[John Moore II]

The reason I say I would like furrows in the bunkers, the greenside ones anyway, is to actually make them a true penalty. Most bunkers today, unless a player really shortsides himself, don't make for a huge penalty. And a penalty is what they were intended to be.
Bill--
you should explain to your scratch players that a well struck shot will hold the green regardless of how firm the greens are.

[tlavin]

Something, anything, to blame his bad shots on.

[David Ober]

Something, anything, to blame his bad shots on.

LOL!

Might you be a frustrated 12 handicapper??? ;-)

[JSPayne]

Not scratch, but as a single digit handicapper, what I really enjoy playing is simple:

A risk/reward course that encourages me to use every shot in my bag. Examples to be applied to individual holes, not the whole course:

-Open, forgiving fairway into tough green complex that demands drive placement
-A narrowed, or pinched fairway that yeilds a smaller and smaller landing area for the drive the farther you try to push it
-An elevated, skyline green
-A drop shot green
-Some sort of "cape hole" where you have the opportunity to bit off as much as you can chew
-A driveable par 4 with a dangerous green complex
-Reachable par 5s (at least 2)
-A wedge shot par 3
-A bumpy sloping fairway to an easy green complex
-A green with no approach or requiring a carry shot
-An elevated green closely mowed grass on all sides
-Several (preferably half) green complexes where putting, bump and run and lofted chips are all viable choices for being just off the green

What I'm trying to describe is a course that offers big rewards should I play on a "good day" when my game feels like it's dead-on and I successfully navigate all the hazards, but also provides a logical, rather obvious but more lengthy and tedious route to the green that serves as a "cop-out" should I feel like I don't have the balls to pull off the risk shot being presented.

[Scott Szabo]

The reason I say I would like furrows in the bunkers, the greenside ones anyway, is to actually make them a true penalty. Most bunkers today, unless a player really shortsides himself, don't make for a huge penalty. And a penalty is what they were intended to be.
Bill--
you should explain to your scratch players that a well struck shot will hold the green regardless of how firm the greens are.

Johnny M -

Not sure I agree with your last statement.  I have seen many a well-struck shot hit some rather hard greens and not be able to stay on the putting surface.  Generally speaking, I agree, but that's just not always the case.

[tlavin]

Something, anything, to blame his bad shots on.

LOL!

Might you be a frustrated 12 handicapper??? ;-)

Guilty as charged, your Honor!

[Matt_Cohn]

I think the scratch player wants "real" golf shots - i.e., not duck-slicing a driver off the tee of a par-4, or chipping from hardpan, or punching under a tree from the tee of a par-3.

In other words, I think the scratch player wants to be faced with the kind of shots that they see pro's attempt on TV, but not necessarily for that reason.

[Tim Gavrich]

I think the scratch player wants "real" golf shots - i.e., not duck-slicing a driver off the tee of a par-4, or chipping from hardpan, or punching under a tree from the tee of a par-3.

In other words, I think the scratch player wants to be faced with the kind of shots that they see pro's attempt on TV, but not necessarily for that reason.

I agree with Matt.  As a near-scratch player, I love a tough-as-nails challenge, but I love birdies too.  Fast, smooth greens are always very much appreciated too.

[David_Madison]

You have to pick the context first. If it's competition within one's club, where the scratch golfer is often playing against inferior players, then you'd want really firm, fast greens greens, lots of trouble for little/wrong side misses, two-shot penalties everywhere, and lots of challenge short of the greens that the scratch golfer can easily carry but the handicap player has to maneuver around or thru. TPC-Sawgrass would fit this model.

If it's enjoyment of the round without regard to competition, then it's shot challenge and required imagination (especially from 100 yards in), lots of risk/reward with opportunities for glory by pulling it off, and a difficulty level that's a bit of a tease, with primarily half to one-shot penalties and where shooting a low score is achievable on a really good day but it just slips away on an average day. Courses like Old Town and Garden City come to mind.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Peter Nomm,

# 1 at Sand Hills only gets blind on the third shot as you get closer  to the base of the hill, which forms the general foot pad for the green.

From afar, you know where the hole is located as the flagstick is visible.

Hence, I wouldn't label # 1 at Sand Hills as a blind hole.

From the bowls flanking the fairway spine at NGLA you are totally blind.  On the spine you can be blind but have that general feeling for where the green lies, something you can't do from either of the bowls.

The 14th hole at Essex County East can have a totally blind shot to a rather large punchbowl type green that doesn't feed a ball to general areas.

While you know where the green is and the distance to the center, front and back, a good deal of the mystery/luck is taken out of the hole, but, if you don't have a peek at the flagstick you can leave yourself a very long putt.

It's a sporty hole, albeit a blind hole.

As to # 17 at Prestwick, there can be a directional device at the top of the hill, which is what the 5th at Old Marsh has, but, unless you interpolate your angle of attack, relative to the center line and the directional device, you'll not know where the hole is located.  With water on the 5th at Old Marsh, that can be a costly miscalculation.

Some say it's unfair, but all the info is there for the player, provided they're observant and intelligent.

Prestwick has a par 3 on the front that's also totally blind.

That's part of the charm of the golf course, casting your fate to the winds, so to speak.

[Michael Powers]

1.  A good mix of holes in terms of length, character, challenge.
2.   A course which is generally firm and never overwatered where shots from the rough must be played short of the green run up or otherwise go over.
3.  A course in which the holes go in various directions so I am always having to figure out the wind.
4.  Tee shots which need to be played right to left, left to right, uphill, downhill, and at least one blind or semi blind hole.
5.  Shot values which penalize the a shot appropriately.
6.  Green complexes that are of correct scale given the standard approach, i.e. generally smaller greens on shorter holes and larger greens on longer holes.
7.  Bunkering which is penal and makes me think and hit different types of shots.

......wait a minute....that's Riviera.

[Peter Nomm]

# 1 at Sand Hills only gets blind on the third shot as you get closer  to the base of the hill, which forms the general foot pad for the green.

From afar, you know where the hole is located as the flagstick is visible.

Hence, I wouldn't label # 1 at Sand Hills as a blind hole.

Patrick - agree on the location of the layup playing a part, but I think at least you understand what I interpret as "blind" is an intended target not visible from where the shot is struck.  This occurs a lot at SH (1,5?,6?,9?,10,11?,12,14,17?,18), especially dependent on where the drive ended up (which can vary a LOT!).  

SH may have some obscured views (as do many, many great courses) but at least my mental picture can get me an idea of where to go.  

Tell me more about #14 at Essex - am I understanding you correctly that because the green is large, in order to use the punchbowl effect effectively you need to know where the pin is (ie. front, back)?  

The old #14 on the Geronimo Course at Desert Mountain had a bowl effect.  Any pin on the left half of the green could be accessed by the bowl, but any pin on the right half could not use that effect nearly as well.  It was a fun shot because you knew you could wind up real close as long as you used the bowl ( it was mostly a wedge shot, so the odds were good that you could pull it off).  But then in the late '90s they went and completely re-routed the hole for the purpose of putting houses in , and subsequently ruined what was one of the neatest holes out there.

I am not sure how my original post got interpreted as attacking blind shots, because that is far from the case.  I think maybe my choice of the wording "good visuals" was taken as meaning that the player can see every single thing on a shot.  Heck, good visuals include the antelope herds I saw from the 2nd green at SH!

As you mention, an astute golfer can use the resources available to accurately determine where the shot needs to be hit.  There is no question that some degree of chance is involved, but chance can also come into play on a perfectly flat and visible green too.  Definitely why this game is so great and why the endless possibilities in design still exist.

[JSlonis]

Peter,

In my 1st reply to you, I mentioned "framing".  That is what I thought you meant by good visuals.  I hear the comments all the time from better players, tour players especially..."I like this course a lot, it is right in front of you."

If I misinterpreted what you were trying to say I apologize.  I happen to think the need to frame a hole for the golfer is overdone.  

[Peter Nomm]

JSlonis - first of all - never a need to apologize because this is the fun of the site - and part of it is affirming our own thoughts as we discuss them.  

Framing is certainly one part of it visuals, and I definitely love a well framed hole.  But for me I interperet good visuals to mean a lot of other things too, including being able to remember a hole after I had played it, as well as the terrain, trees, bunkering, etc.  

Sitting here with 2-feet of snow on the ground, I need to rely on these "visuals" this time of year because they are not in front of my eyes at this moment.  And that is a big part of the reason we love golf and the courses on which we play - the ability to remember them time and time again!

[Glenn Spencer]

Something, anything, to blame his bad shots on.

This seems to be the case, a lot of the time. I like to play a golf course that I figure that the best players in the world wouldn't shoot a careless 65 on the first time out. The difficulty can come from a variety of places. I just like to know or at least think with confidence that if I play well and shoot a decent number that the average Tour pro wouldn't just obliterate it by 9 shots or something.

[JESII]

#13 at Royal County Down was my favorite hole there...what does that tell you about my preferences?

Also, what is an average scratch?

[Matthew Hunt]

#13 at Royal County Down was my favorite hole there...what does that tell you about my preferences?

Also, what is an average scratch?

For good stategic golf holes

[Walt_Cutshall]

Most of all, I want a course that makes you think. I course that makes you consider the consequences of your intended actions. I want a course that makes it more difficult if you play predominantly one shot shape (all draws or all fades--this is one reason I like Pete Dye courses so much. You generally have an advantage on his courses if you can move the ball both ways.)

I don't care if a course plays firm or soft--I like the challenge of playing both types of conditions. I do want the greens to be reasonably fast. If their wicked hard and fast, well that can be fun, too.

A really hard golf course that is also fair can be a lot of fun to play in tournament conditions.  

I forgot to add that I hate courses that require a ton of local knowledge to play well--particularly courses with greens that are so tricky and deceptive that you can't read them.

[JESII]

Walt,

How can you build a course that "makes you think" that cannot "require a ton of local knowledge"?

 

[John Moore II]

A course with many blind shots and tricks can require much local knowledge, but a course that makes you think about hitting draw or fade, high low or whatever can make you think, but not require detailed knowledge

[Walt_Cutshall]

Walt,

How can you build a course that "makes you think" that cannot "require a ton of local knowledge"?

The kind of local knowledge I don't care for is that which you can only discover through trial and error. Putts that break "uphill" for no apparent reason. Hazards that are in play but aren't visible from the tee. Etc.

I prefer courses that allow you to determine your strategy before you play it. Do you want to challenge a fairway bunker so that you have a better angle at the green? Or are you a better iron player than driver and more comfortable having an easier tee shot/more difficult approach.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()