"The Skilled Golfer"

[Tom_Doak]

I'm not surprised this has developed into an argumentative thread.

The bottom line is that a few long hitters who think of themselves as more "skilled," are telling the rest that they are better qualified to judge the merits of a golf course because of their ability.  If Rustic Canyon doesn't show off their driving game, which is their pride and joy, there must be something wrong with it.

The truth is that every golfer has their own set of skills, and rare is the golf course that rewards the player with the broadest range.  In fact, I'll go further -- without the presence of wind, I don't think any course can truly test the complete spectrum of golfing ability.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Tom - to add to that of 27 million golfers in the US, what proportion are "skilled?"  1%?  2%?  Is there an owner that would ever come to you with the guidlines of building a course to suit only "skilled" golfers?

Theoretically (but rather ridiculous), if I took the hardest course in the world (Koolua on Oahu) and could kept adding tees up to the green every player could find someplace they could play.

A spin on your thread is rather interesting - what course in the world has the broadless "skill" range?  

JC

[paul cowley]

tom......im not sure i understand your statement 'rare is the golf course that rewards the player with broadest range'....
  could you explain further?......

[A_Clay_Man]

What's ironic is that if a course does "test" the skills of the better golfer (tour pro), and if the situation warrants it, they are gonna hit 2 iron so that they aren't challenged to the point of penal.

Pete Dye comes to mind as one whos courses routinely challenge the tee shot (or ego) for those who want to try for some small peninsula or landing area.

Skilled mentaly doesn't always translate to skilled golfer.

[Lou_Duran]

It sounds like Tom Doak agrees with me and a few others in that building the ideal course- one that challenges and interests all types of players- is a near impossibility.  Nicklaus in his book "Nicklaus by Design" has some interesting things to say about this.  Muirfield Village as it was through much of its first 10 - 15 oyears was a course that was difficult for the pros and nearly impossible for the amateurs.  I have it from a good source that many of the members didn't enjoy playing it.   MV has been softened up over the past 10 or so years, and when the wind is not blowing, the Memorial scores are very low.  To that I say so what.  Let the pros shoot what they will.  Par really doesn't mean anything, right?  Anyone venture to say what the winning Tour score would be at Rustic Canyon under relatively calm conditions?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jonathan,

Every golf course is designed for the skilled golfer.

[Dan King]

There are two ways to test the skilled golfer.

You can keep adding length, which just keeps adding to their advantage. They'll love you for it, and praise your course.

You can mess with their head. Give them inconsistency, give 'em doubt. Take away the rakes, give them uneven lies, sloped greens, blindness, crooked fairway lines, etc... Do this and they will whine and avoid your course, but they will get tested.

Skilled golfers love fairness. It allows their physical game to shine and doesn't test the weak part of their game, their mental ability. If you truly wanted to test them, you'd make the course less fair.

When skilled golfers say they want to be tested, they are really saying they want courses where the advantage of their game is maximized. They don't really mean they want to be tested.

Dan King

Golf is not a fair game, so why build a course fair?
 --Pete Dye

[David Wigler]

I'm not surprised this has developed into an argumentative thread.

The bottom line is that a few long hitters who think of themselves as more "skilled," are telling the rest that they are better qualified to judge the merits of a golf course because of their ability.  If Rustic Canyon doesn't show off their driving game, which is their pride and joy, there must be something wrong with it.

Tom,

You are dead wrong.  This thread is about my opinion about a specific feature on a golf course (Defended by others who agree with me) and others opinions, which defer from mine.  Find anywhere in the thread where the point is made that I am "Better qualified" because I am more skilled.  Your point is frankly completely convoluted.  RC shows off a good driving game more so than almost any course I can think of.  There is tremendous lateral width and only two holes have aiming requirements.  If your point were even close to right, RC would be about my favorite driving course on the planet.  The only shread of truth in your statement is that I do feel I am more qualified than Tim, BECAUSE I HAVE ACTUALLY PLAYED THE COURSE.  DMoriarty is probably more qualified in his opinion then I am because he has played it a ton.  The pride of my game is my putting.  Have you played RC, Tom?  Do you find it interesting off the tee?  If yes, then you disagree with me as well.  It has nothing to do with challenge.  #9 at CPC or #10 at Riviera, heck even #16 at Bandon are great examples of holes that could be driven but are very INTERESTING because of the thought that goes into making that decision.  I felt that 12 of RC's 14 holes did not require thought, just blast away.  I would suspect that the vast majority of people who play RC, like it for just that reason.  They blast away with impunity.  It has nothing to do with superiority.

[Paul_Turner]

The 3rd at Pacific Dunes was certainly comfortably within range for two shots when I last played there.  We did have a healthy tail wind, but it was only a 6/7 iron from the furthest bunker.

[Tom_Doak]

Paul C.:  What I was trying to say was that most courses favor one set of skills or another.  There aren't many that test driving, iron play, shotmaking, short game and putting in equal proportion, in my opinion.

David:  Sorry if I misinterpreted your position.  I haven't played Rustic Canyon so I have tried to stay away from arguing over the merits of the driving game there.  As that thread has worn on, though, it occurred to me that it was mostly the long hitters (including yourself) who were saying there was nothing to do but "blast away."  On re-reading, it isn't just the long hitters saying this, although it's mostly shorter hitters who are telling you that your wild drives will not allow you to score well.

I have never seen you play golf but if you do regularly drive the ball 320 yards then I can't imagine you find many fairway bunkers of interest on any golf course.  Especially on mine, because like the designers of Rustic Canyon, I'm going to let you hit it that far and then get you at the other end of the hole.

Lou:  I'm not sure I want to concede your point.  I think there are plenty of golf courses which challenge and interest all types of players; I've even built a couple.  But there is a difference between challenging all players and giving them all precisely what they want.  You can't give everyone what they want.  Like Tim alludes, if you build a difficult test of driving for Tour players, most others wouldn't finish.  (Likewise, you CAN make a course too difficult around the greens.  While most of the descriptions of Rustic Canyon sound like my kind of course, the tales of five-putting at #12 worry me, because it's easily possible for the bogey golfer to wind up in that wrong place.)

I have never been too interested in Slope because it purports to define the average "scratch" and "bogey" golfers, and there are just too many different types of players who have different strengths and weaknesses.  As Redanman points out, even with Slope, there's different horses for different courses.

EVERY GOLFER HAS SKILLS.  The courses that will be most popular are those where every golfer has a chance to display what they CAN do, rather than those which concentrate on showing them what they CANNOT do.

[David Wigler]

Tom,

Your concluding paragraph is exactly right and I agree completely.  

[A_Clay_Man]

"room for everyone"

Maybe the difference in peoples personal preference is similar to the dominant submissive roles I recently saw exploited on CSi?

There are those golfers that prefer to be told where to hit the ball, and then there are those who want to decide for themselves. Being one of the later I can hardly see the other side, but appreciate that there is another side.

[Willie_Dow]

Tom
Doesn't it all boil down to setting up the course?  If the design will allow both features, direct-tax and indirect-tax on most all of its holes, wouldn't you call it a great course from an architectural standpoint?
I can think of playing Merion East when it was an indirect-tax layout, then came the 1981 U.S. Open, and its rough formed a direct-tax layout.
How many of the other top ten can offer these options by setup?
Willie

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom,
Thanks for getting me to log-in again. Of course, it was a given, but I can only thank you for putting all of the DISCUSSION (For some of you, this doesn't mean argument) in regards to the topic in the most exact words.

Gotta go now, I'm trying to inspire myself to build a thread, which can have the JakaB's and the Mucci's of the world seething in disagreement. I love irritating them so!:)

[ed_getka]

In answer to Lou's question re: RC, I would say 30-35 under would win a tour event there.

[DMoriarty]

The bottom line is that a few long hitters who think of themselves as more "skilled," are telling the rest that they are better qualified to judge the merits of a golf course because of their ability.  If Rustic Canyon doesn't show off their driving game, which is their pride and joy, there must be something wrong with it.

Tom, I think you are on the right track here.  Although instead of looking to "show off" their driving game, I would suggest driving is the long hitters "pride and joy" because they think it seperates them from the rest.  So, long hitters are looking for more reward for their long drives in comparison to short drives (thus taking MacKenzie's statement on this issue to an extreme.)  I just don't think that big hitters like to hit it 330 yds straight and then see that the rest of the golfers are still in the hole.  

  The most interesting strategic attribute of Rustic is that it offers the long hitter so much leeway off the tee that he never even considers hitting anything but a driver, even when he would be better off so doing.  

Lots of temptation, but little reward.  A novel strategic concept I think is brilliant given today's game.  

[David Wigler]

David,

You have totally lost me agree with Tom and choosing that quote.  I gathered that Tom even felt it was untrue.  Please site a single example on the four threads this has grown to where one of the "Longer Hitters" has implied that "We are more skilled and therefore...better qualified to judge the merits of a golf course because of our ability."    I personally know everyone (I think) on my side of the argument and none of us feels we are more qualified.  Let alone more qualified because of our ability.  I feel that I am more qualified than some (Tim), because I have played the course!  I feel I am less qualified than yourself or Tommy (Who I had a long talk with this morning about my position) because you guys practically live on the course.  It has nothing to do with length or ability.

Furthermore, this course is a bombers paradise.  It absolutely allows a long hitter to show off their power game.  Much more so than a target or tree lined course that puts the driver out of the bag and requires precision.  If the ability to show off power on the tee was my sole criteria as a brainless, unread, uneducated, never gone to a seminar, drooling idiot than RC would be in my top five favorite courses on the planet.  I can whack it, find it, and whack it again.

The blanket characterization that because I (And the others who agree with me) do not get excessive lateral width (And find it uninteresting) and therefore must have a personal agenda in disliking the course is insulting.  Opinions are just that.  I respect Tommy's (I know him and he has earned it).  I am going to try to see RC again in the hope that I missed something.  Your agreement with Tom and cheap shot characterization that anyone who disagrees with your point must have an agenda is both surprising and disappointing.

[Michael Dugger]

Thus far, throughout all of this, I've yet to learn whether or not it is crucial to place your drives in the proper place at RC.  I haven't played the course so I don't know.  But, will someone please tell me, if you drive to the wrong side of the fairways at RC, is your second shot more difficult?

[DMoriarty]

David W.  I am sorry if you found my post insulting and disappointing, but I stand by everything I said. I suggest you take a look at my part of the quote, not Tom's.  The words in the box were his, not mine.  That is why it says "Tom Doak said . . . ."  I was saying something quite different.  Read my post.  It says nothing about you thinking you are better qualified.  Nor does it say anything about you having a personal agenda, or any agenda, for that matter.  Nor does it say that golfers cannot swing away at Rustic.  In fact it says quite the opposite.  

I quoted Tom, and told him I thought he was "on the right track."  "On the right track" is a term I use to convey partial agreement, such as an agreement with the general point, but not necessarily with the specifics.  So I dont feel the need to defend or support any of Tom's points.  In fact, after saying he was on the right track, I went in an entirely different direction and drew an entirely different conclusion.  That is what the words "Although instead of . . . I would suggest" conveyed at the beginning of my second sentence.  Disagreement.  Please do me a favor and cover up the Tom Doak quote at the top, and tell me if your reaction is appropriate.  

I thought Tom was barking up the right tree (similar to "on the right track") when he commented on big hitters liking to show off their big hitting prowess and that they take great pride in their power.  I don't know if this applies to you or not, nor did I say it did, but in my experience big hitters like to hit it big and do so at every opportunity with minimal risk.  So Tom's point and my point share common roots.  Our perceptions that big hitters like to hit it big.  From here though we go in different directions.  Think two holes sharing a tee box but playing in different directions.  

I firmly believe that part of the beauty of Rustic is that it preys on the egos of long hitters.  Invites them to go crazy, to put on a show, to swing away again and again and again.  Yet it does not always reward them for the displays of power, or as Tom might say, for "showing off."   In fact they are often no better off than the short hitters.  Some big hitters have been unable to grasp this:  Big hitters who see no reason play safe on most of Rustic's holes, ever.  It sounds to me like you fit this bill, wouldnt you agree that you see no reason to play safe on most Rustic's holes, ever.

Again, read my words, not Tom's.

[DMoriarty]

Thus far, throughout all of this, I've yet to learn whether or not it is crucial to place your drives in the proper place at RC.  I haven't played the course so I don't know.  But, will someone please tell me, if you drive to the wrong side of the fairways at RC, is your second shot more difficult?

Mdugger, it is my opinion that driving to the wrong side of the fairway, or to the wrong spot, usually makes your second shot much more difficult.  

Here is 1/2 of an example:
Ran's picture is the approach from the right (wrong) side of the second fairway.  What the picture doesnt show is that the left (correct) side of the fairway gives an open view of the green and a chance to brace your shot against the slope which is behind this bunker; that this hole plays directly down the canyon, which makes it difficult and unpredictable to control the approach with spin; and that out of bounds borders the entire left side.  

I am sure that David W and others disagree, on the theory that if you hit it far enough, you can hit a wedge in, and things like green slopes and visually akward shots dont matter.  

[Doug Siebert]

This all depends on the definition of "skilled golfer" people are using.  When I'm talking like this, I tend to use the phrase "better player" because I'm talking about players in my domain -- I'll vary from 4 to maybe 7 or 8, so I'm pretty much talking about single digit handicaps.  Better than most.  But "skilled"?

To me, these days with the equipment we've got now that'd mean someone with a plus handicap, to be honest.  I'm single digit, but I'm a hacker, and I know it and reluctantly am forced admit it.  I am capable of stringing together some good shots, some good holes, but I still hit just about every bad shot everyone else hits except whiffs, complete tops and shanks (now that I've jinxed myself, I look forward to all three tomorrow )

I know a lot of single digit players like to think of themselves as skilled, but they are fooling themselves.  Most of them are playing like I do, which is pretty much like redanman said he plays.  Hit it long, wild and rely on the equipment to compensate for the fact we really have no business using a driver at all on any hole most days, but pretty decent iron play still hits a decent number of greens and a passable short game saves some pars and hopefully reduces the damage on holes where things get out of hand.

Where its a problem with the architecture (and the equipment) is that while I don't have the game to beat the course rating at Podunk Muni are more than I do at Augusta National, I have enough that I could string together a 3, 6 sometimes even 9 holes that would make people think I really know what I'm doing.  If you give me wide open fairways with nothing to penalize my misses, you are making my game more equal to that of a truly skilled player.  If you reward pure length, you allow me to easily beat my opposite, a 5 handicap who drives it only 200 yards but makes every shot count and probably would qualify as "skilled" by my definition above based on what would be required to maintain a 5 as such a short hitter.

No matter what defense a course has around the greens, simply missing is its own penalty.  Even on TOC with its monster greens, if you badly miss it you aren't all that much better off that your 35 yard shot is a putt rather than a sand shot or a flop from an awkward lie in the rough.  But a miss off the tee, if there's no penalty for where you are, doesn't matter.  It isn't really affecting me that much if I have to hit from 180 instead of 130 (on many days I'm better off in the 150-200 range than 100-150, but that just because I hate my pitching wedge and it hates me back)  Excluding courses with extraordinarily penal rough, most of the time on my tee shots I'll say I'm happy if I'm "between the trees".  Give me a course with 20 yard wide fairways and 60 yards between the trees over a course with 40 yard wide fairways that are lined with trees right on the edge any day!  (Substitute water/OB/cliffs/etc. if you hate trees, but you get my point)

And to be honest, I don't really derive the same satisfaction from the course if I don't feel like my occasional periods of adequate or even brilliant play are rewarded (or even noticed) by the architecture.  I don't care if people are impressed that I'm having a good day off the tee and bombing a bunch 300+ down the center or that I'm hooking into the trees on every hole but still managing to find a way to par every hole, but for my own sake I want to be able to impress myself.  If I can hit a big miss and maybe just have a few clubs longer into the green but otherwise pretty much the same shot, where's the fun in that?  Golf is supposed to be hard, if I wanted easy I'd play the local cow pastures that probably rate 64 or so and feel impressed with myself that I'm shooting in the 60s on a regular basis.

[paul cowley]

tom d.....i would be interested in knowing what courses you [or others]feel most adequately test all golfers skills on all playing levels?...hell, i'll just start a post........

[David Wigler]

DaveM,

If you withdrawl Tom's quote, I have no problem at all with your post.  My problem was your agreeing with Tom and choosing that specific quote.  Eliminate his quote and we have no issues on this point.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Michael,
Sorry I didn't get to this one earlier.

David M, really does an excellent job of hilighting @ #2. To let you know, from experience, this is the first place I got to hit a shot on at Rustic Canyon, during grow-in, Gil and I were walking around, and I had brought an 8 iron and a slew of pellets, and we hit shots into this green from various angles. Not to mention the fact that I was thrilled to be hitting shots on MY golf course:) it was quite interesting doing it in a run-up fashion. I even took my ring of keys and placed them on the green so we had a target of sorts to FINISH at. (please notice how I capitilize FINISH.) To understand it better, you have to understand that paticular green. It has what is in essence, a huge pimple around the front/middle/center of the green. It seriously affects the green from the angle of approach, center to left of the fairway. From the right side, much further back then what you see in the picture, where the bunkers in the image actual come into the line of play into the green, you have to aim it right, beacuse it is going to be not only fast, but it is going to turn left. Why? it's taking the slope of the pimple in the green. Back right of the green, well, that is a whole other story because it does exactly the opposite of what you are looking at!

For some reason or another, I hit the ball the best off of this tee, and actually chose what side I want to come in from. To really have an affect from the left, depending on health, both mental and physical issues, to really make a difference going left, I have to know I'm hitting the ball really far, other wise, I'm going to get sort of an offset stance in the natural swale that dashes across the fairway. If I'm not playing long at that paticular time, and as I have played it in the last six months, I have been hampered by a bad back, and while I'm up for the challenge, I know the chances are slim that I'm going to be able to carry the bunkers in the photo. It's actually become a point of personal goal to do so.

You see, If I come-up short, I have a long bunker shot from a bunker that is pretty heavily faced, and then I have to get the ball running on the approach and ever-so-gently, let it become Gravity's Darling on the green. Surprizingly, I thought this was going to be a fools way to play the hole, but after being one too many times long left, and faced with a long running chip back up to the flag, which is in fact, going up the canyon, and that grade is ever so subtle, so much that it will stop your attempt if it sees a sign of weakness., Ihave actually started playing the hole as a three-shotter, putting it on, and hopefully sinking the putt. I have walked away more times with 5 on that hole playing it that way, but I had a legitimate chance at par, which in match play, with my handicap, would require the better player to birdie it to win.

The last time I played the hole, in the same fashion as I have explained, I made the putt, which means the Tiger has to eagle it to win the hole from the Rabbit.

Three things have happened:

1. This is the spot where in match play, I have to win the hole to get that quick jump, and get into my opponents head, and I have the strok working for me, as well as the shots in the bag because of the way I play the ball off of the tee.
2. Positioning of the drive on the right is most important to get that shot, but if I fail, I have plenty of room on the left to play an mid to long iron short left of the green to do the same, which, I have the club in my bag for that shot too--it's called a putter, and it is the club of choice on the close-cropped approaches of Rustic Canyon.
3.I can gamble for the green from the right with a five wood, which I can hit anywhere from 150 yards to 200. If I don't make it, then it is a very hard looking bunker shot, which isn't really as hard as it looks! How do I know? I learned to face the challenge rather then run away from it by aiming extreme left to the safer part of the hole!

But none of this works if I do not understand how the green flows throughout the surface, becausee that chip can actually be the death of you if you don't pull it off, and that is where the par you thought you had in the bag if you made the putt, becomes a double bogie six!

I hope all of that make sense!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Michael, I also forgot, that my pains with the hole for the first year of play, I even tried playing it pin-high right, where I would have a hi-lob over the green side bunker you can barely see in the picture on.

I have been there, done that, and quite unsuccessfully! But in true strategic fashion, I'm sure that there are several that can and do quite succesfully! (If they are too far right, and stymied by the bunkers)