Are many of the courses in the last 50 years, in the U.S. designed for wimps ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I was looking at some old aerials and the courses, even courses still in existance, looked far more formidable than they do today.

And, the golfers playing those courses were certainly playing them with equipment and balls far more inferior to today's I&B.

I just don't see the pervasive penal element in modern courses.

I see concessions to "fairness" in either the design or the maintenance.

Yet, almost everyone chomps at the bit to play Pine Valley, the antithesis of a "fair" golf course.

I dare say, that if Pine Valley hadn't been under the wise rule of groomed dictators, and a general local membership instead, that most of the features would NLE today.

When I look at Hollywood, Mountain Ridge and other Met area courses, they were all far more difficult for their member golfer than they are today.

As we've moved further away from designers and golfers who emigrated from the UK, has the general design theme been blunted in order to accomodate the wimps ?  Those who want the game to be "fairer" so that it can appeal to a broader spectrum of golfer, one not willing to endure the penal side of architecture ?

[Matthew Sander]

Patrick,

What do you see in the old aerials that steers you to this conclusion?

 

[Jason Topp]

Pat - I highly doubt your thesis comports with reality.  I've seen far more penal hazards on modern courses than I have seen on golden age courses.  Water in Florida, desert in Arizona and trees in Seattle are all very penal in nature.  One could argue that these courses bear some similarity to Pine Valley in that respect.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

What do you see in the old aerials that steers you to this conclusion?

Lots and lots of white stuff

 

[Mark Chaplin]

Isn't sand far more forgiving than water?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat - I highly doubt your thesis comports with reality.  I've seen far more penal hazards on modern courses than I have seen on golden age courses.  Water in Florida, desert in Arizona and trees in Seattle are all very penal in nature.  One could argue that these courses bear some similarity to Pine Valley in that respect.

I suspect that you've been dipping into the LSD lately.

I haven't seen any trees, desert or water in the fairways and greens, but, perhaps the LSD alters your perception.

Even the "Golden Age" courses have been altered.

Just take a look at the famous 1938 aerial of NGLA, Shinnecock and Southampton and tell me what you see.
Were those courses more penal than what you see today ?

Next, take a look at the early aerial of Hollywood and compare it to today's course and courses.

There's a marked difference in what the golfer was and is confronted by.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Isn't sand far more forgiving than water?

Depends on whether you're drinking it or playing from it.

But, I haven't noticed that much water in the fairways and at the greens, especially today with the required DEP offsets.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Pat,

Would you consider Commonwealth National (Palmer,1990) a design for wimps?

Commonwealth National Golf Club opened for play on June 30, 1990. The course, designed by Arnold Palmer and Ed Seay, was recently rated one of the top 25 courses in Pennsylvania by Golf Digest. It has a course rating of 74.6 from the Golf Association of Philadelphia. Each hole has five tee boxes, ranging from a course of 5,201 yards to 7,117 yards. The 7,117 yard course has a slope rating of 151.

[Matthew Sander]

Patrick,

What do you see in the old aerials that steers you to this conclusion?

Lots and lots of white stuff

 

I don't think there is any doubt that courses in the early part of the 20th century featured hazards that looked much more fearsome than the hazards of those same courses today. Just look at the very early photos of Pinehurst #2 compared to the pre-restoration #2. Regardless of whether or not the course actually plays more difficult now, it sure looks more intimidating with the waste areas than it did with all of that irrigated turf. I've read many laments on this site regarding the wild dune-like hazards that used to be featured at Pebble Beach as opposed the more common bunkers that are there today.

Now, don't you think that attributing this to "designing for wimps" might be a little simplistic? Sure, as golf has sought to include more people it stands to reason that many courses were built to be playable for a wide array of golfers. But in addition, don't you think there are pragmatic budgetary and maintenance reasons for the softening of these features?

In your OP, you mentioned your own club Mountain Ridge. What is the story of its maturation into what it is today (cliffs notes version would suffice)? Why were its features softened over the years? Did it happen intentionally with the purpose of making the course easier, or did it simply evolve this way?

[Bob_Huntley]

Pat,

Thank God for the wimps, as there are so many of them that pay the way for the scratch man.

Bob

[Jason Topp]

Pat - I highly doubt your thesis comports with reality.  I've seen far more penal hazards on modern courses than I have seen on golden age courses.  Water in Florida, desert in Arizona and trees in Seattle are all very penal in nature.  One could argue that these courses bear some similarity to Pine Valley in that respect.

I suspect that you've been dipping into the LSD lately.

 

Somebody must have slipped a heck of a dose in my Kool-aid because these greens appear to feature penal hazards.   

[Ed Brzezowski]

Pat,

Would you consider Commonwealth National (Palmer,1990) a design for wimps?

Commonwealth National Golf Club opened for play on June 30, 1990. The course, designed by Arnold Palmer and Ed Seay, was recently rated one of the top 25 courses in Pennsylvania by Golf Digest. It has a course rating of 74.6 from the Golf Association of Philadelphia. Each hole has five tee boxes, ranging from a course of 5,201 yards to 7,117 yards. The 7,117 yard course has a slope rating of 151.

Yeah and I lost a few balls rating it from back there, played much easier when it was Hidden Springs.

I wonder if Patricks point has to do with upkeep rather than difficulty.?On another note my club finally has agreed to re installing Flynns " hells half acre "   I cannot wait. Might be two years but it will be spectacular!

ed

[Ed Brzezowski]

Pat - I highly doubt your thesis comports with reality.  I've seen far more penal hazards on modern courses than I have seen on golden age courses.  Water in Florida, desert in Arizona and trees in Seattle are all very penal in nature.  One could argue that these courses bear some similarity to Pine Valley in that respect.

I suspect that you've been dipping into the LSD lately.

 

Somebody must have slipped a heck of a dose in my Kool-aid because these greens appear to feature penal hazards.   

Is that Fiddlesticks??

[Jason Topp]

Is that Fiddlesticks??

Yes

[Joe Hancock]

I don't know, but maybe the fact that every feature(hazard and turf) is groomed almost daily has had something to do with any perceived design evolutions. Many courses that were around through the Depression had their dose of reality concerning design vs. upkeep costs, so instead of grooming less, design softened, perhaps.

Joe

[Jason Thurman]

I was looking at some old aerials and the courses, even courses still in existance, looked far more formidable than they do today.

Of all people, you should know that you can't judge courses from aerials. You have to play them to be able to understand their difficulty. Unless you've played the 1938 versions of the courses you mention, you really aren't qualified to comment on their difficulty.

In all seriousness though, wouldn't you rather play from a bunker than thick rough or water? I'm an awful bunker player, but even I prefer sand to rough at my home course this time of year. This is as much a question of maintenance as anything. If sand is unraked, I might prefer rough. If rough is wet and thick, I probably prefer sand. Of course, as you mention, it's also a question of equipment. Part of the reason I sometimes prefer bunkers to rough is that equipment makes extracting the ball pretty easy, while our four-inch, heavy, wet rough is awful to escape from.

The bunkers certainly look scary, but fairways have narrowed, greens have gotten faster, rough has gotten thicker and been irrigated. I don't think Sawgrass is a particularly wimpier challenge than 1938 NGLA.

[Carl Rogers]

Dear Mr. Mucci,
Item 1: There are a multitude of courses that are severely "anti-wimp".  Please tee it up at Tobacco Road, True Blue, Heathland Moorland & Ballyhack (and many others I do not know) and then review the "wimp" factor of these courses.
Item 2: If you are in the grow the game group and or the anti 5+ hour round group, then many more 'wimp" courses need to be built.

[Jeff_Brauer]

What Carl says.

I view the softening of courses as something ongoing trend, starting with removal of the gorse from the fw at TOC before 1900.  Some back then thought Old Tom was wimping out.  (Might not have been Old Tom, I recall Melvyn politely emailing me last time I brought this up....)

At any rate, most people gradually realized golf was more fun when you didn't lose a ball or pile up a big score (Alister MacKenzies words, not mine, so you see the trend started more than 50 years ago)

And, in a recreational game, the idea is to determine a winner and loser, not torture the loser, so what is the difference golf wise if you top it and lose with a 5 to a 4, or lose some balls and lose 9 strokes to 4?

Lastly, with the cost to maintain sand, it makes little sense to pay more for the privledge of being more miserable.  What other industry or recreational business would make that a business model?

[Tim Passalacqua]

Patrick,

I like this topic and think about it often.  I feel that a lot of golfers (and you can read about it plenty on GCA) want "fun" golf courses.  6500 yards, super wide fairways, and rugged bunkers.  I get it.  Also, I feel like people in the past prided themselves in having a tough, championship golf course.  In the last 10 - 20 years, I can't think of anything notable courses built that were a great, tough golf course.  A Pine Valley, Oakmont, or Olympic.  We love some of these brute classics, but is anybody designing them today?  Would they be frowned upon?  I don't know.  I think we need the balance of fun courses and championship golf courses.  That's what make this game so great.....DIVERSITY.  I want to go play Rustic Canyon (one of my favorites), have a blast, and post a good number.  But, I also want to go up to Pasatiempo and Olympic (two of my favorites) to test my game out and see how it really stands.  I wouldn't call the last 50 years for wimps, more like fun....but I am only 32 and missed a big chunk of that time.

Tim

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Would you consider Commonwealth National (Palmer,1990) a design for wimps?

Commonwealth National Golf Club opened for play on June 30, 1990. The course, designed by Arnold Palmer and Ed Seay, was recently rated one of the top 25 courses in Pennsylvania by Golf Digest. It has a course rating of 74.6 from the Golf Association of Philadelphia. Each hole has five tee boxes, ranging from a course of 5,201 yards to 7,117 yards. The 7,117 yard course has a slope rating of 151.

Steve,

One course does not a trend make.

I happen to like CN, which is a consolidation of other courses.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

What do you see in the old aerials that steers you to this conclusion?

Lots and lots of white stuff

 

I don't think there is any doubt that courses in the early part of the 20th century featured hazards that looked much more fearsome than the hazards of those same courses today. Just look at the very early photos of Pinehurst #2 compared to the pre-restoration #2. Regardless of whether or not the course actually plays more difficult now, it sure looks more intimidating with the waste areas than it did with all of that irrigated turf. I've read many laments on this site regarding the wild dune-like hazards that used to be featured at Pebble Beach as opposed the more common bunkers that are there today.

Now, don't you think that attributing this to "designing for wimps" might be a little simplistic? Sure, as golf has sought to include more people it stands to reason that many courses were built to be playable for a wide array of golfers. But in addition, don't you think there are pragmatic budgetary and maintenance reasons for the softening of these features?

No, not at all.

The budgetary/maintenance issues are directly related to the modern expectation and demand for pristine conditions.

In your OP, you mentioned your own club Mountain Ridge. What is the story of its maturation into what it is today (cliffs notes version would suffice)? Why were its features softened over the years? Did it happen intentionally with the purpose of making the course easier, or did it simply evolve this way?

Yes, bunker removal was a concession to making the course easier.

Some, but not all bunkers have/are being restored.

In 1929 MRCC was 6,600.

Not specific to MRCC, but, I know of a club that altered/removed features when the President's wife complained that they were ruining her game.
After hearing this every night, for a year or so, you tell me, what's easier, getting rid of the feature, or getting rid of the wife ?
Think of the "peace of mind" the man enjoyed thereafter........... albeit probably for a few weeks until the next cause celebre came to the fore.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat - I highly doubt your thesis comports with reality.  I've seen far more penal hazards on modern courses than I have seen on golden age courses.  Water in Florida, desert in Arizona and trees in Seattle are all very penal in nature.  One could argue that these courses bear some similarity to Pine Valley in that respect.

I suspect that you've been dipping into the LSD lately.

 

Somebody must have slipped a heck of a dose in my Kool-aid because these greens appear to feature penal hazards.   

Jason, so it's your opinion that the photo below, universally represents the design style of the last 50 years.

Next you'll be telling us that all dogs are Collies

[Patrick_Mucci]

I was looking at some old aerials and the courses, even courses still in existance, looked far more formidable than they do today.

Of all people, you should know that you can't judge courses from aerials. You have to play them to be able to understand their difficulty. Unless you've played the 1938 versions of the courses you mention, you really aren't qualified to comment on their difficulty.

You're confusing the "merits" of a hole, with the physical properties of a hole.
There is a distinction

In all seriousness though, wouldn't you rather play from a bunker than thick rough or water?

It's a moronic question that predisposes and answer.
I'd rather play from tight fairways than thick rough, but, what has that got to do with the issue ?

I'm an awful bunker player, but even I prefer sand to rough at my home course this time of year.

That's a personal choice, one reflective of your individual game

This is as much a question of maintenance as anything. If sand is unraked, I might prefer rough. If rough is wet and thick, I probably prefer sand. Of course, as you mention, it's also a question of equipment. Part of the reason I sometimes prefer bunkers to rough is that equipment makes extracting the ball pretty easy, while our four-inch, heavy, wet rough is awful to escape from.

With your bunker game in mind, examine the old photo of Hollywood and tell me how you think you'd fare, compared to today's Hollywood.
The difference is mind blowing, and, today, you have the benefit of high tech equipment not available in the old days.
Remember, the sand wedge wasn't even invented until around 1933.

So, imagine playing Hollywood, prior to 1933.
It had to be a daunting task

The bunkers certainly look scary, but fairways have narrowed, greens have gotten faster, rough has gotten thicker and been irrigated.

Fairways got narrowed with the introduction of irrigation systems.
Most local couress haven't systemically narrowed their fairways subsequently.
Faster greens haven't produced a pronounced increase in the degree of difficulty in general.
Rough is thicker, but, it's also more consistent.
Fairways have gotten much, much better.

I don't think Sawgrass is a particularly wimpier challenge than 1938 NGLA.

Who was Sawgrass designed for ?  And by whom ?
Would you say it represents the general or systemic theme in golf course architecture in the last 50 years ?

How many times has Sawgrass been softened since it opened ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dear Mr. Mucci,
Item 1: There are a multitude of courses that are severely "anti-wimp".  Please tee it up at Tobacco Road, True Blue, Heathland Moorland & Ballyhack (and many others I do not know) and then review the "wimp" factor of these courses.


Carl,

You can always find exceptions, but, the theme toward softening is indisputable.

Item 2: If you are in the grow the game group and or the anti 5+ hour round group, then many more 'wimp" courses need to be built.
It's the modern day player who's taking 5 hours, and they're taking that time on wimp courses.
GCGC insists on 3.5 hour rounds for 4somes.
PV is a little more.
Ditto NGLA and SHCC
It's NOT the golf course that causes 5 + hour rounds, it's the modern day golfer.

In the times I've been in Scotland from 1952 to 1992, play was brisk, and certainly, neither the courses nor the weather helped with the pace of play.

[Jason Topp]

Pat:  Not all dogs are collies but there are a lot of them out there: