The Lido Course Profile Now Live!

[John Challenger]

Thomas Dai, In regard to playing low. In 1902, John Low was the leader of the traditionalists on the R& A Rules Committee who wanted to ban the new Haskell ball in part because it made lofting the ball so much easier. He felt that the game would become less interesting possibly forever...and he was right.

After WW2, playing "high" became so easy that at most courses, Greens Committees realized the shape and form of the fairway ground really didn't matter much, so they flattened out the fairways and removed the cross-bunkers. It was less expensive to mow the grass. The small- and medium-sized undulations and intervening hazards were mostly irrelevant other than for visual curiosity. Hazards were only needed for green surrounds and tee shot landing areas. Today, high arcing shots are still the norm except around the green.

In recent years, more golf courses have upgraded their green complexes with short grass and undulations to spark creativity and thought. The new greens require players to develop a variety of short-game skill shots. Maybe it's time to extend the thinking to fairways and to make them matter, but then again, people would have to play low and the ground would have to be firm.

[Thomas Dai]

Fair points John. Interesting comment as what John Lows position was back many a decade ago. A position that has considerable merit.
The expansion in the use of irrigation firstly putting surfaces, then fairways/approaches has contributed significantly to the ease in playing the aerial game as well. Many a U.K. links and/or heathland course has changed radically since fairway/approach irrigation has been introduced and not for the better imo.
The era of bare fairways and players putting from way off the green Texas wedge style or of some players playing long distance chip-n-runs or even having a specialist short game club like a jigger or equivalent in the bag (my mother carried and extensively used a ‘Chipper’ from off the green to great effect) passed by a long time ago*.
Not sure about flattening fairways after WW2. Not in the U.K. at least. Not a lot of money around for that kind of work during that time period although filling-in bunkers was pretty common and many bunkers were also lost as lack of money meant less staff so trees and scrub were allowed to expand and cover them. Something that has fortunately been reversed at some courses recently where high profile renovations/restorations have been undertaken.
The trend for more short grass around greens on inland courses has become a bit more prevalent in the U.K. over the last few years but it’s not spend like wildfire. Would be nice if it did and if fairways in general were expanded considerably too. Green still seems to be God in the U.K. especially when it comes to inland/parkland golf.
Firm and fast and bouncy on free draining terrain combined with width and contour for choice.
Atb


* despite some club manufactures trying to make some £$ by reintroducing Chippers recently.

[Tommy Williamsen]

The best American golf course I played this year for sure, and pretty close even to the two best courses I saw overseas - County Down and Portrush

Come on...................

Pat, while it might not be in my top five, Lido is certainly in my top 20. I played it only once, but it is a course I want to play multiple times a year. I played Lawsonia with a Lido member. He is also a member at Shoreacres. He feels Lido is head and shoulders better. I wouldn't go that far, but the course is brilliant. CB used all his considerable skills and imagination to create this golfing wonder.

[Ulrich Mayring]

I'm not sure whether there is even such a thing as a "matchplay course" vs. a "strokeplay course". And I don't even know what a "difficult" course is supposed to be.
Difficult in terms of walking it? Yes, I can understand that - there are some courses that are a tough walk. Difficult in terms of being so narrow that I lose a lot of balls? Yes, I can understand that also. But I don't think that is what people mean, when they say a course is difficult. I think they mean "I'm shooting more over par than on other courses".
But why is that difficult? The owners could just increase or decrease par to make the course more or less difficult by that definition. So without changing a blade of grass on the course, they could make it supremely difficult or a pushover - but it is still the same effing course! So it's never the course that is difficult - it is the scorecard! And what would be easier to change than the scorecard? Hell, you could do that yourself on the first tee!

But you couldn't do that in a tournament or any kind of organised play, of course. However, the scorecard is the same for everyone, just as the course is the same for everyone. If you shoot a million over par in a strokeplay event, then everyone else playing in that event will so, too. So what is your problem?
The answer is: there is never a problem if you compete against other players. And it doesn't matter how score is kept (match, stroke, stableford play).
The only time a problem arises is if you play alone and, for lack of competition, decide to compete against expectations in your head. So my take is: if you want to compete, then seek out other golfers to compete against. It won't matter how "fair" or "difficult" the course is, because it is the same for everyone. But if you just want to enjoy, then stop competing. You can still rate the course as "great" or "stupid", but "difficult" is no category.

[Joe Zucker]

I'm not sure whether there is even such a thing as a "matchplay course" vs. a "strokeplay course". And I don't even know what a "difficult" course is supposed to be.
Difficult in terms of walking it? Yes, I can understand that - there are some courses that are a tough walk. Difficult in terms of being so narrow that I lose a lot of balls? Yes, I can understand that also. But I don't think that is what people mean, when they say a course is difficult. I think they mean "I'm shooting more over par than on other courses".
But why is that difficult? The owners could just increase or decrease par to make the course more or less difficult by that definition. So without changing a blade of grass on the course, they could make it supremely difficult or a pushover - but it is still the same effing course! So it's never the course that is difficult - it is the scorecard! And what would be easier to change than the scorecard? Hell, you could do that yourself on the first tee!

But you couldn't do that in a tournament or any kind of organised play, of course. However, the scorecard is the same for everyone, just as the course is the same for everyone. If you shoot a million over par in a strokeplay event, then everyone else playing in that event will so, too. So what is your problem?
The answer is: there is never a problem if you compete against other players. And it doesn't matter how score is kept (match, stroke, stableford play).
The only time a problem arises is if you play alone and, for lack of competition, decide to compete against expectations in your head. So my take is: if you want to compete, then seek out other golfers to compete against. It won't matter how "fair" or "difficult" the course is, because it is the same for everyone. But if you just want to enjoy, then stop competing. You can still rate the course as "great" or "stupid", but "difficult" is no category.

This is an interesting thought, but I disagree with it.  I think the Lido is a very difficult course.  In one regard, Ulrich is right and it does manifest it self in shooting more over par than I am used to.  However, when I think of the Lido as difficult, it was because there were many shots I'm used to executing well that I was not able to.  These were not shots from deep bunkers or in thick rough that I don't normally play, they were theoretically straight forward shots from the fairway.  Standing 150 yards out from the middle of the fairway is normally an "easy" shot.  At the Lido there is far more ground contouring and firmness than I've seen anywhere else.


Many times I hit a "good" shot that ended up no where close to the hole.  In reality, I hit the wrong shot for the course and conditions.  This made the course very difficult for me.  It asked radically different questions of my game than 99% of courses.  I'm sure I'd figure more out with another play, but the importance of angles and firmness made it very difficult for me.

[PCCraig]

The best American golf course I played this year for sure, and pretty close even to the two best courses I saw overseas - County Down and Portrush

Come on...................

Pat, while it might not be in my top five, Lido is certainly in my top 20. I played it only once, but it is a course I want to play multiple times a year. I played Lawsonia with a Lido member. He is also a member at Shoreacres. He feels Lido is head and shoulders better. I wouldn't go that far, but the course is brilliant. CB used all his considerable skills and imagination to create this golfing wonder.

The Lido is really cool. I played it twice this year and enjoyed it quite a bit. It's a very interesting and fun course. One that I look forward to playing again for sure.


My comment derives from the number of comments, such as Tim's, immediately putting Lido in the same class as some of the greatest ~10-20 courses in the world like RCD after 1 play.


I think it's pretty well documented that most resort guests rank the Lido as their least favorite course at the resort. So I find it interesting when so many on GCA are 180* from that sentiment and think it's Top 20 in the world. Certainly worth some frank discussion?  [size=78%] [/size]

[Matt Schoolfield]

I'm not sure whether there is even such a thing as a "matchplay course" vs. a "strokeplay course". And I don't even know what a "difficult" course is supposed to be.

But I don't think that is what people mean, when they say a course is difficult. I think they mean "I'm shooting more over par than on other courses".
But why is that difficult? The owners could just increase or decrease par to make the course more or less difficult by that definition. So without changing a blade of grass on the course, they could make it supremely difficult or a pushover - but it is still the same effing course! So it's never the course that is difficult - it is the scorecard! And what would be easier to change than the scorecard? Hell, you could do that yourself on the first tee!

Again, I'll point to some of the things I'm written on Luck vs Skill in course design: on GCA, and on my blog. The idea is really that there is not a uniformity in difficulty of golf courses. Courses that have higher variance in scoring should be considered different in kind to courses that have low variance in scoring. Some are designed to reward skill in controlling shots (low-variance), other have enough external factors or so much variation that there is a lot more luck involved (high-variance).

I've always placed match play courses in the high-luck/high-variance category, because they way game is designed, ending up with an 11 on a hole isn't a big deal (and that will happen to players, say, on the Postage Stamp). In a stroke play tournament, that will basically mean that player is no longer in contention, seeing as they've basically seeded a stroke per hole for the rest of the round.

A course that's more suitable for stroke play are low-luck/low-variance courses one where good shots are rewarded, and bad shots are punished, so someone who is out of position is very likely to lose the hole (because there isn't much randomness).

These are the ideas I'm basing the thesis on. And, given this thesis, there isn't much point in increasing the par to make the course "easier" because they same dynamic will exist that the holes will have higher variance of score, not just higher scores.

[Ulrich Mayring]

So your thesis is that high-variance courses are better for match play, whereas low-variance courses are better for stroke play?

Of course this begs a definition for "better" or "more suited to". If I understand you correctly, then high-variance and low-variance are just other terms for high or low risk/reward ratios. So high risk/reward is better for match play, because every hole starts at scratch, so you can risk and risk again. Whereas in stroke play an 11 will set you back for the entire round.

I beg to differ. IMHO high risk/reward options always make for a better course, even in stroke play. It seems wise to not play for the full risk in stroke play, but stick to your guns and bring home a risk-free score for three days. But on the fourth day, if you are actually in contention, you have the option of risking more and thus having a chance to catch up to the leaders. A course that does not allow you to catch up by risking more is IMHO deficient in this area (it could still be a great course overall).

Now, maybe I have understood you incorrectly and you weren't actually talking about risk/reward, but about sheer luck introduced by contours that can throw a good shot offline. I do agree that such courses, if they become dominated by random features, are deficient. There's always such a thing as "too much of a good thing". But to me this will be just as disagreeable in match or stroke play.

[Sean_A]

I'm not sure whether there is even such a thing as a "matchplay course" vs. a "strokeplay course". And I don't even know what a "difficult" course is supposed to be.

But I don't think that is what people mean, when they say a course is difficult. I think they mean "I'm shooting more over par than on other courses".
But why is that difficult? The owners could just increase or decrease par to make the course more or less difficult by that definition. So without changing a blade of grass on the course, they could make it supremely difficult or a pushover - but it is still the same effing course! So it's never the course that is difficult - it is the scorecard! And what would be easier to change than the scorecard? Hell, you could do that yourself on the first tee!

Again, I'll point to some of the things I'm written on Luck vs Skill in course design: on GCA, and on my blog. The idea is really that there is not a uniformity in difficulty of golf courses. Courses that have higher variance in scoring should be considered different in kind to courses that have low variance in scoring. Some are designed to reward skill in controlling shots (low-variance), other have enough external factors or so much variation that there is a lot more luck involved (high-variance).

I've always placed match play courses in the high-luck/high-variance category, because they way game is designed, ending up with an 11 on a hole isn't a big deal (and that will happen to players, say, on the Postage Stamp). In a stroke play tournament, that will basically mean that player is no longer in contention, seeing as they've basically seeded a stroke per hole for the rest of the round.

A course that's more suitable for stroke play are low-luck/low-variance courses one where good shots are rewarded, and bad shots are punished, so someone who is out of position is very likely to lose the hole (because there isn't much randomness).

These are the ideas I'm basing the thesis on. And, given this thesis, there isn't much point in increasing the par to make the course "easier" because they same dynamic will exist that the holes will have higher variance of score, not just higher scores.

I don’t buy the luck aspect of your argument. Most of the time luck is really an expected outcome which the golfer didn’t understand due to ignorance, lack of experience etc. True luck pretty balances out if not over 18 then 36 holes. But this same luck would occur roughly the same amount no matter the course. Luck is luck and can’t be predicted. Most of the time we attribute luck to outcomes which are predictable if the golfer is experienced etc. Sounds like the Lido needs several plays for folks to get a grip.

Ciao

[Matt Schoolfield]

If I understand you correctly, then high-variance and low-variance are just other terms for high or low risk/reward ratios

You do not understand me correctly. A higher variance course does not produce a higher risk/reward ratio. It only produces higher risk, without regard to any reward.

Imagine we have two variations of the same golf hole: the postage stamp on a windy day (postage stamp windy version) and the postage stamp with the bunkers removed and the green flattened on a calm day (postage stamp easy version).

The windy version doesn't have a higher "reward." It has just removed a significant amount of the control from the player. It's just more difficult, and the results will be more random. This is what I mean by "high variance" or "high luck" holes. The random wind gust hit the ball after it is hit, which just means the player is less in control of the outcome, period. The penalty from these random gusts of wind is exaggerated by the extreme penal bunkering. Leading to an easy par if you don't get blown into a bunker, and a challenging double bogey if you do.

True luck pretty balances out if not over 18 then 36 holes. But this same luck would occur roughly the same amount no matter the course. Luck is luck and can’t be predicted. Most of the time we attribute luck to outcomes which are predictable if the golfer is experienced etc.

The issue here is that the variance (luck) in score is asymmetric, and mostly affects the downside, and not the upside.

Again, imagine we have two variations of the same golf hole: the postage stamp on a windy day (postage stamp windy version) and the postage stamp with the bunkers removed and the green flattened on a calm day (postage stamp easy version).

Here we expect the variance to go down from the windy version, to the calm version, to the easy version. If we play this hole eighteen times in a row in each version, the windy version will never balance out to the easy version results. The easy version will always, always, always have lower variance. It's just an easier hole, and a person with specific skills will repeatedly do better.

If you have a stroke play tournament on the windy version and on the easy version, it's likely that the easy version will have mostly the same winners each time (because it's a very low luck course).

If you have a stroke play tournament on the windy version, you're likely to have a different winner nearly every tournament because while some players might be better in the wind, so much of the result is not controllable, that it's likely to produce a higher variance in winners, because it produces a higher variance in scores (a player is as likely to put up an 8 as they are to put up a 3 if a gust comes at the wrong time).

Will the results "balance out" in the long run... I mean maybe? The more control that is removed from the players, the more random the results will be at the end of the day. Perhaps it would balance out after playing the course for dozens and dozens and dozens of times, but on a single day of 18 holes, a higher variance course should produce a more random outcome than a very, very low variance course (the easy version of the postage stamp), where the player with very specific skills is more likely to win it very, very often.

Again, I go into a lot of detail about what I mean by this stuff in the essay and post.

[Tom_Doak]

I think it's pretty well documented that most resort guests rank the Lido as their least favorite course at the resort. So I find it interesting when so many on GCA are 180* from that sentiment and think it's Top 20 in the world. Certainly worth some frank discussion?

I think the word "most" is doing a lot of work there.  Some of the guests LOVE Lido; the majority of them do not.  It's a polarizing course.


Before it opened, the most popular course at the resort was Mammoth Dunes, which is well documented as being pretty wide open and easy, and which isn't on anyone's top 20 in the world.  So, popular ≠ great.


I honestly believe if we'd built a replica of Pine Valley or The Old Course at St. Andrews or Oakmont instead, they wouldn't be the most popular course at the resort, either.  But they're all ranked in the top 20.

[Sven Nilsen]

Just out of curiosity, where has it been documented that the majority of guests do not "love" the Lido?  The response I've received from everyone I've talked to (and not just GCA folks) is the opposite.


There's also an amazing statement in what Tom said about rankings, namely that having a high ranking doesn't necessarily mean the course is going to be liked by the majority of the golf population. 


It would be interesting to see a ranking based on popularity, not greatness.  Which begs the question as to how we define greatness, and why popularity isn't a bigger criteria.


Sven

[Philip Gawith]

I am with Pat on this one. I played the Lido twice last year and enjoyed the course, recognised the originality of the design, and scale of the challenge, but do not have the same affection for it as many other leading courses (including, to take a close relation, NGLA). So it does not surprise me that the average resort guest does not love the course;  that is simply because, in my view, the average golfer is not looking for an intellectual challenge/chess experience when they play golf, ceaselessly thinking about where to place the shot - whereas many GCA pundits place a high value on this. I am quite open to the fact that, a bit like the Old Course, it probably grows on you as you play it more, but for those who play it only once, it's appeal is likely to be a bit elusive. In this regard, it is worth adding that i think drone pictures of Lido are more misleading than on many courses. Viewed from above, in low light, the shapes and subtleties are very alluring, but this is not how most golfers are going to see/experience the course.


In relation to Tom's comment re if PV etc had been built at Sand Valley instead the response would have been the same, I would qualify this response. For the Old Course i agree. Oakmont i have not played. For PV I disagree  - I am confident the average golfer would respond much more positively, would find the course inspiring, mostly because it is so much more visually accessible, even if hard to play. You broadly know what is asked of you, are inspired by what is asked of you, even if the execution is challenging. The Lido is visually elusive in a way that is very different from PV (and, i would argue, NGLA).

[Ulrich Mayring]

The windy version doesn't have a higher "reward." It has just removed a significant amount of the control from the player. It's just more difficult, and the results will be more random. This is what I mean by "high variance" or "high luck" holes. The random wind gust hit the ball after it is hit, which just means the player is less in control of the outcome, period. The penalty from these random gusts of wind is exaggerated by the extreme penal bunkering. Leading to an easy par if you don't get blown into a bunker, and a challenging double bogey if you do.

[...]

The issue here is that the variance (luck) in score is asymmetric, and mostly affects the downside, and not the upside.

I'm not sure I understand the difference between "downside" and "upside". Is that in relation to par? Remember, we can set par at any number we like. I also think that natural elements (wind / rain / temperature) are dicey in this discussion, because they appear randomly at any course, even those with flat greens and no bunkers, and make life difficult for those, who are unfortunate to catch the rough conditions. Time and again we've seen tournaments being won or lost due to the elements, but I don't think that should lead to a conclusion about the course. It can happen everywhere.


So to use your example, let's remove the truly random and not course-related element (wind) and just go with the Postage Stamp with a flat green and no bunkers opposed to the currently existing "real" version. There will (in a professional tournament) be a lot of 2s and 3s on the easy version and perhaps nothing worse. The number of 2s could be roughly the same on the "real" version, because the green contours can funnel to the hole as well as feed away from it. But there will be fewer 3s and instead a bunch of 4s and some 5s and 6s from the bunkers. So variance is higher and therefore the reward for making a 2 is also much higher, because you're gaining on the field. And while I'm not totally familiar with that green, I am pretty sure that there are high risk shots, where you have to play close to a bunker to get a favorable feed to the hole.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Ulrich, I appreciate the response, and I discuss it at length in the writing I've done. I don't want to go on at length about it in an unrelated thread. We don't have to agree. I think that higher variance courses make more sense for match play, because it incentivizes risk-taking and caps the downside risk given any failures. I think that lower variance courses better suit stroke play, as more players will be in contention at the end of the tournament period, and no one hole will completely knock out a player. That's my thesis.

[Andrew Harvie]

Ulrich, I appreciate the response, and I discuss it at length in the writing I've done. I don't want to go on at length about it in an unrelated thread. We don't have to agree. I think that higher variance courses make more sense for match play, because it incentivizes risk-taking and caps the downside risk given any failures. I think that lower variance courses better suit stroke play, as more players will be in contention at the end of the tournament period, and no one hole will completely knock out a player. That's my thesis.

Maybe it's worth its own thread!

[Matt Schoolfield]

Maybe it's worth its own thread!

Of course, here is the GCA specific thread from August 2023: Luck as part of hole design.

I really think it was one of the most interesting conceptual things I've worked on in the golf space (even if it was just a direct application of ideas from Richard Garfield). There is really a lot in that thread to fight about and agree on.

The application of these concepts to stroke vs match play seems natural to me, but maybe I should try to articulate it more thoroughly.

[Andrew Harvie]

Maybe it's worth its own thread!

Of course, here is the GCA specific thread from August 2023: Luck as part of hole design.

I really think it was one of the most interesting conceptual thinks I've worked on in the golf space (even if it was just a direct application of ideas from Richard Garfield). There is really a lot in that thread to fight about and agree on.

The application of these concepts to stroke vs match play seems natural to me, but maybe I should try to articulate it more thoroughly.

Interesting, thank you sir!

[Stewart Abramson]

Just out of curiosity, where has it been documented that the majority of guests do not "love" the Lido?  The response I've received from everyone I've talked to (and not just GCA folks) is the opposite.


There's also an amazing statement in what Tom said about rankings, namely that having a high ranking doesn't necessarily mean the course is going to be liked by the majority of the golf population. 


It would be interesting to see a ranking based on popularity, not greatness.  Which begs the question as to how we define greatness, and why popularity isn't a bigger criteria.


Sven

I took a quick look at two recent, lengthy Sand Valley threads on GolfWrx. This is a small sample and not scientific, but is a glimpse at popularity.  Of 26 posters who had played more than one course, Mammoth Dunes was most often named (14 times) as the favorite or course most recommend to play twice, and Sand Valley second (named favorite 7 times). Lido and Sedge were played by many fewer posters so you can't really tell what the consensus will be as to them. There were several  recurring themes.


Amazingly, there wasn't one post with significantly negative comments about any of the four SV courses. To the contrary all said they enjoyed (or in the case of Lido, appreciated) the courses and liked that each seemed significantly different  from the others


As between Mammoth and Sand Valley, a substantial majority said Mammoth was more fun and would be their choice for a replay, even with several of those saying they thought Sand Valley was the better course. (Perhaps a distinction between popularity and relative greatness).


Because of its more recent opening Sedge was played by only a handful of posters. Sedge was named as the favorite by several of them. Only two had a bit of criticism. One said it was a hard walk and the other said it wasn't his cup of tea and preferred the other courses there.


Lido had the fewest responses. The recurring theme was that it was "difficult" or "tough". Comments were that you need to play it several times to play it well. One said it was punishing, yet he loved it, although he had more fun on Mammoth. No one who posted disliked it.