[Niall C]

Imagine four friends getting together for a game of golf. One is a professional golfer, one is a decent single figure player, one mid handicapper with a variable game and the other a high handicapper who is a fairly weak hitter. Which courses in these areas would you recommend to them to play at such that all four could really enjoy themselves playing off the same tee boxes ?

a) North America
b) GB&I
c) Continental Europe
d) Australia/NZ
e) RoW

I look forward to hearing some suggestions and why you think those courses would work well.

Niall

[Garland Bayley]

In the US, let me suggest Old MacDonald. For the two better players, there are the green complexes the will challenge their games, for the mid handicapper with a "variable game" (which I translate as wild), it has plenty of width. For the aging golfer it has plenty of options to play forward, so if necessary all he has to do is ask the others to join him on a forward tee on select holes.

In GB&I, St. Andrews would seem to be the place to be. Play the Old Course and aim left.

[Tom_Doak]

Niall: 


Your question is kind of my goal for the new, shorter course at Sand Valley that we are going to start next year.


It’s modeled after places like Swinley Forest and West Sussex - which would be par 67 for the pro but more like 72 for the bottom players on your list.


Still, I would say that Garland is on the right track.  Really, almost any links course plays short enough that it brings the B players in your example up closer to the professional, without helping the pro equally.

[Tim Leahy]

In North America, Pebble Beach is a great venue for all handicaps. Small greens are challenging for low handicappers, while distance isn't really a problem for high handicappers. When I was a 4 hdcap I used to play with my dad who was a 24 and we both really enjoyed the rounds there.

[Niall C]

Garland/Tom/Tim

Thank you for your thoughts. I should say that this thread was provoked by some of the nonsense spouted on the thread regarding designing a womans course. I deliberately didn't mention gender in my OP and each and any of the imaginary golfers could be female. Would it make a difference ? I think not.

That said, all three of you focused on classic courses or in the case of Old MacDonald, a course modelled on classic design principles. What is it about those courses that work ? Well for a start they were by large designed for golfers of all levels. They were designed to be interesting and fun for golfers of all levels. They also largely managed this without the need to have half a dozen sets of tees on each hole (Garland, please note).

So, where have modern architects gone wrong ?

Niall

[Tom_Doak]

So, where have modern architects gone wrong ?

Niall:


It's not just modern architects but clients, and to some extent, modern golfers as well.


I have ranted before that the desire for 5-6 sets of tees is irrational, pandering to modern golfers who have been convinced that every course should have a set of tees specifically designed for that player.  [Cue Mark Fine arguing in favor.     ]


Case in point:  for my 6100-yard course in Wisconsin, which will be designed to work for all players from one tee, my client still thinks it should have six sets of tees, because that's what their customers at Bandon and Sand Valley are used to having.  Never mind that I am basically throwing out the two back sets of tees to make the course 6100 yards, or that nearly 70% of players use the third set of tees at Sand Valley, and only 5-7% use each of the other sets of tees -- the customers want the "choice" of where to play and/or move up, and there has to be a course rating and slope rating for whatever they choose.


If you are determined to build six sets of tees per course, as most architects and most clients are, you are goaded into building a set or two that few paying customers will play -- and fewer will enjoy.


The other answer to your question is that most men would enjoy playing a course at 5500 or 6000 yards, but they won't go up there, because there are tees further back and they would be embarrassed to admit to moving up.  They're only going to play up there if they have no other choice.  Ironically, this is what most clubs in the UK have done for years, that American courses will not do -- insist that all visitors play "the boxes" which are set up short.  Nothing pisses off your entitled, low-handicap American visitor more than that.

[jeffwarne]

Garland/Tom/Tim

Thank you for your thoughts. I should say that this thread was provoked by some of the nonsense spouted on the thread regarding designing a womans course. I deliberately didn't mention gender in my OP and each and any of the imaginary golfers could be female. Would it make a difference ? I think not.

That said, all three of you focused on classic courses or in the case of Old MacDonald, a course modelled on classic design principles. What is it about those courses that work ? Well for a start they were by large designed for golfers of all levels. They were designed to be interesting and fun for golfers of all levels. They also largely managed this without the need to have half a dozen sets of tees on each hole (Garland, please note).

So, where have modern architects gone wrong ?

Niall

Niall,
In fairness, modern architects have had to design for golfers who hit the ball from 80 yards to 320 yards IN THE AIR(and 650 total yards tin two shots), whereas Golden Agers were designing for players who hit it 80 yards to 250 yards IN THE AIR(and 530 total yards in two shots)
The reality is the elite player isn't tested at most Golden age courses the way he once was, but being in the minority, few notice or complain and the elite player enjoys the break from modern monstrocities and calls it a "cool little course" (often on a course that was considered long when it was originally designed)
So a combination of modern scale and the "everyone gets a trophy" mindset of all handicap levels having the ability/power to potentially reach all green from their "appropriate tees", results in the littering of tees we now see,
It never used to occur to a 22 handicap senior male that he should be able(potentially) to reach every par 4 in regulation, and that's what the 22 shots were for, and he often played from the same tees as his son or grandson.


Once there are tees as much as 200 yards apart, any kind of interesting hazard is bound to make the course awkward/difficult for some other player on a different set of tees-if not on the tee shot, perhaps on the second or third shot.


Edit: what Tom says above -in far less words-our posts crossed!

[Tom_Doak]

Also, Niall, part of my campaigning in favor of a "women's course" was the idea that it would enable me to throw out the two sets of back tees, without having the men complain.  The point would be that the course doesn't need to be any longer than it was for women, and it could still be testing for men. 

[Tommy Williamsen]

The first US course that came to mind was Hidden Creek. I have played it with my wife and guys that hit it 280. WE don't always play the same tees but all of us found it both fun and challenging to score on.


In GB&I I would recommend Westward Ho! Distance makes little difference in being able to score and it is great fun.

[Mike Baillie]

A great topic that may help us pick courses to play.  Like Tom noted many links fit.  Of those I have played Lahinch and North Berwick come to mind.  They are not too long and the higher handicappers should not lose many balls.  Also the one in the fourball that knows more about GCA can pass on some knowledge to the others.  Some that I think fit the bill that I hope to play in the coming years - Elie and Woking.  There must be others.

In North America my golf is Ontario concentrated.  Two that come to mind are Lookout Point (Travis) and Weston (Park).  In both the greens are more of the total challenge versus other courses and length is not excessive.  In terms of modern courses, one in some respects the original course at Forest Dunes in Michigan.  While tee selection is something to consider, there is an easy risk free way into most greens yet flag hunting will require risky shots over or near hazards.

Finally, this thread highlights again with Tom's comments there is little need for several tees.  I know one with 11 combinations.  Our course thankfully is in the process of going from 7 plus an 8th previously planned back to a more reasonable 6 two of which are combo tees.  Similar to Tom's findings 70% of our play is on 2nd and 4th longest tees that most men play with the 3rd being one of the combos. Next year I expect 75% of the play on those 3 tees.

[jeffwarne]

To answer the original question
a.Palmetto
b.North Berwick, TOC plus a hundred others
c.Morfontaine/Valleire
d.Arrowtown
e.Not qualified to opine

[Tom_Doak]

To answer the original question
a.Palmetto
b.North Berwick, TOC plus a hundred others
c.Morfontaine/Valleire
d.Arrowtown
e.Not qualified to opine

These are all good answers.  For (e), I will throw in Shek O, the private club in Hong Kong that has several overlapping holes.


Of my work, The Loop might be the best fit for this exercise.

[Garland Bayley]

The first US course that came to mind was Hidden Creek. I have played it with my wife and guys that hit it 280. WE don't always play the same tees but all of us found it both fun and challenging to score on.


In GB&I I would recommend Westward Ho! Distance makes little difference in being able to score and it is great fun.

You clearly know Westward Ho! better than I do, but the carry off the 10th tee seems to me it might be a problem for the aging golfer. Such a concern is why I suggested an alternative tee at Old MacDonald where I was thinking about the carry off the 9th tee when playing the lower green.
Edit: The old fuddy daddy mixed up Pacific Dunes with Old MacDonald. I retract my statement about using an alternative tee at Old MacDonald.

[Tommy Williamsen]

The first US course that came to mind was Hidden Creek. I have played it with my wife and guys that hit it 280. WE don't always play the same tees but all of us found it both fun and challenging to score on.


In GB&I I would recommend Westward Ho! Distance makes little difference in being able to score and it is great fun.

You clearly know Westward Ho! better than I do, but the carry off the 10th tee seems to me it might be a problem for the aging golfer. Such a concern is why I suggested an alternative tee at Old MacDonald where I was thinking about the carry off the 9th tee when playing the lower green.
Edit: The old fuddy daddy mixed up Pacific Dunes with Old MacDonald. I retract my statement about using an alternative tee at Old MacDonald.

Good point. Eleven might be more of a problem.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Mike, how much Travis is left at Lookout Point?

[Thomas Dai]

TOC
RND/Westward Ho*
Atb


* ref comment above about the 10th you can play way, way right if necessary.

[Mike Baillie]

Mike, how much Travis is left at Lookout Point?

Tommy, I'm not qualified enough to know in great detail.  In general I would say several greens have classic characteristics - including a Biarritz.  One person that would know would be Ian Andrew who has done restoration work there.

[Ira Fishman]

I would add PH2 for North America. It is a fun puzzle from shorter tees or at least seemed to be for the better players in or group. I enjoyed it immensely even though I fit into the C/D category.


Lahinch and NB were good suggestions. One aspect not mentioned about why links courses fit the bill is the impact of the wind on strong players.


Ira

[Adam Uttley]

I’d suggest Trump Dubai (Hanse) for RoW. It’s wide open, all short grass but is very hard to get near flags due to undulations and needing to come in from the right angle. Bogey golfers get round very easily and in my experience it utterly bamboozles low handicappers.  I relish the feedback from scratch golfers that I recommend go there.  It often goes:


“It was a terrible course”
“Why?”
“It was so easy, just wide open and you could hit it anywhere”
“What did you shoot?”
“About 10 over but I was unlucky with bad bounces into greens”


Makes me smile every time.

[Garland Bayley]

TOC
RND/Westward Ho*
Atb


* ref comment above about the 10th you can play way, way right if necessary.

Niall wanted them to have fun. Not to spend time cursing the course.

[Sean_A]

Also, Niall, part of my campaigning in favor of a "women's course" was the idea that it would enable me to throw out the two sets of back tees, without having the men complain.  The point would be that the course doesn't need to be any longer than it was for women, and it could still be testing for men.

Cha ching. It's bloody stupid that we have to gender name a course to be sensible, but that seems to be where we are with mega tees.

Out of curiosity, what sort of total yards would your six tees be if the course stretches to 6100 yards? I would have thought it would be cool to essentially use one tee on the day except for holes where the carry is too much for some. Some holes might have several tee areas and some only one. It depends on the land and angles. But none of this nonsense of a 200 yard spread in tees. Talk about destroying what will hopefully be a very good walk.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

I’ve observed a good many ladies hit Driver followed by several fairway metal shots (say 2-3-4-5-etc) to reach the green even on holes that to some men might not seem very lengthy par-4’s let alone on par-5’s. And being unable to even reach the greens on par-3’s too.
Now this is not the case for some ladies but for those who are in this situation I can’t imagine how frustrating and boring the game must be. A slog isn’t fun, not sure it provides even an enjoyable walk.
Different spec golf balls might aid matters including a wide spread of ball types with some that go further for shorter, less powerful players and some that don’t go as far for longer, more powerful players with all players playing on a smaller acreage course too.

Atb

[Niall C]

Niall,
In fairness, modern architects have had to design for golfers who hit the ball from 80 yards to 320 yards IN THE AIR(and 650 total yards tin two shots), whereas Golden Agers were designing for players who hit it 80 yards to 250 yards IN THE AIR(and 530 total yards in two shots)
The reality is the elite player isn't tested at most Golden age courses the way he once was, but being in the minority, few notice or complain and the elite player enjoys the break from modern monstrocities and calls it a "cool little course" (often on a course that was considered long when it was originally designed)
So a combination of modern scale and the "everyone gets a trophy" mindset of all handicap levels having the ability/power to potentially reach all green from their "appropriate tees", results in the littering of tees we now see,
It never used to occur to a 22 handicap senior male that he should be able(potentially) to reach every par 4 in regulation, and that's what the 22 shots were for, and he often played from the same tees as his son or grandson.


Once there are tees as much as 200 yards apart, any kind of interesting hazard is bound to make the course awkward/difficult for some other player on a different set of tees-if not on the tee shot, perhaps on the second or third shot.


Edit: what Tom says above -in far less words-our posts crossed!

Jeff

If I can sum up what I think you are saying, and that is bigger scale of modern courses today (I agree) with similar disparity in length between different standards of players (I agree). You then go on to describe the modern mentality leading to multiple tees which in fairness I think is much more prevalent in the US but as with a lot of things what happens in the US tends to follow over here and I think this is probably no different.

Where I diverge from you is the idea that we need various tees so everyone can hit the same landing zone which I think is the gist of what you are saying. To me that is the nub of the matter. The ODG designed courses where effectively tee to green was one single landing strip rather than a series of landing areas that you hopped between to get to the green. In doing so they still managed to make the game interesting and fun for all. To my way of thinking that is the challenge that a lot of modern designers have shied away from.

Niall

[Niall C]

Different spec golf balls might aid matters including a wide spread of ball types with some that go further for shorter, less powerful players and some that don’t go as far for longer, more powerful players with all players playing on a smaller acreage course too.

Atb

David

Good to see you are getting on board with the newly formed "roll-forward" movement. 

Niall

[jeffwarne]

Different spec golf balls might aid matters including a wide spread of ball types with some that go further for shorter, less powerful players and some that don’t go as far for longer, more powerful players with all players playing on a smaller acreage course too.

Atb

David

Good to see you are getting on board with the newly formed "roll-forward" movement. 

Niall

I suggested exactly that on a thread years ago.
Went over like wet blanket
Same tee(maybe two sets 6500 and 5000 yards), different balls.
Occasionally players play an up or a back tee for variety, pace or practicality
More social.
Touring pro gets a ProX minus 2
I have a ProVX or minus 1
10 handicap young athletic player ProvX
His 75 year old grandfather a ProVX plus 2, or plays forward tees if it's just he and grandma-with a less hot ball.
Grandma plays a ProvVX plus 2 and/or plays the forward tees.


OT-I think what amazes me most is how many people play the same course, from the same tees,EVERY SINGLE DAY...


Neil, IMHO, the problem is
1.-too much distance between shorter and longer hitters now due to athletic skills and hot equipment increasing scale-resulting in courses feeling they have to build 6+ sets of tees and combo cards so that everyone can play their "preferred yadage"
2. Trying to figure out "landing areas" for all these types of players from all these different tees. The tees are often decided by handicap, and some 10's hit it 300 yards and some hit it 170, so the more random and spread out the hazards are the better, so as not to always torture the same player who may be stuck on a set of tees by handicap that push him right into every single tight landing area.
I am NOT for everyone having the same landing area, but rather different landing areas because people hit it different lengths and I'd like to see LESS sets of tees.


As you point point out, Golden Age courses do that better due to smaller scale.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()