[Michael Whitaker]

I think it's really hard to generalize across different handicap categories. For example, the 1st hole at Yale has a forced carry over a pond.  I don't know the exact yardage over the water but my guess is 175-200 yards.  Most single-digit handicappers wouldn't even give the water a thought, but it would be a real challenge and create lots of interest for the high handicapper, although I am not sure about the fun part.

Phil,

That's why they create different sets of tees.[/color]

Patrick - You keep mentioning "different sets of tees." This brings the following questions to mind:

1) Is it only distance that makes a course more or less difficult for the skilled versus unskilled player? If not, what other factors do you think are significant?

2) What about the UK courses that only put out one set of tees? Do these courses provide a "test" for every level golfer? If so, how do they accomplish this. If not, why not?

3) What factor does width play in your analysis of a course providing a test?

I tend to agree with Jeff... the average golfer is not looking for a physical challenge when they play golf, they're looking to have a good time with their companions while they struggle with their inability to play the game. Just hitting a decent shot once or twice during their round is usually enough to bring them back the next week. These golfers are not skilled enough at the game to enjoy being "tested" each time they go out. That's the reason less than 10% of golfers EVER play in an organized individual strokeplay tournament... they don't want to be tested.

[John Kirk]

Although I appreciate the challenge, I probably value the walk in the park more, and the camaraderie a little bit less.  All three are important to me.

Making the challenge, meaning the comprehensive test of skills, fun, takes a great deal of expertise.  Courses that consistently present you with shots that are nearly impossible to execute, are too hard and are demoralizing.  Some courses are too easy and therefore boring.  I like a course which consistently presents interesting shots that have a real possibility of a satisfying result.  In short, hard and challenging but not too hard.  The "baby bear porridge" of difficulty.  Mmmmm, just right.

When it comes down to it, I like to play and compete, but I'm mostly out there to take in the view and chat.  Most of my friends are more focused on the score and executing shots.  When it counts, I'll shut up and play harder.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:  Your response: "That's why they create different sets of tees.", while sometimes correct, fails to take into account green complexes and contours.  

The lesser skilled player might have a better chance of hitting a green in regulation when playing the correct tees, but that still does not overcome his inability to deal with significant green contours.  

I read once that for a player to break 80 he only needs to hit 8 greens in regulation, but I believe the presumption was that he would then be able to two putt.  

Let's take the example of Hidden Creek.  I would say that overall, it is not an overly intimidating course if played from the correct tees.  That is however, until one reaches the green, or at least the green complex.  The higher skilled player will find the recovery shots and the putting to be interesting and challenging.  The lesser skilled player will be confounded and totally lost - so much so that he might not want to play the course on a regular basis.

My conclusion is that green complexes and contours have become an important method of dealing with modern technology, but perhaps, it is doing so at the cost of losing the interest of lesser skilled players.

Jerry, I think it's just the opposite.

The trend today is for FLATTER greens, less demanding situations at the green end.

You guys are forgetting A KEY ingredient, if not THE KEY ingredient.
[size=4x]
HANDICAPS[/size]

You can't examine the issue in the context of equality amongst all golfers.

John Kirk,

You're confusing extreme difficulty, with challenge.

The 100 yard approach shot on # 1 at NGLA is challenging, it's not extremely difficult.

The 130 yard tee shot on # 6, from an elevated tee to a huge green, usually downwind, is NOT extremely difficult, but, it is challenging.

The 130 yard tee shot at # 2 at GCGC isn't extremely difficult, but, it is challenging.

Perhaps I'm incorrect, but extreme difficulty usually manifests itself with length.

Perhaps that's why I've always favored "sporty" courses.

I've been able to manage playing two good golf courses that play over 7,200 yards, but, I'm drawn to shorter, sportier courses, such as NGLA, Maidstone, The Creek, Piping Rock, Hidden Creek and many others, courses that don't require brute strength or length on almost every shot, but, courses that present a reasonable challenge.

A critical part of the process of determining the level of challenge lies in the selection of the proper tees for your game.  While we all like to extend ourselves from time to time, I don't think I"d have a lot of fun playing a 7,400+ yard golf course day in and day out.

Golfers are a funny lot.
Most think they're better than they are, and most think they can pull off a shot beyond their ability.
There's a beauty in that.
And, sometimes that beauty is realized when we pull off a miracle shot.  Unfortunately, that just encourages us to try it more often.  Discretion is the better part of valor, especially in medal play [/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think it's really hard to generalize across different handicap categories. For example, the 1st hole at Yale has a forced carry over a pond.  I don't know the exact yardage over the water but my guess is 175-200 yards.  Most single-digit handicappers wouldn't even give the water a thought, but it would be a real challenge and create lots of interest for the high handicapper, although I am not sure about the fun part.

Phil,

That's why they create different sets of tees.[/color]

Patrick - You keep mentioning "different sets of tees." This brings the following questions to mind:

1) Is it only distance that makes a course more or less difficult for the skilled versus unskilled player? If not, what other factors do you think are significant?

No, but, it's one of the primary factors[/color]

2) What about the UK courses that only put out one set of tees? Do these courses provide a "test" for every level golfer? If so, how do they accomplish this. If not, why not?

One set of tees can only accomodate the broad spectrum of golfers if the "architecture" is under foot, or accomodating.

In Phil's example, using Yale, the 1st and the 9th holes would be unplayable for the higher handicaps if only the back tees were used.

It also helps if "par" is less important and match play king.[/color]

3) What factor does width play in your analysis of a course providing a test?

Width, in a vacuum, means nothing.
Width, in conjunction with good to great architecture is something else.

Unfortunately, with the aerial game and high tech, width has lost some of its appeal.  If you examine the venues of the British and U.S. Open, it would appear that the R&A and USGA
feel that width is counter-productive to providing a test for the best players in the world.   Unfortunately, I agree with that.

Personally, I prefer wide golf courses, NGLA, GCGC, Hidden Creek, ANGC and others[/color]

I tend to agree with Jeff... the average golfer is not looking for a physical challenge when they play golf, they're looking to have a good time with their companions while they struggle with their inability to play the game. Just hitting a decent shot once or twice during their round is usually enough to bring them back the next week. These golfers are not skilled enough at the game to enjoy being "tested" each time they go out. That's the reason less than 10% of golfers EVER play in an organized individual strokeplay tournament... they don't want to be tested.

That's baloney, the challenge is the inherent lure of golf.

For 40 years I've played with fellows who've ranged in handicap from 0 to 24, and each and every one of them aspired to play better today, than they did yesterday.  
Each one of them aspired to make better shots and post  lower scores.  Anyone who says that golfers don't care what they do between Point A and Point B, isn't in touch with reality.[/color]

[John Kirk]

Other examples of extreme difficulty are severe short side situations, rough that is so deep that one loses a sense of touch and finesse, and full shots with narrow landing areas, requiring great accuracy.

Challenge has many meanings in the dictionary.  The most relevant one seems to be:

"Difficulty in a job or undertaking that is stimulating to the one engaged in it."

Even the most difficult shots are still challenging, just less so.  A good analogy would be a school type test.  A test with an average score of 90% is too easy; I breeze through the test without breaking a sweat.  A backbreaker test with an average score of 20-40% is too hard, and I lose interest, or become demoralized.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Technology has definately changed the way players approach the game.  With 'game improvement' equipment the challenge is diminshed. Without the necessity to work the ball, control direction, trajectory and spin the architects job must become more complicated.  Or is it that some simply concentrate on making the course beautiful rather than an examination of the skills required to actually play the game as it once was.  

Today most simply bash it as far as they can then fly it as high as possible into the green.  Prior to the changes in equipment. the game required that the player actually play the game board.  

Do the architects in the group miss the time when drives didn't fly as far and hazards dictated that the player hit away or around them?

[Jeff Doerr]

Patrick (& Others),

For a modern/manufactured course is it helpful to use tools like the RTJ2 team did at Chambers Bay to chart the variety of shot values?

I think this is on the Pierce County site.


It is interesting to me that they list 6 holes as par 5s and 6 as par 3s - showing the flexibility and use of 1/2 par holes.

[Kirk Gill]

I tend to agree with Jeff... the average golfer is not looking for a physical challenge when they play golf, they're looking to have a good time with their companions while they struggle with their inability to play the game. Just hitting a decent shot once or twice during their round is usually enough to bring them back the next week. These golfers are not skilled enough at the game to enjoy being "tested" each time they go out. That's the reason less than 10% of golfers EVER play in an organized individual strokeplay tournament... they don't want to be tested.

They (I ?) may not want to be tested under tournament conditions, but average golfers seem unwilling to play vanilla muni courses that would be more appropriate to their game. Witness the common 5+ hour rounds at a lot of higher-end public courses, at least in my neck of the woods. Folks want the challenge, even if their game can only rise to it once or twice a round.

[Michael Whitaker]

I think it's really hard to generalize across different handicap categories. For example, the 1st hole at Yale has a forced carry over a pond.  I don't know the exact yardage over the water but my guess is 175-200 yards.  Most single-digit handicappers wouldn't even give the water a thought, but it would be a real challenge and create lots of interest for the high handicapper, although I am not sure about the fun part.

Phil,

That's why they create different sets of tees.[/color]

Patrick - You keep mentioning "different sets of tees." This brings the following questions to mind:

1) Is it only distance that makes a course more or less difficult for the skilled versus unskilled player? If not, what other factors do you think are significant?

No, but, it's one of the primary factors[/color]

We know it's one of the primary factors... that's obvious. What are the other factors you think are significant?[/color]

2) What about the UK courses that only put out one set of tees? Do these courses provide a "test" for every level golfer? If so, how do they accomplish this. If not, why not?

One set of tees can only accomodate the broad spectrum of golfers if the "architecture" is under foot, or accomodating.

In Phil's example, using Yale, the 1st and the 9th holes would be unplayable for the higher handicaps if only the back tees were used.[/color]

I was really interested in your thoughts about the UK courses that only put out one set of tees. How is it these courses have been able to "test" golfers for generations without resorting to multiple tees as you prescribe?[/color]

It also helps if "par" is less important and match play king.[/color]

Are you saying players who mostly play matchplay are less interested in being "tested" as those who mostly play strokeplay golf? I thought your point was that the desire to be "tested" was the inherent lure of golf. If the style of game played has that kind of effect on one's desire to be tested it would seem that the desire to be "tested" is not as universal as you propose. [/color]

3) What factor does width play in your analysis of a course providing a test?

Width, in a vacuum, means nothing.
Width, in conjunction with good to great architecture is something else.

Unfortunately, with the aerial game and high tech, width has lost some of its appeal.  If you examine the venues of the British and U.S. Open, it would appear that the R&A and USGA
feel that width is counter-productive to providing a test for the best players in the world.   Unfortunately, I agree with that.

Personally, I prefer wide golf courses, NGLA, GCGC, Hidden Creek, ANGC and others[/color]

In your original post you specifically stated that you did not want to bring the PGA Tour player into this discussion, yet you now use the PGA Tour player as justification for narrowing fairways to make a course a true "test." We're not talking about width in a vacuum, we're talking about golf courses. Like you, I too prefer courses that provide more width rather than less... as most links courses do. Do think width can be used to offset the need for multiple tees?[/color]

I tend to agree with Jeff... the average golfer is not looking for a physical challenge when they play golf, they're looking to have a good time with their companions while they struggle with their inability to play the game. Just hitting a decent shot once or twice during their round is usually enough to bring them back the next week. These golfers are not skilled enough at the game to enjoy being "tested" each time they go out. That's the reason less than 10% of golfers EVER play in an organized individual strokeplay tournament... they don't want to be tested.

That's baloney, the challenge is the inherent lure of golf.

For 40 years I've played with fellows who've ranged in handicap from 0 to 24, and each and every one of them aspired to play better today, than they did yesterday.  
Each one of them aspired to make better shots and post  lower scores.  Anyone who says that golfers don't care what they do between Point A and Point B, isn't in touch with reality.[/color]

I agree that most golfers aspire to improve over time and that they want to hit better shots than they do... that's why they purchase so many training aids, books, magazines, and video tapes... in hope that they will finally find the secret. I don't agree, however, that they want to be "tested" each time they go out. My 40 years of experience playing with 0's to 24's tells me that the more skilled the player the more he is concerned with the score he shoots, the less skilled the player the more he is concerned with making a decent swing or hitting decent shots. The less-skilled player would like to shoot as good a score as possible (we all would), but he knows that the odds are against him so he tends to concentrate more on the outcome of single shots or trying to string a few good ones together. The highly skilled player is worried about his score from the opening teeshot and his favorite post-round phrase is... "what did you shoot?" If the majority of golfers had a desire to be "tested" more than 10% would play in strokeplay events.

Do you have an opinion as to why so few golfers want to be tested in this way?
[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think it's really hard to generalize across different handicap categories. For example, the 1st hole at Yale has a forced carry over a pond.  I don't know the exact yardage over the water but my guess is 175-200 yards.  Most single-digit handicappers wouldn't even give the water a thought, but it would be a real challenge and create lots of interest for the high handicapper, although I am not sure about the fun part.

Phil,

That's why they create different sets of tees.[/color]

Patrick - You keep mentioning "different sets of tees." This brings the following questions to mind:

1) Is it only distance that makes a course more or less difficult for the skilled versus unskilled player? If not, what other factors do you think are significant?

No, but, it's one of the primary factors[/color]

We know it's one of the primary factors... that's obvious. What are the other factors you think are significant?[/color]

Distance is THE primary factor.
The severity or penal nature of the design is another.[/color]

2) What about the UK courses that only put out one set of tees? Do these courses provide a "test" for every level golfer? If so, how do they accomplish this. If not, why not?

One set of tees can only accomodate the broad spectrum of golfers if the "architecture" is under foot, or accomodating.

In Phil's example, using Yale, the 1st and the 9th holes would be unplayable for the higher handicaps if only the back tees were used.[/color]

I was really interested in your thoughts about the UK courses that only put out one set of tees. How is it these courses have been able to "test" golfers for generations without resorting to multiple tees as you prescribe?[/color]

I gave you my thoughts, you either chose to ignore them or just didn't understand them.

One set of tees can only test the broad spectrum of golfers if the underlying architecture permits it.[/color]

It also helps if "par" is less important and match play king.[/color]

Are you saying players who mostly play matchplay are less interested in being "tested" as those who mostly play strokeplay golf?

Medal play is a more demanding test because you're playing against the field versus one competitor, and, one mistake at match play isn't nearly as disastrous as it is in medal play


I thought your point was that the desire to be "tested" was the inherent lure of golf.

It is, however, there are degrees of the lure[/color]


If the style of game played has that kind of effect on one's desire to be tested it would seem that the desire to be "tested" is not as universal as you propose. [/b]


Then you don't understand the issue.

3) What factor does width play in your analysis of a course providing a test?

Width, in a vacuum, means nothing.
Width, in conjunction with good to great architecture is something else.

Unfortunately, with the aerial game and high tech, width has lost some of its appeal.  If you examine the venues of the British and U.S. Open, it would appear that the R&A and USGA
feel that width is counter-productive to providing a test for the best players in the world.   Unfortunately, I agree with that.

Personally, I prefer wide golf courses, NGLA, GCGC, Hidden Creek, ANGC and others[/color]

In your original post you specifically stated that you did not want to bring the PGA Tour player into this discussion, yet you now use the PGA Tour player as justification for narrowing fairways to make a course a true "test."

What you fail to understand is that the venues usually remain in their narrowed configuration long after the PGA Tour player has moved on.  In addition, viewers seeing the narrowed fairways attempt to import them to their local clubs.
To ignore those factors is to remain out of touch with reality.


We're not talking about width in a vacuum, we're talking about golf courses. Like you, I too prefer courses that provide more width rather than less... as most links courses do.

Do think width can be used to offset the need for multiple tees?[/color]

Yes and No.

No, because to do away with multiple tees would require a dramatic cultural change within each club and universally in the U.S.

Secondly, because most handicaps would go up, and many, if not most golfers don't want that to happen.

Third, the underlying architecture at each club would be a critical factor in determining the feasability of reducing the number of tees.  Garden City could get away with it, Yale would have far more difficulty.  How do you think it would work at Kiawah

I tend to agree with Jeff... the average golfer is not looking for a physical challenge when they play golf, they're looking to have a good time with their companions while they struggle with their inability to play the game. Just hitting a decent shot once or twice during their round is usually enough to bring them back the next week. These golfers are not skilled enough at the game to enjoy being "tested" each time they go out. That's the reason less than 10% of golfers EVER play in an organized individual strokeplay tournament... they don't want to be tested.

That's baloney, the challenge is the inherent lure of golf.

For 40 years I've played with fellows who've ranged in handicap from 0 to 24, and each and every one of them aspired to play better today, than they did yesterday.  
Each one of them aspired to make better shots and post  lower scores.  Anyone who says that golfers don't care what they do between Point A and Point B, isn't in touch with reality.[/color]

I agree that most golfers aspire to improve over time and that they want to hit better shots than they do... that's why they purchase so many training aids, books, magazines, and video tapes... in hope that they will finally find the secret.

I don't agree, however, that they want to be "tested" each time they go out. My 40 years of experience playing with 0's to 24's tells me that the more skilled the player the more he is concerned with the score he shoots, the less skilled the player the more he is concerned with making a decent swing or hitting decent shots.

That's nonsense.
Thousands of golfers compete at their local clubs every weekend in my neck of the woods, and I suspect everywhere else throughout the U.S.


The less-skilled player would like to shoot as good a score as possible (we all would), but he knows that the odds are against him so he tends to concentrate more on the outcome of single shots or trying to string a few good ones together.


That's also nonsense.
Micro over macro is absurd.
I never met a golfer who was disinterested in his score and his score relative to his handicap.
With the exception of sandbaggers the great majority of golfers seek to LOWER their handicap, and they're not doing that by concentrating on a single shot or two.


The highly skilled player is worried about his score from the opening teeshot and his favorite post-round phrase is... "what did you shoot?" If the majority of golfers had a desire to be "tested" more than 10% would play in strokeplay events.


That's also nonsense.

A medal play field can only accomodate so many golfers and it must be played on the same day.
Match play can be played any day, and doesn't need the entire field to be present on the stipulated round.
It's less structured, thus it lends itself to the amateur who works, has family and other pursuits..
 

Do you have an opinion as to why so few golfers want to be tested in this way?
[/color]

Your premise is flawed.
My comments above address the preference of match play.
In addition, hosting a large field for medal play usually precludes the use of the golf course by the other members[/color]
 

[Michael Whitaker]

Patrick - My premise isn't flawed, it is substantiated by the small percentage of individual golfers who EVER play in an individual strokeplay event... not this weekend, this month, or this year... but, during their entire golfing lifetime. The number is less than 10%. I think the reason this number is so small is because more than 90% of golfers do not have the desire to be "tested" as you do. You are a good player with a lot of tournament experience (I am told) so I can understand why you can't imagine other golfers not wanting the same thrill and excitement you receive from being pushed to the limit. But, the fact is most regular golfers don't want that kind of "test," they just enjoy the game as best they can by trying to improve their golfing status among their friends or club. Yes, they work on their swings, trying to shoot better scores and lower their handicap, but they are not interested in being "tested" in the same way a strokeplay-tournament-golfer enjoys the difficult course examining his game.

I marvel at golfers like you who have the skill and desire to stand up to a course or a strokeplay tournament field and say, "bring it on... give me your best shot." It takes a certain bravado... which you obviously have. But, don't try and convince me that most golfers think like you because they don't. You observe golf through "scratch-handicap" glasses and I respect that. We'll just have to agree to disagree... but, I've got the numbers on my side.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick - My premise isn't flawed, it is substantiated by the small percentage of individual golfers who EVER play in an individual strokeplay event... not this weekend, this month, or this year... but, during their entire golfing lifetime.

Michael,

Every golfing member of my club plays in medal play competitions every year.  They are part of the tournament calendar.  And, my club is no different from the other clubs in the area.  I mentioned earlier that the "Star Ledger" publishes the results from the local clubs in the Northern New Jersey area every monday (Tuesday's on Holiday Weekends).  Those results include medal and match play events.   Most match play events include qualifying rounds at medal play.

Medal play is a common component of the tournament schedule at all of these clubs.

Hence, I maintain that your statement is more than flawed, it's erroneous.[/color]

The number is less than 10%. I think the reason this number is so small is because more than 90% of golfers do not have the desire to be "tested" as you do.

Of course they do.
That's why they enter tournaments in the first place.
Each week, club after club after club holds a tournament in the Northern New Jersey area.  Hundreds of golfers sign up to play in these events.  Why, because they love competition and the challenge presented in competitions.[/color]

You are a good player with a lot of tournament experience (I am told) so I can understand why you can't imagine other golfers not wanting the same thrill and excitement you receive from being pushed to the limit.

I wasn't always a decent player, and, recently, in 2004 and 2005 I wouldn't be classified as a good player, yet, I loved to compete, despite the fact that my handicap lagged far behind
my playing ability.

The fellows I've been playing with for 40+ years love to compete, irrespective of their handicaps.  They love to be challenged.   I just took a group of them to GCGC and the Creek, to play competitive rounds and they loved it.
They loved the challenge at GCGC and they loved the challenge at The Creek, despite the wide variance in our handicaps[/color]

But, the fact is most regular golfers don't want that kind of "test," they just enjoy the game as best they can by trying to improve their golfing status among their friends or club.

And, the only way you can do that is through the challenge of competition, be it against their friends or the golf course.[/color]

Yes, they work on their swings, trying to shoot better scores and lower their handicap, but they are not interested in being "tested" in the same way a strokeplay-tournament-golfer enjoys the difficult course examining his game.

That's just not true.
Every Monday, the results as posted in the "Star Ledger" disprove your theory.

Golfers love to be challenged.
Just today, I went to the range to work on my game.
I muttered a few words under my breath as I was working on trying to achieve a specific ball flight.  A woman golfer in her 60's approached me.  She said, "you know, if this game wasn't hard/challenging, we wouldn't like it."

The challenge, the test is the inherent lure of the game, irrespective of the form of the test.  It's about getting the ball from Point A to Point B in the fewest strokes possible, and gofers, in the great majority love the test that the architect presents to us in his attempt to challenge, test and frustrate our efforts[/color]

I marvel at golfers like you who have the skill and desire to stand up to a course or a strokeplay tournament field and say, "bring it on... give me your best shot." It takes a certain bravado... which you obviously have.

Michael, I've seen the "Golf Gods" at work.
I NEVER think those thoughts.[/color]

But, don't try and convince me that most golfers think like you because they don't. You observe golf through "scratch-handicap" glasses and I respect that.

That's far from true.
I'm well versed and highly capable of observing and understanding the game from the perspective of the broad spectrum of golfers who play the game.

Would you say that Ben Crenshaw suffers from myopic vison because he's an excellent golfer, one of the best in the world ?[/color]

We'll just have to agree to disagree... but, I've got the numbers on my side.

You're right, we disagree, including our views on the numbers.[/color]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()