This is an important question because so many of us who play and support the game are in this handicap range.

I delight in a golf course that allows me to play an entire round with one ball. I don't like playing through housing corridors with out-of-bounds left and right, over water hazards, or around prairies ad-nauseam. Although I do like to see lakes and prairies on a golf course, I don't like having them in my line of play all day.

I like an opening to a green that allows me the option of running the ball up, because I am often hitting a longer iron in.

I like for there to be areas on fairways and greens that the ball performs on for several seconds after it lands. The game is played with a ball afterall, and one of the dynamics of a ball is roll. So I love a golf course where the ball rolls after it lands and the whole performance of your shot interacts with the ground for some time before coming to rest. I suppose the lower handicapper, having more of an aerial game in his bag, delights more in what the ball is doing while in flight, but I am also entertained by what the ball does after it lands.

I don't mind hitting from the rough or even from a bunker if I miss the fairway, but on so many golf courses hitting from the rough is really hitting from trees.

Thanks Bradley,

Grasping your comment about hittin glonger clubs in...what do you think are appropriate / too much / not enough results when you miss a green but are with about 30 yards of the nearest edge..."appropriate" in terms of the balls position and the challenges presented to getting down in two or three shots.

"Grasping your comment about hittin glonger clubs in...what do you think are appropriate / too much / not enough results when you miss a green but are with about 30 yards of the nearest edge..."appropriate" in terms of the balls position and the challenges presented to getting down in two or three shots."

I think that even a high handicapper should pay for a missed shot at the green, and that can be exacted by any kind of bunkering or side slopes that the architect decides to use. But if I have set myself up with a good angle on my previous stroke, it's nice to have an opening to the green.

A lot of these openings to the approach of the green were lost on golf courses when large tractor drawn fairway gang mowers came in to production - there was a pivot point for turning the machine around on the approach that evolved to an hourglass shaped mowing pattern. In the new aesthetic that this created, curvilinear shaped bunkers were built to make sense of the look. This effectively tightened the gap on the run up shot on a lot of older golf holes.

I can better respond with what I don't like to see -- some have already been mentioned.

Too many forced carries, blind shots, and mismanaged grass.  I guess those are my three big ones.  From an architectural standpoint, even though I'm not one, it doesn't take a genious to recognize a hole or two that is not fluid with the rest of the course.  I've played many courses over the years where one or two holes look like they were just thrown in to fill up space, or not thought out well.

I want a course that stimulates my senses, to my eye and my brain -- in a fun, not aggrivating, way.  I want to leave the aggrivation to the result of my swing, not the golf course -- unrealistic expectation?  Perhaps.

...a well educated 18 wants the same as a well educated lower hcp golfer.

Maybe I should include in the question...

AND WHAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE FORMS OF PUNISHMENT OR PENALTY FOR MISSING THE TARGET?

This has been answered by some, but I'm curious if green surrounds that make it very difficult, to impossible, to get down in two are acceptable so long as a ball is not lost...it still means that if you barely miss a shot you are going to make a bogey...that's really the heart of my line of questioning.

IS IT REASONABLE TO THE 18 HANDICAPPERS TO BARELY MISS A SHOT AND HAVE VIRTUALLY NO CHANCE AT A PAR?

I would think they could play conservatively, and well, to make bogeys...I want to know if they will risk a double to make a par...

JES -
when I'm at my worst, there's no point in trying to play conservatively; I'll be lousy any way you slice it. In fact, I find I play better when I'm playing aggressively but smartly, i.e. picking out a small target, taking one club more than I need, and expecting to pull off the shot.

There are probably as many ways to shot 90 than there are to shot 72, maybe more. We're all different. I tend to take courses as they come - wide is good, narrow is fine, openings to greens are nice, forced carries I deal with, lots of bunkers are okay, but more interesting and fun are green surrounds mowed short, 6700 yards I can handle, 6200 yards is easier. In short, I try to score the best I can; those scores vary widely; I blame no one but myself for the big numbers. I'd like to play the same course you do, sometimes even from the same tees. I may not be a tiger, but since I'm a grown man I don't like being treated like a rabbit either.  

But, I think that what I really like to see on golf courses will stay the same even as I get better. For me, that comes down to something like "wanting to be left alone".  I don't mean not having other players around; I mean not wanting the architect in my face and his fingerprints all over the course (no matter how nice a fellow he might be).  

I don't want signifiers and directional beacons and obvious strategies that are insulting to my intelligence and to my appreciation for the game. A bunker that's no bunker at all is more annoying to be in (because it's artificial) than one that means something, to both me and you. I want the land the golf course sits on to look a lot like the land I saw driving up to the course; no less rugged or no less quiet. I like openess and vistas and nature; and I like flat greens when the land is flat and undulating ones when the land is undulating.  

Generally, I don't want the architect to be doing me any favours. Well, maybe a couple, but then he's got to hide the favour so well that I won't realize the gift until days or years afterwards. Actually, not even that: the good score I shoot because of those favours doesn't end up satisfying me so much upon reflection.  

I have dreams. I want to be a much better player. I think I can be. I think a golf course should let me dream, instead of not-so-subtly confirming my fears that I suck and that I always will -- which is the feeling I get when architects try to play it too smart, figuring that customers paying top dollar won't notice that they're hitting it further only because every tee is elevated, or that the bunkers are are out of play because the big mounding that feeds everything back to the centre makes them nearly irrelevant.

Peter

   

That is the exact attitude that resulted in titanium clubs and out of control balls.

How many 18 handicaps play enough to support the game financially?  

And here I thought it was the spineless accountants running golf who made decisions about equipment. In fairness to them, they were just catering to the millions of 18s out there!

To answer the OP, I'm a 13 and look for much the same range of experiences as the educated low handicappers who post here. Beauty, challenge, variety, strategy, service, proximity.

So many people talk as if mid- and high-handicappers all play the same game -- 200-yard drives, iron shots that never get off the ground. Not true. Many of us are capable of many of the things better players do, but with less consistency.

In 2007, I fought a duck hook and banana slice on the same day. I failed to break 100. I lipped out several times from inside three feet. I lost 10 balls in a round. I spent a full round shanking wedge pitch shots. I whiffed on a tee shot with an iron. I tried shots above my abilities.

But I also broke 80. I hit a couple of 300-yard drives and a bunch of 280-yard ones. I dropped a 45-footer with movement. I cut the corner on doglegs. I made sound strategic decisions. I executed a knockdown 135-yard 6-iron into strong wind. I made brilliant sand saves from buried lies.

So while I like some room for error and alternative routes to the hole, I also don't want architecture that talks down to me. I particularly bristle when I'm intrinsically unable to understand golf at the low-handicap and pros levels, or that an archie who isn't himself a pro can't do the same. It's like telling a casual guitar player that he can't appreciate fine music.

Jes,

Good question and the way I played the last half of 2007, I certainly qualify to answer this.

Unlike others I don't mind OB, or water, or bunkers-a-plenty....just as long as its not overdone on hole after hole after hole.  They create interesting challenges when you play them here and there, but when you are deluged with them, it really gets old quick.

As for holes I will always dislike as a high capper.  It would be the long, uphill, narrow par 4 with bunkers surrounding the green.

why is so much concern paid to the professional player when designing a course?

Because most assume they know best, through word or deed.

And then...what about todays better courses are still not perfect for average players?

I think many courses designed for better players emphasize all the wrong things. They tend to promote fairness for ball striking, as opposed to fairness for the thoughtful golfer.

What's so special about an 18 handicap that we need to think about ways to make courses suit him? If we want to cater for the "average" golfer, we need to look at handicaps between 30 and 36.

Ulrich

Quote from: Jeff_Brauer on January 02, 2008, 09:14:51 AM

Bradley,

Well thought out and I agree.  As one of my cohorts likes to say, golf should be enjoyed, not endured.

That is the exact attitude that resulted in titanium clubs and out of control balls.

How many 18 handicaps play enough to support the game financially?  

Wrong on both counts!

Market competition brought us the technological innovation.

Assuming the implication of the second is that the 18 handicaps cannot support the game financially, IMHO they cannot, but probably for a different reason than I believe you imply. There are far more 20+ handicaps than there are 18 and less. I believe those people could easily support the game financially if they are supported with reasonable courses at reasonable prices.