[Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG]

This was a very odd study to me.  Of course most of the play is from the right of the fairway -- most golfers slice!  But shifting more fairway between the bunker and the green will cause more balls to wind up in the bunkers, and more little approaches to have to carry the greenside bunker, which will slow up play, too.

Tom, I agree that some of their comments about speeding up play were questionable and a lot of the report was biased towards the potential maintenance savings etc as to the architecture and design but the information it provided helped the club and Rees quantify how we thought the course palyed for different types of golfers. Once we got the report it and started working with the info in it, it really helped guide changes based on how the course played for different abilities.


On this example of 6, the second half of the fairway severly slopes left to right, so coupled with a draw, it also naturally feeds the balls right. The fairway and approach had been expanded to the left to take advantage of the slope to feed balls to the green and encouage the longer hitters to go for it, but while that worked for the better players, the majority came up short and the balls still fed right and hung up against the transition between the bentgrass and rough height. It was one of the biggest complaints about the course. After a lot of back and forth about the very thing you pointed out, it was switched to bentgrass a year ago. There was some initial concern that it made it more difficult but since its been in play, it is working as planned. Partially as members are no longer concerned about being stuck with a ball lying against the rough, but the higher handicappers have found that they have options and can use the left side bank of the approach to feed the ball onto the green and avoid the bunker if they wish, especially with a left side hole location.

[Mike Hendren]

Did playability only become relevant when Americans adopted and elevated the stroke-play version of the game?  If so how ironic that that GB&I courses are imminently playable while many in the states are not.

If a course is "playable" does that imply that everyone gets a trophy?

There are few things more satisfying than: 1) winning a hole with a double;  2) conceding a hole and pocketing the ball when staring at a snowman; 3) conceding a hole to avoid the ignominious misfortune of losing two balls on one hole; or 4) being publicly humiliated over a cold one in the grill when your opponent announces loudly "Bogey, I have you down for a 94."   

Bogey

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bogey,


No doubt everyone playing stroke play contributes to it in the USA.  I recall being paired with an older gentleman in Scotland about 40 years ago and realizing they play so fast because if you are out of a hole, you just pick up.  In some cases, if he needed to make a good bunker shot to tie me on a hole, and missed it, he would pick up figuring the challenge on that shot was to make the good play.  He ignored the very small possibility that he would hole out the next one, even felt he wouldn't have deserved it in some ways.


As to participation trophy's, that is probably a bit strong, but years ago, when my kids were in school and they were promoting "whole learning" in Texas, one of my few bits of parental protest involved that, and their phrase of making school an "achievable challenge for all" which in my mind, meant pandering to the lowest skill kids, at the expense of the brighter ones.  The relevant upshot is that somewhere, I wrote an article based on that phrase, in sort of a snarky tone, I am sure.  Shorter version, I suppose pandering to the lowest common denominator/highest handicap probably isn't for every course, but it should be for a lot of public courses that are, by definition, open to all.


And, some things can be done without affecting challenge for the good players.  That was sort of the genesis of the 1950-2000 design "rule" that hazards should only be placed where they are in play for better players.  And, I follow that, often recommending tree removal, wider fw, no hazards at any location beyond about 180 from the green, figuring anyone who hit that shot took themselves out of reaching the green in the first place. 


Or, as many have opined, the gca does want to separate the better player in any golf match, but there is no real reason on any one hole to separate them by more than one stroke, certainly not in match play, and even less so in stroke play.


If you go through the archives, you can find my story about the mafia boss, shot down on a Chicago course, with the assassin hired by his playing partners, who told the gunman to shoot the first guy on the tee.  Reportedly, his last probably laughing hilariously words were, "I can't believe I won that hole with a 9!"

[Tom Bacsanyi]

"There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, theres' only one thing you can do. Go through his clothes and look for loose change."

Playability for me is best summed up by Billy Crystal's character Miracle Max the Wizard in The Princess Bride. Playable courses rarely leave you all dead, only mostly dead if you hit in the wrong place. That being said, most courses have places where you are all dead, but they are kept at a minimum. For example St. Andrews has some gorse here and there where you are essentially all dead. But most of the challenge comes from areas to be avoided where you are only mostly dead.


My course would not be described as playable, because while the corridors are reasonably wide, the native that borders every hole is unplayable 90+% of the time with serviceberry, sage, etc. There are some nice grasses in our native, but the ball just runs/bounces through that until it catches a bush. So you are usually 3 off the tee, or trying to take an unplayable in a terrible spot. To be playable, you'd pretty much need maintained corridors at around 75-100 yards wide, which on a mountainous site is impossible.

[V. Kmetz]

I think Jason IS on to something...


For me the basic playability..of a hole, of a course... means/asks just that:


1. "how capable of being played is it?"


Then the question that gives pause to JB


2.  "for how many different types and skills of golfers?"


...which he (along with others perhaps) fears can lead to designs pandering to somehow accommodate that diverse group.


I answer first by pointing out that the consideration of other end of the spectrum is just as unrealistic, as EVERY hole or course is playable for the Top 10% of players, the game's competitive pros, amateurs and lowest everyday handicaps.


But I hold that its fine as long as Playability is but one of dozen+ features that make up the review... that its fine and fair and truthful to give Sawgrass and Medalist and Bethpage and Oakmont and even Cypress a lower playability score, because there are whole large segments of earnest golfers that could not complete certain holes and/or 18 holes... they physically can't complete play on the design without external non-design impositions...like drop areas, 5000 golf balls or 100 hours of daylight. And that its also fair to give WF, Baltusrol, Oak Hill and other such parkland courses a higher playability score because the group that can and does play them is much wider than those other regarded tracks.


Real fluidity comes when you consider "Who is this list for?" If 80 year old 9-holers made up the list for themselves, it would look different...from playbility onward.

[Grant Saunders]

Thanks for the answers to  date, some good points coming through.


I guess like many topics discussed on this site, there is a lot of variables that create grey areas and there is very rarely a blank and white answer.


As I have thought about this further, the demographic of the intended audience is probably relevant. Pine Valley for example may be considered playable for its target audience as the goal was to build a course to challenge the best players. It would therefore be unfair to critique its playability when viewed through the eyes of an elderly player on a high 20's handicap who was likely never factored into the equation during conception.


For the particular situation I am currently referencing, it is a members course with an average handicap of about 17. The course however does have a history of hosing national events and, like a number of courses in our country, it has seen its status in terms of rankings fall as it has been surpassed by newly constructed courses.


With that in mind, our core consumer/member is perhaps slightly better than the typical average player and there is a subset of very accomplished players. We are however conscious that new players to the game and members to the club need to be catered for by providing an experience that provides opportunity for more people to enjoy themselves. Like many clubs, aging membership is also consideration as skills and abilities of long term members decline and we dont want to exclude them from continuing to partake in the game. It is in no way about dumbing down of the course but rather increasing the options for negotiating the challenges presented.


As noted in the opening post, I feel we are certainly on the right track in achieving these goals and being cognizant of the factors at play. The key issue lies in how we can effectively communicate to and educate those primarily low markers who are battling to view the game outside of their own experiences.

[Grant Saunders]

Does this perhaps work as a definition?


“The allowing of players of all abilities to manage their way around the course but they have the chance to do so in a manner commensurate with their skill level and decision making. Options are provided so a player can choose to avoid a hazard but they do so with the knowledge their score may be adversely impacted as a result”

[Tom_Doak]

It's really not unfair to criticize Pine Valley as being unplayable for 25 handicappers, if you're going to criticize other courses as not being challenging enough for experts - which everyone does!


But it's also ok if the Pine Valley members just don't care.

[Bernie Bell]

1/ To me, playability means proportionate challenge for the widest range of abilities.  It seems to me that the Dark Ages guys were good at this, by design.
2/  On what basis is it so often said here that "the US plays stroke play"?  Are there any data that measure  that?  95% of my rounds are four ball match play, and same for 95% of the golfers I know.  Are we outliers?  If not, what is so different elsewhere?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()