[Kevin Lynch]

I agree with Cary & Jeff that the "over the top" comes in the way of overly severe penalties and lost balls.  Such as when water catches even marginal mishits or native areas are left way too close to landing areas.  The occasional “hit the shot or lose your ball” challenge is fine, but when it is a central theme at a course, it slides to the “OTT” side of the spectrum.

I was surprised to hear Bethpage Black included in this discussion.  Frankly, I think Bethpage is a long ways from being overly difficult.  Yes, it is a challenge to play well, but not “difficult” in terms of being OTT.  The greens are not absurd, OB is rarely an issue, the course is not carved from woods, and there are very few forced carries over “severe” hazards (i.e. water / unplayable lies / waist high grasses).  Yes, there is plenty of sand to navigate, but I don’t think sand makes a course OTT because you don’t have to reload.  You simply have a more challenging subsequent shot.  If you just play “ready golf,” the “challenge” should not force a group to bog down (like lost balls or other severe hazards).  As Tom Doak noted, the 6 hour rounds are a function of the “people,” not the course.  I suspect that many of the people taking 6 hours at Bethpage would still take 5.5 hours at my local Municipal Course.

In fact, my experience with Bethpage and Oakmont is that they are very similar.  It’s almost impossible to lose a ball at either course, so you’re not needing to “reload” or add penalty strokes to your card.  Neither of these courses would be “OTT” in my book.

And as we discussed in previous threads, I wouldn’t consider a course like Tobacco Road to be OTT (certainly closer than Oakmont or Bethpage).  But if you replaced most of sand with water hazards, that would be a definite candidate.

[Sean_A]

One of the reasons that's been ignored -- when golfers (likely those wannabee types) who think they have game and then proceed to play from tee positions that frankly have little or no success for them to even attempt.

Plenty of these types suffer from "blue-tee-itis." It's an affliction in which people think they can play the game well but then when they step to the rear tee positions they find out differently. Of course, the lament at the 19th hole is that the course is too difficult.

Matt, I think you have the real winner there. No course is too difficult is played from the proper set of tees. Even courses that have 6 sets of tees have this problem. People have too much pride or whatever to play a more forward set of tees. Even if they 3rd set of tees up is still 7000 yards, they'll play there and have no chance at all. And (no offense) Asian people are the worst at this. They will play from the back tees, be damned if they take 8 hours to finish, go through 7 dozen balls and shoot 292 each among the 4 ball on an 8500 yard course. Thats what takes so long.

Geez - I wish guys would stop with the sweeping generalizations about large groups of people - someone could have a mind to call it discrimination.  I know it sometimes feels like a locker room round here, but this locker room has Lesbians, Asians and all sorts dropping in so it is best to keep yer troozers on if you know what I mean. 

Ciao 

I just call it like I see it. You ask anyone who is in the golf business and they will tell you that is the truth, unless you have a starter on the first tee forcing guys to move up. All people do it, but in my years in the business, I have seen Asians do it far, far more than others.

John

Calling it like you see it is naming names or not (too protect the innocent according to Detective Sergeant Joe Friday) .  It isn't naming a race, culture, gender etc.  Does it really matter if you happen to see a preponderance (even if it is hundreds, there are what? - 3 or 4 billion Asians about) of Asians playing the wrong tees?  

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - just thinking out loud here.  While all the golf courses that I play have a slope rating, I find those ratings to be essentially meaningless.  I think pretty much all the difficulties that really matter are presented/occur at the green, i.e. the green itself and its surrounds. Its the nature and extent and variablity of the challenges around the green that matter (not the narrowness of the fairways or the hazards that line those fairways). And those challenges, while not producing lost balls, are the cause of most if not all of the extra strokes (and exponentially extra strokes in the case of the higher handicapper) indicative of a course that is "too difficult".  My guess is that -- playing much of your golf at those great English inland courses -- you probably play many more ground-level greens and less fussy/complex green surrounds than I do, so you may not have the same experience I have.  But from my perspective, the 'slope rating' that would really matter, I think, would be one that rated the relative difficulty of a course from 150 yards in.

Peter

[Sean_A]

Sean - just thinking out loud here.  While all the golf courses that I play have a slope rating, I find those ratings to be essentially meaningless.  I think pretty much all the difficulties that really matter are presented/occur at the green, i.e. the green itself and its surrounds. Its the nature and extent and variablity of the challenges around the green that matter (not the narrowness of the fairways or the hazards that line those fairways). And those challenges, while not producing lost balls, are the cause of most if not all of the extra strokes (and exponentially extra strokes in the case of the higher handicapper) indicative of a course that is "too difficult".  My guess is that -- playing much of your golf at those great English inland courses -- you probably play many more ground-level greens and less fussy/complex green surrounds than I do, so you may not have the same experience I have.  But from my perspective, the 'slope rating' that would really matter, I think, would be one that rated the relative difficulty of a course from 150 yards in.

Peter

Pietro

The difficulty of a course really stands out over here.  The really hard ones tend to be championship courses and what makes them hard is not putting.  Its the wind, rough and sand.  There is a marked difference when one moves down the food chain and plays the very well known, but in no way championship courses such as the ones I mainly profile.  I find courses in the States generally to be more difficult and the greens to be more complicated than over here.  That said, it is a rare course indeed that I would say the greens are what make the challenge too difficult for and therefore too time consuming for four 15 cappers.  I think the entire litany of sand, water, rough, trees and added yardage (on usually softish ground) as individual elements to be at least as important as complicated greens in terms of added difficulty.  

Now, thinking back on my recent trip to Charleston, we played Bulls Bay and it had the most wide open fairways I have ever experienced.  This was truly a second shot course taken to the extreme.  It had some funk to the greens, but I didn't think the course was overly tough and it would soon get easier with a few plays because one would learn where not to go even if it looks okay.

I do agree that slope rating is a waste of time.  

Ciao

[Bill Gayne]

If I were a golf course architect, I would err on the side of making the course too difficult. My sense is that it's easier to soften up a difficult course than it is to make an easy course difficult.

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - thanks. Fair enough. I was sharing one man's/one golfer's experience, and partly to add a different perspective to the "it's all about what tees you play" argument. Judging from my handicap, some might say I shouldn't play the blue tees. But I often do. I did last week for my first round of the year. On most Par 4s I had 130-145 yards left; reached the greens in 2 on 3 of the 4 Par 5s (well, not the greens but off to one side or another by 10-20 yards) -- but scored badly because of the interesting but very challenging greens and green surrounds. My lower handicap mate did much better, even though I was keeping up with him off the tees (and the course was not a 'wide one'.) Anyway, also wanted to suggest that "total score" is as legitimate a critieria for a difficult course as lost balls or total time.
P

[Kenny Baer]

Today I played a course that was to hard; it is the first course that I can honestly say is to difficult even if you play the correct tees.

Picture this; par 4, 20-25 yd wide fway, water all down the left, 4-8 ft deep bunkers all down the right, 475 from the tips, dog leg left.

Next hole, dog leg right, 20-25 yd fway, 6-8ft deep bunker down the right at the corner, tree blocking any approach from the left half of the fway, 2nd shot severly up hill, 420 from the tips.

It went on and on like this for 18 holes, if you IT went on and on like this.

It was Highlands at Atlanta Athletic Club, in the 01 PGA I think the winner (Toms) was 16 under par, they brought in Rees Jones and I guess told him to make the course as difficult as possible, he succeeded.  If the winner is anywhere near par at the PGA next year then I believe the tour pros are subhuman.

[John Moore II]

Kenny-You may be correct there. I just looked it up on the ACC website. That course plays 7600+ yards from the back tees, and given the right set-up, it will probably look a lot like a normal US Open set up. I certainly agree that some courses can go a bit over the top in making their courses difficult. But I think those are very rare. I think courses just start to seem too difficult because so many people play from the wrong tees for their skill level. I'm a fairly accomplished player, but there is no way I'd play a course like ACC or The Ocean Course all the way back like that. Its just asking for trouble. Bethpage Black I might play all the way back, but only because it appears it would take a foolishly long time to play anyway. Thats the biggest problem in courses being "too difficult," people playing the wrong tees for their particular skill level.

[Bill_McBride]

Today I played a course that was to hard; it is the first course that I can honestly say is to difficult even if you play the correct tees.

Picture this; par 4, 20-25 yd wide fway, water all down the left, 4-8 ft deep bunkers all down the right, 475 from the tips, dog leg left.

Next hole, dog leg right, 20-25 yd fway, 6-8ft deep bunker down the right at the corner, tree blocking any approach from the left half of the fway, 2nd shot severly up hill, 420 from the tips.

It went on and on like this for 18 holes, if you IT went on and on like this.

It was Highlands at Atlanta Athletic Club, in the 01 PGA I think the winner (Toms) was 16 under par, they brought in Rees Jones and I guess told him to make the course as difficult as possible, he succeeded.  If the winner is anywhere near par at the PGA next year then I believe the tour pros are subhuman.

......especially if the PGA is played in its usual August time frame.     Lefty and Lumpy better go on a diet now.

[Mac Plumart]

Kenny...

what tees did you play?

I played their Thursday from the members tees on the Highlands course...mix of the blues/whites (6900ish/6200ish) which yielded a 6,500ish yard course.  I thought the front nine was great.  I thought the back nine was a totally different course and too tight for my taste.  A lot of short par 4's and 3 woods off the tees.  Greens heavily protected by water and/or bunkers.  High precision required and course knowledge.

I'd bet if you played it again, you wouldn't feel it was too difficult.  Didn't you feel that a lot of the shots on the back nine you could play better if you knew the holes better?
  

[Jaeger Kovich]

Isn't this what we have slope and course ratings for?!

I think we need to recognize the difference between too hard and too long...

BPB - too long
Castle - too hard
Crystal Springs (NJ) - too hard
Royal New Kent (VA) - Too hard

[Mike McGuire]

I end up breaking "code" by walking up the wings with arm over irons to "keep up" quitely.  I am sure some folks don't appreciate this behaviour, but I feel as though I will lag if I don't walk ahead.  
Ciao

Sean -

I thought walking ahead discreetly was the secret to playing a round in 3-3.5 hours

Are americans too polite in this regard, which leads to longer rounds?

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

In America we would tend toward deciding a course is too difficult when people stop wanting to play it.

Of course, those who like that particular course would attribute different reasons for the same result.

I think that for the most part, slow play is a result of PEOPLE not golf courses.  Carnoustie is uber-difficult, yet the Scots used to play it comfortably in three hours [albeit, not from the "tips", as some Americans would insist].

Tom

I am not trying to set up an either/or situation between design and golfers.  I chose to focus on the architecture because they way I see it, people walk away from because of lsow play, but I don't see a lot of initiative from archies/developers to build more user friendly courses.  I am sure part of my not seeing a lot of initiative is that I don't get to see many of the "local" courses.  Instead, I usually see courses of some repute.  Even so, I have to wonder if the drive for top whatever status doesn't contribute to less user friendly courses.  Its hard for me to see the dichotomy of top 100 and user friendly ever walking hand in han with any sort of consistency.

Ciao

Sean:

I would agree with you that the quest for top 100 status has been an enemy of fast play.  Nobody wants to be seen building an "average" course ... even the new public courses aspire to be better than the new course in the next town [and take business away from the enemy].  Architects are as guilty of this as anyone else, though our clients are usually cheering us on.

I still think it's mostly an American phenomenon.  Look at the big-name courses built in the UK over the past ten years -- who developed most of them?  Who designed most of them?  They are American exports.  But that doesn't enitrely explain why play is getting slower over there, too.

[Adam Clayman]

The answer I would submit is when a course doesn't fit (Not thoughtfully designed) it's environs. Courses in windy areas that have too narrow a corridor, or too sharp a turn to the fairway. (What courses first iteration am I thinking of?) Blind shots for blindness sake, juxtaposed to a blind shot that is caused by a thoughtless, or poor, previous shot. I love the challenge at Green end because it's the only place where a mere mortal, can approach the pros in execution.

Remember, anyone can build a hard golf course.

[Chris Flamion]

One of the reasons that's been ignored -- when golfers (likely those wannabee types) who think they have game and then proceed to play from tee positions that frankly have little or no success for them to even attempt.

Plenty of these types suffer from "blue-tee-itis." It's an affliction in which people think they can play the game well but then when they step to the rear tee positions they find out differently. Of course, the lament at the 19th hole is that the course is too difficult.

There are so many people who suffer from this.  I have played with guys in their 80's(and walking) trying to play from 6400 yards.  When I brought up that he may enjoy the course more from a few hundred yards up he looked at me askance like I was buffoon.  This is horribly frustrating for me as while I am not a great golfer or even really good I do play quickly.

I have been asked to play the farthest set back at my home course and I always respectfully decline.  One person was so appalled as he didn't talk to me for the entire round.  Oddly enough from my tees all of 250 yards farther up I shot substantially better (think 15 strokes) and left the course with a smile on my face, he left with a snear and a grumble. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jaeger,

In many cases when a golfer plays it from the wrong tees.

In other cases, like obscenity I can't define it, but, you know it when you see/play it.

[Matthew Sander]

For my personal tastes, the only characteristic that makes a course too difficult (and significantly slower) is too many lost ball areas very near the playing corridors; whether those areas are water hazards, super dense forest, or unkempt native areas. Regardless of the quality of players in a group, there is typically at least one who is having a day where he/she is spraying the ball. Constantly having to hunt for balls in areas where the likelihood of finding the ball depends mostly on luck can add considerable time to the group's round, not to mention the multiplier effect when you consider the other groups experiencing the same circumstances.

Otherwise, I don't think that architectural difficulty has as great an influence on pace of play as player behavior. If a course is tough and makes you take 7-10 extra strokes, it doesn't have to add an inordinate amount of time to the round unless you are an inherently slow player. Naturally, a difficult course will take slightly longer to play, but architectural difficulty is not the difference between a 3.5 hour round and a 5 hour round.

[Kevin Lynch]

For my personal tastes, the only characteristic that makes a course too difficult (and significantly slower) is too many lost ball areas very near the playing corridors; whether those areas are water hazards, super dense forest, or unkempt native areas. Regardless of the quality of players in a group, there is typically at least one who is having a day where he/she is spraying the ball. Constantly having to hunt for balls in areas where the likelihood of finding the ball depends mostly on luck can add considerable time to the group's round, not to mention the multiplier effect when you consider the other groups experiencing the same circumstances.

Otherwise, I don't think that architectural difficulty has as great an influence on pace of play as player behavior. If a course is tough and makes you take 7-10 extra strokes, it doesn't have to add an inordinate amount of time to the round unless you are an inherently slow player. Naturally, a difficult course will take slightly longer to play, but architectural difficulty is not the difference between a 3.5 hour round and a 5 hour round.

Matthew,

Couldn't agree with you more.  Courses like BPB & Oakmont just make you stop walking a little sooner than normal, but as long as you just get on with your next shot, the incremental time should not be ridiculous.

I don’t mind scoring 7-10 strokes higher on these challenging courses, because at least I actually took swings for each of them.  I can’t stand scoring 90 when I only swung the club 80 times.

[Matt_Ward]

For many players it's e-z to play the architect or the course or anything else for that matter -- the real issue, in the bulk of circumstances, is really understanding your own limitations as a player and to choose tees that can make the challenge a reasonable one for the individual player while also respecting the fact that other people are trying to play the game too.

Unfortunately, you get people who think they have the SAME game they had from 20-30 years ago and are stubborn as mules to believe they can handle the same distances they previously did.

I don't doubt that courses can be too demanding -- having water and OB encroach on both sides can be too much for plenty of players but often times in all the years I have been playing it's the players themselves who have to have a realistic understanding of what they are capable of and what they are not capable of doing when playing.

Unfortunately, many players aren't honest about their golf skill level (lack thereof) and therefore the easiest whipping post is to blame the course, the architect, Lord Jesus, or whoever else can be fitted into that slot -- everyone but them.

[Tim Nugent]

For my personal tastes, the only characteristic that makes a course too difficult (and significantly slower) is too many lost ball areas very near the playing corridors; whether those areas are water hazards, super dense forest, or unkempt native areas. Regardless of the quality of players in a group, there is typically at least one who is having a day where he/she is spraying the ball. Constantly having to hunt for balls in areas where the likelihood of finding the ball depends mostly on luck can add considerable time to the group's round, not to mention the multiplier effect when you consider the other groups experiencing the same circumstances.

Otherwise, I don't think that architectural difficulty has as great an influence on pace of play as player behavior. If a course is tough and makes you take 7-10 extra strokes, it doesn't have to add an inordinate amount of time to the round unless you are an inherently slow player. Naturally, a difficult course will take slightly longer to play, but architectural difficulty is not the difference between a 3.5 hour round and a 5 hour round.

So, instead of that player moving up so they don't have to play with a club they spraying it with, we should make each hole a driving range?  I lnow that's taking it to the extreme but the point I'm trying to make is there seems to be a "it's not my fault I suck" attitude with some golfers and they are typically the ones who refuse to move up and gripe about the course being too hard.

Wouldn't it be grand if, in a perfect world, everyone would ave to start each year on the forward tees and post a "graduating" score to move back to the next set?  

[Matt Schmidt]

When shots 5-10 yards off target routinely achieve a result similar to or worse than shots 30-40 yards off target.

[Matt_Ward]

Kelly:

Ask yourself this -- when do players actually ADMIT they need lessons before ACTUALLY playing the game. When I was growing up my father insisted I had a modicum of awareness of etiquette and how to play before taking the big course. That meant playing chip'n putt layouts, executive courses and the like.

Today, you get people who plunk down a VISA card and get clubs and then after dressing up to the part decide to be like Tiger and the gang and then hop on out to Bethpage Black and play the same course they do.

Kelly, beg to differ with you, playing from the right tee is a big time element when discussing difficulty. People like to bitch about everything except their own limitations -- tell a macho guy that he needs to play from the white tees and you might as well tell the guy he's impotent !!!

I don't doubt needed instruction would go a long way but people who play the game seem to believe they are "on the cusp" of eternal greatness and as a result when stuck behind these clowns it just wears down them -- and everyone else.

Architects do have a responsibility to prepare courses correctly -- ditto for the people who prep them from a conditioning perspective but in so many cases it's the players responsibility to understand that if they played the correct tee so much of what slows them down and others behind them would be considerably eliminated.

[Tim Nugent]

Maybe we should go to the German model and require golfers get certified - OMG what am I saying?  Washington's brainwashing is working

[Ally Mcintosh]

Wouldn't it be grand if, in a perfect world, everyone would ave to start each year on the forward tees and post a "graduating" score to move back to the next set?  

This is the best idea I've ever heard!

[Jud_T]

What about having to produce a handicap card in order to play a certain tee? I guess guys would just have bigger vanity handicaps.  Can you imagine all those overweight 36 cappers being forced to play off the senior or ladies tees!  Another problem with slow play in my opinion is when courses send groups out every 7 or 8 minutes and then everyone wonders why it's a parking lot....Just charge me an extra 5 or 10 bucks and space things properly.  I think you'd get more repeat business from happy patrons that way....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()