[Matt Schoolfield]

I'm sitting here reading the "angles don't matter" and "green with bunker" threads, and in both cases I think a lot of the feelings in theses threads hinge on whether we think the golf course is (or should be) hostile or friendly by default.

At some points in these threads, I feel like people are talking about greens like they are generally back-to-front and gentle, and to be perfectly honest, I feel like most greens are back-to-front and gentle. When I play holes that have really challenging features, a lot of the players I'm paired with seem to grumble about them.

So my question is: What percentage of course design should really challenge players, and what percentage should let them breath?

I think golf would be a lot more interesting with a bunch of features that, say, made angles matter more, but I worry that too many of those features would really frustrate the weekend warriors just trying to get out there and enjoy themselves.

[Charlie Goerges]

I'm sitting here reading the "angles don't matter" and "green with bunker" threads, and in both cases I think a lot of the feelings in theses threads hinge on whether we think the golf course is (or should be) hostile or friendly by default.

At some points in these threads, I feel like people are talking about greens like they are generally back-to-front and gentle, and to be perfectly honest, I feel like most greens are back-to-front and gentle. When I play holes that have really challenging features, a lot of the players I'm paired with seem to grumble about them.

So my question is: What percentage of course design should really challenge players, and what percentage should let them breath?

I think golf would be a lot more interesting with a bunch of features that, say, made angles matter more, but I worry that too many of those features would really frustrate the weekend warriors just trying to get out there and enjoy themselves.

The features that would make angles matter more are not only challenging/difficult features. Speedslots and wider fairways and other things of that nature would also be more welcome. Also things which are sort of neutral, like somewhat random ground contours that can help or hurt in small measures depending on which side of a mound you're on, and so on.


Just give me more thoughtful (thought-inducing?) features: easy, hard, or indifferent.




Edit: Hard to give a percentage, but it should be higher than it is on average now. And if you accept my premise that the features don't only have to be things which add a lot of difficulty, 75% or more would be fine with me. But again, that isn't all bunkers, hazards, false fronts etc. At least half of it can good or neutral.

[Jeff_Brauer]

It certainly depends on the course type and mission, but would most players accept the 20/80 rule?  That is, 10% are really challenging, 10% are easy and 80% are somewhat near the middle?

[Ian Andrew]

Jeff said it well. Each project has a different aim. These were two recent projects to make a point.




Ladies Club of Toronto: Playability
Is the most important goal. Visibility would be next. History a distant third.


Osprey Valley (North): Difficulty is by far the biggest goal (2025 Canadian Open). Flexible set up for weather. Infrastructure was third.


That’s about as far apart as two mandates get. I’m not Tom, the direction is often given and in both cases I was sought out and brought in knowing the direction.

[Ira Fishman]

I'm sitting here reading the "angles don't matter" and "green with bunker" threads, and in both cases I think a lot of the feelings in theses threads hinge on whether we think the golf course is (or should be) hostile or friendly by default.

At some points in these threads, I feel like people are talking about greens like they are generally back-to-front and gentle, and to be perfectly honest, I feel like most greens are back-to-front and gentle. When I play holes that have really challenging features, a lot of the players I'm paired with seem to grumble about them.

So my question is: What percentage of course design should really challenge players, and what percentage should let them breath?

I think golf would be a lot more interesting with a bunch of features that, say, made angles matter more, but I worry that too many of those features would really frustrate the weekend warriors just trying to get out there and enjoy themselves.

Matt,


I don’t know where you play, but I am having a difficult time remembering a course with a bunch of back to front gentle greens. Regarding angles matter, even Erik concedes that they do when the ball is on the ground. That is exactly why links golf is so much fun especially for us seniors. So build more courses with less forced carries and more contour from tee through green. What features on such a course would frustrate your weekend warrior friends?


Ira

[Matt Schoolfield]

I don’t know where you play, but I am having a difficult time remembering a course with a bunch of back to front gentle greens. Regarding angles matter, even Erik concedes that they do when the ball is on the ground. That is exactly why links golf is so much fun especially for us seniors. So build more courses with less forced carries and more contour from tee through green. What features on such a course would frustrate your weekend warrior friends?

I'm in San Francisco, so suppose I take Harding Park. You can follow along on the wiki if you want to see the green contours:

#1: gentle left-to-right
#2: mostly flat
#3: mostly gentle, mostly back-to-front
#4: mostly gentle, mostly flat
#5: complex features
#6: mostly gentle, mostly back-to-front
#7: mostly flat, with one tough section in back
#8: gentle, mostly back-to-front
#9: some complex features, but mostly back-to-front
#10: mostly flat or back-to-front
#11: some complex features, but mostly back-to-front.
#12: mostly flat or back-to-front
#13: complex features, but mostly back-to-front
#14: very complex, but mostly back-to-front
#15: complex, but mostly back-to-front, here I'd argue that a good angle helps on half the green.
#16: mostly gentle, mostly flat or back-to-front
#17: mostly gentle, mostly flat or back-to-front
#18: complex, mostly back-to-front

At the end of the day, there is only one green that even mildly slopes away from the approach shot. The greens are built with a default assistance to help shots stop.

[Craig Sweet]

What is your target market?

[Charlie Goerges]

It's funny because I interpreted this question as more about strategy than difficulty and the challenge being mental rather than only physical. Now it's true that a lot of elements that add strategy also add difficulty, but some do not, or add very little. My problem with "easy" courses is that they are often very boring courses. (Of course I'm not talking about courses designed by the kind of architects who post on GCA.com.)


I'll revise my earlier answer and say 100% of the course should challenge the player to use their brains and what skill they have to play the hole. Sometimes the aspect that will make them think is a hazard, but sometimes it will just be something like a speed slot. But never let it be boring. If the course needs to be easier, have those challenging aspects be more things like the latter, if it need to be difficult, more things like the former.

[Niall C]

I don’t know where you play, but I am having a difficult time remembering a course with a bunch of back to front gentle greens. Regarding angles matter, even Erik concedes that they do when the ball is on the ground. That is exactly why links golf is so much fun especially for us seniors. So build more courses with less forced carries and more contour from tee through green. What features on such a course would frustrate your weekend warrior friends?

I'm in San Francisco, so suppose I take Harding Park. You can follow along on the wiki if you want to see the green contours:

#1: gentle left-to-right
#2: mostly flat
#3: mostly gentle, mostly back-to-front
#4: mostly gentle, mostly flat
#5: complex features
#6: mostly gentle, mostly back-to-front
#7: mostly flat, with one tough section in back
#8: gentle, mostly back-to-front
#9: some complex features, but mostly back-to-front
#10: mostly flat or back-to-front
#11: some complex features, but mostly back-to-front.
#12: mostly flat or back-to-front
#13: complex features, but mostly back-to-front
#14: very complex, but mostly back-to-front
#15: complex, but mostly back-to-front, here I'd argue that a good angle helps on half the green.
#16: mostly gentle, mostly flat or back-to-front
#17: mostly gentle, mostly flat or back-to-front
#18: complex, mostly back-to-front

At the end of the day, there is only one green that even mildly slopes away from the approach shot. The greens are built with a default assistance to help shots stop.

Matt


When you refer to greens sloping back to front - do you mean they are sloping up the way or sloping down the way ?


Niall

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff said it well. Each project has a different aim. These were two recent projects to make a point.

Ladies Club of Toronto: Playability
Is the most important goal. Visibility would be next. History a distant third.

Osprey Valley (North): Difficulty is by far the biggest goal (2025 Canadian Open). Flexible set up for weather. Infrastructure was third.

That’s about as far apart as two mandates get. I’m not Tom, the direction is often given and in both cases I was sought out and brought in knowing the direction.

"I'm not Tom" ?  Do you really think my clients don't have a goal and a direction they want to pursue?  Next to the piece of land we are given, that's the most important thing that makes each of my projects different from the next.


Some clients have a very hard time expressing what they want, and some are afraid to try to tell me anything, but I don't need much in the way of specifics if they don't want to provide them.  A few examples from my past work:


Ballyneal:  "just make it fun"
The Loop:  "I need people to stay and play again the next day"
Memorial Park:  "We want to host a PGA TOUR event downtown, on a public course that does 60,000 rounds"

[Matt Schoolfield]

When you refer to greens sloping back to front - do you mean they are sloping up the way or sloping down the way ?

I mean that water that falls on the back of the green generally flows down and off the front of the green.

I'm using the term like one would use it reading a putt, e.g., a putt that breaks left-to-right implies that the left side is higher than the right side.

[Ben Hollerbach]

So my question is: What percentage of course design should really challenge players, and what percentage should let them breath?

You have to remember that for the large majority of players, the challenge in playing golf has little to nothing to do with the golf course itself and almost all to do with the skill required to repeatedly hit the ball in the intended direction one desires.
A dead flat, dead straight hole of 400 yards with no hazards and infinite short grass is still too challenging for the average player to consistently score a 4 on. If that's the threshold of challenge, the percentage of courses that do challenge a player is very very high.

[Jay Mickle]

Ben,
I pretty much fit into your average player category but find that I prefer courses that make me think on every shot. Playing my hickories on golden age courses, angles do matter and one often has to tack ones way down a par five to avoid hazards and have an open ground approach to the hole. Far more fun than 400 yards of wide open fairway.

[Craig Sweet]

Tom Doak answered the question..."What's your market?"  At Old Works they have mowed the native grass down to the nubs, shrunk the forced carries, raised the height of cut in the fairways, and they keep the greens around 9 to 9.5,  all in an effort to try an maintain something close to a 4.5 hour round.  The challenge has been diminished as the market evolved.  $$$$ money talks...

[cary lichtenstein]

What is your target player? Other than low handicaps who can handle chanllenges realatively well, for the rest of the players, it makes no difference. As a 4 handicap, there were only a few challenges that I couldn't handle, but the 16 handicap, he has no idea where his ball is going.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Ben,
I pretty much fit into your average player category but find that I prefer courses that make me think on every shot. Playing my hickories on golden age courses, angles do matter and one often has to tack ones way down a par five to avoid hazards and have an open ground approach to the hole. Far more fun than 400 yards of wide open fairway.

Can't disagree that having perceived hazards and interests on a hole is much more fun than 400 yards of wide open fairway. but that wasn't the question.

The challenge in golf has little to do with the playing field, but the interest in the game has a great deal to do with the playing field. In your example of hickory play, the equipment choice you make heightens the hazards on the playing field, which also increases the interest in conquering them.

If we understand that the average player will not be able to match the par on a hole with little to no perceived challenge; and perceived challenge in the form of slope, hazards, and other obstacles provides playing interest and entertainment to the player; how much perceived challenge can be added to a hole/course before the additional challenge placed on the player exceeded the additional interest/entertainment value of those challenges?

[Mark_Fine]

For most golfers, even the pros, every shot presents a challenge (ask Rory about three foot putts)!  While a hole devoid of penal or “challenging” hazards might appear “easy” to an accomplishes golfer, it may present a mental challenge that one should make birdie or at least par on the hole and that in itself can be part of the design. Ross did that with a very difficult par four followed by what one would think is an easy par five. 


Great golf courses test and make the golfer think on every shot, not just on 62% of them 

[Charlie Goerges]

This last little line of discussion is why I think "challenge" might not be the best of word choices. It implies (to some) features that make the course very difficult. Maybe "thought-provoking design features" or something similar would be better. Less-skilled players don't generally enjoy playing over flat, featureless terrain any more than great players do. I don't think there is ever a good excuse for a boring, shitty golf course.


I think every shot can engage the brain of every player in some way. Even if there is just some attractive contour between the player and the target. If the player hits a good shot and flies over most of it, that's fine. If not, especially if it's a less-skilled player, that contour is engaging to them. It probably doesn't make the course much harder for them, but they can do their best to negotiate it intelligently. That is always worthwhile to me.

[Ian Andrew]

Do you really think my clients don't have a goal and a direction they want to pursue?  Next to the piece of land we are given, that's the most important thing that makes each of my projects different from the next.


Some clients have a very hard time expressing what they want, and some are afraid to try to tell me anything, but I don't need much in the way of specifics if they don't want to provide them.  A few examples from my past work:


Ballyneal:  "just make it fun"
The Loop:  "I need people to stay and play again the next day"
Memorial Park:  "We want to host a PGA TOUR event downtown, on a public course that does 60,000 rounds"

Point taken. I was thinking renovations, not restoration or original work. But I get your point.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()