Why Don't They Build Some Easy Courses?

[Charlie Goerges]

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?

Agree with Mike here.


Here's what I think, not that anyone's asking; make the course such that it's hard...to lose a ball. After that throw whatever you want at me. In fact the more the better. Especially ground contour.

[Kirk Gill]

Mike, I honestly don't know if it costs less to ski the bunny slopes, but certainly there's no premium on the black diamonds. But at a ski area you can pick and choose your level of difficulty, and challenge yourself as you see fit on any particular day. You're not, as a beginner, compelled to ski black diamond runs.

I'm not saying that a hard course SHOULD be more expensive, but around here, there seems to be a bit of price correlation there. Maybe I'm wrong.

For myself, I'm not a very good player, but I've never had the slightest desire to play the Knolls course, having had a good look at it. Not with the Dunes right there........... I'm with Charlie on this one........

[Jim Franklin]

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...

While I think Rock Creek is about as fun as it gets, it certainly isn't easy. Creek Club in Reynolds Palntation Georgia on the other hand is the course I have been referring to. I have played courses where the mounds kick offline stuff into substanially more trouble if you hit the wrong side, but at The Creek Club, I found balls ending up very playable. I played with a cl;ient of mine that couldn't break 100 on his best day and he shotin the high 80s that day. He had a blast and now plays Creek over Great Waters, Oconee, and National almost exclusively.

[Terry Lavin]

Personally, I think golf should be challenging and fun.  Having said that, there's nothing wrong with a wide spectrum of courses that can accommodate various levels of skill.  I won't be all that interested in playing courses without much length, with few hazards in play, flat greens and birdie written over every hole, but there are plenty of people who might.  There might be a problem with the proverbial business model, but that's another issue.

[JNC Lyon]

Personally, I think golf should be challenging and fun.  Having said that, there's nothing wrong with a wide spectrum of courses that can accommodate various levels of skill.  I won't be all that interested in playing courses without much length, with few hazards in play, flat greens and birdie written over every hole, but there are plenty of people who might.  There might be a problem with the proverbial business model, but that's another issue.

I think the problem is that there is NOT a wide spectrum of golf courses out there.  Most new courses are designed to be "a championship test," or "challenging," or "a bear."  The signature holes are usually water-laden and no fun of any kind.  Most (not all) architects are trying to build tough golf courses that, in reality, most people cannot play.

Kalen,

Yes, most Northeastern courses are treelined and therefore very difficult.  Even the supposedly "easy" golf courses are littered with christmas trees that are a nightmare from a playability standpoint.  Especially in my neck of the woods, nearly every golf course could benefit from extensive tree removal.

[Mike Nuzzo]

A friend shooting that much lower is something tangible I can understand - thanks.
I don't think the course plays 15 strokes easier however.
Did you have him play forward a set of tees, or two sets forward?

I just took a peek at the aerial of Creek.
Yes the fairways are big, but there are fronting hazards on 16 holes - and the other 2 don't look like a picnic.
With creeks all over the place and muscles everywhere.
I think he was sand-bagging you.
how much $$ did you loose?

Yes, I was referring to your enjoyment of Rock Creek and Doak's philosophies.

Cheers

[Matthew Mollica]

Phil, I think lots of golfers occasionally think along the same lines as your thread oepning post.
Then they revert to "Championship Course Mode".

Earlier in the year I posted a photo review of Mike Clayton's recently redesigned RACV Healesville course.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,36330.msg1069080.html#msg1069080

Curvy greens, wide open, few hazards, good routing and par 68 at 5500yds.
The course is an absolute blast.

There was barely a comment during an 18 hole tour.
That tells me loud and clear that people take this type of course as a bit of a gymick.

MM

[JNC Lyon]

Matthew,

RACV Healesville looks like a very cool golf course.  It reminds of Paxon Hollow in the Philly area (search it in the archives, Bausch did a photo tour), but with wilder greens.  This type of course is a ton of fun, and I would much rather play it than a 7,000-yarder with lots of rough (or, for that matter, a course of ANY length with lots of rough).

[Adrian_Stiff]

Most new golf courses are buisness's. The usual idea is to get as many rounds as possible over the course so it needs to be popular with as many players as possible, if its too easy a lot dont want to play it, so u dare not make it too easy, some people like it long and with sets of tees you can cater for the range of players. You dont want to cultivate a player from 24 to 3 handicap then lose him to another club because your course is no longer a challenge. The popular things to do are incorporate, island greens, lakes, waterfalls, fountains and trees into the design. Thats what the masses like and they like that because they dont know much different and their TV education says that it is what is best, if some of the minimal courses get TV exposure and magazine exposure I think they will want to play those kind of courses, but the minimal courses certainly have not got much UK exposure, very few Britts have heard of Bandon or Barnbougle. without this site I would not have. I have just built an easy course, with mounds to kick the ball back in and gathering greens, it is very easy and has fans but equally it has those that dont want to play it 'cus its not 7000 yards' and amongst our membership its 50-50 who likes it, no one hates it btw. Fortunately with this course as a second course, we can cater for everyone but I think unless you are going a cheap pay play muni route and low budget its hard to pump money into an easy course.

[Mike Nuzzo]

if its too easy a lot dont want to play it

Can you name a course that has opened in the last 10 years that was considered too easy?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Not really Mike.

[Greg Tallman]

I would like to see someone like Doak take a shot at building a very very good course with no traditional bunkers and no water hazards yet still defend par with native grasses that can be played from and green complexes that are the real character of the course.

I believe it could be done and would be received well by all if pulled off. Greenside bunkering in particular is almost helpful to the good player and disproportinately penal to the regular player... just a bunch of raised/undulating greens with a wild closely mown areas as surrounds... kinda like what we have just done with our 5th hole at Cabo del Sol.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Thanks Adrian
It is a good question

Why doesn't an owner set out to make the easiest course possible - with interest.
All you have to do is add a few bunkers to make it harder or even better make it harder with maintenance.

Greg
People other than Doak can get the results you describe - even with a few bunkers...

Cheers

[Adrian_Stiff]

Greg - It is the client that decides these things not the architect. It is easy to say on here thats what I would like to see but the reality is the commercial world.... a new golf course with no bunkers is a very brave route, the majority wont like it or at least will interpret the course with faults.

Mike - I think the scenario is, if you have nice land then you want a great course and the great courses tend to be 7000 yards or getting that way. Easy golf courses tend to be on lesser land perhaps smaller parcels and lower budgets that often may not involve an architect at all, they result in cheaper golf and a model for easyish golf and beginners but there is not enough interest to keep the golfer playing his golf there when he discovers other courses.

[Mark Pearce]

Easy golf courses tend to be on lesser land

I don't agree.  The two "easiest" courses I know well (both have been given US ratings with slopes of 113) are Elie and Crail Balcomie.  Elie is on a great bit of land, Balcomie, if anything, has some rather severe land which gives it a couple of difficult holes in the mix.  There's no reason why an interesting and fun course can't be built on good land.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Mark - Mikes questions are about courses being built now.

[Mark Pearce]

Mark - Mikes questions are about courses being built now.

Adrian,

What changes to construction practices (or anything else) prevent a modern course on good land being designed to be easy, in the way that Elie and Balcomie were?

[Adam Lawrence]

Mark - Mikes questions are about courses being built now.

Adrian,

What changes to construction practices (or anything else) prevent a modern course on good land being designed to be easy, in the way that Elie and Balcomie were?

I think the central challenge is nothing to do with construction and everything to do with finding someone prepared to put the money up to build a course like that.

[Mark Pearce]

Mark - Mikes questions are about courses being built now.

Adrian,

What changes to construction practices (or anything else) prevent a modern course on good land being designed to be easy, in the way that Elie and Balcomie were?

I think the central challenge is nothing to do with construction and everything to do with finding someone prepared to put the money up to build a course like that.

So you agree with me that there is no technical reason why an easy course can't be built on good land?

[Melvyn Morrow]

What is the point of an easy course? Where is the challenge, the motivation to play the game?

We have thousands of easy and easier courses in the world, just add the bloody cart saves you breaking out into a sweat and to stop the stress of thinking just  use distance aids – Christ guys all you have to do is walk a little to the ball, and use the club that the aids have selected for you, then return to the cart for a well-deserved rest – that my friends is easy and IMHO totally self-defeating and a betrayal of the spirit of the game –BUT IT’s EASY.

But Guys I thought we all wanted to play GOLF which for its sins is regarded as a game with many challenges, easy or easier in not in the job description of Golf.

Or are you telling me that The Meek will inherit the world after laying waste all the achievements of Man. 

Melvyn

[Adrian_Stiff]

Melvyn - The point of an easy golf course is to allow lesser players some degree of pleasure for errant shots. Taking this to an extreme if every golf course had forced carries where could someone learn. I think most architects try to design a course so Jack Nicklaus can enjoy the challenge and so can Jack Nicholson. I have thought the gap is widening now and it is quite hard to cater for both sets of player (scratch - 28) the flat bellies hit it so far now, even with a range of tees it is hard to get the hazards in the right places and sadly at many older courses hazards have become redundant to these sections.
Mark - No there are no technical construction reasons not to build an easy golf course on great land. Adam summed up the main problem. It is possible that a great 80 acre parcel came up though and the best you could do was route a 5500 yarder, but I suspect even then (if not in the original design, then in time) there would be add ons to make it tougher and stiffen the 5500 yards with extra trouble which works against 'EASY'.

[Mark Pearce]

Adrian,

Understood.  However you appear to equate "easy" to short, which isn't the case IMHO.  I think that "easy" in this context (and Melvyn appwears to be missing this) is shorthand for playable, that is, a weak player can get his ball round easily, without losing it and without finding himself faced with shots he simply cannot make.  It doesn't mean he has to be able to shoot a low score.  For me, as a 12/13 handicapper, Balcomie (like Elie) is somewhere where I hope/expect to beat 80 when I play.  I have to play well to do so and know that if I don't I might score nearer 90.  I'm pretty confident (except in a very strong wind) that 100 isn't on the cards even if I play poorly.

At Northumberland I'm delighted to shoot 82, pleased with 85 and know that playing badly can make breaking 100 an issue.  It's 6700 yards long.  I have played 6800 yard courses (Lawsonia springs to mind) where I can't see myself shooting 100 but, equally, would be delighted with an 82.  I'd say Lawsonia is an "easier" course than Northumberland but it's also a much, much better course and, I guess, more challenging to a really good player.

[Melvyn Morrow]

I do understand and have not missed the point, but looking back over my life, my induction re golf was never on an easy course.  It was on a NORMAL course.

Learning the game gave one experience not just on the courses but more importantly the understanding of one’s own ability and skills. Life is out there so you have to go and grab it or stay safe close to home and undertake no adventures. You want beginners courses, go play Pitch and Putt, but want to play golf get someone who knows the game and start by getting lessons, no matter what age you are.

In this day and age the long hitters are killing the GCA, make it semi redundant apart from around the Greens. We have made it far too easy to hit the long ball; we have allowed these long hitters to rule by removing fairway hazards because they may object. Gentlemen the game is played upon a golf course that golf course it the single item that will challenge the golfer whatever his level, so please start remembering that there are more golf courses that long hitters. WE certainly need a governing body now more so than ever before to control distance and bring the game back to being a game of golf and not a Mobile Target Range on Steroids.

Melvyn

[Mark Pearce]

Melvyn,

I have no illusions about my golfing ability.  I play off 12 or 13.  I can play to high single figures on a good day.  I have taken plenty of lessons, thanks.  I'm no tyro but nor am I a beginner.  I can navigate my way round some of the world's best courses.  Lawsonia, which I discussed, isn't easy to score on for an excellent golfer but is easier for me to score on than my home club, despite being a clearly superior golf course.

Similarly, the Old Course is an "easy" course in that anybody can get a ball round and enjoy it (even in wind) but can be very hard to score on (in wind).

[Tim Martin]

Adrian,

Understood.  However you appear to equate "easy" to short, which isn't the case IMHO.  I think that "easy" in this context (and Melvyn appwears to be missing this) is shorthand for playable, that is, a weak player can get his ball round easily, without losing it and without finding himself faced with shots he simply cannot make.  It doesn't mean he has to be able to shoot a low score.  For me, as a 12/13 handicapper, Balcomie (like Elie) is somewhere where I hope/expect to beat 80 when I play.  I have to play well to do so and know that if I don't I might score nearer 90.  I'm pretty confident (except in a very strong wind) that 100 isn't on the cards even if I play poorly.

At Northumberland I'm delighted to shoot 82, pleased with 85 and know that playing badly can make breaking 100 an issue.  It's 6700 yards long.  I have played 6800 yard courses (Lawsonia springs to mind) where I can't see myself shooting 100 but, equally, would be delighted with an 82.  I'd say Lawsonia is an "easier" course than Northumberland but it's also a much, much better course and, I guess, more challenging to a really good player.

Mark-Great point as short is certainly not always easy. I have played plenty of short courses with 1st timers that look at the card and smile. The smile is often long gone by the end of the round.