Designing for a variety of abilities

[Jason Topp]

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.

[paul cowley]

....I say design them all the same and let God sort them out.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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 Topp]

Patrick:

The rolling nature of the foothills in Arizona reminds me of the Sand Hills property.  My thought would be to use those contours to create a similar type of course using a minimalist approach.  I would be surprised if there were not locations in the desert where that could be done.  I'm not aware of any examples, with the possible exception of the new course being built at We-Po-Ka (Spelling?), and possibly Apache Stronghold, which I have never played.  

I understand that the course would not look like Sand Hills, but the desert has a natural beauty that I really enjoy.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Jack Nicklaus once said that it was very hard for him/his company to design a course for someone who shoots 110. That may have been said when he was designing courses from the back tees. Now, the kinder and gentler Nicklaus claims he is designing courses from the members tees. Let's hear from the architects out there: Where do you start your design process-back or members tees?

Jason

Did you see WeKoPa's new course under construction?

Steve

[Bill_McBride]

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!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill McBride,

With respect to forced carries and Dr Mac, how would you classify # 15, # 16 and # 17 at CPC ?  

[Bill_McBride]

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.  

[Philippe Binette]

At some point, golf should be an adventure... for everybody.

You can't design for bad plays and weak players...

To me you design a course with a lot of option to play the course, especially to approach the greens, and that's it, there's nothing you can do more for weak players...

A good golf course should be an invitation for golfers to improve their game... If they don't try to, it's their problem...

Sand play is the best example...

How many times have you seen a player go down in a practice bunker (or any other bunker) with 50 balls and practice for 30 minutes...

Probably once a week, and it's probably the best player of your club in that bunker practicing...

I don't think designing ugly flat bunkers would help golf...

[paul cowley]

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 ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

I completely disagree.

Tell us, how do you design for the lowest common denominator at every level, every hole, every feature ?[/color]

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 ?

Since it's so easy, tell us how designers can do that.
Tell us how they can design every hole, every feature that appeals or caters to the lowest common denominator, the wide variety of weak players ?

Reread Phillipe Binette's above post, I think he's on to something.[/color]

[paul cowley]

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

[paul cowley]

sorry Patrick but a full reply will have to wait...I must go to the field to put theory to practice.....then maybe someday you might experience a better reply to your post in real life  

[RJ_Daley]

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...

[paul cowley]

Guys, unless ones intent is to design a totally penal, heroic hole with no relief from any tee [a type of hole I feel totally misses the boat in todays scheme] there are all kinds of options open to accomodate all levels....planning for strategies that challenge all players is one of the most exciting parts of design....any fool can create a tough hole that few can play, real talent resides in a persons design that allows for high and low handicaps, women, beginners, juniors and seniors to enjoy and improve their game.

Think strategy 101, combined with tee angles that minimize forced carries as they progress forward, combine the same thought with fairway features, allow for a safe route and bailouts, with at least one opening angle to the green and presto!...something that most could play.
Now to challenge the better player you just do the opposite of what I just said...and all on the same hole!

thats what Curves of Charm are.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

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 Richardson]

There are examples in the desert, as you describe them. However, we are limited in most Arizonan communities to less than 90 acres of turf area, including practice ranges. This equates to about 4.5 acres per hole. What you often get is a Sand Hills-like layout, but with far less width. The result is "target golf" with not enough width.

Bill Coore is beginning on the second course at WeeKoPa...so perhaps we will get a Sand Hills-like course in the desert. However, knowing Bill, I am sure he would prefer to think of the WeeKoPa course as being unique to itself — and the Sonoran Desert it will occupy.

I do not know where you were in Arizona — but there is very little sand in most areas where you find golf. In Phoenix, for example, we have loads of shale and decomposed granite. Not much sand.

[Jason Topp]

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.

[Forrest Richardson]

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.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Guys, unless ones intent is to design a totally penal, heroic hole with no relief from any tee [a type of hole I feel totally misses the boat in todays scheme] there are all kinds of options open to accomodate all levels....planning for strategies that challenge all players is one of the most exciting parts of design....any fool can create a tough hole that few can play, real talent resides in a persons design that allows for high and low handicaps, women, beginners, juniors and seniors to enjoy and improve their game.

Think strategy 101, combined with tee angles that minimize forced carries as they progress forward, combine the same thought with fairway features, allow for a safe route and bailouts, with at least opening angle to the green and presto!...something that most could play.
Now to challenge the better player you just do the opposite of what I just said...and all on the same hole!

thats what Curves of Charm are.

Paul,

Your comments are nothing more than vague generalities.

Tell us how you design a golf hole that caters to every level of player, equally, from beginer to expert, from long hitter to short hitter.

It isn't as easy as you would lead us to believe.[/color]

Mark Rowlinson,

That's exactly what I found to be the case when I lost substantial length over a short period of time.   The approach shots became exponentially more difficult, requiring me to take a different route to the green.  Fortunately, my short game remained robust, which enabled me to recover when my approach or strategy, or both failed.

In some ways the game became more fun, more challenging, in other ways it became more frustrating because of my frame of reference.

Trajectory on longer clubs became a critical factor.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Pat,

We agree!  What a day!

By the way, how did we both manage to get lost leaving Yale a few weeks ago?

Mark.

[Jason Topp]

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 Pazin]

I think it is very possible to design a course that it challenging and accomodating to most levels of golfers (the only ones I'd leave out are absolute beginners).

I don't think it's possible to do so in a desert setting, if there are turf restrictions.

Lots of width, difficult greens, penal bunkers, no water, no OB - these are things that challenge all levels of golfer, without offering the multiple reload of courses with no width, lots of water, lots of lateral hazards like rock strewn desert.

Courses like Augusta (pre Tiger-proofing), Pinehurst #2, Oakmont, probably a lot of overseas courses, RMelbourne (from what I've heard and read) - these are courses where the better golfer is challenged by the greens and general topographical contour, but there is minimal opportunities for losing balls, which is the bane of the high handicap golfer, IMHO.

The Rawls Course fits this description as well. I played it )poorly) and had a lot of fun, didn't lose many balls, and yet the low handicappers that I played with worried that the severity of the greens might mean that the course would be too difficult and not as well received by both better golfers and lesser golfers.

No high handicapper will shoot a remotely respectable score on these courses, true enough, but he can have fun. And occasionally some hot tour pro might throw up a low 60s round if the conditions are right. So if your definition of designing for different levels means "Can you design a course that is difficult for the low handicapper and easy for the high handicapper?", well, no joke, that's impossible, but I think it's more than possible to design a course that is fun for all levels, except for the absolute beginner (who probably shouldn't be on a full size course anyway).

I think most low handicappers do not understand what high handicappers find challenging and enjoyable. Heck, I know this to be the case, just by reading the posts on this site - even this erudite bunch doesn't generally understand the high handicapper and his (lack of) game.

[paul cowley]

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.......................................