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

[Patrick_Mucci]

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

No, there aren't.

A photo of a single hole isn't representative of all 18 holes and a few courses aren't representative of hundreds of courses.

Name 10 penal local member courses built in the U.S. in the last 50 years.

Then name 10 local member courses that have significantly altered their courses to become far more penal in the last 50 years.

Then compare that with the number of courses that have softened or eliminated features in the last 50 years.

Eventually, you'll come to understand the flow of the trend.

[Peter Pallotta]

Pat - I'd say that many recent courses have been designed not for wimps but for "rabbits", and that what you are witnessing/describing is a product of the growing skills (art and craft) of an increasing number of architects in designing courses that allow rabbits to believe they are "tigers".  This quote from Bernard Darwin explains what I mean (and I have bolded the skill-set I reference):

"It is today an accepted principle of golfing architecture that the tiger should be teased and trapped and tested, while the rabbit should be left in peace, since he can make his own hell for himself. Broadly speaking, it is an excellent principle, but I wonder, nevertheless, whether those who enunciate and act upon it do not sometimes a little misunderstand the rabbit's heart.  Rabbits are tolerably sensitive animals. Do they not feel a little hurt that the architect thinks so meanly of their powers that he will put nothing in their way? [...]They must sometimes resent the implication that the attempt to trundle the ball in inglorious safety will give them more than all the trouble they want [...] Our architects are, of course, not only very skilled artists but very cunning persons, and they often contrive to make the rabbit believe that he is living more dangerously than in fact he is."

In short, what's you're seeing is architects getting better at "contriving" to make the average golfer (the rabbit) believe that he is living more dangerously than he is. That makes most of us happy -- since most of us are rabbits, not matter what our vanity handicaps say. Not surprisngly, as a very accomplished player, what you see instead are courses that aren't very dangerous at all.

Peter

[Jason Topp]

No, there aren't.
A photo of a single hole isn't representative of all 18 holes and a few courses aren't representative of hundreds of courses.
Name 10 penal local member courses built in the U.S. in the last 50 years.
Then name 10 local member courses that have significantly altered their courses to become far more penal in the last 50 years.
Then compare that with the number of courses that have softened or eliminated features in the last 50 years.
Eventually, you'll come to understand the flow of the trend.[/size][/color]

That is more work than I want to do and I note you are now limiting your idea to local member courses.  I can't speak to the full 50 years but am confident that, locally, Minneapolis GC, Mendakota, Interlachen, Minikahda, North Oaks, Golden Valley, Hazeltine, and Wayzata have made their hazards more penal over the last 20 years, particularly given that most, if not all, have added length.  I would characterize Edina as softening their course a bit but that was because their prior greens were miserable.   

Maybe the "wimps" are in New Jersey.

[Patrick_Mucci]

No, there aren't.
A photo of a single hole isn't representative of all 18 holes and a few courses aren't representative of hundreds of courses.
Name 10 penal local member courses built in the U.S. in the last 50 years.
Then name 10 local member courses that have significantly altered their courses to become far more penal in the last 50 years.
Then compare that with the number of courses that have softened or eliminated features in the last 50 years.
Eventually, you'll come to understand the flow of the trend.[/size][/color]

That is more work than I want to do and I note you are now limiting your idea to local member courses.

Sawgrass was hardly designed for the average or member golfer, ditto PGA west and others.

If you read my opening post more carefully you'd understand the gist of the thread 

I can't speak to the full 50 years but am confident that, locally, Minneapolis GC, Mendakota, Interlachen, Minikahda, North Oaks, Golden Valley, Hazeltine, and Wayzata have made their hazards more penal over the last 20 years, particularly given that most, if not all, have added length.

How have they all made their hazards more penal ?

And, were these restorations or new additions ? 

I would characterize Edina as softening their course a bit but that was because their prior greens were miserable.   

Maybe the "wimps" are in New Jersey.

Probably, if you consider Pine Valley, Baltusrol, Plainfield, Galloway, Hidden Creek, Hollywood, Mountain Ridge, Bayonne and Ridgewood wimpy courses.

Yet, every one of the "Golden Age" courses doesn't play as difficult as the original.

[Jason Topp]

Sawgrass was hardly designed for the average or member golfer, ditto PGA west and others.

If you read my opening post more carefully you'd understand the gist of the thread 

Where do you think the revenue is generated for those courses?  The course with the island greens is a 36 hole members course in Fort Myers where I would guess the average member age is 65-70.  I also would question whether Pine Valley is primarily a local members club.

I can't speak to the full 50 years but am confident that, locally, Minneapolis GC, Mendakota, Interlachen, Minikahda, North Oaks, Golden Valley, Hazeltine, and Wayzata have made their hazards more penal over the last 20 years, particularly given that most, if not all, have added length.

How have they all made their hazards more penal ?

And, were these restorations or new additions ? 
Generally, they added length, deepened bunkers, placed bunkers in the line of play, firmed up greens and sped them up.  I would describe most of these projects as renovations.

I would characterize Edina as softening their course a bit but that was because their prior greens were miserable.   

Maybe the "wimps" are in New Jersey.

Probably, if you consider Pine Valley, Baltusrol, Plainfield, Galloway, Hidden Creek, Hollywood, Mountain Ridge, Bayonne and Ridgewood wimpy courses.

Yet, every one of the "Golden Age" courses doesn't play as difficult as the original.

I doubt those are wimpy courses but I question whether or not they play more difficult.  Have you compared fairway widths?  Generally, when I have looked old aerials, fairway widths were much, much wider than todays fairways.  How much of the difference is due to conditioning differences?  Regardless, I do not think your thesis holds in most of the world.

[/quote]

[RJ_Daley]

I think the question can't be answered unless Pat defines what 'wimp' means.  Is a wimp one who is somehow weak?  Is that in a physical or mental state of weakness.  Is a wimp a character that shies away from physical or mental challenges, or one that is capable of the effort but can't be bothered?

I don't think there is an answer.  There have been 1000s of courses built in the last 50 years.  And, Pat doesn't seem to eliminate those built prior to the last 50 that have been altered.  Alterations have often lengthened the courses, thus from a physical sense, at least they are making them walk more, if they walk.  However, there have also been many more courses built cart-only or so long that carts are required for all but the most hearty and fit, if they are allowed to walk.  So, it is a mixed bag at best in the physicality or mental side of a definition of 'wimp'. 

If the question is more a question of a trend to soften the features of courses, to make them more fair or less mental challenge, that is also a mixed bag.  Courses of the Dye genre are specifically designed and/or remodeled to challenge the best players in the most frustrating of challenges and questions that the archie is asking the golfer.  This is also the apparent mission of many modern and older living archies.  Yet, there are many archies who promote a philosophy of making the game easier or one that has optional tees and features that challenge the low handicap player while offering a less challenging design for less skilled players.  So, is that notion one that can encompass such a broadly and under-defined question like Pat is asking?

[Tom_Doak]

The difference is that today projects are more commercial in nature.  Developers don't want to write off one market segment to pursue another; they want their course to appeal to ALL levels of players.  And you can't do that just by putting in more forward tees.

In the Golden Age there were a lot of courses built primarily with very good players in mind.  There were lots of less difficult courses built in the same period, but the difficult ones are the ones which hosted tournaments and became famous, and which have subsequently continued to modify their courses to keep up with modern equipment advances.  "Man-sized" courses like Winged Foot and Pine Valley are generally not what developers want today ... and Winged Foot did not get to where it is by building five sets of tees.

By the same token, Dr. MacKenzie preached making the course look harder than it really was, so that the average golfer would gain a sense of accomplishment and fun over the course of 18 holes.  It was not an era of one size fits all.

[BCrosby]

Peter -

What a terrific Bernardo find. Per usual, he nails it.

 "[...] Our architects are, of course, not only very skilled artists but very cunning persons, and they often contrive to make the rabbit believe that he is living more dangerously than in fact he is."

As a design challenge, that is hard to pull off. Which is why only the good ones have done it down the years.

Can you restate Darwin's idea by saying that the difficulties of a well-designed course ought to have an inverse relationship to the skill level of the player? That is, the lower the handicap, the harder the course? That the difficulty of a good course is a dynamic (not a static) notion?   

Bob

[Mike_Trenham]

Was Ross a whimp?  I like his courses but they don't beat me up.

I think modern courses are harder not easier.  But that is mostly site and EPA regulation driven.

Golfers are also stupid and think harder is better, ever play a modern course from the wrong tees? I did just yesterday. 

[Jim Nelson]

Having been privileged to play a number of classic courses last year including some listed on the Best in the World category, I think there is a certain blandness to the modern courses.  I find myself drawn to what I would refer to as quirky, old courses and would play them to the exclusion of all modern courses (with a few exceptions) for the rest of my golfing life.  I would much rather play NGLA as opposed to Shadow Creek.  Can anyone make the opposing argument?  How about Royal Dornoch vs Trump Scotland?  Discussion gets tougher for some if you compare Royal Dornoch vs Castle Stuart or Kingsbarns, but not for me.  If I was forced to chose one over the other forever, give me NGLA/Royal Dornoch. 

[Ken Moum]

Pat,

Don't you think a huge component of this is a combination of "stroke play" mentality and the GHIN requirement of posting every score?

Courses like the old ones you reference were the sites of mostly match play, and most of that was by reckoning so the competitors.didn't even have a score.

Today, in my groups guys will grind out those eights... and even nines so they have a real score at the end of the day.  Doing that on a long, hard course is NOT a lot of fun.

OTOH, beating your buddy with a nine is ever so much more satisfying.  I should know, I won a hole in of men's league Wednesday with a snowman.

K

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Don't you think a huge component of this is a combination of "stroke play" mentality and the GHIN requirement of posting every score?


Absolutely.

I think the muting or elimination of "round ruiner" features is at the core of the issue.

Courses like the old ones you reference were the sites of mostly match play, and most of that was by reckoning so the competitors.didn't even have a score.

Today, in my groups guys will grind out those eights... and even nines so they have a real score at the end of the day.  Doing that on a long, hard course is NOT a lot of fun.

Ken, I didn't have length in mind, rather, challenging, difficult features.

Over the years I've seen so many features defanged and/or eliminated.
One has to ask, when an original feature has existed for 50-80 years, what in particular causes the club to soften or eliminate it?
And, you have to consider, that in it's original form, it was played with vastly inferior equipment, which inherently softens the feature for the modern day golfer

[Ken Moum]

Pat,

Don't you think a huge component of this is a combination of "stroke play" mentality and the GHIN requirement of posting every score?


Absolutely.

I think the muting or elimination of "round ruiner" features is at the core of the issue.

Courses like the old ones you reference were the sites of mostly match play, and most of that was by reckoning so the competitors.didn't even have a score.

Today, in my groups guys will grind out those eights... and even nines so they have a real score at the end of the day.  Doing that on a long, hard course is NOT a lot of fun.

Ken, I didn't have length in mind, rather, challenging, difficult features.

Over the years I've seen so many features defanged and/or eliminated.
One has to ask, when an original feature has existed for 50-80 years, what in particular causes the club to soften or eliminate it?
And, you have to consider, that in it's original form, it was played with vastly inferior equipment, which inherently softens the feature for the modern day golfer

A valid point about length. 

One thing that surprises me is how accepting the guys I play with can be of water and/or OB.  Even ball-eating tall grass. But do something like a centerline bunker or a bunker that prevents advancing the ball and they go ape-shit.

Still, they're insistent that ever box on the card must have number in it.

K

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ken,

I think your buddies non-reaction to water/OB may be influenced by watching the PGA Tour in that it's not unusual to see both on the courses played every week, but, a center-line bunker is like a feature from Mars, with no frame of reference or degree of familiarity.  Hence, an objection to a feature that can extract a half to a full shot penalty, versus stroke and distance for OB.

I think golfer react unfavorably to the unfamiliar.

I think that's why many don't like Redan's, Biarritz's and other features not often encountered.

But, it is strange how almost everyone is all too willing to accept water/OB and yet complain about features that don't extract as severe a penalty..

[Patrick_Mucci]

Are the removal of these wonderful bunker complexes not Exhibit "A" in the trend toward wimpiness in golf ?





It was removed ca. 1970, and is now just narrow fairway with a single bunker and rough covered mounds.