Is there a line between Playability and Pandering?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Along the lines of the last 3 posts, save JK, is this question:


Am I, as architect, pandering to offer greens that are 70-90% open in front, with one or two Sunday?Weekend Pins to make any hole harder when needed?  I think that is what most architects try to do, and it is up to the super (and club pro) to generally set the course up with mostly (but not all) easy and moderate pins on most weekend days, and maybe use 6-12 harder pins for the big events.  Just as it is up to them to narrow fairways, grow rough, speed up greens, and move tees back in some appropriate combo for big events.


Is the flexibility to be different things on different days pandering?




And, how many of these posts identifying "pandering" were made on the basis of one day of play?

[BCrosby]

This thread brings up an issue that I have been amazed isn't discussed more on this site--the business purpose of the golf course being constructed.  Is this a housing development with the course being built to sell lots?   Is it a course being built to hold professional or top amateur events?  Is it a public course where speed of play is the concern?  Etc.
Being specific, I think Tom Fazio--often vilified on here--has done a very good job of building courses to his primary business model--having a golf course as an accessory to a development that is meant to sell lots for home sales--often to retirees.  The users of the course are usually greatly varied in ability, many women golfers, who want pretty views from their homes, numerous teeing options, fun, tricky greens, and the camaraderie of golf.  Playing a "top" golf course is not their primary objective, nor should it be Fazio's objective in building the course.
All golf courses don't need to be built with the same objective.  When we judge a course on this site, I think that too often we become one-dimensional in our thinking.  Doesn't the question of Pandering vs. Ideal Golf construction come back to the issue of what the course is meant to achieve?

I mostly agree with the above. Fazio builds courses for a certain market and he has succeeded beyond the dreams of avarice.


We have discussed the topic at GCA any number of times in the past. I have not searched the archive, but I think most of those conversations took place back when there was such a thing as residential real estate development.


Bob   

[John Kavanaugh]

There is nothing wrong with building courses high on photo ops and low on scores. It's millennial madness.

[Kalen Braley]

There is nothing wrong with building courses high on photo ops and low on scores. It's millennial madness.

JK,


I love the self-deprecating humor here...given your home course and all. I like a guy who doesn't take himself too seriously!! 

[Ken Moum]

You can put bunkers, hazards, nasty patches of rough, undulating terrain, etc.....just about anywhere on a typical par 4 hole and the average player is gonna find nearly all of it after just a few playings.  So I don't know how something like pandering is really achievable by even the best of of architects when you consider the hundreds of thousands of rounds played by a wide spectrum of players, most of whom are going to be widely variable from round to round in where they end up hitting the ball.

Yesterday I played the course where I have been a member since 1998, a 1915 Ross that hasn't had the space or money to do much to the layout. (Other than some misguided dirt work by a member that elevated a bunch of tees and [I think] screwed up some greens by changing the slopes.)


I haven't broken 80 in a few years, and my lack of consistency has made me lose a lot of my interest in playing. But I had shot 78, 78, 83 over about a week, so I was looking forward to seeing if I could keep the streak going.


Well, I completely lost it. Ended up shooting ~93 (didn't finish a couple of holes)


So I started thinking about this thread.


I concluded that even if an architect tried to make a course easier by mounding the sides of fairways, giving greens sideboard and backboards, etc. Players like me (and virtually ALL of the players I've been paired with playing modern resort courses) can't be counted on to make use of the help.


Hell, Fazio's mounds with the cart path hidden aren't just going to kick balls toward the fairway, they are going to kick balls across the cart path in the crap.


K

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ken,


Yes, I learned a long time ago that fairway containment mounding helps the small miss a bit, but really hurts the bigger miss by kicking it way OB or similar. Not to mention, if you clear the mounds, you usually have a blind shot back to the green.


Lesson - no design feature accomplishes everything.

[Ken Moum]

Lesson - no design feature accomplishes everything.

There is the Law of Unintended Consequences to deal with...


BTW, I know your mandate at Colbert Hills was to challenge the college kids, which explains why I have so much trouble getting around it.


But I've never asked you about Firekeeper.  It's pretty clear there was no "pandering" there, as it typically just kills the average golfer.  It's also an example of why I think our handicap system is garbage-from the tips it's got a course rating of 77, but the slope is only 130. 


The guys I have played with the last few years all have handicaps above 18 and not one of them could finish a round there under the rules of golf unless they started with about 2 dozen balls.


They all love the course because it's always in good condition, and since they don't play by the rules, losing a ball doesn't require them to re-tee.


Ken

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ken,


You have harped on this for years. I only partially understand.


I presume your buds lose balls in the native grasses, and we did allow a 20 yard wide minimum turf alley from forward 2-3 tees (which I presume they play) to the landing zones.  From about 200 yards out, the main landing zones are covered by 3-4 rows of sprinklers, and about 70-75 yards wide.  We didn't have the budget to add another row of sprinklers to get widen play zones to 80+ yards they seem to require. (And I am proud to have built a top ranked KS public course for about $4.5 M, much lower than many other resort courses)


I have researched various ball dispersion stats over the years.  For a high handicap foursome, 85 yard wide play zones should keep lost tee balls to about 7 per round, and maybe 14-21 total (considering second shots and cross winds at Firekeeper)


For Firekeeper's 70+ yard wide corridors, we should expect 83% of long tee shots to be contained, or one lost ball per group every 1.5 long holes, and 9.3 lost tee balls per round.  Where woodlands constrain corridors to about 65 yards, we expect 75% to be contained, and 25% of long tee shots to be out of the play zone, and about 14 lost tee balls per group.

Figuring similar ball losses on second shots, (which really should be a bit less) but then adding a factor for higher winds, I can imagine a maximum balls lost to be 2.5X tee ball losses, or between 24 and 36 per HH group, per round.  That sort of jives with my experience in actually playing golf in such group, and there usually are 1 to 2 lost balls per hole.


Statistically, the  high handicapper is hitting it 216 yards, with an average off line hit of 8.1 degrees either direction, and a maximum 16 deg. left and 24 deg. right. (which would put play corridors as wide as designed in for adjacent residential at over 120 yards wide) Besides budget, the tribe wanted to retain the character of the land rather than grade and turf it over.   


At the time of design, I didn't conceive of a group losing nearly 100 balls between them as you claim. (4 x 24) or perhaps 3 x 24, presuming you are much better player than your friends and are only sticking up for them.


And, if I made those corridors any wider, surely someone here would accuse me of pandering, no?







 

 


   

[Tom_Doak]

I have researched various ball dispersion stats over the years.  For a high handicap foursome, 85 yard wide play zones should keep lost tee balls to about 7 per round, and maybe 14-21 total (considering second shots and cross winds at Firekeeper)

For Firekeeper's 70+ yard wide corridors, we should expect 83% of long tee shots to be contained, or one lost ball per group every 1.5 long holes, and 9.3 lost tee balls per round.  Where woodlands constrain corridors to about 65 yards, we expect 75% to be contained, and 25% of long tee shots to be out of the play zone, and about 14 lost tee balls per group.

Figuring similar ball losses on second shots, (which really should be a bit less) but then adding a factor for higher winds, I can imagine a maximum balls lost to be 2.5X tee ball losses, or between 24 and 36 per HH group, per round.  That sort of jives with my experience in actually playing golf in such group, and there usually are 1 to 2 lost balls per hole.
 

These numbers all made my head spin.  I try to build courses where you can finish with the same ball you started with.  I realize Kansas is quite windy, but, wow!  24-36 lost balls per foursome per round??

[Josh Tarble]

At some point there should also be a minimum standard of execution....to what that minimum standard might be is probably up for argument.  But at some point, golfers need to be able to actually hit a golf ball.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,


So do I, I thought. Remember that that is for all four golfers in a group of 18 handicap or more. I will say, in playing with lower handicaps and 70-75 yard corridors, that is an accurate number, as it seems even better groups lose a ball every other hole.


The real stats should be between 9 and 14, or 2-4 per golfer per round, but I was trying to justify my old data with some real world number from Ken, and found reasons to inflate them. Well, its true, I guess, there really are no out of play areas for high handicappers!  Its not like any of my courses could be considered narrow by most standards, but obviously, according to Ken, I missed the boat slightly, perhaps more concerned with budget and water conservation than the travails of the high handicapper.  In most designs, there is a balance of factors.

As to your head spinning, well we know I use more math and you are more intuitive when you design. At some point a professional golf course architect needs to take the notion of "not losing a golf ball" or "drains fast" and apply some sort of math to it to make it come true.  Some of my research comes after comments like Ken or other obvious (later on) design flaws that I don't wish to make again, so over 40 years,  I measure and remember for the next time.


The average golfer is well known to need lots of room, but we bump up against turf restrictions, affordable irrigation, etc.  and sometimes need to figure where to best use our 90 allotted acres.


However, even if Firekeeper wanted to add rows of sprinklers, I am not sure they could, because their water supply is quite limited. Little sense in designing a 3000 GPM system when you can only get 1800 GPM, as was (from memory) the case here.  Actually Colbert Hills is somewhat similar, and has been experimenting with minimal irrigation, and using their par 3 course as a test plot for drought tolerant turfs, so maybe we can expand back to the all turf look of the more forgiving Scottish climates.  Kansas is not an easy place to grow grass without irrigation.

[Ken Moum]

Ken,
 
 
 You have harped on this for years. I only partially understand.
 
 

 
 
 Oh, hell.
 
 
 I was hoping it didn't seem that way, I apologize.
 
 I could as easily have talked about any several other modern courses I have experience with.
Before I go farther, my comment about 2 dozen balls assumed they were playing by the rules, and taking stroke and distance every time they lost a ball. They don't do that.
I suppose I bring Firekeeper up for two reasons, first is that you are so willing to come here and talk about what you do for a living. I commend you for that, and I find it fascinating to read how you've changed over the years.
 
 The other reason is that I have more experience with that course.
 
 Anyway, I've thought a lot about your numbers and I think this is telling: "That sort of jives with my experience in actually playing golf in such group, and there usually are 1 to 2 lost balls per hole
[/color]I think that on Firekeeper or, say,  Rees Jones' Grand Falls in Iowa, with typical wind conditions, that's not at all out of line for a fourball of 18+ handicappers.[/size]
[/color]But we're talking about adding up to 72 shots per group over 18 holes. And in my experience that's only if they don't play by the rules.  If they play a provisional every time they should, or go back to replay it, they will lose even more balls
 [/color]And, to be fair, I can give some other examples. I have walked a number of rounds as a scorer for NCAA Div. 1 National Championships at  Karsten Creek (Fazio) and Prairie Dunes.  [/color]
 
 Most people would be astounded at how many provisionals I've seen them hit.  We're talking about some of the best college players in the country and I've seen one player have to hit as many 4 or 5 provisionals in 18 holes.
 
 These courses are all in windy country and despite having more than adequate playing corridors their fairways are bordered, often on both sides, by vegetation that is completely unplayable.
 
 And it's not just in the US. In August I played a competition with my wife at Cruden Bay and, as is the custom, I had to play medal tees. With a 20+ mph wind blowing out of the southeast. Which meant I had some pretty long carries off elevated tees directly into that wind.
 
 Now, I suck as a golfer these days, but I do have a legit 17 handicap.  If the comp hadn't been a greensome my wife and might have shot 150. As it was, playing her tee ball on almost every hole going into the wind we shot 55 on the outward nine.
 
 So maybe the point is that for regular guys, especially the seniors I play with, in the kind of wind you see in Scotland or on the prairie, wide corridors aren't enough.
 
 It's a lot about how the corridors relate to the prevailing wind, and what you find just past the rough.
 
 I don't know if there's a way to "fix" this situation, especially when you are asked to build on terrain like this, in an area where the weather and availability if water limits what you can grow.
 
 Do think that the courses I enjoy most around these parts seem to take the prevailing SE winds into account. If the longest, narrowest holes play into the summer wind, especially if the tee is elevated, make the game insanely hard.
 
 
 K[/size]

[glenn.hackbarth@gmail.com]

It seems like the consensus definition of "pandering" is wide fairways, attack angles unimportant, flat and uninteresting greens.


Although Gamble Sands has wide fairways and tame greens, it can be set up so angles matter.  An important attribute is the lack of rigid tee boxes, which means length and angles can vary dramatically from day-to-day.  I can imagine it could be set up to be challenging, especially in a 15-20 mph wind...and with the greens running 11 or 12 instead of their typical 8 or 9.  GS is not a pander in my book...not even close.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ken,


No problem, all is good. I am just adding your experience to my data point for any future designs.


Ever since Audubon International and others came up with 90 Acres as the ideal amount of turf, figuring where to best use it (where to squeeze the bottle) has been an issue.  At Firekeeper, I kept a 20 yard wide band from middle and front tees to landing zones, since one study showed about 1 in 4 D level players tee shots are muffed less than one hundred yards, so any forced carries would immediately cause 18 lost balls off the tee.


So, the question is, assuming some kind of environmental or budget limit on sprinklers, how wide should landing zones be to more than make up for those lost 18 balls - and more - to accommodate average players?


In a typical residential project, like Colbert Hills, where there is some obligation to keep balls from exiting the golf course to neighboring property, the minimum width would be 300 feet/100 yards up to 400 feet/133 yards, with about 115-120 yards currently "standard", according to most sources. Traditionally, we use less width to merely contain golf balls in turf, because there are fewer safety issues.


Statistically, 97 yards contains 92% of full tee shots, or about 5 per group over 18 holes, which requires five sprinkler rows. 86 yards or 4 sprinkler rows contains 88%, or about 7 per group, and 70 yard wide corridors causes average 10 lost balls, 65 yards wide about 14 per D player group, all less than expected from keeping the "bunt ramp" from middle tees to LZ. Site specific design (perhaps forced carries and wider LZ on cross wind holes?) should be considered.


Of course, we could make life a lot easier for the D player by convincing the owner to spring for 75-100 more sprinklers, (or about $100-$150K right now) used almost exclusively to widen the slice side of all fairway landing zones from 120 to 260 yards by one row, and 20 yards.  An 86 yard wide corridor should be shifted to the right to accommodate the slice, split approximately 38 yards left/48 yards right of hole centerline for maximum containment.  Some owners throw nickels around like manhole covers, though.


If I ever get a chance to design the next residential course, I think I will take Ken's comments to heart......and try to convince owners that more sprinklers and turf is a good idea.  It would also help where possible, to use drought tolerant turfs, so you could mow wider with only minimum overspray from the fairway/rough system.  Sadly, in my experience, mowable turf requires at least some irrigation.

[Kalen Braley]

And just because ESC is in play and "should" be used, doesn't mean many players actually do so.  In my experience, people play as many balls as it takes to finish the hole, and then implement it after the fact if posting a score.


P.S.  I know its match play and all, but look at how many balls ended up in hazards  at LN over the weekend?  And these are the best of the best...

[Morgan Clawson]

I think that pandering on quality golf courses is pretty rare.

But, lack of playability is common.

There is a segment of golfers that seem to like a high level of challenges.  And, certainly many believe that difficulty is one of the most important measures of a course quality.

One of my friends belongs to a great Ross in Minneapolis.  They have been implementing changes to make the course more playable, primarily via tree removal and fairway widening.  Some of the members have been grousing that this will make the course too easy.  This course just hosted a USGA amateur championship. It played to a par 72 at 6,600 yards.  147 of the best amateurs in the country played, and only 7 scored below par for 2 rounds.

Inch by inch this site has helped folks learn that the emphasis should be on fun, not hard.

[Derek_Duncan]

At some point there should also be a minimum standard of execution....to what that minimum standard might be is probably up for argument.  But at some point, golfers need to be able to actually hit a golf ball.

For so many golfers, maybe the overwhelming majority, hitting a golf ball solid and somewhat online is the measure of success. Most are happy to get the ball into the fairway, hit a few descent and safe shots, an have a look at a par putt a few times a round. It doesn't matter how they get there.


Deciding to take on a hazard for a better angle or attempting to pull off a long carry into a back pin can be rewarding exercises to better players, but in the wide universe of golf it's a first world viewpoint.


Given that so many players struggle with the basic execution of shots, I agree with Kalen and Ken -- I don't think it's possible to pander in design.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Duncan,


I recall posting average golfer stats a year or two ago.  Basically, a good shot is one you describe, airborne, general direction of green, close to the right distance.  And that happens about 12 times a round if I recall right. And, if they hit less than 6 good shots a round, we call them ex-golfers, as they tend to quit the game.


To accommodate those players, it takes (to quote Pretty Women quote.....) "Major sucking up." 


Ian's question is more nuanced than any straight answer.  For example, we know high handicap miss short and right of the green...a lot.  Good players rarely do. I have always felt I could establish the angle of play without dragging any right side green bunker 10-20 yards short of the green where average players miss.  Or, use a fairway fall away slope, grass bunkers, steep banks, chocolate drop mounds, etc. more often in those places. The should have similar hazard value to better players, but save poor ones from 2-5 shots in the sand.


Also, front bunkers rarely trouble good players, but kill a so called good shot by high handicappers, so why use them?


Most architects, I think, concur.  We look for features that have high value to good players (and lateral grass hazards qualify since they tend to miss off line more than short) while not punishing poor ones.  I don't think that is really pandering in the purest sense.  Even with that shortened up bunker on the front right, you can place a pin near it and create a Sunday pin that should require a better angle, etc.

[Ian Andrew]

I just wanted to say I appreciate all the answers and read all of them.


I fully understand as architects we spend just as much time encouraging as we do pushing your buttons. I clearly have my own line in the sand. I became more and more curious to "your view" as I began to read the comments. I was going to actively participate, but I thought in the end I could learn more from reading everything and thinking through what others had to say.


Tom Paul had a wonderful way of looking at things with his Great World Theory. The more I read, the more I thought of Tom's observation of diversity being far more important than a single well received consistent idea or style. In other words, it was an interesting question, but as a close friend said ... this time I think your wrong ...


One footnote: The "offending" course never came up in the discussion ... so while many were sure they knew which one ... that amused me too ... nor is it appropriate I ever share that either.


Thanks for the thoughts,


Ian

[Ken Moum]

If I ever get a chance to design the next residential course, I think I will take Ken's comments to heart......and try to convince owners that more sprinklers and turf is a good idea.  It would also help where possible, to use drought tolerant turfs, so you could mow wider with only minimum overspray from the fairway/rough system.  Sadly, in my experience, mowable turf requires at least some irrigation.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and today I worked as a volunteer at Karsten Creek where the AJGA Ping is being held.  i find it to be a brutal course for most amateurs, even though the fairways are plenty wide, so I looked at it with this thread in mind.


I'm beginning to think that the real problem for bad golfers is the distance from the edge of the fairway to "lost ball" vegetation.  Karsten has all kinds of places where the woods are only 20-30 feet from the fairway. And it's compounded by the number of places that the "peninsulas" of trees and brush protrude into into the line of play.


Proof of the effect it has on golfers--I ran a timing station today and after the last group passed me I walked in the woods along three or four holes.  I found 84 golf balls, including about 30 nice ProVs and another 15 or 20 premium balls.


The guys I've been talking about really don't mind hitting out of light(ish) rough, in fact if the fairways are tight, they'll hit better shots from the rough, on average. That kind of rough does affect the good players some because they'll always wonder if they're going to hit a flyer.  In it's favor, it also sometimes helps the bad golfer by stopping a ball on it's way to trouble.


And a lot of the stuff that looks cool and is loved around here, is a little, well, insanely punitive.


Like yucca plants next to a green.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ken,


On your last photo, my first thought was the first bunker should eliminate the front half, which still guards the pin, while not snaring all the balls ams would hit just short and right of the green.  Yucca is a bad idea.  If few liked the grass clumps at Merion, or even Pinehurst, who is going to like them at Karstens (or elsewhere.)


My second thought on that green is how close the native gunch is to the putting surface.  If you are using only green edge sprinklers to water the surrounds, their maximum throw is about 60-90 feet. Without a second sprinkler to back them up, effective coverage is 45-50 feet, sometimes less towards the prevailing wind side.  Way more balls stay in play if you add a row or sprinklers on the outside and create another well turfed 60 wide foot band area of turf.


Agree on the rough - my instructions are always to cut it just high enough to see the difference.  If your theory of tree clearing is correct, I may have screwed a lot of average golfers.  First, as we have discussed, clearing width is limited to multiples of about 60-65 feet.  Second, I like fairways wide, sometimes only leaving a strand of rough.


Lastly, I specifically clear in gently curving lines (I have seen some architects and contractors clear a straight line 40 yards (or whatever) on either side of center. I pride myself on finding the best trees, and even leaving them on outside points, often just beyond the landing zone, or leaving specimen's as "lone soldiers" well inside the main clearing line.  My theory is you can have no fw bunkers to slow down play, and still influence which is a better side.  And, if you slice so you are behind that tree, I figure you can slice again to get around it.  As always, I may be wrong, and they can certainly protrude "too far in."  Sometimes, when your property lines are set, you can't move the hole to make the tree sit in the "proper place."