The Sorts Of Courses We Have To Play As Amateurs

[Denny100]

Ive been thinking about this more and more, and it annoys me greatly.

 

I watch the PGA tour and DP world tours, and the sorts of courses they play are never the sorts of s**t heaps we play on as amateurs.

 

It frustrates me that we constantly play on courses where:

 

1) They are tree lined to hell.... To the point where basically the tree lines are right up to the edge of the fairway and the limbs of the trees can overhang tee boxes and greens, blocking starting lines and leaving debris over the tees and greens

 

2) We play courses with stupid amounts of elevation change.... Like playing a par 4 that goes 60 yards uphill and the hole is only 300 yards long or something totally stupid

 

3) Crazy doglegs, like 90 degree angles that require banana shots to go around or shots that need to be launched over trees, out of bounds, then back over the trees back in bounds again

 

4) Blind shots. Proper blind shots where you can hardly see anything and need to warn people the landing area is clear off the tee after leaving the landing area.

 

5) Courses that are just left to the elements which become crazy to play.... tiny little greens that turn to concrete in summer. fairways that become so baked they become a car park, and then in winter a mud heap. Scabby lies around the greens everywhere.

 

I could go on.

 

I took a friend recently to a DP world tour venue to play. My friend is not very good, he would be off around 16-18 if he had an official handicap.

 

He commented on how easy he found the course and it really surprised him, and I would have to agree it did seem a very easy round.

 

1) The fairways were lush and consistent, and the semi rough was a nice consistent height. It became really easy to judge the way a ball would come out from any given lie, flier or slow lie

 

2) The bunkers were loads better than anything we ever play on. The sand was compact and a thinner layer of sand. It was really easy to use the bounce and play controlled shots with a bit of "nip".... no bunkers that were either full of soft sand, or no sand at all, no daft fried egg lies for no reason (i can understand fried eggs with wedge approaches, but not fairway bunkers etc)

 

3) The holes seemed so much more open off the tee, which bred confidence. You felt you could "give it a rip" and were not overly worried. Even off the back tees it seemed open and as long as you could make the carries (I could do if we were back there) you would be fine. The trees seemed well back from the fairway, I felt like id instantly gain 15 yards just by having more freedom

 

4) Conditions were very consistent. All the tees played the same, all flat and nicely conditioned, all greens consistent.

 

5) No STUPID gimmick holes that designers love to throw in on crap courses.

 

WHY do our courses have to be crap? you pay a lot of money to play golf and the majority of our courses, and im talking private member courses, are just badly designed over subscribed doss holes built on pieces of land too small for a golf course, hence the crazy hole designs and terrain changes.

 

Does it HAVE to be this way? is it just a UK thing?

[caniac6]

My course is good. Fun to play. No complaints.

[MountainKing]

Your first 5 points basically describe Augusta.....

[TheBiles]

5 minutes ago, MountainKing said:

Your first 5 points basically describe Augusta.....

That’s why I never play there. Total goat track. 

[MountainKing]

9 minutes ago, TheBiles said:

That’s why I never play there. Total goat track. 

 

I didn't want to be the first to say it

[Mikey_HACKilroy]

It just depends. The crappy places around here never last long without getting bought out and renovated. That doesn't mean there aren't crummy courses around here; but there are plenty of good ones to pick from.

That said, they aren't all up to tour standards; but some of them are whilst others are a mix. We're such snobs around here that if the sand isn't perfect, we get all pissed off. LOL

[golfortennis]

The only one I think you may be correct on is there is no hole where it's a 4-iron off the tee, and then a 90 degree or or more(or less, what would hitting back to a green be?) because of the trees in the corner.  Otherwise there is elevation change(depending on location it can really make a course frankly).

 

The conditions are a different story.  That is a matter of maintenance budgets, and courses that host these tournaments tend to either have bigger budgets, or they pony up to get it in shape for the event.  

 

You're either in a spot with bad courses or you don't want to pay to play the better ones, by the sounds of it.

[tatertot]

Find better courses to play?

 

Get better ... Join a Tour?

[smashdn]

No complaints with my club.  It is not immaculate by any stretch but the conditions are very good.  There are trees that are in play but they don't crowd the fairways.

 

In some locales (maybe the UK?) cutting a tree down is a big deal and requires permitting or at minimum members just grow attached to certain trees and they become political issues to remove.  Removing trees quickly and in a manner that does not damage turf or create ruts is also tricky so you need someone who knows what they are doing and understand they have to protect the turf.

Edited September 13 by smashdn

[shankasaurus rex]

Play better courses??? At least some of the Tour courses are available for the common man to play if he has the funds, right? While I don't have the complaints with "everyman" courses you do, if I did I could just go join my local TPC Southwind here in Memphis.

 

Maintenance is a different issue, but, again, play different courses????

[sheepdawg]

I see you've been to my course. Built in 1939 we have holes where certain parts of the fairway is jail. Greens on cliffs. Old trees that you have to hit around. I love it. I might add that sometimes the fairways need cutting but the greens are always immaculate. They treat seniors right too. 

 

It's all I need.🙂

[jvincent]

19 hours ago, Denny100 said:

WHY do our courses have to be crap? you pay a lot of money to play golf and the majority of our courses, and im talking private member courses, are just badly designed over subscribed doss holes built on pieces of land too small for a golf course, hence the crazy hole designs and terrain changes.

 

Does it HAVE to be this way? is it just a UK thing?

 

Making a huge generalization based on some of the UK based YouTube channels I watch, there seem to be a lot more "quirky" holes / courses there than in North America.

 

My sense is that a lot of that is driven by the fact that many of the courses are quite a bit older so back in the day short holes and courses weren't such a big deal. Availability of prime terrain when the courses were built is probably a factor as well.

[smashdn]

On 9/13/2023 at 11:13 AM, jvincent said:

 

Making a huge generalization based on some of the UK based YouTube channels I watch, there seem to be a lot more "quirky" holes / courses there than in North America.

 

My sense is that a lot of that is driven by the fact that many of the courses are quite a bit older so back in the day short holes and courses weren't such a big deal. Availability of prime terrain when the courses were built is probably a factor as well.

 

May also add in that the quirk is more accepted in the UK due to more match play and team play than what you get in the US?

 

You can stomach a few bad breaks when your opponent is also receiving their share and it evens out in a match.  In stroke play you can only take so much damage to scorecard before you have had enough.

[sabram]

OP, I don't know where you play, but there are plenty of good, well conditioned,  public access courses that are not overly crowded with trees, don't have too much elevation change or crazy doglegs 

 

I have no problem with a few blind shots or interesting elevation changes. Those are characteristics of many of the greatest courses in the world 

[mshills]

OP, serious question: what exactly do you want from a golf course?

 

Most courses that host Tour events really aren’t that great or interesting. There are notable exceptions (Quail Hollow, Pebble, Muirfield Village, Bay Hill, and a few others) but the majority are more about logistics, hospitality / sponsorship space, gallery capacity, and all the other things that go into holding an event. 

 

It is analogous to a business convention, which isn’t ever going to be held at a great hotel.  

[Denny100]

3 hours ago, mshills said:

OP, serious question: what exactly do you want from a golf course?

 

Most courses that host Tour events really aren’t that great or interesting. There are notable exceptions (Quail Hollow, Pebble, Muirfield Village, Bay Hill, and a few others) but the majority are more about logistics, hospitality / sponsorship space, gallery capacity, and all the other things that go into holding an event. 

 

It is analogous to a business convention, which isn’t ever going to be held at a great hotel.  

 

What I want from a golf course:

 

1) Course to have the space to have a varied set of tees. So it can be played from 6,000, 6,300 etc etc all the way up to 7,000 yards. It makes no sense off my handicap to be forced to play "back tees" at 6,200 yards that have a low course rating, does nothing to help the handicap.

 

2) Courses where it isnt a continuous monotonous set of hybrids or 2 irons off the tee because the ball chases forever down the fairway and the ball just runs out into junk due to lack of space.

 

3) Trees to not encroach the fairways. Most courses we have to play are needlessly tree lined and needlessly narrow. It leads to people looking for balls all day, a poor experience playing, and can lead to problems like fusarium on the greens too

 

4) Courses can feature gentle doglegs no problem, but not stupid 90 degree ones around out of bounds.

 

5) Courses should be as little dependent on BOUNCES as possible. You hit it in the right areas, you are rewarded. If you dont, you arent. You should never aim to miss a target in order to hit it IMO.

 

6) Proper bunkering and water hazards. These should be the defences of the hole, not silly gimmick designs like blind greens.

 

7) A risk reward par 4 on the course somewhere ideally

 

8 ) a good mix of par 3s.... One should be long and challenging like the 4th at Riviera. One should be short but be severely punishing to a bad shot, in the style of the troon postage stamp or 12th at Augusta for example.

 

 

[Denny100]

On 9/13/2023 at 5:13 PM, jvincent said:

 

Making a huge generalization based on some of the UK based YouTube channels I watch, there seem to be a lot more "quirky" holes / courses there than in North America.

 

My sense is that a lot of that is driven by the fact that many of the courses are quite a bit older so back in the day short holes and courses weren't such a big deal. Availability of prime terrain when the courses were built is probably a factor as well.

 

Quite a lot of courses are just natural as the land is laid out and have had minimal design to them. Some holes can play absolutely impossible at times due to this.

[Golferpaul]

I love tree-lined courses.

I love elevation changes.

I love doglegs.

 

I've played all over the world and like all kinds of courses.  The UK does not have the best courses.   

 

But, we all have an opinion.

[Golferpaul]

On 9/12/2023 at 10:37 PM, Denny100 said:

4) Blind shots. Proper blind shots where you can hardly see anything and need to warn people the landing area is clear off the tee after leaving the landing area.

 

5) No STUPID gimmick holes that designers love to throw in on crap courses.

 

 

 

4)  Like St Andrews #17?  And several holes at Prestwick which has a blind par 3?

 

5) Like St Andrews #17?  It's the king of gimmicky holes.

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

It is funny that many nice “tough” courses have driving corridors where it’s impossible to lose a ball but a cheap local public course is so tight that any mis hit is a 2 stroke penalty.

 

Yet from similar yardages the former will have a higher rating and slope

[Denny100]

6 hours ago, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:

It is funny that many nice “tough” courses have driving corridors where it’s impossible to lose a ball but a cheap local public course is so tight that any mis hit is a 2 stroke penalty.

 

Yet from similar yardages the former will have a higher rating and slope

 

Absolutely and to me it makes so little sense how course ratings are worked out.

 

There are some courses where the course rating is absurdly low like 2 under the par of the course where all day youre hitting to tree lined funnels and greens a third of the size of those on the "tough" course.

 

On the "tough" course theyre generally more open...a bit longer yes but most people can handle that and the fact theyre longer is cancelled out by a lot of times its easier to hit driver and be further down the hole anyway.

 

Course ratings simply do not work IMO

[Denny100]

16 hours ago, Golferpaul said:

 

4)  Like St Andrews #17?  And several holes at Prestwick which has a blind par 3?

 

5) Like St Andrews #17?  It's the king of gimmicky holes.

 

Im not familiar with the hole youre talking about at Prestwick, but if it was up to me, no I dont think the 17th at St Andrews is a "good" hole, no.

 

Iconic you could certainly argue, but "good".... no.

[knock it close]

On 9/16/2023 at 12:10 PM, Denny100 said:

5) Courses should be as little dependent on BOUNCES as possible. You hit it in the right areas, you are rewarded. If you dont, you arent. You should never aim to miss a target in order to hit it IMO.

What constitutes the "right area" why is the right area by the pin. If you just want to play plug and play golf you should probably just play on a sim. Using contours and seeing the ball travel on the ground towards flags is some of the most fun and interesting golf imo. 

[TrueBlue4Lyfe]

15 hours ago, Denny100 said:

 

Absolutely and to me it makes so little sense how course ratings are worked out.

 

There are some courses where the course rating is absurdly low like 2 under the par of the course where all day youre hitting to tree lined funnels and greens a third of the size of those on the "tough" course.

 

On the "tough" course theyre generally more open...a bit longer yes but most people can handle that and the fact theyre longer is cancelled out by a lot of times its easier to hit driver and be further down the hole anyway.

 

Course ratings simply do not work IMO

Yea for whatever reason they just discount trees, especially when it’s dense forest where the ball is basically unfindable.

 

Water they’ll recognize in the rating but not trees where the penalty can be worse than water.

[Denny100]

4 hours ago, knock it close said:

What constitutes the "right area" why is the right area by the pin. If you just want to play plug and play golf you should probably just play on a sim. Using contours and seeing the ball travel on the ground towards flags is some of the most fun and interesting golf imo. 

 

The right area doesnt have to be right next to the pin. You dont have to fire a every flag.

 

You shouldnt be aiming 30 yards away from a flag for a ball to bounce 30 yards the opposite direction though, in my opinion.

 

The vast majority of tour golf is target golf so theres obviously many people who feel the same way to me, but we all have opinions

[kekoa]

Funny you say this.  My son has been playing tournament golf for about 7 years now.  He is 13 and has played several local CC's in the area that I didn't get access to until my mid 30's.  Around Socal, the junior circuit gets to play some of the worst dog tracks around.  He keeps asking me why and I tell him if he wants to play some of the best courses in the country he better work his a** off and play D1 college golf and beyond.   I also feel guilty exposing him to such nice courses to where he expects certain conditions all the time.  It's just not realistic.   

[me05501]

A lot of the public and low-end private courses I get to play are perfectly fine from tee to green but are often pretty scraggly if you get off the fairway or God forbid beyond the rough. You'll find a lot of bare dirt and exposed roots under the trees, for example. 

 

IMO these areas would be less annoying if they were clearly marked as "ground under repair" but that's pretty rare. 

[mallrat]

On 9/16/2023 at 11:10 AM, Denny100 said:

 

What I want from a golf course:

 

1) Course to have the space to have a varied set of tees. So it can be played from 6,000, 6,300 etc etc all the way up to 7,000 yards. It makes no sense off my handicap to be forced to play "back tees" at 6,200 yards that have a low course rating, does nothing to help the handicap.

 

2) Courses where it isnt a continuous monotonous set of hybrids or 2 irons off the tee because the ball chases forever down the fairway and the ball just runs out into junk due to lack of space.

 

3) Trees to not encroach the fairways. Most courses we have to play are needlessly tree lined and needlessly narrow. It leads to people looking for balls all day, a poor experience playing, and can lead to problems like fusarium on the greens too

 

4) Courses can feature gentle doglegs no problem, but not stupid 90 degree ones around out of bounds.

 

5) Courses should be as little dependent on BOUNCES as possible. You hit it in the right areas, you are rewarded. If you dont, you arent. You should never aim to miss a target in order to hit it IMO.

 

6) Proper bunkering and water hazards. These should be the defences of the hole, not silly gimmick designs like blind greens.

 

7) A risk reward par 4 on the course somewhere ideally

 

8 ) a good mix of par 3s.... One should be long and challenging like the 4th at Riviera. One should be short but be severely punishing to a bad shot, in the style of the troon postage stamp or 12th at Augusta for example.

 

 

 

OK, I’ll bite. First, you would not be a good course designer.

 

1 - Do you have the $ for many courses to buy the land to extend their tee boxes? Since when/why is it a courses job to help your handicap?

 

2 - So you want it perfectly green and lush with minimal roll or options for trouble? No one or no rule says you have to hit the same club of all those tee. 
 

3 - many courses are designed to be tree lined, that is often part of a courses defense. Have you spoken with every golfer, you say it leads to a poor experience, is that for everyone? Also trees do not lead to fusarium but bonus points for knowing a turf grass disease. FWIW, it is not called fusarium anymore for the most part, now it is referred to as microdochium. This disease in plain terms is caused by the moisture in greens, so tree’s can be a contributing factor but they don’t lead to microdochium. 
 

4 - what is wrong with a 90 degree dogleg? Maybe the designer wanted it to play that way. What is wrong with having to hit 2 shots in a row 2 specific distances?

5 - You must HATE links courses. What is  wrong with aiming away from the hole to take advantage of a slope? Playing the ball on the ground to a slope is a blast, once again is this your opinion or everyone’s

 

6 - First not all bunkers or water are designed as defenses? We have a big lake/pond around 9/18 green. This was the most convenient place for us to store water for the irrigation system. Some bunkers are designed to keep the ball from

going out of bounds or into a neighboring hole. Blind greens aren’t a silly gimmick but more likely the result of the architect using what the land gave him/her.

 

7 - agree with BUT when many of these course were designed said par 4 was not a risk reward hole. 
 

8 - why does a par 3 have to be severe? A mix of par 3’s is ideal but what is long, why the need for 200+ yard par 3’s? For the average golfer this just creates a log jam. 
 

Last thing I’ll say is why do you play a course you don’t like?

[golfday]

On 9/16/2023 at 2:10 PM, Denny100 said:

 

What I want from a golf course:

 

1) Course to have the space to have a varied set of tees. So it can be played from 6,000, 6,300 etc etc all the way up to 7,000 yards. It makes no sense off my handicap to be forced to play "back tees" at 6,200 yards that have a low course rating, does nothing to help the handicap.

 

2) Courses where it isnt a continuous monotonous set of hybrids or 2 irons off the tee because the ball chases forever down the fairway and the ball just runs out into junk due to lack of space.

 

3) Trees to not encroach the fairways. Most courses we have to play are needlessly tree lined and needlessly narrow. It leads to people looking for balls all day, a poor experience playing, and can lead to problems like fusarium on the greens too

 

4) Courses can feature gentle doglegs no problem, but not stupid 90 degree ones around out of bounds.

 

5) Courses should be as little dependent on BOUNCES as possible. You hit it in the right areas, you are rewarded. If you dont, you arent. You should never aim to miss a target in order to hit it IMO.

 

6) Proper bunkering and water hazards. These should be the defences of the hole, not silly gimmick designs like blind greens.

 

7) A risk reward par 4 on the course somewhere ideally

 

8 ) a good mix of par 3s.... One should be long and challenging like the 4th at Riviera. One should be short but be severely punishing to a bad shot, in the style of the troon postage stamp or 12th at Augusta for example.

 

 

I think you've either got to move to a place with better golf courses or build your own. 

 

Golf courses don't have to be bad, a lot of places have great courses. Sounds like you just happen to live in a good golf desert. 

[rooski]

On 9/18/2023 at 12:17 AM, Denny100 said:

Course ratings simply do not work IMO

 

Agreed in many ways. Course rating is almost exclusively based on overall yardage and landing area for an "average" drive of around 250y.

 

I am biased in my opinions as somebody with 120mph clubhead speed, but playing tree and O.O.B lined monstrosities teeing off with 6 iron hitting into tabletop postage stamps rated at 71 makes me giggle when down the street is a 76 rated course where it is it a physical impossibility to lose a ball and you're hitting into massive, flat greens, whose rating is only gained because the course is 7200 yards

Edited September 22 by rooski