News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What would you do?
« Reply #25 on: September 25, 2012, 04:35:41 PM »
Less par fives.
Course within a course design.  Short par fours for golfers become long par threes etc

Accepting something below a par of 70

Just add about 75 yards to of the numbers on this chart--for pros.



Par threes up to 325
Fours from 326 to 550
Fives 551 and above

Pretty much every course would become about par 68, and we'd all be able to get over ourselves about only par 72 courses being "real" golf courses.

K
A 325-yard Biarritz might work!   :)

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: What would you do?
« Reply #26 on: September 25, 2012, 04:37:07 PM »
Tom,

Is your idea some crazy idea that would never happen like shrinking the hole a 1/8 inch, an idea that is so simple that no one would think of it, or some architectural key/setup that no one has thought of?

Absolutely not.  I cringe when I hear about people making the hole bigger or smaller in order to pander to some segment of the golf market.

My solutions are always about the architecture, and I try to come up with solutions that work for all golfers, not just the best of them.

Ted Sturges

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What would you do?
« Reply #27 on: September 25, 2012, 04:39:37 PM »
Less par fives.
Course within a course design.  Short par fours for golfers become long par threes etc

Accepting something below a par of 70

Just curious...why does "par" matter.  It's 18 golf holes and the person with the lowest score wins, right?

TS

Matthew Essig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What would you do?
« Reply #28 on: September 25, 2012, 06:20:04 PM »
Tom,

You are killing me. Could you please say what your idea is?
"Good GCA should offer an interesting golfing challenge to the golfer not a difficult golfing challenge." Jon Wiggett

Gary Slatter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What would you do?
« Reply #29 on: September 25, 2012, 07:32:35 PM »
firm the whole course, bumpy fairways, short rough allowing balls to run and raise the fairway height
more par threes under 150 yards with deep bunkers
deeper fairway bunkers

actually Carnoustie is close at times of the year
Gary Slatter
gary.slatter@raffles.com

Colin Macqueen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What would you do?
« Reply #30 on: September 25, 2012, 08:33:07 PM »
Gentlemen,

I wonder if providing greens which on approach are a deal wider than they are deep and angled a la Redan style. The better player has a difficult green to hit into whilst the mere mortal can push on towards the less dangerous opening and play for the chip and putt? I am thinking this as I was reading of late just how devilishly difficult Redan style green and approaches are due to a great extent the ratio of depth to width.

Cheers Colin
"Golf, thou art a gentle sprite, I owe thee much"
The Hielander

Sam Morrow

Re: What would you do?
« Reply #31 on: September 25, 2012, 11:16:06 PM »
Have them play Oakmont every week.

Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What would you do?
« Reply #32 on: September 25, 2012, 11:18:32 PM »
Thinking along the lines of a course that works for all players:

Deep narrow greens that are angled in the direction of fairway hazards.  Pro iron shots land in a slightly offset ellipse because they usually hit the ball solidly.  Such greens pose less of a problem to everyday players who do not hit the ball as solid, particularly if the surrounds are short grass.

Deep fairway bunkers and shallow greenside bunkers.  A fairway bunker likely costs the club player a shot but do not cause a huge problem for a pro.  I do not think deep green side bunkers pose a much more difficult problem for a pro while being impossible for a club player.

Deep Fairway bunkers positioned at such a length from the green and tee that a pro pays a big price for not risking them off the tee.  Laying up short requires a 225+ yard approach while driving it over is not possible.  The design needs to provide a significant enough reward that hitting an accurate driver is worth it to the pro.  I think that such an approach could work if the green design provides a big advantage to being in a particular spot and then covering that spot with a big, deep bunker.

Par threes that require a driver, a two iron, a five iron and a short iron - whatever those distances might be.

A couple of holes that play as a par 4 for the pros but a par 5 for members with a design making the second shot interesting for club members.

Steep falloffs behind some greens.  Those seem to give pros problems without affecting most club members.