Design from what perspective??

[Mark_Fine]

I have five active public course projects underway which is a lot for me as I have mostly worked with private clubs.  I like to watch players play certain holes and I am more and more convinced the average golfer has little idea where the ball is going when they hit it! 



Architects have to take this into consideration in their designs but at the same time I think they have to design holes primarily around how they will be played by good golfers. 


We often talk/hear about alternative lines of play for “weaker” golfers.  I think what we mostly mean by weaker is for “shorter” hitters who don’t hit the ball as far or carry the ball as far. However, if you really don’t know where your ball is going when you “try” to hit it, regardless of how far or how high, those shorter or safer alternative lines of play don’t mean too much because you really aren’t capable of following them. 


There are of course good players that are just shorter hitters or who might play the ball more on the ground and architects do try to design for them but for the average golfer who is often just trying to make solid contact, I have to sometimes throw up my hands and say, I’m not sure what I can do for them except suggest patience and lessons and just try to have fun


We have one par three measuring roughly 100 yards from the current forward most tee where the carry over a wetland is 30-35 yards.  I watched group after group where half or more of the players top their ball in the marsh.  We might have to add a shorter tee but the only option to do so would leave a hole of about 50-60 yards in total length from that tee.  So be it.

[Ken Moum]

We have one par three measuring roughly 100 yards from the current forward most tee where the carry over a wetland is 30-35 yards.  I watched group after group where half or more of the players top their ball in the marsh.  We might have to add a shorter tee but the only option to do so would leave a hole of about 50-60 yards in total length from that tee.  So be it.

Even a rabid supporter of shorter tees like me can't suggest that there's a way to help players who can't make a 35-yard carry over trouble. Unless...you believe Dr. KacKenzie's alleged comment about being able to play a hole with a putter. If you'd like an analysis of the story, look no further than DMoriarity's take. in which a much younger version of me appears.


The shortest par three where I play is about that long and over a pond, and a surprising number of players fail to get over it.  But it has a tee that's 50 yards to the right of the other tees that avoids the water carry.  And since you have to go that way to get  around the pond anyway, it's not weird or out of place.


Not always doable, I know, but where it is, it makes perfect sense.

[Charlie Goerges]

I just want to clarify the idea of the extent to which a less-skilled player "doesn't have any idea where the ball is going". Outside of beginners and novices for whom the phrase is probably quite literally true, many less-skilled or weaker players have something like two modes. Mode 1=poor contact, the ball can go almost anywhere. Mode 2=decent contact and they know roughly where the ball is going. My point being that it's not as fully random as it may seem.


My dad is this type of player. On a good day only 10%-20%  of his shots will be poor contact. That doesn't mean he stripes the other 80% of his shots like a tour pro, but the ball gets in the air and follows his usually sweeping fade flight path. On good days he could break 100 from a reasonable tee. Anyway my point is that I think weaker players do have an idea where the ball is going and therefore are quite capable of strategy. It's just going to be a different strategy to the stronger player. Plus I've seen plenty of very good players top or chunk a shot into the water on a short par 3.

[Tom_Doak]

There are of course good players that are just shorter hitters or who might play the ball more on the ground and architects do try to design for them but for the average golfer who is often just trying to make solid contact, I have to sometimes throw up my hands and say, I’m not sure what I can do for them except suggest patience and lessons and just try to have fun

Maybe you could be less of a snob toward those golfers, for starters.


And then maybe you could build some golf holes that no matter where those players wind up, they have a way to finish the hole if they randomly hit a shot the way they want to.  For many, that is the galling part of golf:  that many greens are defended in a way that even their best shot can't get close to the flag.  And that really isn't necessary; a really good architect can build something difficult for expert players that's entirely playable for the below-average golfer.  If you need an example, just go have a look at any Perry Maxwell course.  Or practically any course in Scotland.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I have to sometimes throw up my hands and say, I’m not sure what I can do for them except suggest patience and lessons and just try to have fun


We have one par three measuring roughly 100 yards from the current forward most tee where the carry over a wetland is 30-35 yards.  I watched group after group where half or more of the players top their ball in the marsh.  We might have to add a shorter tee but the only option to do so would leave a hole of about 50-60 yards in total length from that tee.  So be it.

I actually have some pretty strong opinions on this (shocker, I know), mainly because I'm a higher handicapper, with some extreme handicap friends.

My friend Michael is about a 38 index, and he started playing just before the pandemic. He loves to play. He can actually hit a 230 yard drive, and just lacks consistency (and short game, and putting 😅). Telling him to get lessons is basically telling him he's not good enough to have fun, when he's already having fun. He loves the game and doesn't care much that he's "not good enough." In the forced carry scenario here, the solution is a marked drop zone. There is no greater smile on his face when he says, "well Matt, I'd love to hit another one in the water, but the rules compel me to walk right up next to the green there and chip on" (I know they don't but I let him have his fun). I'm sure we could hem and haw about the (de)merits of having a drop zone, but if you're trying to design a course for an extreme handicapper like Mike, it's going to put a smile on his face when the course actually starts helping him instead of hurting him.

My friend Leslie is a 25 but she's a fine player. Her driver probably plays 170 or so, and she's taking hybrids one nearly every fairway. She's the beginner that people love to see. She's got a good game for the time and energy she puts in, and she loves a challenge like a forced carry, but blocking the entrance to a green is going to force her to play for bogey, so she would benefit from very short tees.

We all know folks like this, but the point of my distinction is I play net match play with the both of them and it's always a fun and challenging game for both of us. They're both fine people, fun to play against, and I think they both deserve to be considered when it comes to course design, especially in the sense that (1) they're going to be on the course anyway and (2) it will certainly help with pace issues (especially on pinch point holes like par 3s). It's why I actually think the "different tee" paradigm is problematic in that we conflate short tees with worse players. It would make little sense for Mike and Leslie to play from the same tees. It's not a one-to-one correlation, and it could be interesting to consider creating short-but-challenging tees marked as such.

[Lyne Morrison]

Mark,

May I suggest that your post highlights the question of where the tipping point lies between a suitable course setup from forward tees, as determined by an invested architect, versus a player's choice and responsibility to improve their golfing skills?

Based on the slow swing speed play I've observed over many years, most short-hitting players would likely not find a 30-35 yard carry overly intimidating.

Lyne

[Mark_Fine]

Great comments by all.  Unlike many architects here, my projects are mostly about restoring or renovating “existing” designs. I don’t usually get to build or route my own holes from scratch.  As such, I am often trying to make existing holes interesting as well as playable for as wide a variety of players as possible and usually on a very tight budget.  All that said, sometimes there is only so much you can do to try to accommodate everyone.


I toured the course with the Head Pro at one project and he was telling me about where many of his golfers hit the ball on certain holes.  My point about design perspective is that while you must think about all levels of playing ability, many of the strategic design aspects likely center on a certain level of playing ability but as was stated, you try to accommodate everyone so they can at least finish the hole.


Several years ago I was on the putting green well to the right of the first tee at Merion.  I was standing over a practice putt when I heard a loud “four” and a golf ball whistled by me.  I looked over on the tee about 50 yards away and it was Dr. J!  He proceeded to hit a second ball which you aren’t supposed to do at Merion, and did the same thing again!  Maybe he couldn’t deal with all the first tee pressure 

And by the way anyone who knows me realizes I am always thinking about how higher handicappers like my wife for example who is a 36 would play the hole. 

[Matt Schoolfield]

Good follow up Mike. It sounds like you’re making the best of a situation with limited options and zero-sum payoffs. Always tough.

[Mark_Fine]

A very related topic to design perspective is something we talk about a lot on this site which is risk/reward and holes designed as half par holes such as #13 at Augusta.  Even if we have the benefit of numerous shorter teeing options on a hole like this (which I am not sure we do), who is calling this a 4 1/2 par hole?  For anyone not familiar with the term, some here would call that par “5” and par “4 1/2” because some would expect to birdie it half the time. The same might go for a short “driveable” par 4 that some might call a par 3 1/2 for the same reason.   So on a hole like #13 at Augusta, what was the architect doing to make the hole more playable for the “less than good” golfer when the Masters isn’t going on? There is a short forced carry over Raes Creek to start, there is a ditch and trees up the entire left side and pine trees up the right, there is a second forced carry back over the hazard to the green (so no way to play this hole as Mackenzie used to say with a putter), and the green is heavily contoured and is surrounded by bunkers. 


I have to deal with holes like #13 very often. They might not be as iconic, but they present the same challenges to less than good golfers. Outside of shorter tees, sometimes there is little you can do to accommodate.


If you really want to gain a better perspective of average golfing ability (not golfers who are members of private clubs), go watch golfers hit balls at a crowded public driving range.  This has nothing to do with being a snob, it has everything to do with gaining a perspective. Most architects try to accommodate a wide range of play but if you try too hard (like filling in the hazard in front of #13 at Augusta so the hole from a shorter tee could be played with a putter), what have you done to the strategy and interest of the hole.


Tom,
You know as well as anyone, there are for example revetted pot bunkers on many Scotland courses that the only way some golfers will get out of them is with a hand wedge.  If you consider that playable for all then so be it.  The architects didn’t care because the early links courses were designed for match play.  If you couldn’t finish the hole, you just picked up and moved on to the next.

[Jason Topp]

I think an architect has the obligation to offer hope to the player.  She need not accommodate an entire scattershot pattern of shots but if the player has a reasonable chance at success, that is enough. 


One of my favorite recent GCA moments was watching my 80 year old father agonize over attempting a 110 yard hybrid over a pond or to bail out to the side of the pond and chip up.  The architect posed an interesting dilemma for him with some hope regardless of which option he chose.   

[Mark_Fine]

Jason,
Well stated!  Would you agree, shorter tees have a lot to do with this?  How playable would Pine Valley be without them.  How would you play #16 a Cypress Point without them.  Even #17 at TPC needs a shorter tee as 127 yards is too long a carry for many players.  #8 at Pebble is a long way around but at least there is option for Hope to finish the hole. Sometimes the architect has an option but other times it just takes some minimal level of skill or hope is limited. 


If you are good enough to avoid the Road Hole bunker, great.  The architect gives you that option. But if you aren’t and get in it, then what?  Hand wedge 

[John Kavanaugh]

Why not design with an eye towards who spends the most money at a specific course? Kinda like why Mercedes builds their sports cars with room for old fat guys.

[Ken Moum]

I think an architect has the obligation to offer hope to the player.  She need not accommodate an entire scattershot pattern of shots but if the player has a reasonable chance at success, that is enough. 


One of my favorite recent GCA moments was watching my 80 year old father agonize over attempting a 110 yard hybrid over a pond or to bail out to the side of the pond and chip up.  The architect posed an interesting dilemma for him with some hope regardless of which option he chose.

What an excellent way to put it.  And I would add that hope comes in many forms.


One of the things I have figured out only recently is how difficult it can be to have reasonable expectations.


I'm sitting in the clubhouse at Golspie GC, and this place has five of the most difficult par threes you will ever see on one course. Even though I had played quite a few times in the past, I was never this short with every club, and even though I was longer in the past, I didn't come up with a way to play these holes.


This trip I have played it a lot and talked some women and senior members about how they approach the holes that drove me nuts. The answer is that there's no point in even trying to hit three of them in regulation, and accepting that the other two are possible to hit, but four is still a good score.


I'm playing it tomorrow in a foursomes comp. with a woman I've never played with before.  She has a handicap in the 40s, so our round should be interesting.


FWIW, the first comp I played here this summer, I got closest to the hole on one of them hitting driver to 12 feet.

[Mark_Fine]

John,
I think you make a good point - design the course from the perspective of the players who will play there. This is one of the reasons we have courses of such variety. I have said here in the past, if my old golf league had to play all their matches at Pine Valley, most would have quit the league and be playing tennis (now Pickleball)  


But it is still hard for an architect to find good balance and always provide hope when there are a wide level of abilities playing the golf course.  To go back to Jason's comment about the "obligation to offer hope to a player".  Shorter tees and easier alternate routes are ways to offer hope but some of what we consider the greatest holes in golf don't always accommodate.  Look again at #13 at Augusta.  You can't play that hole with a putter.  What a good player thinks is an epic hole, some would view as hopeless.  The same goes for certain hazards that for many are inescapable.  Do you eliminate them, dumb them down, only use a few,... or do you just hope certain players somehow avoid them?  Bailout areas are great and all of us try to incorporate them often.  But this assumes the player is good enough to not only aim for them but to end up there.  I guess this is the definition of giving hope.   

[Thomas Dai]

Obvious to say but forced carries, trajectory and soft ground conditions become ever more more key as the distance a player is able to hit the ball declines.
Another factor worth mentioning is that the positioning of forced carries, hazards etc effectively changes when the wind direction is different to the prevailing direction and that such features are not necessarily just tee shot related but second/third/fourth/etc shot related too.
Short grass just about everywhere with multiple route options is of course helpful as is lower height vegetation. Which is I guess is why TOC and other courses near akin to it are ideal or if not ideal then damn close.

Atb


PS - nice to see Lyne posting herein again.

[Mark_Fine]

I think for almost all players the forced carry is one of the hardest shots in golf. Think about it, even a short pitch over a 5 yard wide green side bunker to the green is intimidating for most all players (even off a perfectly manicured lie).  It’s only a short little carry but it’s a really really hard shot for most. Not much an architect can do about offering hope when confronted with this shot.

I was asked how I play this shot and my answer was pray and practice


I had this shot once at Royal Birkdale on the first hole.  I blocked my second shot to the right behind the pot bunker and said to myself no way I’m putting around this bunker and making five.  My ego wouldn’t allow it.  So being nervous on the starting hole I thinned it over the bunker and made a nice six to start my round

[Mike_Young]

.

[Jason Topp]

  Look again at #13 at Augusta.  You can't play that hole with a putter.  What a good player thinks is an epic hole, some would view as hopeless. 

I view streams as much better alternatives than ponds if a forced carry is a must.  While many will fail on 13 at Augusta National, I suspect most will not feel defeated before they start.