would use fairway sand hazards. To create interest for all levels of golfers, it seems there should be some bunkers where a carry of as little as 100 yards provides challenge and a reward for the elderly players.
My opinion is these types of challenges should not be minimized, but perhaps the physical strength of the players needs to be considered. In addition to challenge and intrigue, contoured green complexes often add beauty to the course.
Thank you for your time, I'll take my answer off the air.
John:
I promise we will have this conversation one day soon, but not here . . . the things I think one should do to make the game more friendly to ladies are not things I want to share with everyone before I get a chance to try them out.
As Nick Schreiber alludes, one of the problems with this approach is that many women reject the whole idea as "sexist" somehow. They hate the idea that a golf course architect might pander to them by designing something that actually fits the way they play [which is also the way most seniors and juniors play]. And I DO understand that there is a pretty big gap between the golf games of Lexi Thompson and my late mother -- no different than the gap between Brooks Koepka and you and your dad. So, to fit 2021 political correctness, it seems like I will have to talk in code about the whole thing, much like we can't talk about ladies' tees even though those forward tees are 90% for ladies.
The first most important thing would be that the course would tip out at not much over 6000 yards. By throwing away the back tees entirely, we can focus on accuracy over length, and not pander to the young wild hitters of today -- to borrow from another thread, not give them 65 yards of safety to drive the ball, and see if bombing away really works best for them over gearing down to keep the ball in play more. Trying to accomplish that while minimizing lost balls will not be easy, but I think it can be done in the right setting.
One other thing from your post: I think the fact that most elite women golfers don't have such great short games is a function of the courses they play. They almost never play on courses where a really great short game is a necessity, like it is for the golf professional at Crystal Downs. Plus, as you know, some of my most difficult greens can actually be much easier if you think outside the box and know how to use the slopes around the greens.