[TEPaul]

"I tend to agree with Tom Doak and not TEPaul on this one.
I don't think you can craft a design the presents an interesting challenge to every level of player.
I think their has to be a target specific golfer, and, in my mind, that's the scratch handicap amateur."

Pat:

Apparently you don't understand what my "Big World" theory means. It does not mean that all courses should be designed to ideally accomodate all players. It means there should be different types of courses out there simply because there are different types of players out there and different tastes out there.

So, in a real way, I'm agreeing with what Tom Doak said about courses being designed for various audiences such as Pine Valley once was.

[TEPaul]

Sean:

Perhaps what we need to begin to do, is to take a closer look at the constant use of this somewhat thoughtless phrase "ripping a course to threads". What does it really mean, if anything? It sounds so negative.  

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

"It's very difficult to provide an enjoyable challenge to every level of golfer, and when an architect attempts same, he HAS to make concessions that diminish the product."

What sort of concessions?  I don't think there are any carved in stone.  It is hard to do but not impossible and I wouldn't think concessions have to be made except for practical reasons.

"I don't think you can craft a design the presents an interesting challenge to every level of player.
I think their has to be a target specific golfer, and, in my mind, that's the scratch handicap amateur."

I disagree.  It isn't easy, but it has been done and can be done.   In fact, it is harder to do today because the spread between a tour pro and an average player is greater today than it has been.

Has any architect gone through the far more numerous permutations to place multiple tees in locations relative to natural and man-made features that would make a course an interesting challenge for all classes of players?  Probably not--it is a much longer process and most golfers wouldn't even realize the inherent genius and benefits of a design...maybe for the reasons you cite, on infrequent visits, you're likely to play from the wrong tees but more likely because they don't think about it much.  They want it fair and pretty.


"I think the answer is obvious.
Because many who go to play there want to play the golf course from where the U.S. Open is played, and not the regular or short tees."

Nearly every course in America is impossibly harder for the average player from the tips than the member or middle tees.  So Shinnecock is no different though more people are likely to play beyond their means because, as you say, it is a US Open course.  The fact that too many people play Red Badge of Courage golf doesn't mean that a course cannot be challenging to all classes of players.  The players don't play from positions that demonstrate the architectural intent.

Flynn was an early proponent of multiple tees played at the same time for different classes of players.  He noted that players often did not play from the correct tees.  He suggested a sign be posted,  

"GOLFERS, ATTENTION!

In order to accommodate all classes of players your club has gone to the expense of building forward, intermediate and back tees on many holes.  These tees are kept in order and markers are placed on each one.  Except in tournaments please use the tee that fits your particular game and enjoy the course."

Of course, people being people, they do not follow good advice.

Given the abilities of today's touring pros, there really isn't anything that they cannot score low on.  That would be the ultimate, and maybe unreachable, goal of an architect though not feasible on all ground for golf.  I fail to see how this is a factor in the design element, though as you point out, it is a factor in the practical decision making and that was a correct response to how Shinnecock got its reputation.  My point is that architecturally, it is unfounded.

I didn't say it was easy to design and that there are numerous examples where a design can offer enjoyable difficulty to all classes of players.  But they do exist and I'm sure I could name more than 5 but probably significantly less than 50.  That may be more an artifact of design mandate than due to owner/member directions and ground constraints.  

I bet if Tom Doak were given the opportunity to do so and had the right ground for it, he would accomplish it and it would be recognized as an outstanding accomplishment.  Heck, his 6800 yard courses come close to doing so.

"While I love NGLA, Pros might find it unchallenging under normal playing conditions."

They certainly would, and they would at Pine Valley, Merion and many others places as well but not to the extent of NGLA because of the length.  In relation to par, they would humble the course.  Par should be altered at NGLA...or at least have 2 sets of scorecards as Tom Paul proposed.  Scoring would be low, but less so relative to par.  If par is defined as the likely score of a scratch golfer, the par is too high at NGLA; yet traditions linger.

"I think Aronimink (sp) from the back tees is too hard.
I would not want to play it every day.
Same for BPB."

They are too hard for mere mortals.  Those tees were built for golfers beyond your ability and way beyond my own.  I may be long enough, but I sure am not straight enough.  As an aside, given Aronimink's greens, I would say that the back tees at Aronimink are even harder than BPB.  Not as interesting tee to green though.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

"It's very difficult to provide an enjoyable challenge to every level of golfer, and when an architect attempts same, he HAS to make concessions that diminish the product."

What sort of concessions?  I don't think there are any carved in stone.  It is hard to do but not impossible and I wouldn't think concessions have to be made except for practical reasons.

"I don't think you can craft a design the presents an interesting challenge to every level of player.
I think their has to be a target specific golfer, and, in my mind, that's the scratch handicap amateur."

I disagree.  It isn't easy, but it has been done and can be done.   In fact, it is harder to do today because the spread between a tour pro and an average player is greater today than it has been.

Wayne, creating multiple sets of tees only presents the same challenge off the tee.  Once you're in the common DZ, it's difficult, if not impossible, to provide the same challenge on the approach shot for the various levels of golfers.[/color]

Has any architect gone through the far more numerous permutations to place multiple tees in locations relative to natural and man-made features that would make a course an interesting challenge for all classes of players?  Probably not--it is a much longer process and most golfers wouldn't even realize the inherent genius and benefits of a design...maybe for the reasons you cite, on infrequent visits, you're likely to play from the wrong tees but more likely because they don't think about it much.  They want it fair and pretty.

The dilema and challenge can be resolved with the tee shot through multiple tees, the difficult, if not impossible, part is to replicate the challenge from the common DZ  to the green[/color]


"I think the answer is obvious.
Because many who go to play there want to play the golf course from where the U.S. Open is played, and not the regular or short tees."

Nearly every course in America is impossibly harder for the average player from the tips than the member or middle tees.  So Shinnecock is no different though more people are likely to play beyond their means because, as you say, it is a US Open course.  The fact that too many people play Red Badge of Courage golf doesn't mean that a course cannot be challenging to all classes of players.  

That wasn't the object of your question.
You asked why SHCC was labeled as very hard, and I provided the answer, because too many golfers play from the wrong tees, intentionally, to earn their "red badge of courage"
[/color]

The players don't play from positions that demonstrate the architectural intent.

Flynn was an early proponent of multiple tees played at the same time for different classes of players.  He noted that players often did not play from the correct tees.  He suggested a sign be posted,  

Bethpage Black has that sign.
But, today, it doesn't matter, sign or no sign, golfers want to play from where the best golfers in the world played from, so they can relate, in some distorted way, to those players and the golf course.

I saw a Major Domo at a great golf course tell a member to move up, that he'd enjoy his round more from the forward, not the championship tees.   The message was clear.  The member resisted, the Major Domo was emphatic.  The member moved up.  But, how many times will that scenario be repeated.   Rarely ![/color]

Given the abilities of today's touring pros, there really isn't anything that they cannot score low on.  That would be the ultimate, and maybe unreachable, goal of an architect though not feasible on all ground for golf.  

It's no longer about scoring.
It's about distance.
I see amateurs, young and old, hit the ball a mile.
How do you design for that ?
8,000 from the tips, 5,500 from the lady's tees.
Now, let me see you design features that will integrate with every level of golfer within that 2,500 yard gap.   It can't be done.

Part of the reason, as someone mentioned, is that the gap has widened considerably.  On par 3's you can replicate the intended shot through multiple tees, but, on the par 5's and par 4's it's more than difficult, it's impossible.

And, changing par has nothing to do with it.
What you, and especially TEPaul FAIL to realize is that changing par won't return the features taken out of play, back into play.   On # 7 at NGLA, changing par won't bring the "Hotel Bunker" complex back into play, nor will it return the intended second shot back into play.  The only thing that will accomplish that is creating a new back tee, one that would bring the "Hotel Bunker" complex back into play.

It's the intended interfacing of the architectural features that has been lost.  And while they can be returned from the tee, provided the land is available, they can't be returned or duplicated at the common DZ.[/color]

I fail to see how this is a factor in the design element, though as you point out, it is a factor in the practical decision making and that was a correct response to how Shinnecock got its reputation.  My point is that architecturally, it is unfounded.

That's also not true.
If a golfer hits a drive 340 yards off the 1st tee at SHCC tell me how he's going to face the approach that Flynn intended for him.

Where the land isn't available you can't introduce new hazards to the best player's games because it will adversely affect the second shots of the worst player's games.

Since you can't design for every level of golfer, you have to target a specific level, architecturally.[/color]

I didn't say it was easy to design and that there are numerous examples where a design can offer enjoyable difficulty to all classes of players.  But they do exist and I'm sure I could name more than 5 but probably significantly less than 50.  That may be more an artifact of design mandate than due to owner/member directions and ground constraints.  

Just name me five  [/color]

I bet if Tom Doak were given the opportunity to do so and had the right ground for it, he would accomplish it and it would be recognized as an outstanding accomplishment.  Heck, his 6800 yard courses come close to doing so.

That's not true.
You can't serve multiple masters.[/color]

"While I love NGLA, Pros might find it unchallenging under normal playing conditions."

They certainly would, and they would at Pine Valley, Merion and many others places as well but not to the extent of NGLA because of the length.  In relation to par, they would humble the course.  

Par should be altered at NGLA...or at least have 2 sets of scorecards as Tom Paul proposed.  

That's not the answer, and, it's a dumb idea.

Changing par doesn't return the lost features meant to interface with the golfers game back into play.

This is not a scoring issue, its about introducing architectural features that interface with EVERY level of golfer.[/color]

Scoring would be low, but less so relative to par.  If par is defined as the likely score of a scratch golfer, the par is too high at NGLA; yet traditions linger.

You and TEPaul are hung up on scoring.
It's not about scoring.
It's about presenting fetures to the golfer.
It's about the integration of the architecture with the golfers game.
It used to be possible, now, it's impossible because the gap is so wide.[/color]

[Guy Phelan]

You would think that the number of golfers would have increased over the past 20 years, but it has not. The game of golf is too tough and takes too long. We should have more players. Making golf courses tougher or even more creative with design may hinder the sport from growing.

[Joe Bentham]

"The Best architects feel it to be their duty to make the path to the hole as free as possible from annoying difficulties for the less skillful golfers, while at the same time presenting to the scratch players a route calling for the best shots at their command"
-Robert Hunter

"..A course must be absorbing and interesting, and not built for the crack players only.  Don't sacrifice accuracy for length."
C.B. Mcdonald

The most creative courses adhere to these principles to answer the original question.  Building hard courses with only the crack player in mind isn't creative at all.  Its still possible to build these types of courses, but today's equipment is making it harder.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"The Best architects feel it to be their duty to make the path to the hole as free as possible from annoying difficulties for the less skillful golfers, while at the same time presenting to the scratch players a route calling for the best shots at their command"
-Robert Hunter

Joe, That was easier when the gap between the scratch player and the less skilled player was still relatively narrow.
AND, Hunter never contemplated PLUS 8 handicap golfers.

"..A course must be absorbing and interesting, and not built for the crack players only.  Don't sacrifice accuracy for length."
C.B. Mcdonald

CBM didn't practice what he preached and was known to contradict himself.

He relished the fact that the best players of the day couldn't break par at NGLA.

The most creative courses adhere to these principles to answer the original question.  Building hard courses with only the crack player in mind isn't creative at all.  Its still possible to build these types of courses, but today's equipment is making it harder.

It's not about building hard courses.
It's about building courses that present an enjoyable challenge to EVERY level of golfer.

And, because the gap between the best and the novice is SO WIDE today, it's almost impossible.

Something has to give, at one end or the other.

[TEPaul]

"And, changing par has nothing to do with it.
What you, and especially TEPaul FAIL to realize is that changing par won't return the features taken out of play, back into play.  On # 7 at NGLA, changing par won't bring the "Hotel Bunker" complex back into play, nor will it return the intended second shot back into play.  The only thing that will accomplish that is creating a new back tee, one that would bring the "Hotel Bunker" complex back into play."

Patrick:

Well, it looks like NGLA is listening to some good advice and heading in the right direction anyway. They've dropped #5 to a par 4.  

And I guess the thinking of TOC was flawed too when they dropped the Road hole to a par 4, huh?

[George Pazin]

I think so much of this depends on how one defines "challenge".

To me, modern design tends to overemphasize driving challenge, particularly in regards to carries and accuracy.

All too often, one reads of someone playing a course like Rustic Canyon, or even The Rawls Course, and feeling like it isn't so challenging, because it doesn't appear to be, off the tee. And yet these same individuals are not necessarily shooting low scores.

I think it is very difficult to satisfy what many different types of golfers THINK is challenging or FEEL is challenging. I don't really think it is all that hard to accomplish, but it is hard to get folks to acknowledge.

All too often, when a low handicapper or even accomplished pro or amateur is challenged with a course like Augusta, TOC, #2, RM, all too often he simply dismisses the course as "tricked up."

The vast majority of golfers want courses that play to their own strengths while strictly challenging the strengths of others. In that sense, it is virtually impossible to challenge all levels and types of golfers, by definition.

[Guy Phelan]

I think so much of this depends on how one defines "challenge".

To me, modern design tends to overemphasize driving challenge, particularly in regards to carries and accuracy.

All too often, one reads of someone playing a course like Rustic Canyon, or even The Rawls Course, and feeling like it isn't so challenging, because it doesn't appear to be, off the tee. And yet these same individuals are not necessarily shooting low scores.

I think it is very difficult to satisfy what many different types of golfers THINK is challenging or FEEL is challenging. I don't really think it is all that hard to accomplish, but it is hard to get folks to acknowledge.

All too often, when a low handicapper or even accomplished pro or amateur is challenged with a course like Augusta, TOC, #2, RM, all too often he simply dismisses the course as "tricked up."

The vast majority of golfers want courses that play to their own strengths while strictly challenging the strengths of others. In that sense, it is virtually impossible to challenge all levels and types of golfers, by definition.

The vast majority of golfers do like golf courses for what the course presents to the golfer in the form of fairness and what suits his eye. It has never failed to amaze me that many of my buddies while on a trip, identify good golf courses with their score. In fact, our last trip to Scotland, we noticed that many of the guys equated there favorite courses to their best rounds. Obviously, as to what you say about strengths, you are right on mark.

But what do all the modern architects say about about the design and who they are appealing to? What are they thinking in the design that will enhance what they have set down to a broader range of player?

I would very much like to hear from T. Doak on this subject and others.

[Joe Bentham]

It's not about building hard courses.
It's about building courses that present an enjoyable challenge to EVERY level of golfer.
And, because the gap between the best and the novice is SO WIDE today, it's almost impossible.
Something has to give, at one end or the other.[/b]

Pat--
Is it because the good golfers have gotten better? Maybe.  But it still seems like an equipment issue to me.  If you scale back the ball and the driver then the gap you talk about has to get smaller.  I'm sticking to my guns though, I still think its possible under todays conditions to build courses that entertain and challange all levels...

[Patrick_Mucci]

I just read an interesting article in Golfweek about North Palm golf course, an old, alleged, Seth Raynor design of 6,200 yards, that was totally redesigned and rerouted by Nicklaus into a 7,140 yard golf course.

When you consider the nature of Southern Florida and its influx of OLDER golfers, retired and snowbirds, you have to ask yourself, who was this golf course being designed for ?

How many will play from close to 7,200 yards ?

Can anyone play from 6,200 yards ?

Will they experience and encounter the same architectural features ?

Allegedly, the course is reputed to be much harder, some claim by 6-7 strokes.

For whom was this course redesigned ?

The vastly superior golfer, whose numbers are miniscule, or for the average to poor golfer, whose numbers are legion ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()