[Thomas Dai]

Curious.
Why do physically weaker and lessor skilled players, of whom there are a considerable number within the game, put up with courses that have long grass and trees and long forced carries over the likes of thick rough and water?
Such players, of both genders including the young, the old and the infirm, are likely not going to be strong enough to hit a ball out of long grass nor to hit shots over trees nor to carry shots over the likes of thick rough and water.
Why do they put up with such? Why don’t they make a fuss?
Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Well, a lot!  Especially women when most courses effectively have a "NO GURLZ ALLOWED" sign at the door.


I have a few instances where I have courses close to each other, and as far as I can tell, the harder course gets attention the first few years, but golfers start drifting to the one where they lose fewer golf balls over time.  Of course, service, price, value, etc. also factor in.


As to the fuss, they may understand some of the factors, i.e., native areas dictated by irrigation restrictions, wetlands preserved by regulation, etc.  My dad always said the best customers are the ones who tell you what is wrong, but most just walk away and never come back.  I think many course managers try to minimize the difficulty on weekends, by putting tees up and pins in accessible and flat locations.  The golf course I worked at decades ago always mowed the rough on Fridays, as well as probably Tuesday, but Friday to ensure it was as short as it could be.


I would be crucified by this group of GCA fans, but a lot of reasons that go into, say, placing bunkers start with decisions, based on painful experience, as to where NOT to put them, either because they block cart traffic, see too much play (i.e., front right of greens, or even bunkers extending too far forward from greens, etc.)  The USGA has a program now where they attach GPS to your golf carts so you can see where golfers actually go.  Using data, I have been plotting out the likely landing zone limits of average and below players, using the 66% of the USGA Slope method for hitting greens, 75-80% of D players for corridor width (figuring you really don't want more than one in four D players looking for balls on every hole, and frankly, 1 in 8 or every other foursome would be better, if possible), that same 1 in 8, or 92% on course safety zones, and up to 99% for off course safety zones.)


But, I digress.  I always wondered why the USGA used 66% instead of 75%, but when you run the math, for D players, attaining 75% hit rate for greens or fairways is nearly impossible, barring owning a good size cattle ranch, LOL.  That said, so many courses bring in the LZ to save a row of sprinklers, but in the process maybe costing themselves much slower play.

[corey miller]

At most places they are irrelevant. 


To what extent does even this educated group think of the lessor skilled players when we critique courses?  What have the "rating" publications done that would help these same players?


Do we ever hear complaints of courses that use high rough as some sort of design element?


Heck, we champion "restorations" and seem to worry about the implications of a bunker being a foot smaller or the perceived loss of artistry in the presentation yet we accept high rough that harms most all and changes the architecture?


Yes let's keep championing a squared off green on a classic Macdonald/Raynor course but say nothing of the illogical and unplayable (for most) rough two feet off the fairway. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Why don't they make a fuss?

Because in their humility as weaker and/or lessor skilled golfers, they assume that the fault lies in themselves and not in the set-up, and believe that they need to accommodate themselves to the golf course rather than expect the golf course to be tailored to them.

Then, as their handicaps go down their pride-ego increases and they start to expect precisely that, ie that the golf course be tailored to fit their 8-10 handicaps, and they complain if it doesn't and rank/rate the course harshly.

[John Emerson]

Because they’ve listened to fellow golfers of greater skill and watched golf media “tell” them whats “good”.  Even if it’s difficult for them they don’t have skin in the game yet to hold weight in that conversation….this my psychoanalysis of it.

[jeffwarne]

Why don't they make a fuss?

Because in their humility as weaker and/or lessor skilled golfers, they assume that the fault lies in themselves and not in the set-up, and believe that they need to accommodate themselves to the golf course rather than expect the golf course to be tailored to them.

Then, as their handicaps go down their pride-ego increases and they start to expect precisely that, ie that the golf course be tailored to fit their 8-10 handicaps, and they complain if it doesn't and rank/rate the course harshly.

Bingo
they think the problem lays with them.

[MCirba]

Double Bingo.

[Brad Lawrence]

Why do any of us put up with anything that challenges our weaknesses?  I don’t drive the ball accurately but I still play tight holes with OB.  My theory is the game is equally frustrating for us all. 

[Ira Fishman]

This version of the specimen described almost never does. I seek out courses more suitable for my game. It is one of the reasons I like links courses, classic age, and modern “minimalist” designs so much. As Dirty Harry said, a man has gotta to know his own limitations.


Ira

[Jim_Coleman]

   Similar subjects have been discussed here many times. People want to play great courses - good golfers because they’re beautiful and challenging, bad golfers because they’re beautiful.

[Ken Moum]

   Similar subjects have been discussed here many times. People want to play great courses - good golfers because they’re beautiful and challenging, bad golfers because they’re beautiful.

I don't think that's the case.  The courses that the OP was talking about aren't all "great" and they sure as hell aren't all beautiful.


Anyway, narrow fairways, deep rough, especially around the greens, too many trees, etc., etc. are NOT a hallmark of great courses.  And bad golfers put up with them for several reasons.  One of which is that they simply don't know any better.


One other reason I've heard more than a few times is that they like their high handicap because it makes them more competitive in inter-club comps.


When it comes to more forward tees, it seems to be a combination of men who simply won't move up because of what I can only assume is men suffering from some version of testosterone poisoning and women who say things like, "Well I shoot the same scores, so what difference does it make?"

[Sean_A]

I'm a bad golfer who has for 23 years railed against stupidly thick and long rough, narrow fairways, too many trees effecting play and too many bunkers. There seems to be a thinking with green staff and those who instruct green staff that courses need to be difficult. It's really rich when club presents courses like the above then state that slow play is an issue. This nonsense has being going on so long that we now expect it. Far too often I think that shots resulting in lost balls or excessive time searching for ball should have been accommodated by the set up and in truth left an interesting and or fun recovery shot. To top it off, people think the smart width movement has gone to far because a few hundred courses built in the last 25 years are not difficult for pro golfers. Golfers come from an incredibly wide background, but are generally narrow or absent minded about design and presentation.

Ciao

[Jason Topp]

My game has gone in the toilet the last five years and the factor that I find to be the biggest problem is searches for balls in unmowed areas of the course.  On a bad day my choices are to either ignore the rules or subject me and my group to an endless Easter egg hunt. 


Older classic courses are fun because my wayward shots affect my score but do not disrupt the entire group. 


I see a lot of restoration plans that remove trees and replace them with unmowed areas.  I fear the unmowed areas will limit a positive part of the experience. 

[Kalen Braley]

As one of those "lesser skill golfers", the simple answer is...I don't put up with it. 

And every now and then when I do play a difficult course, its almost always because I'm with some friends who want to play it.

[Jim Hoak]

It seems to me that there are two very different groups of people who are "physically weaker and lessor skilled"--those who were once skilled or somewhat, but have fallen due to age, injury, or whatever, and those who were never even somewhat skilled, due to being beginners or athletically challenged.  The answer to your question is different for each group.
Those who were once there are seeking to regain what they had and lost.  Those who were never there are ashamed and embarrassed to put up a fuss.
I don't know which group is more to be pitied.

[Jason Thurman]

In all seriousness, I think this forum is the only corner of the golf world where I've ever heard double-digit handicappers whine about difficult features without catching ridicule from better players. This game rewards a spirited effort to tackle that which cannot be conquered. "Making a fuss" about challenging features is antithetical to playing golf well and to making friends in grill rooms.


I do think Jeff makes a good point. When a course is just too hard, eventually players vote with their wallets and start opting for more enjoyable options. I don't even think they usually realize they're doing it. I spent a lot of years living and golfing in Lexington, and I never met anyone who didn't like Old Silo. But while it wasn't really any further from town or more expensive to play than any number of other options that probably couldn't match its drama, it was less fun to play on an off day. Sooner or later players just start gravitating toward the places where they always have a good time.


Their bunkers also had a reputation for generally being maintained as ground-under-repair gravel pits. But on a course with 99 bunkers, isn't that sort of part and parcel of the whole problem? They had a lot of difficulty-inducing features, and it made for a dramatic golf course, but also a lot of maintenance expense that didn't necessarily contribute to drawing repeat customers consistently.

[Tony_Muldoon]

I have joined another club. Won't name it yet but got this today from one of the organisers of the Seniors group.




"Good morning, I understand there is a petition being circulated, I believe through the Ladies section, to get the Club to reduce the areas of long grass that are currently on the course namely the 2nd, 5th and 8th holes and the link to sign the petition has been forwarded to me.

I think the petition needs a minimum of 100 signatures which at present stands at 9, but personally speaking I shall not be joining the number."


I will sign it.

[John Kavanaugh]

I haven’t lost a ball sideways since I turned 60. Either do the ladies for much the same reason. You sir just joined a shit club.

[Tony_Muldoon]

I haven’t lost a ball sideways since I turned 60. Either do the ladies for much the same reason. You sir just joined a shit club.

Hi John. I see age hasn't mellowed you.

[John Kavanaugh]

It’s blaming the ladies that triggered me. If age has taught me anything about golf it’s that ladies are not the problem. Not ever.

[Tony_Muldoon]

It’s blaming the ladies that triggered me. If age has taught me anything about golf it’s that ladies are not the problem. Not ever.

Maybe its me but I read it as well done the ladies.  I'm due to play soon with the guy who passed it on and I've let him know I want to support the petition. When I do play with him I'll point out several other areas that members of the (male) Seniors section have complained to me about long grass. The thrust of this thread is why aren't they doing something about it? Hurrah for the Ladies who are.


The only blame I can see is for "The committee" who allowed these areas to go unattended?

[John Kavanaugh]

Even if true they need 91 males and I ain’t one.

[Mark Kiely]

I can't wrap my head around the premise of this thread. Why wouldn't these people just flat-out prefer to play elsewhere rather than complain that a particular course doesn't fit their game? Would you suggest they also show up at Yankee Stadium and demand the fences are too deep and that other people are too good and preventing them from playing in the majors? Or should they go to a pizza place and demand burritos? Please explain what I'm missing.

[Ken Moum]

I can't wrap my head around the premise of this thread. Why wouldn't these people just flat-out prefer to play elsewhere rather than complain that a particular course doesn't fit their game? Would you suggest they also show up at Yankee Stadium and demand the fences are too deep and that other people are too good and preventing them from playing in the majors? Or should they go to a pizza place and demand burritos? Please explain what I'm missing.

You've clearly never lived in a small town with one golf course.


Besides, when the "harder is better" crowd butchers an otherwise amazing golf course, isn't it incumbent on saner players to do something about it?

[Garland Bayley]

...

Do we ever hear complaints of courses that use high rough as some sort of design element?

...

Sure we do. I have long criticized Saunton East for being boring with thick, ball gobbling rough. I created a thread contrasting it with Bude and North Cornwall, which has more interesting holes, and forgiving rough.

I discussed the two with the pro at Bude, and we were in violent agreement.

Aside1: Since Tommy Williamson recently stated that Bude was an example of a lacking links course, I suspect he holds Saunton East in high regard. Clearly, if you are a low single digit, you don't see the same things the average golfer does.

Aside 2: When you have a 200 yard long fairway that is 11 yards wide named something like narrows as Sauton East has, it is obvious you are using rough as a design element.

Aside 3: Perhaps Dai should adjust his topic to forced carries for the distance challenged, and thick rough for the directionally challenged.

Aside 4: Jeff Warne has related here that he took Northwest in Donegal to task for penal rough. He must have been successful as I didn't experience it when I played there on his recommendation.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()