[Andrew Summerell]

We talk a lot about the better (and sometimes the worst) courses in the world, in our country & in our local area, but a large majority of golfers play golf on average courses. These are public & muni courses or the local members courses. The courses we are talking about are on ordinary land with no great architectural history. These courses don’t have high maintenance budgets & could not afford extensive redesign costs, but could afford smaller redesign work, like a couple of green complexes a year, or a few fairway bunkers. They are not bad courses, but they are by no means great & they could be better.

Of course, every course is different, so it is difficult to talk specifics, but on a broad scale I am sure there are measures any course can adhere to making it a better place to play golf.

What 3 attributes can be added to the average (already existing) course that are simple & affordable, but will make the course better.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

1. Remove all fairway bunkers;
2. Add fairway in strategic locations particularly around greens;
3. Have a 9 hole rate for parents and kids 7 days a week.

[Brad Klein]

-10-minute tee times to ensure good pace of play (4 hrs-4:20)

-no forced carries across water hazards and wetlands into greens

-readily walkable, at rates under $45 for average golfers and with discounts for seniors and juniors off hours

All of these conditions prevail at our local municipal layout.

[Peter Pallotta]

Andrew, an excellent topic.
I play a course that was built in the 1950s: 27 holes, on nice land, very walkable (while providing some good exercise), no reserved tee times, and one very reasonable fee lets you play all day long.  Most of the course is average in looks and strategy, but I think there are about a dozen really terrific holes: challenging and pretty. The trouble is, every single green seems exactly the same: flat, and tilted from back to front; really, every single one. I don't know how affordable the change would be for the owners, but re-doing a few greens a year here and there would make it the kind of course I could play for a long, long time (and so could everyone else, i.e. beginners and veterans alike).
Peter

[PThomas]

along Kelly's lines, fewer greenside bunkers  too-- perhaps only one side

[Bruce Katona]

1. Add drainage where necessary to allow play shortly after a rain.
2. Reduce the height of the rough to allow the higher handicap player to advance the ball forward when in the rough.
3. Increase the size of teeing areas (especially on par 3's) to allow players to tee off on grass for the entire eason (or add a Tour Turf strip to allow for play when the existing teeing grounds are being replanted).

[Rick Woelfel]

An excellent topic of discussion. A few random thoughts.

1. Leave openings in fron of greens so the high-handicapper isn't forced to  carry a bunker to reach the putting surface.

2. Add a few fairway bunkers, but along the edges rather than directly in the line of play.

3. Postion  tee markers in locations appropriate to the average payer's ability. Some people can comfortably hanle playing a a course that measures 6,500 or longer, but most people can't

[RJ_Daley]

Start a long range and consistent program of having a ranger, and constantly insist that golfers respect the course, replace divots, repair ball marks, and no course abuse.  Keep them doggies movin too...  Follow up the insistance on course respect and care with good maintanence practices...  Two way street of respect between management and customers...

[Brent Hutto]

Choose any three of these suggestions for a low-cost improvement program at most any architecturally undistiguished course:

1. Replace deep greenside rough with grass cut to approximately fairway height. If you want to add challenge to the course, cut these areas to a very tight lie. If you want to make the course easier then cut these areas to about 3/4" to give a little cushion under the ball for high handicappers. For variety do some of each depending on the contours of the green complex.

2. Place red lateral-hazard stakes in any wooded areas for which the slightest justification can be found (hire a clever lawyer is necessary ;-). If necessary, dig some drainage ditches in the woods so that these areas can be played as lateral hazards allowing a one-stroke penalty drop rather than being the site of endless searches for lost balls.

3. Grass over most fairway bunkers...but keep the grass no more than 1.5" deep to avoid lost balls. High handicappers can play out of short rough with much less worry and effort than they can fairway bunkers.

4. Edge around whatever sprinkler heads or other ground-level yardage indicators the course uses. Put the yardage numbers in big print. This combination of edging and large numbers will make the yardages visible from 10-15 yards away which will somewhat reduce the inevitable time spent by hackers pacing around pretending they're Jack Nicklaus.

[Andy Hughes]

2. Add a few fairway bunkers, but along the edges rather than directly in the line of play.

Funny, I was going to say just the opposite.
Make fairways a bit wider and put some bunkers IN the fairway, sometime right smack dab in the middle where golfers might have to think and make decisions.

PS What the hell does the KB Moran fellow know about architecture and fairway bunkers anyway?  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Andrew,
One thing average courses can do is to make their putting surfaces above average, even if they have to scale back the conditions in other places to make such a program affordable. Even non-descript, featureless greens are perceived as 'better' if they are maintained in a manner that promotes a smooth, true roll and greens are usually the #1 feature mentioned when eliciting comments about a course.

Actually, a course could probably find the necessary resources by employing some of the money saving ideas already mentioned in this thread.

[Tony_Chapman]

Three things I wish our city course would do:

1. Mow the fairway all the way to the green. Currently, the super does a wonderful job of mowing about 5-10 yards of fairway around all the greens, but they stop mowing the fairway at about 50 yards from the green, which eliminates a run up shot.

2. Move to 10 minute tee times from 8 which would improve pace of play. As it is, most days you can still get around in 4:30.

3. Increase fees to out of town players. Hey, it's a city course and it operates -- most of the time -- in the red. Let's make the visitors pay a little more. I know most cities already do this.

[Andrew Summerell]

Some good & interesting responses.

My 3 would be:

Widen fairways & remove any trees that encroach on the line of play – many tree lined courses tend to become more linear as they age, but would be more enjoyable if they were wider.

Preferred playing lines – where possible give the golfer a preferred playing line option. This might mean a slightly angled green or a green bunkered on only one side.  Diagonal lines off the tee also work well allowing golfers of all levels a challenge.

Varied hole lengths – this my mean some new tees or a small amount of re-routing.

[RDecker]

My Three would be mostly maintenance related:

1. Have consistent greens from 1-18, not necessarily fast or firm or whatever, just have them all be similar.  This doesn't have to be expensive but should be the main goal at every level of course.

2.  Level teeing ground with decent turf:  again this seems to be a simple concept but I can't tell you how many times I've played courses that were supposed to be quality tracks and have found tee boxes with uneven and inconsistent turf.

3.  Rough that is long enough to put a premium on hitting the fairway but not so long that the average player can't get out with one swing.  Again this doesn't have to cost much.

[Tom_Doak]

Same as restoring a great course, you focus on the least costly fundamental items first:

1.  Whack out trees which are penal in nature.  [I can't believe it took 12 posts before someone suggested that.]

2.  Get the mowing lines right so the course looks and plays more interesting.

3.  Fix any drainage problems.

Those who suggested rebunkering schemes just want to play architect.  And the comment that "rerouting is quite cheap" just baffles me.

[Peter Pallotta]

I'm enjoying this thread, and all the suggestions seem like good ones. As an aside, though: it's interesting to me that many  seem to assume that high-handicappers are the only ones playing (or are the ones who need the most 'help' in playing) affordable courses, and that many want to make these courses more 'playable' for the high handicapper.  Underlying this, it seems to me, is the belief that high-handicappers enjoy the game less if the course is too difficult. I don't think that's true. If high-handicappers don't enjoy the game it's because they're not very good -- and it's just no fun not being any good, at ANYTHING, including golf. Some of them enjoy it so little that they give up the game entirely (and I think most people who've taken up the game as adults, including me, have been close to that point at one time or another).  But they aren't giving up the game because an architect has put too many hazards around, since a high-handicapper can, and usually does, get himself in big trouble all by himself, and can get into the kind of trouble the architect never DREAMED off.  In short, I think a well- designed course doesn't necessarily have to be "playable for golfers at every level" (as Jack Nicklaus is so fond of saying). Yes, there may be business reasons for making it so and promoting it as such, but the true high-handicapper is going to be 'challenged' by any and all courses, at least until he gets better. I think one solution is for anyone who HAS gotten better to have more patience with the struggles of others (and the occasional 5 hour rounds), and to encourage the high-handicapper not to get discouraged. We've all been there, after all (or most of us have, I assume).  

Peter

[Jay Cox]

The comment that "rerouting is quite cheap" just baffles me.

Tom,
I think Sean meant "rerouting" to mean "reordering the existing holes" - with the goal of reducing walks between holes, even if it meant eliminating returning nines - rather than actually routing new holes on the property.  

Regarding fairway bunkers, I think they do more to add interest for the good (or even decent) player than they do to frustrate the poor player.  I think the biggest frustration for the average muni golfer is lost balls.  I wholeheartedly agree with Brad Klein's statement that one should eliminate forced water / wetland carries, especially into greens, but it might be prohibitively expensive (or illegal) to remove ponds and wetlands.  My first step would be clearing of thick shrubs or gorse-type bushes: not TOO expensive, and removes probably the greatest possible source of lost balls.

[Andy Hughes]

Those who suggested rebunkering schemes just want to play architect.

Well, yeah!
Actually, your par 5 at Heathlands has become my poster child for a bunker in the middle of the fairway, and what it can add to a hole.
That one bunker changes that from just another tee shot to one that makes golfers pause, ponder, discuss, make a choice and finally try to execute their plan (and yes, you suckered me into going left of the bunker, so much so that I had tree issues for my second shot. Mucho gracias )

[Jim Adkisson]

I would suggest that 1) fairways be aerated and over-sanded as often as possible to increase drainage in the typically poor soil of the local munis...This process has changed my favorite City of Portland course, Eastmoreland from a swamp to very playable in typically wet Oregon winter weather...2) old tee boxes be rebuilt if needed in order to provide a larger area to set the tees in multiple locations in order to let grass have the necessary time off to recover instead of becoming mud...and make for a fairly level stance with proper "lauch" angle from back to front of the box...3) remove unnecessary trees or at least trim the tree bases of cedars and firs...lets get more air movement and light to help the turf and make for the ability to have the heroic recovery shot from the woods.

[S. Huffstutler]

1. Playing architect is ok. Architects play Superintendent all the time.
2. Remove fairway bunkers and substitute grassy hollows.
3. build push-up greens if you have decent soil.
4. Remove any impediments to full sunshine and air movement around greens.


Steve

[Bill_McBride]

The occasional central bunker feature (or even central grassy hollow) is a great idea instead of two fairway bunkers.  More thinking about options, more excitement (can I carry that bunker?), half as much maintenance.

[Pete Lavallee]

Bill,

That's a great thought; a lone bunker in then center of the fairway is truely the most democratic because the high handicapper will never land there!

[Dave Bourgeois]

1) Fix drainage.  This always seems to be a problem where I play.

2) Provide green repair tools @ the cash register, and show everyone how to use them before giving them a scorecard.

3) As many have said, remove offending trees

[Tim MacEachern]

Pace of Play card.  Everybody in your group has to have a Pace of Play card in order to play in more than a 3-some (3-ball for those across the pond ).  

When you come off 18 in less than 4 hours some number of times (3?), you qualify for a card.  This would be as a 3-some, so that shouldn't be hard.

If it takes you more than 4 hours to play your round, and you aren't right behind the group in front of you, you lose your card and have to requalify.

Note that, if you can keep the pace, 5-balls and 6-balls are completely fine.

[Andy Hughes]

The occasional central bunker feature (or even central grassy hollow) is a great idea instead of two fairway bunkers.  More thinking about options, more excitement (can I carry that bunker?), half as much maintenance.

Bill, now that's an idea I can get behind!  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()