Do some have it all wrong when

[Patrick_Mucci]

evaluating GCA and a golf course ?

All too often evaluations seem to be in the context of the PGA Tour Pro, a +4-+6-+8 handicap.

Historically, it seemed that golf courses were built and evaluated with the scratch player in mind.

Almost every golf course, except those especially prepared for the PGA Tour Pro, is out of sync with the PGA Tour Pros game.

The feature placement and relationships, etc, etc.., so why is there an almost constant referal or contexting with a PGA Tour Pro's game ?

Shouldn't evaluations be from the perspective of the scratch players game, first, and then from the perspective of lessor, not substantively better golfers ?

[Sean_A]

Pat

I agree that evaluating a course for general play from the perspective of a touring pro's abilities is a self defeating object.  I would take it one step further than you and say that general evaluation/criticism should be from the perespective of the 4-7 handicap range - a good club player, but not one likely to win much playing flat.  This idea goes back to bogey scores whicih I think were far more relavent to golfers than "par".

Ciao

[David Whitmer]

I also agree with you, and admit I usually fall into that category myself when evaluating a golf course. I'm speculating here, but it may be because I have a pretty good idea what kind of player the professional is. For the most part, he hits a big drive, can hit his irons high and soft or low and running, and has an excellent short game. As handicaps get higher, the disparity in terms of type of game widens. Some 10-handicappers hit a big drive, often in the woods. Others keep it straight but can't drive it more than 200 yards.

My 31 year-old brother and 62 year-old father are both 5-handicappers. My brother hits his driver about 270 yards, has a so-so iron game, and a hot-and-cold short game. My father can't hit a driver more than 220 yards, hits hybrids all the time from the fairway, and has a very good short game. It's tougher for me to evaluate a golf course from their point of view, because they are so different. Whose game do I use? With the professionals, it's easier.

[Adam Clayman]

Seems arbitrary to pick what level evaluations are made. Personally I've never given much thought to how well someone plays as criteria. The gca is the medium for the sport. If the design elements are based on principles that allow everyone to be challenged, enlightened, surprised and enriched, spiritually, it's all t ever has to be. Basing evals on a  pros ability misses so many boats it's not worth the effort.

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

Maybe it's got something to do with Gary Player and Jack Nicklaus telling people constantly that only a great player can really understand design.

Personally, I think that aiming at scratch players is over-reaching a little.  There are way more 5-handicaps than scratch players, so I've always tried to build courses where a 5-handicap can get around from the back tees.  However, when a client insists on talking about Tour pros ... as at Sebonack or Cape Kidnappers ... then to please them I have to go out and deliberately build three or four tees a 5-handicap CAN'T play from.

[Dan Herrmann]

Pat,
Tom built some fantastic short (women's) tees at PD which Laura absolutely loved.  Some even had better views.  They provided her with a lot of fun and appropriate challenges.

Actually, I'm guessing the best members courses would be designed with an LPGA touring pro's game in mind.  Distances are a lot closer to most male players, but the green complexes would still be challenging.

[John Moore II]

Pat-I assume your comments here stem from what I said about ANGC and their lengthening of the course. Fine. I think Tom hits is on the head though that courses at least aught to be designed for a 5ish handicap player unless they are specifically intended to be used as Tour courses. And even then, the back tees don't really need to be marked for use every day. I know at The Pit they have an extra set of tees that stretch the course out to over 7100 yards, but the tees aren't marked and aren't on the scorecard. You have to request a special scorecard for those tees. I think a way to build would be to put all the hazards in the 240-275 range off the tee (the hazards you intend to be in play, certainly not on every hole) and have those be the "back" tees. Then if it is needed to have a major event (top level Am event or Tour event) have another set of tees that stretch those hazards out to the 280-315 range off the tee. That would add 720 yards to the course at just 40 yards per hole; certainly on par 3's you add in an even longer tee if needed. But have it to where the far back tees are farther away from the greens to cut down walking as well.

OK, sorry, that diverged from topic some. The Tour pro's game is the one used for comparison because its easiest to work with. As David said, other games are quite different. Someone can be a scratch handicap or 5 handicap and the next guy be the same, yet, they have wildly different games. At least among the Tour guys, the game they play is mostly the same; certainly there are outliers, but for the most part, those guys all hit the ball 280-300 off the tee and can putt well.

[Niall C]

Pat,
Tom built some fantastic short (women's) tees at PD which Laura absolutely loved.  Some even had better views.  They provided her with a lot of fun and appropriate challenges.

Actually, I'm guessing the best members courses would be designed with an LPGA touring pro's game in mind.  Distances are a lot closer to most male players, but the green complexes would still be challenging.

Dan

Good observation. When I first played Kingsbarns I played with a lady golfer and her disappointment at where quite a few of the ladies tees were was almost palpable. It was almost as though they had been stuck in as an after thought. Of course I'm sure they would argue that she could play from wherever she liked and indeed we eventually suggested she play from the mens tees but she didn't like that idea much.

Going back to the original question I would say yes in some instances it would be wrong to judge a course as being something its not designed to be. As an example I've played Castle Stuart a couple of times recently and its great fun, particularly for a relative hacker like me (hncp 10) but I don't know that its going to be that much of a test for the crack golfers who generally like a stiff challenge but then its not designed for them, so to judge on those terms would be wrong.

Niall

[Garland Bayley]

Right Pat,

Those some would be JKMoore, and M Ward.












 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat-I assume your comments here stem from what I said about ANGC and their lengthening of the course.

They didn't

Fine. I think Tom hits is on the head though that courses at least aught to be designed for a 5ish handicap player unless they are specifically intended to be used as Tour courses.

I can't imagine Tom Doak or any other architect, living or dead, positioning his features for the play of the 5 handicap.
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding Tom, but, it would seem logical to design a course, past, present and future for the contemporary scratch handicap, not the PGA Tour Pro or 5 handicap.

And even then, the back tees don't really need to be marked for use every day.

Back tees at a local club and back tees at a club that hosts PGA Tournaments are two distinctly different golf courses.

I think you have to ignore or eliminate those courses that host PGA Tour events as they're basically on steroids.

I have no problem playing the back tees at Hidden Creek, Preakness Hills, Garden City, Fenway and an abundance of other courses.
I do have a problem playing the back tees at ANGC, WFW, BPB, Baltusrol and other PGA venues.

That's an inherent element in this thread.

I know at The Pit they have an extra set of tees that stretch the course out to over 7100 yards, but the tees aren't marked and aren't on the scorecard. You have to request a special scorecard for those tees.

That's a novel and interesting approach in the U.S.
At many U.K. courses guests are prohibited from playing the back/championship tees.

I think a way to build would be to put all the hazards in the 240-275 range off the tee (the hazards you intend to be in play, certainly not on every hole) and have those be the "back" tees. Then if it is needed to have a major event (top level Am event or Tour event) have another set of tees that stretch those hazards out to the 280-315 range off the tee. That would add 720 yards to the course at just 40 yards per hole; certainly on par 3's you add in an even longer tee if needed. But have it to where the far back tees are farther away from the greens to cut down walking as well.


A 35 yard long hazard is oversized.
I can't think of many courses with fairway bunkers that long.

The problem is:  Presenting the features so that all the golfers interface with them.
That problem is exaccerbated by the disparity in the levels of play today.
It's almost impossible to design a golf course where the same or a similar hazard interfaces with the PGA Tour Pro, the scratch and lower handicap, while at the same time not being overly burdensome to the women, junior, senior or poorer golfer.

OK, sorry, that diverged from topic some. The Tour pro's game is the one used for comparison because its easiest to work with.

That's an invalid reason.
The Touring Pro's game shouldn't be the basis for comparison when Touring pros will never set foot on the property.

Tom Doak's 5 handicaper is a more realistic yard stick.

When I see the distances that young kids are hitting the ball today, I don't know how the architect can satisfy the more disparate distances the best and poorer players hit the ball.  And, since 99 % of the golf courses in the U.S. won't host a PGA Tour event, why cater to their game at the local level ?

As David said, other games are quite different. Someone can be a scratch handicap or 5 handicap and the next guy be the same, yet, they have wildly different games. At least among the Tour guys, the game they play is mostly the same; certainly there are outliers, but for the most part, those guys all hit the ball 280-300 off the tee and can putt well.

So what ?   The PGA Tour isn't going to host a tournament at 99 % of the courses in the U.S. so any contexting of their games relative to local courses is a wasted exercise.

And that's my point.
Why view/analyze the architecture of a local course in the context of the PGA Tour Pro's game ?

[Peter Pallotta]

"Historically, it seemed that golf courses were built and evaluated with the scratch player in mind."

Patrick - on a recent thread, you seemed to argue just the opposite, i.e. that the great courses of the golden age were playable for all levels of golfers. But at any rate, it seems to me that if the great golf courses of the past were built and evaluated with the scratch player in mind, they would've been as out of sync with the average player/club member of their day as the golf courses built today that use PGA Tour players as the measuring stick. Granted, there may have been less of a difference between the top amateurs and the good scratch golfers of the 1920s than there is between a PGA Tour pro and a good scratch golfer today -- but a true scratch golfer was as rare back then as they are today. The fact that scratch golfers today would get wiped off the map by touring pros while maybe in the 20s they might hold their own against the top amateurs doesn't change that fact.

Peter

[JMEvensky]

 Granted, there may have been less of a difference between the top amateurs and the good scratch golfers of the 1920s than there is between a PGA Tour pro and a good scratch golfer today.

I think this is a big part of the answer.

Today,it seems as though there is greater disparity between great,good,and average players.

Further,my sense is that,in the day, those on the lower rungs expected the golf course to be too difficult--that was just part of it.

[John Moore II]

Pat-I assume your comments here stem from what I said about ANGC and their lengthening of the course.

They didn't

I still think they did.

Fine. I think Tom hits is on the head though that courses at least aught to be designed for a 5ish handicap player unless they are specifically intended to be used as Tour courses.

I can't imagine Tom Doak or any other architect, living or dead, positioning his features for the play of the 5 handicap.
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding Tom, but, it would seem logical to design a course, past, present and future for the contemporary scratch handicap, not the PGA Tour Pro or 5 handicap.

Tom seemed pretty clear to me that he felt that there were more 5 handicap players to build for than scratch players.

And even then, the back tees don't really need to be marked for use every day.

Back tees at a local club and back tees at a club that hosts PGA Tournaments are two distinctly different golf courses.

I think you have to ignore or eliminate those courses that host PGA Tour events as they're basically on steroids.

I have no problem playing the back tees at Hidden Creek, Preakness Hills, Garden City, Fenway and an abundance of other courses.
I do have a problem playing the back tees at ANGC, WFW, BPB, Baltusrol and other PGA venues.

That's an inherent element in this thread.

I know at The Pit they have an extra set of tees that stretch the course out to over 7100 yards, but the tees aren't marked and aren't on the scorecard. You have to request a special scorecard for those tees.

That's a novel and interesting approach in the U.S.
At many U.K. courses guests are prohibited from playing the back/championship tees.

I have seen other courses that required handicap verification to play the back tees, but they were marked on the scorecard and had permanent markers on the tees. At The Pit, they are basically unmarked unless you know what to look for.

I think a way to build would be to put all the hazards in the 240-275 range off the tee (the hazards you intend to be in play, certainly not on every hole) and have those be the "back" tees. Then if it is needed to have a major event (top level Am event or Tour event) have another set of tees that stretch those hazards out to the 280-315 range off the tee. That would add 720 yards to the course at just 40 yards per hole; certainly on par 3's you add in an even longer tee if needed. But have it to where the far back tees are farther away from the greens to cut down walking as well.


A 35 yard long hazard is oversized.
I can't think of many courses with fairway bunkers that long.

The problem is:  Presenting the features so that all the golfers interface with them.
That problem is exaccerbated by the disparity in the levels of play today.
It's almost impossible to design a golf course where the same or a similar hazard interfaces with the PGA Tour Pro, the scratch and lower handicap, while at the same time not being overly burdensome to the women, junior, senior or poorer golfer.

The individual hazard doesn't need to be 35 yards long, just the combination of hazards, 2, 3 or however many bunkers, water, etc., all spread over 35 yards. Or if you intend to do waste areas such as Tobacco Road, have the waste area come in closer in that yardage range.

OK, sorry, that diverged from topic some. The Tour pro's game is the one used for comparison because its easiest to work with.

That's an invalid reason.
The Touring Pro's game shouldn't be the basis for comparison when Touring pros will never set foot on the property.

Tom Doak's 5 handicaper is a more realistic yard stick.

When I see the distances that young kids are hitting the ball today, I don't know how the architect can satisfy the more disparate distances the best and poorer players hit the ball.  And, since 99 % of the golf courses in the U.S. won't host a PGA Tour event, why cater to their game at the local level ?

As David said, other games are quite different. Someone can be a scratch handicap or 5 handicap and the next guy be the same, yet, they have wildly different games. At least among the Tour guys, the game they play is mostly the same; certainly there are outliers, but for the most part, those guys all hit the ball 280-300 off the tee and can putt well.

So what ?   The PGA Tour isn't going to host a tournament at 99 % of the courses in the U.S. so any contexting of their games relative to local courses is a wasted exercise.

And that's my point.
Why view/analyze the architecture of a local course in the context of the PGA Tour Pro's game ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat-I assume your comments here stem from what I said about ANGC and their lengthening of the course.

They didn't

I still think they did.


I know why I started the thread and it had nothing to do with comments you made.

Fine. I think Tom hits is on the head though that courses at least aught to be designed for a 5ish handicap player unless they are specifically intended to be used as Tour courses.

I can't imagine Tom Doak or any other architect, living or dead, positioning his features for the play of the 5 handicap.
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding Tom, but, it would seem logical to design a course, past, present and future for the contemporary scratch handicap, not the PGA Tour Pro or 5 handicap.

Tom seemed pretty clear to me that he felt that there were more 5 handicap players to build for than scratch players.

The issue isn't a quantitative issue.

There are more 10 and 15 handicaps than 5 handicaps, so would you build a course targeted toward the 10 and 15 handicapper ?
I think not.  There's a minimum standard in terms of playing ability and I don't believe that you configure and locate your features for those golfers who fail to meet that minimum standard, and it's NOT the 5 handicapper. 

And even then, the back tees don't really need to be marked for use every day.

Back tees at a local club and back tees at a club that hosts PGA Tournaments are two distinctly different golf courses.

I think you have to ignore or eliminate those courses that host PGA Tour events as they're basically on steroids.

I have no problem playing the back tees at Hidden Creek, Preakness Hills, Garden City, Fenway and an abundance of other courses.
I do have a problem playing the back tees at ANGC, WFW, BPB, Baltusrol and other PGA venues.

That's an inherent element in this thread.

I know at The Pit they have an extra set of tees that stretch the course out to over 7100 yards, but the tees aren't marked and aren't on the scorecard. You have to request a special scorecard for those tees.

That's a novel and interesting approach in the U.S.
At many U.K. courses guests are prohibited from playing the back/championship tees.

I have seen other courses that required handicap verification to play the back tees, but they were marked on the scorecard and had permanent markers on the tees. At The Pit, they are basically unmarked unless you know what to look for.


That's a novel idea.
I wonder how many other U.S. courses engage in the same practice ?

I think a way to build would be to put all the hazards in the 240-275 range off the tee (the hazards you intend to be in play, certainly not on every hole) and have those be the "back" tees. Then if it is needed to have a major event (top level Am event or Tour event) have another set of tees that stretch those hazards out to the 280-315 range off the tee. That would add 720 yards to the course at just 40 yards per hole; certainly on par 3's you add in an even longer tee if needed. But have it to where the far back tees are farther away from the greens to cut down walking as well.


A 35 yard long hazard is oversized.
I can't think of many courses with fairway bunkers that long.

The problem is:  Presenting the features so that all the golfers interface with them.
That problem is exaccerbated by the disparity in the levels of play today.
It's almost impossible to design a golf course where the same or a similar hazard interfaces with the PGA Tour Pro, the scratch and lower handicap, while at the same time not being overly burdensome to the women, junior, senior or poorer golfer.

The individual hazard doesn't need to be 35 yards long, just the combination of hazards, 2, 3 or however many bunkers, water, etc., all spread over 35 yards. Or if you intend to do waste areas such as Tobacco Road, have the waste area come in closer in that yardage range.
Can you provide 10 examples of courses that present that arrangement ?


OK, sorry, that diverged from topic some. The Tour pro's game is the one used for comparison because its easiest to work with.

That's an invalid reason.
The Touring Pro's game shouldn't be the basis for comparison when Touring pros will never set foot on the property.

Tom Doak's 5 handicaper is a more realistic yard stick.

When I see the distances that young kids are hitting the ball today, I don't know how the architect can satisfy the more disparate distances the best and poorer players hit the ball.  And, since 99 % of the golf courses in the U.S. won't host a PGA Tour event, why cater to their game at the local level ?

As David said, other games are quite different. Someone can be a scratch handicap or 5 handicap and the next guy be the same, yet, they have wildly different games. At least among the Tour guys, the game they play is mostly the same; certainly there are outliers, but for the most part, those guys all hit the ball 280-300 off the tee and can putt well.

So what ?   The PGA Tour isn't going to host a tournament at 99 % of the courses in the U.S. so any contexting of their games relative to local courses is a wasted exercise.

And that's my point.
Why view/analyze the architecture of a local course in the context of the PGA Tour Pro's game ?

[John Moore II]

Pat-I assume your comments here stem from what I said about ANGC and their lengthening of the course.

They didn't

I still think they did.


I know why I started the thread and it had nothing to do with comments you made.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Whatevar...

Fine. I think Tom hits is on the head though that courses at least aught to be designed for a 5ish handicap player unless they are specifically intended to be used as Tour courses.

I can't imagine Tom Doak or any other architect, living or dead, positioning his features for the play of the 5 handicap.
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding Tom, but, it would seem logical to design a course, past, present and future for the contemporary scratch handicap, not the PGA Tour Pro or 5 handicap.

Tom seemed pretty clear to me that he felt that there were more 5 handicap players to build for than scratch players.

The issue isn't a quantitative issue.

There are more 10 and 15 handicaps than 5 handicaps, so would you build a course targeted toward the 10 and 15 handicapper ?
I think not.  There's a minimum standard in terms of playing ability and I don't believe that you configure and locate your features for those golfers who fail to meet that minimum standard, and it's NOT the 5 handicapper.  

Hey, just go back and read what Tom said again. I can only go with what is apparently clearly written in his words.

And even then, the back tees don't really need to be marked for use every day.

Back tees at a local club and back tees at a club that hosts PGA Tournaments are two distinctly different golf courses.

I think you have to ignore or eliminate those courses that host PGA Tour events as they're basically on steroids.

I have no problem playing the back tees at Hidden Creek, Preakness Hills, Garden City, Fenway and an abundance of other courses.
I do have a problem playing the back tees at ANGC, WFW, BPB, Baltusrol and other PGA venues.

That's an inherent element in this thread.

I know at The Pit they have an extra set of tees that stretch the course out to over 7100 yards, but the tees aren't marked and aren't on the scorecard. You have to request a special scorecard for those tees.

That's a novel and interesting approach in the U.S.
At many U.K. courses guests are prohibited from playing the back/championship tees.

I have seen other courses that required handicap verification to play the back tees, but they were marked on the scorecard and had permanent markers on the tees. At The Pit, they are basically unmarked unless you know what to look for.


That's a novel idea.
I wonder how many other U.S. courses engage in the same practice ?

A good number go with handicap verification to play a certain set of tees. I know we did it as Mid South and Talamore. The base golf facility at Camp Lejeune requires a handicap to play its 'bigger' course on the weekends. As far as courses doing what they do at The Pit, I have no clue if any other clubs do that, I've never seen it, but I've never really looked for it elsewhere.

I think a way to build would be to put all the hazards in the 240-275 range off the tee (the hazards you intend to be in play, certainly not on every hole) and have those be the "back" tees. Then if it is needed to have a major event (top level Am event or Tour event) have another set of tees that stretch those hazards out to the 280-315 range off the tee. That would add 720 yards to the course at just 40 yards per hole; certainly on par 3's you add in an even longer tee if needed. But have it to where the far back tees are farther away from the greens to cut down walking as well.


A 35 yard long hazard is oversized.
I can't think of many courses with fairway bunkers that long.

The problem is:  Presenting the features so that all the golfers interface with them.
That problem is exaccerbated by the disparity in the levels of play today.
It's almost impossible to design a golf course where the same or a similar hazard interfaces with the PGA Tour Pro, the scratch and lower handicap, while at the same time not being overly burdensome to the women, junior, senior or poorer golfer.

The individual hazard doesn't need to be 35 yards long, just the combination of hazards, 2, 3 or however many bunkers, water, etc., all spread over 35 yards. Or if you intend to do waste areas such as Tobacco Road, have the waste area come in closer in that yardage range.
Can you provide 10 examples of courses that present that arrangement ?

Which arrangement? I mean, as far as the bunkers being spread around flanking the landing area, there are any number of courses that do that, probably 75% of all courses built do that, especially ones built by say, RTJ. I'm not so much talking about a specific yardage but more like having your hazards flanking the preferred landing area. Do I really need to give examples of courses that may have 1, 2 or however many bunkers encroaching on the preferred landing area? That might be just on one side of the fairway, both sides, or whatever. Like I said, do I really need to give 10 examples of fundamental golf architecture?

Now, if we are talking about the arrangement of an additional set of tees purpose designed to host a tournament and add a large amount of yardage to the course and being unmarked for daily play, I have no clue if that exists at all beyond a concept in my mind.

OK, sorry, that diverged from topic some. The Tour pro's game is the one used for comparison because its easiest to work with.

That's an invalid reason.
The Touring Pro's game shouldn't be the basis for comparison when Touring pros will never set foot on the property.

Tom Doak's 5 handicaper is a more realistic yard stick.

When I see the distances that young kids are hitting the ball today, I don't know how the architect can satisfy the more disparate distances the best and poorer players hit the ball.  And, since 99 % of the golf courses in the U.S. won't host a PGA Tour event, why cater to their game at the local level ?

As David said, other games are quite different. Someone can be a scratch handicap or 5 handicap and the next guy be the same, yet, they have wildly different games. At least among the Tour guys, the game they play is mostly the same; certainly there are outliers, but for the most part, those guys all hit the ball 280-300 off the tee and can putt well.

So what ?   The PGA Tour isn't going to host a tournament at 99 % of the courses in the U.S. so any contexting of their games relative to local courses is a wasted exercise.

And that's my point.
Why view/analyze the architecture of a local course in the context of the PGA Tour Pro's game ?

[John Moore II]

Right Pat,

Those some would be JKMoore, and M Ward.

You can kiss my white arse. 

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

To say that positioning [some, or many] features of a golf course for a 5-handicap is folly, and then to suggest they should all be positioned for a scratch player, is just ridiculous.

You are falling into exactly the same trap which Tour pro / designers fall into, when they essentially position every feature based on their own games.

In the real world, players with the same handicaps can exhibit entirely different skill sets.  And, scratch ... just like 5, and just like +5 ... is just another point on the handicap continuum, it is not THE point which all of design should aim at.

[Bradley Anderson]

Patrick,

In another thread you asked why the golden age courses stand up so well to modern equipment. I think its because most people aren't great golfers. So even a course where the original fairway bunkers are now supposedly so easy to clear, can still be a legitimate hazard on account of the more than occasional bad shot.

I think you just build a golf course to make the most of the land that you are presented with, and don't get too concerned with what the low handicap players are going to do with it. But then I'm not an architect.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

To say that positioning [some, or many] features of a golf course for a 5-handicap is folly, and then to suggest they should all be positioned for a scratch player, is just ridiculous.

That's not what I said.
But, I would say that positioning all the features for a 5 handicap is ridiculous.
Courses have historically been designed primarily for the scratch handicap with considerations incorporated for lesser golfers.

Golf courses on steroids (added length) has been a specific concession to golfers who are better than scratch players or scratch players with modern tech equipment.

You are falling into exactly the same trap which Tour pro / designers fall into, when they essentially position every feature based on their own games.

I don't see my position equating to that.

Today, if one assumes that the 5 handicap hits the ball 220-250, and therefore positions the features to interface with that game, the course will be too easy for the better golfer, and as such, not challenging enough for the better golfer.

In the real world, players with the same handicaps can exhibit entirely different skill sets.

I've often heard that said, but, in reality I think it's more applicable to the higher handicap player.
As one's handicap approaches zero and better, the playing characteristics of those golfers tend to blend with little distinction between them.
Take 100 real zero handicaps and I think you'll find very little in the way of disparities in their games.
And, as you move even lower, to + 2, + 4, + 6 I think you'll see those skill sets mirroring one another. 

And, scratch ... just like 5, and just like +5 ... is just another point on the handicap continuum, it is not THE point which all of design should aim at.
I think that's the challenge today, moreso than 20-40-60 years ago.
The spectrum has become too broad.
But, you can't design a golf course with features primarily intended to interface with the 5 handicapper.
The course will not have sufficient challenge for those golfers with handicaps below 5.
And, a course that doesn't offer a sufficient challenge to the better golfer will not be well received.

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

To start, I'll agree with what Bradley postulated, above.  Golden Age courses are better because the average 5-handicap drives it today where Bobby Jones drove it 80 years ago.

Then, I will agree with your one point ... scratch players have a relatively narrow profile, and as such are fairly narrow-minded.  It's easy to be a 5-handicap with an erratic swing but an excellent short game.  Scratch players tend to be the opposite, good with their irons, good but not great around the greens.  Which is why they complain so much when everything is not set up for them.

But, look at the +5 guys.  There is John Daly, and there's Mike Weir and Mike Reid.  They all have excellent short games, but the differnce between Quiros and the shortest hitter on Tour is easily 50 yards.  Which of them are you placing fairway bunkers for?  Mr. Nicklaus still puts them at 265 and 285 because that's HIS game, nevermind that today's pros are only worried about his occasional flanking bunker at 320 off the tee, which is NEVER designed to require a carry even though there are hundreds of kids around who would take that on.

I have always advocated that fairway bunkers should be placed so that EVERYONE has to worry about 3-4 of them per round.  If that isn't enough to challenge the good player, when you combine it with greens that reward positioning in the fairway, then I am guilty as charged.  But I will stand on my original point -- golf is NOT all about scratch players -- and even though they think it is, the other 99% of golfers just laugh at their egocentric view.

[John Moore II]

Pat:
I have always advocated that fairway bunkers should be placed so that EVERYONE has to worry about 3-4 of them per round.  If that isn't enough to challenge the good player, when you combine it with greens that reward positioning in the fairway, then I am guilty as charged.  But I will stand on my original point -- golf is NOT all about scratch players -- and even though they think it is, the other 99% of golfers just laugh at their egocentric view.

So, is this from the same set of tees? Because from a forward set of tees, even one forward, the better player might not have to worry about any or the hazards, unless the are water hazards or hazards that run perpendicular to line of play all the way across the fairway. And same from the back tees for a 10 handicap, that player might not be able to reach any of the hazards. And that was kind of my point of saying to have the hazards at a certain distance from the back tees, then put the next set of tees enough forward so that it will take the same relative shot to get there from that set for the intended player. And forward, and forward. Or a 'hidden' set moving back in case you want some real meat on the course. Isn't that a fair idea or perhaps even what you do now as is?

[Matthew Rose]

I'm about a 5 handicap, so I feel obligated to speak

I find most new courses that I play that I am usually presented with a dilemma on which set of tees to play. Most of the time, I will get dragged back to the tips, usually because my older brother (a plus-2) wishes to be challenged as such. Anything over 7300 or so though, I usually lobby to move up a set. Even out here at altitude, I rarely hit it 300.

In most cases I am comfortable going back there, except there are usually 2-3 holes where it is too much. I'm guessing these are those 2-3 ridiculous back tees Mr. Doak is referring to.

The one thing I encounter more than anything else (and I really hate) is when all the par-threes are 200+. Even for someone of modest length, that's still a long-iron/hybrid most of the time. I don't object being asked to hit one once in awhile, but four of them is ridiculous.

[Bradley Anderson]

If you were given the job of designing an exclusive club that was for 5 handicaps only, you would still have as many different paths to the hole as there are members.

And on top of that, most of the guys who we would accept in to our 5 handicap club aren't a true 5 handicap.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

To start, I'll agree with what Bradley postulated, above.  Golden Age courses are better because the average 5-handicap drives it today where Bobby Jones drove it 80 years ago.

If not 40 yards farther.

Then, I will agree with your one point ... scratch players have a relatively narrow profile, and as such are fairly narrow-minded.  It's easy to be a 5-handicap with an erratic swing but an excellent short game.  Scratch players tend to be the opposite, good with their irons, good but not great around the greens.  Which is why they complain so much when everything is not set up for them. 

I don't know, most "true" scratch handicaps have great short games

I think the complaints tend to come from a sense of entitlement.
Frank Hannigan told me many years ago, the worst people to listen to are the competitors, because they view the game in the narrowest of context's, basically, their own.

But, look at the +5 guys.  There is John Daly, and there's Mike Weir and Mike Reid.  They all have excellent short games, but the differnce between Quiros and the shortest hitter on Tour is easily 50 yards. 

Daly was amongst the longest on Tour when he first surfaced.
Who can forget Nicklaus's miscalls at the British Open at TOC.
The PGA Tour Pros do everything well, some are just longer than others.

Which of them are you placing fairway bunkers for? 

I've always maintained that the spectrum has become far too elongated, creating an impossible task for GCA's.

The entire jist of this thread is to ignore golf in the context of the PGA Tour pro, especially when discussing a local golf course.
You CAN'T cater, equally, in terms of design, to the PGA Tour Pro, scratch, mid, high, women's, and senior golfer, because the spectrum has been stretched too far.

Mr. Nicklaus still puts them at 265 and 285 because that's HIS game, nevermind that today's pros are only worried about his occasional flanking bunker at 320 off the tee, which is NEVER designed to require a carry even though there are hundreds of kids around who would take that on.

Again, you've stated my case.

Bunkering at 320 for one set, 265-285 for another, 230-250 for another and 200 for yet another.
And, even if you accomodate all of them by seperate tees, how do you equalize the challenge from their respective DZ's to the green ?

Tough task.

Since 99 % of courses aren't intended to host PGA Tour events, unless the client dictates it, why bother incorporating their needs in your design ?

I have always advocated that fairway bunkers should be placed so that EVERYONE has to worry about 3-4 of them per round. 

Tom, the difficulty in that task is making sure that while catering to the needs of a specific golfer, that you don't neglect the needs of all other golfers.

ie, having a bunker complex at 320 and no other feature to challenge any other distance off the tee.

If that isn't enough to challenge the good player, when you combine it with greens that reward positioning in the fairway, then I am guilty as charged. 

How do you challenge the PGA Tour Player by rewarding position off the tee for him, without unduly penalizing the lessor players on the same hole ?
Seperate tees only goes so far, leaving a remainder challenge from the respective DZ's into the green.

But I will stand on my original point -- golf is NOT all about scratch players -- and even though they think it is, the other 99% of golfers just laugh at their egocentric view.

I think you're missing the point.
You can't design a course for higher handicap golfers, be it your 5 handicap or a 10 handicap, because the challenge will be overwhelmed by all those with handicaps lower than 5, rendering the course insufficient in terms of presenting a challenge for the better player.

You know how much I love playing NGLA.
In 40+ years I've never tired of it.
But, it presents little, if any, challenge to the PGA Tour Pro.
The features that challenge me and golfers slightly better and slightly worse are of no concern to the PGA Tour Pro.
In short, there's little if any interfacing with the features.
Think of what you'd have to do to NGLA to make its features interface with PGA Tour Pro's.

And, I don't care about the games of the PGA Tour Pros.
The course presents a sufficient challenge that's fun to meet.
Same for GCGC and so many other courses.
And, I'm referencing play from the back tees.

Today, I played with a pro who drove his ball in fairly heavy rough, 225 yards from a green.
He hit a 7-iron to the front of the green.
Tell me how you're going to present a 5, 10, 15 or 20 handicap with the same challenge he faces, and, he wasn't a tour Pro, he was a head Pro at a local club.

My entire point is to ignore the PGA Tour Pro's game when analyzing a local/regional course, one that doesn't host professional event.

Yet, for some reason, many on this site context GCA and course analysis within the realm of the PGA Tour Pro's game.

I say ignore that game if it's never going to come to town.