Frankly, it never occured to me before to think of course difficulty in the opinions of supers, at least not in some collective sense.

Over the years I've been aware of the opinions of supers on the difficutly of their courses but only in an individual context.

Individually, I've found them to be all over the map on the difficulty of their courses---some do like their courses to be extremely difficult and others seem to think excessive difficulty is over the top and perhaps foolish, and perhaps more work.

I don't exactly have an opinion to offer on the subject, at least not now---it only occured to me it may be a most interesting subject indeed.

I sense---nay, I feel, the opinions of supers on this issue or the opinions of supers on almost any issue to do with courses, architecture and certainly how maintenance relates are some of the most important and interesting opinions of all.

How do you supers on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com feel about the subject of your course's difficutly? How do some of you all out there feel your super feels about the difficulty factor of your course?

Bump. I thought it was a very good topic to begin with, and Craig's interesting post has me hoping for more.

Peter

   

Tom,
My course is not open yet so I can't comment on it in particular.
But my feeling in general after working on golf courses for the better part of two decades is this:
1. Architects are, in general, intent on challenging the longer shot, which of course gives the higher handicapper the most problem.

2. Building courses that give the player a chance to get near the green in one piece, yet challenge him once he gets there are great for the poorer player, yet drive the better player nuts.


3. A triple breaking putt maddens the better player, yet delights the weaker player, provided he didn't have to open 2 new sleeves to get to the green.

From a golf professional, superintendant relationship, it is imperitive that the super play his golf course on a regular (weekly) basis to get his own feel on general difficulty.  He can then train the staff better on some do's and don'ts based not only on player's suggestions but also his own.

I have worked with supers who hardly ever played, maybe twice a year, and I found it more difficult to discuss course difficulty with him than my current super who is about a 13 handicap, but plays about once a week.  

IMHO, the super gets to see his course from two different angles, agronomically, and playability.

Quote from: Casey Wade on July 14, 2007, 09:08:23 AM

From a golf professional, superintendant relationship, it is imperitive that the super play his golf course on a regular (weekly) basis to get his own feel on general difficulty.  

Others may have different experiences, but a lot of the very good superintendents I have come across rarely play their course.  A good superintendent should be able to get a good feel for the course without playing it.  

My apologies David.  I was using my own experiences with the superintendent's I've had the pleasure of working with.  But what is rarely?  Once a month? Once every two months?  This would still be more than what the one super I worked with.  

I also agree that a good super should be able to get a feel.  But should and does are two different things that I feel can be narrowed by the super playing and seeing not only the agronomics, but also the playabilty

The one thing that I have noticed with my super is he sees everything...he plays maybe once a week in a league, but while he's on the course working he "sees" things that you would think he might overlook...things that are easily overlooked....he has a sixth sense that comes from 15 years of doing this work...and he knows that certain problems occur in certain areas every year so he's looking for it well before an untrained eye sees it...

Back to difficulty....I have noticed that the two new courses in the area have raised the standard for set up, and the difficulty level acceptable....thus, there is a stronger feeling that the set up on our course can be more challenging without driving anyone away.

 Building courses that give the player a chance to get near the green in one piece, yet challenge him once he gets there are great for the poorer player, yet drive the better player nuts.

That is a great place to start.

When you guys are talking about playing easy, what exactly are you talking about? Rough length and thickness, green speeds, pin positions?

"When you guys are talking about playing easy, what exactly are you talking about? Rough length and thickness, green speeds, pin positions?"

Ed:

Yes, certainly all of that.

Let me give you an example of difficulty that some may question but I wonder if it's legitimate.

Take the 1st and 10th greens at Oakmont. Those two are extremely difficult to hit and hold on approach shots and obviously many golfers come up short on them. But all those golfers should probably realize a strategic reality of those holes and use it to their advantage to save strokes.

For instance, it has been said that Ben Hogn when he won the 1953 US Open intentionally played his approaches to those two greens over the green and then chipped back all four days. His explanation was he preferred to play from behind the green with his third shot rather than his fourth.

Higher handicappers should learn from that strategic lesson of Hogan's even if it means for their fourth shot rather than their fifth.

But that is an example of extreme difficutly.

Another old adage that applies here was from Tommy Armour when he advised that all golfers should try to hit shots that made their next shot easiest. Clearly by that Armour meant a golfer should try not to take extreme risks if he wanted to score well over the long haul.

I know you didn't direct the question at me, but it does drive the better player buts, but in a good sense I think. My home course is not overly long but has very undulating greens - sometimes internal contours and sometimes just straight slope. This weekend I hit the ball well enough to shoot 66 but shot 71. I missed 5 or 6 birdie putts within 15 feet - all because I was on the wrong side of the hole and having to be tentative and play a lot of break on those putts. It drove me insane and I was a little hot at myself after the round. But it provides and great and interesting challenge. So it keeps the good payers from one putting as much as they would on flatter greens while the average player still has his share of 3 putts no matter what. I know I must hit the fairways to control my shots to the green to leave the ball on the proper part of the green. Each green has different parts you must hit to depending on the hole location. It's maddening, but a tremendous amount of fun, especially in a little wind.

Weds at Oakmont I heard one of the caddies say something about a Mr Paul.I did not think more about it until I saw this thread.Tell me I didn't blow a chance to meet a legend.

Don:

Very fine answers to my questions on post #19. Thanks.

Basically, it's one of the hardest things to do to convince good players that architecture should allow players who are not very good to get lucky and tie them or beat them with shots that don't seem skilled or well thought out.

My only answer----and the only one I think is effective, is if they can't handle that kind of thing they aren't particularly mentally strong competitors.  

You know that old saw---"that's the way the ball bounces"?

Take that out of architecture and golf completely and you'll probably gut the entire game.

Also, I'm not a super, but I think I recognise certain sly humor when having attended a few super conventions and seminars regarding their ability to 'set-up' THEIR courses tough or everyday playable.  

I think that with some older courses, as stated above, there aren't enough teeing ground options to effect angles to favored LZs.  So, the issue on toughening set up is obviously mowing lines (not very flexible in context of moving them in or out at will) and Height of cut rough depth.  Then, the auxillary thing to that is firmness in the FWs to cause a ball to have more chance to bound into trouble.  Approaches to greens and greens surrounds are also an area that the super has some crafty flexibility.  Both in firmness, HOC and collar width.  Again, for the requirement for everyday play, the width can't be too variable to arbitrarily tamper with the collar.  Most obvously, the firmness of greens and speed relative to pin placements is the huge factor.  We all know that.

But also, the style of golf course is critical to allowing the super to do certain maintenance things to alter the difficulty.  Look at Whistling Straits last week.  How differently would that course have played if they (directing the super to do so - which he could have if desired) firm up the approaches.  For a short time of the tournament, assuming no or little rain and proper drainage in the foregreens, he could have gotten the foregreens rock hard, and that would have made a huge scoring difference (IMHO).  I wrote about how they brought some mowing lines in and left a few bunkers outside the FW cut, since the 04 PGA.  They could on a long term basis go back to bringing the bunkers on those holes back within the FW lines with more FW around and behind them (8 and 13 for sure). Parkland courses have different considerations to alter maintenance due to the corridors of play.  

Our super is a county department head and pretty much has complete control and oversight for all golf course and club house operations.  He has been there many years.  I never have seen him play a round of golf in the 17 years I've been there.  I have been to a super seminar and observed his conversation with his peers.  I think he knows every trick in the book as to how he can alter to the max how "HIS" course plays.  He can schedule little maintenance things as short as a week in advance to tweak it up for competitions.  Like most any other super similar to Joe Hancock, with their skin in the game, they need and want the course to play efficiently for all on a regular basis.  But, if they are feeling a little creative, or their course is holding a toon-a-mint, they know where they can futz around to make things more challenging.