[Jason Blasberg]

I'm highjacking Tom Doak's question from another thread because I think this question is critical to our collective analysis of gca and should have it's own thread.

TD asked:

"So my question to the low handicappers is this -- should not a great course appeal to ALL levels of player?

I know there are exceptions to that rule.  Pine Valley, for one.  But don't you have to contend that other courses which fail the test are exceptions to the rule?  Or do you really believe that a great course just makes too many demands for a 20 handicapper?"

Tom:

Yes, a great course should appeal to all players but it will likely be disproportionately harder for a 20 handicapper.  

In order to be a great design I think a course must be a significant challenge to both the scratch player and the 20 handicapper.  

By significant challenge I'd say that generally a scratch player would shoot a couple of shots above their average score the first time around and the 20 handicapper could shoot 15 or more shots above their average score (while these numbers are arbitrary my point is hopefully clear).  Of course either could have a great  day and buck that rule but a design, in order to be great, must confront the player with decisions on every shot.  The more decisions a player must make the more opportunities for error there are.  

A great design will also contain sophistication and subtlety that takes multiple plays to appreciate and thus scoring should become progressively better for all skill levels, however, the scratch player will have a disproportionate increase because they will be able to instinctively read and react quicker.

That being said, significant challenge doesn't mean, and should not mean, IMO, lost balls on every hole or be otherwise overly penal off the tee.  

A great design should let all skill levels get the ball in play with a decent tee ball 90% of the time.  But in order to have a realistic birdie opportunity a great design must require a precise approach.

Once on the green signifcant challenge means you could easily take 40 putts your first time around.  It also means that punishment for being out of position in relation to the pin location is disproportionately harder than on a lesser design and so recovery is far more difficult.  This will have a disproportionate impact on the 20 handicapper b/c the skill level required to get up and down is far more demanding.

Interestingly, it's been my experience that 20 handicappers accept more readily shooting well above their handicaps than do scratch players so I think that on great designs while 20 handicappers will play disproportionately worse than a scratch player they will most likely have more fun doing it (assuming of course there is a correlation between score and fun).

Jason

[Tom_Doak]

Jason:  You said some very interesting things there, which I'll get back to later -- I have to go to the office to do payroll first.  I'm glad you expanded, because your first paragraph is a very narrow definition of a great course, and that's the part I'm afraid too many low handicappers agree with.  Does a great course ALWAYS have to be that hard?

North Berwick is certainly not a great course by your description.  Ballyneal and Sand Hills probably aren't, either -- they are only 15 shots harder for the average player if the wind is really blowing.

[George Pazin]

As long as the challenge has a significant mental part, and the shots are more interesting than "What's my yardage?", I agree with a lot of what Jason posted, except maybe just a little too much emphasis on hard.

* I agree totally with your last observation, and I think that's a big part of why low handicappers often call a course unplayable or too difficult for high handicappers.

[Jason Blasberg]

I arbitrarily chose the scores over average score but my point is that the course will/should play significantly harder for the 20 handicapper.  

I see that as a product of options and strategy.  Lot's of both mean more opportunity to error and a real 20 handicapper is going to error a lot.

From personal experience I usually carry between a 3-5 USGA index.  

Some examples of great courses I've played multiple times and my scoring:

1) Shinnecock:

The first time I played Shinnecock I shot 89 (granted it was October '04 and the US Open fairway widths were already cut).  The second time I played Shinnecock I shot about 86.  The first two rounds were from the members tees.  

The third time I played Shinnecock I shot 80, going 6-5-5 on the last three and we played the back of the back tee box on every hole.

2) Prairie Dunes:

The first three times I played it was on the same trip and the first two rounds were calm, third round was about a 2 club wind.  I shot about 92 from the tips the first round, 80 from the members tees the second round and 82 from the tips the third round in much windier conditions.  The biggest improvement was knowing what sides of holes to favor off the tee and chipping and putting.  I had tons of three putts the first round and very few, maybe none that third round.

3) Pebble Beach:

I played it three times in three days, calm blue skies each day.  I shot 87-86-83.  White tees all days.  The first round was pure nerves, the second round I played horrible and the third round I just couldn't putt.

I really should have had 75 or so the third day and was actually 2 under after 2.      

I hit more greens as the rounds progressed and I had no three putts the third day.  Although I did snap it into Stillwater Cove all three times I played 18.  

 

[Tom_Doak]

I'll second everything Redanman said above.

Just like you can have a great course which is too tough for a 20-handicapper, I think you can also have a great course which a low-handicapper finds relatively easy.  Nearly all of the great links qualify if there's not a wind about, and the same goes for Royal Melbourne.

Working on Sebonack, I was surprised to find that we could still build a very difficult course from the back tees that was still fun from the members' tees.  But I agree with Redanman, if that is your goal every time out, you're going to wind up with some courses which compromise both ends and aren't nearly as great as they claim to be.

Jason:

You gave three pretty obvious examples of tough courses which everyone still considers great.  What about trickier cases like Cypress Point?  Or National?

[cary lichtenstein]

Jason:

I think you are pretty much defining a great course that is resistant to scoring, and I can think of a bunch that are very resistant and not great courses.

As a matter of fact, just go back to the Tiger Tees and play from 7600 yards and most courses will be pretty resistant to scoring.

If a course isn't fun to play, and doesn't reward good shots, it can't be a great course in my book.

If it can only be played by pro's and it beats them up, it can't be a great course in my book. It may be a great course to test the skills of the tournament player, but not a great course for everyone else.

[Jeff_Brauer]

The beauty of gca is that there is almost an infinite number of ways for a course to be "great." Of course, the opposite is true as well....

The above examples generally show that a great course doesn't need large penalties.  Pinehurst would fit that category, as well.

I don't think a great course needs to be as difficult as interesting for the good player, and certainly not for the average player.  In fact, I might even argue that a course that is too tough cannot be a great course, at least in normal conditions

[Jason Blasberg]

it is true that my three examples are all US Open venues and thus would be resistant to scoring, a fourth example that I nearly used was the Black Course, ditto for that.

I would also include Pacific Dunes in this category, however, and I also played well above my handicap there the first time around but played to my handicap by the third and fourth rounds.  Mostly similar conditions except one 4 hole stretch with severe fog.

I do think that there are enough severe shots at Pacific Dunes to play tough even without wind.    

Same goes for Whistling Straights, I went 36-45 there.  It was clearly very playable and scorable but then I started to make some poor swings and really payed the price and the doubles started coming.

I also don't think you need to necessarily enjoy a course from a playing perspective to be able to recognize it's great architectually.  I use The Ocean Course and Cuscowilla as a good modern course comparison.  I consider both to be near great designs, I love playing Cuscowilla and would not hurry back to The Ocean Course b/c I found it quite severe and for me, even though I love links golf, it was not that enjoyable.  

So I guess I think of appeal as architectually appealing or interesting and very much worth visiting.  

[Jason Blasberg]

How can a course be great without having architectual features that are complex, and doesn't complexity necessarily mean that it will play difficult in relation to one's handicap at least the first time around?

[Tom_Doak]

Jason:  Complexity could mean that it's hard to get close to the hole and make birdies, but it's not necessarily hard to make par even if you get the strategy wrong.

[Bill_McBride]

Living in the past can cause real problems for less accomplished players, especially those who were more accomplished in the past!  

If those of us in that category would forget trying to hit the green on a 440 yard par 4 with a 3-wood and just lay up to 60-80 yards, the difficult courses would be less difficult.  Bogey and the occasional par is a good program!

As it is, if you try those shots that could be achieved in the past, disaster not only lurks but is right there ready to pounce.  

I know I properly strike only about 1/4 of the shots I attempt, but that knowledge doesn't prevent me from trying!

[ed_getka]

It was interesting to read Jason's starting post on this thread. We haven't had the chance to golf together, but just from the way he was stating the case I was getting the feeling he was a low handicap golfer. I'm not picking on you Jason , and you confirmed my hunch later in the thread that you are a 4-5.
   I play off around a 12 (I assume since I don't post scores) and one mistake Jason makes is assuming that a low handicap golfer can pick up on a courses subtleties and adjust more quickly. As a 12 it's not that I can't pick up on what needs to be done, I just happen to be such a headcase with a golf club in hand that I don't get it done (faulty swing, demons, etc..)
    I think that there are a lot of great courses that will appeal to most golfers, but few, if any will appeal to all. I always list Prairie Dunes and Royal Dornoch as some of my favorite courses that I feel are the most balanced tests of golf I have seen. By balanced, I mean that all 4 aspects of the game are tested fairly equally (driving, approaches, short game, and putting). Most courses seem to emphasize one or more aspects more than other aspects. I'll use Pasatiempo as an example. 5 or 6 years ago the predominant aspect was putting, because the greenspeeds were a little (to a lot) over the top. Thus you felt like most of your putting was defensive (just trying to avoid 3 putting, rather than trying to make putts) Driving the ball was probably the easiest (except the first hole, due to the range restrictions), followed by approaches, then short game and putting being the hardest aspect. Now, the greenspeeds have been dialed back a bit so the greens are still challenging, but it feels like a more well-balanced test for 3 of 4 components with driving being easiest still. However, I doubt that Pasa appeals to all golfers because that course can just kick your butt. I hit the ball quite well there last week and shot 87, at a lot of other courses with that ball striking I would have probably broken 80. However, that is what makes Pasa great in my book, I was just a little bit off most of the day and I paid for it. At a lot of courses I would have gotten away with slight miscues. That is not going to appeal to most golfers.
     Prairie Dunes isn't going to appeal to all golfers, because when they lose a ball in the gunsch they are not going to be happy, even though on most holes you have to be pretty off to put a ball out of play.
     Rustic Canyon isn't going to appeal to all, because I am sure there are golfers out there who get eaten alive by the short game and putting demands of the greens and surrounds.
     Not all courses appeal to me, some are just so demanding that I feel like my head is in a vise by the end of the round. That doesn't mean the course isn't great, it just means that the course just happens to emphasize the weakest parts of my game generally.

[Phil_the_Author]

Maybe I'm dense, which is quite possible, but I am certainly missing something here.

If a course is great it will appeal to all players. This doesn't mean that many will choose not to play it because of its difficulty. For example, Bethpage Black is clearly a great course, but many an average player will attempt it once or twice and then never again play it because they know they can't score on it or have the game for it. Yet they will spend years talking about the time or two they played it to anyone who will listen.

The great courses inspire and it is that which has to appeal to all. If it doesn't inspire, then in my opinion, it isn't great.

Another example of what I mean. Since it was mentioned, Shinnecock. I've never had the privilege to play there and the only time I ever set foot on it was the Thursday of the 1986 U.S. Open. It was miserably rainy & windy & cold, & yet seldom have I ever spent a more enjoyable day on a golf course.

I will never forget my first view of the ninth hole, as my friend & I came walking up the hill at the backside of the green. I stood in awe of how a golf hole could so announce its presence to any eye gazing upon it as far in the distance the tee led out to a lush fairway that meandered and crept its way along the rolling terrain, climbing its way witha sure certainty while turning left until it reached a glorous crescendo where the green lay both tempting and daunting.

I think that hole is one of the mostt beautiful in the world and just looking at it inspires desire for greatness.

Do Jason, Tom & others, I would like to know how a great course could not appeal to all players. I think that is the more appropriate question.

[Tom_Doak]

Phil:

Let's take North Berwick West Links as exhibit A.

It is one of the most beautiful seaside courses in the world, with a changing backdrop of coastal attractions plus the town itself.  It clearly has a few of the more interesting holes to be found anywhere in golf -- 13, 15 and 16 for starters.

I would define it as a great course in that respect.  Yet, because it is 6300 yards from the back and because it doesn't relentlessly punish bad shots with bogeys and double bogeys, I know a lot of very good players who dismiss it, who believe that even its neighbors, Gullane #1 and Dunbar, are more appealing courses.  (And yet, some of the same players find fault with it and dismiss it as "a match play course" because some of its penalties are TOO penal -- a ricochet off a stone wall, a drive onto the beach, an ultra-quirky green like the 16th.)

Everyone is biased by their own game.  A lot of good players want a course to flatter their game, by punishing their opponents who are not quite as good as they are.  If a course like North Berwick allows lesser opponents to dodge their weaknesses (esp. length off the tee) and compete on even terms, then it must suck.

By the same token, let's take Bethpage Black as Exhibit B.

You can tell me that it appeals to everyone, even if they are piling up a big score, but you know that's not true.  Lots of golfers prefer the Red course, or the Green; some of them only agree with you that the Black is great because they would be ridiculed otherwise.  If your forte is the short game, the Black will not offer much love.

Is there room for both courses in the definition of "great"?  I think there is, but to make it so, you must have a very flexible definition of greatness.

[Steve Kline]

"Complexity could mean that it's hard to get close to the hole and make birdies, but it's not necessarily hard to make par even if you get the strategy wrong."

Exactly, And I think the Old Course is a perfect example for me. As a scratch golfer I can make pars, and easy ones, there all day long, but I've made 2 birdies in 2 rounds. The first time around I remember thinking "How the hell does anyone makr a birdie on this course? I can't get a shot within 30 feet of the hole." That was right around when Tiger went insane with out any wind. The next time around I could see how you get it close but still didn't do it very often.

[Mark_Fine]

I didn't read all the posts above but once we all agree on the definition of what a great is, then I will tell you if it should appeal to all players!  

[Jason Blasberg]

Philip:

I do think a great course appeals to all players even though they may not particulary like to play it.

If someone cannot appreciate great gca irrespective of particular tastes I think they're missing something.

Ed:

I was refering to the scratch (or better) player in relation to the 20 handicapper as far as benefiting from multiple plays and reading and reacting to design features.  Nothing against any 12 handicap but a scratch player is going to get more out of a practice round than a 12, every single time.  

They may not even realize it but the scratch player will benefit more from having one look at a course.  That's part of the reason why they're scratch.  That's part of the skill and one that often goes unrecognized.  Some of the scratch players I play with regularly always seem to miss in the right spots and even when they appear to be playing lousy they grind out a 74.  Course management comes from course knowledge and even if they don't always realize it the scratch player is far better at course management than the rest of us.

I was not including 3-5 handicap in the scratch category because as anyone who's been in that range they know there's a world of difference between a 0 and a 4.  

BTW, if Prairie Dunes (I'm a PD homer but the same could be said of all the great courses in the World)  doesn't appeal to a player they know nothing about gca.   There's a big difference between great gca appealing to someone and that same someone enjoying a regular game at that great course.  

Phil's point about the Black Course is perfect.  If you can't carry the ball 230 off the tee the Black Course is going to eat your lunch and so someone may not enjoy the course yet they'd be blind not to appreciate its merit.

[Tom_Doak]

Jason:  This hole you are digging is starting to look like the front bunker ont he tenth at Pine Valley.

I have had LOTS of great players (scratch and even Tour pro) tell me they didn't appreciate the architecture of courses at first glance, because they were too wrapped up in playing and competing.  Yes, lots of them are good at course management, but it's easier to be a good course manager when your misses are predictable; it doesn't mean you are way more perceptive.

I'm a nine or ten handicap and not a 12, but I am going to learn way more out of a single round at a course than most scratch players.

[Bob Jenkins]

Jason,

To answer your question in the caption, I say a great course must have something about it which makes it "great" (not sure what that means) to all players, but "all" players could not include the person who plays 5-10 times a year or even to the 20 handicap. I am absolutely not a golf "snob" and will never consider myself such but a golfer, even though he or she loves to be out there and just plain loves the game, a truly high handicapper cannot really assess "greatness" on the same scale that the people on this website consider as a scale for greatness. A high handicapper cannot assess "greatness" as a lower handicaper can. A 20+ handicap is just happy to make some pars and to find he or she can hit some par 4s in 2 with a couple of good shots.

A scratch golfer has a totally different perspective. An 11 handicap golfer like me can also appreciate some of what the scratch golfer looks for and (hate to admit it) some of the "easy" shots the high handicapper appreciates.

My definition of great . . . "A scratch golfer can come away and say this was a great test of my abilities, needed a variety of shots and skills, but it was also enjoyable (eg. did not need to be super long on all drives)(variety of long and short holes) and it was a very pleasant place to be (whether by the ocean, views, or whatever) and it has significance ( history of the place, the architect etc)".  A "mid" handicap golfer can come away and say "wow", "that was hard work", "I can appreciate how a good golfer can love this place", "it has features which I can appreciate call for great skill to master", but most of all it is memorable and a special place. A high handicap golfer can't assess that.

So to answer your question, yes, it should appeal to those who play enough to be able to appreciate what is great and what is not. Scratch players look for certain things and some 20 handicappers can see some of those and those in between can probably appreciate more. I should add that some who are now 20 handicappers probably may have been single digit at one time and can equally appreciate what is great through where they have been.

There, you have it. I will shut up for now.

Great question.

Bob Jenkins

[ed_getka]

Jason,
    What makes you think a scratch player is going to notice more than a 20 handicapper? A scratch player can generally hit the ball where he is aiming. Do you really think he is going to look at everything around the hole when he isn't going to miss by much if he is off. A 20 handicapper (not the average hacker, but someone who thinks their way around the course and just happens to have a horrible golf swing) is going to see more it seems to me, because he is likely to miss shots to more places, so he will pay more attention. Also, a higher handicapper is looking for features that can help him get the ball to the hole (since he can't rely on his swing to do it), so I would imagine that he is likely to notice more IMO.
   Just because a scratch golfer is more athletic or practices more, doesn't make them more perceptive. Look at guys on the Nationwide tour and how one dimensional most of their games are. I doubt those guys are picking up on many features that could allow them to play the course more effectively. Its get a yardage and fire at the pin, and I would imagine in depth analysis for them is to find out what side of the pin will keep them below the hole.
    I can appreciate what you are saying, because there are things I am very good at, golf isn't one of them.

[Michael Robin]

Answering the thread's headline question is something that for a long time
was neglected by the architects of the modern era. There was such a desire to have notoriety through difficulty that the thought of what the 20 handicap was going to feel like after the round took a big backseat to the needs of the course from the back tees. It seemed that creating a course that was a big challenge for the scratch and fun for the 20 were mutually exclusive ideas. I think that this was based on a lack of understanding of the concept of Playability. Playability is not just having a couple of sets of shorter tees for higher handicaps to use as they navigate 24 yard wide fairways and forced carrys, it's offering route and angle options to the better player while allowing those that cannot control their ball a chance to actually complete the hole and maybe even have a possibility for a par.

We're actually on the other side of a crossroad where we are returning to a time when the sophistication of golf course design IS allowing for A GREAT COURSE TO APPEAL TO ALL PLAYERS. This jump has been led by the likes of Keiser, Coore and Doak. Keiser wants the course to be fun. He wants you to walk off the 18th and say "Let's go around again right now!" no matter what you're level of play is. He wants the best view on a hole not to be reserved strictly for the Blue Tees. He challenged Kidd, Doak, Coore & Crenshaw to make great golf courses for all to play. And given his results 3 times with 3 Architects, I'd say it is possible. And when you look at Pacific Dunes, Barnbougle Dunes, and now quite possibly the best recent example yet,
Ballyneal, there ARE great courses that can be everything to everybody.  

MacKenzie's work answers the question yes. Thomas' does. I'm just happy to be living and able to play in an age(Platinum says Mr. Clayman) where we are getting some of the best courses ever built. Where a wasted hole is not tolerated and that every type of player's concerns are taken into account and that the end result is still special and not some weird hybrid. Doak got this right at Ballyneal more than any other place I've seen in the modern era.

[Jason Blasberg]

As it is, if you try those shots that could be achieved in the past, disaster not only lurks but is right there ready to pounce.  

I know I properly strike only about 1/4 of the shots I attempt, but that knowledge doesn't prevent me from trying!

Bill, the same is true irrespective of how long you've been playing!  It's like going to Vegas for the first time and winning, you think you'll win everytime (there's a reason I've only been once).

Course management decisions get us all . . . for every JVandevelde (spelling?) at the Open there's Tiger at the Canadian Open.  The miraculous happens even for the rest of us and I've always believed that experiencing the joy of pulling off the great shot 25% of the time outweights the pain of reality 75% of the time.

BTW, if I enjoyed golf a little less I'd likely start scoring a lot better.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()