I just got back from a weekend trip with 16 people ranging from a +1 handicap to a 24 (probably actually higher).  Because there were a series of competitions with everyone playing from the same set of tees, it was a great opportunity to see the challenges inherent in designing for players of all abilities.

My observations:

1.  I hadn't really focused on the distance issue in terms of the relative difference between a long and short hitter, but it is huge and I have to think it is getting bigger.  One 10 handicap it 190 off the tee while the +1 probably averaged around 290.  Several of the high handicap players were shorter off the tee.  I have to believe that 25 years ago the short hitters were about the same as they are now, but that the longer players would have been 30-40 yards shorter.

It is a rare course that can be designed to be interesting for all of these distance ranges.  We generally played courses in the 6400 yard range, which was too long for the short hitters and too short for the long hitter.

2.  Bunkers are extremely penal hazards for the high handicapper and not very penal for the good player.  That impact is only exacerbated when the bunker features a high lip.  I see two solutions that might help.  First make shallow bunkers that include the possibility of using a putter for escape so that the difference in impact is minimized, or second, go the opposite direction and make little pot bunkers that penalize everybody.

3.  One course we played had 6 par threes and was a par 70.  Low handicappers did not like this set up.  High handicappers did.  As long as the holes are sufficiently varied to be interesting for all, I think it is a great way to make the round fun for all.

4.  Why can't there be a course like Sand Hills in Arizona?  It seems like the terrain and sand would allow such a design and that creatively dealing with the land use limitations (such as making one wide fairway that is used by two holes) would allow players to have the room to play all the similar greenside shots and to have the interesting fairway contours that exist at Sand Hillls.

Jason Topp,

Do you know how expensive it would be to move several million cubic yards of dirt.

The Sand Hills are a unique piece of property that you can't simply export to the desert or other locations.

Jason,

In order for your wish to happen a unique individual like Dick Youngscap, Mike Keiser or Mike Pascucci would have to be the visionary and driving force behind the project.

They're harder to find than a good site.

One of the true joys of playing MacKenzie courses is that the high handicapper can enjoy his round.  No forced carries, plenty of room to circumnaviate hazards (at the cost of a stroke typically, but that's okay for a high handicapper), and little rough to waste time looking for those errant tee balls.

Now the greens may be a whole different matter!  

There's always a way around.

Or perhaps those are the exception that prove the rule!

Although I've never had the sense to do otherwise, it is not necessary to pull out the driver at #16!    I'm sure you can play way left at #17.  Most players of any caliber should be expected to carry the inlet at #15.

Thinking about MacKenzie otherwise, there aren't many forced carries other than over a barranca a couple of times at Pasatiempo and the Valley Club, and none particularly daunting shots.  

I think anyone who is not trying to design for all levels of play either has a Crump for a client, or posesses little design depth or experience, or maybe is independently wealthy....but in any event also has a high likelyhood of missing the boat for the mass of todays market.

Its really not that hard to design for multi levels of play....its almost harder not to.....you really can't design them all the 'same' for any one level [see previous cowley humour post  ], why not try to accomodate all ?

BTW...the touted 'Curves of Charm' theory's base premise allows for just that...strategic accomodation of play levels.

I agree with Pat and Philippe.  It is impossible or impractical to design to the lowest common denominator and have anything stimulating or worth while to return to play often.  One has to design for the entry level or worst players to be challenged to get better.  A design doesn't have to be easy or immediately available for success to make pars or bogeys.

I don't even think a practice range would look nice if it were just simply oriented to the lowest common denominator as in a dead flat field.  There has to be some features there to challenge you to hit to it, work around it, come in high or low, or go long or bunt it.

I really don't know why MacKenzie's 13 or CB's 9 principles don't pretty much govern this concept of designing for variety of players... nothing new there...

It seems to me that the biggest problem we shorter hitters face is nothing to do with how far we drive the ball, but much more to do with what club we are using to the green.  If I stand on an appropriate tee and drive the ball to 180 yards from the green and Tiger Woods stands on his appropriate tee and drives the ball to 180 yards from the green I will be reaching for a 5-wood, he for an 8-iron.  He can hit and hold a postage stamp green raised up on a minor mountain, I need 25 yards of uninterrupted run-in in front of the green.  

As a shorter hitter I do appreciate it when I have not been forgotten.  An example would be a hole on which the drive is threatened by several bunkers on, say, the inside of the dog-leg at 175, 200, 240 and 280 yards.  I am called upon to avoid my bunker and so are all levels of golfer up to the good player.  I enjoy short holes played across a cross-bunker.  It will not trouble the good player who hits consistently to the same distance, but it gives me some fun in overcoming this very obvious hazard.  I also love the bite-off-as-much-as-you-can-chew risk/reward scenario - every bit as interesting at my level of play as it is for the big hitter.  

Forrest:

Thanks for the perspective.  I was in Tucson and probably am wrong about the sand.  I have always assumed that the dry hard stuff in the desert was sand.

There is sand, but usually it is at the bottom of a raging wash/arroyo.

One of my favorite courses in Tucson is Ventana Canyon's Mountain Course — Fazio, I believe, at his very best. The course was a product of the late 1980s and is still very simple with granite (gravel) cart paths, ebb and flowing edges (not a hard turf line) and a very natural feel...even with the now present housing.

Forrest:

I've always really enjoyed Ventana.  We played it in a Ryder Cup type event and it was terrific fun finishing tight and relatively tense matches over the closing holes.  One of the challenges with a desert course is creating the opportunity for aggressive play, and I think the par fives and short par fours of the mountain course are great from that perspective, particularly in that stunning setting.

George...good post and more to what I am trying to convey [words not being my medium of choice] and I agree that for the most part designing a hole that is difficult for the better player while easy for the lesser is, well, not easy.....but doable in certain situations. I still use it as a goal.

Patrick...I might try to explain a conceptual situation as you have requested but I would prefer leaving it for a book.
I have asked Tom Paul to help me write it as I challenged am in that area, but, although he expressed interest, he said he still has to finish work on the Flynn book [maybe late 2007], and that because of the effort that was required to complete the aforementioned, he was thinking of shifting to fiction for a short time, and mentioned a few ideas he had that would be in the form of short novellas.....one was ' Maintenance Meld Meltdown in the City'...another was 'Fast and Firm in Seminole darkness'....each of which he said would require at least a years worth of R and D.

so , that leaves me with the choice of going it alone and putting my head in the jaws of your lions mouth bunker or silence for maybe the four years or so that it takes TP to finish his tasks.......................................