Define "playability" part II

[Jason Topp]

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

No.  I define dumbed down as eliminating interesting hazards for the purpose of speeding up play and coddling the player who hits common mistakes.  In other words, the old freeway theory of design that the most important thing about a muni design is allowing play to proceed as quickly as possible on a slow course.

I define playable as allowing a high handicapper a reasonable opportunity to get around the course.  An ideal design should be playable but provide interesting challenges to all.

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.

What say you?

George:

Very interesting distinction.  In some respects, I agree with you.  I grew up playing midwestern parkland courses where one could hit the ball two fairways over and have the opportunity to play the next shot.  I really struggled when going to college in Arizona because I found it so intimidating to play holes with death on both sides, and death for a topped tee shot.  The problems were made worse because I played relatively infrequently at that time.  

Since the 80's, however, I think designers have figured out how to deal with turf restrictions much more effectively, and have provided much more width to maneuver around the courses.  Thus, while the courses are not as playable as the midwestern courses of my youth, most people can reasonably get around the courses.

I believe that, if possible, everyone should be able to play the same ball for 18 holes.  To me that is the extreme definition of playability.  However, eliminating menacing hazards and natural features takes away from interesting golf and playability should always be balanced against the interest posed by such hazards.

  

[George Pazin]

Yeah, it's a little silly for me to use Augusta and Pine Valley as examples, as I have not set foot on either. Still, they are widely televised, photographed, and discussed, so it seems a good starting point.

Both are designed to be challenging to the top notch golfer, yet only one appears to have included the desire to be playable for average golfers as well (please note: I do not see this as a flaw for one, nor an advantage for the other - they're simply different in their goals).

Nice post, Jason.

-----

Here's another quick thought: when width becomes the sole focus of playability, other interesting design elements are often forsaken.

Maybe, maybe not, gotta think about more about that.

[Michael Blake]

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?

George,

I do not know the original form and intent of Augusta's design.  I guess my intent (to all) was what the difference is between the two statements. 
 

No.  I define dumbed down as eliminating interesting hazards for the purpose of speeding up play and coddling the player who hits common mistakes.  In other words, the old freeway theory of design that the most important thing about a muni design is allowing play to proceed as quickly as possible on a slow course.

I define playable as allowing a high handicapper a reasonable opportunity to get around the course.  An ideal design should be playable but provide interesting challenges to all.

Thanks Jason.  That sounds pretty good to me.  I believe it's a pretty fine line between the two though.

[Matt_Ward]

I'll have more to add given the posts already made -- but consider this -- does anyone believe Pine Valley is NOT a great golf course?

A great course within the top ten in nearly all accounts.

So if playability was not the genesis of Pine Valley -- to the best of my memory it wasn't -- then there's nothing wrong with the course which incidentally has a number of wide fairways and alternate routes that exist on any number of holes there. No doubt the tees played dictates plenty on the issue of its overall playabilty. When people step back to the rear tees and then get pummeled - they should know better before whining that such and such a hole/course was unfair or not playable.

Keep in mind, difficulty can be played up through any number of "psyche job" situations the architect can throw at the player. The physical element in overcoming these situations is not that demanding-- but it's the mental strain that many times inflicts more hesitation upon weaker players. Architects understand that planting seeds of doubt can make steady execution highly problematic. A good example is the 1st at Black Mesa. People complain about the hill to be carried -- it looks imposing but the actual carry is far less than many might believe. But just the idea that it's THERE causes people to say the hole is not playable or other such excuse.

Desert layouts often present such situations because of the general starkness of the terrain. What's so amusing is that places across the pond such as Dunluce at Portrush which is overly narrow and has literally hayfields just off the secondary rough -- is considered great even though it's very playability is certainly there in my mind -- especially when daily conditions only add to the maintenance procedures already in place.

Makes me wonder if there's a different standard for desert golf but if you have a favorite links type layout the applicability of playability then gets twisted to fit one's personal preferences.

The issue for many weaker players is the allowance of outside elements -- some real -- others mental -- that the architect can throw forward. Just the mere possibility that such danger lurks can make weaker players automatically opt for the "it's not playable" defense when in reality it's the fear element that's been mentally applied by the player themselves courtesy of a skilled architect.

[George Pazin]

I was under the impression that the primary driving force behind the intent of PV was to challenge the best players. I don't believe anyone argued that there is anything wrong or even lacking in such an approach.

The issue for many weaker players is the allowance of outside elements -- some real -- others mental -- that the architect can throw forward. Just the mere possibility that such danger lurks can make weaker players automatically opt for the "it's not playable" defense when in reality it's the fear element that's been mentally applied by the player themselves courtesy of a skilled architect.

This is actually a pretty interesting point, I'll have to think more about it.

[Jason Topp]

I'll have more to add given the posts already made -- but consider this -- does anyone believe Pine Valley is NOT a great golf course?

A great course within the top ten in nearly all accounts.

Matt:

I've never been there but I raised the same question in a thread I started about a year ago.  I identified the top 10 in the world off of some list and pointed out that every single one of them was probably "playable" but Pine Valley was not (at least to my knowledge).  It did not really spark much discussion. 

[Anthony Gray]

I was under the impression that the primary driving force behind the intent of PV was to challenge the best players. I don't believe anyone argued that there is anything wrong or even lacking in such an approach.

The issue for many weaker players is the allowance of outside elements -- some real -- others mental -- that the architect can throw forward. Just the mere possibility that such danger lurks can make weaker players automatically opt for the "it's not playable" defense when in reality it's the fear element that's been mentally applied by the player themselves courtesy of a skilled architect.

This is actually a pretty interesting point, I'll have to think more about it.

  I must admit that this has happened to me. At Tobacco Road on the 2nd hole I did not carry the fairway. It was in my head the rest of the day.

  Anthony

[Charlie Goerges]

I was thinking over the playability question and in remembering back to times I’d heard that a given course was not very playable, it struck me that often the description is made by a better than average player. So what I am theorizing is that there is a difference between difficulty (especially for the low handicapper) and playability (especially for the high handicapper).

For example: for a low handicapper, a long course with small greens, penal bunkers, lined with trees (rather than dense forest and underbrush) will be difficult. For a high handicapper this same course will also be difficult, but in theory would be relatively playable because poor shots would generally result in difficult recovery shots rather than lost balls. A low handicap player describing the previous course might say that it’s difficult and that it wouldn’t be very playable for a high handicap player.

A second example: for a low handicapper, a short/medium course with large greens and fairways, but with 100+ yard carries over marsh/water off the tee, water fronting greens, dense brush or fescue far off to the sides of play will be relatively easy. For the high handicap player this type of course would be (if not just as difficult) less playable because a poor shot would often result in a lost ball. However a low-handicapper might discribe the course as playable because it was easy.

Let me know if this disconnect seems to hold water. I’m basically thinking on paper, metaphorically speaking.

[Tom Huckaby]

Charlie:

It's not a disconnect at all, it's how golf works.  Higher handicappers lose more shots due to hazards than do lower cappers, as the dispersion of their shots is greater.  And what's interesting to me is that this is all accounted for in the course rating / slope process....

Courses with lots of hazards tend to have very high slopes, for just this reason - they are a lot harder for the bogey player than the scratch, who is not likely to get into the hazards much at all.  Courses with other factors making it difficult but without penal hazards will rarely have a high slope, because they will be difficult for BOTH players but not unduly so for the bogey.

SO... is it as simple as saying low slope courses are playable, high slope courses are not?

George isn't likely to buy this, but it does have some logic behind it.

TH

[Phil McDade]

SO... is it as simple as saying low slope courses are playable, high slope courses are not?


TH

Tom:

Depends on what the median slope is...

[Sean_A]

I was under the impression that the primary driving force behind the intent of PV was to challenge the best players. I don't believe anyone argued that there is anything wrong or even lacking in such an approach.

The issue for many weaker players is the allowance of outside elements -- some real -- others mental -- that the architect can throw forward. Just the mere possibility that such danger lurks can make weaker players automatically opt for the "it's not playable" defense when in reality it's the fear element that's been mentally applied by the player themselves courtesy of a skilled architect.

This is actually a pretty interesting point, I'll have to think more about it.

  I must admit that this has happened to me. At Tobacco Road on the 2nd hole I did not carry the fairway. It was in my head the rest of the day.

  Anthony

Anthony

The difference at Tobacco Road is that generally speaking, there are bail out tees to avoid the longer carries (and this is a different sort of fear altogether - the fear of embarrassment for moving up to shorter tees).  Its one thing to be more than able to make the carry and hit a poor shot and quite another to be unable to pull off the required shot. 

[George Pazin]

SO... is it as simple as saying low slope courses are playable, high slope courses are not?

George isn't likely to buy this, but it does have some logic behind it.

Actually, I think it's pretty solid, at least for a cursory evaluation. I had some friends play Oakmont recently for the first time and one was stunned at how low the slope rating was, as he thought it was definitely one of the hardest courses he's played.

I believe others have thrown out Aronimink as a course with a low slope and high course rating, making it closer to my own personal ideal.

[Tom Huckaby]

George - I have said in here many times that high course rating, low slope would have to be THE ideal for a golf course.. it just makes so much sense... challenge the scratch, don't kill the bogey....

It also does not surprise me that Oakmont would work out this way.

TH

[Jason Topp]

The problem with the low slope idea is that slope, in my experience, it does not correlate all that well to playability.

My course has a slope of 139 but can be played with a putter.  By any definition it is playable.  Other Country clubs in Minnesota have similar slopes but few or no cross hazards.


In Florida or California - courses with such slopes are often brutal to the wayward player with many opportunities to reload.  For example - this course has a 136 slope when played from the same length:



One of those greens is on a par five so the approach is with a wedge.  The other is on a 400 yard plus par four.

[Charlie Goerges]

Jason, you mention part of what I was asking about. If it was a sea of sand rather than water surrounding those greens, the high-handicap player could make his way across.

[Tom Huckaby]

Jason:

All of what you mention would have to be some pretty sincere exceptions to the slope rule... the presence of hazards is generally what makes slopes high.

Of course it can work differently, as your examples show.

I am really curious about your home course, and what gets it to 139...

TH

[Jason Topp]

Jason:

All of what you mention would have to be some pretty sincere exceptions to the slope rule... the presence of hazards is generally what makes slopes high.

Of course it can work differently, as your examples show.

I am really curious about your home course, and what gets it to 139...

TH

Tom:

I think our slope ratings in Minnesota are just significantly higher than those in Florida, California and Arizona.

My course features many difficult greens and it is a pretty tight off the tee but one almost never loses a ball.  To my mind it is ideal in terms of allowing anyone to get around but posing a tough challenge for a good player.  Here is my write up:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/mhctopp.html

Similar slopes exist at a ton of Minneapolis area clubs that have classic designs and will usually be negotiated by most without losing a ball:

For example:

Golden Valley from 6473 yards -140
Interlachen (6558) - 138
Minneapolis (6556) - 138
Minikahda (6400) 140

[Tom Huckaby]

That is very interesting.  But I cannot cast aspersions on my rating brethren, and it is pretty tough to get results massively differently from place to place.  That is, we all use the same system and are coached pretty strongly to follow the same rules.

So something must be going on to get those high slopes.  I surely can't tell from pictures.  I think I have to play them all. 

Difficult greens wouldn't do it, btw... tight fairways might.

TH

[Jason Topp]

That is very interesting.  But I cannot cast aspersions on my rating brethren, and it is pretty tough to get results massively differently from place to place.  That is, we all use the same system and are coached pretty strongly to follow the same rules.

So something must be going on to get those high slopes.  I surely can't tell from pictures.  I think I have to play them all. 

Difficult greens wouldn't do it, btw... tight fairways might.

TH

Tom -

I'd love to have you make that trip.  In the meantime, think Pasatiempo except (1) not on the side of a mountain; (2) no barranca; and (3) less severe greens.  From the blue tees, Pasatiempo is 136 with a similar course rating. 

[Tom Huckaby]

But Pasa is easily explained... there is hazard or OB on darn near every hole.  Tell me your courses are like that boom, there's the answer - 136 is pretty darn high.  What intrigues me is that your courses don't seem to have that and still get these high slopes.

TH

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pine Needles golf course, one of THE Donald's masterpieces, is one place that I think fits the bill for George or Huck.

The Regular tees tip out at just under 6,000 yds., have a CR of 68.5 against a par of 70, and carry a slope of 120.
The Ross tees stretch it out to around 6,435 yds., and sport slightly higher ratings of 70.6 CR and 126 Slope.

I think it's one of the highest quality, most playable courses that you'd ever find, and one that can easily satisfy a mixed group of players. If someone in the group wants, they can move back and challenge the 7,015 yard, 73.5 CR and 135 Slope of the Medal tees.

    

[Matt_Ward]

Let me pick up on the point I made previously ...

"The issue for many weaker players is the allowance of outside elements -- some real -- others mental -- that the architect can throw forward. Just the mere possibility that such danger lurks can make weaker players automatically opt for the "it's not playable" defense when in reality it's the fear element that's been mentally applied by the player themselves courtesy of a skilled architect."

Playability (lack thereof) is often used as the excuse from weaker players because situations tied to them (overall length, infusion of hazards and the like) make playing such holes as a hurdle they can't overcome.

Many times skilled architects will make such holes APPEAR to be much tougher than they are. One of the reasons why the weaker player is WEAK comes from the issue of being mentally unprepared to filter out the distractions that can cause such uncomfort mentally which then works its way in the players's physical side to perform. I referenced previously the likes of the 1st at Black Mesa as one such example.

The carry is not that far -- but the sheer appearance of the hillside in the nearby distance can cause players to become overly fixated on it to the point of total paralysis.

First rate architects know how to elevate "fear" or to a lesser extent the concept of "indecision."

One of the real separation points between strong and weak players is not solely concentrated on the physical skills in hitting golf shots -- it is the mental strength in not allowing such "psyche out" design elements to infect your thinking process. Pine Valley does the "psyche out" situation better than just about any course I know. People go there and are terrified out of their minds but there's ample width on nearly all the holes and alternate routes for people to use to avoid the potential big number.

Final notes ...

If anyone sees Black Mesa as not being playable and that the course needs more width -- than these are the same people who would bitch how tough it is to reach the OK side from the Texas state border. I'm waiting for exact specifics regarding Black Mesa rather than the predictable and lame generality without any clear outline provided.

Recovery shots are present in just about all situations I can recall. Like I said if that is the standard for "playability" -- then it's about time people picked on even better candidates for mention like Dunluce at Portrush or Bethpage Black or others of that ilk.

The playability label can sometimes be thrown forward as an excuse rationale tied to someone's poor performance. Instead of looking inward -- it's easier to displace the situation and say the course is not playable.

One last comment -- Tom Doak mentioned me seeking courses that are only ultra-challenging to long hitters. That's not accurate. I like a broad range of courses and I have included such courses in a range of posts -- no doubt it's easy to simply view my preferences in such a stereotypical fashion.

[George Pazin]

Matt, do you even read other posts?

The issue at Black Mesa is not width, it is what happens in those instances where things go very awry. This is not unique to Black Mesa, as far as I can tell; it appears to be endemic to almost all non-core golf courses, especially where the surrounding landscape is brutal.

Go ahead and insult everyone who disagrees with you...

-----

As for the Tom D part, I'm certainly not speaking for him, but few of us believe you when you say you celebrate courses of all types. There's simply too much evidence to the contrary. Sure, you celebrate a course like The Knoll occasionally, but you overwhelmingly favor long, difficult driving courses and pan courses that lack what you feel is challenge off the tee.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

Enough of the inane statement that I am insulting people.

It's such a predictable and lame counter.

I have simply disagreed with the take of different people and spelled out -- in great detail mind you -- the rationale behind it. There was nothing personal attached to any person specifically -- I simply put forward a counterpoint which stresses an element that many who opine on playability may not have really thought about.

Often times -- weaker players look for the quick and easy excuse that a course is not playable but when it just might be the "psyche out" elements that an architect has used in order to throw off balance those players from executing to the max.

Let's talk about the "surrounding landscape is brutal." Where is that the case with Black Mesa? My God -- you have plenty of width - with alternarte routes -- on any number of holes. Are there a few which have less width? Sure. Guess what? I can say the same for any number of non-desert courses that are held in even higher awe but compromise playability in a far more demanding manner with silly rough that only allows for a sideways SW out. Go see the likes of Dunluce at Portrush as one quick example -- few people pan the course as being anything less than great although I have commented several times on how the maintenance practices there need to be better planned in regard to the course's overall playability - given the savage nature of thin fairways and hay-like rough.

You ask "where things go very awry." How much playability do you want George? Do you want a clean shot if you miss a fairway the width of Kansas? Black Mesa is not as harsh as a number of AZ pure desert courses and I can see the argument made when they are mentioned (e.g. Troon North is one example among others).

If people -- you might be one of them -- hold to the view that the TOC is the only acceptable version of playability -- then we will certainly part company. TOC is the ideal and should be seen as such. Those that are a less so -- not by quantum leaps -- should not be considered unplayable by any reasonable standard.

In regards to different courses -- George, you need to really read my stuff because I have celebrated a range of diverse courses -- far beyond places like The Knoll -- check out comments I've made on the less known sites like Morris County or the I just posted today on the work Jeff Bauer did w Jim Colbert at Links at Sierra Blanca in NM -- which is 6,700 yards tops from the tips and that includes the high elevation gains you get. I've highlighted places like Bayside -- on a different thread -- which is far from long and has a slew of delicious design elements courtesy of Axland & Proctor. Ditto the works of NJ courses like Montclair GC which is no more than 6,600 yards. 

Across the pond I've highlighted places like Pennard - which is at best 6,300 yards from the tips, if memory serves. The list is far more extensive than you believe. I've also opined quite extensively at the recent improvements at Bethpage Black and how the singular focus on excessive difficulty there flies in the face of what made that layout so compelling in the first place. I can go on and on and on. It's just easier to follow the path of the stereotypical held beliefs. So be it.

[George Pazin]

If anyone sees Black Mesa as not being playable and that the course needs more width -- than these are the same people who would bitch how tough it is to reach the OK side from the Texas state border.

Seems pretty insulting to me...

Anyway, the point is not about playability in general, it is about playability for the high handicap golfer. You and I clearly define playable very differently, so I will leave it at that. I thought it might be interesting to explore the differences - width versus surrounds, etc., but I guess you disagree with that as well.

Merry Christmas pardner.