[Matt_Ward]

Jud:

We live in a society of stolen identities and the like -- do you seriously believe people can't have fake handicap cards-- you know the vanity types to show their friends that they are single digit players.

If you really want to test someone -- have them hit balls prior to playing. A staff member can observe -- those who want to play the tips need to CARRY THEIR tee ball no less than 200 yards in the air consistently -- likely it should be 225 yards but I'm in a generous spirit to let such lesser hitters play the tips.

[Tim Nugent]

Jud - didn't you know, we don't have Ladies anymore - just Forwards - like hockey
Seriously, we played around with starting intervals for a number of years and this what I discovered:
* Morning players play faster than afternoon players - Type 'A' vs Type 'B' personalities - so we had 8 minute intervals until 10am, 9 min intervals thereafter.
* Things tend to get off track every now and then so we would leave several tee times empty- one every couple of hrs. in order to absorb the backup.  If there course was flowing smoothly, we'd sell it to walk-ons.
*  Starters are a must. And they must not be tempted to let someone off early just because the hole is open - guaranteed to log-jam the 1st par 3
*  Rangers are a must - even if they never say anything to anyone.  Just their presence influenced pace.
*  Rangers can help slow groups by helping find lost balls, forecadding or raking bunkers - if so instructed.  We even gave them a box of balls for the guy who had the "wasn't going to lose that ball - it cost money" attitude.
*ranger AND BEVERAGE CART needs to communicate with starter about pace, playing particular attention to par 3's.
*beverage carts should not stop players in the middle of a hole unless the green is occupied.

[Kevin Lynch]

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....

Jud -
I can top that.  A new course opened here in WNY a few years back.  I arrived for my 1:00 Tee Time only to find no carts available (mandatory) and a 90 minute delay.

When I asked went to ask the Starter what was going on, he didn't even have to say a word.  Looking for my name on the sheet, I saw: 12:45, 12:50, 12:55, 1;00, 1:05, 1:10, 1:15 .....


That was the last time I played there.

[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.

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. 

Tim,

I know the “Driving Range” is taking it to the extreme, but I think Matthew’s point is about the “all or nothing” severe hazards, rather than “graduated” hazards.    Or as Matthew expressed, it’s troublesome when marginal shots are routinely punished as severely as complete sprays.

Why have knee high rough 10 yards off the fairway?  Wouldn’t a few inches provide the commensurate penalty?  Leave the decorative native grasses 30-40 yards away, so you have to work hard to earn that penalty. 

Or like Tobacco Road #2 - a forced carry over sand is fine.  Unlike water, you don’t need to reload and can take your medicine with a more challenging shot.  But it’s fair because if I just miss the carry by 5 yards, I still have a challenging, but not impossible, shot at making a recovery.  The guy who missed the carry by 30 yards doesn’t have the same opportunity.

I accept that I’m causing much of the problem in my round, but the GCA needs to have some recognition of proportionality in punishment, in my opinion.  The theme I’m seeing from guys like Matthew, Matt & myself is that the OTT courses lose that sense of proportion and bog things down.

[Peter Pallotta]

I want to keep this topic up near the top. An important question and a series of good answers/posts so far...and yet, I'm looking for something more; something is missing in the answers so far. I think there's a deeper/more fundamental way to explore this question.  But I can't help with that; I haven't a clue. Just thought I'd try to prod others....

Peter

[Brian Freeman]

I want to keep this topic up near the top. An important question and a series of good answers/posts so far...and yet, I'm looking for something more; something is missing in the answers so far. I think there's a deeper/more fundamental way to explore this question.  But I can't help with that; I haven't a clue. Just thought I'd try to prod others....

Peter

Hopefully this answer isn't too vague, but it think it is when, over the course of a round or tournament, a golfer exhibiting play of exceptional quality is unable to distinguish him/herself from other players or from their own standard of performance.

For example, at Birkdale and Turnberry, Norman & Watson's superior ball striking and course management allowed them to rise to the top despite brutal winds, also Harrington was able to pull off the back-nine charge to win.  The flip side of this would be the year at Carnoustie where no one could do anything except van de Velde and only he because he was making every putt he looked at.

As far as recreational play is concerned, though, I think there's a place in the game for courses with all types of difficulty but the same core rule should suffice.  For example, Tobacco Road might be too difficult for someone who can't break 100, but that's not the player that course is intended for, so I have no problem with that if it's clearly stated up front.  Along the same vein I think it's perfectly reasonable for courses to have a minimum handicap standard.  A prominent country club in my local area advertises that it only admits golfers with a  15 handicap or better - I think that's perfectly reasonable if that's the customer they are seeking to attract. 

But I also respect highly respect a layout that has the flexibility to challenge a professional without being unplayable for an amateur through multiple sets of tees conditioning, pin placements, etc.   

[Lyne Morrison]

My observations of average golfers who play regularly suggest that a course is playing too difficult when a disproportionate number of shots are concentrated on recovery.

When a golfer is struggling to keep his/her ball in play by virtue of unnecessarily long carries, narrow fairways or heavy rough close in to the line of play etc, they are no longer fully engaged with the strategy of the hole and a large element of enjoyment and purpose has been removed from the outing.

Good to see you back Peter.

Cheers - Lyne

[Sean_A]

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. 

Tim,

I know the “Driving Range” is taking it to the extreme, but I think Matthew’s point is about the “all or nothing” severe hazards, rather than “graduated” hazards.    Or as Matthew expressed, it’s troublesome when marginal shots are routinely punished as severely as complete sprays.

Why have knee high rough 10 yards off the fairway?  Wouldn’t a few inches provide the commensurate penalty?  Leave the decorative native grasses 30-40 yards away, so you have to work hard to earn that penalty. 

Or like Tobacco Road #2 - a forced carry over sand is fine.  Unlike water, you don’t need to reload and can take your medicine with a more challenging shot.  But it’s fair because if I just miss the carry by 5 yards, I still have a challenging, but not impossible, shot at making a recovery.  The guy who missed the carry by 30 yards doesn’t have the same opportunity.

I accept that I’m causing much of the problem in my round, but the GCA needs to have some recognition of proportionality in punishment, in my opinion.  The theme I’m seeing from guys like Matthew, Matt & myself is that the OTT courses lose that sense of proportion and bog things down.

Kevin

While I accept that marginal or wild shots can slow the game down, I don't accept that marginal shots deserve marginal penalties and wild shots deserve harsh penalties - in most cases.  A certain unknown quantity about the end result (if talking about rough) is a positive imo.  In other words, you get what you get and for this to be the case rough can't be consistent - it must be very hit and miss.  Perhaps more importantly, the ball must be fairly easily found.  Sure, sometimes a lost ball is called for, but this should be a rare happenstance on a course rather than a stock and trade architectural device.  IMO, its the archie's job to let a player kick on with nearly all shots.  It is also the archie's to make the course interesting from all parts of the course.  I don't think a lost ball is terribly terribly interesting, but I can accept that if used wisely it is great tool to wind players up and/or make a guy hit a certain shot - period - all in the name of variety. 

There are a few posters that seem to be separating length and difficulty.  Where I come from, length contributes to difficulty and to more time to play a course.  Again, this is not some sort of wild conclusion to draw. 

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

While I accept that marginal or wild shots can slow the game down,

I don't accept that marginal shots deserve marginal penalties and wild shots deserve harsh penalties - in most cases. 

Sean, that's contrary to almost every design principle in golf.
Should marginal shots deserve a harsher penalty than wild shots ?
Should wild shots be rewarded and marginal shots heavily penalized ?

I think you've got it wrong on this issue.

A certain unknown quantity about the end result (if talking about rough) is a positive imo.  In other words, you get what you get and for this to be the case rough can't be consistent - it must be very hit and miss.  Perhaps more importantly, the ball must be fairly easily found. 

Why should "wild" shots, far removed from the corridors of play, be "easily" found.
Would you cut all tall fescue like rough to 2 inches ?
Clear out gorse and the like ?

I think your premise is misguided.

Sure, sometimes a lost ball is called for, but this should be a rare happenstance on a course rather than a stock and trade architectural device. 
IMO, its the archie's job to let a player kick on with nearly all shots. 

Then tall rough, such as that found at GCGC, NGLA, Shinnecock and courses in the UK should have that mowed to ANGC height ?
Water hazards should be removed ?

It is also the archie's to make the course interesting from all parts of the course. 

That's absurd.
In what way is it the architect's responsibility to make a shot 70 yards removed from the centerline ... interesting ?

And, how would he do that given rough that's knee deep or higher ?

I don't think a lost ball is terribly terribly interesting, but I can accept that if used wisely it is great tool to wind players up and/or make a guy hit a certain shot - period - all in the name of variety.

Then you're advocating for the removal of all rough in excess of two inches. 

There are a few posters that seem to be separating length and difficulty. 
Where I come from, length contributes to difficulty and to more time to play a course. 
Again, this is not some sort of wild conclusion to draw. 


Length certainly contributes to difficulty, but, I'm not so sure WHERE the line of demarcation sits when it comes to the time to play the course.
Pine Tree, at 7,200, doesn't take long to play.
Other courses, much shorter, like Adios at 6,600 can take much longer

[Sean_A]

Pat

If width is a positive element of design than the recovery shot is what makes width worth creating.  I think marginal and wild shots (your definition seems to be 70 yards off the centre of the target area - mine is considerably less than this) both need a chance at recovery - in most cases.  

I want wild shots, say 45 to 55 yards off the target area (in most cases), to be easily found because it isn't fun to look for balls and the opportunity for a recovery shot is the crux of the game for the handicap player.  

If possible, yes, I think tall rough etc should be removed (in most cases) for a corridor of at least 80 yards and likely 100 yards is more appropriate. The biggest problem with most links today is lack of width.  I don't think hazards need be removed, afterall, a ball is not lost in a hazard.  That said, hazards should be kept to a number which enhances the strategy of the course rather than a number which dictates the strategy of the course.  

Absolutely, within the corridors and often times outside the corridor of the actual fairway in question, archies should be looking for ways to make these shots interesting.  It is the basis for the design idea providing width to be successful.

I don't advocate the removal of all rough.  On handful of occasions during a round, rough can serve as legitimate "hazard" (for lack of a better word).

Length certainly adds to the difficulty of a course and therefore the length of time it takes for a 4balll of 15 cappers to play.  I have a pretty idea of how long courses should be for 15 cappers, but I am afraid the style of design today probably exceeds that length by at least 500 yards.  

Ciao

[Kevin Lynch]

While I accept that marginal or wild shots can slow the game down, I don't accept that marginal shots deserve marginal penalties and wild shots deserve harsh penalties - in most cases.

I’m not saying that the proportional penalty is a hard & fast rule (exceptions always add variety), but as a general guideline, a course is OTT (to me), when the general theme is that the marginal miss consistently gets the same penalty (i.e. OB, Water, Unplayable Rough).


A certain unknown quantity about the end result (if talking about rough) is a positive imo.  In other words, you get what you get and for this to be the case rough can't be consistent - it must be very hit and miss.

Now that is a premise I can accept.  I think you’re talking about uncertainty in what type of lie you can draw once you leave the fairway.  To an extent, you’re right.  Having “uniform rough” is almost an oxymoron.  My home course fits this principle (by accident, rather than by design).  The underlying ground is very bumpy, and the “rough” while not very high, is very uneven.  Sometimes, I have a beautiful fluffer lie that I can rip at with a 3 wood.  Two feet away, I could have a heavy clump of crabgrass right behind the ball and my only option is a hard knuckle-ball runner.  Knee high rough doesn’t fit the bill for this “unknown quantity” characteristic.  You know what you’re getting – nothing.  In my opinion, these types of penalties should be reserved for large misses or used sparingly as an “all or nothing” challenge near the playing corridor.


Perhaps more importantly, the ball must be fairly easily found.  Sure, sometimes a lost ball is called for, but this should be a rare happenstance on a course rather than a stock and trade architectural device.  IMO, its the archie's job to let a player kick on with nearly all shots.

I definitely agree with that.  I love sand but abhor water for just the reasons you said.  Some of the most thrilling moments for me involve “recovery” shots, and the ability (albeit very difficult) to redeem your previous mistake.  Water / OB / Unplayable Rough as prevalent devices eliminate this integral aspect of the game


It is also the archie's to make the course interesting from all parts of the course.  I don't think a lost ball is terribly interesting, but I can accept that if used wisely it is great tool to wind players up and/or make a guy hit a certain shot - period - all in the name of variety.  

Agreed, with Pat’s suggested provision that I can’t expect an archie to account for the 70 yard spray.  At some point, the penalty has to be severe enough to discourage “cross country” pars.

[Jeff_Brauer]

There are some stories out there about certain tour pros who have walked off their own courses on grand openings because they were on the way to shooting 85.....I would guess if a top tour pro walks off his own course, its probably too tough.

[Jason McNamara]

Wasn't one of the (relatively) recent Shell WWoG matches held up at the turn because the course was turned up to stupid-tricky?  Duval and Els, perhaps?

[Steve Strasheim]

When Is A Course Too Difficult?

Never.

Even for a high handicap player. A challenging course will provide at least one great shot, memorable hole, or string of successes that will make the day enjoyable.

It's one of the beautiful things about the game.

[Mac Plumart]

Steve...great post.

Along those lines, I am wondering if a course it too difficult for only two reasons. 

#1---the golfer doesn't have a realistic grasp on his game and therefore attempts to hit shots that he can't...which results in poor results and frustratation. 

#2--unrealistic expectations in regards to score.  For example, golfer X feels that he should shoot 85 every time out, but golfs a moderately difficult country club course on a regular basis.  Then he goes to play TPC Sawgrass a few days before and/or after the Players and he shoots 100 due to course set up and gets frustrated.  If he would have had  realistic expectations in regards to the set up of the course and his game and therefore his score...he might have enjoyed the challenge.

[Sean Leary]

There are some stories out there about certain tour pros who have walked off their own courses on grand openings because they were on the way to shooting 85.....I would guess if a top tour pro walks off his own course, its probably too tough.

There is a story here in WA about Peter Jacobsen moving up a set of tees after 9 at Canterwood during the grand opening...

[Matthew Petersen]

I have only had one experience where I felt a golf course was "too difficult." That was at PGA West Stadium.

Certainly, many a player has a worse time of it than necessary there because they play the wrong tees. However, some of the most extreme trouble there is around and in the greens, and tends to hurt the high handicap player more than a lower handicap. (For example, since there was no one behind our group, everyone in my group went down into the greenside bunker on 16. I was the only low handicap in the group and I was the only one able to even get the ball out (but couldn't get it out and on the green). As a better player, I was also more able to be able to avoid such a sever hazard.

That kind of extreme is the norm on that course. It was an experience I more or less expected and willingly submitted to, of course. And certainly no one should go out there without being fully aware of what they're getting into, but IMHO a golf course is "too hard" if it challenges are so extreme that it bars some players from even being able to complete holes.

There are many excellent and difficult courses that can torture a high handicapper without putting him in a 15-foot deep bunker.

[Tim_Weiman]

A lack of width and too many lost balls, as Mackenzie suggested.

[Adam Clayman]

I have only had one experience where I felt a golf course was "too difficult." That was at PGA West Stadium.

Certainly, many a player has a worse time of it than necessary there because they play the wrong tees. However, some of the most extreme trouble there is around and in the greens, and tends to hurt the high handicap player more than a lower handicap. (For example, since there was no one behind our group, everyone in my group went down into the greenside bunker on 16. I was the only low handicap in the group and I was the only one able to even get the ball out (but couldn't get it out and on the green). As a better player, I was also more able to be able to avoid such a sever hazard.

That kind of extreme is the norm on that course. It was an experience I more or less expected and willingly submitted to, of course. And certainly no one should go out there without being fully aware of what they're getting into, but IMHO a golf course is "too hard" if it challenges are so extreme that it bars some players from even being able to complete holes.

There are many excellent and difficult courses that can torture a high handicapper without putting him in a 15-foot deep bunker.

I had the opposite experience there on 120 degree day. Maybe, it was the heat that allowed me to slow my swing? But, it definitely was the fact that I never went for a green outside of 165 yards. One reason for that was because it was so hot, there were fans on posts surrounding almost every green. Albeit it was in the early nineties, pre-ProV 1's and Volkswagons on the ends of shafts. The course gave me the opportunity to attack conservatively.

Because someone chooses to play a shot, or certain tee, doesn't make the course too difficult. The person makes it difficult by making wrong choices. 

[Steve Strasheim]

Mac,

Thanks.

I believe you are describing any player new to the game. Certainly when I started learning the game at age 30, I would fit exactly into both your numbers 1 and 2.

There is so much more to golf than just learning how to hit the ball. For somebody just starting, there is no way they can have a realistic understanding of why they suck so bad. lol.

steve

Steve...great post.

Along those lines, I am wondering if a course it too difficult for only two reasons. 

#1---the golfer doesn't have a realistic grasp on his game and therefore attempts to hit shots that he can't...which results in poor results and frustratation. 

#2--unrealistic expectations in regards to score.  For example, golfer X feels that he should shoot 85 every time out, but golfs a moderately difficult country club course on a regular basis.  Then he goes to play TPC Sawgrass a few days before and/or after the Players and he shoots 100 due to course set up and gets frustrated.  If he would have had  realistic expectations in regards to the set up of the course and his game and therefore his score...he might have enjoyed the challenge.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()