[Garland Bayley]

...
btw....I can't see the game growing or being enjoyable for the general membership if you have some hack out there considering options on 110 strokes...

I know they said you turned out to be quite a reasonable person when you joined the others at Bandon, but it is posts like this that make me think you are the lowest living thing on earth.

Does my distaste come through?

[John Kavanaugh]

...
btw....I can't see the game growing or being enjoyable for the general membership if you have some hack out there considering options on 110 strokes...

I know they said you turned out to be quite a reasonable person when you joined the others at Bandon, but it is posts like this that make me think you are the lowest living thing on earth.

Does my distaste come through?

Garland,

How can you disagree with the fact that if a guy has to think on 110 strokes in 18 holes it is going to take too long for the good of every other golfer on the course?  They don't build speed bumps on handicap ramps for a reason.

[Garland Bayley]

...
btw....I can't see the game growing or being enjoyable for the general membership if you have some hack out there considering options on 110 strokes...

I know they said you turned out to be quite a reasonable person when you joined the others at Bandon, but it is posts like this that make me think you are the lowest living thing on earth.

Does my distaste come through?

Garland,

How can you disagree with the fact that if a guy has to think on 110 strokes in 18 holes it is going to take too long for the good of every other golfer on the course?  They don't build speed bumps on handicap ramps for a reason.

The human brain is an amazing thing far more powerful than the fastest computers. Thinking is not what slows things down. Taking 110 strokes does not necessarily slow things down. Taking 110 strokes has nothing to do with the good of every other golfer on the course.

I took 114 strokes walking at Bully Pulpit a couple of years ago, and spent more time waiting for the two cart riders that took 85 each.
Those two yahoos stood on the 17th tee debating whether they could clear the creek from there. I took out my 5 wood, teed it up and cleared it comfortably. At least then, we were able to proceed.

[John Kavanaugh]

I took 114 strokes walking at Bully Pulpit a couple of years ago, and spent more time waiting for the two cart riders that took 85 each.
Those two yahoos stood on the 17th tee debating whether they could clear the creek from there. I took out my 5 wood, teed it up and cleared it comfortably. At least then, we were able to proceed.

Those yahoos must have had great short games.

[Garland Bayley]

I took 114 strokes walking at Bully Pulpit a couple of years ago, and spent more time waiting for the two cart riders that took 85 each.
Those two yahoos stood on the 17th tee debating whether they could clear the creek from there. I took out my 5 wood, teed it up and cleared it comfortably. At least then, we were able to proceed.

Those yahoos must have had great short games.

John, John, John,

It is not the score that takes the time. It is the grinding to maximize the score that takes time. This is why the first round at our club championship takes so long. Everyone is grinding. The second day, half the people know they are out of it and the rounds go much faster.

[Joe Hancock]

I'm not trying to get in between you all in your spat, but...

If two people take the same amount of time to hit EACH shot, but one takes 85 shots to complete a round, and the other requires 110 shots, how can that NOT effect the length of the round?

Joe

[Adam Clayman]

The quote that got me thinking was the one about not providing risk for the gambler, versus the chicken. It makes no sense and shows less spirit to continually double penalize an errant shot. It's errant, it's penalty enough.

The outside leg bunker is something Mr. Whitten and I could disagree on for a very long time. His postulating that the 18th at my home course needs those bunkers might prove how diversity can be over-rated.

[Jon Wiggett]

Mike,

What a theoritical load.  Tell me where you want your hazards placed so they make your golfer think.  How far out would you suggest is the best distance for a cross bunker?  btw....I can't see the game growing or being enjoyable for the general membership if you have some hack out there considering options on 110 strokes...

John,

your argument seems to say that over 90% of golfers the course shouldn't be interesting. If we had that then we wouldn't have sites like this one because golf as a sport wouldn't exist. People like to be challenged, even the lesser players.
As to the perfect distance for a bunker, thats just the point. There isn't one, rather it should vary so that every player gets one now and again but no one is bombarded hole after hole.

[John Kavanaugh]

Jon,

Are you telling me now that people who can not break 100 are not challenged by the game?

[Garland Bayley]

I'm not trying to get in between you all in your spat, but...

If two people take the same amount of time to hit EACH shot, but one takes 85 shots to complete a round, and the other requires 110 shots, how can that NOT effect the length of the round?

Joe

Aw Joe, you caught me. If I take less than 30 seconds to hit my shot, and my opponent does the same, I am going to take maybe 10 minutes more than my opponent. This is not the kind of long rounds John is talking about. At this rate we are probably going to finish in under 3 hours. What I am talking about of course is that while I can take less that 30 seconds, the guys shooting 85 take more than a minute to hit a shot. They are playing perhaps a half hour longer than I am. That is what my reference to grinding was all about.

I've got another little secret. Since I play left handed, often my back is to the other player as his is to mine. I play the shot at the same time. Ask the Chambers Bay players about my ball crossing paths with anothers on the 14th green.

Then there is this business about reading a green to determine exactly the path your putt will take from 20 feet. After doing so you make x% of the putts. Take a quick read for general break step up and hit the putt, you are going to make (x-.05)%. Think you can get those 85 shooters to speed up their green reading? I doubt it.

Conclusion: Golf would be a lot better off without all those slow playing 10 handicappers. (I don't think there is any tongue in cheek icon above).
 

[Joe Hancock]

Garland,

An even better conclusion:

All foursomes should consist of two lefties and two righties, for speed of play reasons.

Joe

[Mike_Cirba]

Thanks for the kind words, Tom Doak.

Thanks for the usual feedback, John Kavanaugh, that has spurred some really good retorts from Garland.   This is the type of thread that made GCA an interesting place to be in the first place.

Taking my original thought, I'll go a step further.

The worst thing to happen ever in the history of US golf course architecture was the work that RTJ Sr. did at Oakland Hills, where he removed all the Ross bunkers littered across the landscape at various distances and replaced them uniformly with wasp-waisted, flanking bunkers on each side of the fairway at the brain-dead droning distance of 250-270 yards from the championship tee (which was the usual professional driving distance in those days).

This single effort, which really provided us with the monotonous idea of a modern "Championship Course", with single file fairways and "hit it here and only here" mentality, did a lot more to spur the Dark Ages of rote, unimaginative design than did the Depression and World War II combined.

[SL_Solow]

Let me throw in with Mike Cirba on this one.  While random bunkering can be carried to an extreme thereby increasing maintenance costs significantly, the fact is that the great majority of golfers are not elite players.  Thus courses where the obstacles are designed to challenge only the elite become little more than glorified driving ranges for most players interrupted only by the challenges of the greens and their surrounds.  Clearly, this would make for a much less interesting and engaging game for most players although it might not speed up play as a significant portion of slow play occurs on and around the greens..

Moreover, where would the slippery slope end?  Those of us who are single digit handicaps, or even low single digits, are considered "elite" by many other players but compared to competitive amateurs and professionals we are hacks.  Should hazards designed to challenge us be dispensed with because we are really not good enough to deal with the true challenges of the game?

Barney, I'm really surprised to say this but the slow play issue is just a red herring for some sort of misplaced elitist bias in favor of the "good" player.  Pace of play is impacted by skill (translated to score), time taken to move between shots and time taken to prepare for shots.  Absent a tremendous amount of time spent looking for balls which can be impacted by architecture or a player playing from tees that are beyond his capabilities, the amount of time actually hitting the ball is quite small having little impact on pace of play.  Barring unusual circumstances, the time moving between shots is rarely a significant factor as few people walk or ride much faster than others.  It is the time spent preparing, or more accurately not preparing, that really changes the pace of play.

A final thought.  We all start out as beginners and few of us become proficient right from the start.  If we "dumb down" courses for the less than elite player, how will new players experience the challenge of the game that keeps us comig back? What happens to the better player as he grows older and his skills inevitably deteriorate?  Should he be required to give up the thrill of negotiating obstacles that are challenging for the level of skill that he currently holds?  Must the field of play dictate that the game is no longer interesting? I disagree that the mere challenge of hitting the ball is enough.  If we care about the game; as opposed to caring about our own game; then we should encourage playing venues that engage all levels of players.

[John Kavanaugh]

Let's not lose sight of the fact that my participation on this thread began when Doak suggested that we ignore the needs of the 20 best players in favor of the other 280.  What you refer to as dumbing down I would say is more of a dumbing up...I simply think that when dealing with a game excellence should be rewarded and promoted.  Why not have the best players get the best field?  Maybe I'm just a self loathing golfer but I don't feel that courses should be built to fit my game...I need to elevate my game to fit the course.  There is the challenge and thus the fun.

[JESII]

If we care about the game; as opposed to caring about our own game; then we should encourage playing venues that engage all levels of players.

I think this is great, wonderful thought SL...

This is exactly why I struggle with some architects stated objective of not worrying in the least about the scratch player...I want an architect that is going to work as hard as they can to provide a course that is going to be enjoyable for the player with deteriorating ability, challenging for the scratch, and most of all...motivating and encouraging to the beginner.

Even though it might look random, I would hate to think randomness has much to do with it...

[Brent Hutto]

Even though it might look random, I would hate to think randomness has much to do with it...

Good point. I always dislike the word "random" in this context. I would hope that a good architect will find meaningful opportunities for bunkering at different distances on different holes.

One would think that eliminating the mindless constraint of bunkers located at the expected landing distance of a certain class of golfer would free up the designer to find the best bunker locations on the merits of the particular hole. I would not be in favor of routing the course then throwing darts to add a speckling of "random" fairway bunkers just for the hell of it.

[JESII]

I'm guessing that idea of randomness being good comes from The Old Course...how does the story go of the bunker evolution there?...but when starting anew...please find a reason for them if they're going to be built and maintained...

[John_Cullum]

By and large, a 40 handicap golfer cannot appreciate strategic challenge on the golfcourse. Their shots go all over the place, rarely where intended.

They can appreciate looking at  a course that challenges good players, and I think they can really enjoy beating a ball around it, but to me, it seems like a bad idea to spend effort to dumb down a golf course, excepting limiting some forced carries so that the 40 h/c can get around it

[Garland Bayley]

By and large, a 40 handicap golfer cannot appreciate strategic challenge on the golfcourse. Their shots go all over the place, rarely where intended.
...

Is there something about the name John that makes Johns make such short sighted generalizations? John, have you played with any forty handicappers? The forty handicappers I play with are 80+ in age and pretty much put their shots in the direction they aim them. They just don't go very far.

[JESII]

I don't think it makes sense to ignore anyone. In the "greatest good to the greatest number" model I would think building courses for the middle 60 percent should take precedence with the best 20 percent falling in line next.

[John Kavanaugh]

Shouldn't every architect consider building a set of 7400 yd tees over a set of 2700 yd ones. (18 x 150)

[Steve_ Shaffer]

"By and large, a 40 handicap golfer cannot appreciate strategic challenge on the golfcourse. Their shots go all over the place, rarely where intended." Good point John.

This is what Jack Nicklaus said about trying to design a course for a 110 shooter. It can't be done.

[SL_Solow]

I think the Tom Doak remark is being taken out of context to a significant degree.  Tom did not suggest that one should ignore the needs of the elite player in designing courses.  What I think he suggested was that it was entirely appropriate to avoid disfiguring existing courses and reconfiguring them to benefit a small elite group at the expense of the far greater majority.  Clearly the ideal should be to provide an enjoyable challenge for all classes of players.  There is probably a place for courses catering to the elite and for those catering to beginners.  But most courses should aim at a balance.  Barney, you have created a straw man to justify your prejudice in favor of courses emphasizing difficulty for the elite player.

[Tom_Doak]

Shel:

Thanks for reading what I actually said in the proper context.

I don't believe in ignoring the Tour pros completely -- I do put in some driving hazards for them, too, and of course those nasty green contours affect everyone.  But how much sense does it make for your home club to embark on a multi-million-dollar redesign because Tiger and Phil would drive past all the existing bunkers?  That's what others seemed to be embracing.

It's fine if somebody wants to build a course for good players only.  I've taken jobs like that a couple of times.  But, there are a lot of people who are trying to build for that market when it's not going to serve them well.  Architects are as prone to this mistake as developers, maybe more so, because they keep trying to promise everything to everyone.  But a lot of courses are neither fish nor fowl -- they don't host championships, but the back tees have stretched them out so they're slower to play and difficult to walk.  

I don't like the term "random" bunkering, either.  Whitten has attributed it to me in the past, but perhaps he just can't discern the logic behind not putting the bunkers in the same place on every hole.  We place the bunkers at different distances off the tee, on purpose, so we won't have to keep moving them (or moving the tees) as equipment changes.  Players will just have to worry about fairway bunkering on different holes as their games improve, or decline, or are affected by technology.  Some older courses have this feature, as well.

[Mike Hendren]

 We place the bunkers at different distances off the tee, on purpose, so we won't have to keep moving them (or moving the tees) as equipment changes.  Players will just have to worry about fairway bunkering on different holes as their games improve, or decline, or are affected by technology.  Some older courses have this feature, as well.

Tom, please accept my thanks for your placement of the large right-hand fairway bunker on the 14th at Tumble Creek.  It had been a while since I blew a tee-shot over such a hazard.  The fact that I remember that shot almost a year later is consistent with the argument put forth by Mike Cirba and supported by you and Shel.

Mike

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()