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

[SurfDuffer]

[quote name='myronm' timestamp='1354560517' post='6012653']
[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
[/quote]

I don't understand what your point is. Please clarify. I'm interested because I play World Woods Pine course once or twice a year. I play the black tees and typically shoot low to mid 80s. I don't find this course to be overly difficult. My index range is from 6 to 8 over the years I've played there and I'm always playing there in the winter when my game is not particularly sharp. Great course. I'm an even bigger fan of nearby Brooksville Country Club. Best value in golf I've ever found. I play this course with the cart for the exact same price of the cart fee at the private course I'm a member of back home. Therein lies the real problem with golf. Its affordability not difficulty.

[Pepperturbo]

I shouldn't have to say this but when people offer up example courses that meet the "fun" to play for Joe hack, and the challenge for the low single index, and write Augusta (a course that does NOT get regular, much less heavy play) confirms my point. Each person has a differing definition of Challenge, variable ego and reason they play golf. Augusta, since it's creation is a tournament venue, and member tee's are an after thought, put there so guests can say they played Augusta. Look at Eastlake Golf Club, white tees 70.8/129. They don't have any tee's in the 6700-6900 range, so I'd have to play either the Gold or 6400 yard Blue tees, also means I'd have to figure a way to adapt. No different then the 18-24 index high cap and women.

Boasting empathy for an imaginary hack or high index golfer is about as goofy as it gets; almost sounds politically correct. Are there points for saying you have empathy? When people take up the game, they must do what the rest of us have done... period. How far they progress is up to them. If, for some reason they are happy at 18-25, like friends of mine, then they do what my friends do; seek out courses and tee's the fit their ability. If I asked any of my friends as to whether or not they want my empathy, they'd laugh their backsides off. If someone is unable to make a decision which tee's fit his/her skill or lack there of, then executive courses are the next best option, till you have some understanding of the options.

The only golfers that deserve my empathy are those men and women with physical limitations, super seniors and women in general. Eight of ten times, the Red and Senior tees, on older courses, are after thoughts, like member tees at Augusta. Sure some holes might have squirrelly aspects, so what, suck it up. Its only on going if someone keeps picking the wrong courses and or tees, and that I have no sympathy for.

[Guia]

One of my playing foursome is a certified USGA marshall and he met with USGA officials this last weekend
and there is a lot of talk about 2 sets of rules, one for amateurs and another for pro. I don't see
that happening, but you never know. A standard of play/rules has been around for many years and I don't see the USGA or Ancient Royal making a change.

Personally, I have played a number of years under the current rules (including changes) and don't see a
problem. I am well into my Senior years and the par fives are now out of my reach in two. I play the
middle tees because the championship tees are just too far back. I still say that most courses have
tees that are fair for everyone. If players are shooting 100+ then there is nothing distance wise that
can help them.

I look at it like a running competition. The better runners go for the 26 miles, those who can't
compete for 26 miles stick to the 10 or 5 K. The competition is against ones self not necessarily
against what par is, you establish.

[hoganfan924]

[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1354575817' post='6013897']
[b]I shouldn't have to say this but when people offer up example courses that meet the "fun" to play for Joe hack, and the challenge for the low single index, and write Augusta (a course that does NOT get regular, much less heavy play) confirms my point. Each person has a differing definition of Challenge, variable ego and reason they play golf. [u]Augusta, since it's creation is a tournament venue, and member tee's are an after thought, put there so guests can say they played Augusta. [/u][/b]Look at Eastlake Golf Club, white tees 70.8/129. They don't have any tee's in the 6700-6900 range, so I'd have to play either the Gold or 6400 yard Blue tees, also means I'd have to figure a way to adapt. No different then the 18-24 index high cap and women.
[/quote]

You're right, you shouldn't say it because it is false. The regular tees have remained virtually unchanged since 1933, as this original scorecard shows. So much for being an "afterthought:"

[url="http://allstarcharts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Augusta-Score-Card-19341.jpg"]http://allstarcharts...-Card-19341.jpg[/url]

Many of the regular tees were obviously on the same tee box as the tournament tees as well since the maximum differential was 35 yards.

Here's MacKenzie's original sketch of the layout from 1931. Note that it lists both regular and championship yardages (the nines were also reversed). Afterthought? I think Bobby Jones just rolled over in his grave. lol

[url="http://www.golfclubatlas.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/1931.jpg"]http://www.golfcluba...011/03/1931.jpg[/url]

Here's the current card as a reminder:

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

note that the course only played 400 yards longer from the tournament tees back then.

The fact remains: ANGC is an easier course from the regular tees than Swartz Creek, Tyrone Hills, and a bunch of other courses you probably consider too easy to be worthy of your play. It had no OB when originally built as the card shows. Not to mention that the rough is about as "rough" as the fairways at SCGC, there isn't a weed to be found on the entire property (I've looked) and the conditions are as perfect as I've ever seen. But hey, maybe they should bring in Pete Dye to put in some moats with Railroad ties, and island green, some 15 feet deep bunkers, a few 250 yard forced carries over artificially created marshland, some inside the course OB, and toughen up those greens so it will be a worthy challenge for you!

I do agree with you on one major point you've made - In spite of being an apparently fine golfer, you aren't qualified to judge the architecture of a golf course. So at least we agree on that.

[Nelson A]

Love the Pic of courde alene resort course! i won a tourny there! Liped out for par on the floating green though . i Agree that if you play the right tees the course can be fun! great thread!!!

[ram01002]

[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1354584678' post='6014635']

I do agree with you on one major point you've made - In spite of being an apparently fine golfer, you aren't qualified to judge the architecture of a golf course. So at least we agree on that.
[/quote]

+100000000000000

[duffer987]

It's quite unfortunate people cannot see past their apparent knee-jerk reaction to the word 'unfair'.
Had the OP said 'bad courses unnecessarily aggravate the average golfer', would you have been able to objectively see the POV a lot of us have?

No one here is whinging about courses that are not easy enough, we're advocating for courses that align with these principles:
- Every hole should be different in character
- The course should be so interesting that even the scratch player is constantly stimulated to improve his game
- The course should be arranged that all levels of players can enjoy the round in spite of piling up a big score

A chap who knows a thing or two about the game thought they were pretty important. Since we're all enthusiasts about this gentlemen's game, I cannot see how any of us would disagree with him

[Scottcon]

[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1354309406' post='6001617']
Except for one guy, further reality showed, the rest of them never practice to speak of and not one had golf as a priority activity in their life. Each said, golf is just fun and social, which is fine. Most said they don't play alone like I was. Each of the guys at most, played golf two days over that week, while I played five and wife played three. Difference, I play 2-3 times per week over the course of a year, plus take 3-5 golf vacations per year, add it up... and that doesn't include my 12 index wife's play. The words of each guy; I might play once a month/twice a month, then go months without play, and a day or two on vacation at most. Leaving the question, "who spends more on golf?", better golfers or casual golfers, or the faster or slowest ship in the convoy?

.
[/quote]

"Who spends more on golf" doesn't really matter, from the course owners perspective, or shouldn't if they want to make money.

Let's say you're in the top 5% (probably more like 1%, but to emphasize the point). Would you rather have 5 guys playing 5 times a week, or 95 guys playing once a week. For a $50 round, its $1250 vs $4750, so who should they be catering to? So if you look at groups and not individuals, average golfers make the huge majority of "who spends more". And the hard courses are not as fun for the average golfer.

Anyway, thats just from a $$ perspective.

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1354584678' post='6014635']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1354575817' post='6013897']
[b]I shouldn't have to say this but when people offer up example courses that meet the "fun" to play for Joe hack, and the challenge for the low single index, and write Augusta (a course that does NOT get regular, much less heavy play) confirms my point. Each person has a differing definition of Challenge, variable ego and reason they play golf. [u]Augusta, since it's creation is a tournament venue, and member tee's are an after thought, put there so guests can say they played Augusta. [/u][/b]Look at Eastlake Golf Club, white tees 70.8/129. They don't have any tee's in the 6700-6900 range, so I'd have to play either the Gold or 6400 yard Blue tees, also means I'd have to figure a way to adapt. No different then the 18-24 index high cap and women.
[/quote]

You're right, you shouldn't say it because it is false. The regular tees have remained virtually unchanged since 1933, as this original scorecard shows. So much for being an "afterthought:"

[url="http://allstarcharts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Augusta-Score-Card-19341.jpg"]http://allstarcharts...-Card-19341.jpg[/url]

Many of the regular tees were obviously on the same tee box as the tournament tees as well since the maximum differential was 35 yards.

Here's MacKenzie's original sketch of the layout from 1931. Note that it lists both regular and championship yardages (the nines were also reversed). Afterthought? I think Bobby Jones just rolled over in his grave. lol

[url="http://www.golfclubatlas.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/1931.jpg"]http://www.golfcluba...011/03/1931.jpg[/url]

Here's the current card as a reminder:

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

note that the course only played 400 yards longer from the tournament tees back then.

The fact remains: ANGC is an easier course from the regular tees than Swartz Creek, Tyrone Hills, and a bunch of other courses you probably consider too easy to be worthy of your play. It had no OB when originally built as the card shows. Not to mention that the rough is about as "rough" as the fairways at SCGC, there isn't a weed to be found on the entire property (I've looked) and the conditions are as perfect as I've ever seen. But hey, maybe they should bring in Pete Dye to put in some moats with Railroad ties, and island green, some 15 feet deep bunkers, a few 250 yard forced carries over artificially created marshland, some inside the course OB, and toughen up those greens so it will be a worthy challenge for you!

I do agree with you on one major point you've made - In spite of being an apparently fine golfer, you aren't qualified to judge the architecture of a golf course. So at least we agree on that.
[/quote]

And neither are you... but you're not wise enough to know your "interpretation" on the matter does not really matter.

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='Scottcon' timestamp='1354631071' post='6016427']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1354309406' post='6001617']
Except for one guy, further reality showed, the rest of them never practice to speak of and not one had golf as a priority activity in their life. Each said, golf is just fun and social, which is fine. Most said they don't play alone like I was. Each of the guys at most, played golf two days over that week, while I played five and wife played three. Difference, I play 2-3 times per week over the course of a year, plus take 3-5 golf vacations per year, add it up... and that doesn't include my 12 index wife's play. The words of each guy; I might play once a month/twice a month, then go months without play, and a day or two on vacation at most. Leaving the question, "who spends more on golf?", better golfers or casual golfers, or the faster or slowest ship in the convoy?

.
[/quote]

"Who spends more on golf" doesn't really matter, from the course owners perspective, or shouldn't if they want to make money.

Let's say you're in the top 5% (probably more like 1%, but to emphasize the point). Would you rather have 5 guys playing 5 times a week, or 95 guys playing once a week. For a $50 round, its $1250 vs $4750, so who should they be catering to? So if you look at groups and not individuals, average golfers make the huge majority of "who spends more". And the hard courses are not as fun for the average golfer.

Anyway, thats just from a $$ perspective.
[/quote]

It doesn't matter what I would think is fiscally prudent, or what you and others think is logical or fiscally sound. It only matters to the person putting up the money, and his business plan. I have actually had the opportunity to meet two big course developers, and regularly played golf with one for sometime. His last course was built with a luxury hotel in a SE state, and later sold to another benevolent dictator. Both wanted a tournament venue worthy of attracting golf vacationers, but the best golfers and tournaments. Yes, tees were put in place that accommodate all levels of play... but again, their business plan was to attract better golfers, and general golfers for a try it once/twice a year frequency.

I am lucky to know one big RE developer that happens to own a popular golf course. The course is setup to attract tournaments, including tour qualifying events (big money) and better golfers. He likes knowing its a tough course, and knows the average golfer is going to get beat up, that includes my wife. He likes the courses tough reputation, and accepts it attracts average golfers once to twice a year for a good beat up. They typically set in the bar, talk about what happened to each other, then say something like; it's a great track, but I'll only play it intermittently. What isn't talked about here is that type of golfer does NOT play multiple times per week, every week and take golf vacations. But, multiply those golfers, add the frequency of better golfers like myself, and my who play 2-4 times per week, and the owner is happy. That's why PGA West exists.

PS: guys that frequent this board are a-typical to the average golfer, that at best plays once, maybe twice a month, and maybe takes some months off, and is lucky to golf one or two days on vacation.

[hoganfan924]

Something is terribly wrong when the games greatest champion starts running 12 hole tournaments with an 8" diameter hole:

http://espn.go.com/golf/story/_/id/6917877/jack-nicklaus-hosting-events-attrract-more-golfers-game

Some of us obviously have not been brainwashed by modern architects like Dye and Nicklaus that the game is "better" when it's a torture test. Obviously Nicklaus himself is having second thoughts. We think designs like ANGC, those of Ross, Tillinghast, MacKenzie and other classics are much better (and better for the game). I've yet to play a Ross course that I thought was unplayable for women, juniors or beginners. Seems countless of the modern monstrosities have been for sale in recent years for pennies on the dollar. That speaks for itself, IMO.

[mwmgolfx]

[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1354571417' post='6013529']
[quote name='myronm' timestamp='1354560517' post='6012653']
[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
[/quote]

I don't understand what your point is. Please clarify. I'm interested because I play World Woods Pine course once or twice a year. I play the black tees and typically shoot low to mid 80s. I don't find this course to be overly difficult. My index range is from 6 to 8 over the years I've played there and I'm always playing there in the winter when my game is not particularly sharp. Great course. I'm an even bigger fan of nearby Brooksville Country Club. Best value in golf I've ever found. I play this course with the cart for the exact same price of the cart fee at the private course I'm a member of back home. Therein lies the real problem with golf. Its affordability not difficulty.
[/quote]

The top tees are actually the yellow tees, not the black. And my point (and you somewhat prove it by shooting in the low-mid 80s) is that it is a reasonable challenge from the tips and yet is fun and challenging/reasonable for the casual player from the whites/greens or whereever he wants to play. It may not be particularly difficult yet when the round is over and you add up your score, most people find that they don't tear up the course and shoot sub par. Certainly some do, of course, but it does make you concentrate to score well (low to mid 70s at the minimum is what I call scoring well there).

For tournaments, Pine Barrens can be setup to 7350 and that's a challenge for most anyone but by picking the correct tees (important but most people don't), it can be fun from all the forward tees as well.

My cost is a little different from yours. I pay $40 in the winter (with cart) and $25 in the summer. How can you beat this for price? It's actually cheaper for me to play world woods than Brooksville country club so it's got to be the best bargain around.

[SurfDuffer]

When I play World Woods in the winter I'm usually paying $70 to $100. Don't know how you are getting so cheap. Let me in on that one. At Brooksville I usually play after noon when the rate drops to $25. Love that course. Back home in NJ I pay $26 just for a cart fee. Really want to get on Southern Hills the next time I go down.

[Sean2]

[quote name='duffer987' timestamp='1354597032' post='6015561']
It's quite unfortunate people cannot see past their apparent knee-jerk reaction to the word 'unfair'.
Had the OP said 'bad courses unnecessarily aggravate the average golfer', would you have been able to objectively see the POV a lot of us have?

No one here is whinging about courses that are not easy enough, we're advocating for courses that align with these principles:
- Every hole should be different in character
- The course should be so interesting that even the scratch player is constantly stimulated to improve his game
- The course should be arranged that all levels of players can enjoy the round in spite of piling up a big score

A chap who knows a thing or two about the game thought they were pretty important. Since we're all enthusiasts about this gentlemen's game, I cannot see how any of us would disagree with him
[/quote]
Quite right.

[Sean2]

[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1354642767' post='6017251']
Something is terribly wrong when the games greatest champion starts running 12 hole tournaments with an 8" diameter hole:

[url="http://espn.go.com/golf/story/_/id/6917877/jack-nicklaus-hosting-events-attrract-more-golfers-game"]http://espn.go.com/g...re-golfers-game[/url]

Some of us obviously have not been brainwashed by modern architects like Dye and Nicklaus that the game is "better" when it's a torture test. Obviously Nicklaus himself is having second thoughts. We think designs like ANGC, those of Ross, Tillinghast, MacKenzie and other classics are much better (and better for the game). I've yet to play a Ross course that I thought was unplayable for women, juniors or beginners. Seems countless of the modern monstrosities have been for sale in recent years for pennies on the dollar. That speaks for itself, IMO.
[/quote]
I play a lot of Ross courses living the the Northeast as I do and always find them very enjoyable. I got a laugh out of your early post about bringing in Pete Dye to put in RR ties, moats, etc. This is probably sacrilege on this forum, but I find Pete Dye a bit of joke. He's all about gimmicks and obstacles, not golf.

[Petethreeput]

Yes.
Lots of chatter here about who's good and not, and the goals of golf course architects. I think most architects say they want the course to be fair to every player, providing they are playing from the correct tees.
A lot of the newer courses I have played do not accomodate the mis-hit, maybe the carry is too great for the tee chosen, the predominant miss is too penal. I have watched my father playing from the senior tees that require carries over scrub/ water/ chasms, whatever with his driver...
Not right IMO

[Sean2]

[quote name='Rogedwards' timestamp='1354761449' post='6025247']
I absolutely don't think courses have become too difficult for the average golfer. I completely agree with a previous statement that if the average golfer's index is 15 or 16 (of people who keep an index) and that's stayed constant over the years, then I'd say the courses have adjusted appropriately to technology. Remember not all tests have to be readjusted like the SATs for us to score better and make us feel better about ourselves. I hope golf never comes to course designers making things easier on me so my ego doesn't get hurt. It's on me to switch tee boxes so my play matches the course. It's not like we don't have enough tee boxes to choose from these days.

For any one that thinks my use of average isn't accurate because I'm discussing people who keep an index and an average golfer doesn't typically keep an index. Modify my above statement for the truly average golfer to either select the appropriate tee box (as stated above), or just stay away from above average courses like tour courses. Those courses weren't designed for them.
[/quote]
However, even if you play the correct tee box it can be difficult. I played a course last year from the correct tee box for me (middle), however, one par three was 240 and another was 220. The only other tee box choice was the forward tees.

[Petethreeput]

[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1354762115' post='6025301']
[quote name='Rogedwards' timestamp='1354761449' post='6025247']
I absolutely don't think courses have become too difficult for the average golfer. I completely agree with a previous statement that if the average golfer's index is 15 or 16 (of people who keep an index) and that's stayed constant over the years, then I'd say the courses have adjusted appropriately to technology. Remember not all tests have to be readjusted like the SATs for us to score better and make us feel better about ourselves. I hope golf never comes to course designers making things easier on me so my ego doesn't get hurt. It's on me to switch tee boxes so my play matches the course. It's not like we don't have enough tee boxes to choose from these days.

For any one that thinks my use of average isn't accurate because I'm discussing people who keep an index and an average golfer doesn't typically keep an index. Modify my above statement for the truly average golfer to either select the appropriate tee box (as stated above), or just stay away from above average courses like tour courses. Those courses weren't designed for them.
[/quote]
However, even if you play the correct tee box it can be difficult. I played a course last year from the correct tee box for me (middle), however, one par three was 240 and another was 220. The only other tee box choice was the forward tees.
[/quote]
I guess this is what I am saying, but not as well. My father carries a handicap of 18 at his home course. He hits the ball well, but not long. So, there are times when I watch him get frustrated when the senior tees have a 160 yd carry, and he cannot fly the ball 160 anymore. But before the round, it is noted these are the "correct" tees for his handicap. No system is perfect, but at 80 the guy should be having fun, not getting pissed that 3 years ago, "That would have been easy." Older courses, I feel, are less likely to have forced carries, and this can be unfair.

[Sean2]

[quote name='Petethreeput' timestamp='1354764517' post='6025541']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1354762115' post='6025301']
[quote name='Rogedwards' timestamp='1354761449' post='6025247']
I absolutely don't think courses have become too difficult for the average golfer. I completely agree with a previous statement that if the average golfer's index is 15 or 16 (of people who keep an index) and that's stayed constant over the years, then I'd say the courses have adjusted appropriately to technology. Remember not all tests have to be readjusted like the SATs for us to score better and make us feel better about ourselves. I hope golf never comes to course designers making things easier on me so my ego doesn't get hurt. It's on me to switch tee boxes so my play matches the course. It's not like we don't have enough tee boxes to choose from these days.

For any one that thinks my use of average isn't accurate because I'm discussing people who keep an index and an average golfer doesn't typically keep an index. Modify my above statement for the truly average golfer to either select the appropriate tee box (as stated above), or just stay away from above average courses like tour courses. Those courses weren't designed for them.
[/quote]
However, even if you play the correct tee box it can be difficult. I played a course last year from the correct tee box for me (middle), however, one par three was 240 and another was 220. The only other tee box choice was the forward tees.
[/quote]
I guess this is what I am saying, but not as well. My father carries a handicap of 18 at his home course. He hits the ball well, but not long. So, there are times when I watch him get frustrated when the senior tees have a 160 yd carry, and he cannot fly the ball 160 anymore. But before the round, it is noted these are the "correct" tees for his handicap. No system is perfect, but at 80 the guy should be having fun, not getting pissed that 3 years ago, "That would have been easy." Older courses, I feel, are less likely to have forced carries, and this can be unfair.
[/quote]
Older courses, for the most part...and as was mentioned earlier...allow you to play the ball on the ground. I feel for your dad. His only other choice with that kind of course is the forward tees, which there shouldn't be an stigma attached too!

[SurfDuffer]

[quote name='Petethreeput' timestamp='1354764517' post='6025541']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1354762115' post='6025301']
[quote name='Rogedwards' timestamp='1354761449' post='6025247']
I absolutely don't think courses have become too difficult for the average golfer. I completely agree with a previous statement that if the average golfer's index is 15 or 16 (of people who keep an index) and that's stayed constant over the years, then I'd say the courses have adjusted appropriately to technology. Remember not all tests have to be readjusted like the SATs for us to score better and make us feel better about ourselves. I hope golf never comes to course designers making things easier on me so my ego doesn't get hurt. It's on me to switch tee boxes so my play matches the course. It's not like we don't have enough tee boxes to choose from these days.

For any one that thinks my use of average isn't accurate because I'm discussing people who keep an index and an average golfer doesn't typically keep an index. Modify my above statement for the truly average golfer to either select the appropriate tee box (as stated above), or just stay away from above average courses like tour courses. Those courses weren't designed for them.
[/quote]
However, even if you play the correct tee box it can be difficult. I played a course last year from the correct tee box for me (middle), however, one par three was 240 and another was 220. The only other tee box choice was the forward tees.
[/quote]
I guess this is what I am saying, but not as well. My father carries a handicap of 18 at his home course. He hits the ball well, but not long. So, there are times when I watch him get frustrated when the senior tees have a 160 yd carry, and he cannot fly the ball 160 anymore. But before the round, it is noted these are the "correct" tees for his handicap. No system is perfect, but at 80 the guy should be having fun, not getting pissed that 3 years ago, "That would have been easy." Older courses, I feel, are less likely to have forced carries, and this can be unfair.
[/quote]

Am I reading this right??? Are you suggesting that courses be build for people in their 80s??? No disrespect to your pops but come on. Pops should be glad to be playing at all at 80 and I hope to someday be in his shoes.

[KDMullins]

[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1354800598' post='6026651']
[quote name='Petethreeput' timestamp='1354764517' post='6025541']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1354762115' post='6025301']
[quote name='Rogedwards' timestamp='1354761449' post='6025247']
I absolutely don't think courses have become too difficult for the average golfer. I completely agree with a previous statement that if the average golfer's index is 15 or 16 (of people who keep an index) and that's stayed constant over the years, then I'd say the courses have adjusted appropriately to technology. Remember not all tests have to be readjusted like the SATs for us to score better and make us feel better about ourselves. I hope golf never comes to course designers making things easier on me so my ego doesn't get hurt. It's on me to switch tee boxes so my play matches the course. It's not like we don't have enough tee boxes to choose from these days.

For any one that thinks my use of average isn't accurate because I'm discussing people who keep an index and an average golfer doesn't typically keep an index. Modify my above statement for the truly average golfer to either select the appropriate tee box (as stated above), or just stay away from above average courses like tour courses. Those courses weren't designed for them.
[/quote]
However, even if you play the correct tee box it can be difficult. I played a course last year from the correct tee box for me (middle), however, one par three was 240 and another was 220. The only other tee box choice was the forward tees.
[/quote]
I guess this is what I am saying, but not as well. My father carries a handicap of 18 at his home course. He hits the ball well, but not long. So, there are times when I watch him get frustrated when the senior tees have a 160 yd carry, and he cannot fly the ball 160 anymore. But before the round, it is noted these are the "correct" tees for his handicap. No system is perfect, but at 80 the guy should be having fun, not getting pissed that 3 years ago, "That would have been easy." Older courses, I feel, are less likely to have forced carries, and this can be unfair.
[/quote]

Am I reading this right??? Are you suggesting that courses be build for people in their 80s??? No disrespect to your pops but come on. Pops should be glad to be playing at all at 80 and I hope to someday be in his shoes.
[/quote]

I think he's suggesting that a course should be built so an 80 year old can play without losing a ball on every other hole. Do you find that shocking? If so, it speaks to the problem.

[KDMullins]

[quote name='Rogedwards' timestamp='1354806061' post='6027005']
I'd like to commend 80 y.o.'s for getting outside, being active, and playing something I assume they love. With that being said I thing we all need to understand our limitations and vote by playing other courses, or pushing the envelope of our abilities. If we fail, take the stroke and make up for it on another hole. If these courses are truly becoming too difficult they won't get enough play and future courses won't be constructed in such a difficult manner. That's the beauty of businesses, they model themselves to meet demand. If they don't, they go out of business.
[/quote]

Hard to argue with that.

[Pepperturbo]

My FIL is in his late 70's... can't carry the ball very far and is a typical example of why... Even with perfect contact, he gets 160-170yds, but for that, he expects 30yds of roll. More then once, I've heard him say, some courses are just too difficult, even silly designs. That's all because he can't handle any forced carry and his EGO. I just listen, and think he wasn't expecting that when he could hit the ball farther and had game.

His solution is to choose courses and tees (slope 118ish) that have NO forced carry, and have conditions that give him the roll he needs, then often says to me, I expect sub-par from you. He thinks easier course, lower score "for him". What he fails to see, due to his ego, is what I consistently encountered from his course choices are rather boring visuals from each tee, nothing to challenge me and mostly flat greens. Sure I've had a few sub 72 rds, but they were rather boring, surely nothing to speak of by my standards; just slightly longer "executive" tracks.

I suppose the greater point is design perfection doesn't exist. Even though architects and developers hope to create courses that accommodate all levels, some people will still complain because "all" courses do not accommodate their limitations. I see that with my wife too. Courses that she likes are not my favorite, yet I still play them because... She does the same with my choices. We can't like them all.

But, when all is said and done, new course designs need to favor better golfers... Thank God, architects and developers do not think like many DB people and or people with failing skills, yet pronounced egos and expectations.

Yesterday, I was playing a difficult course, that has never fit my eye, my swing was in the toilet and ball striking was there too. I dislike excessive number of holes that require fading the ball, and poorly kept Kikuyu rough. Did I wish it was designed differently, sure... but, wishing away difficulty because my swing wasn't in attendance, is just plain unrealistic, not to mention, selfish. Given the topography at the base of foothills, there wasn't much else they could do, short of plowing down state protected foothills to eliminate forced carry; and for what, my inability to measure up. There is always another day, and courses that fit my eye. What I can't justify is architects and developers creating courses for when my game is not present or I get so old, I play like my FIL.

[SurfDuffer]

I think the 80 year old or any other player facing a forced carry they know they can't fly should just start the hole from the other side of the hazzard. Its not rocket science and its not the PGA Tour. That's what I did with my son when he was little and it worked just fine. I didn't start a thread on the internet claiming the modern courses are too difficult or want courses built to accomodate my 8 year old.

I just think the whole concept of complaining that courses are too difficult to accomodate today's "Modern" squishy golfers who lack skill and don't want to put in the effort it takes to get good at something is absolutely ridiculous. Golf is difficult ...... get used to it. People are just lazy and can't deal with it when they can't have instant gratification.

Serious question lets see if we can get an honest answer: [u]Are modern courses more or less difficult for modern golfers playing with today's equipment than courses of 50 years ago were for the golfers of the day playing the equipment of the day?[/u] I would submit that today's "average" golfers would curl up in a ball and cry for mommie if they had to play the equipment of 50 years ago on a course from 50 years ago.

I've got my father in law's Wilson set from the 60s complete with tiny blade irons and persimmon driver and woods if anyone doubts me.

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1354812637' post='6027471']
I think the 80 year old or any other player facing a forced carry they know they can't fly should just start the hole from the other side of the hazzard. Its not rocket science and its not the PGA Tour. That's what I did with my son when he was little and it worked just fine. I didn't start a thread on the internet claiming the modern courses are too difficult or want courses built to accomodate my 8 year old.

I just think the whole concept of complaining that courses are too difficult to accomodate today's "Modern" squishy golfers who lack skill and don't want to put in the effort it takes to get good at something is absolutely ridiculous. Golf is difficult ...... get used to it. People are just lazy and can't deal with it when they can't have instant gratification.

Serious question lets see if we can get an honest answer: [u]Are modern courses more or less difficult for modern golfers playing with today's equipment than courses of 50 years ago were for the golfers of the day playing the equipment of the day?[/u] I would submit that today's "average" golfers would curl up in a ball and cry for mommie if they had to play the equipment of 50 years ago on a course from 50 years ago.

I've got my father in law's Wilson set from the 60s complete with tiny blade irons and persimmon driver and woods if anyone doubts me.
[/quote]

+1

I have played modern courses with old fashion blades and persimmon woods. People would still complain, even if the course was easy and no forced carry.

[Imp]

As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beer holder... or is it beholder?

There is no one right way to design a course. When you get beyond the "one size fits all" mentality and understand there are going to be some/many that disagree, and you can finally accept that, you'll be better off for it. For easier or harder, whatever. Play it. Don't like it? Don't go back.

It's really that simple. Vote with your wallet.

--KC

[KDMullins]

[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1354812637' post='6027471']
I think the 80 year old or any other player facing a forced carry they know they can't fly should just start the hole from the other side of the hazzard. Its not rocket science and its not the PGA Tour. That's what I did with my son when he was little and it worked just fine. I didn't start a thread on the internet claiming the modern courses are too difficult or want courses built to accomodate my 8 year old.

I just think the whole concept of complaining that courses are too difficult to accomodate today's "Modern" squishy golfers who lack skill and don't want to put in the effort it takes to get good at something is absolutely ridiculous. Golf is difficult ...... get used to it. People are just lazy and can't deal with it when they can't have instant gratification.

Serious question lets see if we can get an honest answer: [u]Are modern courses more or less difficult for modern golfers playing with today's equipment than courses of 50 years ago were for the golfers of the day playing the equipment of the day?[/u] I would submit that today's "average" golfers would curl up in a ball and cry for mommie if they had to play the equipment of 50 years ago on a course from 50 years ago.

I've got my father in law's Wilson set from the 60s complete with tiny blade irons and persimmon driver and woods if anyone doubts me.
[/quote]

I disagree. I don't think there's any question that for MOST golfers, NEW courses are significantly harder today even with today's equipment.

I think what gets lost is the fact that you can have BOTH. I don't see it as a score issue as much as an enjoyment of the game issue (although those two things can be inter-related). Golf courses can be very difficult and playable for people that, frankly, can't play. Are they going to shoot a good score? Probably not...but they're not going to lose a dozen balls and injure themselves trying to hit out of weeds either. Good architects can use hazards in a way that they are effective against the good golfer, but not totally destructive to the bad. It does take more work and imagination to do that, however...it's not that difficult to have two or three 250 yard par 3s, four 200 yard forced carries, and generally overgrown wasteland all over the course.

[Petethreeput]

[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1354812509' post='6027457']
My FIL is in his late 70's... can't carry the ball very far and is a typical example of why... Even with perfect contact, he gets 160-170yds, but for that, he expects 30yds of roll. More then once, I've heard him say, some courses are just too difficult, even silly designs. That's all because he can't handle any forced carry and his EGO. I just listen, and think he wasn't expecting that when he could hit the ball farther and had game.

His solution is to choose courses and tees (slope 118ish) that have NO forced carry, and have conditions that give him the roll he needs, then often says to me, I expect sub-par from you. He thinks easier course, lower score "for him". What he fails to see, due to his ego, is what I consistently encountered from his course choices are rather boring visuals from each tee, nothing to challenge me and mostly flat greens. Sure I've had a few sub 72 rds, but they were rather boring, surely nothing to speak of by my standards; just slightly longer "executive" tracks.

I suppose the greater point is design perfection doesn't exist. Even though architects and developers hope to create courses that accommodate all levels, some people will still complain because "all" courses do not accommodate their limitations. I see that with my wife too. Courses that she likes are not my favorite, yet I still play them because... She does the same with my choices. We can't like them all.

But, when all is said and done, new course designs need to favor better golfers... Thank God, architects and developers do not think like many DB people and or people with failing skills, yet pronounced egos and expectations.

Yesterday, I was playing a difficult course, that has never fit my eye, my swing was in the toilet and ball striking was there too. I dislike excessive number of holes that require fading the ball, and poorly kept Kikuyu rough. Did I wish it was designed differently, sure... but, wishing away difficulty because my swing wasn't in attendance, is just plain unrealistic, not to mention, selfish. Given the topography at the base of foothills, there wasn't much else they could do, short of plowing down state protected foothills to eliminate forced carry; and for what, my inability to measure up. There is always another day, and courses that fit my eye. What I can't justify is architects and developers creating courses for when my game is not present or I get so old, I play like my FIL.
[/quote]
Note that I also said there is no perfect rating system.
I guess my only point is that unless I play a course BEFORE him so I can condescend to him and say, "There may be a carry you won't like on X" then he is going to play the tees that are designated to him. But if we are on a golf trip this is not feasible. Some of the newer courses, taking into consideration the increased carry distance of ball and driver, assume a person my age is an 18 hcp who can still hit the ball a good distance.
I don't think it is ego as you presume. Rather, a golfer, and a good golfer wanting to play the course as it is designed. We don't hit a sleeve of a balls into the hazard, we hit one and move on, because it is an opportunity to hit the great shot (just as a 270yd carry is for me).
I have played a lot of great courses, some old, some new that don't fit my eye... that is not the point. Difficulty is not the point either. It is simply the forced carries that pop up every now and again. I am not proposing to make a course easier, in my example, if I am 80 and playing bogey golf, I don't need easier, I am probably a pretty good at golf.

[KDMullins]

As an addendum to my last post an by way of example, Riviera CC is landlocked, has almost no forced carries, and doesn't have any water on the entire course, and yet, it's one of the stiffest challenges there is anywhere.

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='KDMullins' timestamp='1354813879' post='6027597']
[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1354812637' post='6027471']
I think the 80 year old or any other player facing a forced carry they know they can't fly should just start the hole from the other side of the hazzard. Its not rocket science and its not the PGA Tour. That's what I did with my son when he was little and it worked just fine. I didn't start a thread on the internet claiming the modern courses are too difficult or want courses built to accomodate my 8 year old.

I just think the whole concept of complaining that courses are too difficult to accomodate today's "Modern" squishy golfers who lack skill and don't want to put in the effort it takes to get good at something is absolutely ridiculous. Golf is difficult ...... get used to it. People are just lazy and can't deal with it when they can't have instant gratification.

Serious question lets see if we can get an honest answer: [u]Are modern courses more or less difficult for modern golfers playing with today's equipment than courses of 50 years ago were for the golfers of the day playing the equipment of the day?[/u] I would submit that today's "average" golfers would curl up in a ball and cry for mommie if they had to play the equipment of 50 years ago on a course from 50 years ago.

I've got my father in law's Wilson set from the 60s complete with tiny blade irons and persimmon driver and woods if anyone doubts me.
[/quote]

I disagree. I don't think there's any question that for MOST golfers, NEW courses are significantly harder today even with today's equipment.

I think what gets lost is the fact that you can have BOTH. I don't see it as a score issue as much as an enjoyment of the game issue (although those two things can be inter-related). Golf courses can be very difficult and playable for people that, frankly, can't play. Are they going to shoot a good score? Probably not...but they're not going to lose a dozen balls and injure themselves trying to hit out of weeds either. Good architects can use hazards in a way that they are effective against the good golfer, but not totally destructive to the bad. It does take more work and imagination to do that, however...it's not that difficult to have two or three 250 yard par 3s, four 200 yard forced carries, and generally overgrown wasteland all over the course.
[/quote]

I've never seen your example for White tees or less. I've played 250yd Par 3's, 660yd Par 5's, 460yd Par 4's, and forced carry of 220yds, but all were from the back tees. Places people should not be if they don't have the ability. Yesterday faced a 215yd Par 3 where 195yds of it was forced carry and a Par 5 that had 210yds off the tee, but the White tees were 150+yds and 100yds carry on 18. That course has senior tees up with the red tees where there is no forced carry to speak of.