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

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1354403671' post='6005537']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1354374299' post='6004267']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1354318544' post='6002259']
Cool Pepper. So the poor guy who works his a** off during the week, who has a wife, kids and/or other obligations, who doesn't have the time to practice (even though he'd love to), and just wants to go out to the course with his pals and enjoy his round of golf without losing a dozen golf balls lacks some kind of "initiative"? I think you're being a bit harsh. My former drill instructors in the Marine Corps could take lessons from you and they did not let us go gentle into that good night, believe me.

Pepper, sure some of these guys may be complacent, but the vast majority aren't. The simply don't have the time necessary to elevate their game to the level where they'd like to be. This isn't about political correctness (a concept I personally abhore), or is it about allowing lazy people skate. It's about, what? Showing a bit of compassion? Empathy?

I like nothing more than seeing some 20 HI drain a putt for a birdie and seeing that big grin spread across his face. It made his day. No, it made his week. That bast*rd boss of his? He just drifted out his mind. Those chores waiting for him at home? Suddenly they don't seem so bad. Hey, let's give that poor sucker a chance to even have birdie putt!

Egos, you want to talk about egos? It's many of those course designers today that Cardoustie alluded to earlier: let's make our course big and bad!

You have a good weekend too Pepper. :-)
[/quote]

Com on, you want to single out and define certain type of guy, then argue as if you know the subjective nature of how he defines "challenge"; the word varies per person. I appreciate you arguing your position, but people you don't know... where you assume or guess as to their values, that has no merit in this discussion.

Golf courses are similar to ski resorts... bunny slope to Black diamond. Using the prevailing whine, there's a desire for a greater number of bunny slopes. Yet, those that frequent bunny slopes are NOT the segment of users that regularly pay for the sport, when Joe golfer is attending to other more pressing interests.

Also, we use the word "average" golfer. A broad label that really is not definable, when it comes to this discussion. Are we talking 12, 15 or 20 index. Golfers that don't have indexes have NO bearing or input, as they might play once a month or once a year. Presuming 20 index, we then have to define the mentality of that golfer. Reason, my buddies with 20-25 index often choose to play the same difficult courses I choose. But, I wouldn't let them follow me on a black diamond run.
Anyway, If you asked them why they do that, its because their whole life is about tackling what comes their way, and raising above it. So, do we now take that mentality out of the discussion. What mentality are we talking about and how large is the market?

IMO, what's left are people like another friend that has a 17 index, and frequents a 5600yd, 119 slope easy (bunny slope) course. He often times ventures to a course with me, takes his punishment, then says, there's a reason he plays were he plays... he knows he's not good enough. Then he says, if I played the shorter tees it won't be so penal. That's when I say, then play them and he laughs, knowing his ego won't let him move up, mostly because I won't. Here's the thing about that man, he doesn't whine about how difficult it is, because he knows he choose to play there with me. He takes his medicine like a man, then invites me to his course, and I accept. The difference between my friend and those that whine, he knows his level of involvement in the game is moderate, so he has no expectations of more easier courses.

Whiners, on the other hand, ignore the costly reality of new course development, in favor of butting up against entitlement, I want because I don't want to move up to the much easier tees. How about we paint the red tees blue, the white tees black and the back tee's "RED".

In other words, there are plenty of courses, moreover tee choices. And, let's not use extreme course examples as if they are the norm, when we all know they are NOT. So, IMO the more salient issue is getting average Joe golfer to pick the right tees, and use proper judgment when choosing which courses to casually play. Keep in mind, one thing I am quite sure about, there is NO possible way all the courses in given areas can miraculously disappear so new more costly, yet easier courses can appear in their place. Not to forget, no investor, in his right mind, is going to build multimillion dollar golf courses for an un-invested average golfer (with index) sliver market. Now, its time to head off to play a short 72/140 6700yd course with an 18 handi friend, that chose that course...go figure. Have a good weekend. PS you might be right about your drill sarg... as I trained with SFO.
[/quote]
Pepper, I'm not talking about whining. I never said whining. I hate whining. I'm talking about reality here. A person is not more of a "man" because he takes his "punishment" by playing a course where he loses eight golf balls and shoots 110. This is golf, it's a game, and it's supposed to be fun!

The average golfer shoots around 100. The average golfer, who keeps a handicap, is around a 16. There are roughly 26 million golfers in the US. It doesn't take much to figure out the percentage of very good golfers is very low.

Perhaps the next time your friend insists on playing the back tees with you, you recommend you'd like to move up a tee box or two this round? :-)
[/quote]

I did not attribute whining to you... its my word for people that complain about this or that is too hard. Yep, the average golfer, if he keeps his score, cards 100+. If there are 26M golfers, the lions share do not keep handicaps, nor do they play by the rules, and they do NOT play weekly.... so building courses for them is IMO poor fiscal judgment. Yes, they contribute green fees, but they do not frequent golf courses remotely enough to warrant courses being built for their ability. Better golfers are the ones that predominately support golf, whether public or private.

As for me moving up.... why, I don't need to "yet", so your point? But so you feel better, I have and did so yesterday. Played white tees sloped at 131. There again, I am NOT the problem... nor am I heard saying its too hard, even if I end up with a crappy score. I blame myself!

[ryancjordan]

[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1354407929' post='6005725']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1354403015' post='6005497']
[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1354366626' post='6003939']
This whole thread is a joke. Modern Golf courses are not too difficult. Modern golfers are simply too soft. A generation of people who've had everything handed to them with little work simply can't cope with an activity that actually takes work. Better to whine about the courses than face the reality.

I mentioned before that my home course is nearly 100 years old. Nearby is one of the oldest courses in the country and several others built in the 1920s. Trust me, it is not the golf courses getting too difficult.......its the golfers lack of effort.

I suppose the author thinks the Old Course at St Andrews should cut all the fescue and fill in all those pot bunkers cause the course is just too hard.
[/quote]
If it's a joke, then why bother responding? And, if you're going to respond why do so in such a hostile manner? Nothing wrong with disagreeing and having a spirited discussion, but rudeness is a weak person's imitation of strength.

I wouldn't touch St. Andrews. Obviously you missed completely the tenor of my article, and what I subsequently stated.
[/quote]

The fact that you think my response was hostile is yet another example of this sissy-fied mentality. Quit whining about how difficult modern courses are. They are only too difficult for sissy-fied modern golfers who expect a game without working for it. Hostile.....There's a laugh for ya. Bet ya'd curl up like a girl and cry for mommy if you ever encountered real hostility. Laugh out loud!!!!!!!! Waaaa!!!! Courses are tooo hard!!!!! Waaaaaa!!!!! Sniff Sniff!!!!!! BwaHaHaHaHa!!!!!! Rolling on the floor laughing!!!!!!
[/quote]

800 posts of this and you haven't been banned? This is just either blatant trolling or someone who literally belongs in a mental institution.

[SurfDuffer]

Isn't this thread why they make putt putt courses, par 3 courses and miniature golf courses????

 

[hoganfan924]

[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1354463661' post='6007755']
[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1354377063' post='6004405']
^ Brilliant post right there teejaywhy.

Golfers are voting with their wallets, which is why so many newer daily fee courses are going under. As I posted several months ago, there hasn't been a premium daily fee course built in my area in the last 20 years that has a lower slope rating than Warwick Hills CC, former host of the Buick Open.

IMO, the proliferation of these kind of courses (sometimes via plowing under more traditional courses) has played a major role in the contraction of the sport as most women, juniors and new players simply cannot play them, even from the "appropriate" tees. According to the USGA the slope rating of a course of "standard difficulty" is 113, yet I've not seen a course built anywhere near that rating around hear since probably the 1970's.
[/quote]

Not to argue. I am very familiar with Warwich Hills CC and the area. Please tell me you're not suggesting it's too hard. By today's standards, it's average in difficulty. Its a traditional course, and somewhere around 74.1/132+ from Championship tees, and 71.5/126+ for middle tees; that's reasonably easy. These days, nobody would spend the money on course development, plus designer fee's for a course remotely close to 113. Unless its the only venue in the area, it wouldn't get enough seasonal play to warrant costs. Swartz Creek GC from the back tees are 6600yd+ 71.6@119; its owned by the city of Flint, which has been in financial crisis for a number of years. I wouldn't be surprise if SCGC is or has been sold. Then there's private Flint Golf Club at 72.1/129 @6600yds+. Seems people overlook the influences of equipment and physical attributes of today's youth and some of us old guys are staying fit, strong and competitive. Golf courses in the lower slope range are better suited for real old people and beginners and non-regular golfers; lots of those courses in and around Palm Springs.
[/quote]

You seem to have missed the completely obvious point that I was trying to make, so let's try again:

Warwick Hills is hard enough for PGA tour pros, but according to modern course design protocol, it isn't hard enough for the myriad of handicap amateur players. Hence no courses have been built in this area in probably 30 years with equal or lower slope ratings (from equivalent tees) as Warwick.

What point you are trying to make with Swartz Creek GC I'm not sure. Seems completely irrelevant to the issue since neither of us knows anything about it's income statement. So if you're trying to use that as some logical argument, you've committed a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, seemingly trying to tie the city of Flint's financial woes to a golf course that you provide no information on other than it's yardage and ratings. For all we know it's revenue positive. BTW, SCGC is good enough to host at least one round (might be 2 or 3 these days) of the Flint City Am every year and I don't see ridiculously low scores posted their either, having played in it three times myself. The other easy peaknocker course used in the City am being Kearsley Lake GC, at 6594 yards and 113/70.6 rating from the tips. I would think with your awesome golf skills that you would clean up in the Flint City am. You should try it sometime. But I guess it just wouldn't be enough of a challenge for you.

What Flint golf club has to do with anything I don't know, since you didn't do anything but list it's yardage and ratings.

[Sean2]

[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1354464295' post='6007787']


I did not attribute whining to you... its my word for people that complain about this or that is too hard. Yep, the average golfer, if he keeps his score, cards 100+. If there are 26M golfers, the lions share do not keep handicaps, nor do they play by the rules, and they do NOT play weekly.... so building courses for them is IMO poor fiscal judgment. Yes, they contribute green fees, but they do not frequent golf courses remotely enough to warrant courses being built for their ability. Better golfers are the ones that predominately support golf, whether public or private.

As for me moving up.... why, I don't need to "yet", so your point? But so you feel better, I have and did so yesterday. Played white tees sloped at 131. There again, I am NOT the problem... nor am I heard saying its too hard, even if I end up with a crappy score. I blame myself!
[/quote]

No, Pepper you are not the problem, and I hope you didn't think I said you were. It's avid golfers like you, me, and other golfers on GolfWRX that help support this grand game too.

Yes, any golfer is ultimately responsible for his score, but it doesn't help when those golf courses, even played from the correct tees have a slope of 120 plus, which many of them do.

I would just like golf to be fun for everyone. That's all.

[Desert Golf]

I play about 1/2 of my rounds as a single and it is obvious to me that many golf courses are too difficult for a large percentage of golfers. Eight years ago when I started playing I quickly learned that all courses are not created equal and gravitated to ones that didn't beat me up too badly. Luckily, the Coachella Valley has golf courses ranging from easy executive courses and muni's, to beasts like PGA West Stadium and SilverRock.

As my game improved, I enjoy taking on more difficult tracks and get a lot of satisfaction if I play well on a tough course.

Golfers usually have options to play courses that are appropriate for their game. I don't like playing behind a group of hacks that have bitten off more than they can chew but some folks are just gluttons for punishment. I just hope that I'm not in the group behind them.

[larrybud]

[quote name='Rosco1216' timestamp='1354221459' post='5996405']
If the average score and handicap is the same now as it was 20 years ago then the course designers are doing there job to keep up with advancements in equipment and technology. Play the correct tees and if people want to play an easy course then go play an easier course, there are many easy muni's out there for people who want the game to be "easier".

I don't buy in to the idea that people are leaving the game because it's too hard..golf is supposed to be hard, especially for a beginner. If anything they are leaving because of the cost to play is way too much.
[/quote]

Sure, when they lose 10 balls a round because it's too difficult, the cost certainly can be too much.

I think course designers, and many people on this forum have no clue as to what the "average" golfer's ability is.

[larrybud]

[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1354407929' post='6005725']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1354403015' post='6005497']
[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1354366626' post='6003939']
This whole thread is a joke. Modern Golf courses are not too difficult. Modern golfers are simply too soft. A generation of people who've had everything handed to them with little work simply can't cope with an activity that actually takes work. Better to whine about the courses than face the reality.

I mentioned before that my home course is nearly 100 years old. Nearby is one of the oldest courses in the country and several others built in the 1920s. Trust me, it is not the golf courses getting too difficult.......its the golfers lack of effort.

I suppose the author thinks the Old Course at St Andrews should cut all the fescue and fill in all those pot bunkers cause the course is just too hard.
[/quote]
If it's a joke, then why bother responding? And, if you're going to respond why do so in such a hostile manner? Nothing wrong with disagreeing and having a spirited discussion, but rudeness is a weak person's imitation of strength.

I wouldn't touch St. Andrews. Obviously you missed completely the tenor of my article, and what I subsequently stated.
[/quote]

The fact that you think my response was hostile is yet another example of this sissy-fied mentality. Quit whining about how difficult modern courses are. They are only too difficult for sissy-fied modern golfers who expect a game without working for it. Hostile.....There's a laugh for ya. Bet ya'd curl up like a girl and cry for mommy if you ever encountered real hostility. Laugh out loud!!!!!!!! Waaaa!!!! Courses are tooo hard!!!!! Waaaaaa!!!!! Sniff Sniff!!!!!! BwaHaHaHaHa!!!!!! Rolling on the floor laughing!!!!!!
[/quote]

You might be ROTFL until your local courses go under because instead of whining, the majority of people who might ordinarily play just don't show up, and spend their money elsewhere.

[Imp]

Isn't this thread why they make putt putt courses, par 3 courses and miniature golf courses????

 

Upper right, red building with tubes....

 

How in ganeesha's underpants does one actually complete that hole??????

 

--kC

[teejaywhy]

Isn't this thread why they make putt putt courses, par 3 courses and miniature golf courses????

 

Upper right, red building with tubes....

 

How in ganeesha's underpants does one actually complete that hole??????

 

--kC

 

What's the matter? Too hard for you? Maybe you should practice more, or move up to the ladies tee, or just play easier miniature golf courses...

;)

[pingman1]

[quote name='Jim Clark' timestamp='1354135480' post='5991215']
They're perfectly fair if you play the right tees based on your ability.
[/quote]

Jim, you are so right. I work as a course ranger and everyday I see members playing from the back tees, who should be playing from the forward tees. This includes the Senior Men's Golf Association!

[Imp]

[quote name='pingman1' timestamp='1354545142' post='6011497']
[quote name='Jim Clark' timestamp='1354135480' post='5991215']
They're perfectly fair if you play the right tees based on your ability.
[/quote]

Jim, you are so right. I work as a course ranger and everyday I see members playing from the back tees, who should be playing from the forward tees. This includes the Senior Men's Golf Association!
[/quote]It would be better if the marshal could follow those same people in and make sure that the score gets posted properly under the right tees.

"Yeah, I only shot a 90 today" *posts into GHIN as forward tees*

--kC

[Kuz013]

I dont understand why someone would write an article about this, or even agree with or complain about it. Where I live we have golf courses, probably too many damn courses; but there are all types of courses around here, from expensive resort style courses that have hosted PGA events to short easy little courses and everything in between. You cant possibly write an article like this and make it seem like a golfers only option is too play courses out of their league. If the "average" golfer wants to play a course that is above his abilities, then its almost always because they choose too, not because they have to.

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1354489297' post='6009135']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1354463661' post='6007755']
[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1354377063' post='6004405']
^ Brilliant post right there teejaywhy.

Golfers are voting with their wallets, which is why so many newer daily fee courses are going under. As I posted several months ago, there hasn't been a premium daily fee course built in my area in the last 20 years that has a lower slope rating than Warwick Hills CC, former host of the Buick Open.

IMO, the proliferation of these kind of courses (sometimes via plowing under more traditional courses) has played a major role in the contraction of the sport as most women, juniors and new players simply cannot play them, even from the "appropriate" tees. According to the USGA the slope rating of a course of "standard difficulty" is 113, yet I've not seen a course built anywhere near that rating around hear since probably the 1970's.
[/quote]

Not to argue. I am very familiar with Warwich Hills CC and the area. Please tell me you're not suggesting it's too hard. By today's standards, it's average in difficulty. Its a traditional course, and somewhere around 74.1/132+ from Championship tees, and 71.5/126+ for middle tees; that's reasonably easy. These days, nobody would spend the money on course development, plus designer fee's for a course remotely close to 113. Unless its the only venue in the area, it wouldn't get enough seasonal play to warrant costs. Swartz Creek GC from the back tees are 6600yd+ 71.6@119; its owned by the city of Flint, which has been in financial crisis for a number of years. I wouldn't be surprise if SCGC is or has been sold. Then there's private Flint Golf Club at 72.1/129 @6600yds+. Seems people overlook the influences of equipment and physical attributes of today's youth and some of us old guys are staying fit, strong and competitive. Golf courses in the lower slope range are better suited for real old people and beginners and non-regular golfers; lots of those courses in and around Palm Springs.
[/quote]

You seem to have missed the completely obvious point that I was trying to make, so let's try again:

Warwick Hills is hard enough for PGA tour pros, but according to modern course design protocol, it isn't hard enough for the myriad of handicap amateur players. Hence no courses have been built in this area in probably 30 years with equal or lower slope ratings (from equivalent tees) as Warwick.

What point you are trying to make with Swartz Creek GC I'm not sure. Seems completely irrelevant to the issue since neither of us knows anything about it's income statement. So if you're trying to use that as some logical argument, you've committed a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, seemingly trying to tie the city of Flint's financial woes to a golf course that you provide no information on other than it's yardage and ratings. For all we know it's revenue positive. BTW, SCGC is good enough to host at least one round (might be 2 or 3 these days) of the Flint City Am every year and I don't see ridiculously low scores posted their either, having played in it three times myself. The other easy peaknocker course used in the City am being Kearsley Lake GC, at 6594 yards and 113/70.6 rating from the tips. I would think with your awesome golf skills that you would clean up in the Flint City am. You should try it sometime. But I guess it just wouldn't be enough of a challenge for you.

What Flint golf club has to do with anything I don't know, since you didn't do anything but list it's yardage and ratings.
[/quote]

To compare what the PGA tour chooses for the roster against amateurs seeking challenge, would be an error in judgment. The PGA has very different reasoning for their rotation choices. Specifically, WHCC is ranked #46 in difficulty out of 54 PGA tour courses, with average winning score of 21 under... That's ridiculous scoring average IMO, and discounts your statement. It's easy for tour players. [url="http://preview.tinyurl.com/clpq2x7"]http://preview.tinyurl.com/clpq2x7[/url]

fyi: I spent a good portion of my life in the area, and still travel to the area. Hence, I've played all the courses I mentioned. Let's not degrade this by throwing sarcasm, just because I am a decent golfer that likes challenging courses, and you like easy courses. Both my wife and I really enjoy the beauty and all the geese that frequent SCGC, still its easy. For discussion purposes, SCGC and Flint GC are very old courses, built when fewer golfers existed, and development costs were different, moreover better golfer expectations were not what they are today.

Additonally, just because SCGC hosts regular amateur events doesn't mean it covers operational costs, or even liked by all entrants. There are other relatively easy courses in the area too, Tyrone Hills, Fenton Farms, and then there is Copper Ridge and Captains Club with multiple tee boxes are user friendly, and easy from shorter tees. Sugarbush (4 stars in Golf Digest) in Davison, however, is more to my liking, even my wife, with a considerably higher rating. Simply put, least in that area, there are plenty of course choices for the less then skilled golfer to enjoy.

Warwick is one of "the highest rated" courses in MI. I get you and others wish there were even easier courses being built, but the current ones like SCGC are not making enough money, even with subsidies.

[mwmgolfx]

[quote name='Guia' timestamp='1354152657' post='5992717']
If you don't over estimate your game and play the correct tee's the courses are fair.
[/quote]

Not true. There are courses that cannot be played from the "correct tees' fairly. Do you mean that the average 18 handicap has to play at 4500-5000 or less yards on these types of course. For example one course near Las Vegas I played at, for the white (18 hdcp on the card suggested tees) was 5700 yards long. Not real long. Yet one par 3 had a 220 yard forced carry with nothing but water down the entire right side and bunkers and severe hills on the left. Chance of average 18 handicap? Has to hit perfect straight shot and hope he holds green. Fair, not hardly. Red tees on course not rated for men and that was only other shorter option.

Another course had a par - 3 with 215 forced carry on a par 3 (almost always directly into a 10-20 mph wind - prevailing most of the time, nothing right left. nor long. Again, average 18 handicap - how does he fairly play this?

So what do they do on these courses? Not play them? Certainly not too long, but have holes that are almost unplayable for the average player. Good challenges for better players.

And I've seen tons of courses like this. Few holes almost seriously too difficult for average player. Better players really no major issues. And no options to play at "correct" tee since only options are unfair.

[hoganfan924]

Nice try, Pepper, but I've played all of those myself (except for Copper Ridge) and nowhere did I ever profess to "liking easy courses over more difficult one's." I prefer Sugarbush also and my favorites in the area are Shepherd's Hollow, Fieldstone, the Orchards and Lyon Oaks (as far as daily fee go), which are all far more difficult than those, but I can enjoy playing any of those you mentioned.

Certainly I wouldn't consider Captain's club an easy course, it's more middle of the road with tricked out greens that seemed to be the norm in the 90's. I used to have a range membership there and almost never played the course because I didn't care for the design or the way the course was run (bad staff). Fluff (Furyk's caddie) played there every night during the week of the '08 or '09 Buick Open. I asked him what he thought of the course. His answer: "Stupid greens," or something similar, can't remember his exact words. He's a pretty good player in his own right and has seen 'em all. So when a long time pro caddie who's been to ANGC, Oakland Hills, Oakmont and every possible extremely difficult course on tour tells me that my local course has "stupid greens," I'm going to trust his opinion (which I share anyway). Again, his assessment falls right in line with the problems of "modern course design" which this thread is about.

The point that you seem to keep missing is that all of those easy courses you listed are playable for those of all ability levels yet still present a fair challenge to good players from the back tees, while many newer courses are unplayable for the majority of golfers.

Economically, Flint hit its heyday in the 1950's and 60's so it's a bit of a unique case wrt golf courses built. Which is why there is still an abundance of old school courses still available to play and fewer modern courses. So Flint is an extreme outlier in this regard.

I'm not, nor have I ever advocated for "easier courses being built." What I'm advocating for is courses that are playable for lesser golfers which are still a challenge for better players. Any idiot can design a hard golf course. It takes a real master to design a course that is hard for a good player from the longer tees and still playable for women, juniors and beginners from their appropriate tees. It just so happens that many of the classic designs of Ross, Mackenzie and Tillinghast fit that bill while the same cannot be said of Dye, Nicklaus and some other modern designers. That's the gist of this entire thread, which you seem to have trouble grasping.

[ram01002]

[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1354556541' post='6012285']

I'm not, nor have I ever advocated for "easier courses being built." What I'm advocating for is courses that are playable for lesser golfers which are still a challenge for better players. Any idiot can design a hard golf course. It takes a real master to design a course that is hard for a good player from the longer tees and still playable for women, juniors and beginners from their appropriate tees. It just so happens that many of the classic designs of Ross, Mackenzie and Tillinghast fit that bill while the same cannot be said of Dye, Nicklaus and some other modern designers. That's the gist of this entire thread, which you seem to have trouble grasping.
[/quote]

+1000000000000

[jdhallissey]

I will tell you in my eyes you can not will not have not designed a golf course that is a challenge from every set of tee boxes but a 20 handicap will enjoy in the context of this thread. Even not in this context what is hard to most I can say since I agree with pepper on this are not going to be hard to me or him. I am not a bomber but I get it out there and can hit any shot in the book. The issue is if you try and make a course for everybody you are going to fail everybody. So please tell which courses you find that are playable for everybody but give the 5 or less a run for there money?! You can name courses across the midwest even michigan too. I have played most of them. California, Neveda, Arizona, florida. I still can't find one.

[hoganfan924]

Here's a great example of what I'm talking about (great design). Sounds like a real "failure" eh?

Augusta National ratings:

Masters tees: 76.2/148
Member tees: 67.7/118

[url="http://oobgolf.com/courses/scorecard.php?id=4148"]http://oobgolf.com/c...ard.php?id=4148[/url]

sounds like a Flint muni from the member tees. Swartz Creek GC is harder! lol

[Imp]

[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1354556541' post='6012285']

I'm not, nor have I ever advocated for "easier courses being built." What I'm advocating for is courses that are playable for lesser golfers which are still a challenge for better players. Any idiot can design a hard golf course. It takes a real master to design a course that is hard for a good player from the longer tees and still playable for women, juniors and beginners from their appropriate tees. It just so happens that many of the classic designs of Ross, Mackenzie and Tillinghast fit that bill while the same cannot be said of Dye, Nicklaus and some other modern designers. That's the gist of this entire thread, which you seem to have trouble grasping.
[/quote]And in that is where your argument is flawed. (I'm not saying my answer is perfect either, but hear me out...)

A "better player" will not only find a way around and/all obsticles that are in their way, but also has the experience to know what to do in almost any given situation, and has the control to place the ball at what seems to be exact yardages. That's what makes them a 'better player'.

Joe Average, hitting from the whites would hit driver on the hole where a better player, from the blue, may use a 4i. Why? The better player will look at the landing area, understand the risk/reward, distances, etc... and usually choses a safer option (and knows their limitations). Joe average just wants the ball to be in play, has a hard time with distance (compared to the 300+ yd 6irons around this forum), and rarely concerns themselves with what's in the way. Straight to them is "up there, but not in the trees".

Your average players rarely accept their deficiencies, and therefore don't play with them in mind.
Better players know what defciences they have, and play around them.

There is no one size fits all. Only experience can tell if the course works for your game or not. (My brother can hit a draw, but can't hiot a fade to save his life... when I can fade, but can't draw. When it's his turn to pick a course, he picks one to his strenghts. When I pick a course, I just want to play and appreciate playing golf with my brother and will work with what the course gives me. It's made me a better golfer because I learn and then adapt, whereas he prefers to only play to his known strengths).

--kC
(Edit, re-reading I see spelling errors. My browser doesn't have spell check. But I don't want to edit this 10 times to find them all. Apologies to those reading and seeing the trees, but not the forest)

[hoganfan924]

Augusta National is easier from the member tees than Swartz Creek golf club, Tyrone Hills, Captain's Club and almost all the muni's that Pepper cited.

Bobby Jones and MacKenzie didn't seem to have a problem doing exactly what I'm advocating. Pete Dye does though as do Nicklaus, Palmer and a whole bunch of other modern designers.

Pepp should inform his host when he's invited to play ANGC that the member tees aren't challenging enough for him and insist on playing the Masters tees or none at all. Hope he'll let us know how it goes!

[mwmgolfx]

[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1354557933' post='6012401']
Here's a great example of what I'm talking about (great design). Sounds like a real "failure" eh?

Augusta National ratings:

Masters tees: 76.2/148
Member tees: 67.7/118

[url="http://oobgolf.com/courses/scorecard.php?id=4148"]http://oobgolf.com/c...ard.php?id=4148[/url]

sounds like a Flint muni from the member tees. Swartz Creek GC is harder! lol
[/quote]

Here's another nationally ranked course that are playable by anyone but are a severe challenge for the 5 or less handicap. World Woods (both pine Barrons and Rolling oaks)

Pine Barrons ratings below:

Tee Name USGA Course Rating (18)
YELLOW 75.3 133 37.4 / 129
BLACK 72.5 131 36.5 / 124
GREEN 70.2 125 35.2 / 123
WHITE 68.5 118 34.2 / 115
WHITE 73.5 127 37.0 / 126
ORANGE 68.4 114 35.1 / 115

Rolling Oaks
YELLOW 74.8 132
BLACK 72.3 129
GREEN 70.3 121
WHITE 68.0 115


So it can be done effectively if the architect wishes to.


Another example: Pacific Dunes - very tough but no unreasonable holes:

BLACK 73.0 142
GREEN 70.7 133
GOLD 68.6 129

[hoganfan924]

MyronM,

The list is exhaustive. Find just about any course designed by Ross, Tillinghast or MacKenzie (or just about any great courses built before 1970)

Why?

Because in their era a lot of players "played along the ground." Modern American designers seem to think that the game should be played exclusively though the air. Hence the multiple forced carries and other features that make them unplayable for beginners, women and juniors.

Now Nicklaus floats ideas like making the hole bigger. lol

Jack - just design courses that can be played by anyone while still a challenge for good players, just like your predecessors did.

[cardoustie]

[quote name='ram01002' timestamp='1354556817' post='6012299']
[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1354556541' post='6012285']
I'm not, nor have I ever advocated for "easier courses being built." What I'm advocating for is courses that are playable for lesser golfers which are still a challenge for better players. Any idiot can design a hard golf course. It takes a real master to design a course that is hard for a good player from the longer tees and still playable for women, juniors and beginners from their appropriate tees. It just so happens that many of the classic designs of Ross, Mackenzie and Tillinghast fit that bill while the same cannot be said of Dye, Nicklaus and some other modern designers. That's the gist of this entire thread, which you seem to have trouble grasping.
[/quote]

+1000000000000
[/quote]


+99 trillion quadrillion

Pepper > step out of your own shoes for two seconds. I would consider myself a better player myself ... but I can empathize with the fight the avg golfer faces.

There are lots of guys I know with caps btw 14 and 22 and you know what, they aren't getting better, no matter how hard they practice. These guys are in shape, aged 35-60 and are bright and not lazy.

They just happen not to be great at golf, as they don't have the aptitude. Golf is a hard game to master after all. Even though a few of them played professional sports in other arenas. ie Football, squash etc. Surely, you can see merit in making courses fairer for the avg avid golfer? I'm not talking easy but FAIRER

Our course is very hard BTW and for some guys it is a whole love/hate thing ... that's a whole other thread

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1354556541' post='6012285']
Nice try, Pepper, but I've played all of those myself (except for Copper Ridge) and nowhere did I ever profess to "liking easy courses over more difficult one's." I prefer Sugarbush also and my favorites in the area are Shepherd's Hollow, Fieldstone, the Orchards and Lyon Oaks (as far as daily fee go), which are all far more difficult than those, but I can enjoy playing any of those you mentioned.

Certainly I wouldn't consider Captain's club an easy course, it's more middle of the road with tricked out greens that seemed to be the norm in the 90's. I used to have a range membership there and almost never played the course because I didn't care for the design or the way the course was run (bad staff). Fluff (Furyk's caddie) played there every night during the week of the '08 or '09 Buick Open. I asked him what he thought of the course. His answer: "Stupid greens," or something similar, can't remember his exact words. He's a pretty good player in his own right and has seen 'em all. So when a long time pro caddie who's been to ANGC, Oakland Hills, Oakmont and every possible extremely difficult course on tour tells me that my local course has "stupid greens," I'm going to trust his opinion (which I share anyway). Again, his assessment falls right in line with the problems of "modern course design" which this thread is about.

The point that you seem to keep missing is that all of those easy courses you listed are playable for those of all ability levels yet still present a fair challenge to good players from the back tees, while many newer courses are unplayable for the majority of golfers.

Economically, Flint hit its heyday in the 1950's and 60's so it's a bit of a unique case wrt golf courses built. Which is why there is still an abundance of old school courses still available to play and fewer modern courses. So Flint is an extreme outlier in this regard.

I'm not, nor have I ever advocated for "easier courses being built." What I'm advocating for is courses that are playable for lesser golfers which are still a challenge for better players. Any idiot can design a hard golf course. It takes a real master to design a course that is hard for a good player from the longer tees and still playable for women, juniors and beginners from their appropriate tees. It just so happens that many of the classic designs of Ross, Mackenzie and Tillinghast fit that bill while the same cannot be said of Dye, Nicklaus and some other modern designers. That's the gist of this entire thread, which you seem to have trouble grasping.
[/quote]

Please, stop saying I don't understand or I am missing something, just because I am not saying what you want. I understand what you and others say regarding playability designs. I agree to a limited extent too, but view aspects of the subject differently. Moreover, I do not see myself as being qualified to critique golf course designs, like most people here. I have a profession and know my limitations.

What I also see happening here, you are making assumptions about good players that frequent those courses, without knowing their game intent or their ability to pay for something more desirable; plus neither of us know what the word "challenging" means to them. Its for those reasons, I won't argue issues that require that knowledge, just in favor of my perceptions and experience.

I agree, there are some good golfers that probably love frequenting those courses. Nevertheless, where this diverges is, by and large, better "tournament" golfers (me) prefer more difficult courses because that happens to be where tournaments typically take place; and developers want to attract those golfers and events, not so much the 18-25 index or people with out indexes. Not to forget, they tend not to be very loyal customers.

In the end, I don't argue for people that can and or should speak for themselves. I play golf for me, I progress at the game for me... Most of the time I choose courses that fit my measure of challenge, but intermittently visit courses that fit friends with lessor skills, for them. Do I really care if courses are built to my wishes, no, because I don't have specific course wishes other then a big dislike of Kikuyu turf...yuk. Golf courses around the country are filled with varying degrees of challenge, and Flint is not all that different from areas in TX, AZ and CA, and elsewhere that have older courses.

[mdgboxx]

Why the Ho,Ho,Ho (Christmas time folks) would I spend a day at the range, working on 1-2-3 specific shots if, I'm gonna stay away from courses where I won't need those shots to begin with? Waste of time, IMO.

I've hit shots that even surprised ME at times. If I dare to mention/brag about them, at the Clubhouse after the game, there'll ALWAYS be an engineer on site to remind me that if I stayed in the middle, I wouldn't have needed to do that....Go figure!

[teejaywhy]

[quote name='jdhallissey' timestamp='1354557737' post='6012385']
I will tell you in my eyes you can not will not have not designed a golf course that is a challenge from every set of tee boxes but a 20 handicap will enjoy in the context of this thread. Even not in this context what is hard to most I can say since I agree with pepper on this are not going to be hard to me or him. I am not a bomber but I get it out there and can hit any shot in the book. The issue is if you try and make a course for everybody you are going to fail everybody. So please tell which courses you find that are playable for everybody but give the 5 or less a run for there money?! You can name courses across the midwest even michigan too. I have played most of them. California, Neveda, Arizona, florida. I still can't find one.
[/quote]

We-Ko-Pa Saguaro Course

[golfdad907]

Today's courses are built to accomodate all levels of skill within reason.
Some of those on the RTJ Trail in Alabama are like 8200 + from tips, which if you're dumb enough to try and play that far back, should shoot triple digits.
If you play correct tees and aren't a beginner enjy the beauty of the surroundings and have fun.

[Guia]

Most every golf course has been designed with holes that meet the requirement for the average golfer to
have a reasonable chance to par.......If they play from the correct tees. The middle tees on most
courses are between 5800 - 6400 yards if you can't negotiate that yardage then you are not an average
player, move to the front tees.

I have never seen so many people whining. The game is not supposed to be easy, it is supposed to offer
a challenge. You should actually shoot to your handicap about 1 out of every 4 to 5 rounds. If you
cant' shoot to what you believe you should, go practice, move the correct tees, or take up bingo.

Whine, whine, whine.

[Sean2]

[quote name='Guia' timestamp='1354570225' post='6013401']
Most every golf course has been designed with holes that meet the requirement for the average golfer to
have a reasonable chance to par.......If they play from the correct tees. The middle tees on most
courses are between 5800 - 6400 yards if you can't negotiate that yardage then you are not an average
player, move to the front tees.

I have never seen so many people whining. The game is not supposed to be easy, it is supposed to offer
a challenge. You should actually shoot to your handicap about 1 out of every 4 to 5 rounds. If you
cant' shoot to what you believe you should, go practice, move the correct tees, or take up bingo.

Whine, whine, whine.
[/quote]
No whining here. Would just like to see the average golfer have more fun on the golf course. That's it. End of story.

Never saw so many people opposed to the average golfer having a bit more fun on the golf course. A 200+ yard forced carry for the average golfer is not an easy shot. That's not whining, that's reality.