Define "playability" part II

[George Pazin]

Every now and then the mudslinging between Matt and me yields a nugget. I think this is one such instance.

You did pan Black Mesa with a playability issue. I responded in kind and pointed out that the playability element is a distortion -- there's plenty of width and playability present.

Matt, would you agree that Pine Valley has plenty of width? Do you feel its playable for all levels of golfers?

George:

Define "playable for all levels of golfers?"

If you are talking about people who can't get a ball airborne or are people who propel divots further than what they hit a golf ball then PV, along with countless other courses, is not playable for them.

These folks need lessons before embarking on such desires. I don't see such persons as golfers -- they are just occupying time and space and would be no different than ski beginners who belong on bunny slopes and not double diamond ones.

PV has sufficient width to accomodate all levels of golfers -- I define golfers a good bit differently than people who simply play the game as a once-a-year diversion.

We discuss playability on here all the time, and often times in regard to the mythical ideal of "playable for all levels of golfers".

This exchange highlights what I believe is a crucial difference in my definition of playable and Matt's. Matt will of course correct me for this, but it seems from this ecxchange as though his notion of playable for all levels hinges entirely on width.

I believe the critical element of playable for all levels of golfers is to have some sort of realistic recovery shot from a bad miss. No architect can foresee all of the ridiculous mishits of the typical high handicapper. So rather than trying to put in sufficient width for something impossible to foresee or predict, I believe the most important element is to not leave death penalty situations, or even near death penalty situations. By death penalty, I mean the only real option is to dig in the bag for a new ball and start determining your drop area.

You can have 50 yard fairways all day long, but if reload and drop is a recurrent theme in a course, I believe it lacks playability for all levels of golfers.

"Take a lesson" seems like the last resort of the lazy architect, although in certain geographical circumstances, no architect can solve the problem.

(And, for the record, I can get the ball airborne, and generally hit the ball well past the giant divots I am prone to taking. )

What say you?

[Tom Huckaby]

I'd side with you on this, George.

However, overdo it your way and the result is boredom for a lot of golfers.  Sans serious penalty there is no risk or reward.

You do realize also that at some sites your version is impossible, right?  Not naming any names, but Land of Enchantment comes to mind.... 

And at such sites, it's important to allow for width.

But if one can err, err on the side of less death. 

I think the courses at Bandon show this playing out nicely.

TH

[Rich Goodale]

George

I'm with you on this buddy, but if and only if you define "some sort of realistic recovery shot from a bad miss" in terms of getting the ball out of a bunker and/or back onto the fairway and/or dropping and taking a stroke and distance penalty.  Anything more generous than that and you are not playing golf, but some sort of fantasy.

Rich

[Anthony Gray]

  If you leave the course energized as opposed to feeling beat up then the course is deemed playable. Of course this is very subjective but the challenge of the golf should remain enjoyable.

   Anthony

[George Pazin]

I'd side with you on this, George.

However, overdo it your way and the result is boredom for a lot of golfers.  Sans serious penalty there is no risk or reward.

You do realize also that at some sites your version is impossible, right?  Not naming any names, but Land of Enchantment comes to mind.... 

And at such sites, it's important to allow for width.

But if one can err, err on the side of less death. 

I think the courses at Bandon show this playing out nicely.

TH

Agreed - hey, nobody said an architect's job was easy! Although many on here certainly seem to think it is...

As for the LOE trip, it's already mentioned in the above quotes, so there's no need to tap dance. I think Black Mesa is a wonderful course, I just wouldn't recommend it for a high handicapper without fully explaining to him what he's getting himself into. Most people obviously don't share my likes and dislikes.

I don't have a problem with the occasional death penalty, I just don't like when it's a recurring theme.

-----

Nice post, Rich, I do agree with your distinction.

What it boils down to for me personally is that I don't think re-load and drop is a good recurring practice for any golf course, but especially one that claims to be playable for all levels of golfers (and please indulge my anthropomorphism).

[Tom Huckaby]

George my friend:

I shall forgive you given this comes in a context of a discussion with the king of oddly-phrased insults, but I was not tap-dancing, I was trying to have some fun with this.

I also didn't want to make this specifically about Black Mesa, as I figured you of all people would understand that the issues about that course have been beaten to a death no criminal should suffer.

So I hope we need not go down that road again....

In any case, the key is how Rich phrased it.  It's never going to be black and white.... and it's going to depend on what you consider "death penalty." 

In any case, a fair generalization is that too much of ANY recurring theme is not good on a golf course - or at least I think so.  So yes, add stroke and distance drops to this.   I doubt anyone would argue with that except perhaps Matt.

TH

[RJ_Daley]

Sometimes I think that the answer lies in the maintenance meld more than exclusively the architecture.  You can render even a great playable for all handicap course that is also a good test for accomplished golfers like my beloved Wild Horse, as impossible to play for the high handicapper if you don't maintain it right.  You can make a place like ANGC quite playable (I assume since obviously never been there) for a high handi to have a reasonable expectation to play near their handi on a great day, with the right maintenance meld.  

Yet, some courses truly are architorture, with unrecoverable features and situations repeated throughout the layout, and such are not playable for all abilities.  In that, there is the notion that 'you need a lesson' and you must get your skills up to navigate really treacherous design features.  

But, even a place like Merion can be maintained to meld with the architecture to offer the high handicapper a reasonable expectation to play on a good day up to reasonable standards according to handicap, yet give the skilled golfer a fine test, it seems to me.

[Tom Huckaby]

Side questions (apologies to George if this is too much of a tangent):

Must all courses be playable for all golfers?  Is there not a place for courses that are NOT very playable for the higher handicapper?  Is indeed playable for all golfers to be seen as an ideal?

I'm thinking about my favorite courses... and while each will not kill the lesser player, each will require him to reload a few times most likely.  I still consider each to be pretty damn ideal.  So I guess the key is to not have TOO MUCH of this, that is not have it be a recurring theme?  Each of my faves works for that....

I just do still think there is a place in this great big world of golf for torture tests.  No such course will ever be considered "great" but they will have their small place... as a place to go for the ultimate test....

[Rich Goodale]

Nice post, Rich, I do agree with your distinction.

What it boils down to for me personally is that I don't think re-load and drop is a good recurring practice for any golf course, but especially one that claims to be playable for all levels of golfers (and please indulge my anthropomorphism).

Thanks, George

Maybe we differ on what is a "bad miss."  I can't think of any golf course (including the Old Course) where a bad miss does not involve either a reload and drop or some sort of penal recovery shot, at least 2/3 of the time.

Rich

[Peter Pallotta]

George -

I've never played a course that wasn't accessible to ALL level of golfers, though I've played a few that didn't provide much satisfaction in the playing (for almost ANY level of golfer). 

I appreciate golf courses where both a career-round and an ass-kicking are possible, but possible for me and the really good golfer BOTH.  

I expect a much better player to beat me over 18 holes, every time; but I like golf courses that give me a bit of a fighting chance.    

I don't mind a drop/re-load too much.  It's my fault, and I'm free to get better as a golfer....

Peter

[Charlie Goerges]

What would folks here define as "death penalty" situations? For me, the thing which causes lost balls the most is dense underbrush (with water in second place). What can/should an architect do to mitigate the effect of these hazards?

[Tom_Doak]

George:

I hear Black Mesa is going to build a second course soon.  Let's hope they make it more playable, by your definition, than the first one. 

Not that there's anything wrong with the first course, it just wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea.  And that is the crux of your argument with Matt, I think.  You want a course to be ultra-playable; he wants a course to be ultra-challenging to long hitters.  In the end, the only thing that matters is that a course works for a big enough audience to support itself.

[Tom Huckaby]

And so Tom Doak in a few words nails the tangential questions I posed, without even trying.  I hate that man sometimes.

 

Question for you though Tom which likely can't be answered publicly:  given the land, could you have made the first course at Black Mesa more playable for the lesser player?  Would you have wanted to?

TH

[RJ_Daley]

Maybe George is like me and fears rattlers, so Black Mesa is like a death penalty once you get to looking for errant shots in the hardscrabble.  

But, I think there is another concept in play, that not only do you have to take unplayable or lost ball penalty shots, but that your recovery is just to yet another inhospitable or unreceptive area to place a recovery.  When the design becomes one penalty recovery followed by slim chances to get to another spot to get back in the race, then it becomes a series of tortured hackers jungle.  There has to be bailout areas that perhaps the skilled golfer doesn't even consider and has a different set of challenges in their preferred LZ and plan for the next approach, versus the errant shot but realistic safe harbor to concede par to bogey or double, with other holes to come where par is reasonable expectation sometimes, and bogey is still in the cards, realistically.  

[George Pazin]

Maybe we differ on what is a "bad miss."  I can't think of any golf course (including the Old Course) where a bad miss does not involve either a reload and drop or some sort of penal recovery shot, at least 2/3 of the time.

Rich

Sounds like maybe we differ on what a penal recovery shot.

I believe any sort of realistic recovery shot is better than a reload and drop. And by realistic I mean simply not hitting ouit of more than 6 inches of water, not hitting amidst a rock strewn (or as Dick points out, a rattler strewn) moonscape, etc. Choosing to hit sideways out of a bunker can be a prudent decision.

Huck, your diversions are fair, and I would never tell anyone a course is lacking because it doesn't fit my criteria, nor do I expect all courses to meet my criteria, nor do I feel that all courses even CAN meet my criteria. I just really really really dislike when someone mischaracterizes or misstates my criteria, or somehow feels that his is objective, while mine is subjective and biased, or somehow feels I'm being dishonest in honestly stating my opinion!

In a strict, Rich Goodale, A is A, I don't see the cavernous ocean, only the target, philosophy, I realize that every course is playable for everyone. You can always take drops galore. It's just not what I personally consider good golf, either as design, or as an experience.

[Tom Huckaby]

Wow I guess you feel passionately about this, George.

Though about that last part, if I did that my apologies as it surely was not my intent.

TH

[George Pazin]

Wow I guess you feel passionately about this, George.

Though about that last part, if I did that my apologies as it surely was not my intent.

TH

Very passionately, though I wasn't referring to you at all! Sorry if I mistakenly gave you that impression.

[Sean_A]

Maybe we differ on what is a "bad miss."  I can't think of any golf course (including the Old Course) where a bad miss does not involve either a reload and drop or some sort of penal recovery shot, at least 2/3 of the time.

Rich

Sounds like maybe we differ on what a penal recovery shot.

I believe any sort of realistic recovery shot is better than a reload and drop. And by realistic I mean simply not hitting ouit of more than 6 inches of water, not hitting amidst a rock strewn (or as Dick points out, a rattler strewn) moonscape, etc. Choosing to hit sideways out of a bunker can be a prudent decision.

Huck, your diversions are fair, and I would never tell anyone a course is lacking because it doesn't fit my criteria, nor do I expect all courses to meet my criteria, nor do I feel that all courses even CAN meet my criteria. I just really really really dislike when someone mischaracterizes or misstates my criteria, or somehow feels that his is objective, while mine is subjective and biased, or somehow feels I'm being dishonest in honestly stating my opinion!

In a strict, Rich Goodale, A is A, I don't see the cavernous ocean, only the target, philosophy, I realize that every course is playable for everyone. You can always take drops galore. It's just not what I personally consider good golf, either as design, or as an experience.

George

I must say I am most definitely in your camp.  Dropping and reloading is not a realistic recovery because its not a recovery - its a lost ball!  That isn't to say this sort of hole isn't desirable a few times per round, but I don't want three courses of it.  The indirect penalty is infinitely more interesting, but as discussed on Mark's thread, the idea of f&f (which all angles architecture relies on) as should be characterized on links of all places, isn't really in vogue - I think we get more lip service about the idea than actual f&f conditions.

Ciao

[Norbert P]

. . . dislike when someone . . .  feels that his is objective, while mine is subjective and biased, . . .

  
 I'm very objective . . .
        especially after a few drinks.  

"All the truth in the world adds up to one big lie." Bob Dylan

[Mark_F]

I believe the critical element of playable for all levels of golfers is to have some sort of realistic recovery shot from a bad miss.

George,

That's one way of looking at it, but there is another; having greens that can only be hit and held consistently by good players isn't particularly playable, no matter how realistic the recovery shots are.

David Elvins made this comment in another thread recently:

When Tom Doak designs a resort course it might be better than his non-resort work because he makes more of an effort to make them playable.

If he is comparing and contrasting Barnbougle Dunes and St Andrews Beach, for instance, Barnbougle is much more difficult from the tee due to the rough off the fairways; Presumably, he may claim St Andrews Beach is less playable because the greens are difficult to hit and hold, even if there is more short grass around the St Andrews Beach greens than Barnbougle.

[Andy Troeger]

Playability is a challenging concept, because at some point you really have to consider who you consider to be a really bad golfer and what constitutes a really bad shot for that golfer.

I don't buy that playability only relates to the number of golf balls that are lost on a course. That's a part of it, but greens that are unputtable, bunkers that poor golfers can't get out of, and other situations apply too. I used to coach high school girls and saw some pretty bad players and you couldn't build a course that was remotely interesting that was playable for some of them. We would avoid the Warren GC at Notre Dame, for example, because the girls couldn't get out of the bunkers and we'd have been there all day. When we played South Bend CC the scores skyrocketed because the greens are more challenging than the norm. Yet both of those courses are reasonably playable to most people, ND less so because they insist on growing hay off the fairways.

I believe recovery options make the game more fun, but every good course I've seen has the potential for lost balls. The situation I dislike immensely is when one has to execute a straight drive or else reload regularly. That does happen on many desert courses, although most of them allow a lateral drop to speed up play. Most of my favorite courses have some unrecoverable spots, but the player has the option to bail out somewhere else.

I certainly look at this from the perspective of a single-digit handicap. Courses that offer the maximum in playability for a weaker golfer are usually pretty boring to me because they lack anything that forces me to think. The hazards are usually not that tough to get out of and therefore I just shoot for every pin without much fear of poor execution. I can see how that's great for other golfers, but it doesn't do as much for me. Again, the best courses offer some kind of combination that interests the better golfer without causing the weaker golfer misery. However, we probably are going to disagree on how to actually implement that part too! 

[Michael Blake]

Is 'playable' a polite term for 'dumbed down?'

[George Pazin]

Is 'playable' a polite term for 'dumbed down?'

Do you consider Augusta National to have been a dumbed down design in its original form and intent?

[Peter Pallotta]

George - that's an interesting choice of examples. I might be mistaken, but weren't the early iterations of Augusta characterized by a notable lack of rough and (with a few exceptions) a notable lack of water hazards?  If so, what it had instead was vertical and horizontal challenges (i.e. uphill and downhill and sidehill lies) and great greens that worked in concert with those fairway contours -- which really does seem like the ideal.

Peter

[Phil McDade]

George:

Nice topic! I once had the dumb notion of getting into a debate here about Pine Valley and its playability with one Mr. Mucci (I think after watching the Shell match between Nelson and Littler) -- dumb because I've never set foot on the course, and he's played it.

I tend to be in your camp, and think carries (from tees to fairways, and from fairways to greens) matter as much if not more than width in terms of playability. It's one of the reasons I'm so fond of Lawsonia, because it's carries are not onerous in any respect, and it features for the most part quite generous width. Yet it can also be penal -- large pushed-up greens make for tough greenside recoveries, and bunkering is often severe, sometimes with a sideways plan the only option. It strikes me in this regard as perhaps similar to Oakmont, which I've gotten the impression from you and others here is quite difficult but not unplayable, at least from your "lost ball/reload" core definition (a good one, I think).