just a thought - is a course review from a 6 handicap more worthwhile than a 26?

[Garland Bayley]

GJ B

I never said I consider all tournament/championship courses great.  In fact, I am one who believes it is harder to be a great course by accommodating top level events.  It is often the case that those in power believe more yardage, bunkers and rough are required to challenge the best.  Generally speaking, I believe these added features make (especially classic) courses less likely to be great. 

Ciao

Never said you did.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Great conditioning is useful and valuable information for the traveling golfer.  ...

On of the worst conditioned courses I have played asked out of region golfers for more money, because they used it to keep the course in great condition. One man's great condition, is another man's crappy condition.

That a golf course is green is almost useless information for the traveling golfer. And, that is exactly what those low handicappers are telling you when they tell you it has great condition.

[Garland Bayley]

Also, much criticism of your "fake pond" argument is that you come across as universally refusing to consider them as a useful design tool. ...

Andy,

Perhaps you can do us a favor by sending your reasoning as to why fake ponds are a useful design tool to Tom, and then posting his response here for our edification.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Think about it, these guys would have had a ball search on every hole if not for the water.  Worst scenario in golf.

You are making assumptions that you are not entitled to not knowing the course and all. Some of those "searches" would have been conducted 10 feet from the green.

[Garland Bayley]

Andy,

You don't need to contact Tom. He responded to Barney's thread.

I don't think man-made water hazards are great for the game, in any way, shape or form.

If there are existing water hazards, I'm happy to use them to add drama to the course.  But I think recovery shots are the most interesting part of golf, and dropping a ball at the edge of a hazard so you can play over it again is not an enjoyable form of "recovery".

But, then Tom is not a 6 handicap as I recall.

[Andy Troeger]

Garland,
Thanks for reminding me of why I ignore most of your posts.

By the way, look up #18 on the Rawls Course. I'd be pretty surprised if the huge pond was natural (or Tom's idea). You'll love the hole.  http://www.therawlscourse.com/Flyover-Videos_81d9b.html

[Andy Troeger]

Mark,
Thanks for volunteering that. It does seem like there are plenty of low double-digit handicaps and high single-digit players that have a pretty good understanding of architecture. I'd still consider those players to be relatively competent--a lot of them just don't play much or are erratic when they do. The gap between a 6 and a 16 is probably about the same between a 2 and a touring pro, depending on the situation. Even when I played a lot and got down a 2 hcp, I never had a clue how to think like the guys that were plus handicaps or pros. Now that I play occasionally, I have days when I can execute and days when I can't. I do admittedly think its a bit harder to judge a course on the days when I'm all over the place, because I'm more likely to miss the strategy when chopping out. But if I'm playing to see a course and not in a match I can usually play an extra ball from the fairway to see what I missed.

Jeff W.,
Thanks for the comment. Not surprisingly I like your points as well!

[Mark Saltzman]

Andy, yes, you're right on regarding how well one plays.

What seems to be forgotten is that a 15 and a 5 hit similar shots when they hit them well, but the 5 is more consistent.

From experience, if I am playing reasonably well (that is, executing at least some of the shots as I want to), then I am able to look at, and consider, the hazards.  Even if on a particular I do not execute, I have seen and evaluated the choices.  On the other hand, if I am playing terrible, I don't hit shots as I want.  As a result, challenging/using features becomes less of a likelihood and my focus is diverted away from the golf course and toward my golf swing.

[Bruce Katona]

Back in the day when we were quite busy evaluating courses for either purchase or management; one of the key due diligence exercises was to send out a foursome of our team consisting of:
1. PGA Professional
2. Low Handicap player
3. Mid Handicap player
4. High handicap player

Each member of the foursome was responsible for evaluating each hole: tee, fairway green, hazards, playability, difficulty etc.  What is challanging for a skilled player may not be for the average person because the course aloowed them to play away from stroke eating hazards and vice-versa.  What matters to an average player may not mean anything to a skilled player or professional.

We would tally up the result at the end of the day and include it in our report.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
Thanks for reminding me of why I ignore most of your posts.

By the way, look up #18 on the Rawls Course. I'd be pretty surprised if the huge pond was natural (or Tom's idea). You'll love the hole.  http://www.therawlscourse.com/Flyover-Videos_81d9b.html

I believe Tom has posted that the only time he would willingly put an artificial pond as an integral part of a course would be the irrigation pond on a property that didn't have room to have it in a separate location. Could this be an example of such a situation? Certainly the boundaries drawn around the property by Google Earth show no other ponds.

[Mark Saltzman]

Garland, just because Tom would choose not put an artificial pond on his courses means that all artificial ponds are of zero strategic interest?

[Garland Bayley]

Garland, just because Tom would choose not put an artificial pond on his courses means that all artificial ponds are of zero strategic interest?

It is a tradeoff between allowing recovery in your strategy, vs. not allowing it. Put something there (bunker, rough, undulation, etc.) and you have strategic interest that allows recovery. Tom and I prefer the chance for recovery. As is being posted on Barney's thread, some people feel the pond is the cop out way to create strategic interest.

[Mike McGuire]

Back in the day when we were quite busy evaluating courses for either purchase or management; one of the key due diligence exercises was to send out a foursome of our team consisting of:
1. PGA Professional
2. Low Handicap player
3. Mid Handicap player
4. High handicap player

Each member of the foursome was responsible for evaluating each hole: tee, fairway green, hazards, playability, difficulty etc.  What is challanging for a skilled player may not be for the average person because the course aloowed them to play away from stroke eating hazards and vice-versa.  What matters to an average player may not mean anything to a skilled player or professional.

We would tally up the result at the end of the day and include it in our report.

Bruce

Could you rank the 4 groups in order of preference if you were forced to use one to evaluate a course?

[jeffwarne]

Garland, just because Tom would choose not put an artificial pond on his courses means that all artificial ponds are of zero strategic interest?

It is a tradeoff between allowing recovery in your strategy, vs. not allowing it. Put something there (bunker, rough, undulation, etc.) and you have strategic interest that allows recovery. Tom and I prefer the chance for recovery. As is being posted on Barney's thread, some people feel the pond is the cop out way to create strategic interest.

Occasionally, wouldn't a pond create greater risk reward/strategic interest for a player with a great short game?
i.e. rough and bunkers are not scary at all if you know you can get up and down-or at worst, do no worse than a layup.
you simply go for it with no fear at all

[Garland Bayley]

Garland, just because Tom would choose not put an artificial pond on his courses means that all artificial ponds are of zero strategic interest?

It is a tradeoff between allowing recovery in your strategy, vs. not allowing it. Put something there (bunker, rough, undulation, etc.) and you have strategic interest that allows recovery. Tom and I prefer the chance for recovery. As is being posted on Barney's thread, some people feel the pond is the cop out way to create strategic interest.

Occasionally, wouldn't a pond create greater risk reward/strategic interest for a player with a great short game?
i.e. rough and bunkers are not scary at all if you know you can get up and down-or at worst, do no worse than a layup.
you simply go for it with no fear at all

If you think that you can get up and down from these things as well as you can from a layup short in the fairway, perhaps you are playing the wrong golf courses.

[jeffwarne]

Garland, just because Tom would choose not put an artificial pond on his courses means that all artificial ponds are of zero strategic interest?

It is a tradeoff between allowing recovery in your strategy, vs. not allowing it. Put something there (bunker, rough, undulation, etc.) and you have strategic interest that allows recovery. Tom and I prefer the chance for recovery. As is being posted on Barney's thread, some people feel the pond is the cop out way to create strategic interest.

Occasionally, wouldn't a pond create greater risk reward/strategic interest for a player with a great short game?
i.e. rough and bunkers are not scary at all if you know you can get up and down-or at worst, do no worse than a layup.
you simply go for it with no fear at all

If you think that you can get up and down from these things as well as you can from a layup short in the fairway, perhaps you are playing the wrong golf courses.

How could I possibly know if I were playing the wrong golf courses?
I'm not a 26

[Mark Saltzman]

Youre right Jeff, 3 shanks sounds closer to a 36. 

[jeffwarne]

Youre right Jeff, 3 shanks sounds closer to a 36. 

only one today, but ran into a buzzsaw...

[Andy Troeger]

Garland,
Its a massive pond that comes into play on multiple shots on the 18th hole, and I suppose could be in play on the 10th as well for very poor shots. I'm not sure why its there, maybe you can ask Tom yourself this time. I'd be curious if all the water features at Lost Dunes are natural too--they come into play quite a few times.

Water features add something when the player has to decide whether to challenge them or play safely away. The pond on the 11th at Bandon Trails is a reasonable example. To a right pin the golfer can play as far left as they want and try to get up and down for a par, or they can try to get closer to the pin and challenge the hazard. In truth, even if the ball goes in that pond its an easy drop and pitch. Creates an interesting hole with water in a low spot--I wouldn't have questioned whether it was natural had you not stated it was built. The golfer has plenty of opportunity to avoid that hazard--it adds to the hole.  

There are plenty of examples of bad water features, but plenty of good ones too. I'm not a big fan of out-of-bounds or the penalty involved, but I don't immediately write off every hole that has it. If we're talking about critics and credibility, and I'll take the review from someone with an open mind versus someone who thinks there's one method that works.

[Matt Day]

what if you're an 11 handicapper with the long game of a 3 handicapper and the short game of a 33 handicapper?  Strengths and weaknesses in ones game would affect the review process?

[Bruce Katona]

Mike: Not really, that's  why the the foursome had one player of each caliber. 

A PGA professional or low handicap golfer is not intimidated by hazards on the inside of a dogleg while a short hitter or weekend player is.  Better players don't like grass bunkers due to the rub of the green on the lie.  Higher handicap players prefer grass bunkers because they can scoop thre ball out and onto the green.

One of my favoriye exercises was to go out as a twosome with my wife and play.  from the forward tees, she could break 100 on a good day.  If she enjoyed the course, I knew it was playabel for all.  If I spent the day tossing her errant shots out of ankle deep rough onto the 1st cut of rough so she could advance the ball i knew the place needed work for the average player to get around and have some fun.