Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Ian Andrew on September 20, 2017, 08:33:16 PM
-
I’ve been thinking about this for a while. I’m struggling with a particular golf course – popular with other players – that I seem I don't respect on principal - because I believe it’s pandering to the player.
It’s not like I’m a good player, but when architecture is designed to help me play well, I feel like I'm being pandered to. Perhaps that's just me. It’s happened a few times, where I’ve played really well, but felt empty because I know the golf course was designed to make me feel good. Even though golf makes me miserable at times, I prefer to earn my successes - and live with my failures.
I like width, so this is not about width. I’m a fan of shorter courses and mix yardages, but it has nothing to do with length, because both courses have length. I love feeder slopes and open fronts, punchbowls greens and all that cool shit that makes architecture interesting and fun. It's not a knock on fun playable municipal courses which I respect greatly and will defend.
It’s something far beyond that … it’s a philosophy of ... well ... reward.
Looks pretty - and plays easy ...
The courses have lots of bunkers, but almost everyone defined the lines, explained the path, framed the setting - created a showcase. But almost none of the bunkers made me make a hard choice. Each made me “comfortable.” I don’t want to be completely comfortable – just as much as I don’t want to play eighteen holes in fear.
It struck me that the designs were made things to work out well. Who cares where you miss, there’s always a road waiting to bring you home.
Am I alone or do others find there’s a line in the sand between playability – which I really like – and pandering to the player’s ego which I clearly disagree with.
-
I'm not sure if there is a distinct line between the two, but I have surely seen some Pandering in recent years, and it really bothers me because it's been praised in the same terms as some of my own work. And I would never build a course that didn't challenge the golfer.
-
Looks pretty - and plays easy ...strokes the ego - great for selling lots and memberships.
-
Ian
Its difficult to know what you consider pandering without examples. I am not sure I have ever seen a course which is all about pandering to the golfer, but my idea of pandering VS playability may be very different to yours. I recall wondering about a few holes at Bulls Bay being incredibly wide, but not the whole course. I also recall this discussion concerning Castle Stuart and I fall firmly in the playability camp.
Ciao
-
I'm not sure if there is a distinct line between the two, but I have surely seen some Pandering in recent years, and it really bothers me because it's been praised in the same terms as some of my own work. And I would never build a course that didn't challenge the golfer.
Tom,
Is there one hole at Pacific Dunes that is not textbook perfect? Not that there is anything wrong with that.
-
This discussion reminds me of some of the interviews with DMK around the time Gamble Sands opened. While he never said he was “pandering”, he certainly made it clear the design was not supposed to challenge the player, but rather ensure a low score and good time. I’m ok with that, as he owned up to it. That said, I agree with Ian. It leaves you somewhat unsatisfied when your done playing regardless of how low you go.
-
Ian - a month ago I made/used exactly the same distinction in an exchange with an architect, ie playability vs pandering.
As you note, it is an elusive distinction: it's not necessarily about length or width etc, and yet we know it when we see it, or, more accurately, when we *feel* it.
Strange that I should get annoyed with a course/architect who is so clearly trying to ensure I have a good time. But I think that's it, ie it's that he has put *himself* and his ideas of what I want, and his hopes for popular (and thus future) work ahead of what *I* want and need -- which is a terrific golf course that challenges and beguiles both.
And that the attempt/charade is so *obvious* rankles even more. I feel like saying "Please, at least *try* to fool me -- try to make the lie a convincing one".
When for all its aesthetic charms a golf course glorifies options yet limits the (real, and often hidden) consequences; when it provides more than ample width yet without significant (but often obscure) meaning and relevance; when it celebrates its short 4s and 5s not in relationship to/as counterpoints of the other holes in the routing, but instead as undeniable goods in and of themselves; when it pretends to use short grass surrounds as an enemy when it was clearly (the proof being in the pudding) meant to be my friend; and when dramatic and difficult looking green contours actually serve mainly as framing for large flattish areas of easily pinnable (and make able) putting surface, then I suspect that the architect and his course is pandering to me.
I don't like it in movies, I don't like it in music, I don't like it in books, I don't like it in political discourse, I don't even like it in personal relationships. Why would I want it in golf courses? But, as Jim suggests, it does seem to 'work' for many others when it comes to golf -- and they are clearly willing to pay big dollars for it.
Peter
-
I've felt this way on some banked Fazio fairways that seem like almost any decent shot gets rewarded because the farther off line you are, the steeper the bank to kick it right back in the middle. Then again, I found the very course I'm thinking about a lot of fun, too. But it did feel cheap at times.
-
PS
And for those who might not know, Ian walks the talk.
He designed the coolest, shortest Par 3 I've ever played. Only a 100 yards long, it is playable all right, but it's also devilish.
And then there is the friendly, playable 18 holes with housing course he designed on a nearly dead flat piece of land -- but with one of the most enjoyable and challenging set of greens I've seen.
In both instances, my experience with Ian's work came when I usually played with the same group -- an older well travelled 5 handicapper, a solid 10-12, a very long hitting 16 or so, and me, essentially a decent beginner. None of us hardly ever talked or even thought about 'architecture' back then...but we all immediately knew and agreed that the Par 3 was terrific and that those 18 greens were among the best we played in the entire GTA. (They remind me of the greens at Lakeside, a Herbert Strong design from the 20s).
Which is to say: You don't have to pander in order to impress a wide range of golfers.
-
Haven't played it, but we're talking about Gamble Sands right?
It appears so wide and so modest in undulation for its width that it stands out among all courses I can recall. If it is, it's an interesting case study especially with the context of the Castle Course being in DMK's resume. Perhaps an overreaction?
-
Haven't played it, but we're talking about Gamble Sands right?
I'm pretty sure this is not about Gamble Sands. I think I know what course it is about, but it's up to Ian to decide if he wants to be specific.
I do agree with Mark Kiely, that Tom Fazio was one of the first to build courses that really pandered. I think it was his way of separating himself from Nicklaus and Dye; plus he knew that most of the wealthy people buying homes in those developments were not especially good golfers. [See my review of The Quarry at La Quinta in the Confidential Guide.]
-
Ian
Hats off to you for raising and indeed articulating very well a topic I’ve been thinking about myself. As an average to OK golfer who hangs on to a single figure handicap by dint of a decent short game and avoiding medal competitions, I’m not really too enamoured with long, tight courses with multiple forced carries.
I do however like to be challenged. I suppose it comes down to the nature of that challenge that makes the course interesting. What I don’t find interesting is wide open fairways with no particular advantage as to positioning, indeed I find that deadly dull. On the face of it that might sound a contradiction to my earlier comment on tight fairways but there is more than one way of making a hole interesting.
Sean referenced Castle Stuart and previous discussions with regards to it and I was most definitely on the side of thinking CS had too many nothing shots to really be called a great course. In truth CS doesn’t pander when it comes to some of the greens but an awful lot of the par 4’s and par 5’s have one or two shots that cry out for a craftily placed hazard or landform to lend some interest.
But worse than that, they move the tees to allow for the wind. Do me a f***ing favour. It’s Scotland. It gets windy. That’s part of the game !! - anyway, sorry about that outburst but it was you who started the conversation ;D
Niall
-
I have played 30 plus Fazio courses and Gamble Sands 10 times or so now.
Gamble Sands is in a league of its own as far as this topic goes. I enjoy it a ton, but can't make the upper echelon of courses for this very reason. Sure, hole locations can be set to provide more challenge, but they won't make you think the way that a truly great course.
Never played a Fazio that was even close to this one in my mind.
-
Ian,
The main problem I have with your original premise is...given the massively enormous spectrum of playing abilities and individual strengths/weaknesses that varies from player to player, I don't know how an architect could ever possibly achieve this for even most players, much less all players. Perhaps you could build a bunkerless, flat, tree-free, rough-free, short drive and pitch course...which clearly this is not the case based on your description, and then it would be pandering to most. But I can think of very few courses that fits this bill.
-
Kalen
Was that not what the line of charm was all about ? About tempting the golfer to take on trouble when their was a safer and potentially costlier (in terms of strokes) route to the hole ?
Niall
-
Imagine:
Instead of golfers having (score-based) handicaps and courses having stroke holes and slope ratings, we had the Golfing Spirit Index and the Pandering Scale.
Golf Course X might be given a "1" (ie, low) on the Pandering Scale, which would make it most suitable to Golfing Spirits of 8-10 (ie high). That way, those rare golfers who actually play the ball as it lies and the course as they find it, and who relish the challenge of wind and of contoured greens, and who play for their best score from the same set of tees throughout (ie the 8s and above) could see that a given course was a 6, or 8 or 10 on the Pandering Scale and know immediately that it wasn't a course for them, that they wouldn't like it.
And vice-versa, of course: a 3 on the Golfing Spirit Index would know to gravitate towards courses that scored 7 or more on the Pandering Scale, because that type of course would best provide the kind of "fun" they were looking for.
Everybody would be happy!
-
Imagine:
Instead of golfers having (score-based) handicaps and courses having stroke holes and slope ratings, we had the Pandering Scale and the Golfing Spirit Index.
Golf Course X might be given a "1" (ie, low) on the Pandering Scale, which would make it most suitable to Golfing Spirits of 8-10 (ie high). That way, those rare golfers who actually play the ball as it lies and the course as they find it, and who relish the challenge of wind and of contoured greens, and who play for their best score from the same set of tees throughout (ie the 8s and above) could see that a course was 6-10 on the Pandering Scale and know immediately that it wasn't for them. And vice-versa, of course: a 3 on the Golfing Spirit Index would know to gravitate towards courses that scored 7 or more on the Pandering Scale.
Everybody would be happy!
Deserving of its own thread! Love it.
-
Is it about the severity of the hazards? A flat, boring, painless bunker could be replaced by one a bit more interesting and we feel much better for having avoided it.
We've all played short easy courses that we enjoyed...was that enjoyment based on the accomplishment of avoiding a handful of potential bad spots?
-
It struck me that the designs were made to bring you pleasure. Who cares where you miss, there’s always a road waiting to bring you home.
Am I alone or do others find there’s a line in the sand between playability – which I really like – and pandering to the player’s ego - which I clearly disagree with.
To me, there are playable courses that pander, and playable courses that don't, and the latter are far preferable.
Most seem to think that when someone like me asks for playability, that I'm asking for easy, with no penalty for misses. I can't speak for others, but I'm certainly not asking for that. I'm merely asking for the ability to play the difficult shot that may ensue without having to figure out my drop area. And I'm asking that I not lose my ball in deep rough.
It really is that simple. You don't have to pander to be playable. I like the challenge of trying to hit the proper side of the fairway but I don't like the challenge of figuring out which tees to play or how to throttle back to keep a drive in play (and by in play, I mean not having to figure out a drop area or take an illegitimate drop because I don't want to screw the people behind because I can't find my ball in the rough).
-
With the majority of most golfers' scores consisting of putts, I tend to think that courses that have eliminated slope and resulting breaks in their greens have reached the pandering stage. We have a hole on our local course that had a pretty good slope to the point that you had to make sure your approach was below the pin. I you went above the pin, you were faced with a serious putting challenge. I enjoyed the hole as it was a short par 5 but you had to put your approach in the correct spot. Sadly enough members complained about this original design that the superintendent rebuilt the green taking the severity of the slope away. Now just a regular everyday green. More pars less fun.
-
I haven't played everywhere (yet ;D ), but I'd like to think I've seen a good sampling of courses, and I can think of just one that might fairly be described as pandering to the golfer: The Creek Club at Reynolds Lake Oconee.*
Except I find the Creek Club to be one of the coolest golf experiences I've had, because it dares to cross the line of acceptable outcomes for mediocre shots. You can miss a club long or left or right on certain holes and end up with a short birdie putt. It's wild and crazy, but in a way that lowers the golfer's score, rather than raise it. And that's intentional, so Jim Engh deserves lots of credit for accomplishing his mission
Of course, the most important reason why the Creek Club succeeds is its context. It's not some standalone public or private course; rather, it's one of six courses, available only to members who can access not just it but the five other Reynolds Lake Oconee courses, which all fit within the broad parameters of "normal" golf course design.
This is all to say that I believe before we level a charge of Pandering as a strike against the course, we'd do well to consider its context. I think we can tolerate, and indeed appreciate, more weirdness at a course like the Creek Club, where it's not the only one its clientele are playing regularly.
*The only other course that might come to mind here is Tobacco Road, but I think it's an essential member of the canon, if you will, of golf courses, again because its context permits and invites us to love how strange it is.
-
Likely outside of this group, but most of the customers we had (back when I was in the golf bus.) wanted a course that "looks hard, played/fair/easier". Why?
Most of our customers/members want to sit around after a round or over dinner with their friends regaling them over the great shots they hit, how they had a nice score, how their handicap is slowly coming down. Almost none of those paying customers wanted to say- "I had back to back snowmen on 14 & 15 to cruise in at a cool 98...a ball OB on 14 and a 4 putt on 15...man this course is tough."
Just not going to attract repeat business or long term members with that strategy unless the member list is something out of the Forbes 500/Baltusrol/ NGLA etc.; but what do I know, we just used to try to have to make money in this business.
-
Kalen
Was that not what the line of charm was all about ? About tempting the golfer to take on trouble when their was a safer and potentially costlier (in terms of strokes) route to the hole ?
Niall
Niall,
I think line of charm as I understand it, is a great thing to aspire to as an architect. But the reality remains the same that most players who will play it are just trying to hit the fairway much less one part of it.
I get that on paper not pandering sounds good....I just don't see how this can be adequately explained in implementation. We have a small few examples of really hard to most and conversely really easy to most....but everything else is in the soft and squishy middle that's hard to define.
I have a buddy I've played many many matches with over the years and even though we roughly play to the same handicap, we get it done in vastly different ways. Tee length, short game, course management, streaky vs steady eddie, gambling vs conservative, draw vs. slice.
I guess I'm just having a hard time how an architect can account for all the millions of permutations of playing strategies, golfer ability, maintenance-meld, weather, etc to arrive to a conclusion that a course panders....
-
I'm sorry that golfers are paying more to play less. The man behind the curtain just wants them to have a good time. Resort golf is dead to me.
-
I call it "Golden Age Lite".
The bottle looks the same and it tastes vaguely similar -- but you never get a buzz off it, no matter how much you drink.
A well-known architect in my neck of the woods was a master of it; though back then he bottled it under the "Country Club for a Day" label instead of "The Resort Course" brand.
Either way, it was premium priced and marketing driven. All the cool kids drank it, and wrote it off as a corporate expense.
I drank it too, but later realized why I was never comfortable and felt like a fraud doing it: ie because I couldn't afford it, and was too insecure to say "this doesn't satisfy" when everyone else was praising it to the sky.
Interestingly, back then the Golden Age original they tried to mimic seemed to be Augusta National (with tamer greens); today, the model seems to have shifted to Kingston Heath. Befitting the new global golfer/marketing/brand, I suppose - from Atlanta to Australia!
Peter
-
As I've learned more and more about architecture I've wondered about this exact line. I grew up in the dark age of architecture and my opinion of a "good" golf course has changed quite dramatically in the last few years (since my first trip to Bandon).
But there is a very small part of me that still expects to be beat down by a course and if I shoot the number that I want there is a little voice in the back of my head that says "was that too easy? Did you earn that?"
-
I don't know if the course I'm about to describe fits Ian's definition of pandering, but here 'tis. This course/club has a very good reputation, though the folks at a nearby course/club always claim they are the best. I was thrilled to get on this course and, over the next few years, played it often. The first reaction to looking out over the course was, "omigod, there's bunkers every where". As I recall, there were well over a hundred. What I soon discovered was that the bunkers offered no particular challenge. The fairway bunkers were very flat. No face. So, there was not particular reason to avoid them. I found them easier to hit from than the rough surrounds. It's not that I intentionally hit into them. It's just that they played no part in my strategy on the hole. They were just "eye candy". And, then Ian came along and installed bunkers that had teeth to them. They became true hazards, that you really had to take into account. I think the course came alive, and I'm fairly certain that "The Old Man" is smiling at the result. It's a fun course to play.
-
As I've learned more and more about architecture I've wondered about this exact line. I grew up in the dark age of architecture and my opinion of a "good" golf course has changed quite dramatically in the last few years (since my first trip to Bandon).
But there is a very small part of me that still expects to be beat down by a course and if I shoot the number that I want there is a little voice in the back of my head that says "was that too easy? Did you earn that?"
Joe,
Therein lies the rub.....most golfers don't want it to be too easy, but don't want to get beat up, either. Striking that balance of meeting "golfer expectation" over such a wide range of golf abilities and perspectives seems to be what its all about in design.
You can look for things that kind of challenge good and bad golfers, like using side hazards more than frontal hazards, because good players rarely come up short, so front bunkers have little impact, but average golfers do, so front bunkers have a lot of impact. Whereas, everyone misses laterally, only to different degrees.
I believe chipping and putting challenges don't trouble the average golfer that much, while challenging the good player, too. If you three putt, at least you don't lose a golf ball. Recovery challenges (i.e., hitting out of trees) should be about as much fun for any type of player, IMHO.
We also have multiple tees to vary the challenge to different levels. And to attempt to make any carry challenge we create somewhat doable by most golfers using the appropriate tee.
I try to create interesting shots, but perhaps pander by not making hazards extremely difficult so as to avoid a potential beat down. But, every so often I break the r just for interest. I think all golfers appreciate variety, about equally.
But, all in all, its really every architects opinion as to just how much interesting golf vs. penalty and hard challenge the "average" golfer wants.
I may have told the story, but shared a national interview with Steve Smyers, who was describing his latest design, with a design brief to make it the toughest course in the world. I answered that with all due respect, my career is trending the other way, towards more playable golf courses, perhaps even pandering ones in Ian's narrative. We all take our own journey in design, but I have seen and designed enough tough courses (There are two states where my courses have the highest slope rating, and I debate whether or not I should be proud of that) to feel golf needs a bit more pandering moving forward.
Basically, every course is different in its design brief, and the only judge of design is whether you ended up somewhere near where you intended to when you started.
-
As I've learned more and more about architecture I've wondered about this exact line. I grew up in the dark age of architecture and my opinion of a "good" golf course has changed quite dramatically in the last few years (since my first trip to Bandon).
But there is a very small part of me that still expects to be beat down by a course and if I shoot the number that I want there is a little voice in the back of my head that says "was that too easy? Did you earn that?"
Joe,
Therein lies the rub.....most golfers don't want it to be too easy, but don't want to get beat up, either. Striking that balance of meeting "golfer expectation" over such a wide range of golf abilities and perspectives seems to be what its all about in design.
It is a challenge I do not envy because how can you be expected to strike that balance when I'm not even sure where my personal line is...
-
Joe,
And it varies every day for every golfer! In most locales, it is quite possible to vary the challenge by simply playing a different course, but that concept is not usually put in the design brief. Basically, the owner wants his course to be suitable to all, no matter what the mood.
-
Ian, I am glad your brought this up. These kind of golf courses are not good for the game. This is not the future of golf and I am fairly certain they will be tinkered with in the near future.
Yes there is a line, and the good player certainly knows it and they will speak with where their wallet.
-
But there is a very small part of me that still expects to be beat down by a course and if I shoot the number that I want there is a little voice in the back of my head that says "was that too easy? Did you earn that?"
This is the very essence of the difference between playing the game and playing for score...and one reason why matchplay is the superior scoring method. I never walk off a course and ask if it was too easy. That question is irrelevant so far as I am concerned. The only people who should be asking that question are experts.
Ciao
-
Sean - I see your point and I take you at your word. But look at your recent experience at Pine Needles. One can hardly lose a golf ball, to water or anything else, but a 10 capper would be very hard pressed to shoot/break 80 from the 5800 yard markers.
The course isn't "too easy". Isn't that, for you, part and parcel of its charms?
-
A lot, like almost, architects pander to the high handicapper.
And I think it's a mistake because it seems most good players and golf experts think they know what's best for the high handicapper, but few ever actually listen to them. And many don't know how to design a challenging course without using hazards.
-
Sean - I see your point and I take you at your word. But look at your recent experience at Pine Needles. One can hardly lose a golf ball, to water or anything else, but a 10 capper would be very hard pressed to shoot/break 80 from the 5800 yard markers.
The course isn't "too easy". Isn't that, for you, part and parcel of its charms?
Pietro
For sure! But golf is a big world and in my small corner I leave room for all levels of difficulty. However, it is far more likely that I will dislike a course because it is too difficult rather than too easy. In fact, if you ask me, a 10 capper stating a course is too easy is a bit too cocky for my liking. If folks want to call that pandering it is their prerogative, but for me that isn't the case. I am mindful of weather and how it can enhance the difficulty of a course. So to me it makes sense for archies to keep their powder dry and let mother nature do as she will.
Ciao
-
Where is the talk of "fun" in this thread?
Usually on the site, there are favorite themes such as:
-Small or few forced carries that helps the higher handicap
-Fewer Water Hazards
-Giving the golfer the possibility of recovery shots
-Speeding up play
-alternate routes to green to avoid severe hazards
-disdain for the 155 slope courses
Is that pandering?
-
Where is the talk of "fun" in this thread?
Usually on the site, there are favorite themes such as:
-Small or few forced carries that helps the higher handicap
-Fewer Water Hazards
-Giving the golfer the possibility of recovery shots
-Speeding up play
-alternate routes to green to avoid severe hazards
-disdain for the 155 slope courses
Is that pandering?
I think the point of the thread is whether pursuing those goals too far or in the wrong way can ultimately undermine the quality of a golf course. For me the answer to that question is undoubtedly yes.
Some examples that strike me as pandering:
1. Repeatedly providing extra room on the right of the fairway to accommodate a slice or blocked tee shot. Many resort courses do this.
2. Placing bunkers far enough away from the intended line or landing spot that they do not really tempt an aggressive shot.
3. A short par 4 in which it does not matter where an aggressive tee shot is placed - resulting in basically a long par three.
4. Unnatural big slopes to the side of the fairways to cause wayward shots to return to play
One traditional design feature that might be pandering - punchbowl greens.
-
I haven't played as much golf as some, but over the years observing a lot of mediocre golfers, I've reached a conclusion that for a lot of people, golf is an outlet for the venting of frustration.
I think a lot of golfers, perhaps at a subconscious level, actually almost enjoy hitting bad shots and enjoy playing poorly, because it allows them to get upset in a way that day-to-day business and family life doesn't really permit, at least without serious consequences. The stakes are so low in a round of golf that there's latitude to have a mini-meltdown, wallowing in a round that's going off the rails. I've noticed that I've become a better player as I've done less of this. I still have my moments, but I keep them short.
Are "pandering" course annoying because they provide fewer opportunities for golfers to let off steam through bad play?
-
Some of us need discipline to stay focused. While it was fun for a day when a substitute teacher would show up it did no one any good over the long run.
-
But there is a very small part of me that still expects to be beat down by a course and if I shoot the number that I want there is a little voice in the back of my head that says "was that too easy? Did you earn that?"
This is the very essence of the difference between playing the game and playing for score...and one reason why matchplay is the superior scoring method. I never walk off a course and ask if it was too easy. That question is irrelevant so far as I am concerned. The only people who should be asking that question are experts.
Ciao
Sean - I guess "too easy" is a bit of a broad statement. But I do play for score as I generally play with my dad and we don't play matches. I have a number in my mind that is my goal for the round and I do like a little challenge to reach that goal but I don't want it to be impossible either.
Trust me I'm no expert.
-
Where is the talk of "fun" in this thread?
Usually on the site, there are favorite themes such as:
-Small or few forced carries that helps the higher handicap
-Fewer Water Hazards
-Giving the golfer the possibility of recovery shots
-Speeding up play
-alternate routes to green to avoid severe hazards
-disdain for the 155 slope courses
Is that pandering?
I think the point of the thread is whether pursuing those goals too far or in the wrong way can ultimately undermine the quality of a golf course. For me the answer to that question is undoubtedly yes.
Some examples that strike me as pandering:
1. Repeatedly providing extra room on the right of the fairway to accommodate a slice or blocked tee shot. Many resort courses do this.
2. Placing bunkers far enough away from the intended line or landing spot that they do not really tempt an aggressive shot.
3. A short par 4 in which it does not matter where an aggressive tee shot is placed - resulting in basically a long par 3.
4. Unnatural big slopes to the side of the fairways to cause wayward shots to return to play
One traditional design feature that might be pandering - punchbowl greens.
Well said Jason.
I was wondering about the revetted pot bunkers that are usually encountered on links courses in the UK. For sure they are not natural, and yet, they are not only accepted, but admired as much for their difference to many inland bunkers (flat and uninteresting) as their difficulty (many a true .5/1 stroke penalty depending on lie and aggressive inclinations).
Certainly these courses could pander to the visiting golfers by putting in more 'natural looking bunkers' that are both more playable and less of a penalty, but I'm not sure that makes a course better. Only easier.
Edit: I'm not saying that a more natural-looking bunker can't be penalising, only that this is a mere excuse for making the hazard less penalising to ensure the player has more fun (because in their mind lower score = more fun).
-
I watched a bit of Matt Ginella's description of Streamsong Black. He was effusive in his praise, but to tell you the truth, it did seem like the course he was describing could fit this elusive "pandering" moniker. Mind you, I've not seen the course and I'm sure Ginella would object to any such architectural "equivalency" to pandering, but Matty G. seemed to go out of his way to talk about how easy it would be to make par or birdie on a lot of holes.
-
I like to keep score.
And if I shoot an 85 on Course X but hit it lousy pretty much all day, I know that on the better/more interesting Course Y that 85 would've been a 95.
Now, if Course X is a modest, run of the mill muni or local public course, I wouldn't hold my 85 against it -- being playable and inexpensive for all us hacks is what it was built for/designed to be.
But if Course X is instead an expensive out of the way resort course designed for the well-traveled golfer, and I shoot 85 when it should've been a 95, then that's pandering -- and that would annoy me, because they're selling (and I'm paying a for) a much better and more engaging and interesting course than that.
Btw - the most influential architect of the modern era? Apparently, it's Tom Fazio. The same trick he used to keep second-home-owners happy is now being used (by some) to keep retail golfers happy. There was something dishonest and even disrespectful of the game back then; and there is something dishonest and disrespectful (of the game, of golfers, and of the craft of gca) right now.
-
I surely would like to see some of these pandering courses folks talk about. You know, the ones where people routinely shoot five strokes under their handicaps. What are the names of these courses?
In the UK, one possible candidate is Crail. Though I think it is easy to play to one's handicap (weather cooperating), not for a 10 capper to blitz the place. Gullane #3 is also another candidate. Though, its hard to say such old courses are pandering more than technology compromised their virtue to some degree...especially Gullane #3...for in my experience there are few courses as graceful as this.
Ciao
-
I watched a bit of Matt Ginella's description of Streamsong Black. He was effusive in his praise, but to tell you the truth, it did seem like the course he was describing could fit this elusive "pandering" moniker. Mind you, I've not seen the course and I'm sure Ginella would object to any such architectural "equivalency" to pandering, but Matty G. seemed to go out of his way to talk about how easy it would be to make par or birdie on a lot of holes.
That's an interesting take by Ginella. Three or four caddies mentioned to me that they were worried there was enough trouble on the Black for the average resort player that rounds were going to creep into the 5.5 hour range.
-
I may have uttered an incomplete take on Matty G's review as I only saw a portion of it. Howard (King of the Links) has a link to the whole review that might throw some shade on my impression.
-
Next time I'm depressed I'm gonna binge watch Matty G reviews. It's got to be a healthier alternative to my most recent self destructive behavior.
-
Sean - I see your point and I take you at your word. But look at your recent experience at Pine Needles. One can hardly lose a golf ball, to water or anything else, but a 10 capper would be very hard pressed to shoot/break 80 from the 5800 yard markers.
The course isn't "too easy". Isn't that, for you, part and parcel of its charms?
I agree with Sean -- medal play against the course is meaningless to me. My interest is how the course works out for match play. Do the competitors, in match play, have a reasonable chance to compete against each other (from the standpoint of raw difficulty, such as long forced carries, lots of water in play, etc., etc.) yet with enough challenges that the thinker, the strategy player, can come out o.k., or better, against a player who doesn't think things through. Also, I agree with another poster who pointed to the importance of greens in differentiating and difficulty. Challenging greens, both from a pure putting standpoint and from an approach shot standpoint are great differentiaters.
-
I surely would like to see some of these pandering courses folks talk about. You know, the ones where people routinely shoot five strokes under their handicaps. What are the names of these courses?
This is my guess as to the definition of pandering courses, by people who rank/rate golf courses: courses that accentuate skills that favor OTHER golfers, not themselves.
I think that if someone loses to another golfer they assume to be inferior, playing match play OR stroke play, they tend to look at why, and think, it must be the course, not me. It's easier to say a course that provides width is too easy, if your own forte is hitting fairways. Or a course is too short, if your strength is going deep.
I think in the end, that too many golfers want courses that highlight their own strengths and penalize others weaknesses. A pandering course is therefore one that accommodates your opponent's weaknesses and fails to reward your own strengths.
The reality is pretty much 180 degrees in the opposite direction. :)
-
George - we all have our own (differing) experiences; and those experiences influence and inform our posts here.
My guess is that Sean plays the majority of his golf on courses designed before 1930; and that for a special treat he'll play a modern course like the Renaissance Club.
I play the majority of my golf on courses designed after 1970, mostly modest publics built on what used to be farmland; and when friends want a special treat and a 'fancier' experience we play the Country Clubs for a Day built in the late 90s and early 2000s.
A lot has changed, fundamentally, in those 70 years, from the 1920s and 30s to the 1990s and 2000s -- both in terms of how and why architects built their courses, and, more importantly, in terms of the average golfer's expectations (in terms of difficulty and score etc.)
Not surprisingly, Sean doesn't understand/agree with my POV and I don't understand his.
I see pandering all over the place (including via what I read here about some big name modern courses); he doesn't. Naturally, since even when he thinks of courses that might fit the bill he thinks of a (golden age) course like Gullane.
The one great golden age course I have played is Crystal Downs. It was probably a 'resort course' back in its day, and today it is not overly long and does not have a high slope rating, and is eminently playable -- and yet it kicked my ass from start to finish, and I shot some 15 strokes higher than my average. Meanwhile, I play a CCFAD that is longer and might even have a higher slope rating than CD, and I can score 5 strokes lower than my average.
Why? Because that designer is pandering to the average golfer and providing width for its own sake and hazards that are out of play save for a vicious slice or hook and greens that have meaningless contours with big flat areas where (not coincidentally) the pin always seems to be placed.
At CD, on the other hand, I could play pretty easily out of the rough, but if I was on the wrong side of the fairway (as I often was) I was in more trouble than I realized; and I could hit quite a few greens and have many putts for par and even for birdie, but if I ended up above the hole or on the wrong side of a shelf/slope (as I often did), I again had no idea until afterwards of how dead I was. And that is the difference, to use Ian's original distinction, between playability and pandering.
Peter
-
The question posed by this thread is worth exploring, but for reasons that escape me, no one seems to want to mention directly by name any courses that fall on either side of the line. That makes it very difficult to evaluate the question properly.
Ira
-
That's one of the many limitations of my posts on here, Ira. I promised myself a long time ago that if I had a positive comment I'd name names (specific architects and/or courses), but that if I was going to be negative I'd only speak in generalities and never call out a specific course or architect. Nothing on this website, it seems to me, is worth the risk (however small that risk is) of damaging a professional's reputation or impacting negatively on his/her career. Unfortunately, I have sometimes broken that promise. On this thread, though, I don't have to -- so sure I am that, in general, this pandering is taking place! :)
-
George - we all have our own (differing) experiences; and those experiences influence and inform our posts here.
My guess is that Sean plays the majority of his golf on courses designed before 1930; and that for a special treat he'll play a modern course like the Renaissance Club.
I play the majority of my golf on courses designed after 1970, mostly modest publics built on what used to be farmland; and when friends want a special treat and a 'fancier' experience we play the Country Clubs for a Day built in the late 90s and early 2000s.
A lot has changed, fundamentally, in those 70 years, from the 1920s and 30s to the 1990s and 2000s -- both in terms of how and why architects built their courses, and, more importantly, in terms of the average golfer's expectations (in terms of difficulty and score etc.)
Not surprisingly, Sean doesn't understand/agree with my POV and I don't understand his.
I see pandering all over the place (including via what I read here about some big name modern courses); he doesn't. Naturally, since even when he thinks of courses that might fit the bill he thinks of a (golden age) course like Gullane.
The one great golden age course I have played is Crystal Downs. It was probably a 'resort course' back in its day, and today it is not overly long and does not have a high slope rating, and is eminently playable -- and yet it kicked my ass from start to finish, and I shot some 15 strokes higher than my average. Meanwhile, I play a CCFAD that is longer and might even have a higher slope rating than CD, and I can score 5 strokes lower than my average.
Why? Because that designer is pandering to the average golfer and providing width for its own sake and hazards that are out of play save for a vicious slice or hook and greens that have meaningless contours with big flat areas where (not coincidentally) the pin always seems to be placed.
At CD, on the other hand, I could play pretty easily out of the rough, but if I was on the wrong side of the fairway (as I often was) I was in more trouble than I realized; and I could hit quite a few greens and have many putts for par and even for birdie, but if I ended up above the hole or on the wrong side of a shelf/slope (as I often did), I again had no idea until afterwards of how dead I was. And that is the difference, to use Ian's original distinction, between playability and pandering.
Peter
Pietro
Ohhh, I understand your PoV...its just that I don't think you are a good enough player to be pandered. Talk to me when you shoot par on a regaular basis 8) . What you call pandering (I assume anyway because you won't name courses...which sort makes this thread pointless) I call getting players around the course in a reasonable and happy manner. Its fine if you don't want that and instead wish to be challenged for your 85, but do recall that we share a common trait which is a lack of skill. I have said it before...I have never seen a course I thought was too easy...which is really what folks are saying about pandering. I have seen more than a few I thought were too tough adn a whole lot more I thought were dull, but never too easy.
So I guess I am saying there is a line between playability and pandering, its just that very few golfers are good enough to identify it.
Ciao
-
Sean - good post, thanks for the clarity on stating your view. I have to note, though, that you ignored my point re: the differences between the courses you play and the ones that I do. I too would be all for courses that got me around in a reasonable and happy manner if those courses were like Cleeve Cloud and Sherwood Forest and Cavendish. Again, it's not about score in an absolute sense. It's about an engaging and imaginative and subtly challenging 85 as opposed to an 85 that, in retrospect, and despite all the signs and signifiers of quality architecture, could not possibly have been any higher.
I know I'm not making it easier by not naming names, but it still should be fairly clear: my point is older than Bernard Darwin, ie a rabbit wants to sometimes be made to feel like a tiger, yes; but please don't make the ruse so obvious (especially not in a "subtle", "strategic" and expensive way) that I don't get any fun out of it.
Peter
-
Honestly Pietro, I have not deliberately skipped these expensive modern courses which in a less than subtle manner have made shooting 85 too easy. However, I don't frequent many modern places and that is mostly by choice. This thread is the first time I have caught wind of Fazio courses being easy to score on.
Ciao
-
Sean, I believe you may be painting with too broad a brush on this topic. I think what people are talking about in regard to pandering isn't a blanket "it's easy to score on" course. It's courses with certain features that make the player feel like they accomplished something more impressive than what their shot might have warranted.
The Fazio course I alluded to earlier in the thread was Primm Valley (Desert), which I still consider a really fun course. But while playing it (one of few Fazio courses I've ever played), a light bulb went off in my head that said, "Oh, so THIS is why he got so popular!" because the course presents itself as a stout, championship layout but several drives seemed to be overly rewarded as long as they were halfway decently struck, thanks to banked fairways that kicked everything back on line. On that course, it was mostly the drives where pandering came into play. (Hit a draw, hit it straight, hit a fade... it really doesn't matter as long as you're decently accurate.) You still had to execute on approach shots to avoid some pretty penal bunkering around the greens.
Anyway, that's my interpretation of pandering, and if I misrepresented your position, I apologize.
-
I was wondering about the revetted pot bunkers that are usually encountered on links courses in the UK. For sure they are not natural, and yet, they are not only accepted, but admired as much for their difference to many inland bunkers (flat and uninteresting) as their difficulty (many a true .5/1 stroke penalty depending on lie and aggressive inclinations).
Certainly these courses could pander to the visiting golfers by putting in more 'natural looking bunkers' that are both more playable and less of a penalty, but I'm not sure that makes a course better. Only easier.
Edit: I'm not saying that a more natural-looking bunker can't be penalising, only that this is a mere excuse for making the hazard less penalising to ensure the player has more fun (because in their mind lower score = more fun).
Tim:
This is a very good example. When the first course was built at Bandon Dunes, I understand that David Kidd advocated for more revetted bunkers, but that Mr. Keiser overruled him on the grounds that revetted bunkers were too frustrating for too many American golfers.
Of course, they still went with the smaller, grass-faced bunkers; it was Pacific Dunes that went for the more "natural-looking" bunkers [quite a few of which were already part of the landscape]. I didn't built them to be easy, and they are not easy, but I only went that direction because I knew that Mr. Keiser wouldn't let me go in the opposite direction [revetted]. And, even though I would not say that my rationale for bunker choice was "lower score = more fun", I would say that part of it was "prettier bunkers - more fun", which may not be that different as I make it out to be, especially from the client's perspective.
Indeed, the whole notion of the "retail golfer" brings the idea of pandering into view on the horizon. From there, it is only the architect who can stop himself from crossing that line. Some would probably say that Old Macdonald panders because the gorse has been cleared so thoroughly that it's nearly impossible to lose a ball, but I would counter that there are still a lot of ways for that course to frustrate you.
-
Sean, I believe you may be painting with too broad a brush on this topic. I think what people are talking about in regard to pandering isn't a blanket "it's easy to score on" course. It's courses with certain features that make the player feel like they accomplished something more impressive than what their shot might have warranted.
The Fazio course I alluded to earlier in the thread was Primm Valley (Desert), which I still consider a really fun course. But while playing it (one of few Fazio courses I've ever played), a light bulb went off in my head that said, "Oh, so THIS is why he got so popular!" because the course presents itself as a stout, championship layout but several drives seemed to be overly rewarded as long as they were halfway decently struck, thanks to banked fairways that kicked everything back on line. On that course, it was mostly the drives where pandering came into play. (Hit a draw, hit it straight, hit a fade... it really doesn't matter as long as you're decently accurate.) You still had to execute on approach shots to avoid some pretty penal bunkering around the greens.
Anyway, that's my interpretation of pandering, and if I misrepresented your position, I apologize.
Mark
You are probably right. I guess my points were 1) most golfers aren't good enough to worry much about pandering...they simply sound cocky and 2) I am surprised to never come across these courses which too often help golfers stay on track. I suspect there aren't all that many courses of this ilk which makes them easy to avoid if guys like banging their heads against 90 instead of 80 :) That said, I usually do dislike two features which could be deemed pandering. First, road map bunkering and second, saving bunkers...especially bunkers adjacent to water. Even these design features are ok in small doses.
Keeping the issue close to home, I would like nothing more than to be pandered to by having tall grass cut on some dunes so balls come back down the slopes.
Ciao
-
It would be interesting to define pandering when the average golfer hits only 6-10 shots a round that are totally solid.
I sometimes play the new forward tees on my courses, at 4500 yards (which, some would say is pandering in itself) I don't shoot much lower because I lose my strokes in the short game and putting. I believe most golfers could say the same.
From a historical perspective, which panders more - a 60 yard wide CBM or Mac fairway with no grading, or a 45 yard wide Fazio fairway with slight concave slope? Seems to me, either one would save just about as many balls from exiting the play corridor.
The Fazio fairways look better to most golfers, getting them comfortable over the shot. Granted, the CBM wider and natural contours fw has less chance to be near and edge and not the middle.
So, on one hand, the "intelligentsia" here cheer for wide fairways and for balls being seldom lost, and can have recovery, but jeer when it is done a certain way? Sounds like prescription design to me.....which is something most here would also lambast, LOL.
Another thought, but I wonder if the 1950's, including RTJ and DW were really the right way to go - turf and trees on the outskirts, to minimize lost balls. Introducing natives to save irrigation sort of changes the fw design dynamic, and design adapts a bit.
Just trying to out young Mike Young here.
-
Couldn't agree more with Sean and his comments in general on this thread. Golf is hard enough, given there are so few players who can regularly achieve par on most holes in one round
P.S. I'm still waiting to hear any kind of logical definition on how one differentiates between Playabilty and Pandering....
-
Couldn't agree more with Sean and his comments in general on this thread. Golf is hard enough, given there are so few players who can regularly achieve par on most holes in one round
P.S. I'm still waiting to hear any kind of logical definition on how one differentiates between Playabilty and Pandering....
Pandering is making it look like you have a bunch of "options" off the tee, but they're all as big as a parking lot, and then it really doesn't matter which of them you've taken because the greens are receptive from all angles.
-
Couldn't agree more with Sean and his comments in general on this thread. Golf is hard enough, given there are so few players who can regularly achieve par on most holes in one round
P.S. I'm still waiting to hear any kind of logical definition on how one differentiates between Playabilty and Pandering....
Pandering is making it look like you have a bunch of "options" off the tee, but they're all as big as a parking lot, and then it really doesn't matter which of them you've taken because the greens are receptive from all angles.
I think this is where a disconnect exists between what the average player has control over, vs the tiny minority who can hit to a certain part of the fairway or green to take advantage of a tucked pin or a small green tier.
Take your average 16 capper...who is just trying to find any part of the fairway, and find any part of the green with thier approach shot. Being out of position is very common for the average golfer, whether it be in a fairway bunker, behind a tree, in the rough, or on the wrong part of the green where a 2 putt is difficult.
While I think the pandering aspect of design is certainly true for the 2% of golfers who have game to take advantage, I don't know if it even really factors in for the other 98%.
So to me its a question of...should we be concerned with building courses to challenge the 2% and punish everyone else? Or build for the masses even if the 2% can shred them?
-
Couldn't agree more with Sean and his comments in general on this thread. Golf is hard enough, given there are so few players who can regularly achieve par on most holes in one round
P.S. I'm still waiting to hear any kind of logical definition on how one differentiates between Playabilty and Pandering....
Pandering is making it look like you have a bunch of "options" off the tee, but they're all as big as a parking lot, and then it really doesn't matter which of them you've taken because the greens are receptive from all angles.
If this is the definition then in my experience there isn't much of a problem to worry about or deal with.
Ciao
-
Oh for goodness sake, Kalen, you and Sean are driving me nuts. What could be easier than telling the difference? I'm not a masochist, nor am I cocky - I just want to play interesting and meaningful golf.
Play-ability actually rewards good/smart shot-making; pandering merely appears to do so. With play-ability, there are clear but not insurmountable disadvantages to poor choices and mediocre execution; with pandering, poor choices and mediocre execution again and again prove not to result is any such disadvantages.
But heck, don't take my word for it. Ask architects like Ian A who first raised the topic and Tom D who first noticed such pandering in Fazio's work for a "logical definition"...
Peter
PS - just saw the other posts/definitions.
Please, enough of this false modesty and/or supposed realism. I'm an average golfer who plays with persimmon, and you know what? Like most average golfers I can sometimes aim for and hit a specific side of the fairway. But if and when I *don't*, it really sucks to get to my golf ball and realize that neither my choice nor my mishit makes one hell of a bit of difference, since the green/contours open up and accept a shot just as well from here as it would've from there. What the hell's the point of that? The game is reduced to just swinging a club...
-
Peter,
This topic brings to mind the famous Ron White quip:
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability"
I can appreciate terrific features as much as the next guy, but just because I can see what looks like the best way to play a hole doesn't mean I can execute it most of the time....even if I hit it exactly where I want a couple times per round. And the vast majority of golfers are in this bucket.
-
Pietro, call me a skeptic, but as I said before, where are all these 50 yard wide, concave fairway, punchbowl green courses which funnel shots to the hole no matter where the ball is hit? Sure, I see holes of this sort, but not a single course in the hundreds I have played would I characterize as pandering...especially using Doak's definition. I think the case has been grossly exaggerated. I simply do not see design that black and white. Sorry, maybe its time to smoke a ciggy 8)
Ciao
-
Pietro, call me a skeptic, but as I said before, where are all these 50 yard wide, concave fairway, punchbowl green courses which funnel shots to the hole no matter where the ball is hit? Sure, I see holes of this sort, but not a single course in the hundreds I have played would I characterize as pandering...especially using Doak's definition. I think the case has been grossly exaggerated in a flase either or scenario...I simply do not see design that back and white. Sorry, maybe its time to smoke a ciggy 8)
Ciao
Sean, this site needs a like button. For that post, i'll give you this..
(http://www.spaceg.com/multimedia/collection/meme%20responses/approves/likes%20-%20truckload.jpg)
-
I had my ciggie, but now I'm actually annoyed. I like knocking around ideas as much as the next fellow, and have made allowances for your points of view (e.g. we play different courses), and I've tried hard to explain/define what I see. But if you just want to keep saying, in essence, "bullshit - you're lying, I don't ever see what you're describing" then there's nothing much to discuss. Several of us, including many folks whose opinion you should respect much more than mine, seem to know exactly what I'm talking about. I'll have to satisfy myself with that. Let's get back to more objective and honest discussions like which private clubs are "10s" and which 500 courses are the best in the world; no one is spouting bullshit on those threads...
Okay, best
Peter
-
Pietro
On the contrary, folks, including yourself, have not been forthright in offering specific examples for discussion. We can talk all day in circles about theory. Unfortunately, I don't have much time for vague discussions of theory without firm examples. I may be an outlier, but I learn through application to reality. Simply stating that such and such course or designer is pandering does not a discussion make.
Ciao
-
I had my ciggie, but now I'm actually annoyed. I like knocking around ideas as much as the next fellow, and have made allowances for your points of view (e.g. we play different courses), and I've tried hard to explain/define what I see. But if you just want to keep saying, in essence, "bullshit - you're lying, I don't ever see what you're describing" then there's nothing much to discuss. Several of us, including many folks whose opinion you should respect much more than mine, seem to know exactly what I'm talking about. I'll have to satisfy myself with that. Let's get back to more objective and honest discussions like which private clubs are "10s" and which 500 courses are the best in the world; no one is spouting bullshit on those threads...
Okay, best
Peter
On a typical day around here, I usually agree with either Sean or you... so this difference of opinion is intriguing.
For context, I'm a 70-year old 17 handicap, headed down, having been as low as 5-6 in my 40s and, like Sean, I am having a little difficulty finding examples of what you're talking about in the ~400 courses I have played.
Now, I have had EXACTLY the experience you're talking about on first play of a course. Where it seemed as if the course was "helping" me stay out of trouble. But at the moment I can only think of two.
First was Briggs Ranch, a Fazio course in San Antonio. It was also the first course of his I'd played, and still is. I was playing pretty well in those days and IIRC I shot a pretty easy 75.
The other was Elie, where I had my lowest score ever in Scotland, a remarkably uneventful 81. (FWIW, I managed 82 at TOC and Brora this summer.)
But the deal is, I'm not so sure either one of those qualify for what you're talking about. Because I have since played Elie and had my lunch stolen before I'd played a half-dozen holes.
I have not been back to Briggs, but two of my friends that day proved that Fazio was definitely not pandering to higher handicap golfers. One of them had approximately 30 bunker shots.
So I have to ask, of the courses you think pandered, how many of them have been played multiple times, and did you shoot this "easy" 85 every time?
If not, then I have to question the concept.
Golf is a remarkably silly game, one that seems so simple one day as to be childs' play, and a day or two later it's as difficult as quantum mechanics.
All of my golfing life I have been a member (or season ticket holder) at one golf course which means I have played my home courses hundreds of times. None of them are particularly difficult, but my scores on them vary by at least 25 strokes, sometimes by 10-15 on consecutive rounds.
These days, I'd love to see course or two that actually was pandering....
Oh, and by the way, your earlier comment about a course with a high slope rating yielding easy scores 5 shots under your average is either something you imagined, or it's a further indictment of our currently course rating system.
Being a GHIN hater, I'm hoping it's the latter.
K
-
Ken
It is interesting you mention TOC. Of all the courses I played with a rep as very good to great, TOC must be the poster boy for pandering if you believe in the concept. I am not convinced it is the design which is at fault so much as the hole locations and forward tees which tourists play. Someone mentioned earlier that it could be construed that simply offering shorter tees is a form pandering...In any case, if TOC is pandering to tourists I don't mind so much. Most tourists will have had their lunch handed to them on 3 or 4 courses out of 5 they play while on tour in GB&I. There is no harm in offering folks a chance to tell a good story about their day at TOC. In any case two, I don't think of TOC as pandering, but simply offering enough rope for punters to hang themselves...which may be the very definition of playability. As you rightly say, on any given day we have to play with the game which turned up and it often isn't pretty.
Ciao
-
Ken
I am not convinced it is the design which is at fault so much as the hole locations and forward tees which tourists play.
Ciao
That's a great point, as much as I hate to pay the tariff, I've spent several months in Arizona for the last 7-8 years, and end up playing whatever I can get a "reasonable" price on through one of the evil tee-time booking companies.
And I don't think I have ever seen one of those resort courses play at it's card yardage. Not that I mind as the greens are usually so firm in the winter that I can't really score anyway. A lot of days it's like playing #10 at Royal Dornoch 10 or 12 times. Hard green, and no way to bounce one on.
k
-
Ken,
Excellent post in reply 69.
This site is chock full of really good to great players and I think sometimes the playing abilities of you and I, which is far far more representative of the average golfer...gets lost.
You can put bunkers, hazards, nasty patches of rough, undulating terrain, etc.....just about anywhere on a typical par 4 hole and the average player is gonna find nearly all of it after just a few playings. So I don't know how something like pandering is really achievable by even the best of of architects when you consider the hundreds of thousands of rounds played by a wide spectrum of players, most of whom are going to be widely variable from round to round in where they end up hitting the ball.
-
This thread brings up an issue that I have been amazed isn't discussed more on this site--the business purpose of the golf course being constructed. Is this a housing development with the course being built to sell lots? Is it a course being built to hold professional or top amateur events? Is it a public course where speed of play is the concern? Etc.
Being specific, I think Tom Fazio--often vilified on here--has done a very good job of building courses to his primary business model--having a golf course as an accessory to a development that is meant to sell lots for home sales--often to retirees. The users of the course are usually greatly varied in ability, many women golfers, who want pretty views from their homes, numerous teeing options, fun, tricky greens, and the camaraderie of golf. Playing a "top" golf course is not their primary objective, nor should it be Fazio's objective in building the course.
All golf courses don't need to be built with the same objective. When we judge a course on this site, I think that too often we become one-dimensional in our thinking. Doesn't the question of Pandering vs. Ideal Golf construction come back to the issue of what the course is meant to achieve?
-
This is the pay more to play less model and the rubes are eating it up.
-
Along the lines of the last 3 posts, save JK, is this question:
Am I, as architect, pandering to offer greens that are 70-90% open in front, with one or two Sunday?Weekend Pins to make any hole harder when needed? I think that is what most architects try to do, and it is up to the super (and club pro) to generally set the course up with mostly (but not all) easy and moderate pins on most weekend days, and maybe use 6-12 harder pins for the big events. Just as it is up to them to narrow fairways, grow rough, speed up greens, and move tees back in some appropriate combo for big events.
Is the flexibility to be different things on different days pandering?
And, how many of these posts identifying "pandering" were made on the basis of one day of play?
-
This thread brings up an issue that I have been amazed isn't discussed more on this site--the business purpose of the golf course being constructed. Is this a housing development with the course being built to sell lots? Is it a course being built to hold professional or top amateur events? Is it a public course where speed of play is the concern? Etc.
Being specific, I think Tom Fazio--often vilified on here--has done a very good job of building courses to his primary business model--having a golf course as an accessory to a development that is meant to sell lots for home sales--often to retirees. The users of the course are usually greatly varied in ability, many women golfers, who want pretty views from their homes, numerous teeing options, fun, tricky greens, and the camaraderie of golf. Playing a "top" golf course is not their primary objective, nor should it be Fazio's objective in building the course.
All golf courses don't need to be built with the same objective. When we judge a course on this site, I think that too often we become one-dimensional in our thinking. Doesn't the question of Pandering vs. Ideal Golf construction come back to the issue of what the course is meant to achieve?
I mostly agree with the above. Fazio builds courses for a certain market and he has succeeded beyond the dreams of avarice.
We have discussed the topic at GCA any number of times in the past. I have not searched the archive, but I think most of those conversations took place back when there was such a thing as residential real estate development.
Bob
-
There is nothing wrong with building courses high on photo ops and low on scores. It's millennial madness.
-
There is nothing wrong with building courses high on photo ops and low on scores. It's millennial madness.
JK,
I love the self-deprecating humor here...given your home course and all. I like a guy who doesn't take himself too seriously!! ;D
-
You can put bunkers, hazards, nasty patches of rough, undulating terrain, etc.....just about anywhere on a typical par 4 hole and the average player is gonna find nearly all of it after just a few playings. So I don't know how something like pandering is really achievable by even the best of of architects when you consider the hundreds of thousands of rounds played by a wide spectrum of players, most of whom are going to be widely variable from round to round in where they end up hitting the ball.
Yesterday I played the course where I have been a member since 1998, a 1915 Ross that hasn't had the space or money to do much to the layout. (Other than some misguided dirt work by a member that elevated a bunch of tees and [I think] screwed up some greens by changing the slopes.)
I haven't broken 80 in a few years, and my lack of consistency has made me lose a lot of my interest in playing. But I had shot 78, 78, 83 over about a week, so I was looking forward to seeing if I could keep the streak going.
Well, I completely lost it. Ended up shooting ~93 (didn't finish a couple of holes)
So I started thinking about this thread.
I concluded that even if an architect tried to make a course easier by mounding the sides of fairways, giving greens sideboard and backboards, etc. Players like me (and virtually ALL of the players I've been paired with playing modern resort courses) can't be counted on to make use of the help.
Hell, Fazio's mounds with the cart path hidden aren't just going to kick balls toward the fairway, they are going to kick balls across the cart path in the crap.
K
-
Ken,
Yes, I learned a long time ago that fairway containment mounding helps the small miss a bit, but really hurts the bigger miss by kicking it way OB or similar. Not to mention, if you clear the mounds, you usually have a blind shot back to the green.
Lesson - no design feature accomplishes everything.
-
Lesson - no design feature accomplishes everything.
There is the Law of Unintended Consequences to deal with...
BTW, I know your mandate at Colbert Hills was to challenge the college kids, which explains why I have so much trouble getting around it.
But I've never asked you about Firekeeper. It's pretty clear there was no "pandering" there, as it typically just kills the average golfer. It's also an example of why I think our handicap system is garbage-from the tips it's got a course rating of 77, but the slope is only 130.
The guys I have played with the last few years all have handicaps above 18 and not one of them could finish a round there under the rules of golf unless they started with about 2 dozen balls.
They all love the course because it's always in good condition, and since they don't play by the rules, losing a ball doesn't require them to re-tee.
Ken
-
Ken,
You have harped on this for years. I only partially understand.
I presume your buds lose balls in the native grasses, and we did allow a 20 yard wide minimum turf alley from forward 2-3 tees (which I presume they play) to the landing zones. From about 200 yards out, the main landing zones are covered by 3-4 rows of sprinklers, and about 70-75 yards wide. We didn't have the budget to add another row of sprinklers to get widen play zones to 80+ yards they seem to require. (And I am proud to have built a top ranked KS public course for about $4.5 M, much lower than many other resort courses)
I have researched various ball dispersion stats over the years. For a high handicap foursome, 85 yard wide play zones should keep lost tee balls to about 7 per round, and maybe 14-21 total (considering second shots and cross winds at Firekeeper)
For Firekeeper's 70+ yard wide corridors, we should expect 83% of long tee shots to be contained, or one lost ball per group every 1.5 long holes, and 9.3 lost tee balls per round. Where woodlands constrain corridors to about 65 yards, we expect 75% to be contained, and 25% of long tee shots to be out of the play zone, and about 14 lost tee balls per group.
Figuring similar ball losses on second shots, (which really should be a bit less) but then adding a factor for higher winds, I can imagine a maximum balls lost to be 2.5X tee ball losses, or between 24 and 36 per HH group, per round. That sort of jives with my experience in actually playing golf in such group, and there usually are 1 to 2 lost balls per hole.
Statistically, the high handicapper is hitting it 216 yards, with an average off line hit of 8.1 degrees either direction, and a maximum 16 deg. left and 24 deg. right. (which would put play corridors as wide as designed in for adjacent residential at over 120 yards wide) Besides budget, the tribe wanted to retain the character of the land rather than grade and turf it over.
At the time of design, I didn't conceive of a group losing nearly 100 balls between them as you claim. (4 x 24) or perhaps 3 x 24, presuming you are much better player than your friends and are only sticking up for them. ;)
And, if I made those corridors any wider, surely someone here would accuse me of pandering, no?
-
I have researched various ball dispersion stats over the years. For a high handicap foursome, 85 yard wide play zones should keep lost tee balls to about 7 per round, and maybe 14-21 total (considering second shots and cross winds at Firekeeper)
For Firekeeper's 70+ yard wide corridors, we should expect 83% of long tee shots to be contained, or one lost ball per group every 1.5 long holes, and 9.3 lost tee balls per round. Where woodlands constrain corridors to about 65 yards, we expect 75% to be contained, and 25% of long tee shots to be out of the play zone, and about 14 lost tee balls per group.
Figuring similar ball losses on second shots, (which really should be a bit less) but then adding a factor for higher winds, I can imagine a maximum balls lost to be 2.5X tee ball losses, or between 24 and 36 per HH group, per round. That sort of jives with my experience in actually playing golf in such group, and there usually are 1 to 2 lost balls per hole.
These numbers all made my head spin. I try to build courses where you can finish with the same ball you started with. I realize Kansas is quite windy, but, wow! 24-36 lost balls per foursome per round??
-
At some point there should also be a minimum standard of execution....to what that minimum standard might be is probably up for argument. But at some point, golfers need to be able to actually hit a golf ball.
-
Tom,
So do I, I thought. Remember that that is for all four golfers in a group of 18 handicap or more. I will say, in playing with lower handicaps and 70-75 yard corridors, that is an accurate number, as it seems even better groups lose a ball every other hole.
The real stats should be between 9 and 14, or 2-4 per golfer per round, but I was trying to justify my old data with some real world number from Ken, and found reasons to inflate them. Well, its true, I guess, there really are no out of play areas for high handicappers! Its not like any of my courses could be considered narrow by most standards, but obviously, according to Ken, I missed the boat slightly, perhaps more concerned with budget and water conservation than the travails of the high handicapper. In most designs, there is a balance of factors.
As to your head spinning, well we know I use more math and you are more intuitive when you design. At some point a professional golf course architect needs to take the notion of "not losing a golf ball" or "drains fast" and apply some sort of math to it to make it come true. Some of my research comes after comments like Ken or other obvious (later on) design flaws that I don't wish to make again, so over 40 years, I measure and remember for the next time.
The average golfer is well known to need lots of room, but we bump up against turf restrictions, affordable irrigation, etc. and sometimes need to figure where to best use our 90 allotted acres.
However, even if Firekeeper wanted to add rows of sprinklers, I am not sure they could, because their water supply is quite limited. Little sense in designing a 3000 GPM system when you can only get 1800 GPM, as was (from memory) the case here. Actually Colbert Hills is somewhat similar, and has been experimenting with minimal irrigation, and using their par 3 course as a test plot for drought tolerant turfs, so maybe we can expand back to the all turf look of the more forgiving Scottish climates. Kansas is not an easy place to grow grass without irrigation.
-
Ken,
You have harped on this for years. I only partially understand.
Oh, hell.
I was hoping it didn't seem that way, I apologize.
I could as easily have talked about any several other modern courses I have experience with.
Before I go farther, my comment about 2 dozen balls assumed they were playing by the rules, and taking stroke and distance every time they lost a ball. They don't do that.
I suppose I bring Firekeeper up for two reasons, first is that you are so willing to come here and talk about what you do for a living. I commend you for that, and I find it fascinating to read how you've changed over the years.
The other reason is that I have more experience with that course.
Anyway, I've thought a lot about your numbers and I think this is telling: "That sort of jives with my experience in actually playing golf in such group, and there usually are 1 to 2 lost balls per hole
[/color]I think that on Firekeeper or, say, Rees Jones' Grand Falls in Iowa, with typical wind conditions, that's not at all out of line for a fourball of 18+ handicappers.[/size]
[/color]But we're talking about adding up to 72 shots per group over 18 holes. And in my experience that's only if they don't play by the rules. If they play a provisional every time they should, or go back to replay it, they will lose even more balls
[/color]And, to be fair, I can give some other examples. I have walked a number of rounds as a scorer for NCAA Div. 1 National Championships at Karsten Creek (Fazio) and Prairie Dunes. [/color]
Most people would be astounded at how many provisionals I've seen them hit. We're talking about some of the best college players in the country and I've seen one player have to hit as many 4 or 5 provisionals in 18 holes.
These courses are all in windy country and despite having more than adequate playing corridors their fairways are bordered, often on both sides, by vegetation that is completely unplayable.
And it's not just in the US. In August I played a competition with my wife at Cruden Bay and, as is the custom, I had to play medal tees. With a 20+ mph wind blowing out of the southeast. Which meant I had some pretty long carries off elevated tees directly into that wind.
Now, I suck as a golfer these days, but I do have a legit 17 handicap. If the comp hadn't been a greensome my wife and might have shot 150. As it was, playing her tee ball on almost every hole going into the wind we shot 55 on the outward nine.
So maybe the point is that for regular guys, especially the seniors I play with, in the kind of wind you see in Scotland or on the prairie, wide corridors aren't enough.
It's a lot about how the corridors relate to the prevailing wind, and what you find just past the rough.
I don't know if there's a way to "fix" this situation, especially when you are asked to build on terrain like this, in an area where the weather and availability if water limits what you can grow.
Do think that the courses I enjoy most around these parts seem to take the prevailing SE winds into account. If the longest, narrowest holes play into the summer wind, especially if the tee is elevated, make the game insanely hard.
K[/size]
-
It seems like the consensus definition of "pandering" is wide fairways, attack angles unimportant, flat and uninteresting greens.
Although Gamble Sands has wide fairways and tame greens, it can be set up so angles matter. An important attribute is the lack of rigid tee boxes, which means length and angles can vary dramatically from day-to-day. I can imagine it could be set up to be challenging, especially in a 15-20 mph wind...and with the greens running 11 or 12 instead of their typical 8 or 9. GS is not a pander in my book...not even close.
-
Ken,
No problem, all is good. I am just adding your experience to my data point for any future designs.
Ever since Audubon International and others came up with 90 Acres as the ideal amount of turf, figuring where to best use it (where to squeeze the bottle) has been an issue. At Firekeeper, I kept a 20 yard wide band from middle and front tees to landing zones, since one study showed about 1 in 4 D level players tee shots are muffed less than one hundred yards, so any forced carries would immediately cause 18 lost balls off the tee.
So, the question is, assuming some kind of environmental or budget limit on sprinklers, how wide should landing zones be to more than make up for those lost 18 balls - and more - to accommodate average players?
In a typical residential project, like Colbert Hills, where there is some obligation to keep balls from exiting the golf course to neighboring property, the minimum width would be 300 feet/100 yards up to 400 feet/133 yards, with about 115-120 yards currently "standard", according to most sources. Traditionally, we use less width to merely contain golf balls in turf, because there are fewer safety issues.
Statistically, 97 yards contains 92% of full tee shots, or about 5 per group over 18 holes, which requires five sprinkler rows. 86 yards or 4 sprinkler rows contains 88%, or about 7 per group, and 70 yard wide corridors causes average 10 lost balls, 65 yards wide about 14 per D player group, all less than expected from keeping the "bunt ramp" from middle tees to LZ. Site specific design (perhaps forced carries and wider LZ on cross wind holes?) should be considered.
Of course, we could make life a lot easier for the D player by convincing the owner to spring for 75-100 more sprinklers, (or about $100-$150K right now) used almost exclusively to widen the slice side of all fairway landing zones from 120 to 260 yards by one row, and 20 yards. An 86 yard wide corridor should be shifted to the right to accommodate the slice, split approximately 38 yards left/48 yards right of hole centerline for maximum containment. Some owners throw nickels around like manhole covers, though.
If I ever get a chance to design the next residential course, I think I will take Ken's comments to heart......and try to convince owners that more sprinklers and turf is a good idea. It would also help where possible, to use drought tolerant turfs, so you could mow wider with only minimum overspray from the fairway/rough system. Sadly, in my experience, mowable turf requires at least some irrigation.
-
And just because ESC is in play and "should" be used, doesn't mean many players actually do so. In my experience, people play as many balls as it takes to finish the hole, and then implement it after the fact if posting a score.
P.S. I know its match play and all, but look at how many balls ended up in hazards at LN over the weekend? And these are the best of the best...
-
I think that pandering on quality golf courses is pretty rare.
But, lack of playability is common.
There is a segment of golfers that seem to like a high level of challenges. And, certainly many believe that difficulty is one of the most important measures of a course quality.
One of my friends belongs to a great Ross in Minneapolis. They have been implementing changes to make the course more playable, primarily via tree removal and fairway widening. Some of the members have been grousing that this will make the course too easy. This course just hosted a USGA amateur championship. It played to a par 72 at 6,600 yards. 147 of the best amateurs in the country played, and only 7 scored below par for 2 rounds.
Inch by inch this site has helped folks learn that the emphasis should be on fun, not hard.
-
At some point there should also be a minimum standard of execution....to what that minimum standard might be is probably up for argument. But at some point, golfers need to be able to actually hit a golf ball.
For so many golfers, maybe the overwhelming majority, hitting a golf ball solid and somewhat online is the measure of success. Most are happy to get the ball into the fairway, hit a few descent and safe shots, an have a look at a par putt a few times a round. It doesn't matter how they get there.
Deciding to take on a hazard for a better angle or attempting to pull off a long carry into a back pin can be rewarding exercises to better players, but in the wide universe of golf it's a first world viewpoint.
Given that so many players struggle with the basic execution of shots, I agree with Kalen and Ken -- I don't think it's possible to pander in design.
-
Duncan,
I recall posting average golfer stats a year or two ago. Basically, a good shot is one you describe, airborne, general direction of green, close to the right distance. And that happens about 12 times a round if I recall right. And, if they hit less than 6 good shots a round, we call them ex-golfers, as they tend to quit the game.
To accommodate those players, it takes (to quote Pretty Women quote.....) "Major sucking up."
Ian's question is more nuanced than any straight answer. For example, we know high handicap miss short and right of the green...a lot. Good players rarely do. I have always felt I could establish the angle of play without dragging any right side green bunker 10-20 yards short of the green where average players miss. Or, use a fairway fall away slope, grass bunkers, steep banks, chocolate drop mounds, etc. more often in those places. The should have similar hazard value to better players, but save poor ones from 2-5 shots in the sand.
Also, front bunkers rarely trouble good players, but kill a so called good shot by high handicappers, so why use them?
Most architects, I think, concur. We look for features that have high value to good players (and lateral grass hazards qualify since they tend to miss off line more than short) while not punishing poor ones. I don't think that is really pandering in the purest sense. Even with that shortened up bunker on the front right, you can place a pin near it and create a Sunday pin that should require a better angle, etc.
-
I just wanted to say I appreciate all the answers and read all of them.
I fully understand as architects we spend just as much time encouraging as we do pushing your buttons. I clearly have my own line in the sand. I became more and more curious to "your view" as I began to read the comments. I was going to actively participate, but I thought in the end I could learn more from reading everything and thinking through what others had to say.
Tom Paul had a wonderful way of looking at things with his Great World Theory. The more I read, the more I thought of Tom's observation of diversity being far more important than a single well received consistent idea or style. In other words, it was an interesting question, but as a close friend said ... this time I think your wrong ...
One footnote: The "offending" course never came up in the discussion ... so while many were sure they knew which one ... that amused me too ... nor is it appropriate I ever share that either.
Thanks for the thoughts,
Ian
-
If I ever get a chance to design the next residential course, I think I will take Ken's comments to heart......and try to convince owners that more sprinklers and turf is a good idea. It would also help where possible, to use drought tolerant turfs, so you could mow wider with only minimum overspray from the fairway/rough system. Sadly, in my experience, mowable turf requires at least some irrigation.
I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and today I worked as a volunteer at Karsten Creek where the AJGA Ping is being held. i find it to be a brutal course for most amateurs, even though the fairways are plenty wide, so I looked at it with this thread in mind.
I'm beginning to think that the real problem for bad golfers is the distance from the edge of the fairway to "lost ball" vegetation. Karsten has all kinds of places where the woods are only 20-30 feet from the fairway. And it's compounded by the number of places that the "peninsulas" of trees and brush protrude into into the line of play.
Proof of the effect it has on golfers--I ran a timing station today and after the last group passed me I walked in the woods along three or four holes. I found 84 golf balls, including about 30 nice ProVs and another 15 or 20 premium balls.
The guys I've been talking about really don't mind hitting out of light(ish) rough, in fact if the fairways are tight, they'll hit better shots from the rough, on average. That kind of rough does affect the good players some because they'll always wonder if they're going to hit a flyer. In it's favor, it also sometimes helps the bad golfer by stopping a ball on it's way to trouble.
And a lot of the stuff that looks cool and is loved around here, is a little, well, insanely punitive.
Like yucca plants next to a green.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc430/SaltyLaw/Prairie%20Dunes/file-79.jpg)
-
Ken,
On your last photo, my first thought was the first bunker should eliminate the front half, which still guards the pin, while not snaring all the balls ams would hit just short and right of the green. Yucca is a bad idea. If few liked the grass clumps at Merion, or even Pinehurst, who is going to like them at Karstens (or elsewhere.)
My second thought on that green is how close the native gunch is to the putting surface. If you are using only green edge sprinklers to water the surrounds, their maximum throw is about 60-90 feet. Without a second sprinkler to back them up, effective coverage is 45-50 feet, sometimes less towards the prevailing wind side. Way more balls stay in play if you add a row or sprinklers on the outside and create another well turfed 60 wide foot band area of turf.
Agree on the rough - my instructions are always to cut it just high enough to see the difference. If your theory of tree clearing is correct, I may have screwed a lot of average golfers. First, as we have discussed, clearing width is limited to multiples of about 60-65 feet. Second, I like fairways wide, sometimes only leaving a strand of rough.
Lastly, I specifically clear in gently curving lines (I have seen some architects and contractors clear a straight line 40 yards (or whatever) on either side of center. I pride myself on finding the best trees, and even leaving them on outside points, often just beyond the landing zone, or leaving specimen's as "lone soldiers" well inside the main clearing line. My theory is you can have no fw bunkers to slow down play, and still influence which is a better side. And, if you slice so you are behind that tree, I figure you can slice again to get around it. As always, I may be wrong, and they can certainly protrude "too far in." Sometimes, when your property lines are set, you can't move the hole to make the tree sit in the "proper place."