[John Connolly]

Should "defense to scoring" be a metric used to judge a course, and/or its archichecture? Worded another way, can a great, well-designed course, have a rating under par and a relatively low slope?

[Michael Felton]

That's an interesting question. I'm struggling to think of any courses that are "easy" that I would consider great. My idea of great architecture though is things like risk reward trade offs and the architect tempting you into playing a shot that isn't actually sensible. Risk reward has to have risk involved or it's not really risk reward at all and if the architect is going to tempt you into playing a shot that you shouldn't, then that has to have consequences.

I could certainly imagine a course that is hugely aesthetically pleasing and was easy, but it's hard to imagine it being "great" architecturally.

[Jason Thurman]

The inherent lure of the game is its challenge.

Easy courses are boring and gimmicky for everyone outside the crowd that uses their self-proclaimed golf design expertise to clamor for things that make the game easier for them. I've played a few courses that are too hard to be fun, but I've played a lot more that are too easy to be interesting.

[John Connolly]

One wonders if there are "difficulty" goals for an architect when he designs/restores a course. My guess is a response from an architect would go something like this: "My goal is to build the best course I can given the land, budget, and desires of those controlling the project." They probably don't aim for a certain degree of difficulty as a first objective. Having said that, it is also likely that the gca also has a desire to build or restore a course that will present challenges and a consequence, difficulties, to the golfer. A natural progression in his mind's eye would be: sound architectural principles > inherent challenges to golfer > commensurate degree of difficulty. If that logic is true, can you invert the conclusion, reverse the order and find another truth?: relatively easy course > few inherent challenges to golfer > paucity of sound archictectural principles.

[Tom_Doak]

There is a bias against "easier" courses on the top 100 lists.  For years, I accepted that line of thinking, but in the past few years I've come to challenge it. 

North Berwick is the best example of a great course that is not too difficult in relation to par.  It is certainly "great" architecturally, as there are a number of holes and features that have been borrowed by other architects for 100 years.  Just because it wouldn't be a great test for the pros, does not make it a lesser course for me or you or 99% of the world's golfers. 

That does not make most easy courses great.  Great should still be a high bar to pass ... I just don't think being in the 10% most difficult courses is a prerequisite for greatness.

[Tom_Doak]

One wonders if there are "difficulty" goals for an architect when he designs/restores a course. My guess is a response from an architect would go something like this: "My goal is to build the best course I can given the land, budget, and desires of those controlling the project." They probably don't aim for a certain degree of difficulty as a first objective. Having said that, it is also likely that the gca also has a desire to build or restore a course that will present challenges and a consequence, difficulties, to the golfer.

"Degree of difficulty" is something that is almost always addressed by clients at the beginning of a project.  Not all want the course to be a really difficult test of golf, but they all want their porridge to be not too hot or too cold, and usually what's right for them correlates fairly closely to their own handicap.

On renovation and restoration work it's even worse:  most clubs that I have worked with question ANY decision that could be seen as making the golf course "easier" as if that would never be allowed to happen even for one or two of the 18 holes.  This is frequently the argument against removing trees, or making greens bigger or fairways wider:  "Isn't that going to make the course easier?"  God forbid the members might actually play to their handicap someday!

[Jeff_Brauer]

John Connally,

Sometimes the owner sets the difficulty parameters. My clientele - mostly public, (upscale and muni) and some resort sure don't ask me to make them tough.  And, in fact, I am in a "make them easier mode" after a few years of trying to make them challenging (not difficult) What's the difference - well, a butter cut 6 iron to a tucked pin is the same challenge whether the guarding bunkers are 2 or 20 feet deep, taking away the terror factor, and assuming the pin area is the same size.  So, design to favor/encourage that fade 6I, but keep the hazards moderate.

As to an example of the potentially great course that isn't really difficult in every day play, think ANGC as it plays in non Masters mode.  It was the exemplar for the occasionally tough course when it needed to be, vs.  playable every day.  I guess its par and slope ratings would be dependent on when the course raters visited.....

[SL_Solow]

Tom;  we are going through that right now.  We lost a couple of mature trees and some of our amateur architects are furious because certain recovery shots are now theoretically possible.  195 yards out of rough over smaller trees, and a deep greenside bunker to a green with a center ridge is too easy for these folks.  Yet they will get an audience although I suspect our committee and consulting architect will turn a deaf ear.  I hear the same thing from other greens chairmen.

As to the general question, I am most interested in whether the course presents a variety of challenges both in terms of planning shots and executing them.  For a handicap player, oftentimes difficulty is most impacted by length, at least that is the premise of the course rating system.  So difficulty is not my personal litmus test.  there are objectively difficult courses that I like very much and others that I abhor.  Similarly, there are relatively easy courses that are boring and others that hold my interest.  Its how they get there and what I have to do while playing that interests me, vague though that stement may be.

[John Connolly]

Jeff,

I was going to offer ANGC as an example of good architecture that reportedly does not play all that hard from member tees in non-Masters mode. But not having played it, I didn't have the juevos to suggest it's not hard - glad you offered it first!

[Michael Felton]

Tom;  we are going through that right now.  We lost a couple of mature trees and some of our amateur architects are furious because certain recovery shots are now theoretically possible.  195 yards out of rough over smaller trees, and a deep greenside bunker to a green with a center ridge is too easy for these folks.  Yet they will get an audience although I suspect our committee and consulting architect will turn a deaf ear.  I hear the same thing from other greens chairmen.

As to the general question, I am most interested in whether the course presents a variety of challenges both in terms of plannig shots and executing them.  For a handicap player, oftentimes difficulty is most impacted by length, at least that is the premise of the course rating system.  So difficulty is not my personal litmus test.  there are objectively difficult courses that I like very much and others that I abhor.  Similarly, there are relatively easy courses that are boring and others that hold my interest.  Its how they get there and what I have to do while playing that interests me, vague though that stement may be.

At the risk of sounding self contradictory, they need to understand that the possible, but difficult shot is quite possibly going to result in higher scores than the impossible one. The impossible one forces you to play safe and bogey is the likely outcome. The possible one brings double and higher into play.

[John Connolly]

Tom and Jeff,

Are you satisfied with your design decisions if you achieve stylistically what you want but get comments that "it's too easy"? Will you consider those thoughts at least marginally irrelevant because you like the routing, design etc? And what if you see rating/slope data down the road that is lower than you had envisioned? No worries?  I find similar philosophies regarding green speeds which we've touched on here recently. Memberships love fast greens - why is that? It definitely is a "feather in the cap kind of thing" but what does that have to do with architecture? My sense is not much - which leads me to believe that sometimes (often?) there's a disconnect between design quality and difficulty. They need not be, and seemingly are often not, proportional.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom & Jeff,

I was thinking about NGLA and GCGC in the context of a challenge that's fun but not overwhelming.

I don't see either course as "difficult" when compared to Winged Foot West.

Even Shinnecock, when played from the appropriate tees, is a challenge that's fun to meet, but not overwhelming.

Aside from OB and lots of water, isn't distance "THE" catalyst that creates "difficulty"

There are relatively short courses, such as Montclair, that are difficult to score on, but, the topography, with four nines on the side of a fairly steep hill, create much of the difficulty.

The more I reflect on it, "distance", "yardage" seems to transform a manageable course into a difficult course.

I happen to like what I call, "sporty" courses, courses that aren't of championship length, but courses that are a rung or two above your average local course. 

I also consider ANGC from the Members tees, a "sporty" course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()