[ward peyronnin]

Mea Culpa yes I am a panelist but I am struggling to reconcile the design trend described in the following comments. Theh rater  handbook states in part “ea rater is expected to make a serious…effort to assess the strategic and aesthetic merits of the candidate course.” And one criteria is  “Greens and surrounds- Interest, variety, and playability of putting surface, collars, chipping areas, and greenside bunkers.”
I am increasingly encountering designs that rather than commit the faux pas of incorporating traditional penal elements via hazards, length etc in the playing corridors, in violation of the disfavor those now discredited features carry from a past design era, difficulty  (penal design) is now being pushed around the greens.
Snake and egg contours on pushed up greens are executed with little or no landing ramps on which to feasably control a chip or pitch or furnish hole locations where a chipped or putted ball can be expected to roll to a controlled stop. Green surrounds are severely sloped down or up and also contribute to bludgeoning even a skilled short game. Flashed face bunkers present fronts well above the green surface so that sand shots strike a car hood grade if one exits the situation. Green platforms are really so narrow and often raised that only a very short iron hit precisely to a hole location will stay anywhere near the hole. And all the while on greens that are rolling at 12 or so!
I would submit that not only are these elements a penal strategy but they actually favor the bomb and gouge play that puts a short stick in the hand and allows for more greens to be hit in reg by longer hitters.
Now admittedly I am a cranky formerly skilled older player hanging on and still enjoying the game through the hard work of developing compensating skills but why go out and work on a short game when your home course renovation so brutally blunts the benefits? How much “fun” is a course that blocks a chance for recovery of a slightly missed target?
So I struggle to rate these courses right now and I have at least 3 I am circling around weighing what exactly constitues playability and how much weight does playability carry in my assessement? How legitimate is the realization that this trend may constitute a revival of a reimagined penal design and does it produce courses that are fun for only a very small set of players or create a new style of features that promote creativity and freshness?

[Garland Bayley]

My condolences! It seems you have had a run of JN courses to rate where only the high fade works! 

[Craig Sweet]

To what end are you rating these courses? For the consumer? For the owner? For the equipment manufacturers? For the architect?  Why is a rating important ?  It simply feels as if golf has gone the way of so many sports that have placed too high a premium on analytics at the expense of fun and sport.

[Carl Johnson]

Ward Peyronnin: "So I struggle to rate these courses right now and I have at least 3 I am circling around weighing what exactly constitutes playability and how much weight does playability carry in my assessment?"

Doesn't this go to the heart, and fallacy, of the rating process?  Are you rating for the highly skilled golfer, and if so, for what skills?  Or for the average recreational player?  Personally, I pay no attention to ratings of the kind you are speaking of (I think), but my wish would be to see ratings based on playability of the courses for the average recreational player.  Maybe separate special ratings for the most penal, difficult courses.

Your handbook says: “Greens and surrounds- Interest, variety, and playability of putting surface, collars, chipping areas, and greenside bunkers.”

Forget the near impossible designs.  What does your "cranky old self" want today?  I'd guess that might be what is fun for you and would also be for the vast majority of other players.  It seems to me that your gut is telling you to go one way, but that's against what you see as a trend.  Go with your gut.  Just my opinion. As cranky and old.  Others may disagree, but I find that the older I get the better my judgment gets.

[Tom_Doak]

Ward:


I believe a lot of your questions would be solved by the simple maxim to rate the course as you found it on the day you played.


Too many raters try to project what other players would do, or how the course would be under ideal conditions, or not-ideal conditions.  Let those other players worry about how they play and how it works on other days.


It is hard to tell in your description of "snake and egg" contours [whatever that means] if it was impossible for you to hit shots around the greens, or whether you are just projecting about what if someone was trying to chip from here to there?  If you found it unplayable, rate it as such.  Of course, if you disagree with the rest of the panel, some magazines might reject your score and/or take you off the panel . . .

[Tommy Williamsen]

You are over thinking. Is the course playable for you or not?

[Jim Sherma]

I think I get what Ward is getting at in the OP. "Restorations" of classic courses that impose steep and deep features around the greens. This is then coupled with greens that have "pinnable-areas" and transition slopes as opposed to the older slope with variation. The older versions allowed for more successful options as on could flop with spin, bump along the slope, or anywhere in between. The newer versions tend to only allow for a lofted shot with spin to get the ball to stop on the correct shelf/pinning area. The first place I saw this at was Philly Cricket-Wissahickon but have also seen it at other courses as well. The effect is where it felt like all the high and low points of the greens were the same but the long chips along the slopes were no longer there to play. Also the edges of many of the greens and bunkers seemed much sharper so that slight misses off the sides or back of the greens in many cases meant you were either chipping off of a steep slope or on the flat at the bottom having to go up rather sharply. This definitely felt to be the case more than the earlier iteration. It definitely is more challenging for the average player and disproportionately rewards better players that can consistently play higher lofted short-game shots with spin.


Personally I prefer the older slope with variation with less abrupt transitions off of the greens towards the surrounds. The current fads seem to compress the game into rewarding a more one dimensional skill set on these types of courses. Maybe if I was younger with steadier hands and less short-game scar tissue it might not be so noticeable or annoying.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()