How do you define playable?

[George Pazin]

Last week's question was about interesting.

This week it's about playability.

How do you define playable, for all levels of golfers? (Please note the comma, separating the two.)

I'll share my thoughts shortly, gotta go clean some screens (damn those clients!). I thought I'd give you guys a head start.

[George Pazin]

Not even a nibble!

Anyway, I'll forge on.

To me, playable is virtually the same for everyone - can you finish the hole with the same ball you started? (Within reason - I can't hold the fact that I'm capable of hitting a ball 100 yards offline against the course.)

It's not remotely related to scoring. I can get beat up on a hole, or a course, and still enjoy it, if I'm not losing balls and determining drop spots all day long. Constantly reloading just doesn't feel like golf to me. The shots and holes can be brutally difficult, ala Carnoustie or Oakmont, but if I'm only changing balls because I'm hoping to get lucky , I still consider the course playable.

Anyone else can to share?

[David_Tepper]

Didn't A.Mackenzie define playable as being able to play a hole with a putter?

[Tom_Doak]

George:

To me "playable" includes giving the average golfer a chance to hit his ball onto the greens from 100-150 yards away.  If they've got to fly a bunker or water to get there and can't hold the green from any angle, that's not my idea of playable.

I share your dislike of lost-ball hazards but I'll forgive them occasionally if they produce a compelling hole.

[George Pazin]

I share your dislike of lost-ball hazards but I'll forgive them occasionally if they produce a compelling hole.

You're right, of course - an occasional one isn't bad, I just don't like when they are a dominant feature of a course.

David -

There's a famous story about Mackenzie, where someone criticised a hole, saying it wasn't great because it could be played with a putter. He then retorted something like "A hole can't be great UNLESS it can be played with a putter." He even went so far as to relate a time someone (presumably not Shivas)  played the 16th at Cypress Point with a putter, thereby confirming the hole's greatness in his mind.

[Dan_Callahan]

George:

To me "playable" includes giving the average golfer a chance to hit his ball onto the greens from 100-150 yards away.  If they've got to fly a bunker or water to get there and can't hold the green from any angle, that's not my idea of playable.

One of the great things about golf is there's always room to get better.

For the beginner golfer, there is nothing more terrifying than hitting over water—even if only from 100 yards. But they are never going to get better unless they are forced to conquer that fear. It's like teaching a kid how to ride a bike. They are going to fall and might even end up with a skinned knee or a bruised ego. But before long they are riding around with barely a memory of former wipeouts.

Golf is no different. I think it is important for the architect to take away the training wheels on occasion. Force the player to hit a shot that makes him feel really uncomfortable. He might hate it at first, but when he succeed, he will have a feeling of accomplishment far greater than any success achieved by dinking the ball down the fairway ad nauseum.

[Ted Kramer]

In my mind, playable has everything to do with a lack of:

forced carries
ob
high rough

I'd call Pac Dunes great and very playable.
I'd call Bethpage Black great.

-Ted

[Tom_Doak]

Dan C:  Do you sell golf balls for a living?

[Andy Troeger]

I agree that playability goes far beyond just losing golf balls. You might have a really deep bunker thats hard to get out of that's not particularly playable, but you are most likely not going to lose the ball.

Same with green complexes. Severe greens might be fun, but if they go borderline over the top they might not earn high "playability" marks from me. It may not be fun for someone to dump golf balls into a pond, but five putting can't be that much fun either.

[Dan_Callahan]

Dan C:  Do you sell golf balls for a living?

Ha! Nope. I must admit there was a time when preparing for the heroic shot over water I would swap balls from a Titleist to a beat up Top Flight. Kind of a Murphy's Law of golf: A new ProV will find the water 90% of the time while a scuffed Top Flight refuses to be lost.

[George Pazin]

I guess I'm just not confident enough of my own capabilities to ever call a bunker unplayable, or a green un-puttable (goofy hole locations aside, of course).

Dan, I kind of understand what you're saying, but I can make a 200 yard carry with ease - but unfortunately only probably 50% of the time. It's almost a random thing, and the times that I do pull it off, it's just not that exciting; in fact, it's no more exciting for me than just hitting the same shot over land. How often are you faced with a carry that is both daunting and realistically do-able? For me, the answer is almost never.

[Dan_Callahan]

George,

I agree with you about the 200-yard shot. In my mind, that's okay on a par 5 for the second when you need to decide if the 50% success rate is worth bringing into play the 50% failure rate. On a par 4 or even par 3, it becomes unplayable for the average golfer.

What I had in mind was a response to Tom's point about not forcing the average golfer to fly water or a bunker from 100 to 150 yards. To require that repeatedly over 18 holes is bad design, in my opinion. However, forcing the average player to hit that shot once in a round doesn't rise to the level of unplayable, I think.

As much as I love options, I also like it when the architect puts a shot in front of you for which there is only one route—kind of like being called to the front of the class and asked to answer a math question for which there is only one right answer.

[Garland Bayley]

...
For the beginner golfer, there is nothing more terrifying than hitting over water—even if only from 100 yards. But they are never going to get better unless they are forced to conquer that fear. ...

(Emphasis added)
Poppycock! This has to be true for such a small percentage of golfers that it is not worth architects time to consider it.

At least 99.99% of all golfers get better without architects putting forced carries in their way. All the forced carry does is take the fun out of the course or hole for those that haven't reached the stage of advancement where they can confidently carry it.

[George Pazin]

Dan, I'm inclined to side with Garland on this one.

I can make a 100 yard carry with my pitching wedge, even a good percentage of the time. When I do so, I feel zero sense of accomplishment for carrying the water; my only sense of gratification comes from whether or not I hit it onto the green, especially in a favorable position, which really would be the same even if the terrain covered was 100% fairway.

And when I chunk it into the drink, I can't help but feel that having to play another shot from 50 or so yards out from the green is more than punishment enough for my misplay.

Don't get me wrong - an occasional forced carry won't ruin a course for me, there are plenty of courses I love that have them. I just don't particularly see the point of a modest one.

My home muni has a hole that happens to be my favorite on the course - the 15th is a 200 yard par 3, over a fairly deep valley, with plenty of bailout room to the left, and trees and woods to the left. But it is darn near 100% playable from both the valley and the woods. Tough shots, where you're likely losing more than one stroke, but at least you're not estimating where you crossed the hazard so you can do a legal drop!

[Dan_Callahan]

Let me make sure I understand correctly.

Are you saying that the 17th at Sawgrass and 12th at Augusta are unplayable under your definition because both holes require forced carries of about 150 yards? Would you really take the water out of those holes so that the average player has the opportunity to recover rather than lose a ball? You really think the average player doesn't have an enormous feeling of accomplishment having successfully landed on one of those greens?

[Phil McDade]

Dan:

I haven't played either hole, only seen them on TV.

I think hitting either green would give players a sense of accomplishment. But I think the 17th at TPC is just pure gimmickry, and nothing else. The 12th at Augusta is one of the great natural par 3s I've ever seen -- a slightly downhill shot (not a drop shot par 3), over an angled creek to a wide but shallow green with a variety of pin positions, trouble with sand long, death really long, and (presumably) difficult winds to judge.

If given a chance to play both, I think I'd have a much greater sense of accomplishment in hitting the green at Augusta than TPC.

[David Stamm]

In the vein of the Dr. himself, the course that gives the most pleasure to the broadest numbers of golfers. To me, it's as simple as that.

[George Pazin]

Let me make sure I understand correctly.

Are you saying that the 17th at Sawgrass and 12th at Augusta are unplayable under your definition because both holes require forced carries of about 150 yards? Would you really take the water out of those holes so that the average player has the opportunity to recover rather than lose a ball? You really think the average player doesn't have an enormous feeling of accomplishment having successfully landed on one of those greens?

Excellent questions.

First of all, I wouldn't change anything on those holes, and I would say the average golfer would feel a sense of accomplishment on those - heck, I would, too. I think even the pros do. Well, maybe not accomplishment, probably more like relief.

Having said that, I'd guess (haven't had the pleasure of playing it) that TPC Sawgrass is absolutely unplayable under my definition, and I'll stick with that. There appear to be opportunities for losing balls on every hole.

In a perfect world - an "ideal" course, if it exists - there wouldn't be any water on those holes. I personally would prefer a deep bunker surrounding the 17th at TPC, but I'm guessing I'm not just in the minority on that one, I might be the only one.

I don't have a problem with 1, maybe 2 "unplayable" holes (under my definition, but I have a big problem where it's present on the vast majority of holes.

[Garland Bayley]

Let me make sure I understand correctly.

Are you saying that the 17th at Sawgrass and 12th at Augusta are unplayable under your definition because both holes require forced carries of about 150 yards? Would you really take the water out of those holes so that the average player has the opportunity to recover rather than lose a ball? You really think the average player doesn't have an enormous feeling of accomplishment having successfully landed on one of those greens?

I haven't played either. I imagine there is a way to lay up at the 12th, whereas there is no way to lay up at the 17th. The original statement was about conquering fear about hitting over water. The people that have that fear probably aren't going to waste their money playing Sawgrass. Furthermore, the problem with Sawgrass is not that it is a forced carry. The problem is it is all penal. We have a driving range with an Island green at 150 yards near here. As I high handicapper, I was always able to make the carry. However, I still rinsed half the balls. Fortunately, I was only renting them.  

[Richard Boult]

I'm a relatively new golfer (2 years) and from my perspective, a hole like the 17th at Sawgrass or PGAWest is reason enough to play the course. Don't underestimate the fun we newbies have in making a must-make shot over water.  I played PGA West last year from the whites, but played that single hole from the back tees to get the full experience. I hit the green and 2 putted for par. I don't even remember any of the other holes.

At my home course, Monarch Dunes, the par 3 8th requires a carry over water to reach the green, but provides a stretch of fairway to the left for those choosing to layup.  In over 100 rounds of play, I've NEVER seen anyone layup... even the guy I played with who put 5 shots in a row into the drink and finished with a 13 on the hole.

Anyone choosing to play a competition level course should be able to carry a 150 yard hazard.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Anyone choosing to play a competition level course should be able to carry a 150 yard hazard.

As George says, isn't being penalized by the 50 yard dribbler enough? What is the point of the 150 yard hazard? Show how much hair you have on your chest? How many 150 yard hazards resulting in lost ball and penalty stroke do you find on the great links courses of the world? (you know, the origins of golf)

Why should I leave my dad or my wife on anyone else behind just so I can play a "competition level course"? If courses without such nonsense are good enough for The Open Championship, then they are good enough for me.  

[George Pazin]

Anyone choosing to play a competition level course should be able to carry a 150 yard hazard.

The issue isn't being able to carry one, it's providing playability for golfers who simply aren't consistent, for whatever reason.

Plenty of golfers can carry 150 yard hazard, quite easily even, but don't necessarily do so consistently.

Conversely, does it provide any challenge whatsoever to a low digit handicapper? Nope, it's almost trivial.

I'd relish a chance to play TPC Sawgrass or PGA West once in a while, but not on a regular basis.

[Matt MacIver]

Black Mesa - 1st hole - BIG hill must be carried to find the fairway.  Not really a hazard, but no doubt hazardous and a possible round (or enjoyment) wrecker if you get yourself psyched out enough that you can't clear it.  

Which is what happened to my buddy.  Got too anxious, didn't clear it, hated the hole and subsequently the course, and of course I pointed out to him pointless times throughout the rest of the round: "See, that one would have cleared!".  

So the hole was physically playable, but not mentally.  Good hole.  

[Garland Bayley]

Matt,

Doesn't pass George's playability test. Hit it offline over that hill and kiss your ball goodbye, you will never find it.

[Jim_Kennedy]

George,
Congratulations, you've narrowed it down to about 7 golf courses that are playable.