I think I've just realized one of the secrets to Jack's Success

[Peter Pallotta]

I was reading Joe Passov's short review of JN's Quivira-Los Cabos course. Joe is positive about it in general, but wonders whether, especially with the winds off the Pacific, it will be playable for mid-to high-handicaps.  

And then it struck me -- it doesn't matter if it's 'playable'.  Mid-to high-handicappers who play there won't care that it is too hard for them, and will not hold either the $115-$295 green fees or their 100+ scores against the course.

And I also thought: in today's socio-economic world and with today's 'retail golfers', a spectacular sea-side resort course serves the exact same role/fills the exact same niche as did a very private east coast golden age course like Merion. It is about being there, and playing golf -- consequences (i.e. scores) be damned.

We've often talked about the changing expectations of golfers over the last 90 years or so -- i.e. how hard the great golden age courses must've played back in the day, with the old equipment. We know what good/decent players scored back then, and we can extrapolate to guess what the mid-to high-hadicappers in the 1920s and 30s would've scored; we wonder how many of us today would still keep playing the game if we found it so hard. The answer? Mid-to high-handicappers would.

That latter group routinely/always shot high scores at a course like Merion -- but they kept coming back (i.e. they joined as members, and they didn't complain). And point is that the expectations of mid-to high-handicappers have actually not changed over the years, and that today's hacks don't complain either.

And that's one of the "secrets" to the Jack's success. Whether consciously or not, he has realized that the mid-to high-handicpappers who play a course like Quivira don't mind one whit that they'll shoot high scores -- and that, like their brethren from generations ago who joined Merion and then shot 100+ every single round, these mid-to high-handicappers keep coming back, in part because they blame neither the course nor the architect for their scores.

In short, the "average golfer" has not changed in a hundred years, either in skill level or expectations. And JN has in fact and very astutely -- and despite what the high green/memberships fees and tough golf holes and high slope ratings might suggest -- designed the majority of his courses for exactly this clientele, the average golfer. And that's why he's been so successful.

JN knows that it is the golfers who are/consider themselves to be good players who are the fickle ones, the complainers, the dilettantes. For JN's real clientele, the average golfers who aren't very good, if you give them something special they'll stick with you like glue.

Peter

[Jason Thurman]

Peter, I've said the same thing many times. Most "retail golfers" don't care too much about playability when they decide whether they liked playing a course. In fact, I've known 35 handicappers who rave about the most penal courses. There's one in particular where I've heard hackers joyfully exclaim "It's so much fun! I lost 30 balls, and I just bring a bucket with me when I play there now that I know what to expect!"

Those same "retail golfers" take mulligans, drop on the other side after hitting into the water, don't gamble, and just like being outside and whacking a ball and enjoying the one or two memorably good shots they hit during a round. This is part of Pete Dye's secret that he talks about in "Bury me in a Pot Bunker" - if you throw blatantly difficult features in front of a high-handicapper, most will take on the challenge even if you also give them a safe bailout. And while their score might go up in the process, they'll also pull the shot off once or twice a round and that memory for them will be a bigger source of joy than shooting a 101 instead of a 106 might have been.

A course might eventually lose repeat play if it's too penal and eats too many balls and beats players up too much. But for a resort or destination course that people are going to visit every few years if they return at all, it won't hurt their feelings if it's too hard. There's nothing quite as funny as a 30 handicapper telling you about "what a great test" he hacked it around when he was in Barbados.

[John Connolly]

Peter,

Agree, agree, agree. It reminds me of the quote by Edward Murrow - "Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation."
The duffers, the elitists would say, don't "understand the architectural situation" and simply aren't "confused". I love it. Pundits be gosh darned!!

[J Sadowsky]

I just like courses where I can avoid the sanctimonious sneering of low handicappers.

[Steve Wilson]

J.  Sadowsky

"I just like courses where I can avoid the sanctimonious sneering of low handicappers."

Wait until you have to endure the sanctimonious sneering of high handicappers (visualize this being said with a curled lip a la Elvis).

[RJ_Daley]

If I understand Jason correctly, I would say that a tough JN course is sought out by 'retail golfers' of all handicap levels, and that doesn't leave out the highest handicappers.  In fact, high handicaps may tend to be 'retail golfers' that are prone to 'belt notching' where they might love the game, but are too busy in their lives to practice to get better, but have the disposable income to 'belt notch';  thus seeking out he name designer courses like JNs or Dye, etc., and it does take on the socio-economic flavor of being able to say, 'yeah I played it' to your golfing buddies. 

Where it breaks down as a mentality that leads to the tough golf course on an architecture or architorture concept is that those belt notchers that play those tough signature JN, Dye sort of courses are more often than not one and done seekers of the experience.  They don't have any expectations to play well, know they will probably dump a dozen balls into hazards and lost, and don't even care if they are high cost proVs and the like.  But, will they be back on any sort of regular basis??  That is where it breaks down IMO.  And that is where the signature courses that are too difficult for high handicaps are in jeopardy of a profit failure in the long run, IMO.  They usually cost too much to build, command too high a price on the CCFAD basis, and if they are private, too high a joining fee.  Yes, the big income folks can join them for social class and status reasons, including if the club has the sort of social membership activites and facilities that well heeled society desires.  But, as a matter of the high handicap player's desire to join a club that makes sense to improve their golf game and 'enjoy' the architecture, they just don't care about that aspect. 

How many signature designer or high profile CCFAD catagory of courses hit the market as too tough and architorture, and while drawing the well heeled belt notchers who played there on a one and done or rare occasion visitor, did not sustain a good buisness model because it didn't get repeat consistent play?  How many of those name designer, over the top degree of difficulty and penal-lost ball havens HAD to change aspects of their intitial architorture design inorder to get those retail golfers to return to a more playable and scorable condition.   I can think of a few including Erin Hills, DR-JN course, Lost Canyons, even Whistling Straits.  Plenty of others.... 

[John Kirk]

"Golfers are mostly masochists.  They'll go anywhere to play."

--  Jack Nicklaus, 2006

http://journalstar.com/sports/nicklaus-pleased-with-dismal-river-club-s-progress/article_7cb4f54b-329d-520c-b75e-01a40be35890.html

Don't interpret this post as anything but a reaction to Peter's opening post.  I just remembered the remark.

[Tom_Doak]

I was reading Joe Passov's short review of JN's Quivira-Los Cabos course. Joe is positive about it in general, but wonders whether, especially with the winds off the Pacific, it will be playable for mid-to high-handicaps.  

And then it struck me -- it doesn't matter if it's 'playable'.  Mid-to high-handicappers who play there won't care that it is too hard for them, and will not hold either the $115-$295 green fees or their 100+ scores against the course.
Peter

Peter:

This was Pete Dye's philosophy of design, too ... in fact Jack might have borrowed it from Pete.

However, I'm not sure I agree with your premise.  Sure, high handicappers may play these courses and profess to love them.

But will they come back and play them again the next year, if they're not really any fun?

Bandon is by the ocean, but people go back again and again because it's fun.

[Adam Clayman]

Peter, I don't know what you read from Mr. Passov to make you realize the subtext of JN's design philosophy. But, I did hear recently that Jack keeps evolving as an Archie. That quote JK put up is from the Dismal River article, pre design and pre Sebonack. Dick's point about the one and done'ers is germane, as is plain ignorance. Personally I feel the proliferation of information, on what constitutes sophisticated design, has helped educate the average golf addict quicker, than having to have golfed a thousand rounds at a place, before you realize you are on a great course, or, on a repetitive slog of a ball sucking monstrosity.

[Joe Sponcia]

To your point...I just got back from Myrtle Beach with a group of 32.  We played Long Bay (Nicklaus) Friday.  Pretty typical Nicklaus course.  I hadn't played it in over 10 years and remembered why about 4 holes in.  As we were playing, I was trying to gauge the thoughts of my playing partners who were 15-20's.  All loved the course and scored like crap.  I watched them go from bunker to landing on the green and rolling off into another bunker multiple times.  They went for every conceivable shot - surrounded by water or surrounded by bunkers.  Nothing gave them pause to bail out or preserve score - everything was struck with a story in mind.  I guess this works at a place like Myrtle, but I wouldn't want to play it as my home course every day - or another round for that matter.  

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, gents - some good thoughts and information.

I knew enough not to say that I "discovered" JN's secret, but I didn't even realize that Pete Dye shared the same philosophy. (That's neat in itself - I rarely read anyone comparing PD's courses to JN's, in any ways whatsoever).

For me, the interesting aspect of my "realization" was the idea that, while good golfers today probably wouldn't appreciate having to routinely hit woods and long irons into par 4s (as their 1920s equivalents had to), the average golfer of today is happy enough to put up with precisely what his 1920s counterpart did. 

Peter

[Paul Gray]

The less discerning the player, all else being equal, the more impressionable that player is likely to be. And the more impressionable a person is the more susceptible he or she is, meaning that not only will he or she be easily impressed by shiny things, he or she will similarly be impressed by the name of a great golfer attached to a course. Was it ever any different with Old Tom? Lesser known architects, ie. the likes of Dye and Doak, just can't hold such sway with the masses because those guys haven't won 18 majors so can't possibly know as much as Jack, right?  

And if the name of Jack hasn't done the trick straight off the bat, by the time you've got the average golfer to fork out on a flight, hotel and a few rounds of golf, the course review is effectively already written. The average golfer isn't going to go to all that trouble and review a course neutrally.

As to whether those same golfers would pay out to loose a dozen balls week on week, I'm not convinced.

[John Kavanaugh]

If you combine the aesthetic of Fazio with the strategy of Dye you've got a dirty little secret. What's not a secret is that Jack has built a ton of great golf. You can't fake it for this long.

[Jason Thurman]

Paul, just for the sake of transparency, I'd like you to again remind us how many Nicklaus courses you've played. There's a real irony in the way you suggest that average golfers aren't impartial enough to recognize that Nicklaus courses stink, when you yourself are the one who has decided that they stink in spite of the fact that you've never played one...

Let's also agree that plenty of people have to fork out cash for flights and hotels to play at places like Cape Kidnappers or Bandon too. It's not just Nicklaus courses that require travel arrangements to reach. If plane and hotel bookings lead to biased reviews, then surely they lead to biased reviews for all architects and guys like Tom Doak benefit just as much as Jack would.

I do suspect that highly penal or difficult courses eventually wear on average players. However, the Nicklaus courses that I've played also seem to offer plenty of room for weaker players to slap the ball around. While the Nicklaus courses that I've seen generally offer plenty of options for conservative play that avoids disasters and lost balls, my observations are much like Joe's - the high handicappers I've seen play them  would much rather take on the heroic shots and, while they may wreck their scores in the process, they also get a much better story if they pull a few of them off. For a group of people that spend so much time insisting that golf isn't all about a final medal score, GCAers sure get score-obsessed when they talk about whether high handicappers will enjoy a course or not. Does anyone believe that a high handicapper would rather make a 4 on a par 3 without any possibility for a lost ball than make a 5 on the 12th at Muirfield Village by sending their reteed ball soaring beautifully to the green after drowning their initial tee shot? That third shot is one they'll remember forever, and there's something to be said for that.

[Joe Sponcia]

Jason,

Again, referencing my recent trip where we did play a Nicklaus...what does the average retail golfer want to come back home and say, "I played a Nicklaus and a Dye or I teed it up on a playable Willard Byrd, Tim Cates, and/or Clyde Johnston"? 

Separate topic but in the same vain, my club is fighting every inch of tree removal due to the stigma of 'easy'.  Playable = easy.  After all, Who wants to play 'easy' golf or be a member at an 'easy' club?   

 

[Jason Thurman]

Joe, we fight the same battles.

Case in point: the tree pictured prominently below on the left side of the fairway is dying. It's a 70+ foot tall oak tree that took 60+ years to reach its current size. My suggestion was that when it dies we might find we prefer the hole without it, and we might as well wait a year or two before replacing it and find out - if it's going to take 50 years to grow back, what's the difference between 50 and 52? Most of us will be long gone either way.



They thought I was insane. "It'll be too easy!" Never mind that the lowest handicap in the room was my 7. They can't fathom that the tree makes no difference to strong players - even I can just hit right over it. You would think features like this tree would be especially unpopular among weaker players, as they disproportionally penalize them compared to a stronger player who can hit past, over, or turn a draw around them. At least Nicklaus' penal features are tough for everyone from you to me to 30 handicappers. And as you mention, you also get the joy of saying "We played a Jack Nicklaus course!" after you play one.

For the record, the only way that I know of to talk people into tree removal is the argument that it will improve conditioning. The average golfer notices and appreciates two things about course design: conditioning and difficulty. Nicklaus courses tend to have both.

[Adam Lawrence]

To your point...I just got back from Myrtle Beach with a group of 32.  We played Long Bay (Nicklaus) Friday.  Pretty typical Nicklaus course.  I hadn't played it in over 10 years and remembered why about 4 holes in.  As we were playing, I was trying to gauge the thoughts of my playing partners who were 15-20's.  All loved the course and scored like crap.  I watched them go from bunker to landing on the green and rolling off into another bunker multiple times.  They went for every conceivable shot - surrounded by water or surrounded by bunkers.  Nothing gave them pause to bail out or preserve score - everything was struck with a story in mind.  I guess this works at a place like Myrtle, but I wouldn't want to play it as my home course every day - or another round for that matter.  

The cry of the travelling golfer: "I didn't come all this way to lay up".

[Paul Gray]

Jason,

Your point is well made but, once again, if we're going to exclude people from any debate on the basis of exposure we're going to end up with Mucci arguing with himself. Admittedly he excels at just that but that doesn't leave us anywhere.

Now then, my point wasn't specifically a criticism of JN. To a lesser extend you could apply the name of any famous golfer and the same would apply. "This course must be good because Peter Aliss designed it" is not an uncommon thought process on this side of the pond, certainly amongst a certain demographic. A friend of mine that I happened to once work with at what was supposedly an Aliss course has just returned from a trip down to St. Mellion, a trip undertaken in the pretence of work as he has chaperoning a group of club members. Anyway, my friend was quite certain that the Nicklaus course was not even the best course at the resort but try telling that to the members. Firstly, the Nicklaus course was immaculately groomed and obviously that was what all the comments were about. But secondly, as far as the members were concerned, they were there for the Nicklaus course and therefore, just so long as the conditioning was as expected, the layout was always going to be given the thumbs up.

Specific to a Nicklaus course I have actually seen first hand, the Ryder Cup course, I will very confidently say, would have received far more public and media criticism if Jack's name hadn't come with it. The juxtaposition of that course and all that is on its horizon is pure filth. Not that any of the GCA poster boys would have ever produced such a monstrosity but if, in some parallel universe one of them had done just that, you'd still be hearing the criticism now.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jason,

Again, referencing my recent trip where we did play a Nicklaus...what does the average retail golfer want to come back home and say, "I played a Nicklaus and a Dye or I teed it up on a playable Willard Byrd, Tim Cates, and/or Clyde Johnston"? 

Joe,

For whatever it's worth, whenever I was flying to Myrtle Beach to build Wild Wing (circa 1992-3) I was often surprised by golfers telling me, with excitement, that they were going to play a "Rees and a Byrd" while there.  In that market, Willard Byrd was a star, at least in that time frame.

As to the long term attractiveness of various levels of golf course difficulty, again, for what its worth, I will relate my experience.  In two states, I  have top 3 public courses (KS and MN)  In KS, Colbert Hills is the highest slope rated course in the state. In MN, the Quarry is (or close, I think Fazio's Spring Hill might beat it) both at 151.  Both have nearby competitors designed by me, also ranked highly (varies by magazine a bit) that are more playable.  Even at La Costa, it seems like the more playable Legends is trumping the more Wilson like Champions course, although, its still early.

Initially, the tougher, higher ranked courses had more play, but as far as I can tell from figures given me by staff, over 10 years, the more playable courses are getting more play now.  My takeaway is that playability sells, at least in the long term. 

Maybe when there was more money flowing, there were enough golfers and rounds to build a business plan on the "once in a lifetime" business model. No doubt JN, PD and other built some highly ranked courses under that scenario.  And Fazio and Morrish flourished building easier versions of high end courses, so this isn't a new debate in architecture circles.

Granted, there are lots of factors in each scenario.  Does the casino at Fortune Bay give it an advantage over the Quarry?  How does La Costa's private/public model of switching play every day affect the play?  Is Firekeeper being closer to KC AND having a casino affecting relative play?  (BTW, in MN, the courses price the same, so that isn't a factor, not sure about KS)

Sort of related, but I also see a trend in senior men to accepting shorter and easier courses, rather than playing based on ego or memory of better golfing days......anecdotal to be sure and not a big enough sample size.

Lastly, the words of one management big wig ring in my ears on each design - "We've never had anyone complain when we propose to make their course easier......"

[Dave McCollum]

One several trips with average golfers, we’ve played JN and other courses.  Two examples:  Old Works and Rock Creek in Montana; and a JN, a Weiskopf, and a Norman in Puerto Vallarta.  In the second example, the preference was clearly for the Norman, the easiest, most playable, and widest (also less expensive) of this group of famous player designs.  In Montana, RCCC was more challenging and gave them fits scoring, yet they knew they were playing the superior course, or at least the most beautiful. 

Hard for me to say how much their preferences we’re influenced by the “name” designers.  My guess is not a lot.  My gut also tells that most high cappers prefer playability for their games over difficulty and challenge.  When they travel for golf, they want to have fun, and resort courses that don’t beat them up too much get the nod.  I think that is also true for their choices in local courses.  However, where they play is more about where their buddies play than the venue (if costs are comparable).  I also agree with the “one and done” comments.

[John McCarthy]

I think the higher handicap player has more fun on the course period.  Trying to hit impossible shots are not done the scratch player, especially if they are trying to post a score.  There is a million ways to screw up a round but one must be focused and disciplined to score well. 

I was talking with a woman this past weekend who had a D1 college scholarship.  After college she moved to the big city where there are few places to practice short of a private club, which she could not afford.  The few times she would play the lack of practice made her hit bad shots, each of which caused her to fume for two hours.  It got so bad she quit the game for three years! 

As a high handicapper a difficult course does not generally give me fits - I know my game and posting a 100 is not going to break my heart.  But a stupid, repetitive hard course will get old quick.  Especially a hard course that punishes a poor driver with forced carries over and over. 

[J Sadowsky]

I think the higher handicap player has more fun on the course period.  Trying to hit impossible shots are not done the scratch player, especially if they are trying to post a score.  There is a million ways to screw up a round but one must be focused and disciplined to score well. 

I was talking with a woman this past weekend who had a D1 college scholarship.  After college she moved to the big city where there are few places to practice short of a private club, which she could not afford.  The few times she would play the lack of practice made her hit bad shots, each of which caused her to fume for two hours.  It got so bad she quit the game for three years! 

As a high handicapper a difficult course does not generally give me fits - I know my game and posting a 100 is not going to break my heart.  But a stupid, repetitive hard course will get old quick.  Especially a hard course that punishes a poor driver with forced carries over and over. 

+1

[John Kavanaugh]

I think the higher handicap player has more fun on the course period.  Trying to hit impossible shots are not done the scratch player, especially if they are trying to post a score.  There is a million ways to screw up a round but one must be focused and disciplined to score well. 

I was talking with a woman this past weekend who had a D1 college scholarship.  After college she moved to the big city where there are few places to practice short of a private club, which she could not afford.  The few times she would play the lack of practice made her hit bad shots, each of which caused her to fume for two hours.  It got so bad she quit the game for three years! 

As a high handicapper a difficult course does not generally give me fits - I know my game and posting a 100 is not going to break my heart.  But a stupid, repetitive hard course will get old quick.  Especially a hard course that punishes a poor driver with forced carries over and over. 

People who are bad at what they do always have more fun.  It justifies why they suck.  For example, I'm a horrible boss and enjoy every day more than my employees.

[Eric Smith]

Jack has a little Old Tom in him too ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUPPnVo0CII

[George Pazin]

I know I'm atypical, but I care a great deal about playability, and I'm certainly a HHer (by choice, as JK likes to remind me...).

Where I differ with many is how I define playability. I don't care much what I score, but I'd like to limit the number of balls I need to drop. Not because of the cost, just because constantly figuring out my drop spot makes me feel like I'm not really playing golf. I'd rather start and finish a hole with the same ball and score a triple than lose 1, drop and end up making a double.

It just feels more honest to me, personally.