Contemporary tastes

[MCirba]

Didn't punitive golf come into acceptance, around the same time as the space race? USA wanted to be stronger/faster/harder than USSR and GDR, and RTJ and others were just the guys to do that.

Restrictive trees and restrictive rough and reduced options do not make for greatness.

Ron,


If you're going out to Sag Harbor this year I'm going to insist you need to hit Shelter Island, as well.   


Me, Joe, and Mike Trenham had a fun day this year playing 3 nine holers...Shelter Island, Sag Harbor, and Poxabogue.   Geoff Walsh joined us at SI.  Shelter Island is at least an 8 or 9 on the Quirkometer.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ah never mind….

[Thomas Dai]

Ally,

When I penned my earlier post I had TOC in mind. I was particularly wondering the extent to which shots hit with a modern era ball and modern era Driver if hit from the same spot and on the same line as a tee shot with a ball and club of yesterday would go through the fairway into longer grass or gunch thus reducing the effective fairway width.


As to short-n-straight, thanks for the accuracy compliment, an often forgotten aspect of less powerful players is that if they do go off the short grass they don’t have the strength to muscle the ball out or muscle it out very far. They thus have to be very careful in the playing lines they take and sometimes these are adversely affected by forced carries. Lack of trajectory also has a similar impact as features, hazard etc can’t necessarily be carried nor can soft landing approaches with longer clubs be achieved so easily. Hence width and short grass are important as they provide alternative playing lines and routes. Indeed it could be argued that width and short grass are more important for less physically powerful players than for those of a stronger physical disposition.

In addition, playing regularly with someone who with the same club and ball hits the ball near twice my distance it’s become very noticeable over the years how our playing lines vary and also how easy it is for a longer hitter to hit through fairways into places they would probably prefer not to be. As such it’s also apparent how some shorter courses can in social play circumstances be uninspiring for long hitters if they are forever having to club down, unless that is they particularly cherish the very specific merits of precise lay-up accuracy that a chess on grass type of management course style can bring.

And as has been intimated, there’s not much worse, not much less fun, than looking for a lost ball, unless that is it’s looking for someone else’s lost ball!

Your take on the 11 ‘rules of modern architecture’ does hit a few nails on the head.

Atb

[Carl Johnson]

Width.
If a course has had the same width of short cut playing surface since inception does it effectively play narrower these days given that changes in equipment over the decades have allowed errant and mis-directed shots to travel further away from the short cut playing surface?
Atb

Intuitive.  So, do you widen the fairways further?  Maybe not enough room.  Another impact of tech on older courses.  Of course, some might say you should narrow the fairways to bring the rough even more into play -- make the course difficult, which is more fun???

[Matt Schoolfield]

Some might say there is no accounting for tastes.

I've written about here and formally about Howard Moskowitz's research on the subject, and I think it's entirely relevant to this thread. It's not that contemporary tastes have change, it's that the entire concept of platonic ideals, and those ideals being refined by aggregation of opinion, is flawed from the start.

[Ira Fishman]

Ah never mind….

Ally,


Although I have not played that many modern courses, I understand why you think that the pendulum may have swung too far away from “difficult” for the good golfer. The reason I post is to ask what features you think should be incorporated to return difficulty given that you stated that lost balls should not be a regular feature which seems to eliminate long forced carries, narrow fairways, and penal rough. You mention firm greens which I embrace despite my old man, low spin game. But what else? Or is it a matter of the rules you identify as being taken too much to the extreme?


Thanks.


Ira

[Mark Pearce]

I have never really understood the (apparently accepted) wisdom that difficult cannot be fun.  Two of the most enjoyable (and memorable) rounds of my life have been on courses generally accepted as very difficult (Carnoustie and Wolf Run) in rounds where I have struggled to score even moderately.


Sean touched upon the importance of recovery shots and the availability of those (even if very difficult) helps make difficult fun.  But also the ability to get your ball round.  Difficult shots that reward being played well but leave a difficult shot if you fail to execute are an important part of the recipe, I think.  Difficult shots that if you fail to execute you have to play again, or take a drop, or spend time looking for a ball you're just going to have to hack out are not fun.


I don't like easy (and that's one reason I rate Kingsbarns much lower than most).  I do love half par holes (one reason I love Elie so much), and I guess I don't mind a course with a load of half par holes where they are half over, rather than under or a mix, and I don't mind holes where I'm going to be really happy to play well enough to make bogey, if the path to that bogey requires me to execute some challenging, fun, shots.

[Ira Fishman]

I have never really understood the (apparently accepted) wisdom that difficult cannot be fun.  Two of the most enjoyable (and memorable) rounds of my life have been on courses generally accepted as very difficult (Carnoustie and Wolf Run) in rounds where I have struggled to score even moderately.


Sean touched upon the importance of recovery shots and the availability of those (even if very difficult) helps make difficult fun.  But also the ability to get your ball round.  Difficult shots that reward being played well but leave a difficult shot if you fail to execute are an important part of the recipe, I think.  Difficult shots that if you fail to execute you have to play again, or take a drop, or spend time looking for a ball you're just going to have to hack out are not fun.


I don't like easy (and that's one reason I rate Kingsbarns much lower than most).  I do love half par holes (one reason I love Elie so much), and I guess I don't mind a course with a load of half par holes where they are half over, rather than under or a mix, and I don't mind holes where I'm going to be really happy to play well enough to make bogey, if the path to that bogey requires me to execute some challenging, fun, shots.

Mark,


I concur re Kingsbarns although admittedly based on one play. I just did not appreciate too much being funneled into play or onto the greens.


I love Elie (two plays in contrast to your many (envious)), and your post made me realize one of the reasons is that it does have such a great mix of more difficult and more manageable holes (and for me relative to par is not as relevant) especially when the wind picked up on both of our plays. But I am a short hitter so a young(ish) gun like Ally might disagree which is why I am interested in how he would make courses more difficult. For me, Ballybunion and Blackwolf Run River are analogous to your views of Carnoustie and Wolf Run.


Ira

[Paul Carey]

Tommy,


I always describe Musgrove Mill as a very difficult but fun golf course.  I am a the point that I typically find hard cources a slog.  MM actually has fun shots and makes me smile while posting a relatively high score.  I would think it would be a slog for higher handicaps though. 


Its one of the good places in golf.

Let me use Musgrove Mill GC in Clinton, SC, as an example of a course that has fallen out of favor. I have been a member since 1996, so I know the course very well. Ran gives it a 6 in the Confidential Guide. My wife loves the course but must plot her way around it.
Here is a link to an In My Opinion piece I did.

https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/musgrove-mill/

It once ranked in the top fifty of GOLF WEEK’s best modern. Now, it doesn’t even get a sniff. Part of the reason is the quality of new courses built, but part of it is the change in tastes. Musgrove Mill is a challenging course. It is also a cerebral course. Placement off the tee is more important than distance. I played the course with a magazine editor, who insisted on hitting the driver off every tee. He made bogies and double bogies and hated the course. I tried to tell him to hit a shorter club off some of the tees. He resisted. MM has more single-digit handicappers than any other course in SC. I played with a GOLF WEEK panelist who was probably an 18 handicapper. I tried to tell him where to hit his shots but like the editor, resisted. He tried to hit shots he could never pull off and lost half a dozen balls. If you try to hit shots you cannot pull off, you will pay the price.

Musgrove looks tight off the tee, but it isn’t. Most fairways are forty yards wide. The waste areas mess with your head. It has a great collection of par threes. They are different in length, vertical rise, and direction. Two is a drop-shot hole of 150 yards that drops about 40 feet. Two creeks and bunkers surround it. Seven is two hundred yards long with a river on the right and a two-tiered green. Twelve is 160 yards long over a gull with a diabolical green with three distinct shelves. Seventeen can be stretched to 225 yards with a three-tiered green. The par fives are varied and give the player good chances for birdies. Most are reachable in two. The par fours are varied in length. The Enoree River snakes around the course, and a couple of ponds make the course more interesting. 

The course demands thought off the tee, precise second shots to give the player good chances for birdies and avoid three-putt greens, and a deft touch on the quick sloping greens.

I wouldn’t call it a great course, but it certainly is everything a golfer would want in a course; it is pretty, challenging, and fun. The only time you see anything off the course is on the 11^th green, where you see a two-lane road. Otherwise, it is self-contained. If there is a weakness, it might be that the course does not allow many shots that let you run the ball onto the green. You need to carry it onto the green.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Paul, with all the forced carries MM looks scary. And you are right. High handicappers struggle, yet every 18 that I have brought wants to return.

[Carl Johnson]

I have never really understood the (apparently accepted) wisdom that difficult cannot be fun.  Two of the most enjoyable (and memorable) rounds of my life have been on courses generally accepted as very difficult (Carnoustie and Wolf Run) in rounds where I have struggled to score even moderately.

Mark, Did you play a match, and if so, how did that go?  Were these good courses for matches, in spite of their difficultly from a scoring standpoint (medal, I take it)?  I played a four ball at Carnoustie.  It was particularly difficult because we were sent to the back (not championship) tees that day, but we did have a good match.  I, however, would have no interest in returning.

[Tim Gavrich]

While the average quality of course being built today is very high, there are occasionally times where what's being sold to middle- and high-handicap golfers as "playability" is actually closer to pandering.


It's great when courses cause fewer lost balls, but there are some instances where I don't come away feeling as though a given new or recently renovated course has made me want to become a better golfer in the same way as some other favorites from the tough-course era do.


Constant aspiration is part of the magic of golf and IMO, the very best courses teach golfers to become better players. If golf courses veer too far into amusement-ride territory, I think they start to lose some of that stickiness.

[Sean_A]

While the average quality of course being built today is very high, there are occasionally times where what's being sold to middle- and high-handicap golfers as "playability" is actually closer to pandering.


It's great when courses cause fewer lost balls, but there are some instances where I don't come away feeling as though a given new or recently renovated course has made me want to become a better golfer in the same way as some other favorites from the tough-course era do.


Constant aspiration is part of the magic of golf and IMO, the very best courses teach golfers to become better players. If golf courses veer too far into amusement-ride territory, I think they start to lose some of that stickiness.

Examples? Am I the only one who needs examples to understand if we are talking about the same thing?

Ciao

[Tommy Williamsen]

Sean, I can site a course where it is difficult to lose a ball that has width but still requires good shotmaking to score: PH #10. Of course, the greens are the deciding factor. Four is a short hole, but the green has so much movement than the three of us three-putted. Number eight is a crazy fun hole. The fairway has bumps and humps and a green that only TD would design. On the other hand, I thought the par fives were too straightforward. I birdied two of them with mediocre shotmaking. One of the things I appreciated about the course was the length of two par fours, 13 & 16. I could not reach the greens in two and had to rely on my short game. It seems some new courses pander to the shorter player, allowing him to reach all the par fours in two.

[Mark Pearce]

Mark, Did you play a match, and if so, how did that go?  Were these good courses for matches, in spite of their difficultly from a scoring standpoint (medal, I take it)?  I played a four ball at Carnoustie.  It was particularly difficult because we were sent to the back (not championship) tees that day, but we did have a good match.  I, however, would have no interest in returning.

Hi Carl,


I played Carnoustie with my wife, in constant rain.  We both loved it and went straight into the pro-shop to see if there was a chance of going straight back out.


Wolf Run I played on my own (accompanied for some of the round by the super).  I played with card and pencil.  I played pretty well (off a 12 handicap) at Wolf Run and didn't break 100 but felt I got to play a lot of fun shots.

[Sean_A]

Sean, I can site a course where it is difficult to lose a ball that has width but still requires good shotmaking to score: PH #10. Of course, the greens are the deciding factor. Four is a short hole, but the green has so much movement than the three of us three-putted. Number eight is a crazy fun hole. The fairway has bumps and humps and a green that only TD would design. On the other hand, I thought the par fives were too straightforward. I birdied two of them with mediocre shotmaking. One of the things I appreciated about the course was the length of two par fours, 13 & 16. I could not reach the greens in two and had to rely on my short game. It seems some new courses pander to the shorter player, allowing him to reach all the par fours in two.

This sounds like a slightly narrower version of Pinehurst 2.

I haven’t come across many new courses pandering to shorter hitters except those specifically designed as quick games and are very short. I welcome more courses tipping out at 6000 yards max.

Ciao

[Tommy Williamsen]

Sean, I have moved up and typically play from 6000 or 6200 yards. Generally, there are few holes at 400 yards or more. PH 10 was the exception. I liked that. Four was a very good score on those two long holes.

[Tim Gavrich]

While the average quality of course being built today is very high, there are occasionally times where what's being sold to middle- and high-handicap golfers as "playability" is actually closer to pandering.


It's great when courses cause fewer lost balls, but there are some instances where I don't come away feeling as though a given new or recently renovated course has made me want to become a better golfer in the same way as some other favorites from the tough-course era do.


Constant aspiration is part of the magic of golf and IMO, the very best courses teach golfers to become better players. If golf courses veer too far into amusement-ride territory, I think they start to lose some of that stickiness.

Examples? Am I the only one who needs examples to understand if we are talking about the same thing?

Ciao

I haven't played the full 18 (was rained/thunderstormed out last May), but when I did the original preview loop of Mammoth Dunes, I found myself wondering whether the fairways were too wide and the greens were almost too big to provide an engaging challenge. I have heard similar critiques of Kidd's original course at Gamble Sands but haven't seen it first-hand. Its Slope rating of 120 from the tips is very low.


I enjoyed Landmand but I came away from my initial rounds there feeling as though I hadn't played nearly as well as the scores I shot or the Fairways Hit and Greens In Regulation stats I piled up.


Several renovation projects seeking to reduce bunkering in the name of playability have had the parallel effect of reducing strategic interest on some holes, I've noticed. I have written about it before but Pawleys Plantation, the course I've played the most in my life, got rid of several large bunkers on several holes a couple of summers ago and I feel as though those holes are a little less interesting than they were beforehand, while the course remains nearly as difficult as it always was.


I played Richland, the half-new course at Reynolds Lake Oconee, in October and came away preferring the nine holes left over from the original 2000 National Course to the new nine built by Tom Fazio on a contiguous paddock, with very wide fairways and large greens.


It's still a solid course, but the Wanamaker Course (also Fazio) at PGA Village was renovated last summer, with significant areas of sand grassed over. I think there's been a bit of a sanitizing effect.


The Conservatory course at Hammock Beach took out a bunch of bunkers recently and while it's reasonable to wonder whether such intensive bunkering was wise from the beginning, removing the bunkers that were removed made the course feel a little less true to what it was originally supposed to be.

[Tom_Doak]

Sean, I can site a course where it is difficult to lose a ball that has width but still requires good shotmaking to score: PH #10. Of course, the greens are the deciding factor. Four is a short hole, but the green has so much movement than the three of us three-putted. Number eight is a crazy fun hole. The fairway has bumps and humps and a green that only TD would design. On the other hand, I thought the par fives were too straightforward. I birdied two of them with mediocre shotmaking. One of the things I appreciated about the course was the length of two par fours, 13 & 16. I could not reach the greens in two and had to rely on my short game. It seems some new courses pander to the shorter player, allowing him to reach all the par fours in two.

This is an interesting description.  I suspect many of you three-putted #4 not because the green has a lot of movement but because it's pretty big and your first putt was 50 feet.


The 8th hole is crazy, but it's actually a pretty easy hole two-shotter, if you are not intimidated by the blindness.  We thought if we built a simple green there, it would be pandering, so we added that back shelf to make you work a bit for a birdie [or a par], but it's still one of the easiest holes on the course.  I have learned over the years that you can get away with much wilder features like those fairway contours, when you employ them on a short par-4 that still gives players a chance to score.


I assume the two par-5's you birdied were 3 and 12, because 10 is a beast.  Both 3 and 12 are fairly short for modern par-5 holes, and the idea was that low-handicaps would be going for the green in two and if they missed we wanted to make it hard for them to make birdie, so that a shorter-hitting opponent might beat them playing good straightforward golf.  [You are the latter guy.]


The 16th has a shorter tee and they often put the tee markers up, but at 13 there is a big hollow off the tee, so it was either 430 yards from the men's tee or 310.  After it was built the client started wondering if maybe we should call it a par 5, because so few players were going to reach it in two . . . but if you called it a par-5 it would be perceived as a boring, straightforward hole.  When you call it a par-4, it's a beast. 


I happen to agree with you that modern courses often pander, by providing five sets of tees on every hole, and by keeping balls in play.  I was raised by Pete and Alice Dye, so that just isn't my thing . . . the holes generally need to be challenging, with the occasional breather, and opportunities for less talented golfers to get around and make their bogeys.


ADDING:  I am kind of surprised that the course has been so well received, after the resort started worrying people would find it too difficult.  It is a long course . . . it's amazing to me how few people look at the card and don't realize that 7000 yards par 70 is a lot different than 7000 / 72 . . . and a lot of people play it too far back as a result.

[Peter Sayegh]

Sean, I can site a course where it is difficult to lose a ball that has width but still requires good shotmaking to score: PH #10. Of course, the greens are the deciding factor. Four is a short hole, but the green has so much movement than the three of us three-putted. Number eight is a crazy fun hole. The fairway has bumps and humps and a green that only TD would design. On the other hand, I thought the par fives were too straightforward. I birdied two of them with mediocre shotmaking. One of the things I appreciated about the course was the length of two par fours, 13 & 16. I could not reach the greens in two and had to rely on my short game. It seems some new courses pander to the shorter player, allowing him to reach all the par fours in two.

ADDING:  I am kind of surprised that the course has been so well received, after the resort started worrying people would find it too difficult.  It is a long course . . . it's amazing to me how few people look at the card and don't realize that 7000 yards par 70 is a lot different than 7000 / 72 . . . and a lot of people play it too far back as a result.

Well received by who? Raters, resort guests, privileged invitees, PCC members, or resort personnel?

When did the resort "start[] worrying people would find it too difficult?" Was it during construction or when the course was initially played?

Thanks.