Is it possible to design a course for the 20 handicap and the + handicap golfer?

[Sean_A]

I don't think anybody ever designed a course for everybody, it's a totally false statement from any architect... hell is the Old Course was for the 20 + handicap, it wouldn't be OB right all the way...

I think you can designed a course for everybody who kind of has an idea of where is golf ball is going... the rest of the players, give them good green contours, plenty of rooom to run the ball on the greens and some width...

you'll never make a course wide enough for everybody...

you can think about design for a tour calibre player, decent club players, an old men who hits the ball consistently 130 yards, but there's no way you can specifically design a course for the big stupid cart-player who step on every tee and wak the driver as hardas he can...

that's where the teaching of golf is really off the world, you have to teach people how to play golf, not make nice swings... even if that mean showing to a 6 feet 200 pounds guy to half swing the ball to hit a ball 140 yards with 10 yards of fade to start with...

All the mechanics and technique is relevant to somebody who can play golf...

Phillipe

The question concerned 20 cappers.  These aren't good golfers, but they will certainly have some experience of the game advanced well beyond the beginner level.  If the question is "Can a course be built for everybody?" - I agree with you.  There is no such animal, but I am not so sure I would want to see that animal if it did exist!  

Ciao

Ciao

[Philippe Binette]

the question is for the 20 and + handicap... remember also that there is plenty of ways to shoot 92...
some people shoot 92 with the ability to hit the ball 260 yards, and some just think their way aroud hitting the ball around 120 yards.

The best players I've seen in that regard, when I was 12 yeras old, a friend of mine was shooting consistently in the mid to high 80's, with hos solid drive of 125 yards on a 5900 par 71 course.

I think it would be easoer to visualize planning a course (some aspects of it) for that kid than for somebody who has no consistency in his game, hitting a 20 yard pull, followed by a topped drive, by a 60 yard slice...

Architect I think have model golfers when talking...

Tour calibre: we all know what this means, just watch TV

Scratch golfer: Good all around, hit the ball 265-275 yards and is accurate off the tee, decent iron game, good short game

5 handicapper: Decent all around, hits the ball 250 off the tee, average with the irons, good short game

10 handicapper: Hits 225 of the tee with less accuracy or 210 and accurate, decent for the rest

average golfer (17 hdcp) : hits 200 yards and decent on accuracy, decent for the rest, average short game, will have a bad hole a round

20 +: hits 180, average on accuracy, bad short game, average for the rest.

it seems like those are golfers understood between people without explanation

[George Pazin]

It obviously depends on how important par/score is to you. It's obviously very important to Jed.

I know this. As a 20 handicapper, I'd rather get brutalized at Oakmont (or probably ANGC, TOC, #2, etc.) than get brutalized at any number of modern brutes. But my main goal is to enjoy the round and not lose golf balls. Obviously others differ in their desires.

[TEPaul]

"...is it possible to design a course for better golfers (legit plus handicappers and "pros") as well as the higher handicapper?"

I would say that it is and a good example may be Aronimink.

What you get is a course that has a high course rating and a rather low slope rating.

In theory at least one could make the case that represents the best combination of challenge to the very good player and an accommodation of players at the other end of the player ability scale.

[Jason Topp]

To my mind the gap between a plus handicap and a touring pro is pretty large.

I believe that the only thing you need to do to accomplish the 20 plus side of this goal is to design a course where it is nearly impossible to lose a golf ball.  

My course provides an interesting and tough challenge to plus handicappers at 6600 yards - they just hit a lot of wedges into difficult greens.  Scoring for US Amateur qualifying and for City League (low handicap mid ams) is in line with much longer venues and I think everyone enjoys the course a lot.

By the same token - my son can play by the rules and try and meet his goal of breaking 60 for nine holes and my father can play from the white tees despite not being able to reach the fairway off the tee.

I can think of other longer courses that serve all classes of player well and the thing they have in common is no, or few opportunities to either lose or have to search for a ball.  -- Finkbine - Iowa City, Papago - Phoenix, Randolph North - Tucson, Minnepolis CC, Minnekahda, Golden Valley, Somerset, Northland, etc.  

[Mike Policano]

Tom,

What do you think of Seminole as a course that sets up well for the scatch golfer and the bogey golfer?

The few times I played there, I observed that the scratch golfer had a harder time making par than the 18 handicapper had making bogey from the same tees.  

This seemed to be due to the placement of bunkers given the wind and the angle and positioning of greens.

[Sean_A]

the question is for the 20 and + handicap... remember also that there is plenty of ways to shoot 92...
some people shoot 92 with the ability to hit the ball 260 yards, and some just think their way aroud hitting the ball around 120 yards.

The best players I've seen in that regard, when I was 12 yeras old, a friend of mine was shooting consistently in the mid to high 80's, with hos solid drive of 125 yards on a 5900 par 71 course.

I think it would be easoer to visualize planning a course (some aspects of it) for that kid than for somebody who has no consistency in his game, hitting a 20 yard pull, followed by a topped drive, by a 60 yard slice...

Architect I think have model golfers when talking...

Tour calibre: we all know what this means, just watch TV

Scratch golfer: Good all around, hit the ball 265-275 yards and is accurate off the tee, decent iron game, good short game

5 handicapper: Decent all around, hits the ball 250 off the tee, average with the irons, good short game

10 handicapper: Hits 225 of the tee with less accuracy or 210 and accurate, decent for the rest

average golfer (17 hdcp) : hits 200 yards and decent on accuracy, decent for the rest, average short game, will have a bad hole a round

20 +: hits 180, average on accuracy, bad short game, average for the rest.

it seems like those are golfers understood between people without explanation

Philippe

I am not sure I understand the point of this post.  It doesn't seem to refute the idea that a 20 capper and a + capper can be accomodated by the same course.  The landscape is littered with Golden Age courses that can and do provide fun and challenge for the range we are speaking of.  What is it about these courses that you think is lacking to do the job?

Ciao

[George Pazin]

Sean, the problem with so many of the Golden Age courses is that many - maybe even most - don't share your simple wisdom with this view:

...the courses which particularly intrigue are the ones where shots slip away and I am left wondering why.  If dropping shots is obviously not because of the standard reasons like loads of hazards, trees, rough etc I will definitely tend to think more highly of that course.    

(I lifted that from Mark Ferguson's post in the Merion thread - I'm embarrassed to say I don't know where he found it - if I did, I would've give you big kudos for making the statement.)

Most people look at a shorter course and say, gee, I had so many wedge shots, I should have shot a much better score - without taking the time to figure out why they didn't!

[Sean_A]

Sean, the problem with so many of the Golden Age courses is that many - maybe even most - don't share your simple wisdom with this view:

...the courses which particularly intrigue are the ones where shots slip away and I am left wondering why.  If dropping shots is obviously not because of the standard reasons like loads of hazards, trees, rough etc I will definitely tend to think more highly of that course.    

(I lifted that from Mark Ferguson's post in the Merion thread - I'm embarrassed to say I don't know where he found it - if I did, I would've give you big kudos for making the statement.)

Most people look at a shorter course and say, gee, I had so many wedge shots, I should have shot a much better score - without taking the time to figure out why they didn't!

George

Why do you believe that many or most Golden Age courses weren't crafty (for lack of a better word at the moment)?  This hasn't been my experience.  However, using a term like "Golden Age" can be terribly misleading as no doubt there are many different ideas of what the term represents.

Ciao

[Doug Siebert]

can think of other longer courses that serve all classes of player well and the thing they have in common is no, or few opportunities to either lose or have to search for a ball.  -- Finkbine - Iowa City, Papago - Phoenix, Randolph North - Tucson, Minnepolis CC, Minnekahda, Golden Valley, Somerset, Northland, etc.  

Not sure I'd agree with you about Finkbine.  Too many trees, and the rough can get pretty deep during late spring, and into summer if the rains continue.  I lose balls there one out of every two or three rounds (100% of rounds in the fall ) despite the benefit of knowing exactly where to look for a given type of miss.  I see golfers who aren't familiar with the course having to search for balls fairly often.  They can usually find them with sufficient effort, but it can sure slow play getting behind a foursome who don't know the course.

That's actually the thing that gets me on a lot of courses if I'm not familiar with them.  If I don't have a point of reference to know where in the fairway and surrounding area I would expect my drive to end up I may not see it land.  I know some people hate those little 100/150/200 discs/sticks/poles but if I'm playing a 450 yard hole I can know to expect my drive will land somewhere between the 150 and 200, closer to one or the other depending on whether it was well hit or not.  Without that the optical illusions architects use to fool the eye can leave me looking at a bunker 100 yards from the green expecting my ball to land somewhere near it, or thinking that I probably went into that tree that's actually 250 from the hole.  Sure, I figure it out when I get down there, but by that time I'm looking for a ball I never saw come down so its a crapshoot whether I'll find it if there are many trees or some thick rough.

But Finkbine does have only one water hazard, OB that takes a shot even wilder than mine to find, and only a few really definite "ball is lost, don't even bother looking" areas.  With a bit of thinning of the trees I'd probably agree with you, but Papago its not!

[Lloyd_Cole]

Wide Fw at 200-220 Yards, Fw narrower as tee shot distances increase

Jeff

Sorry to be so late picking up on this now the thread has developed..

I don't design courses, but if I did, this is one thing I would try to avoid. It may well achieve the goal you have in mind but does anyone really think a course should demand that John Daly is MORE accurate than Fred Funk? Surely, if he can be AS accurate, or close, and he's hitting it 20% again further he should not be punished... at least not as a matter of course.

I've always been a short hitter, so I have zero agenda here - shouldn't a golf course reward long, accurate, intelligent shots? If courses pinch in the fairways to unrealistic widths at, what is it these days? 320? 330? won't it lead to A/ Bomb and Gouge, or B/ intelligent players (eg. G Ogilvy, Tiger) leave the driver in the bag...

 

[Adrian_Stiff]

LLoyd - I agree with you, although I feel the thought is more to have a wide area at up to 220 in order to be more accomadating for the 20 handicapper who generally is not only shorter but wider.

[George Pazin]

George

Why do you believe that many or most Golden Age courses weren't crafty (for lack of a better word at the moment)?  This hasn't been my experience.  However, using a term like "Golden Age" can be terribly misleading as no doubt there are many different ideas of what the term represents.

Ciao

Sean, I must have phrased that poorly. I agree with your point, I just don't think most others share your wisdom. I think it's far more common to play an oldie but a greatie and not understand why it's great, but rather to simply look at the number of poor wedge shots hit and assume the course would yield to superior play (which, incidentally, Jones and Mackenzie believed it should).

[Philippe Binette]

Sean,

what I mean is that when we talk about golfers with a 20 or + handicap, we conclude that the player has some game, not a pretty one but consistent shot pattern...

Player A: the real 20 handicap is closer to play gof this way

good drive - skull low slice - fat wedge - chip to 10 feet - 1 putt = 5


Player B: than this way (consistent shot pattern)

160 yards drive - 130 yards - 100 yard approach - 2 putts 20 feet = 5

what I mean is that it is easier to plan a course for player B than player A.... that's why I'm saying, all you can do is give some width (not always) good green complex bunkers here and there and HOPE