On Making the Golf Course "Too Hard" or "Too Easy"

[John Challenger]

After an essay by Tom Simpson

At our golf course, we are hoping to embark on a resto/reno project. You would be surprised how often I hear the same conflicting objections. Mostly from the better golfers, it is “you are going to make the course too easy.” From the higher handicapped golfers, it’s “you are going to make the course too hard.” Many are dubious about the idea that a  golf course can really be made more challenging for the low-handicapper and, at the same time, more fun for the average golfer.
 
Most golfers don’t realize that they have a significant advantage against the top players when the course is designed properly and the tees are back and the pins are in tough positions. We carry around the most destructive hazard of all in our own head: we are trying to beat the low handicapper at his/her own game.

It's true that an expert architect lays out the greens and hazards of the golf course with the scratch golfer in mind, but not in the way that the average golfer, who doesn’t want the course to be too hard, thinks.

A well-designed golf course that tests the best golfers actually gives the everyday players a big advantage. The average golfer who is fortunate enough to play at an excellent golf course, and who stops to think about his/her strategy, will come to realize that the golf course is relatively simple to play effectively.
 
Why? It’s because the architect carefully places the hazards  to catch the scratch golfer’s good shots that are just off the line or inaccurate in distance. When corridors are sufficiently wide, the average golfer plays short or to the side of the hazards on the tee shot and around them on the second or third shot to the green.
 
It’s what makes a golf course interesting.  Observant higher handicap golfers can think their way around the golf course while the most skillful players are  forced to be exacting in the execution of their shots. If the average golfer plays properly, he/she is rarely in the bunkers and goes home happy with their game and proud to belong to a golf course that everyone wants to be invited to. The young, developing golfer gets to play on a course that compels learning and improvement.
 
There are still a number of lost Golden Age golf course "Wrigley Fields" that have been neglected or been subjected to decades of greens chairman with pet projects and too much money. After a bland course has been restored/renovated by an expert architect, and after a few rounds of play, the naysayers always seem to be happy to have been dragged gently into a future of enhanced golf satisfaction.
 

[Jim Hoak]

A related question to this--maybe the same question--is the relationship of course difficulty to "fun."  Most of us play golf because it is a game--and games are to be "fun."  Of course, people can achieve fun in many ways--satisfaction of overcoming difficult obstacles, development of friendships, relaxation, etc.  But, I do know that if a renovation of a course ceases to make playing it fun for many players, it has failed.  Making a course fun (however it is defined) for as many players as possible seems to be the ultimate goal.  Hard to define--but even harder to achieve.

[Ally Mcintosh]

A related question to this--maybe the same question--is the relationship of course difficulty to "fun."  Most of us play golf because it is a game--and games are to be "fun."  Of course, people can achieve fun in many ways--satisfaction of overcoming difficult obstacles, development of friendships, relaxation, etc.  But, I do know that if a renovation of a course ceases to make playing it fun for many players, it has failed.  Making a course fun (however it is defined) for as many players as possible seems to be the ultimate goal.  Hard to define--but even harder to achieve.

I am disliking “fun” as a qualitative measure more and more. It seems to be all people talk about now and it really can be found in so many different ways. It is being used in a very narrow way to define a certain type of course.


Sure, there are things that aren’t “fun” for anyone (consistent lost balls for one) but generally, if you’re not enjoying your time on the golf course, take up some other hobby.

[Jim Hoak]

The fact is, Ally, that it is a hobby for most of us, not work.  And while it may be challenging it doesn’t need to be overly frustrating.  If you don’t walk off a course looking forward to playing it again soon, it may not meet the test.
I don’t think that the test for “fun” should be that the course was easy or hard, but there are certain things that make it hard, but no fun.  You mentioned the most obvious—lost balls.  I played a course the other day with crowned fairways and deep fescue rough.  It was certainly hard, but no fun—and I’d argue therefore not good.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I’m good with that, Jim. My issue is that “fun” as a word is being narrowly defined in respect to golf courses. It’s almost used synonymously with modern minimalism or quirk or golden age pedigree courses with lots of ground movement, all the better if no more than 7,000 yards off the back tees.


Fall outside that bracket and your course ain’t no “fun”. And if it ain’t no “fun”, can it really be any good?

[Tom_Doak]

I think that "too hard" and "too easy" are separate from "fun", and as we build a golf course I am often thinking whether to turn the dial on difficulty up or down.  It's harder to do than you think . . . once you've been out in the dirt for too long, you start to lose perspective on how that's going.


Generally, when in doubt, it's better to make it a little easier.


I do think times have changed in this regard.  When I started in the business 35 years ago, a great course pretty much had to be a challenging one, and courses like North Berwick, NGLA, and Fishers Island were well down the rankings because they were not considered challenging to elite players.


When Pacific Dunes opened, there were questions about whether it would be challenging enough to be "great".  Lately, most of the complaints I hear about it is that it's TOO challenging, because its' average-sized greens aren't as easy to hit as some of the other Bandon courses.  So I guess it's a good thing I didn't listen to the people who thought we should have made it tougher to begin with.

[Daryl David]

I think that "too hard" and "too easy" are separate from "fun", and as we build a golf course I am often thinking whether to turn the dial on difficulty up or down.  It's harder to do than you think . . . once you've been out in the dirt for too long, you start to lose perspective on how that's going.


Generally, when in doubt, it's better to make it a little easier.


I do think times have changed in this regard.  When I started in the business 35 years ago, a great course pretty much had to be a challenging one, and courses like North Berwick, NGLA, and Fishers Island were well down the rankings because they were not considered challenging to elite players.


When Pacific Dunes opened, there were questions about whether it would be challenging enough to be "great".  Lately, most of the complaints I hear about it is that it's TOO challenging, because its' average-sized greens aren't as easy to hit as some of the other Bandon courses.  So I guess it's a good thing I didn't listen to the people who thought we should have made it tougher to begin with.

Pac Dunes is plenty tough. It’s also plenty fun. That’s a hard balance to achieve for a designer. That’s what makes it the highlight of any Bandon visit.

[Steve Lang]

   Never forget we played PacDunes with a young guy and his dad... while hitting and staying on the greens was a challenge on first play, they got more and more frustrated using their 60 degree wedges for every recovery shot... I used my 7 wood with great success. 


So making a course too hard or too easy??  For whom?

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think that "too hard" and "too easy" are separate from "fun", and as we build a golf course I am often thinking whether to turn the dial on difficulty up or down.  It's harder to do than you think . . . once you've been out in the dirt for too long, you start to lose perspective on how that's going.


Generally, when in doubt, it's better to make it a little easier.


I do think times have changed in this regard.  When I started in the business 35 years ago, a great course pretty much had to be a challenging one, and courses like North Berwick, NGLA, and Fishers Island were well down the rankings because they were not considered challenging to elite players.


When Pacific Dunes opened, there were questions about whether it would be challenging enough to be "great".  Lately, most of the complaints I hear about it is that it's TOO challenging, because its' average-sized greens aren't as easy to hit as some of the other Bandon courses.  So I guess it's a good thing I didn't listen to the people who thought we should have made it tougher to begin with.

Pac Dunes is plenty tough. It’s also plenty fun. That’s a hard balance to achieve for a designer. That’s what makes it the highlight of any Bandon visit.

But you’re almost proving my point, associating “fun” with hard Vs not hard.


Why is North Berwick more “fun” than Carnoustie? Is that for all people or just some? Do some people prefer Carnoustie and are they then allowed to say they have more “fun” at Carnoustie than they do at North Berwick?


Is North Berwick deemed more “fun” because it is wider? Has more funky greens? Is shorter? Enables the ground game more?… Not all those things are true but they seem to be the default considerations.


Does North Berwick enable the ground game more? No.


Does more funky greens not make a course harder, not easier therefore meaning “fun” and “hard” is actually no more difficult to achieve than “fun” and “easy”?


I do think that Tom’s point (great synonymous with very challenging) was true in the past and less so now as he states. But the modem fallacy to replace that is that “fun” comes in one shape and size and is the only measure that matters.


Apologies for - at least partially - veering off on a tangent.

[Sean_A]

Sure Ally, fun is each to own. I don't think its a good universal word to apply to courses. In which case, all descriptors are equally untrue. Its important to remember that people are trying to communicate quickly. So much of golf language is based on quick communication which assumes a certain level of knowledge. I am not sure its smart or worth fighting that reality.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

There are far better words / sentences though, Sean.


Challenging at least means something.

[Sean_A]

There are far better words / sentences though, Sean.


Challenging at least means something.

Fun means something as well. The issue is knowing the writer to better understand the language.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

There are far better words / sentences though, Sean.


Challenging at least means something.

Fun means something as well. The issue is knowing the writer to better understand the language.

Ciao

You’re just reeling off a soundbite there, Sean. When I need to understand the writer to comprehend a three letter word, it’s not a great choice of word.

[archie_struthers]

 


Not quite on point but interesting. Started caddying at Woodcrest CC (Flynn 1929) in Cherry Hill , NJ at 11 years old. Many of my friends worked there as we lived right around the corner from the course and it was a great place for us!  Eclectic group of golfers who made in interesting fun to work there.


When a new company bought it in 2013 I was long removed from Woodcrest but one of the new owners invited me to sit in on the reorganization meeting. Honored to be included, listened long and hard to all the plans and thoughts of the new team.  Hard for me to stay quiet    but waited to be asked my thoughts. 


At this point had a few changes to architecture in mind that had been changed by greens committees over the  years but one thing stood out to me. The routing had to be flipped back to the 1960's-1990's route, with the front nine being the harder of the two. The club had built a fancy clubhouse w/ beautiful outside space overlooking the ninth hole , a tough par five for all but the most skillful players. This led to lots of really high numbers on the home hole, and plenty of trunk slamming after finishing.


It also made the 10th hole the opener, and it was the one of the hardest tee shots on the course, with lost ball and OB possibilities. Not a gentle handshake by any means. Well the golf pro said this wasn't an option as everyone loved watching players finish on 18. Maybe so, but pace of play and fun didn't factor enough into his thought process.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Archie, I do think that if you polled all golfers, the majority would prefer the easier nine to be the back nine (taking in to account strong scoring finishes leaving a positive perception plus tired bones and swings). Whereas a lot of 80’s / 90’s courses built up to a difficult finish. This might partially tie in with Tom’s point about the only kind of “great” for a few decades was the championship, challenging type of great.

[archie_struthers]

 


Ally so true. It's an interesting dichotomy that challenges designers. But as a course owner it's all about having fun for the customer.
Sometimes you have to lead them down the trail (e.g. firm and fast) but in the end you want people returning or wanting to !


In this case the switching of the nines just didn't work. From the first tee shot being too tough , to the first tee being in a bad spot for staging and more. The whole golf course plays better reversed as it was when I caddied there as a youth. Front nine hard but fairly wide open vs. tight and requiring accuracy on the back. Shame that the peeps didn't see the truth.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

You’re just reeling off a soundbite there, Sean. When I need to understand the writer to comprehend a three letter word, it’s not a great choice of word.

Different types of players will find different types of courses "challenging" as well. An accurate driver will find a narrow course less "challenging" than a wilder but maybe longer hitter, for example. A good putter will find a course with more difficult greens less "challenging" perhaps than a poor putter/green reader. Etc.

I think Sand Valley was more "fun" than Mammoth Dunes, but I'm probably in the minority because many score much better on MD.

[Padraig Dooley]

I think you'll also find that when someone says that golf course will be too hard or too easy they can't quantify what they mean, so for example tree removal will get golfers saying the course will be too easy. The simple question is to ask, how many shots will it be easier?

So they might give the example of the golfer hitting it to where the tree(s) were and saying they can now hit the green from there, the follow up questions become, how often out of 100 rounds will they hit it there and how often out of 100 will they hit the green from there, as you move the golfer away from the singular event to a series of events there is a chance that their mind may change.

That the removal of the tree might mean it makes a difference for a golfer 1 shot in 25, 35, 45 rounds or once or twice a year.
Adding a bunker or two doesn't mean every shot will now go into the bunkers, just like removing trees doesn't mean that every shot ends up where they were. Shifting the conversation away from the singular occurrence helps with that. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

I don’t disagree. Maybe we should just start talking about whether courses are “good” or not… but then, that’s open to different interpretations too.

[Ira Fishman]

I want to come back to what I think is the thrust of the OP. John seems to assert that the less skilled golfer (me for example) should understand that we actually have an advantaged over the skilled on well designed courses because the architect has placed hazards in a manner to confront the skilled and that therefore the unskilled can think/play around them.


If I am capturing John’s point correctly, I am not sure that I agree. First, I am not certain that good architects design primarily with the purpose of defeating the skilled golfer. Second, even where true, the skilled golfer should be savvy enough to recognize where the risks lie and navigate around them.


Ira

[Jeff_Brauer]

Erik makes a good point on the variety of players.  By necessity, an architect probably needs to keep the most frequent players in mind in the basic design, and provide variety for the other types of players via multiple tees and changeable features, i.e. green speed and rough height, fairway width, etc. for serious competitions.
Statistically, most golfers play:
-        Casually and for social reasons, usually in a friendly competition, but a bunch don’t keep score.  (I could look up USGA stats, and this is from recent memory of checking those) 
-        Most Golfers are B and C players, with a wider range of skills regarding driving, irons, putting, and chipping.
IMHO, golfers will have reasonable fun if they shoot near their average score, or if the overage is due to one epic bad hole that makes for great bar talk, not a series of bogies or doubles. (Old joke, “double, triple, double, triple” shouldn’t be either a golfers score or his/her bar order after the round to ease the pain)
Some have posited that this means that the course slope ought to be about average.  While 116 is said to be the average slope rating, I believe this is too low in most urban areas, where the typical course is probably over 120 from the main men’s tees, more from the back, and a bit less from the shorter tees.
What types of shots are “fun” for those B and C players?
-          Hitting fairways
-          Reaching Greens (Hard to argue against proportional multiple tees if this constitutes fun)
-          Making Putts from 4-100 feet
-          Fantastic Recovery Shots (out of trees, out of bunkers, from rough, getting chips close)
-          Eagles (rare) Birdies (shouldn’t there be at least one per round to crow about?), Pars
-          Chance at Par (firstly distance related, plus other factors)
What types of shots are not “fun” for those B and C players?
-          Missing fairways, greens, short putts
-          Lost Balls
-          Multiple Recovery Attempts required
-          4 Putts
And back to easy or hard, I agree with Tom in that if in doubt, err to the side of easy, knowing that there are ways to toughen up most courses.
I have often thought that there is a difference between challenge and hard, i.e., feathering a 6 iron cut to a tucked pin is the challenge, the degree of penalty for missing is hard, i.e., its the same shot if a 4-5 foot deep bunker guards the pin, or a pond or 14-25 foot deep bunker.  Of course, a few of those are welcome, as in giving an excuse to tell an epic tale in the bar, but overall, it argues against fun for sure, and it may not really argue against challenge.
As Ira points out, the best architects have written that the hazards are there to suggest certain beneficial shot types and challenges, not necessarily to punish.  Of course, without consequence, there is no strategy, but since recovery shots are exhilarating, making those hazards recoverable is a big key to good design.

[Tom_Doak]

I have often thought that there is a difference between challenge and hard, i.e., feathering a 6 iron cut to a tucked pin is the challenge, the degree of penalty for missing is hard, i.e., its the same shot if a 4-5 foot deep bunker guards the pin, or a pond or 14-25 foot deep bunker.  Of course, a few of those are welcome, as in giving an excuse to tell an epic tale in the bar, but overall, it argues against fun for sure, and it may not really argue against challenge.

As Ira points out, the best architects have written that the hazards are there to suggest certain beneficial shot types and challenges, not necessarily to punish.  Of course, without consequence, there is no strategy, but since recovery shots are exhilarating, making those hazards recoverable is a big key to good design.

This is very well written, Jeff.  "Hard" is the penalties exacted when you miss.  But I think it's also a function of how often they are in play.


For example, one doesn't dismiss every links course as "too hard" because the revetted bunkers are severe.  But Mike Keiser didn't want any at Bandon because he didn't want to take the chance of offending his customers, and everyone agrees that those courses are fun, which to be fair you don't always hear on the back end of someone's trip to Scotland. 


St. Andrews has a lot of revetted bunkers but continues to be fun for most golfers; Muirfield is sometimes reviled as too hard.  My guess is the difference has more to do with the rough than with the bunkers.


I am longing to do a course with revetted bunkers . . . I've got two or three potential candidates on tap, but I think the client who's most amenable is in the place few people will expect them.

[Thomas Dai]

Seemingly the average handicaps for men and women are 14 and 27. This could be interpreted as suggesting that the average course is 14 shots ‘too hard’ for average men and 27 shots ‘too hard’ for the average women and that it’s not until a players handicap reaches +1 that a course starts to become ‘too easy’. Something to ponder perhaps, or perhaps not.
Atb

[Sean_A]

There are far better words / sentences though, Sean.


Challenging at least means something.

Fun means something as well. The issue is knowing the writer to better understand the language.

Ciao

You’re just reeling off a soundbite there, Sean. When I need to understand the writer to comprehend a three letter word, it’s not a great choice of word.

I think you understand the word fun just fine. But to fully understand the writer's context it certainly helps to know the writer. Otherwise, fun would be the same for everyone.

Tom

One reason why some tourists don't fully enjoy Scotland is due to a heavy schedule of championship courses. Paying too much attention to lists and not enough attention to logistics and a better variety courses.

Ciao

[mike_malone]

Erik makes a good point on the variety of players.  By necessity, an architect probably needs to keep the most frequent players in mind in the basic design, and provide variety for the other types of players via multiple tees and changeable features, i.e. green speed and rough height, fairway width, etc. for serious competitions.
Statistically, most golfers play:
-        Casually and for social reasons, usually in a friendly competition, but a bunch don’t keep score.  (I could look up USGA stats, and this is from recent memory of checking those) 
-        Most Golfers are B and C players, with a wider range of skills regarding driving, irons, putting, and chipping.
IMHO, golfers will have reasonable fun if they shoot near their average score, or if the overage is due to one epic bad hole that makes for great bar talk, not a series of bogies or doubles. (Old joke, “double, triple, double, triple” shouldn’t be either a golfers score or his/her bar order after the round to ease the pain)
Some have posited that this means that the course slope ought to be about average.  While 116 is said to be the average slope rating, I believe this is too low in most urban areas, where the typical course is probably over 120 from the main men’s tees, more from the back, and a bit less from the shorter tees.
What types of shots are “fun” for those B and C players?
-          Hitting fairways
-          Reaching Greens (Hard to argue against proportional multiple tees if this constitutes fun)
-          Making Putts from 4-100 feet
-          Fantastic Recovery Shots (out of trees, out of bunkers, from rough, getting chips close)
-          Eagles (rare) Birdies (shouldn’t there be at least one per round to crow about?), Pars
-          Chance at Par (firstly distance related, plus other factors)
What types of shots are not “fun” for those B and C players?
-          Missing fairways, greens, short putts
-          Lost Balls
-          Multiple Recovery Attempts required
-          4 Putts
And back to easy or hard, I agree with Tom in that if in doubt, err to the side of easy, knowing that there are ways to toughen up most courses.
I have often thought that there is a difference between challenge and hard, i.e., feathering a 6 iron cut to a tucked pin is the challenge, the degree of penalty for missing is hard, i.e., its the same shot if a 4-5 foot deep bunker guards the pin, or a pond or 14-25 foot deep bunker.  Of course, a few of those are welcome, as in giving an excuse to tell an epic tale in the bar, but overall, it argues against fun for sure, and it may not really argue against challenge.
As Ira points out, the best architects have written that the hazards are there to suggest certain beneficial shot types and challenges, not necessarily to punish.  Of course, without consequence, there is no strategy, but since recovery shots are exhilarating, making those hazards recoverable is a big key to good design.

I like this. I think that a well designed course challenges ( not punishes)
the recovery from an off line tee shot.