Andrew Biggadike's thread (and some of the responses) got me thinking...is it possible to design a course for better golfers (legit plus handicappers and "pros") as well as the higher handicapper?

I don't know that it is. The playing pro/good amateur doesn't want "fun" like many on here think "fun" is, they want playability and resistance to par.

I think the higher 'capper wants fun, a different kind of playability (like no forced carries, no heroic shots, acceptability of run-up shots, etc) and to shoot a legit score while having fun (again, the idea of fun is relative).

Take two examples, my home course Morgan Creek, and Pacific Dunes.

Morgan Creek offers golfers up to tour pro caliber what they're looking for--length, difficulty without being "stupid", potential to shoot a low score, but a 78 is a couple shots away. In other words, bad shots are punished.

Now, I know a couple 20 handicaps, and watch them play Morgan Creek, and I don't know how they don't blow their heads off. I don't think it's a very good "members" course for the average club player (16 handicap?).

Now take Pac Dunes. Pac, to me, is a WAY more fun golf course. It's short enough to not have to play a long iron into  every green, it's got bumps and rolls, there aren't a lot of forced carries, the ball runs to greens if the ball's missed, etc. etc. But I think Pac would LAY DOWN if good amateurs/playing pros played it every day or in a big tournament, even compared to Trails and Bandon Dunes (from the tips).

Even pasatiempo, which I can see would challenge even the longest players with its greens (undulation and speed) would go to -15 or so in a tournament? But maybe not if you move the tee back on 1, 2, maybe adding an even deeper tee on 8, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 18?

Chip's thread on Augusta maybe is ONE course I can think of that may be good for both....from differing tees.

Is it just a matter of having the right amount of property/budget, or is it really possible to design a course for ALL golfers to enjoy?

When the TPC Sawgrass was pretty new I played it on consecutive days from the white tees and from the back, and I shot 78-103.  The combination of the carries and the angles makes a huge difference to a 5- or 10-handicap golfer.

Jed:  Pacific Dunes will "lay down" when the wind is not blowing, but it is usually blowing, and then the good players will find some work to be done.  I'm not saying they're going to shoot 78 -- that isn't the point of the course.  And I'm not sure why it would be the point of Morgan Creek, either?

TOC

In that same article that Joe Bausch posted (referenced in the thread you refer to), Colt also said:

Is it not possible to make the one shot holes difficult threes and at the same time easy fours and the two-shot holes difficult fours and easy fives?  A safe route with a wide margin for error to the side of a big carry from the tee can generally be provided, but at the same time it is surely only just to give a compensating benefit to the one who negotiates the carry.  And so again, cross hazards traversing diagonally the line of play, will afford a fair test to all.

He also goes on to suggest using multiple sets of tees.

I haven't seen either Morgan Creek or Pacific Dunes.  What about each makes it too hard for the high handicapper and too easy for the low handicapper, respectively?

I think you can do it, but you need to almost have two courses in one:

Some holes could be the same from medal- champ tees
Some greens should have some definite difficult areas that add half a shot perhaps
Some tees should go back say 100 yards so a 360 nice easy members hole could become a real tough 4. If you can do that around 8 or 9 times, ie almost have 8 or 9 different holes albiet using the same fairway/green you can make the course from 6300 - 7300. The longer tees can have forced carries and or drive into tighter zones.
The fronts need to kept pretty free of real tough hazards, plenty of great UK golf courses can please both.

Jed:

I suppose it's possible to make any course suit this line of thinking, if you want to make them all 7600 yards from the back tees.  But that is a waste of a lot of real estate, and it will stretch out the course to make it a pain to walk.

Sebonack definitely worked out to be tough enough for the great players, and somehow we got it to be walkable as well.  Not sure it's playable enough for every 20-handicap, though.

Brad:  I agree with your first paragraph exactly the way you put it -- I want my courses to be playable and enjoyable for everyone, including the +1 handicaps.  It's the "resistance to par" definition Jed has put out that I don't care so much about.

As for pressure from clients, it doesn't change much over one's career.  The people who hire "startup" architects aren't so concerned with tournament-tough golf, or they'd be hiring a bigger name; but they do feel empowered to make suggestions generally.  When you get to working for more high-powered clients, most of them worry more about what others will think, and early in the design process the only thing they have to fret about is the scorecard, so they do.  

I posted only a couple of weeks back that I wish I just never put a scorecard on any of my routings, because if it's under 7000 yards, somebody is going to tell me how to do my job.

I've also noted that it's easier to work in some foreign countries than in the USA, because they measure in meters and so far nobody is demanding 7000-meter courses.  6000 meters is 6600 yards; once you're over that, nobody seems to care whether it's 6100 or 6600 meters.  No one at Barnbougle or St. Andrews Beach said boo about the overall yardage.

and He keeps it closed on Sunday,except for theOpen which proves my point of skipping church on major Sundays.

Jed,

I think its possible, although getting harder.  I think the ANGC/strategic model still rules, at least presuming the new rough doesn't stay in place all year and the greens roll something less than 13 for regular play.  

The lessons learned there seem to be:

Multiple Tees - (Reduced Dogleg and Fw Angles, Forced Carries and Hole Distance)

Wide Fw at 200-220 Yards, Fw narrower as tee shot distances increase

Light or No Rough (except for tournaments of consequence)

Minimum of Forced Carries, Use more lateral hazards

Minimum of Sand Hazards, Use more grass hazards

Minimum of Water Hazards

Consideration of Hazard Placement -

   General - Left to right side ratio of about 2:1
   FW - Mostly at distances played by better players (lack of  distance is penalty enough for missed shot)
   Green - Mostly Mid Green rather than green front (esp. on right side)

Generally Larger, Rolling Greens with a few "Sunday Pins" and lots of flatter spots in between

We could add "containment fairways" and "save bunkers" but I don't think those are strictly necessary.  I wish there were some new dramatic thoughts on the subject, but I haven't really seen any, here or anywhere!

Matthew,

Other than the cost and space issues, it has merit. I think you can do the same or similar by a gradual narrowing.

Pinehurst #2

I know you were half joking about every hole being hard, but what do you guys think about this as it relates to the original question...

Isn't there a psychological factor involved from the point of view of the golfer?  I mean we're trying to make an objective point about a subjective topic.  I play with guys that are single digit handicaps like me.  Let's say they played similar holes, one being "hard" and the other being "easy".  They bogey the hard one and birdie the easy one.  I bet, if asked which hole was "better", they'd say the hard one.  I also think you find the opposite answer from the same senario from the 20 handicap.  The 20 guys are jacked up about making birdie regardless.  The single digit guys feel like every hole should challenge their (mostly imagined) talent...otherwise it was "easy".

Yea or nay?

In that same article that Joe Bausch posted (referenced in the thread you refer to), Colt also said:

Quote

Is it not possible to make the one shot holes difficult threes and at the same time easy fours and the two-shot holes difficult fours and easy fives?  A safe route with a wide margin for error to the side of a big carry from the tee can generally be provided, but at the same time it is surely only just to give a compensating benefit to the one who negotiates the carry.  And so again, cross hazards traversing diagonally the line of play, will afford a fair test to all.

He also goes on to suggest using multiple sets of tees.

I haven't seen either Morgan Creek or Pacific Dunes.  What about each makes it too hard for the high handicapper and too easy for the low handicapper, respectively?

I would LOVE to play a course with the balls to do that. But the difficulty lies in the rating/playing for score ideal. Too many issues with that.

Morgan creek is too hard because it demands elevated shots into greens that you have to hold, penal surrounds that do not create options, forced carries (while not too difficult for the better golfer), visually intimidating holes, too much length (6200 FLAT yards from the whites).

Pac Dunes is too too too short, too much run on the fairways, greens are not quick enough (and I don't know if they can get much quicker, I don't think the greens grasses were intended to be much quicker), without SERIOUS wind the course should be rated below 70.0.