Are Today's Golf Courses Unfair to the Average Golfer?

[SurfDuffer]

[quote name='James Thomas' timestamp='1355285963' post='6054995']
Oh my, my, my. I have read every post in this thread, and I have to ask, whatever happened to "if you play golf, you're my friend"?
[/quote]

I'm all good with that. Just don't cry if everyone doesn't agree with you. Its not personal. You won't find me personally attacking people here even though some have attempted to take personal swipes at me. Its a simple debate and its a shame some have to resort to name calling when they can't support their viewpoint.

[teejaywhy]

[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1355276387' post='6053959']
Is it unfair for a golf course to have a hole that requires a 100 or 150 yard forced carry over a hazard???? Simple question.

[/quote]

I know you are not going to understand this, but I'll say it anyway for the rest of the folks reading at home.

A "forced carry" implies no other option. Better courses invoke strategy and allow options. A classic hole design invites a risky shot and rewards success while penalizing failure. If the design offers an option to play around the hazard (with the obvious disadvantage of extra strokes), the hole can be described as [i]strategic[/i]. If however, there are no other options but to take on the hazard, the hole becomes [i]penal[/i] in nature.

Can you see a difference?

A golf course that promotes no thought or strategy, but merely offers a series of tests, each requiring a singular, specific type of shot to succeed, would seem to be very one-dimensional and uninteresting. Unfortunately, this style of golf is predominant in modern design and for many younger golfers, is the only style they are familiar with.

[Johnny Biarritz]

This thread turned into quite a while ago. Carry on guys...

[James Thomas]

[quote name='teejaywhy' timestamp='1355320497' post='6055971']
[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1355276387' post='6053959']
Is it unfair for a golf course to have a hole that requires a 100 or 150 yard forced carry over a hazard???? Simple question.

[/quote]

I know you are not going to understand this, but I'll say it anyway for the rest of the folks reading at home.

A "forced carry" implies no other option. Better courses invoke strategy and allow options. A classic hole design invites a risky shot and rewards success while penalizing failure. If the design offers an option to play around the hazard (with the obvious disadvantage of extra strokes), the hole can be described as [i]strategic[/i]. If however, there are no other options but to take on the hazard, the hole becomes [i]penal[/i] in nature.

Can you see a difference?

A golf course that promotes no thought or strategy, but merely offers a series of tests, each requiring a singular, specific type of shot to succeed, would seem to be very one-dimensional and uninteresting. Unfortunately, this style of golf is predominant in modern design and for many younger golfers, is the only style they are familiar with.
[/quote]

Exactly! Golf is, and should remain IMHO, a gentleman's GAME of strategic risk & reward. Pay attention to what teejaywhy is telling you ... His opinions are wise and well-thought out.

Play well, gentlemen.

[KDMullins]

[quote name='teejaywhy' timestamp='1355320497' post='6055971']
I know you are not going to understand this, but I'll say it anyway for the rest of the folks reading at home.

A "forced carry" implies no other option. Better courses invoke strategy and allow options. A classic hole design invites a risky shot and rewards success while penalizing failure. If the design offers an option to play around the hazard (with the obvious disadvantage of extra strokes), the hole can be described as [i]strategic[/i]. If however, there are no other options but to take on the hazard, the hole becomes [i]penal[/i] in nature.

Can you see a difference?

A golf course that promotes no thought or strategy, but merely offers a series of tests, each requiring a singular, specific type of shot to succeed, would seem to be very one-dimensional and uninteresting. Unfortunately, this style of golf is predominant in modern design and for many younger golfers, is the only style they are familiar with.
[/quote]

We have a winner!

Two of my favorite holes are #13 at Augusta and #10 at Riviera for this very reason. They present very realistic birdie opportunities for almost any golfer, yet the best in the world can make a double bogey in a heartbeat. They both challenge you off the tee, such that you can't just mindlessly pull driver. Just awesome design IMO that is able to produce relatively short holes that anybody can birdie, yet NOBODY would say are easy.

[James Thomas]

And, if I may, let me quote Harvey Penick, in his quote of Dr. Alister Mackenzie (designer of Augusta Nat'l & Cypress Point).

"Remember that golf is a game and no player ever gets any fun in searching for lost balls."

"Most courses have too many bunkers. They should be constructed from a strategical and not a penal point of view."

[kellygreen]

[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1355319892' post='6055945']
Absolutely wrong. I'm looking at this as an avid golfer. Perhaps golf isn't for everyone???? Have you considered that possibility????? Should courses be built to accomodate people who play 3 or 4 times a year and lack basic skills??? Good lord no!!!! If those folks want to come out and experience golf on a real golf course they have to take what they get and not complain about it.
[/quote]

1. Actually [i][b]I'm absolutely right[/b][/i]. Because (apparently), in your world, elderly people, juniors and women are not "avid golfers". I'm afraid to ask what you would consider them to be.....

2. Yes I have considered the possibility of that you are an avid golfer. I've also considered the possibility that you are a SELF-ABSORBED golfer with a very limited perspective on golf....and limited understanding of the needs and desires of other people who play the game, and are not like you.

3. [u][i][b]Yes, some golf courses SHOULD be built to suit the needs and abilities of people who only play a few times a year.[/b][/i][/u] Are you saying that such occasional players shouldn't have a place to play that is fun and rewarding for them?

4. Your last comment...once again...demonstrates that I understand where you're coming from pretty well.

Because I'm also a "avid" player, who plays to a single-figure handicap...but I can assure you that I do NOT have your attitude towards new players and people who do not hit the ball as far as I do.

Tournament courses, and other courses built specifically for compeition and to challenge highly skilled players are fine. But a daily-fee course that cannot accomodate players of a wide variety of skill levels, strength and experience levels is a POORLY DESIGNED (or at least poorly conceived) golf course.

Imo, Arnold Palmer designs some of the best courses for recreational play. He has the wonderful talent of being able to scale up the challenge of a course. So that from the forward tees the course plays relatively easy...but as the player moves farther back on the tees, more and more demands are placed on his shotmaking and control...and a greater premium is placed on power. On one of his resort courses, a 3 handicap and a 35 handicap can both play and have a good time. Feeling that each has faced an appropriate level of challenge.

The worst at this is Jack. As you move forward on the tees on one of his courses, the course just plays SHORTER. Anyone who doesn't hit the ball high, and has the ability to stop the ball quickly on the green is going to find playing one of his courses to be a painful chore.

[hoganfan924]

[quote name='James Thomas' timestamp='1355322814' post='6056107']
And, if I may, let me quote Harvey Penick, in his quote of Dr. Alister Mackenzie (designer of Augusta Nat'l & Cypress Point).

"Remember that golf is a game and no player ever gets any fun in searching for lost balls."

"Most courses have too many bunkers. They should be constructed from a strategical and not a penal point of view."
[/quote]

Thanks for that. I guess this is why I love the classic courses so much more than the modern monstrosities. I've walked the grounds at ANGC several times and always think that the course looks very playable for the average player (excepting tournament green speeds) from the members tees but it still presents a significant challenge for the tour pro. Rough is non-existent, the only forced carries off the tee are on short par 3's, fairways are very wide, greens are very large. Even the pine straw is manicured. lol

If beginners and high handicap "occasional" players only had Pete Dye courses to play, they'd never become avid golfers! That's the point. Keep plowing under those 6000 yard, 110 slope courses to build "championship" 7000+/145 courses (that will never host anything more than a HS match) and you're killing the golden goose that will keep those courses viable in the future.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1355325158' post='6056317']
[quote name='James Thomas' timestamp='1355322814' post='6056107']
And, if I may, let me quote Harvey Penick, in his quote of Dr. Alister Mackenzie (designer of Augusta Nat'l & Cypress Point).

"Remember that golf is a game and no player ever gets any fun in searching for lost balls."

"Most courses have too many bunkers. They should be constructed from a strategical and not a penal point of view."
[/quote]

Thanks for that. I guess this is why I love the classic courses so much more than the modern monstrosities. I've walked the grounds at ANGC several times and always think that the course looks very playable for the average player (excepting tournament green speeds) from the members tees but it still presents a significant challenge for the tour pro. Rough is non-existent, the only forced carries off the tee are on short par 3's, fairways are very wide, greens are very large. Even the pine straw is manicured. lol
[/quote]

Somewhere in the afterlife, Bobby Jones thanks you.

[mikpga]

Is it unfair for a golf course to have a hole that requires a 100 or 150 yard forced carry over a hazard???? Simple question.

 

It is terribly unfair that a sport could involve any level of basic competence. How can we make this game more fair for those who's feelings are hurt by all this unfairness?

 

We are talking about extremes here too much. I don't think many people would really argue that courses should be designed that don't need basic competence. I know i am not and i'm sure some of the "whining" comments are directed at posts i've made. I don't have an issue with a 150yd forced carry on some holes or a course that has general hazards on it. I mean i'm sure we can all find a happy medium that allows 15 handicaps to enjoy a course without losing 12 balls and providing a challenge for a 1-2 handicap.

 

So i'll ask you a serious question, what level of player do you feel courses should be designed for? Should they be designed with the scratch in mind or the 10 handicap?

 

A course where a 15 handicap loses 12 balls?????? Really???? Someone that is a 15 handicap shouldn't be losing 12 balls in a round but that's another thread altogether. Where are all these mysterious unfair courses???? I've played pretty much everything within an hour's drive of my home and I haven't seen a single one of these unfair courses. I've even played a couple listed by GD in the 50 most difficult and those aren't unfair either.

 

Stone Harbor for example is ranked 42nd most difficult...I play there a few times a year...its a difficult and goofy layout but its not unfair in any way. Here are two holes pictured below. On the right is the 18th. Island fairway 150 from the tee then you have to hit to a green guarded by water. Is this unfair to you???? I say no. To the left is an island par 3 with a variety of tees to choose from. Is this one unfair too??? I say no.

 

 

 

Another photo of one of my favorite holes. Is this one unfair????

 

 

A course should be built for the type of golfers the builder wants to attract. Its as simple as that. If I wanted to attract the over 70 crowd and have thriving seniors leagues I'd build one way and If I wanted to attract people who have any sort of real golf game I'd build a completely different way.

 

I suppose you'd really hate my views on requiring basic skills to join a club?????

 

This is exactly the point I was trying to make. What crowd are they trying to attract. Golfers who are just learning the game, or Golfers who don't hit the ball very far are getting fewer and fewer options. They have built too many Championship Tracks. I'm all for the Championship Tracks but unfortunately they only serve a smaller percentage of Golfers.

[SurfDuffer]

[quote name='teejaywhy' timestamp='1355320497' post='6055971']
[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1355276387' post='6053959']
Is it unfair for a golf course to have a hole that requires a 100 or 150 yard forced carry over a hazard???? Simple question.

[/quote]

I know you are not going to understand this, but I'll say it anyway for the rest of the folks reading at home.

A "forced carry" implies no other option. Better courses invoke strategy and allow options. A classic hole design invites a risky shot and rewards success while penalizing failure. If the design offers an option to play around the hazard (with the obvious disadvantage of extra strokes), the hole can be described as [i]strategic[/i]. If however, there are no other options but to take on the hazard, the hole becomes [i]penal[/i] in nature.

Can you see a difference?

A golf course that promotes no thought or strategy, but merely offers a series of tests, each requiring a singular, specific type of shot to succeed, would seem to be very one-dimensional and uninteresting. Unfortunately, this style of golf is predominant in modern design and for many younger golfers, is the only style they are familiar with.
[/quote]

I absolutely see the difference. I would submit though that to be able to hit the ball 100 or 150 in the air is a basic requirement to play this game and that those who can't do this most basic skill do not belong on the majority of regulation golf courses. For those people there are municipal courses, executive courses, par 3 courses, chip and putt, driving ranges and miniature golf courses where these folks can enjoy themselves until they are ready for the real deal. I see no shortage of these options for these folks. Take your pick.

Earlier I mentioned Stone Harbor, one of the most difficult courses in the world. If someone is not up to that test I will list below their options all within a 25 minute drive. I will sort them by distance.

Avalon golf Club: 2 minutes away. Much easier public 18 hole course.
Laguna Oaks: 5 minutes. 9 hole executive course
Cape May Par 3 and Driving Range. 15 minute drive.
The Pines at Clermont: 15 minute drive. Easy 9 hole course but unfortunately has a couple of those pesky unfair holes with water and trees and such.
Heritage Links: 20 minutes away. Very easy 9 hole course but some of you will complain about its one par 3 that requires a 90 yard carry over a pond.
Seaville Driving Range and Batting Cages 20 minutes

Besides these options there are about 6 private and public courses within a 30 minute drive that are more geared for people who play regularly.

Granted I live in a resort area but I could just as easily break out the similar options for the Philadelphia Metro, Suburbs, Harrisburg, York PA and Spring Hill Florida areas that I am familiar with. I just don't see any lack of options for the old, juniors, women and beginners to learn or play the game.

[b]I fundamentally disagree with the premise of this entire thread. The golf courses are not the problem. Society has changed and not for the better. The economy is in the crapper. Kids now sit in front of video games and pretend to be doing something instead of actually going out and doing something. People want everything easy and instant without having to put in the work. When they can't get things the easy way without putting in the work they complain for the bar to be lowered. Look back at the equipment and courses of the 1960s.....If you are honest at all you would have to admit that the game is now far easier for the average player. People are the problem.....golf courses are not.[/b]

[hoganfan924]

Just so happens that Geoff Mangum (puttinzone.com) posted this today in response to an article by the PGA about the anchoring ban:
[url="http://golfweek.com/news/2012/dec/11/pga-still-concerned-anchoring-ban-could-hurt-games/"]http://golfweek.com/...uld-hurt-games/[/url]


[quote]The PGA of America has presided over the UN-growth of golf for at least half a century now (since televised pro golf became dominate with the "Jack and Arnie Show" in the 1960s). There were 25 million golfers in 1970 and there are only 26 million golfers today, even though the US population has grown from 200 to 300 million. The PGA is mainly responsible for FAILING to "grow" the game AND for alienating 12.5 million non-golfers that the game should have attracted simply by doing nothing. In fact, in the past 10 years, 4-5 million golfers have permanently abandoned the game, and in the past 2-3 years 1,000 PGA members have turned in their cards. The PGA of America, the PGA Tour and the World Golf Federation in the early 1980s launched their "plan" to grow the game by doubling the number of golfers from 25 to 50 million over 20 years, and ended up growing ZERO while adding 3,000 new courses (nearly all unduly expensive with too much length and too much time to get around inside gated communities) to the American inventory. This undercut the economic base of every course in America by 15-20%, and bequeathed amateurs sold-out real estate deals with unprofitable courses deposited inside the gates.
Now you say courses cannot lose "distance"? For an amateur to face the same approach-shot difficulty a pro faces, when the pro hits the tee ball 50 yards further every hole, the amateur needs to play a course about 6,100 yards long (not 7,200), and anything longer than that is frankly dumb and frustrating and poisons the game for the real people who might take up golf. For the pros to face the same approach shots that amateurs face, they would have to play courses 50x18 yards longer, or 8,100 yards. The tv pro is not the standard for amateur golfers and pro courses are not the model for amateur courses.
If the PGA of America won't accept it's fault is bringing golf to this ruinous state, perhaps you better re-read your own consultants' reports -- the ones the PGA has been receiving since the 1980s warning to STOP doing what the PGA keeps promoting. If you don't want to kill the goose that laid your golden egg, that's fine, but please stop strangling golf in the hope that another golden egg will pop out into your purse. The times they are a-changin'. So either lead, follow, or get out of the way.[/quote]

[SurfDuffer]

Check this out on the website of one of the closest courses to one of the hardest courses in the world.

 

http://www.lagunaoak...goldengolf.html

 

 

 

C

CAN YOU REACH THE GREEN OF A 180 YARD HOLE IN ONE SHOT?

 

If the answer is "no", then perhaps you should look at the "Laguna Oaks" new "Golden Golf" Scoring System. Architect Fred Langford has designed this new Golf Course Scoring Concept for some of the players at his Laguna Oaks Golf Course.

 

 

For hundreds of years, the different skills of golfers have been handled with a handicap system that produced a Tee to Green distance relative to skill levels. Golf courses have arranged the Tee to Green yardage on each hole by locating the tees forward for the high handicappers and further away from the greens for low handicap golfers.

 

In an effort to make golf less intimidating and encourage young or new golfers, Laguna Oaks Par-3 Golf Course offers the "Golden Golf" scoring system. With this innovative new approach the tee locations vary slightly but the big difference is the par rating.

 

For instance, Laguna Oaks 180 yard Par-3 (not an easy shot on any course) becomes a Par-5 for the high handicap player.

 

Laguna Oaks also has a 170 yard and a 165 yard Par -3 when playing from. The "Low Handicap" Blue Tees. These two holes are also listed as Par-5s when you are playing the Golden System. Now these long Par-3s become Golden Golf Par-5s and do not threaten golfers who can't reach the green in one shot. If they get on the green in 3 shots and then "2-putt", they have achieved a par by these new standards.

 

Back to back Golden Pennants are the symbols used to designate the targets between tees and green. The mid range holes at Laguna Oaks range from 124 to 150 yards. These become Par-4s for the Golden Golf system. There are two Golden short holes that remain Par-3s -- number 16 (67 yards) and number 18 (61 yards) -- but to keep the challenge interesting these two short holes are both over water. Hole 16 to an island green and Hole 18 to a peninsula.

 

Fred Langford believes that if you want to encourage young golfers and new golfers of any age, golf courses have to become less intimidating. Fred feels that Par-3 Courses are the answer. Laguna Oaks Par-3 Golf Course takes his belief to a higher level with the "Golden Golf" concept.

 

This course is right up the alley of all of you posting the other side in this thread. Here is the sad thing though.......Of all the courses in my area this one is the least busy. I don't know how they even stay open. Its a great little course run by very nice people. Great layout and flawless conditions but the parking lot is almost always nearly empty even in the middle of tourist season and they are right beside the biggest highway in the area. To say golf is hurting because courses are too difficult is ludicrous. That is just misguided blame.

 

 

By the way, interesting tidbit about the builder of this course who I know personally. This guy designs waterslides all over the world. If you've been on a waterslide at a resort nearly anywhere he probably was the designer. He's built over 300 waterslides across the globe. You meet a lot of interesting people in this game.

[hoganfan924]

Calling a par 3 a par 5 doesn't change the hole and doesn't fool anyone. Par 3 courses in general aren't very financially successful.

[SurfDuffer]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1355325073' post='6056307']
[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1355319892' post='6055945']
Absolutely wrong. I'm looking at this as an avid golfer. Perhaps golf isn't for everyone???? Have you considered that possibility????? Should courses be built to accomodate people who play 3 or 4 times a year and lack basic skills??? Good lord no!!!! If those folks want to come out and experience golf on a real golf course they have to take what they get and not complain about it.
[/quote]

1. Actually [i][b]I'm absolutely right[/b][/i]. Because (apparently), in your world, elderly people, juniors and women are not "avid golfers". I'm afraid to ask what you would consider them to be.....[color=#0000CD] Sorry, you're wrong.[/color]

2. Yes I have considered the possibility of that you are an avid golfer. I've also considered the possibility that you are a SELF-ABSORBED golfer with a very limited perspective on golf....and limited understanding of the needs and desires of other people who play the game, and are not like you. [color=#0000CD]That is your opinion and you are entitled to it but name calling makes you seem small. What happened to "if you are a golfer you are my friend"?[/color]

3. [u][i][b]Yes, some golf courses SHOULD be built to suit the needs and abilities of people who only play a few times a year.[/b][/i][/u] Are you saying that such occasional players shouldn't have a place to play that is fun and rewarding for them? [color=#000080]No, I'm not saying they shouldn't have a place to play. I'm saying there is no shortage of places for them to play and complainging about it on the internet is silly. Let the market decide. The market will get it right every time.[/color]

4. Your last comment...once again...demonstrates that I understand where you're coming from pretty well. [color=#000080]Obviously you dont.[/color]

Because I'm also a "avid" player, who plays to a single-figure handicap...but I can assure you that I do NOT have your attitude towards new players and people who do not hit the ball as far as I do. Th[color=#000080]ank you for sharing with us your prowess as a single digit handicapper. I think so much higher of your opinion now. Again, you are totally wrong on my opinion and are seeing what you want to see in my posts and mixing in your own biases.[/color]

Tournament courses, and other courses built specifically for compeition and to challenge highly skilled players are fine. But a daily-fee course that cannot accomodate players of a wide variety of skill levels, strength and experience levels is a POORLY DESIGNED (or at least poorly conceived) golf course. [color=#000080]I don't see all these poorly designed, unfair courses that you claim are out there and I play a lot of courses.[/color]

Imo, Arnold Palmer designs some of the best courses for recreational play. He has the wonderful talent of being able to scale up the challenge of a course. So that from the forward tees the course plays relatively easy...but as the player moves farther back on the tees, more and more demands are placed on his shotmaking and control...and a greater premium is placed on power. On one of his resort courses, a 3 handicap and a 35 handicap can both play and have a good time. Feeling that each has faced an appropriate level of challenge.

The worst at this is Jack. As you move forward on the tees on one of his courses, the course just plays SHORTER. Anyone who doesn't hit the ball high, and has the ability to stop the ball quickly on the green is going to find playing one of his courses to be a painful chore.
[/quote]

See above. Have a nice day.

[SurfDuffer]

[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1355332420' post='6057039']
Calling a par 3 a par 5 doesn't change the hole and doesn't fool anyone.
[/quote]

I agree but the owner is doing everything he can to accomodate beginners. This is the perfect course for the folks complaining in this thread. I should mention that even on this course built for beginners and average golfers you have to get it airborn over water.

[Imp]

One, it's a par 3 executive course. It's not going to receive play like a regular 18 hole course will.

Dos, If I wanted to practice my easy and hard par 3s, then sure... I'd give it play. It's almost akin to saying that Mini-Golf/Putt Putt is the same as practicing putting on a real course.

Tree, Handicap takes into account what one would receive on a hole when factoring in slope/rating. All he's doing is saying that on this hole, the player would be given X strokes due to their handicap. Just like they may get on all difficult holes (longer par 3s are usually rated more difficult on courses) where the player would "get" 1 maybe 2 strokes anyways depending on their index.

Quattro, So what they're doing is saying 'what you score is what you score' for handicap recording purposes. I don't think you'd then be able to turn in your ESC to GHIN, as it's inflated... but they're doing the exact same thing that ESC/GHIN provides, giving players extra strokes based on their handicap.

--kC

[Imp]

[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1355332818' post='6057087']
I agree but the owner is doing everything he can to accomodate beginners. This is the perfect course for the folks complaining in this thread. I should mention that even on this course built for beginners and average golfers you have to get it airborn over water.
[/quote]Let me ask you this then, what's the beginners handicap so they know which holes they get strokes on? Most beginners don't have a handicap, or even know how it's calculated/used when factoring slope/rating, or when you would use it.

That still has to be considered on this course... people are going to get strokes based on their handicap.

--kC

[SurfDuffer]

[quote name='Imp' timestamp='1355333457' post='6057153']
[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1355332818' post='6057087']
I agree but the owner is doing everything he can to accomodate beginners. This is the perfect course for the folks complaining in this thread. I should mention that even on this course built for beginners and average golfers you have to get it airborn over water.
[/quote]Let me ask you this then, what's the beginners handicap so they know which holes they get strokes on? Most beginners don't have a handicap, or even know how it's calculated/used when factoring slope/rating, or when you would use it.

That still has to be considered on this course... people are going to get strokes based on their handicap.

--kC
[/quote]

You miss my point. Based on this thread and this courses location at the gateway to a major resort area this should be an incredibly popular course and it isn't. It has everything the people in this thread want. For gosh sakes he's got a 180 yard par 5.

[pingman1]

Our great game was meant to be played on the ground, was it not?

[kellygreen]

[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1355332709' post='6057075']
See above. Have a nice day.
[/quote]

When you find yourself standing in a hole, [b][i]its probably a good idea to stop digging. [/i][/b]

Because all you are doing is confirming the fact that you don't get it.

[url="http://www.ohiostategolfclub.com/"]http://www.ohiostategolfclub.com/[/url]

At ([i]the[/i]) Ohio State University, their golf course sports 36 holes. The primary course was recently renovated by Nicklaus. It is now a 7400 yd, par 71, 76.1/142 [i][b]beast[/b][/i] that is one of the toughest courses in the state of Ohio....a state that has courses like Muirfield Village and Firestone. One of the toughest courses in the Big Ten. It also hosts its own Nationwide/Buy.com tour event, as well as US Open qualifying events. Its as tough a test of golf as you could ever want from the tips.

The second 18 is an Alistair MacKenzie design that is a 5800 yds, par 71 66.6/111 course. Being a traditional design, there are no forced carries. There are no target greens. As a result it can be played by both the poweful player who can hit the ball high and stop it quickly...as well as the weaker player who needs to play the ball closer to the ground. [b][i]As a result the local senior players, women, high handicaps, and younger junior players LOVE this course.[/i][/b]

It gives them a regulation course that is fun to play, and is amenable to the player with a lower swing speed. Or the player who is just learning the game. As opposed to Scarlet (the tournament course) which has forced carries on about every third hole...and would quickly overwhelm and embarrass the player who cannot consistently carry the ball at least 200yds in the air.

What you seem to either be unable----or unwilling---to see is that the game needs [i][b]BOTH[/b][/i] of these kinds of courses. It needs BOTH of these kinds of playing experiences. Whether they be on seperate courses....or (like Arnold Palmer) you have an architect skillful enough to design them into the same track.

It needs the tough tests like Scarlet that can challenge even the most skilled players...but it also needs gentle courses like Gray that can offer an accessible, satisfying game to older golfers looking to remain in the game, and younger players who are deciding if they want to become a ongoing part of it. The game shouldn't only be accessible-and-fun to skilled male golfers in their prime physical years.

Telling people to play that they either have to find a way to scrape the ball around places like Scarlet....or [i]"Get thee to an Executive Course[/i]"...is a good way to choke the present (and choke off the future) of the game.

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='KDMullins' timestamp='1355276860' post='6054035']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1355273711' post='6053673']
I feel for those that can't... and proud of those that persist and overcome. But have nothing for those that can, but don't, opting for the world to be made easier around them. Its a frame of mind Sean2. I am nearing 65 with bad knees, and fight every day to just maintain, as my body naturally deteriorates, despite going to the gym every other day since HS. I don't give in or give up. That's the reason why I use the word whining. I will be fighting till the day I die, and want to go out that way.

PS - Yes, it's a game, but fighting obstacles to stay in the game is what life is about.
[/quote]

That's great, and I don't disagree with those comments. You must realize, however, that the two greatest problems facing golf today are the expense to play and the time it takes to play, both of which can be attributed (at least in part) to the fact that most new golf courses are far too expensive to maintain and too difficult for the people that play them. The cost of the expanse of land needed to create these courses, the excessive chemicals needed to make them look like Augusta year round, and to maintain all the hazards, including bunkers, fescue, etc., are necessarily passed on to the consumer, and the difficulty of the 7,000 yard, 130 slope, 10+ stimp course that's left makes it such that you can't leave your home, play golf, and get back in 6 hours. Most agree that's a problem for the future of this great game.
[/quote]

I realize golf is expensive and takes time, but don't care about either, because I can afford both. I am well aware of golf course maintenance and design costs too, having sat on the Greens committee of my last club, and fortunate to have talked with designers regarding course changes. I actually have experience to speak from vs conjecture.

Fact; golf is not like playing Solitaire on a desk or Horse in the driveway, between meetings or baby feedings; its time consuming. Making courses easier for those that don't want to or can't put in the time or spend the money is not the answer. By and large, they are not committed to the sport. Man is the problem. Man thinks he's "entitled" to play golf, and "entitled" to costs that fit his pocketbook; he should be able to squeeze in 18 in 3hrs+ between meeting or kid activities, and so his wife will quit nagging "he's spending too much time at golf". He can dream all he wants, but its still pipe dreams for those that think golf will accommodate their wishes and entitlements... its an expensive sport, and lifestyle, like owning a horse ranch.

In general, "man" has lost much of his desire to measure-up, step-up and or take advantage of the opportunity in this great country. In other words, he doesn't care to commit or improve and climb in life so he can afford the time and costs needed to better his skills and enjoy all courses. He's also lost sight that his actions on any given day and or course affects others, again part of the entitled mindset.

Once again, golf is just an activity for most, that should fall below family and job. I did not take up golf till forty, after my business interests were well established, and didn't marry till later in life, to insure I could properly provide and had time to be a proactive father and contributing husband. I suppose what that means is, my judgment then afforded me now, my cake and eat it too.

Sure I can say I wish golf only took 3-4hrs, but it doesn't, thanks to more people attempting it; reason I always take 2-3 cigars along and enjoy the time looking at the scenery. My wife doesn't care how much or often I play, as she enjoys the game with her girlfriends too. Our son is out of the house, away at college, so I drive upwards of 1.5hrs to play 18 and drive home after. That means mostly 4.5-5hr rounds in CA & AZ + travel time. Do I like that NO, but I do enjoy driving fast, plus I know they don't design golf courses for my wishes; otherwise I would outlaw Kikuyu. It comes down to having to do what's necessary if I want to play courses that fit my eye and skill, that means spend the time. Time for the gym.. have a good day.

[KDMullins]

[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1355342641' post='6058069']
I realize golf is expensive and takes time, but don't care about either, because I can afford both. I am well aware of golf course maintenance and design costs too, having sat on the Greens committee of my last club, and fortunate to have talked with designers regarding course changes. I actually have experience to speak from vs conjecture.

Fact; golf is not like playing Solitaire on a desk or Horse in the driveway, between meetings or baby feedings; its time consuming. Making courses easier for those that don't want to or can't put in the time or spend the money is not the answer. By and large, they are not committed to the sport. Man is the problem. Man thinks he's "entitled" to play golf, and "entitled" to costs that fit his pocketbook; he should be able to squeeze in 18 in 3hrs+ between meeting or kid activities, and so his wife will quit nagging "he's spending too much time at golf". He can dream all he wants, but its still pipe dreams for those that think golf will accommodate their wishes and entitlements... its an expensive sport, and lifestyle, like owning a horse ranch.

In general, "man" has lost much of his desire to measure-up, step-up and or take advantage of the opportunity in this great country. In other words, he doesn't care to commit or improve and climb in life so he can afford the time and costs needed to better his skills and enjoy all courses. He's also lost sight that his actions on any given day and or course affects others, again part of the entitled mindset.

Once again, golf is just an activity for most, that should fall below family and job. I did not take up golf till forty, after my business interests were well established, and didn't marry till later in life, to insure I could properly provide and had time to be a proactive father and contributing husband. I suppose what that means is, my judgment then afforded me now, my cake and eat it too.

Sure I can say I wish golf only took 3-4hrs, but it doesn't, thanks to more people attempting it; reason I always take 2-3 cigars along and enjoy the time looking at the scenery. My wife doesn't care how much or often I play, as she enjoys the game with her girlfriends too. Our son is out of the house, away at college, so I drive upwards of 1.5hrs to play 18 and drive home after. That means mostly 4.5-5hr rounds in CA & AZ + travel time. Do I like that NO, but I do enjoy driving fast, plus I know they don't design golf courses for my wishes; otherwise I would outlaw Kikuyu. It comes down to having to do what's necessary if I want to play courses that fit my eye and skill, that means spend the time. Time for the gym.. have a good day.
[/quote]

Wow. Not sure where to start with that so I won't.

[mshills]

There is some good discussion in this thread. Unfortunately there are also plenty of examples of why non-golfers typically hate golfers.

Here is how I consider the issue. Take an above-average golfer, let's say a ~16 handicap. This is an arbitrary number, and I know that many on this board think of a 16 as average or worse than average, but if you take five seconds to think about it, a true 16.0 index is much better than "average" and probably a good example for this exercise.

Good design: The Old Course at St. Andrews. Unless the weather is appalling, Mr. 16 will be able to play quickly and not lose a dozen balls. He should easily break 100, but he's not going to put up a career low either. He has a choice to make on how to play just about every hole, and isn't golf the "thinking man's game" that should require decision-making?

Crap design: Whistling Straits. Even from the correct tees, if Mr. 16 hits it crooked at all (which as a 16, he will), he's going to lose balls in hazards, in long grass, in water, everywhere. He's likely to be frustrated because he "always plays so much better than this." His only choices on most holes are figuring out what club to hit to try to clear that waste area / bunker / water.

Now think about the same two courses with a legit scratch index. St. Andrews is still great design because it makes Mr. Scratch make decisions and is unlikely to yield a good score. Mr. Scratch can also easily handle Whistling Straits.

I'm not saying that every course should be designed to accommodate the needs of the 16 exclusively. What I'm saying is great design provides a test for the real player, the guy of average ability who takes the game just as seriously as his buddy who's a +2, and even for the 25+ handicap who can play sensibly and conservatively until his game gets better. [i][b]Crap design means that the course accommodates only one type of player.[/b][/i]

[hoganfan924]

"It's easier to believe a lie than to accept that you've been lied to." I think we all got lied to in the 80's, 90's and 00's about what good golf course design is and some are having a hard time accepting that. Excerpt from my previous reposting of Geoff Mangum's view:

[quote]
There were 25 million golfers in 1970 and there are only 26 million golfers today, even though the US population has grown from 200 to 300 million. The PGA is mainly responsible for FAILING to "grow" the game AND for alienating 12.5 million non-golfers that the game should have attracted simply by doing nothing. In fact, in the past 10 years, 4-5 million golfers have permanently abandoned the game, and in the past 2-3 years 1,000 PGA members have turned in their cards. The PGA of America, the PGA Tour and the World Golf Federation in the early 1980s launched their "plan" to grow the game by doubling the number of golfers from 25 to 50 million over 20 years, and ended up growing ZERO while adding 3,000 new courses (nearly all unduly expensive with too much length and too much time to get around inside gated communities) to the American inventory.

[/quote]

Want to kill the game? Keep building these tracks that take 5.5 hours to play because the average foursome is losing a ball on every hole and the average player can't break 100 on it, even from the forward mens tees. A course I play weekly started out as a "Scottish links style course" with knee high fescue everywhere (like on the inside of doglegs). Two years of 6 hour rounds later and they cut most of it down, completely changing the aim lines from the tee and character of the course. But hey, now average rounds are down to about 5 hours. lol The course is in so much financial distress that they didn't even renew their USGA rating a few years ago because they couldn't afford it. That's modern architecture for you. At least their are a few modern designers that seem to understand the problem.

[Sean2]

[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1355315907' post='6055729']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1355279351' post='6054319']
[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1355276387' post='6053959']
Is it unfair for a golf course to have a hole that requires a 100 or 150 yard forced carry over a hazard???? Simple question.

It is terribly unfair that a sport could involve any level of basic competence. How can we make this game more fair for those who's feelings are hurt by all this unfairness?
[/quote]

That's a bit over the top SurfDuffer. As Jeff said, basic competence is required, and 100 to 150 yard forced carries are not unreasonable. No one's feelings are hurt, and no one's asking for courses with slopes of 100 either.
[/quote]

That is exactly what you are advocating. To use another person's analogy you want the basket lowered because average people can't make a basket on a 10 foot hoop.
[/quote]

No, it is not.

[Sean2]

[quote name='James Thomas' timestamp='1355322814' post='6056107']
And, if I may, let me quote Harvey Penick, in his quote of Dr. Alister Mackenzie (designer of Augusta Nat'l & Cypress Point).

"Remember that golf is a game and no player ever gets any fun in searching for lost balls."

"Most courses have too many bunkers. They should be constructed from a strategical and not a penal point of view."
[/quote]

James, what does Dr. Alister Mackenzie know? :-)

[Sean2]

Hoganfan924, that was a great article you posted in #310. I've been saying something similar for the past couple of years, but for the most part people just don't want to hear it.

[Sean2]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1355325073' post='6056307']
[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1355319892' post='6055945']
Absolutely wrong. I'm looking at this as an avid golfer. Perhaps golf isn't for everyone???? Have you considered that possibility????? Should courses be built to accomodate people who play 3 or 4 times a year and lack basic skills??? Good lord no!!!! If those folks want to come out and experience golf on a real golf course they have to take what they get and not complain about it.
[/quote]

1. Actually [i][b]I'm absolutely right[/b][/i]. Because (apparently), in your world, elderly people, juniors and women are not "avid golfers". I'm afraid to ask what you would consider them to be.....

2. Yes I have considered the possibility of that you are an avid golfer. I've also considered the possibility that you are a SELF-ABSORBED golfer with a very limited perspective on golf....and limited understanding of the needs and desires of other people who play the game, and are not like you.

3. [u][i][b]Yes, some golf courses SHOULD be built to suit the needs and abilities of people who only play a few times a year.[/b][/i][/u] Are you saying that such occasional players shouldn't have a place to play that is fun and rewarding for them?

4. Your last comment...once again...demonstrates that I understand where you're coming from pretty well.

Because I'm also a "avid" player, who plays to a single-figure handicap...but I can assure you that I do NOT have your attitude towards new players and people who do not hit the ball as far as I do.

Tournament courses, and other courses built specifically for compeition and to challenge highly skilled players are fine. But a daily-fee course that cannot accomodate players of a wide variety of skill levels, strength and experience levels is a POORLY DESIGNED (or at least poorly conceived) golf course.

Imo, Arnold Palmer designs some of the best courses for recreational play. He has the wonderful talent of being able to scale up the challenge of a course. So that from the forward tees the course plays relatively easy...but as the player moves farther back on the tees, more and more demands are placed on his shotmaking and control...and a greater premium is placed on power. On one of his resort courses, a 3 handicap and a 35 handicap can both play and have a good time. Feeling that each has faced an appropriate level of challenge.

The worst at this is Jack. As you move forward on the tees on one of his courses, the course just plays SHORTER. Anyone who doesn't hit the ball high, and has the ability to stop the ball quickly on the green is going to find playing one of his courses to be a painful chore.
[/quote]

Yes you are, right that is. :-)

[mshills]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1355338675' post='6057735']
What you seem to either be unable----or unwilling---to see is that the game needs [i][b]BOTH[/b][/i] of these kinds of courses. It needs BOTH of these kinds of playing experiences. Whether they be on seperate courses....or (like Arnold Palmer) you have an architect skillful enough to design them into the same track.
[/quote]

That is the key. With quality design, you don't need separate courses. Well-designed courses are playable by the weaker player and present a challenge to the strong player.

It thoroughly stumps me that people do not get that.