[Steve_ Shaffer]

Concerning renovations to existing courses, here's the letter,referenced in my post above from  from the owner of My Home Course (sort of)

Talamore was conceived/designed back in the early 1990's when the paradigm for new golf courses was to make them visually interesting but more importantly make them very challenging for the low handicapper. When I worked with Rees Jones at our Talamore facility in Pinehurst which was built in 1991 before Talamore up here, Rees on numerous occasions said "the tougher you make it, the more they will want to try and conquer it." 'Playability' was a term that was rarely used back then amongst the big name designers. Greens complexes of that era typically had one "single lane" approach with heavy bunkering and no bailout areas.

By almost anyone's account that original design mission and mantra was accomplished at Talamore. While we did make significant attempts to make the course more playable for the average golfer with multiple sets of tees, Talamore has always generally been branded as "tough" by all who play.

During the Applecross acquisition and grow-in, I had the opportunity to spend a lot of time with the Nicklaus design people and was able to gain valuable insight into where golf course design is today and what direction they are taking their new courses. The plain and simple fact is that the golf world and new course design philosophies have changed dramatically since the 1990's. Visually striking is still an important design feature yet playability for all levels is now atop the leader board. The low handicapper is not being dismissed and greens complexes are being designed with challenging pin positions to protect Par, yet overall greens complexes are being designed to be "friendlier" by providing for a greater shot variety if one misses the putting surface. This is accomplished by expanding approaches from the old single lane philosophy and creating fairway cut around one or even both sides of the green allowing for the 'collection' of missed shots into tightly mown areas.

For those of you that have played Applecross, I want you to pause for a second to remember its greens complexes. Applecross green surfaces are approximately 6,000 sq ft each, a full 20%-30% SMALLER that Talamore's average size. You are probably scratching your head saying that can't be. It is true and the main reason Applecross greens "feel" bigger is the amount of fairway cut wrapping up and around several sides of the greens making for these low cut "collection areas." Take a moment and think about Talamore's 5th, 6th , 12th, 14th and 18th greens. These greens have extensive fairway cut around the greens surfaces either to the right or left or all around in the case of #6 and those greens complexes feel bigger and 'friendlier' and provide for a number of different shot types from just off the green. The rest of our greens (with the exception of hole 4) only have the single lane approach runways thereby leaving golfers with a lot of 'flip wedges' when they miss a green to the right or left.

What are the main goals?

With historical perspective and today's design philosophies in mind, let's now take a look at the main impetus of the course changes:

·         Improve playability by creating fairway cut "collection areas" around certain greens -either to the left or right side, or in some cases both sides. Basically you won't have to be Phil Mickelson and hit a flop shot every time you are just off the green.

·         Improve turf quality around and on greens. This will be accomplished with several measures, depending  on the individual greens complex:

-  Taking down some trees which are too close to greens, thus removing root infiltration into the greens complex. This will also improve sunlight and air circulation, both vital elements to the health of a green.

-  Stripping and re-sodding certain areas where we have experienced "turf disintegration"

-  Extending irrigation extensively to get better coverage. Leveling heads as needed.

- Fully re-grading  certain green surround areas to improve drainage

·         Bunkers

-  Shrinking or eliminating  certain fairway bunkers to expand some landing zones.

-  Shrinking or eliminating certain greenside bunkers to allow for wider approaches and fairway cut collection areas around the green. 

-  Restoring and fully rebuilding certain greenside bunkers to their original size as they have expanded significantly over the years due to edging and regular maintenance.

·         Expand upon our success project on the Hole #2 right side waste/water bunker by converting the greenside "bog" into a small pond thereby speeding up play and avoiding controversial decisions as golfers will be able to see if their ball truly crossed the hazard.

·         No changes need to be made to any of the actual greens surfaces, only the surrounds.

·         Further improve playability by expanding the fairway cut and step cut areas especially in landing zones on certain holes

·         Ultimately improved playability will translate into better speed of play and a more enjoyable round of golf

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Nope plenty of other places to play

[Mark Saltzman]

Having said all this, I think that Jeff Brauer and other architects of his ilk who design courses with considerable scale which tend to look harder than they play are onto something.  

I agree with this.  Others on this thread have said, and correctly I believe, that golfers do not want short, wide-open golf courses.  Golfers want interesting courses and they want pretty courses.  Things that make golf courses interesting to the masses (not the GCA types) are trees and water and bunkers and elevation changes.  But these attributes also make golf courses harder.  The good news, I believe, is that many golfers think they want difficult courses.  The bad news is that many golfers get frustrated when they play poorly (read shoot a bad score).  I think Lou said it, make the courses interesting and pretty by using water and bunkers and trees (perhaps more than many on GCA.com would like to see) and as a result, make the course seem difficult, but also use width and scale to make the course play easy (or at least not really hard).

[Matt Day]

the stimpmeter is killing golf

[RJ_Daley]

The collective wisdom on this thread is worthy of an industry wide symposium.  We may have varying ideas of what is killing golf, or  that nothing is killing golf, but the supporting ideas on whichever side of the debate are all well stated.

I think that as asked, regarding the bulk of the regular and frequent golf playing customers, members, facility users, being in the 12-16 handicap strata, that golf needs to be challenging with contour and most particularly, interesting greens surrounds.  Golf off the tee must present options for these golfers of many skills, particularly the disparity in these 12-16 handi's.  Some of them can slug the ball far, but are wild.  On narrow fairways, all they do is look for their ball in the junk.  This slows up play.  When play slows for folks who are deep in the junk, nobody is happy.  Width with design geared towards options because the long hitter may slug it, go astray, but will find it to hit it again, is important as to offer the short hitter a tic-tac route that may not get to many greens in regulation, but enough contour and green design and fun to keep both the long GIR hitter thinking, and the shorter hitter with the mentality that he may be short, but he can hone a good short game to compete. 

So, width with contours, some well placed hazards of bunkers, and greens surrounds of variety and properly maintained to offer chips and putts from off the greens, collection areas and runaway to hollows and runups of hummocks are the way to go. 

Penal is not necessarily a killer if they are penal only to the extent of obstacles that may cost a stroke, but keep the game and the interest factor going.  Penal, as in you are dead, need to drop, take too long to find, or just plain too frequent of penal features to keep you going, as their is dead penal features on most every hole because of narrow, one dimensional, is a boor, and a golf killer, IMHO.

[Jud_T]

 The plain and simple fact is that the golf world and new course design philosophies have changed dramatically since the 1990's.

Steve,

This is an excellent point.  The problem is that the long run economic slowdown isn't allowing new courses or renovation/restoration of old courses quickly enough to stem the decline in rounds played.  By the time the economy's humming again and we have shifted our GCA focus sufficiently we will have lost an entire generation of players....

[Lou_Duran]

 The plain and simple fact is that the golf world and new course design philosophies have changed dramatically since the 1990's.

Steve,

This is an excellent point.  The problem is that the long run economic slowdown isn't allowing new courses or renovation/restoration of old courses quickly enough to stem the decline in rounds played.  By the time the economy's humming again and we have shifted our GCA focus sufficiently we will have lost an entire generation of players....

The above assumes that gca has an impact on large numbers, an assumption that I don't believe is supported by the facts.  The glory days of golf in terms of new courses, participation, and rounds played came before the "New Golden Age" bandied about on this site.  Most industry people I've talked to would place the type of "design philosophies" we support well below other factors in driving popular demand (well behind condition of greens, grass in the fairways, some sand in the bunkers, affordability, access, etc., not necessarily in that order).

The comments also assume as a given that the "economy's humming again" at some point in time in the not too distant future.  With the aging of the population and the continual growth of the public sector (roughly 4% GDP around 1930, approaching 26% today, and on a trajectory to 40%+ in the next decades), I am envious of the optimism.  I hope you are right.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Lou,  thanks!  You know a lot of us have been designing that way for years, regardless of which gca is currently getting famous for their tough golf courses.  We know what we know.

There is a real trick to making a course have enough challenge to be interesting, but not so tough that the golfer finds trouble every shot, or once per hole.  The right temperature porridge, so to speak.

BTW, give me a call.  I got an out of the blue call from Ralph Plummer's grandaughter last week, complimenting us on our article here.  What a conversation!

[Jud_T]

 The plain and simple fact is that the golf world and new course design philosophies have changed dramatically since the 1990's.

Steve,

This is an excellent point.  The problem is that the long run economic slowdown isn't allowing new courses or renovation/restoration of old courses quickly enough to stem the decline in rounds played.  By the time the economy's humming again and we have shifted our GCA focus sufficiently we will have lost an entire generation of players....

The above assumes that gca has an impact on large numbers, an assumption that I don't believe is supported by the facts.  The glory days of golf in terms of new courses, participation, and rounds played came before the "New Golden Age" bandied about on this site.  Most industry people I've talked to would place the type of "design philosophies" we support well below other factors in driving popular demand (well behind condition of greens, grass in the fairways, some sand in the bunkers, affordability, access, etc., not necessarily in that order).

The comments also assume as a given that the "economy's humming again" at some point in time in the not too distant future.  With the aging of the population and the continual growth of the public sector (roughly 4% GDP around 1930, approaching 26% today, and on a trajectory to 40%+ in the next decades), I am envious of the optimism.  I hope you are right.

Lou,

What part of "long-term economic slowdown" and "by then we will have lost an entire generation" is optimistic about a near-term humming economy?  We have at least 5 more years of this crap...   also surely affordability might be better under the "new" gca mantra...

[Dave McCollum]

This kind of thread interests me.  I don’t have time to read the previous comments carefully and apologize if I restate what others have said.  My experience is based on observing average golfers on solid little rural public course that is fun, playable, short, plenty of width, undulating, sand-based, very walkable, some quirk, less than 30 bunkers, water on 4 holes (two significantly), 4 sets of tees—5,172,  6,028, 6,464, 6,800 yds, on a very scenic site in wild, natural setting.  An average course with very good bones and a unique landscape.  I would say this course is more strategic and not penal.  My take:

1.  The golfers on this site are not representative of the playing public.  No offense intended, but cga.com participants are a very elite group of golf nuts (I’m one too).   Almost everything discussed here never enters the consciousness of the average golfer.

2.  About 30% of our avid male players that call this their home course are single digit HC.  They love golf and competing.  Sandbaggers are hounded.   Locally, I suppose we are a “players” course.   Almost every one of these low cappers I’d classify as an “ego handicap.”  They think they can play and do well regionally, but, get real, these guys have much more in common with 20 cappers than the guys on TV.  Few, if any, would want the level of playing difficulty increased.  If we remodeled this place more in line with the design preferences and aesthetics of most on this board, many of our better players would like it when they saw it.  Beforehand, however, most would probably say “why do you want to f*** up a perfectly good golf course?”

3.  The other 70% and all women play for fun and would not favor making it more challenging for better players, even if we did it right and provided options for weaker players.   

4.  The venue is less important to the vast majority of all players than playing with their mates and affordability.

5.  Average golfers appreciate good and great courses/design when they see it.  Perhaps only on a subliminal level.  Very few can verbalize intelligently about what makes a course good/great or even why one course is better than another.  Verbalize, yes; verbalize intelligently, no.  All of these golfers would immediately know a penal course.  It’s difficult and their scores would reflect that stark reality.

6.  All of the above golfers pay the bills.  Elite players playing the tips represent such a minuscule part of the total revenues that they are hardly part of the conversation.

I could go on, but in fact, I wrote the above 5 hours ago before I had to go to work.  I’ve lost my mojo.  My conclusion, based on one course in a small market, is that average golfers don’t really desire penal golf courses.  They like to score and think that they can play.  Does that mean that penal courses are killing golf?  Probably not, but it’s not good business.  Repeat business and steady customers pay the bills.               

[Tim Martin]

On the contrary the penal courses are killing themselves and like a jilted lover will send it`s players into the arms of another. For those that like hard there are plenty of options that are also fair without being penal. Yeah I guess some that are new to the game may bail on the pursuit if their introduction to architecture is too penal but we all know that golf and it`s wide array of options has a way of holding one`s interest. Penal courses have a way of making the wonderful courses and the game itself shine because of the contrast.

[Lou_Duran]

Tim,

I think you're right, though some with that reputation ("tough as nails") sometimes use it to their advantage (though perhaps aided by other factors such as great scenery e.g. Kiawah- Ocean, Spyglass Hill, or history and tradition- Oakmont, Winged Foot-West).  Perhaps at clubs with two or more courses, the juxtaposition of a very difficult one to the more playable sister makes the latter more desirable to some (WF-W to WF-E example comes to mind- E prefered by many members; LACC to a lesser extent).

"Penal" courses don't necessarily have to remain that way.  Some soften a bit over the years naturally and through maintenance, redesign, and/or set up.  We hold our old courses in high esteen on this site while at times turning our nose to more recent efforts.  Perhaps after years of nip and tuck to make them more desirable to golfers, some of these "penal" courses might be seen in a better light.  I am thinking of one late 1980s course north of Dallas which I thought was mean-spiritied in its very essence that is progressively improving in my eyes.  

[Tim Martin]

Tim,

I think you're right, though some with that reputation ("tough as nails") sometimes use it to their advantage (though perhaps aided by other factors such as great scenery e.g. Kiawah- Ocean, Spyglass Hill, or history and tradition- Oakmont, Winged Foot-West).  Perhaps at clubs with two or more courses, the juxtaposition of a very difficult one to the more playable sister makes the latter more desirable to some (WF-W to WF-E example comes to mind- E prefered by many members; LACC to a lesser extent).

"Penal" courses don't necessarily have to remain that way.  Some soften a bit over the years naturally and through maintenance, redesign, and/or set up.  We hold our old courses in high esteen on this site while at times turning our nose to more recent efforts.  Perhaps after years of nip and tuck to make them more desirable to golfers, some of these "penal" courses might be seen in a better light.  I am thinking of one late 1980s course north of Dallas which I thought was mean-spiritied in its very essence that is progressively improving in my eyes.  

Lou-I agree completely with your take on the clubs with more than one course. I too would take WFE on an everyday basis over big brother West. I feel the same about Westchester CC`s South course over the West. Although both club`s West layout is the tournament course the members do not feel cheated and maybe a bit relieved to be playing the little sister. I can only imagine that guest`s with a few plays on each would feel the same as nobody likes to get rolled time after time given the choice.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Duncan,

Homogenizing the challenge to accomodate the mediocre to poor golfer will have the opposite effect.

Making courses fair or more fair will result in the wholesale disfiguration of golf courses.

Not necessarily - it opens the game up to attract an wider range of golfers that clubs. course owners, local council could gain more revenue. It is important that there are courses for different levels of golfers - easy / medium and hard.

What does "opening the game up" have to do with architectural alterations that will disfigure the architect's original intent/work ?

Part of the lure of the game is its difficulty.

The other part is playability

They are one in the same.

We all attempt shots well beyond our ability........... WHY ?

Some of us believe that we can do it and take a risk look at Lefty he is never conservative

You're going to compare Phil Mickelson's aggressive play, his ability to hit shots within his repertoire to shots that the average golfer has very little in the way of percentage, of executing ?  That's one of the dumbest analogies I've seen lately, other than Jim Sullivan's.

Is inflating our abilities an inherent element of the game and at the heart of the lure of the game ?

Interestingly enough, golfers don't want to play the easiest courses, they want to play the more difficult courses, the Winged Foot's, The Bethpage Black's, the Muirfield's and the Carnoustie's.

The majority of the golfers in the world want to play 'social' golf playing around average diffculty golf course, not take on the challenge of the more difficult courses - they will only play the difficult courses once or twice to experience it why they want to make it easier for themselves. Very few would want to play the more difficult courses every day.


What is "social golf" ?
How does it differ from "golf"
Everytime I golf with others, I've been social, but that's not the object of focus of my effort, it's my score, my ability to successfully interface with the features on the golf course.
What about golf when the golfer is playing by himself ?  Is he still playing "social golf" ?[/b]

Mitigating the challenge will dull the lure.

If golf was easy, NO ONE would play it.

A lot more would play it

Not in a million years

It's the challenge that brings us to the first tee.

Not always true - sometimes it is matches against a friend or opponents that brings us on the first tee whatever golf course you play on.

That's just a byproduct of the inherent challenge.
A match against a friend or foe, is basically one party saying to the other, I can meet the challenge, presented by the golf course, better than you.
You still have to interface with the golf course and the inherent challenge it presents.

Anyone who plays his opponent, instead of the holes, is doomed to failure in the long run.

I have been challenged by my friends who rarely play golf to play a par 3 event and my handicap is to only use one club the whole way round!!![/b][/color]

Then you are NOT playing golf.

I bet you've been challenged at miniature golf as well.
How about long driving, have you been challenged at that ?
Would you call that playing golf ?

It's the challenge and its universal application that bonds us as golfers.

There are other ways that bonds us as golfers - it is the company that you are playing with - golf is a very social game and the course caters us to be able to play a match.

So when you play, you're just there for the company, how you play or interface with the course is of no consequence ?
As long as you giggle, laugh, and get friendly, what you do on the course, in terms of meeting the challenge, is of no consequence to you ?

If you sat next to a stranger, who was also a golfer, and you began discussing golf, you would soon form a bond, borne I believe, out of the commonality of the challenge we face.  It wouldn't matter if he were a billionairre, pauper, executive, bar tender or retired police officer, we've all experienced the same highs and lows of the game, and that experience is what makes us sympathetic with one another, it's what makes us "fellow" golfers, golfers who have shared the agony and ecstasy of the game, it's what bonds us.

True

Remove that challenge and you eradicate the very core of the game.

So, go tell your friend that he "just doesn't get it"  The worst thing you could do would be to make the game "more fair".

More fair??, in the UK over the last 20 odd year that I have played golf I have noticed how greenkeepers have narrowed the fairways, brought the rough to the edge of the greens as opposed to short areas around the greens as well as speeding up greens that were designed for slower speeds.

That's got NOTHING to do with the issue of making the course easier, that's making the course more difficult, just the opposite of making it easier.
I think you're confused...



The worst thing about the current the setting up of the courses it has increased slow play because of lost balls and more shots being taken and more time taken to read the lines on the greens. [/b]

Nonsense.
On courses that have remained static, the features aren't responsible for an increase in slow play, it's the golfers and the current culture that golf has evolved into, thanks mostly to TV.

Take away the bunkers, elevated greens, rough, water, different lies, variety and challenge and you're left with a polo field with a tee at one end and a hole at the other.  Yeah, golfers will flock to play that one.

That is taking it a bit too far - it is all about subtle changes like more run off areas which actually makes it easier for the weaker player and more challenging for the established player.


More nonsense.
Run off areas are a byproduct of conditioning, of mowing those areas to lower heights.
Did you ever see run off areas 80 years ago ?
Why not ?
Because they couldn't get mower heights that low in those areas.

Runoff or chipping areas are a modern day invention
 
Widening of the fairways in certain areas will help

At what cost to altering your irrigation system ?

and have 6 easy / 6 medium / 6 hard pin positions every round,

What courses do you play where all the hole locations are challenging or hard for every round ?

slow down the greens

What speeds are they now ?
If you think that slow speeds will attract golfers, you're mistaken, it will turn them off.
Go back to 8' and you'll lose golfers

and make them smoother.

Remove the contour and you eliminate their distinctive character, their inate appeal, making them dull, monotonous and all the same.
Let's just say that you don't get it. but, you're not the first and you won't be the last.

Cog Hill did not have anywhere to go knowing where to miss in case it was relentless.

What does a tournament set up for the best golfers in the world have to do with the play of the average golfer ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()