"Unplayable Courses"

[Kyle Harris]

George,

Sorry if I ruffled your feathers a bit, that, of course, was not my intent.

But I never quite understood how a architect could cater to a high handicapper, and what that specifically meant.

A handicap serves two purposes: to measure ability and to even out matches between two different skilled players. (Spare me the definitions for the former, the handicap has become used as such in the modern parlance, making it a de facto measure of ability).

The handicap is a reflection of the players ability to overcome the chief challenges of the golf course.

The chief challenges of the golf course are laid out by the course architect, and to an equal, but different extent, the course superintendent.

To say that the architect should cater to a higher handicap player, to me, indicates that the architect should change or modify the chief challenges of the game.

To me, this clashes with the idea that an archictect is charged with pulling the best golf course out of the terrain given.

I think the chief challenges of the course and the game are set in the site of the golf course and brought out by the architect. Sure, the architect has control as to which challenges are brought out, but "overthinking" the high handicapper's plight can, and probably has, lead to an oversimplification of golf courses and a lack of interest in design.

I grew up playing a municipal course called Five Ponds. As the name implies, water is everywhere (and only not present on two holes of the front nine, which we played ad nauseum). There are a bunch of forced carries involved at different points, and I suppose that during my high handicap days, I learned to get the ball in the air at all costs before anything else (Financial reasons, mainly).

I've brought a few golfers under my tutelage from the 130 to 100 range by showing them some basic course management and by telling them to grind out EVERY putt. It's amazing the confidence you build by suddenly realizing that two or three putts on a green is more-than-likely. That idea transcends their whole game.

I'd be eager to see how higher handicap players at Pine Valley fair.

"I remember that when I visited that truly magnificent and truly terrifying course, Pine Valley, I remarked to one of my hosts that if the club had any members who were rather old or fat or unskillful, they must find very hard work. He scouted the notion and declared that such members were proud as a peacock and as happy as sand boys if they went around in 115 in place of their normal 120. That seems to show that in Philadelphia, at any rate, the poorer golfers are not poot in the manly virtures."

-Bernard Darwin

[Tom_Doak]

Bob Crosby:

Pretty much all of the early links courses were playable by the weaker golfer.  To wit, I quote from the "Dialogue by way of Preface" to Wethered and Simpson's Design for Golf:

Myself:  Three weeks ago, I was playing in a foursome at that place near Philadelphia -- Pine Valley.
W.:  Is it as bad as they say?
Myself:  I don't know what they say, but it is.  When I came in, the intelligent and charming negro bar-tender asked me how many balls I had lost.  I said six.  He said that I'd got off more cheaply than some.

Wethered and Simpson were certainly champions of the strategic school and of playability -- even more so than myself or anyone today -- but the dialogue would seem to indicate that Pine Valley was not exactly the norm for that day.

[George Pazin]

Kyle, you didn't ruffle my feathers at all, at least in the sense of being angry. I'm just surprised that you don't seem to understand how we high handicappers score what we do.

I know exactly what you mean on the 130 to 100 thing. My first experience on real penal courses down in Florida I shot way over 130 before my good friend pointed out to me that I didn't need to try to hit 5 woods off the fairway when I was 230 yards from the green - just suck it up and play everything as a short par 5. My 2nd round that afternoon was 112, and the rest of the weekend I shot around 100.

P.S. I don't think it takes much to "cater" to high handicappers. Just don't put water or OB everywhere and give 'em some width. I don't look to make courses easy so I can score better, I just think overly penal hazards, the kind that cause X's on the scorecard, are over-utilized for all the wrong reasons.

[Adam_F_Collins]

I guess the point is that when you can put a ball in a laundry basket from 100 8 out of 10 times and carry it 275, then there are few courses which are 'unplayable' - the term really only applies to higher handicappers - which represent the vast majority of golfers.

As Tom Doak points out, this is what makes the job of the architect so difficult - to make a course both interesting and challenging for golfers of all levels.

To ignore the highs or the lows makes the job a lot easier, and there are courses which do that - and add a bunch of tees to make it looks as if it weren't the case.

[Kyle Harris]

George,

I certainly understand how you high handicappers do what you do.   Usually involves high amounts of Yuengling (or Rolling Rock on your end of the state) and a few Top-Flites.

Either way, I didn't meant to imply that high handicappers should be given a screw job by the architect. But to say that the architect should be mostly responsible for keeping things easy for the high handicapper isn't kosher by me either. There's a balance somewhere in there, I am sure. In any event, I tend to let angle of play and severity of hazards play more into eating up strokes than forced carries and other more cut and dry methods of torture.

It's not the architect that stands in the way of ability or practice. Life does that (this past year for me a glowing example of that) enough.

Golfers like you scare me George, my handicap is way to low and I'd be giving you way too many strokes.  

[George Pazin]

I guess I haven't been clear.

I don't think architects should make everything easy. I think they should strive to make it playable.

To contrast two courses you may know, I'll point to my experience at Inniscrone and Lehigh a few years ago. I shot 95 at Inniscrone and 105 at Lehigh the very next day, but I would describe Lehigh as the more playable of the 2. I don't think I lost a ball at Lehigh, but I lost 2 or 3 (I'd have to replay the round in my head to remember) at Inniscrone. One of the other golfers from the GCA outing who played both of the courses felt Inniscrone was much more penal, whereas Lehigh was more of a course that he could enjoy playing everyday. Lehigh has more room for error, but the more difficult green complexes make it more difficult to score well.

* I'm a tough golfer to handicap. On a typical round, I'll play 12 holes maybe 6-8 over par, and the other 6 maybe 20-30. I don't know if this is typical, but in my experience, it comes much closer to approximating high handicappers than the formulas I hear about, or the course strategy lessons in most magazines. I had one round a few years ago where I played 13 holes in 54 strokes and the other 5 in 51.

[Kyle Harris]

George,

Sounds like our points are merging now. I, too, didn't make myself clear either, but was essentially trying to say the same thing.

There is a value judgment in there though, and I think that's the root of our argument. There seems to be more modern courses with arbitrary carries off the tee... is that the skill set we want to challenge now?

Tom Doak made the point that Pine Valley was the exception rather than the rule in its day. That, to me, is fine. But there is certainly a modern proclivity to being more like Pine Valley (Inniscrone) than St. Andrews (Lehigh).  

[BCrosby]

Tom -

The W&S quote is terrific. I need to pull my copy off the shelf and look at it again. Good stuff.

Agreed that PV was not the norm - then or now.

Nonetheless, my sense is that there was less concern among US architects with "playability" during the Golden Age than in the UK. I have no hard proof for that. Except that countless articles on Jones's new course in Augusta talked about how it was going to be different. Different in the sense that bogey golfers would enjoy it as much as pros. Jones referred to it as his "ideal" course, by which he seemed to mean unlike other courses in the US. Writers talked about it frequently as "revolutionary" in this sense.

MacK and Jones tried to square the circle at ANGC. They talked about building a course that would be hard for good players and playable for everyone else. Their language sounds almost trite now. It's become a cliche. It's in all caps on the brochures of every new course in America these days.

But in the early 30's MacK and Jones thought they were saying and doing something radical.

Bob

[JohnV]

In my opinion, many of the modern desert courses fit the category of "unplayable" for the higher handicap which is why I'm not a big fan of them.  There are plenty of ways to challenge the weaker golfer without making him hit it out of cactus and rocks because he either didn't get the ball in the air off the tee or hit the big banana.  Even if they can't plant grass everywhere, a clearing program between the tee and the fairway would help a lot of players and speed up the game for them.

The forced carry over water, rocks or 3 foot high grass is the death knell for many of the weaker golfers and it has a minimal effect on the better player.

All these type of things do is discourage the beginner or lesser player and cause him to play less golf which is bad for the game in the long run.  These people want to play the courses they've heard about in Arizona or Florida and when they go through 5 to 10 balls in a round they don't enjoy it.

George, if you were talking about USGA course ratings, I'll agree that there are plenty of players who don't fit the formulaic definitions of scratch or bogey golfers, but short of having a way to "build" the profile of each golfer as you build characters in a fantasy game and set the ratings for every course accordingly, there is no way to fit everyone.  The system does make some amends for this in that everything is rated for the bogey golfer even if it is nowhere near his proverbial "landing zones".

Similarly, the entire handicap system favors the consistent golfer who shoots near his handicap all the time over the one who might have days when he is 10 to 15 shots worse.

[Wayne Freeman]

This is a pretty interesting topic.  I agree that any course that has a lot of forced carries of 150 yrds. or more is virtually unplayable for high handicappers.  And why would they want to play anyway, if they can't have any fun?  I believe that Bethpage Black at one time wouldn't even allow anyone over about an 8 to tee it up there.  I think the story goes that the starter would look at your swing on the first tee to determine if you could play it.  Certainly it is a brutal track for most and way too tough for anyone over a single digit.  
           I think Hazeltine was built along these same lines. Apparently they have a very large membership of excellent players, and they want to make it very difficult so that it can host major championships. I didn't feel that it was that great a course from an architectural standpoint; it is long with very difficult approaches to the greens (tons of bunkers making the approach shots very tough).  
          Interestingly, I played Wolf Run in Indianapolis this past fall.  It was an all men's club, but is now open.  I don't think they have had more than just one or two women
 join however, because it is a very difficult track.  Lots of long carries, water, elevation changes etc.  
         I played Trump here in SoCal recently, and except for the fact that it is in a beautiful setting, with ocean views everywhere, I don't think it's all that enjoyable for anyone on any level.  It's a real schizoid course, cut out of the side of the mountain with lots of environmentally sensitive areas that pinch in the fairways and a bunch of long par 4's directly into the wind which don't offer a lot of interest. Anyone over about an 18 probably needs a couple of dozen balls to get through the round.  

[Tom_Doak]

Wayne:

Wolf Run is one of the most difficult courses out there, on the Pine Valley model.  That's what the founder wanted and got.

Bob C:

You hit on the reason for my "purity" on this subject, it was that year I spent in the UK and Ireland.  Over there you play with the same ball for 18 holes and you don't even think about touching it between tee and green.  If you do hit one out of play, hole's lost, on to the next tee.  Jones and MacKenzie (and Colt and Alison and Ross and Tillinghast and Macdonald) all understood that mentality, most of them remembered when good players couldn't hit the ball more than 200 yards and beginners 100, and they designed courses where that would still work.  A lot of today's architects simply do not understand that perspective.

John V:

I'm glad you brought up the desert courses because I was thinking of them earlier, they're all like Pine Valley to some degree.

When we started on Stone Eagle, the client was really concerned that they had to sell expensive memberships to older golfers and they wanted to be sure the course would be playable enough for them ... which was not the first thing that came to mind when you looked at the site.  For a while I thought that must be the downfall of all the desert courses, that they had to play it so safe on playability that they bypassed any chance for great holes.  But Stone Eagle has both, and that's why I'm so pleased with it.

I love the fact that they defined the desert as an integral part of the course.

[Sean Leary]

The reason I brought up the topic was I was curious was to see if any other top, top courses fit into this catagory like Pine Valley does.  I have played some but not a ton of what are usually considered the top courses.  It always seemed to me that your Merions and Winged Foots and Shinnecocks (all of which which I haven't played) are very very difficult for all players, but that an average player could get the ball tee to green in a reasonable number of strokes without giving up on the holes, like you would see at Pine Valley.

Clearly more modern courses have been built in this fashion, but those courses have never been able to be considered in that top 100ish echelon (maybe Victoria National, Kiawah and a few others excluded). And most of the top courses are the golden age courses but except for PV, there aren't any others that in that stratesphere that fit this description. I just find that interesting.

[Lloyd_Cole]

I think that maybe some folk are out of touch with what a good, average or bad golfer is these days. A 12 handicapper is much better than average. It is a hard game and if you take it up in adulthood and don't have regular time to practice - breaking 100 is pretty good going. THose able to carry the ball 240+ and fairly straight, I'd imagine are in the top .5%, or less. Frankly the top guys are lucky to have tees built for them.

And to address the initial question. If modern is last 30 yrs or so - Nicklaus's reworking of The Australian is ridiculous - so much so it's almost fun in an S&M way (or so I hear) - the hardest course I've played. But he admits that he didn't take the prevailing winds into consideration, it was one of his first jobs, I think. Wolf Run is up there too - I'm no hacker but I really struggled. A 12 would have a hard time. Much as I enjoyed the round, we had a good match, I felt that WR was unbalanced compared to my ideal course (see RCD or Ganton) in that it felt relentless, with almost no 'birdie holes', no breathers. I hope that doesn't get me uninvited back..

[Wayne Freeman]

Tom-  I certainly think one of the great challenges for the architects of today is to make a course enjoyable for all types of golfers  Although I'm generally not a big Nicklaus fan,  I have always felt that a course like Desert Highlands (the site of the first Skins game, in Scottsdale) was terrific, in that from the back you had a lot of cool, elevated tees with carries of at least 200 or more to get to the fairway (unplayable for more than about a 7 or  and yet the up tees make it very doable for the average golfer.
   Unless of course you have a guy like Charlie Schwab (Nanea on the Big Island) or Jerry Rich (Rich Harvest) who can say- to heck with it-  I want my kind of course for 30 or 40 of my buddies and I want it this way.

[Tom_Doak]

This is a good thread, because over the course of it we've identified several courses which DO fit the model in some way:

Koolau
Wolf Run
Nanea [although I'm not sure it fits, I've heard it's really hard but that there is 100 yards of grass on most every fairway]
Ellerston in Australia
maybe The Sanctuary as well?
Inniscrone in PA?  [I never did see it, the knock was always that there were a handful of unplayable holes from the back]


Each of these courses has some strong supporters for it being a great course, most likely from very good players who have done well there ... but none of them is very highly regarded at the end of the day.  (For some that may have more to do with lack of access than actual reviews.)

The other interesting part is that few architects have built more than one of them.

[Adam_F_Collins]

A course I play a lot here is called Granite Springs (the name says it all, really) and it was built with the idea that 'difficult=better'. It originally had 13 ponds on it, and tons of rock outcroppings in play.

Origninally inteneded as a high-end members course, it has never had a huge membership and has functioned ever since as a semi-private club. It has changed owners several times, and each owner has softened the course. Over the years, it has cost a lot more money than it should have - to eventually find its way back to playable for the average golfer.

There just aren't enough low handicap golfers to support a place like that around here.

[Jim Sweeney]

Although I haven't playesd it in a while and I understand they've "softened" ie somewhat, I'd have to nonimate Wolf Run in Indiana for this catagory.

I can tell that on the day I played it, which had wonderful weather, it was the most penal golf course I had ever played. There was no room for error on almost every shot, and unplayable heather like rough or very difficult hazards near every green. Although I was playing with low handicappers, I don't believe anyone broke eighty, and we did not play all the holes from the tips.

Wolf Run started its life with a lot of buzz from golfers and the membership bossomed, then it began losing members due to its amazing difficulty. It has since had many ups and downs in membership.

I have heard that despite the "softening," it is still very difficult. (PAredon me for not researching the course and slope ratings before posting this response.)

One way to evaluate the relatinve difficulty for higheer handicappers would be to look at the slope rating. Anything above 140 or so would be a terror for the "average" golfer.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Musgrove Mill GC is an example of a course that can be very difficult for high handicappers.  The shots around the greens are demanding and the greens can be fast with a some slope to them.  It is fair off the tee, however.  I still maitain that many gih handicappers would do well at MM just to lay up short of the green and pitch up.  A lot of bogies are turned into triples by overestimating ones ability.
George, I don't question your veracity but with equitable stroke contol and the overzealous way handicaps are generated how can your handicap remain at 22? I am a 5 and the last ime I looked at my scores almost half were over 80.  

[Tom_Doak]

Tommy:

When you're a 22 you have to post an 8 or 9 on those blow-up holes; when you're a 5 you only put down 6 or 7 under ESC.  I noticed that when I went from a 9 handicap to a 10, it's much tougher to get back down to single digits because I have an unfortunate tendency to make a 7 on a par 5 now and again.  [And I don't know why that is, because I don't hit stupid 3-wood approaches into trouble; I just fall asleep somewhere over 550 yards.]

[Wayne Freeman]

Jim-  when I played Wolf Run last fall, Steve Smyers was out there ( he's part owner now), and they were making a bunch of changes, and- they're adding some tees to actually make the course tougher and longer. I played with Bob Barriger who is a good stick and sometimes plays 54 holes a day in the summer.  Maybe he'll have some comments to make.
 
Tom- interesting that you brought up Sanctuary.  For those unfamiliar with it, the course is near Castle Pines in Colo. and is owned by the ReMax founders.  It is their private course used only for their friends and for charity events- at about $1000 a pop. It has amazing elevation changes and if you're not really straight produces a very long day- but just being there and experiencing the views, vistas etc. more than makes up for trying to score well there.

[Sean_A]

I find it interesting that Tom D. (and others) mentions the links courses of UK/Ireland as being the more or less the ultimate in playability.  In general I agree with this sentiment.  There are generally few forced carries of any consequence and few hazards.  However, it seems every other year or so that the rough is terribly penal on these links courses.  The type where one is lucky to find a ball and if the ball is found one can only wedge it out and risk damage to the wrists.  The other years rough just tends to be harsh.  Also, fairways don't tend to be overly wide in most cases.

I take a few guys every year round a links tour and without fail the championship courses tear the high cappers apart.  This is mainly due to nasty rough.  After a spell guys don't even bother to walk into the rough.  They just drop in the fairway and add two.  

It was bad enough last June to say Muirfield was nearly unplayable.  Of course this is a bit inaccurate because if one chooses to knock up 5 irons all day they wouldn't lose a ball.  This was one of those years when the rough was out of control and seriously detracted from the joy of the game.  Have these championship courses always been this harsh or is this a fairly recent development?

Ciao

Sean  

[Adam_F_Collins]

One way to evaluate the relative difficulty for higher handicappers would be to look at the slope rating. Anything above 140 or so would be a terror for the "average" golfer.

Over 130 is getting pretty painful...

[plabatt]

Does losing 100 dozen golf balls in a day long outing constitute an unplayable course?  My course of employment has 27 holes where there is water, out of bounds, or both on 24 of the 27 holes.  The combination of the two most difficult nines plays to 6755 yds (back tees) and a slope of 141.  The metro dental association books the entire course for the entire day: a max of 200 golfers.  All three nines return to the same point where the Dental Associations had wash tubs of golf balls.  It is estimated that over 100 DOZEN golf balls were lost during the outing!
Even with reasonalble senior rates, the course is dead during the weekday mornings.  Seniors cannot handle the forced carries from the senior tees.  Other courses in the neighborhood survive on seniors.  Here is a beautiful course that barely survives because it is unplayable to its core population.

[Mike Boehm]

Plabatt-

If you don't mind telling us, what course do you work at?  

Mike

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

The difficulty of the rough in the UK is mostly seasonal, is it not?  It can be murder after a wet spring in early summer, but then it thins out after a drought?

That's how it is at Crystal Downs.  In mid June the course is probably five shots harder for a bogey golfer than in early May or late September.