Why Don't They Build Some Easy Courses?

[Phil Benedict]

I got into a conversation with my brother about the most fun courses we've played, inspired by a thread here.  He said Yale and I sort of jokingly said Canaan.

Canaan is a 9-holer in Northwestern Connecticut that was one of the first courses I played as a kid.  Bordered by the Canaan River, the course had wide fairways, few bunkers and it was pretty hard to lose a ball.  It was uncomplicated and, dare I say the word, easy.

Since the majority of golfers can barely cope with the myriad of challenges offered by golf, wouldn't it be nice if there were more courses where you could hit your ball without having to worry about where it's going to go, walk up to it and hit it again (and again).

Not everyone needs a challenge to have fun.

[Kalen Braley]

I got into a conversation with my brother about the most fun courses we've played, inspired by a thread here.  He said Yale and I sort of jokingly said Canaan.

Canaan is a 9-holer in Northwestern Connecticut that was one of the first courses I played as a kid.  Bordered by the Canaan River, the course had wide fairways, few bunkers and it was pretty hard to lose a ball.  It was uncomplicated and, dare I say the word, easy.

Since the majority of golfers can barely cope with the myriad of challenges offered by golf, wouldn't it be nice if there were more courses where you could hit your ball without having to worry about where it's going to go, walk up to it and hit it again (and again).

Not everyone needs a challenge to have fun.

Phil,

In the places I've lived, SF bay area, northern utah, and spokane, wa...there isn't any shortage of these types of courses.  And they are usually easy to get on because most people aren't interested in playing them. 

Are tree lined courses the norm on the east coast?  Perhaps this is the case.  I've only played one course east of Colorado!

[Mac Plumart]

Pfft...

They're all easy for me!! 

 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Phil,

That would be the Blackberry River running through the Canaan CC.  

Canaan appeals to players looking for the type of experience you suggest, but as you can see by your bro's remark, it takes many types of courses to satisfy a varied pool of golfers.

Some years back we picked up a league from the Canaan club when they had a problem with the former owner. There was quite a bit of griping from some of the players during their first few weeks because our course is somewhat harder (1.5 rating/5 points in slope/more varied terrain/more chances for trouble) but by mid-season they had adjusted to the differences and really enjoyed the increased challenges they found here, i.e, the increase became fun for them.

That's not to say that I don't believe more courses like Canaan shouldn't be built, they can be fun in their own right.


edit: A relatively new (2001) course opened in Canaan, it's called Quarry View. It's an exec w/driving range and it does moderately well.

[jeffwarne]

Build 'em really hard
with unchecked "native grass"
water everywhere
superdeep bunkers (lots of them esp. in the rough)
forced carries and OB 

but give us 12 inch cups, illegal equipment, and a new set of golf relaxed rules to keep it fun and "save the game"

 

ickkkkkkkk

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

You forgot those other "Quality Markers" from the other thread:

7000+ yards
Par 72

[Jim Franklin]

Jim Engh built the Creek Club at Reynolds Plantation that was designed to assist higher handicap players to keep the ball in play. A lot of people on this site panned the course because it was "too easy". Containment mounds etc... You guys don't know what you want. I thought the course was fun. Sure you can score well, and isn't that the goal???

[Jud_T]

What about some shorter courses that still have some quirk and challenge?  My former club's main defense was length and it became very tiresome after a while.  This weekend after 63 holes and an aching back, I went out for an emergency 13 holes from the white markers at my new club.  This is 5700 yards, rating of 67.7 (?) and slope of 127 (?) with tons of quirk.  It was a complete blast and probably the most fun I had all weekend...

[Melvyn Morrow]

Phil

If you want “EASY” why in Hells name are you playing golf.

The very nature of the great game is the actual challenge via GCA and the combination of hazards both manmade and/or natural.

One can step up to a ‘Challenge’ but you can only step down to it being ‘Easy’

Perhaps we are fighting too many easy wars, hence why we do not seem to win the Peace.

Life, my friend is just not EASY.

Melvyn

[Mike Nuzzo]

Jim
Most average players can't hit the proper side of a containment mound.

Melvyn
He didn't ask for easy
He asked for easier
That little Old Course near you sure is easy to play, just not easy to score.

[Jim Franklin]

Jim
Most average players can't hit the proper side of a containment mound.

Mike -

Have you played the Creek Club? It is not that hard to keep the ball in play there. Jim Engh told me it was designed for the higher handicappers and that really good players probably wouldn't "get it", but it was supposed to be fun. I thought it was very fun.

I do agree with your original assesment that most average players can't hit the right side of a containment mound on a typical course. This one isn't typical though.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mike

Take it that the wind was asleep when you played it 

 Melvyn

[Steve Wilson]

Phils says

"Not everyone needs a challenge to have fun."

Melvyn tells us that golf is supposed to hard.

I think there's enough challenge for a certain level of ability that is satisfied by difficulty of the task at hand--getting a small ball into a not much larger hole.  For some players--certainly the young and beginners--insisting on certain levels of challenge doesn't just make the game challenging, it makes it impossible.

My preferred way of expressing is  this that not everyone requires the same magnitude of challenge to have fun. 

There's an "executive course" attached to a pretty basic course I often play.  The executive course has no bunkers, no hazards except a usually dry drainage ditch, and small (no make that tiny) greens.  In fact the greens are the primary challenge due to their size and that three of them are turtle backs. 

It's often empty and on many occasions I've gone there instead of the bigger course and played a mini tournament with three or even four balls.  And you know what, I've had a lot of fun there and improved my short game. 

I see people struggling on the bigger course who would be saving time, money and aggravation if they were playing on the executive course.  An I would think quicker cheaper and less frustrating would be a recipe for more fun.   

[Tom_Doak]

Steve:

I am generally with you on this, but there have to be enough features on the course to make it memorable, for people to really see it as fun.  The course you described is also, in your words, "often empty".

[Mike Nuzzo]

Jim
No I have not
What does not that hard mean?
Did you lose a ball?

Melvyn
Oh she was wide awake
Easy to play hard to master*
*I define master as having a mastery of the game - for me means that understanding of the individual courses strategy while managing their abilities

[Brent Hutto]

One problem with the executive-length courses in my experience, and it is a quite understandable problem, comes when they are shoehorned in on too-little property. If you build a course that's 5,200 yards instead of 7,200 yards (or 2,600 yards for nine holes versus 3,600) you're going to need less land. But you can't also make all the playing corridors 5/7ths as wide unless you want to end up with a short course that's just as frustrating to play as a long one.

I've mentioned on the forum before a nine-hole Par 3 course I used to play a lot when I first started. If you hit a shot that went 15-20 yards left or right of the tiny little greens, half the time you were on an adjacent tee or green and the other half the time it was a lost ball. When you build a 185-yard uphill "Par 3" on a corridor that's about 18 paces from woods and underbrush on one side to a downslope leading into a pond on the other that is not an easy hole!

But there was another nine-hole "executive" course I discovered later which had something like four Par 3's (all shortish) and five Par 4's (all but one under 320 yards) with playing corridors roughly the width of a tree-lined parkland course of normal length. Maybe a bit less room between the normal-width fairways and OB than usual in a few spots but I can't remember every losing two balls in nine holes or anything like that even when I was playing awful. Either one you could play once around for about 10 bucks or twice around for about 15 and I know which was the better deal for a beginner. Nothing's worse on a beginner than the feeling that every bad swing is going to be either a topped shot (if you're lucky) or a lost Top-Flite (if you're not).

[Melvyn Morrow]

Steve

My message is not that Golf is meant to be hard but it should challenge the golfer. This is where I believe GCA comes into its own (that is given the freedom to do so), as each course should be able to accommodate the full spectrum of golfers from top Pros to those trying to get a handicap.

GCA should offer alternatives for all – certainly the super golfer will not take the options set for the beginner, nor will the beginner try to attack the Pro’s options. The secret of a good course and good designer is to not to produce a Championship course but as close to the old all in one courses we once had.

Variety being the spice of life, certainly for a golfer, IMHO.

Golf is never hard, if you feel it is then you have misread the architecture or you a playing a crappy design. We need to use the ‘C’ word more often – C meaning Challenging not Championship course.

Melvyn

[Steve Wilson]

Melvyn,

I supplied hard as the antonym for "EASY" and so that was sloppy reading on my part.  Bland or uninteresting would have been a more accurate substitution.  That's why a truly all in one course would be a great one.  A course that could challenge all level players without being impossible for the weaker player is the holy grail of design.

But, as for your assertion, that golf is never hard, I can't agree there.  When I'm hitting it sideways and the hole is moving every time I putt, then it's damned hard. I would insert an emoticon here indicating I'm kidding, but I took an oath to Dan Kelly.

I do like, "Golf is never hard, if you feel it is then you have misread the architecture or you a playing a crappy design. We need to use the ‘C’ word more often – C meaning Challenging not Championship course."  I'll remember that the next time my score is ballooning and I'll comfort myself with realizing that I have simply misread a crappy design.

[Jim Franklin]

Mike, I did not lose a ball and the corridors were fairly wide. Most of the shots I hit that may have strayed, ended up in decent places.

[David Whitmer]

In the places I've lived, SF bay area, northern utah, and spokane, wa...there isn't any shortage of these types of courses.  And they are usually easy to get on because most people aren't interested in playing them. 

Kalen's sentence here, I believe, says why easy courses are not built too often. If I were going to spend all that money to build a golf course, why would I build one that most people aren't interested in playing?

[Mike Nuzzo]

Thank you Jim
My recollection is that you are a good-very good player as compared to an average player.
I took another peek at some of those holes - lots of creeks and places for a lost ball.

One think I don't like about mounds is when they keep a better player, like yourself, in line and kick out the average player.
There is no way to know where to put a mound on the 2nd shot of a par 5 to keep the average player alive.

I don't like when it is easier for the better player and harder for the average player - I don't think there is much of that at Rock Creek, there certainly isn't at our course down here...

[Melvyn Morrow]

Steve

I hope it's not a course by Tom Doak, but then crappy is not in his remit. Although I feel he has an eye for the island Greens, please God let’s hope that's just a phase he is going through and he gets off those cart paths ASAP. I swear they do funny things to the mind, like making you use electronic aids.

Melvyn

[Kirk Gill]

It seems like every newer course I see has the "championship course" label on it (with the caveat that it is, of course, challenging for all levels of player). With no disrespect to Melvyn, there ARE courses that beginners just probably shouldn't be playing, and that they might not enjoy playing because of the level of difficulty, or even just the amount of golf balls they'll have to replace.

An example. There are two courses at a local facility - Riverdale Dunes and Riverdale Knolls. The Dunes course has gotten some discussion on this site, and is a Pete and Perry Dye design (yes, with Mr. Doak's work as well). It's a links-style course with a good amount of width, but with very long grass off the fairways that gobble balls. There's also some water. The Knolls is a parkland course with a few trees, and is totally straightfoward, an "easier" course.

And according to the folks up there, on a yearly basis it gets a good deal more play than the Dunes. Yes, it's cheaper ($24 instead of $34 weekdays, $27 instead of $42 weekends but it is a course where you'll struggle to lose a golf ball. For what it's worth, there are folks who do prefer (or need) that level of challenge (or price).

And maybe price is at the heart of it. No one's going to play the same amount for an easy course as for a hard one, right? So if you're going to build a course, which type will investors want?

[Jud_T]

No one's going to play the same amount for an easy course as for a hard one, right?

Kirk,

It depends on what you mean by easy and hard and gets to the heart of the matter.  How do the Bandon courses fit into this description? And what about one-time belt-notchers versus repeat play?

[Mike Nuzzo]

No one's going to play the same amount for an easy course as for a hard one, right?

Does it cost any less to ski the bunny slopes?
Or do you pay a premium when you hit the black diamonds?