What do Low Handicappers Look For?

[Jeff_Brauer]

This came up in a meeting yesterday, with a client who said that Paul Cowley's boss told him that "if you get good players out there with some buzz, you get the other players."

First, is that correct, in your opinion, as to what generates play?  Obviously, Davis Love III has the good players perspective, but is he on the money, given how few of them there are relatively? (For the record, I have always thought so, but am wondering)

Second, assuming yes, then what features do low handicappers look for that would make them tell their friends that a course is a "must play" in the area?

Please recall that this conversation is in regards to a new semi private club and housing course in a saturated local market, and on decent, but nothing out of the ordinary land compared to its nearest competitors (i.e. don't use Bandon, the Old Course or other unique places as an "aha" example, please - The course is where it is.)

You may, however, postulate as to maintenance, cart girls, experience, etc. as to what draws the low hanicapper out to a particular course vs. another, in addition to design features.

Thanks in advance, and it will be interesting to hear the comments.

[Tom Huckaby]

Jeff:

I'd guess there's a pretty large variety of low handicap golfers and it's going to be difficult to generalize.  For example, I range from 2-6 depending on how the putts fall, my friend Mike Benham is about the same, and we tend to disagree on a LOT of courses.  That is, there are some I love and he hates and vice versa.  Thinking of other low 'cappers I know, there is a lot of variety in opinions.

BUT... if one had to generalize, then I guess most would want the challenge.  That is, the tougher the course is without being silly and over the top in terms of hazards and OB, the more he'll like it.

Oddly higher 'cappers tend to like a challenge a lot also... even if it's not in their best interest.  I think Paul's boss is right at least to some extent - if the good players are flocking to a course, then the rest will follow.  But there are far more of the rest than there are the good players... especially in the environment you're talking about.  And in fact in the long run, the reverse effect might take over:  that is, if the course is the type of challenge the good players like, they'll stay and play it a lot; but of course that means the course is far too tough for the lesser players, and they'll stop having fun and move elsewhere.

Rustic Canyon is the huge success it is for one very good reason among potentially many others:  it's a difficult nut for the low 'capper to crack - he never scores as well there as he thinks he should - but it also doesn't kill the high 'capper.  of course it's trite to say that that's what a course should do.... but trite doesn't mean incorrect.  Making this happen is the hard part, and why I don't envy you guys your jobs sometimes.

TH

ps - in terms of maintenance, cart girls, etc. I don't see any difference between how high cappers and low cappers will think.  All want those as firm and fast as possible.  And I do mean in the maintenance and the cart girls.  

[PThomas]

Jeff:

I'd guess there's a pretty large variety of low handicap golfers and it's going to be difficult to generalize.  For example, I range from 2-6 depending on how the putts fall, my friend Mike Benham is about the same, and we tend to disagree on a LOT of courses.  That is, there are some I love and he hates and vice versa.  Thinking of other low 'cappers I know, there is a lot of variety in opinions.

BUT... if one had to generalize, then I guess most would want the challenge.  That is, the tougher the course is without being silly and over the top in terms of hazards and OB, the more he'll like it.

Oddly higher 'cappers tend to like a challenge a lot also... even if it's not in their best interest.  I think Paul's boss is right at least to some extent - if the good players are flocking to a course, then the rest will follow.  But there are far more of the rest than there are the good players... especially in the environment you're talking about.  And in fact in the long run, the reverse effect might take over:  that is, if the course is the type of challenge the good players like, they'll stay and play it a lot; but of course that means the course is far too tough for the lesser players, and they'll stop having fun and move elsewhere.

Rustic Canyon is the huge success it is for one very good reason among potentially many others:  it's a difficult nut for the low 'capper to crack - he never scores as well there as he thinks he should - but it also doesn't kill the high 'capper.  of course it's trite to say that that's what a course should do.... but trite doesn't mean incorrect.  Making this happen is the hard part, and why I don't envy you guys your jobs sometimes.

TH

ps - in terms of maintenance, cart girls, etc. I don't see any difference between how high cappers and low cappers will think.  All want those as firm and fast as possible.  And I do mean in the maintenance and the cart girls.  

cut the s*&t Huck...you guys are just looking for Hot Beverage babes

[Tom Huckaby]

But of course - see my PS - firm and fast, baby.

 

BTW I think I am the odd duck low 'capper... I tend to shy away from long tough courses unless there's some other reason for their greatness (history, tradition, ultimate test).

Benham thinks I'm a wuss.

 

[PThomas]

But of course - see my PS - firm and fast, baby.

 
 SORRY I MISSED IT ...YOUR HONESTY IS JUST ANOTHER REASON WHY I'M TELLING OBAMA THAT YOU SHOULD BE HIS VP CHOICE!

BTW I think I am the odd duck low 'capper... I tend to shy away from long tough courses unless there's some other reason for their greatness (history, tradition, ultimate test).

Benham thinks I'm a wuss.

 
[/quote

AS A MID HANDICAPPER I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THAT!

[Sean Leary]

Jeff:

I'd guess there's a pretty large variety of low handicap golfers and it's going to be difficult to generalize.  For example, I range from 2-6 depending on how the putts fall, my friend Mike Benham is about the same, and we tend to disagree on a LOT of courses.  That is, there are some I love and he hates and vice versa.  Thinking of other low 'cappers I know, there is a lot of variety in opinions.

BUT... if one had to generalize, then I guess most would want the challenge.  That is, the tougher the course is without being silly and over the top in terms of hazards and OB, the more he'll like it.

Oddly higher 'cappers tend to like a challenge a lot also... even if it's not in their best interest.  I think Paul's boss is right at least to some extent - if the good players are flocking to a course, then the rest will follow.  But there are far more of the rest than there are the good players... especially in the environment you're talking about.  And in fact in the long run, the reverse effect might take over:  that is, if the course is the type of challenge the good players like, they'll stay and play it a lot; but of course that means the course is far too tough for the lesser players, and they'll stop having fun and move elsewhere.

Rustic Canyon is the huge success it is for one very good reason among potentially many others:  it's a difficult nut for the low 'capper to crack - he never scores as well there as he thinks he should - but it also doesn't kill the high 'capper.  of course it's trite to say that that's what a course should do.... but trite doesn't mean incorrect.  Making this happen is the hard part, and why I don't envy you guys your jobs sometimes.

TH

ps - in terms of maintenance, cart girls, etc. I don't see any difference between how high cappers and low cappers will think.  All want those as firm and fast as possible.  And I do mean in the maintenance and the cart girls.  

I also think for the most part many VERY low cappers, (scratch plus), are more likely to desire very difficult, but fair golf courses.  The RTJ, bunker left and right model like Oakland Hills, would be the type of course they really enjoy. They appreciate being tested to hit it far and straight off the tee.

[Tom Huckaby]

I guess I'm a bit more into instant gratification type of golf success than other low 'cappers... that's why as I read through George's very cool series on Merion, I am understanding it's greatness for sure, but am becoming more and more convince I'd never come to love it personally even if I played it every day.  

To put this in a golf course sense, I tend to prefer Cruden Bay to Portmarnock; NGLA to Shinnecock; and if I ever played the courses, I'd guess I'd prefer Shoreacres to Medinah.  The point is I like fun courses where one has a chance to score well more than I like pure tests of golf.

But most low handicappers are the opposite of me, I think.

TH

ps to Sean - full agreement there - tough but fair would be the mantra.

[Craig Van Egmond]

Huckster,

        Most low handicappers I play with do not like firm and fast conditions. They may want the fairways somewhat firm but they want the greens receptive. Low handicappers seem to be less tolerant about 'bad bounces' than high handicappers who have low expectations.

[Tom Huckaby]

Huckster,

        Most low handicappers I play with do not like firm and fast conditions. They may want the fairways somewhat firm but they want the greens receptive. Low handicappers seem to be less tolerant about 'bad bounces' than high handicappers who have low expectations.

Craig - good call there - that was just a stretch by me so I could equate conditions to cart girls.  

[Jon Spaulding]

The short version for me would be anywhere with a reasonable variety of shots, natural hazards, and needing to move the ball both ways (without being marketed by the course). Conditioning is somewhat important for buzz purposes; you can get knocked out for lack of it. In my neck of the woods the only public tracks with any "buzz" would be Rustic or Barona.

Also, a few of TH's "yatches" helps as well.

[Mike Nuzzo]

there are some I love and he hates and vice versa.  

Name some decent courses you hate - I've never heard you utter those words before.


The typical low capper likes fairness.

[Tom Huckaby]

Mike - if I hate it, it's likely not decent.

I hate THE RANCH at SILVER CREEK - San Jose, CA.

I'm not too in love with a lot of other public courses in my area.

But in general, touche.  It usually goes the other way - others hate a course, I like it.

 

[Mike_Sweeney]

This came up in a meeting yesterday, with a client who said that Paul Cowley's boss told him that "if you get good players out there with some buzz, you get the other players."

First, is that correct, in your opinion, as to what generates play?  Obviously, Davis Love III has the good players perspective, but is he on the money, given how few of them there are relatively? (For the record, I have always thought so, but am wondering)

Second, assuming yes, then what features do low handicappers look for that would make them tell their friends that a course is a "must play" in the area?

1. At a different stage of life I was the "low handicap" of our Saturday morning group, and I was the guy that first found Cherry Creek and then Long Island National. The deal was the group paid an up front fee $4000-5000 to the course in the Spring for the right to tee off at 7:10 AM on every Saturday morning. I don't know if being the "low handicap" or just being more organized put me in this position.

2. As you can imagine from me spending way too much time here, I was looking for the best course. Since everyone worked and wanted to hit the beach in the afternoon, price was not a big issue as you knew you had to pay for that prime time spot.

In a nutshell, like many things, it depends on the market, time and place, but I have rarely met a person who does NOT like to play a nicer course given reasonable cost differences.

[Adam Clayman]

Why would a developer be interested in what less than 5% of his potential customer base thinks?

[Jim Sweeney]

I want an atmosphere that says, "golf first." I want to be asked to think, to "read" the holes. I want options. I want competition with other low handicappers. I want interesting and demanding topography and achitecture, and some aspects or themes on the course that are different or unique to the area. I want to walk; I don't mind feeling slightly winded occasionally, but I don't like my legs to quiver due to a hard climb. I want the hazards to be hazardous. I want a mixture of challenges within the par three, four, and five groups. to sum up I want challenge, interest, and to walk.

I do not believe that low handicaps universally want softer greens. I think they want the ability to hold a well struck shot, but they don't mind a poor result if the shot is mishit.

This may sound odd, but most low handicappers don't really know waht a well hit shot is, because they don't play courses or tournaments that demand them. About the only time you'll find that requirement is in top flight amateur competition, and that world is pretty small compared to the overall population of golfers with below 3.4 indexes- the maximum USGA mid-am index.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Why would a developer be interested in what less than 5% of his potential customer base thinks?

Because he believes, rightly or wrongly, that this 'minority' of golfers has the ability to influence the majority of golfers and get them to accept the beliefs of the minority that it is in fact a "better" golf course.

The same could be said for an even smaller minority - the raters - who work for a for-profit magazine. The low handicapper is arguably more credible since that have nothing to gain and word of mouth is always the best form of marketing.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Unfortuantely, length also becomes a factor.  I don't think most low handicappers want too many 375 yard par fours, although they do want reachable par fives.  I agree that they like their greens soft and conditions good.  I don't think they care anymore about cart girls than higher handicappers.  They like to see their targets and absolutley do not want bad bounces.  They care about score score too much sometimes. In short they want challenge but at the same time they want birdie to be a distinct possibility on most holes. They/we love to stand on a tee and think birdie.  My handicap has grown with age (5 and climbing)and my tastes have changed over the years.

[Brent Hutto]

Very good players nowadays (plus-handicap range) tend to want perfect distance control on iron and wedge shots to be rewarded with makable putts.

I think they also like visual "definition", especially on tee shots.

And they definitely prefer for all the greens on a given course on a given day to be the same speed and firmness as well as all the bunkers having the same sand consistency.

My impression is that they like their Par 5 second shots to be a clear go/no-go decision, whether that's water in front of the green or bunkers or whatever. I believe they think it's to their advantage to have a defined penalty for a indecisive or poorly executed "go for it" shot as opposed to a situation where you might as well go for it because if you miss you just come up short and chip.

Note Bene: I am far, far from being a good player but I take every chance I get to quiz them on what they like and don't like and how they approach certain shots.

As a weaker player, I'm somewhat the opposite. I thing big front-to-back (or for that matter back-to-front) slopes on greens are cool. And I don't particularly like trouble to deal with on long approach shots (third shots in my case) on Par 5's. I certainly do appreciate consistently-conditioned greens and bunkers (with due respect to those of you who think that's a modern perversion).

[A.G._Crockett]

In no particular order:

1. very good conditioning, especially greens w/ good speed
2. risk-reward decisions
3. balance between length and at least some strategy
4. a decent pace of play (they play a lot of golf, and typically expect to play reasonably quickly)
5. interesting contours on the green
6. the perception that the course was "fair", meaning that good shots were rewarded, poorly executed shots penalized.  Might tend to be less tolerant of "quirk" than we would prefer here...
7. a "golf experience" comparable to what they associate with private clubs.

[Michael Moore]

"I don't like these super-long par 3s where average golfers need a wood to reach them. They're terrible—you hit 15 or more wood shots on the other holes already; that's enough. On the other hand, I don't like par 4s where guys hit irons off the tee. What are these architects thinking about? They're designing courses upside down. They think they're smart, but they're just the opposite." -- "Pipeline" Moe Norman

[Jordan Wall]

Huckaby,

I thought you liked every course!
 


Jeff,

I guess you could say I am like Huck.  Depending on how the putts fall, I am anywhere fom 0-6.
As for courses, I like crazy greens and bunkers that challenge the tee shot.  Nice greenside bunkering is a plus too.

[JSlonis]

I would tend to agree with a lot of what is said above about what the low HDCP player likes.  In many of my conversations with my golf buddies here in the Philly area I'm always surprised to see & hear what everyone likes when it comes to golf course architecture.  There's no denying that a good number of low HDCP players have the pencil & card mentality.  Unfortunately, that way of thinking really narrows the focus of what they like.  

Fairness becomes the ultimate virtue.  The problem is, fairness doesn't always go hand in hand with good architecture.
 
Upon learning of what these guys "like", I would place myself firmly in the minority of the Low HDCP crowd.  

*I don't mind blind shots once in a while, I like firm and fast conditions, I like it when the golfer is forced to actually think a bit.  I don't mind undulations that can cause the odd bounce, I don't mind the uncomfortable feeling when a hole isn't all framed out in front of you.  I like a bit of quirk, and I absolutely love a wonderfully designed, challenging greensite.*    

[Adrian_Stiff]

In no particular order:

1. very good conditioning, especially greens w/ good speed
2. risk-reward decisions
3. balance between length and at least some strategy
4. a decent pace of play (they play a lot of golf, and typically expect to play reasonably quickly)
5. interesting contours on the green
6. the perception that the course was "fair", meaning that good shots were rewarded, poorly executed shots penalized.  Might tend to be less tolerant of "quirk" than we would prefer here...
7. a "golf experience" comparable to what they associate with private clubs.

Id agree mainly with AGs points. Basically I think if you are building in a saturated market dont restrict your cliental: Low handicappers tend to like more of a challenge but this can be achieved by a set of tees that offer either a tougher line or length and perhaps do this at half the holes rather than the whole lot, the higher handicapper does not want to feel he is playing off the duffers tees. Mainly Id say conditioning is paramount, plently of eye candy which will take the form of however your architect/ land depicts it.
A good golf course will always do well in a saturated market provided it offers value.

[Tom Huckaby]

Huckaby,

I thought you liked every course!
 

I find that absolutes like every and all and always rarely hold up to scrutiny.  So no, I don't like every course I play.  But I will say I like a lot more than most people in here.

And I think Jamie and AGC made great points, and Adrian nails it.  A course with good conditions will indeed always do well in a saturated market.  But then you do also need to worry about price point... make that too high and even the greatest conditions won't save you.

[cary lichtenstein]

I have played with low handicapppers all my life and I find they have zero in common in what they like other than firm sand and fast greens.

Some like to gamble and  could care less about anything else, others want a straight forward course, and still others like some quirk like I do, but for the most part, almost none give a hoot about architect.