Answering the questions

[Jim Engh]

Firstly, thanks to all that have welcomed me to this site. I am looking forward to having fun and sharing views in both agreement and with hose things upon which we may not agree.

It seems that there are few topics/posts that have addressed questions to me. As my typical state of confusion was being pushed well beyond it's barely 3 digit I.Q. capacity,  I felt it would be best to start a new topic for the sake of efficiency. Some questions have been answered on previous posts. However, if I miss a question, please re-raise the issue.

Tom Paul - Yep it's me. Fun times at Bandon

Gary Daughters - Thanks for the consideration. What's the question?

Michael Dugger - Glad to hear that you like Strantz. Yes, the writing of that era in America was so much more romantic than it is today.  

Kalen Braley - actually my bunker style has evolved quite a bit from the early days and continues to evolve with each project. The origins of the bunkers came from a visit to Royal Portrush in the late 80's. On the opening hole there is a bunker to the left of the landing area. I was quite taken by the way that the ground 'rolled' down into the sand. Certainly that was not the first place that had such bunkers, but it was the first time that they struck me as inspiring. Thus the first part of my muscle bunkers, the roll, was formed. The noses and slender nature came from my belief that my profession is more about art forms and human spaces than the creation of a field on which to play a game. I began to noticed that many of the bunkers in golf were shaped and sized in similar proportion to that of the surrounding greens complex. One of the primary elements of a pleasurable human experience is the introduction of variety and uniqueness. Therefore, I chose to make my bunkers as a point of variety and accent. The narrow fissure shapes accomplished that in the second dimension. It was the adding of the muscles that gave it full third dimension, visual character. The human memory works only in 'still-frame' images. This style of bunker then allowed me to place the bunkers within the human visual cone in order to capture the frozen picture of the experience without moving the eye ball.

CRAZY STUFF! I'M NOT EVEN SURE IF I BELIEVE THAT PILE OF #^&$@^*!!!!

"Anyway, officer, that's my story and I'm sticking to it".

The earlier versions of my bunkers like Red Hawk Ridge and Sanctuary are far removed from those of today. We have introduced 'layback bays' that allow for mellow slopes into the bunker between the 'muscles' to allow better access. However, this is not always possible.

Cliff Hamm - Thanks. Medicine Hole is very special to me. I have known most of those guys since I was a kid. Wonderful people. There was a lot of generosity besides us. Tom Bauerle from Colorado Golf and Turf donated a fairway mower to them!

Andy Troeger - that style of green ( Pradera 6th and Redlands Mesa 5th)was inspired/invented out of necessity. I was standing with standing with Wayne Metcalf in the 8th fairway at Sanctuary as they were building the green. It is a dramatically uphill hole and had no vision to the green surface, so we decided to build a 'false front' to get vision to the putting surface as a point of reference. Upon completion, I chose to contiue the false front down further and create a small pinable area on the shelf/bowl. As is typical with trying new ideas, I did not get it quite right the first time and wanted to keep perfecting the idea. Selfishly, I employed that style at Pradera simply because I really find it fun to play. And it is my home course.

Brian Ewan - I designed Dragon Hills in Thailand as my first project after leaving IMG. I did design the Isao Aoki course at Dragon Hills for IMG. Not sure that was ever built?

Steve Sayer - Someone is more 'green' than I? Wow that's GREEN! Belmullet bunkering is an interesting question. The original Eddie Hackett course has very few bunkers and because of the spectacular nature of the landforms the ones that are there, are little noticed. It has been my approach on this particular project, to find the holes within the tremndous setting and locate bunker (of the Hackett style) after the fact. I suppose this type of approach brings up a bigger question. Is the cart before the horse with this logic?

Early in my career I was taught a certain way to do things and you controlled how a hole is 'supposed to be played'. Bunkers are placed at this distance from the tees, bunkers are this far from a green edge, and so on....  With inspiration from my passion of Irish links golf I have, over the years, come to realize that it is ok to not have to control everything. In other words, its ok to not pre-determine the 'right way' to play a hole. I really like the idea of finding or even creating tremendously unique landforms that have no 'key'. They must be 'experienced' many times before you find 'a path' that works for you. The randomness of nature is a beautiful thing! !&$@(^$$% ??

Sorry boys the 70's were tough on brain cells.
 
Jordan Wall - Yep! Forrest Fezler is the guy that wore shorts in the US Open. Wonderful and talented guy. He came to Ireland with my guys and I. Helped with the routing/non-routing at Carne.

Greg Murphy - Medicine Hole. Thanks.

Adam Clayman - Hey! Bowling For Soup rocks!!!

RJ Daley - Thanks. Projects like Medicine Hole are fun to do and warm for the soul. If only life were so simple. FYI. Our newest project Four Mile Ranch was constructed on a shoestring and will sport $45 green fees.

Mike Nuzzo - It was great to meet you in the desert this fall. Yes we have no sand bunkers on Four Mile Ranch. They just didn't seem to fit.

"Of course, I will share my meds with the others".

George Pazin - nope no bunkers.

Doug Ralston - Sorry,can't get Lakota any closer to Cincinnati.

John Conley - not a regular guy!!?? I'll have you know that during the snowed in time of last years blizzards we had SHOP parties in the neighborhood. Yes, a blind taste test of Schlitz, Hamms, Oly and Pabst. Nobody won!!!!

By the way, a five year old in hockey is the coolest thing ever. Get lots of video.  

Paul Cowley - that was a very cool topic to get started. I consider my profession to the creation of human spaces. Thus I suppose it is art. Would that make me both theorist and experimentalist or neither?

Bill Satterfield - I certainly remember the fun round that we had at Black Rock. Hope we can do it again somewhere. The Creek Club at Reynolds Plantation presented several issues that were unique to that project. The most significant being that I had to follow the work of some pretty talented people. It was my single most goal to create a course that was unique and different to the point of not being understood. I had tried to create something that is so far out of the normal spectrum of golf that it must be played many times to understand. I also acknowledge that some may never get it. Certainly that concept does not play into the hands of magazine ratings, as those raters tyically may play a course only one time.

The concept for the 18th hole at CC evolved in a similar fashion to that of the 8th green at Sanctuary. I made a decision. Then I changed it. Then I changed it again. Finally, I could not decide which green setting was the best. So I said, heck let's do all three. It's that simple. It was important to me that all three of the greens be of differing styles. Personally, I like the idea of having flags in all three greens and each player chooses the green that they play to. The staff at CC thinks that's too out there. They do however, humor me and put in three flags when I play.              

 Thanks y'all

Jim

                                       

[PThomas]

based on that beer party you described Jim, if we ever meet I'LL buy the beers!

[Andy Troeger]

Andy Troeger - that style of green ( Pradera 6th and Redlands Mesa 5th)was inspired/invented out of necessity. I was standing with standing with Wayne Metcalf in the 8th fairway at Sanctuary as they were building the green. It is a dramatically uphill hole and had no vision to the green surface, so we decided to build a 'false front' to get vision to the putting surface as a point of reference. Upon completion, I chose to contiue the false front down further and create a small pinable area on the shelf/bowl. As is typical with trying new ideas, I did not get it quite right the first time and wanted to keep perfecting the idea. Selfishly, I employed that style at Pradera simply because I really find it fun to play. And it is my home course.
                                       

Jim,
Thanks for the response, it makes sense seeing that both holes at Redlands and Pradera have uphill approaches as well. I four-putted from the bottom level at Pradera because my second putt was longer than the first one, but I agree its a fun design to play. I hope to get to Sanctuary next summer so I look forward to seeing the original version.

I may be called nuts for comparing anything to a GCA-revered hole, but the bottom level reminds me a bit of green at the 16th at Pasatiempo after the restoration so that was why I asked.

[Ryan Farrow]

Jim, I got one to add to the list if you don't mind answering.




Have you ever tried to mow one of your bunkers?


I ask this after spending a summer on Oakmont's grounds crew. Trying to fly-mow steep grass faced bunkers, much like your style on that level. Ive seen rotary mowers flip over, people slide down the banks, hands almost getting fly mowed, the list goes on. That experience alone has forever changed me and I will never design a steep grassed face bunker because of it. I'd just like to hear your thoughts on the subject.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Jim, I either read or heard that you designed courses for carts because 90 per cent of golfers take a cart.  Any truth?

[Kyle Henderson]

Sir Engh,

My questions:

1- When you make your initial evaluation of a site, do you try to envision how you might incorporate "Engh template holes" into the routing or do you try to fit unique holes to the landscape while incorporating your trademark visual styling (e.g. the muscle bunkers)?

2-As you didn't believe bunkers would fit with the property at Four Mile Ranch, do you believe there are other land forms that would contrast with your muscle bunkering in a way that would compel you to construct a different style of sand hazard?

3- Do you have the desire to "tinker with" your early designs now that you've had time to work out the kinks in the implementation of some of those concepts (e.g. th 8th green at Sanctuary)?


Thanks for indulging me/The Tree House.

[Jordan Wall]

Jim,

Working with Fez.

Thats gotta put you in the top three coolest architects ever.

Thats worth something at least.
Right? RIGHT?
 

Cheers,
Jordan

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen Braley - actually my bunker style has evolved quite a bit from the early days and continues to evolve with each project. The origins of the bunkers came from a visit to Royal Portrush in the late 80's. On the opening hole there is a bunker to the left of the landing area. I was quite taken by the way that the ground 'rolled' down into the sand. Certainly that was not the first place that had such bunkers, but it was the first time that they struck me as inspiring. Thus the first part of my muscle bunkers, the roll, was formed. The noses and slender nature came from my belief that my profession is more about art forms and human spaces than the creation of a field on which to play a game. I began to noticed that many of the bunkers in golf were shaped and sized in similar proportion to that of the surrounding greens complex. One of the primary elements of a pleasurable human experience is the introduction of variety and uniqueness. Therefore, I chose to make my bunkers as a point of variety and accent. The narrow fissure shapes accomplished that in the second dimension. It was the adding of the muscles that gave it full third dimension, visual character. The human memory works only in 'still-frame' images. This style of bunker then allowed me to place the bunkers within the human visual cone in order to capture the frozen picture of the experience without moving the eye ball.

CRAZY STUFF! I'M NOT EVEN SURE IF I BELIEVE THAT PILE OF #^&$@^*!!!!

"Anyway, officer, that's my story and I'm sticking to it".

The earlier versions of my bunkers like Red Hawk Ridge and Sanctuary are far removed from those of today. We have introduced 'layback bays' that allow for mellow slopes into the bunker between the 'muscles' to allow better access. However, this is not always possible.
                                       

Jim,

Thanks for the response. I had heard your bunkers called "muscle" bunkers before, but didn't know if you had coined the term or not. Interesting story about thier origin/genesis. And in no way is this the only trouble to be found on your courses as I've been in a couple of really mean pot bunkers that was essentially a wedge max to clear the lip and try to get up and down from there.

I have another question for you seeing how you are humoring us for now.  What can you tell us about the front 9 at Lakota Canyon in terms of the before and after?  There are some really spectacular holes on the front and I'm curious how much dirt moving you had to do to make it work.  And the eagles nest back tee on 8, was that in the original plans, or did you just wonder how high people would hike to hit a tee ball?    

[Mike Nuzzo]

Thanks Jim,
That was quite the response to everyone.

I'm very interested to hear about the bunkerless project.

I found the 4 mile ranch site and checked out the virtual tour.  Obviously that was done during planning as it had pot and muscle bunkers - can I call them inverted centepede bunkers in stead?

How did the decision to go bunkerless come about and when in the process did it happen?

Could you share a routing plan and or pictures?

I was glad to have met you as well.
Cheers

[Tim Bert]

Welcome, Jim.  I apologize if this has already been asked.  There seem to be several threads focusing on your appearance here and I'm not sure I'm up to speed on all of them.

My question is have you been a lurker on GCA?  If so, for how long and what finally put you over the edge to sign up as a member?  If not, then how did you hear about the site and what is it that brought you here?

Thanks - I look forward to your contributions.

[Mike_Cirba]

Have you ever tried to mow one of your bunkers?

I ask this after spending a summer on Oakmont's grounds crew. Trying to fly-mow steep grass faced bunkers, much like your style on that level. Ive seen rotary mowers flip over, people slide down the banks, hands almost getting fly mowed, the list goes on. That experience alone has forever changed me and I will never design a steep grassed face bunker because of it. I'd just like to hear your thoughts on the subject.

Holy Batman, Ryan...what a two-faced, hypocritical kid you seem to be!  

I say this because just two weeks ago you tore into me because I had the audacity to say that the new Fazio bunkers at Oakmont are an eyesore, and totally unnatural looking and probably boring and repetitive from a playability standpoint and I saw absolutely NO reason for them to have been created.  At that time I saw no  reason to even get into the maintenance and maintainability issues because they were as obvious as an inkspot in a Rohrschacht test.

During that discussion, you called the original bunkers, that had stood the test of time for...oh...a century or so..."BORING", if memory serves.

Instead, you defended to the hilt the rote, thick-grassed faced, repetitive, bowl-and-mound bunkers that now dot that beautiful landscape as if they offered something interesting and strategic and worthwhile to that exceptional routing and wonderful piece of property and now..;

Now...you wouldn't reproduce them?!"!"!???

 

The thing is, you're right this time.

Just be willing to accept the truth when it isn't politically correct or expedient.


Sorry Jim, for taking the thread in this direction, but my blood pressure just went up 20 points in reading Ryan's question.  

Didn't I tell you this was a fun place?!?  

[Ryan Farrow]

Cirba, I said before that I have mixed feeling about various things at Oakmont.

And to get you even more upset you'd be happy to know that Kyle introduced me to a great aerial site for the state of Pennsylvania and after seeing a 1938 aerial of Oakmont........get this...... I completely hate the course as it is right now! Well not completely but I am just disappointed in how it has evolved. Oakmont seems to have been a strategic gem back in the golden age. Number 17 looked like one of the best holes I have ever seen with the old fairway lines and bunkering. It would have put 10 at Rivera to shame, but today, its just a penal golf hole.

Sorry I got off line there but to easy your nerves, and I said this before, the renovated bunkers look better than they did before and  reclaimed the original intent of the bunkers penal nature. And I said this before, I would not have gone that way but the Fazio team and Oakmont did. I'm just calling it like it is. And I wouldn't call Oakmont a wonderful piece of property, it was average at best. But the Fownes really produced a true gem.

[Mike_Cirba]

Ryan,

Now at least we're talking, but I prefer to be called Mike.

I would really like to hear more of your ideas, and I think we're coming from the same place in that we both love and respect what Oakmont has been historically, what it has today, and what it can/should be at it's best.

You don't have to hate anything...just be willing to see and state that some things can be improved, while giving full props to those things that have been done that are tremendously visionary and greatness affirming.    

As Patrick Mucci sometimes states, the price of greatness is eternal vigilance, and I think that while 95% of the course is where it needs to be, that only makes the 5% all the more glaring.

Mike

[Ryan Farrow]

Sorry for the name thing but if your user name was a little more clear I would have been using Mike, I wasn't 100 % sure it was.  

And you can call me Farrow if you want, I actually prefer it. Kyle and I will be starting a thread in the near future about Oakmont. Expect some Overlays of aerials and some harsh words about the Oakmont we know and love today. And the massive bunker that was on number 2, it wasn't boring from the aerial!!!

Anyways, no need to terrorize the thread, the hijacking ends here:

[David Stamm]

 It would have put 10 at Rivera to shame, but today, its just a penal golf hole.

 

Let's not get carried away Ryan. 10 was and is one of the, if not THE greatest short par 4 in all of golf.

[Ryan Farrow]

David #10 is not even the best golf hole at Riviera. Ok, maybe it wouldn't put number 10 to shame but.... maybe your right. I apologize.

[Jim Nugent]

10 was and is one of the, if not THE greatest short par 4 in all of golf.

I keep hearing that, David, from people who know way more than I do about golf course architecture.  I also remember Bob Huntley saying there is only one smart way to play the hole: lay up and pitch on.  That was true in the late 1980's and early 1990's when I went to a few L.A. Opens there.

Never played the hole, but from the gallery I don't understand its greatness.    

[Brian_Ewen]

Jim
Thanks for the reply .

The main reason I asked was that Faldo's name may be listed as the designer of Great Lake in Thailand , but I was never sure if it was yourself or Britt Stenson that really did the work ?

Best Regards
Brian

[David Stamm]

David #10 is not even the best golf hole at Riviera. Ok, maybe it wouldn't put number 10 to shame but.... maybe your right. I apologize.

Ryan, there's no need to apologize. I haven't played Oakmont, but I'm sure 17 is a great hole, as witnessed at the Open. My point was that I'm sure it doesn't put 10 at Riviera to shame. I'm sure it it gives it a good run for it's money!

[David Stamm]

10 was and is one of the, if not THE greatest short par 4 in all of golf.

I keep hearing that, David, from people who know way more than I do about golf course architecture.  I also remember Bob Huntley saying there is only one smart way to play the hole: lay up and pitch on.  That was true in the late 1980's and early 1990's when I went to a few L.A. Opens there.

Never played the hole, but from the gallery I don't understand its greatness.    

I can't argue with Mr Huntley. That is probably the correct way of playing the hole. I will say that a player who is a long hitter can be tempted to go for the green. Just ask Kavanaugh. The player is presented with so many options on the tee. There are those who would say the hole has gotten better with newer technology. I really can't say. It's a great hole to me because of the thinking the player is asked to do on the tee shot.

[Kirk Gill]

Jim, one topic that seems to come up a lot when discussing your courses is the notion of "gathering," or the concave shape of fairways and green surrounds. I've heard folks say that this reduces the amount of skill necessary to play your courses, and I wonder if you could comment on that. I've found, on the two courses of yours that I've had an opportunity to play, that there are convex and concave surfaces, and that there is a gathering effect in some places, and a repelling effect in others.

And on those greens where you've set them into a hillside, say, or there is a "bowl" effect around them, could you address how maintenance practices affect whether or not those features make the hole easier to play, or more difficult to play?

Please forgive the nitpicky questions. I HAVE been accused by some of thinking too much.  

[Mark_Fine]

Jim was kind enough to do an interview for our hazards book and many of his thoughts on bunkers, etc are covered there.  Jim was also one of the first guys I spoke to about the golf design business.  He was very encouraging and reminded me that the most important thing was to have fun with it.  Good advice  

Welcome to the site Jim!

[Noel Freeman]

Jim

I had the pleasure of playing Pradera this past summer with some friends and your design associate Tim H.

We noticed that the course features well placed and very imposing central bunkering but there seems to be an upslope going into them from the tee facing side and a lot of heavy grass in their surrounds.

We mentioned to Tim that these features seem to be "anti-gathering" and you almost need to fly the ball into them to have a ball hit into these bunkers and we asked if this was by design. He replied that you did this on purpose and the design intent was "not to punish members good shots".  Your quote from above "The noses and slender nature came from my belief that my profession is more about art forms and human spaces than the creation of a field on which to play a game." seems to be in line with what Tim told us.  Are these imposing looking (and playing if you get in them) bunkers really more for art and eye candy then for playing the game?  Given that you said your "muscle bunkers" were inspired at Royal Portrush which certainly are gathering bunkers that were designed as hazards I wonder if you could explain a bit more about your design intent with regard to the bunkering schemes at your courses?

Thanks for your participation.

[Gary Daughters]

Jim,

Thanks for plunging in so enthusiastically.

My question is whether you have been engaged to toughen The Creek Club, and if so what you might consider doing.  I heard mention that a number of members were alarmed at their handicaps dropping.

Gary

[Jim Engh]

Paul - I hope we one day get that oppotunity. Thanks.

Andy - certainly that green may allow you the 'opportunity to four putt on occaision. Don't feel bad, the first time putting from the bottom to the top the ball does not make it up the hill 95% of the time (I have six putted the 8th at Sanctuary. Actually, five putts and a chip). You have to learn to hit it hard enough to get up the hill. It's not a shot that you find on most courses, but I suppose that is what makes it interesting to me. If the hole is placed on the lower shelf, things get even more interesting. Hit the ball within that shelf and you have a shortish, yet heavily breaking birdie putt. If you hit the ball to the top level, the possibliity of a bogey is quite real. You have to be very creative to figure out how to hit that putt. It usually takes several times on the hole before you figure it out.

Ryan - I have in fact had the great pleasure of mowing my bunker faces. Certainly, a flymow is rquired and I find that old golf shoes with real spikes is helpful. The secret, as we have discovered, with these bunkers is to use growth regulators to slow the speed of grass growth. This allows for us to do the required mowing once every two weeks and in some cases every three weeks. Like you I to spent many years on a golf course maintenance crew. My biggest pain in the rear end dealt with flashed bunkers and the 'daily' chore of having to rake/shovel/compact the sand back onto the steep slopes after it washed down from irrigation or rain. Upon reflection, I suppose that my design tastes also were influenced by that experience.

Compared to the flashed bunker style, my superintendents have told me that ours are easier to maintain?  

Tommy - I suppose that I have said that on certain courses, you get 90% cart use. This is especially true in the mountains. However, I would not say that I design courses for carts. Much as with every element of the design process, I give them great consideration. Like it or not, much of the overall experience of the golfer will be gathered from the seat of a cart. If you don't consider that issue, you are missing an opportunity to be better. I simply choose to make an effort to present my work in a positive manner from the cart paths.

I am a guy that carries an old canvas Ping Sunday bag, takes six clubs to Ireland and plays in Merrill hiking boots. My heart lies with most of you guys on the walking issue.  However, I simply cannot ignore the realities of my profession.

Kyle -1. during the initial stages of reviewing a property, my sole focus is to location 'hot spots". These are significant points of character within the land. In those areas I mostly try to let the features determine the design of the hole. When connecting those hot spots with other golf holes, I take a little different approach. Many of these connectors must be created on sometimes nondescript land forms and the creation of a manmade concept is required.

       2. View the reply to Mike Nuzzo below.

       3. I am fortunate that I don not get the urge to tinker very often. Not because I feel that the work is 'that good', but  because I believe that the nuances of a golf course give it a personality. That is most likely why I like Carne so much. "it's so crazy it's bad and so bad it's perfect"                

Jordan - Fuz is a very cool guy to get to hang with.

Kalen - Regarding the term "muscle bunker", I honestly don't remember if it was myself or Ron Whitten that first called them that. It may have been both during a conversation. Sorry, I can't remember.

The front nine at Lakota Canyon is contained within two seperate canyons. We had to carve a little hear and there, but no real major long haul excavation. It was funky in the west valley (holes 5-9) because it was a drainageway for the mountains to the north. The 100 year storm event was something like 2500cfs. That is a lot of water. We had to create  a drain channel to accomodate that water.

The back tee at no. 8 was placed there because, due to the size of the valley, it was the only place to put it. It is a very cool view and tee shot, but a pig of walk up.

Mike - Four Mile Ranch was originally designed with our typical bunkers in mind. The property is so unique with an odd sort of character that I began to look at different bunker style concepts. We experimented with several options, but nothing inspired me. Then one day with my associate, Mitch Scarborough, we decided that we really liked the predominant land forms on the land. We call them 'hogbacks'. They are wedge shaped escarpments that slope at 15%-20% with vertical drops at the highest point. They stand from 3' - 30' high. Much like the three greens at Creek Club, it was my indecision that got us to the point of deciding to go the  different direction of, "let's preserve / construct these hogbacks as our hazards/obstacles/visual impact features". The hogbacks are covered with small, thin wafer like white limestone rocks. Additionally, they have sparse plantings of grasses and native vegetation.

For the most part the site is so unique that visual impact features may not even be necessary. Oh well, here we go!

Tim - I have viewed on this site and supported Ran with periodic donations since the very early days. I joined in order to reply to a post with which I took issue.    

Brian - I believe that Nick might have done that with Stan Eby but it could have been Britt. That was completed after I left in 1991.

Kirk - my first priority is to create an experience that is unique and fun. As a general statement I feel that golf is more fun as a gathering game than as a repelling game. One of the added benefits of this concept is that I get to be more creative. For example, let's say that the difficulty of a golf course is represented by a $1 bill. If you went to extreme and designed all of your features to be repelling, with the ball shedding away, you would use up 90cents of that dollar bill of difficulty just on that single design concept. In theory it would leave you with only 10 cents with which to be creative and outside of the box. On the other hand, if you design to a reaonable level of the gathering concept, you would only use , in theory, 40 cents of the difficulty. This in turn would leave you with 60 cents to be craetive with different and out of the box concepts. Both courses would, in theory, have the same $1 bill of difficulty, but the gathering concept would be more unique and interesting to play.

I know, what a load of ^#@(&%*$@$

Although most of my recent work has a good number of greens that are elevated in nature, I still design strong bowl greens as a matter of fun. Is it possible for errant shots to bounce toward that greens from the edges? Yep! Is it also possible for those same shots to stick up high on the banks when the grass is let to go longer? Yep! And oh boy, is that a tough shot. That simple factor, rough height around the greens, can modify the difficulty of the golf course by a lot of strokes. Is that good? Would you like to play a course that plays differently every week?

I like to think that my courses have a 'sense of humor' and you may need a creative side to fully 'get them'. I know that some may miss this point. However,the hope is that a bunch of us will get to go for a cool ride.      

Mark - Greetings!