[Ira Fishman]

A common, and it strikes me as a correct, theme on GCA is that designing courses to challenge PGA Pros or even Better than Scratch Players is likely to result in a course that most golfers would not enjoy whether because of length, forced carries, overbunkering, narrowness, or some combination of those factors. So I am curious if architects do or should have a "primary audience" in mind from which they then make adjustments in terms of alternative tees or angles. I am sure it is not me--above average but not by much with the declining distance that is a natural result of age (and lack of exercise). But is it the single digit but not flat belly bomber or someone else? Or do the demands of developers tend to override logic and common sense?

[Tom_Doak]

Ira:


Someone will undoubtedly tell me I'm wrong, but I try to think of my "audience" as, everyone.


By that I mean I am more concerned with making the course playable and fun for all levels, than providing testing Shot Values for any particular class of player.  I would never design a "green for a 5-iron," because your 5-iron isn't the same as a Tour player's, and because it's silly to design something where a player who didn't or can't get to a certain spot has no good option for their next shot.  My take is that if you are physically capable of reaching the green with your next shot, but not flying it to the green and holding it, there ought to be a reasonable way to play the hole instead of just laying up.  [And if you consider that in the context of how your dad or grandad plays, you will see that is a very different take.  Not that I don't occasionally make exceptions to any rule ... see the current thread about the Cliff Hole at Dornick Hills.]


I don't ignore the scratch player or the Tour pro, because they are a vocal component of my "everyone" audience, but my thought is to present them a few difficult shots per round where they can show off their advanced talents, or fail those tests.  But I don't care if they break par when they play well enough to do so.


Now, not every client has the same philosophy, although I've only met a couple who actually objected to what I wrote above.  If someone wanted me to build a course that was as good and as testing as Pine Valley, and not worry whether 15-handicappers could play it, I'd love to do that for once ... because I think it's a farce when developers and architects talk about "testing the best players" and "making the course playable for everyone" in the same sentence.  They can't both be priorities!  It really needs to be one or the other, and then you do what you can toward the other goal.  Aiming for the middle produces a lot of mushy designs.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ira,


Good question.  About a year ago, I was on a Jay Flemma radio interview, sharing the airwaves with Steve Smyers, who mentioned designing a course in DFW intended to be very difficult.  I respectfully submitted that after my involvement in the redesign of very difficult La Costa courses in CA, my thinking was going entirely the opposite direction.


I think most gca's design for good players, and then make accommodations for others, perhaps without even realizing how strong that bias is.   And, there are many simple things you can do for the reason of not hurting average players (width, forced carries, open front greens, etc.) that really don't affect good players too much.  For instance, they tend to miss greens wide, not short, so the open front doesn't hurt the shot values for them too much.


It is really hard to think in terms of designing for the 225 yard driver male player, 180 yard drives of seniors and 145 driving female first and foremost, and then make accommodations back up the scale for the good players who make up 1% of your audience.  (To be fair to Steve, his client was a private club looking to establish a players club, so his design was in keeping with their intended audience)

[Peter Pallotta]

Ira - the professionals have already begun to answer, and so it can't hurt much if I tell you that, over the years, I think I've discovered the 'recipe': 

Take 1 dedicated golfer willing and able to pay high-end retail prices - i.e. a man between 35-65 years of age, with a handicap of about 12

Take 1 Golden age classic that said golfer is already likely to have played - i.e. a Ross or Maxwell or Mackenzie or Colt or MacRaynor, and then study it very carefully

Take 1 top-flight modern architect who's romantic enough to care about the golden age of design - e.g. Tom D, Bill C, Gil H, David MK, Mike D etc

Take 1 beautiful and far flung destination that reminds golfers of their youthful, carefree days at summer camp - i.e. before work and responsibilities and spouses and children and sore backs became their lot

Create 1 great modern course that is an instant classic - i.e. that today's 12 handicapper (using today's equipment) plays in almost exactly the same way, and at the same distance, and for the same final score as yesterday's scratch golfer would've played those golden age Mackenzies and MacRaynors way back then, using the old hickory-shafted equipment

Stir for 1 Hour - i.e. the time it will take for news of this new course to filter onto social media via a preferred insider in the golfing media

Bake for 1 Year - i.e. the time it takes to actually build the course and have it ready for play

Invite your Guests - i.e. a small, select number of them at first, ostensibly for a mere 'tasting'

Get the Wine ready - i.e. a world class wine list fit for the finest dining establishments in New York, Chicago, Boston, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Diego, and London

Open your doors - i.e. Success!! 
     
Peter
 

[Ira Fishman]

Peter,


That is a helluva recipe. Let's hope more "Chefs" emerge who have determination to put it together.


Tom and Jeff,


Thank you for the fulsome and thoughtful responses. Legend has it that Mac Donald laid out Chicago Golf to accommodate his fade. Do you find yourself either designing for the tendencies of your own game? Or finding the need to fight the urge to do so?


Ira

[Tommy Williamsen]

I belonged to a Steve Smyers club outside DC for fifteen years. So did my best friend who is an 18. I am a five. We both loved the course. Sometimes we would play different tees on some holes but both of us and the plus handicappers loved the course. I think he did a great job designing it for all levels of players. A TOUR pro would shoot a low number but they shoot low numbers on virtually every course.

[Ronald Montesano]

I played Chambers Bay the fall after its US Open. The weather was cold, it was a bit rainy, and so it was a certain degree of slog. There is not any doubt in my mind that we teed it up on the second decks, which was a deck too far. We're talking about a course that had, four months prior, confounded many professionals.


Here's my recipe, which might make the same cookbook as Pete's:


-Tee it up two decks short of what you are capable of playing;
-Play three holes;
-If you like your score, stay at that deck;
-If you like self-flagellation, move back a deck;
-Play three more holes;
-If you still like your score, rinse and repeat;
-If you like the pain, stay at deck #2;
-If you need more pain...


It's that ego thing. I used to like playing tips, for the sole purpose of writing reviews about playing tips. I thought that readers of my bits would be interested in what it's like back there. This would have been from age 35-50.


Now that I'm 51, in better shape than my parenting years, striking ball better and putting like a child (always a good thing), I could give a random sh!t about the tips. I can still play them, but I don't wish to so do.


We can all play "Pro" courses. We need to do so from short tees, and edge our way back.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom and Jeff,


Thank you for the fulsome and thoughtful responses. Legend has it that Mac Donald laid out Chicago Golf to accommodate his fade. Do you find yourself either designing for the tendencies of your own game? Or finding the need to fight the urge to do so?


Ira

My mentors basically made a career in public courses and thought more about not hurting average golfers.  So, I came by that way of thinking naturally through my training.


As an average golfer, I needed a way to understand how top players view a design. I found it by working with Tour Pros.  Of them, Jim Colbert and Notah Begay III were the most articulate in describing it. Not coincidentally, both were less athletically gifted than some top players, and felt they really needed strategy and hit "all the shots" to compete.  But, other top players echo what they taught me often enough for me to believe it is nearly a consensus view ( or nearly so)


But since my first post on this subject, I started thinking back on various presentations/interviews, etc.  Basically, a very small percentage want to hear an architect talk about accommodating average players.  I believe we are more or less expected to talk about (and design for) "what would happen if the pro tour or top collegiate event were held here?"  It sells. That led to my comment that we may not even know how much we are biased towards designing for top golfers.


In fact, I vaguely recall some designer from way back even saying you design for top players and accommodate others. It does make some sense in the fact that only top players are consistent enough to adopt strategy.  For poorer golfers you never know where they may be approaching the green from.  Accommodating them would really mean designing every green to accept a 180 yd. approach from a high handicapper, just in case.  I don't do that, and can't think of any courses where it might happen.

[Martin Lehmann]

I once heard a golf course architect advocating that every golf course always should be designed and set-up with the scratch golfer as point of departure. Different tees and the handicap system are meant to level it out for all other player categories. The same architect made a comparison with the game of tennis: no one expects the net being lowered when weaker players enter the court.


Not sure if I agree, but there might be a grain of truth in it.

[Sean_A]

Designing for higher cappers doesn't mean that all greens need to have an avenue in from 180 yards.  There should be variety in the design regardless of the main audience.  When I think of designing for higher cappers things that come to mind are

wider fairways
choices
fewer forced carries
reduced number of bunkers
light rough
shorter course distance...like 5800-6200
daily tee closest to the previous green
fun shots

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

I once heard a golf course architect advocating that every golf course always should be designed and set-up with the scratch golfer as point of departure. Different tees and the handicap system are meant to level it out for all other player categories. The same architect made a comparison with the game of tennis: no one expects the net being lowered when weaker players enter the court.

Either the architect was a scratch golfer, or trying to suck up to the scratch golfers in his audience.  It is important to give good players enough room to hit the ball, but not everything has to be tailored to them first.


Golf is not like tennis and for me that's one of its main appeals!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()