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

[Sean2]

[quote name='jdhallissey' timestamp='1354336201' post='6003395']
I am not saying everything is not a test. I get tested plenty of times. I am saying is the average golfer (I play with a lot of them) i have found enjoy getting beat up a little to a lot. If you took a honest poll of golfers they have ego's and 99 percent of golfers have a bigger ego then any other sport. They want to conquer the beast. For example, TPC STADIUM Course at PGA WEST. There are guys who suck yes beyond the average golfer who come out there every year or twice a year on a golf vaca and want to see what they have. They get destroyed, yet at the end of the round they are still smiling and loving what they just did.

I honestly think the bigger issue is a price point for golf. A crappy golf course boring old still course over the summer where I am currently living is 70 bucks to walk on the weekend. The course is always in decent shape. In no shape way or form is it worth that much. Golf is not cheap and that is why people are leaving the game. Golf has gone up here in the past few years too......
[/quote]
I think anyone who had the opportunity would like to play those two courses. Granted, some people leave the game for economic reasons, but others leave because it's simply too frustrating for them. Yes, golf is hard, but making courses "unplayable" (and please take the term in the spirit for which it is given), certainly shouldn't make this great sport that much difficult.

Not all courses are expensive. Residents in Joliet, IL pay $26 to play Inwood on weekends. In Johnson City, TN you can play Pine Oaks for $11 during the week whether you are a resident or not.

[SurfDuffer]

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.

[Pepperturbo]

[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.

[teejaywhy]

I continue to be dismayed by the members of this site that focus so much attention to the minute details of every aspect of golf club design, yet can be so lacking in discrimination when it comes to the golf course itself.

What I'm reading here is that many believe that if you are not a skilled golfer, golf should [b][i]not[/i][/b] be fun to play but rather a miserable slog and that, along with the price of admission and the cost of a half dozen balls, one should actually celebrate this four and a half hour journey of despair.

I've said it before, I don't like the term "unfair." But I do believe there is a lot of modern golf design that does make it harder for the average golfer. Most have pointed out quite correctly that golf is not an easy game. It takes time and energy to achieve the skill to just be hit the ball to one's target in a marginally consistent manner. But when the golf course design hands out a continual stream of unavoidable hazards and of lost ball penalties, golf becomes a lot more frustrating and less fun to play and I do believe this contributes to the slowed growth of the game.

I think it is a rather simplified view to just look at course design as either "hard" or "easy," I prefer to view it from a "good" or "bad" perspective. Courses are being criticized not because they are "too difficult" but because they are not good designs. A good golf course design should be challenging to score against, but offer strategy and options. Lesser designs force a single method of play and met out punishment for failure. A good golf course can challenge the better player and still be playable and fun for the less skilled player. It is not simply a matter of moving up to a shorter tee box. A shorter course doesn't make the out-of-bounds lining both sides of a residential course go away. It doesn't take the pond in front of the green out of play. Just because a course is difficult, does not make it good. It takes no special skill or insight to design a difficult golf course.

The problem with too many modern courses is the extremely penal nature of their one-dimensional designs. Narrow playing corridors lined with out of bounds, an overabundance of water hazards, bunkers that simply punish wayward shots rather than invoke strategy, designs that dictate every shot without options, many requiring an exclusively aerial approach and a "do or die" consequence. One of the greatest joys of the game is the "brilliant recovery shot." Take away every hope for a chance at redemption and golf simply becomes a torment. These types of golf courses suck all the joy from the game.

I don't know where the celebration of punishing designs in golf became so revered. Perhaps with the growth in popularity of the PGA Tour in the 60's and the desire to make things tougher on these top players (a fraction of a percent of all golfers) along with the whole RT Jones "Open Doctor" thing... The golf boom of the 90's became a race for which new golf course could boast the highest slope rating. Somehow, we all became brainwashed into thinking this was good. The mentality that a bad shot is not punishment enough, but should be rewarded with a lost ball and a double bogey or worse. I think this whole attitude is very much on display in many of the responses in this thread. And I do believe that it is indeed a detriment to the growth of the game.

As soon as the attitude changes and recreational golfers realize and understand that golf should be fun, and that poorly designed golf courses are to be avoided, the free market can take over and all these celebrated slogs can be supported by the 5% of all golfers with the skills to enjoy them. Vote with your wallets folks.

[SurfDuffer]

I find the old courses more difficult to score on. Is it just me??? Old courses usually have tiny greens that are ridiculously fast. All of the modern courses around here have enormous greens with very obvious breaks. Every course protects par differently but in the end it generally evens out. Modern courses also offer more opportunities for birdies. If the premise of this thread were correct I'd score far worse on modern courses than I do on the courses around here that were built between 1900 and 1930. In reality I score better on modern courses by a stroke or two.

[hoganfan924]

^ 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.

[Snufles]

[quote name='teejaywhy' timestamp='1354375928' post='6004347']
I continue to be dismayed by the members of this site that focus so much attention to the minute details of every aspect of golf club design, yet can be so lacking in discrimination when it comes to the golf course itself.

What I'm reading here is that many believe that if you are not a skilled golfer, golf should [b][i]not[/i][/b] be fun to play but rather a miserable slog and that, along with the price of admission and the cost of a half dozen balls, one should actually celebrate this four and a half hour journey of despair.

I've said it before, I don't like the term "unfair." But I do believe there is a lot of modern golf design that does make it harder for the average golfer. Most have pointed out quite correctly that golf is not an easy game. It takes time and energy to achieve the skill to just be hit the ball to one's target in a marginally consistent manner. But when the golf course design hands out a continual stream of unavoidable hazards and of lost ball penalties, golf becomes a lot more frustrating and less fun to play and I do believe this contributes to the slowed growth of the game.

I think it is a rather simplified view to just look at course design as either "hard" or "easy," I prefer to view it from a "good" or "bad" perspective. Courses are being criticized not because they are "too difficult" but because they are not good designs. A good golf course design should be challenging to score against, but offer strategy and options. Lesser designs force a single method of play and met out punishment for failure. A good golf course can challenge the better player and still be playable and fun for the less skilled player. It is not simply a matter of moving up to a shorter tee box. A shorter course doesn't make the out-of-bounds lining both sides of a residential course go away. It doesn't take the pond in front of the green out of play. Just because a course is difficult, does not make it good. It takes no special skill or insight to design a difficult golf course.

The problem with too many modern courses is the extremely penal nature of their one-dimensional designs. Narrow playing corridors lined with out of bounds, an overabundance of water hazards, bunkers that simply punish wayward shots rather than invoke strategy, designs that dictate every shot without options, many requiring an exclusively aerial approach and a "do or die" consequence. [size=5]One of the greatest joys of the game is the "brilliant recovery shot." Take away every hope for a chance at redemption and golf simply becomes a torment. These types of golf courses suck all the joy from the game.[/size]

I don't know where the celebration of punishing designs in golf became so revered. Perhaps with the growth in popularity of the PGA Tour in the 60's and the desire to make things tougher on these top players (a fraction of a percent of all golfers) along with the whole RT Jones "Open Doctor" thing... The golf boom of the 90's became a race for which new golf course could boast the highest slope rating. Somehow, we all became brainwashed into thinking this was good. The mentality that a bad shot is not punishment enough, but should be rewarded with a lost ball and a double bogey or worse. I think this whole attitude is very much on display in many of the responses in this thread. And I do believe that it is indeed a detriment to the growth of the game.

As soon as the attitude changes and recreational golfers realize and understand that golf should be fun, and that poorly designed golf courses are to be avoided, the free market can take over and all these celebrated slogs can be supported by the 5% of all golfers with the skills to enjoy them. Vote with your wallets folks.
[/quote]

Best post on this topic.

Everyone should be allowed a [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOROLxwKI_0"]Bubba[/url] moment.

[teejaywhy]

Phil Mickelson appeared on the Golf Channel Morning Drive program Friday to promote the Birdies for the Brave event. The conversation turned to the anchored putter issue. Paraphrasing, what Phil said - there are bigger issues in golf that need resolving and one of the big things in his view was the problem of modern golf architecture being so hard it is "killing the sport and making people not want to play."

[MtlJeff]

[quote name='Snufles' timestamp='1354378963' post='6004493']
[quote name='teejaywhy' timestamp='1354375928' post='6004347']
I continue to be dismayed by the members of this site that focus so much attention to the minute details of every aspect of golf club design, yet can be so lacking in discrimination when it comes to the golf course itself.

What I'm reading here is that many believe that if you are not a skilled golfer, golf should [b][i]not[/i][/b] be fun to play but rather a miserable slog and that, along with the price of admission and the cost of a half dozen balls, one should actually celebrate this four and a half hour journey of despair.

I've said it before, I don't like the term "unfair." But I do believe there is a lot of modern golf design that does make it harder for the average golfer. Most have pointed out quite correctly that golf is not an easy game. It takes time and energy to achieve the skill to just be hit the ball to one's target in a marginally consistent manner. But when the golf course design hands out a continual stream of unavoidable hazards and of lost ball penalties, golf becomes a lot more frustrating and less fun to play and I do believe this contributes to the slowed growth of the game.

I think it is a rather simplified view to just look at course design as either "hard" or "easy," I prefer to view it from a "good" or "bad" perspective. Courses are being criticized not because they are "too difficult" but because they are not good designs. A good golf course design should be challenging to score against, but offer strategy and options. Lesser designs force a single method of play and met out punishment for failure. A good golf course can challenge the better player and still be playable and fun for the less skilled player. It is not simply a matter of moving up to a shorter tee box. A shorter course doesn't make the out-of-bounds lining both sides of a residential course go away. It doesn't take the pond in front of the green out of play. Just because a course is difficult, does not make it good. It takes no special skill or insight to design a difficult golf course.

The problem with too many modern courses is the extremely penal nature of their one-dimensional designs. Narrow playing corridors lined with out of bounds, an overabundance of water hazards, bunkers that simply punish wayward shots rather than invoke strategy, designs that dictate every shot without options, many requiring an exclusively aerial approach and a "do or die" consequence. [size=5]One of the greatest joys of the game is the "brilliant recovery shot." Take away every hope for a chance at redemption and golf simply becomes a torment. These types of golf courses suck all the joy from the game.[/size]

I don't know where the celebration of punishing designs in golf became so revered. Perhaps with the growth in popularity of the PGA Tour in the 60's and the desire to make things tougher on these top players (a fraction of a percent of all golfers) along with the whole RT Jones "Open Doctor" thing... The golf boom of the 90's became a race for which new golf course could boast the highest slope rating. Somehow, we all became brainwashed into thinking this was good. The mentality that a bad shot is not punishment enough, but should be rewarded with a lost ball and a double bogey or worse. I think this whole attitude is very much on display in many of the responses in this thread. And I do believe that it is indeed a detriment to the growth of the game.

As soon as the attitude changes and recreational golfers realize and understand that golf should be fun, and that poorly designed golf courses are to be avoided, the free market can take over and all these celebrated slogs can be supported by the 5% of all golfers with the skills to enjoy them. Vote with your wallets folks.
[/quote]

Best post on this topic.
[/quote]

agreed, don't think it could possibly be put better

[duffer987]

[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1354366626' post='6003939']

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 you objectively read the original post and subsequent posts from people who also question some of the motives and layouts, you would know no one here thinks that.
This issues arise with some 'modern' golf courses. This paragraph from teejaywhy sums up the issue superbly:

"The problem with too many modern courses is the extremely penal nature of their one-dimensional designs. Narrow playing corridors lined with out of bounds, an overabundance of water hazards, bunkers that simply punish wayward shots rather than invoke strategy, designs that dictate every shot without options, many requiring an exclusively aerial approach and a "do or die" consequence. One of the greatest joys of the game is the "brilliant recovery shot." Take away every hope for a chance at redemption and golf simply becomes a torment. These types of golf courses suck all the joy from the game."

No one would say the Old Course is one dimensional

[Sean2]

[quote name='Johnny Biarritz' timestamp='1354318178' post='6002229']
Here is the thing that people are missing. Quality courses, the best ones, are the ones where the designer found a way to be playable and enjoyable for the 'beater' and challenging for the quality player. But with few exceptions, the best courses are those that are playable for average and poor players and still challenging for the better players. Oakmont and Pine Valley certainly come to mind as courses that aren't friendly to poor players, but what about the rest? Augusta National, Pebble Beach, Old Macdonald, Pacific Dunes, National Golf Links of America and the rest all find ways to be friendly and entertaining for hacks and yet sufficiently difficult for better players.

Take Old Macdonald and Bandon Trails. The US Amateur Public Links Championship was there last year. In stroke play, the guys played one round on each course. Only one player was under par and 11 over made the cut for match play. Some of the best Am's in the world there. Yet that course remains playable for hacks every day, especially when they play the proper tee. That is the mark of a quality course. A lot of local courses miss the boat on that. They are difficult for a good player and nearly unplayable for a poor one; Tobacco Road comes readily to mind.

However, the whole thing of courses overall being too difficult and running people away from the game is only partially true. Yes, some quite due to courses being too difficult. More quite due to children's activities, cost of a round, lack of time in general, and who knows what else. Yes, courses are generally too difficult and overly penal for poor players, but they always have been. But that is not the primary cause of people leaving the game.

[b]Talking about courses again, courses in general SHOULD be both difficult for better players and playable for poor ones. That is not a terribly difficult balance to reach.[/b]
[/quote]
11 over to make the cut for the best amateurs in the world is quite high. Maybe the course set-up for the tournament was too challenging? I don't know. But that is bit over the top.

As has been said, many designers like to make their courses "rough and tough" thinking, perhaps, that it will make it more attractive to the best players. However, it's the average golfer that bring in the income. As to your point about striking a balance? I don't see why that isn't a consideration.

[Sean2]

[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.

[Sean2]

[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? :-)

[Sean2]

[quote name='teejaywhy' timestamp='1354375928' post='6004347']
I continue to be dismayed by the members of this site that focus so much attention to the minute details of every aspect of golf club design, yet can be so lacking in discrimination when it comes to the golf course itself.

What I'm reading here is that many believe that if you are not a skilled golfer, golf should [b][i]not[/i][/b] be fun to play but rather a miserable slog and that, along with the price of admission and the cost of a half dozen balls, one should actually celebrate this four and a half hour journey of despair.

I've said it before, I don't like the term "unfair." But I do believe there is a lot of modern golf design that does make it harder for the average golfer. Most have pointed out quite correctly that golf is not an easy game. It takes time and energy to achieve the skill to just be hit the ball to one's target in a marginally consistent manner. But when the golf course design hands out a continual stream of unavoidable hazards and of lost ball penalties, golf becomes a lot more frustrating and less fun to play and I do believe this contributes to the slowed growth of the game.

I think it is a rather simplified view to just look at course design as either "hard" or "easy," I prefer to view it from a "good" or "bad" perspective. Courses are being criticized not because they are "too difficult" but because they are not good designs. A good golf course design should be challenging to score against, but offer strategy and options. Lesser designs force a single method of play and met out punishment for failure. A good golf course can challenge the better player and still be playable and fun for the less skilled player. It is not simply a matter of moving up to a shorter tee box. A shorter course doesn't make the out-of-bounds lining both sides of a residential course go away. It doesn't take the pond in front of the green out of play. Just because a course is difficult, does not make it good. It takes no special skill or insight to design a difficult golf course.

The problem with too many modern courses is the extremely penal nature of their one-dimensional designs. Narrow playing corridors lined with out of bounds, an overabundance of water hazards, bunkers that simply punish wayward shots rather than invoke strategy, designs that dictate every shot without options, many requiring an exclusively aerial approach and a "do or die" consequence. One of the greatest joys of the game is the "brilliant recovery shot." Take away every hope for a chance at redemption and golf simply becomes a torment. These types of golf courses suck all the joy from the game.

I don't know where the celebration of punishing designs in golf became so revered. Perhaps with the growth in popularity of the PGA Tour in the 60's and the desire to make things tougher on these top players (a fraction of a percent of all golfers) along with the whole RT Jones "Open Doctor" thing... The golf boom of the 90's became a race for which new golf course could boast the highest slope rating. Somehow, we all became brainwashed into thinking this was good. The mentality that a bad shot is not punishment enough, but should be rewarded with a lost ball and a double bogey or worse. I think this whole attitude is very much on display in many of the responses in this thread. And I do believe that it is indeed a detriment to the growth of the game.

As soon as the attitude changes and recreational golfers realize and understand that golf should be fun, and that poorly designed golf courses are to be avoided, the free market can take over and all these celebrated slogs can be supported by the 5% of all golfers with the skills to enjoy them. Vote with your wallets folks.
[/quote]
TeeJay, I wasn't crazy about the word "unfair", but there it is. As I alluded to in a previous post, a round of golf shouldn't be a punishing affair, filled with trials, tribulations, and finally relief upon sinking the final putt on the 18th hole. If I had a nickel for every person I've seen storm off the 18th hole in disgust.... It's too bad, really. Golf is a wonderful game. I'd like to see people walk off the 18th green sad, not out of frustration, but because the round is over. :-)

As you stated, moving up a tee box doesn't make a "bad" course necessarily any easier. The same hazards don't magically disappear. It takes real thought to design a course that is playable for everyone.

Great post, well said TeeJay. :-)

[Sean2]

[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. [b]According to the USGA the slope rating of a course of "standard difficulty" is 113[/b], yet I've not seen a course built anywhere near that rating around hear since probably the 1970's.
[/quote]
Right Hogan. I see some of the ladies tees and am baffled. Really? But as was said earlier, even if one plays the appropriate tees the course still remains a real challenge.

As to your point on slope, I've never played a modern design with a slope less than something in the 120s. Never. I've read the standard difficulty is 113. But I haven't seen it. That's a huge difference.

[Sean2]

[quote name='teejaywhy' timestamp='1354379678' post='6004523']
Phil Mickelson appeared on the Golf Channel Morning Drive program Friday to promote the Birdies for the Brave event. The conversation turned to the anchored putter issue. Paraphrasing, what Phil said - there are bigger issues in golf that need resolving and one of the big things in his view was the problem of modern golf architecture being so hard it is "killing the sport and making people not want to play."
[/quote]
Thanks Phil! lol

And you too TeeJay. :-)

[SurfDuffer]

[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. ...

[SurfDuffer]

By the way......if any "Modern" golfers think "Modern" courses are too difficult I have a challenge for you. Gather up a full set of clubs dated 1950 or older. Now go find the oldest course within an hour's drive of your home. Play that course from whatever tees you choose.....the further up the better. Come back and report on your results and be sure to whine about how difficult "Modern" golfers have it on today's courses.

[2.0 Boys]

Hey Sean great article, but I don't think its the difficulty of the course that are driving people away I think it is all mighty dollar. No one wants to invest in a $15.00 per bucket of balls (4 days a week) or $100.00 for a lesson to learn how to hit the ball straight. Most balls lost on course are from being hit left or right, very really do you loose a ball hitting it straight. (or $185.00 a month to practice at a fine place like Harmons).

Your Friend Fred

[teejaywhy]

[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1354408257' post='6005743']
By the way......if any "Modern" golfers think "Modern" courses are too difficult I have a challenge for you. Gather up a full set of clubs dated 1950 or older. Now go find the oldest course within an hour's drive of your home. Play that course from whatever tees you choose.....the further up the better. Come back and report on your results and be sure to whine about how difficult "Modern" golfers have it on today's courses.
[/quote]

Sounds like it would be a fine bit of fun golf. As long as the course has retained most of its classic features and not been changed much by misguided efforts to update it to "modern" standards.

The big difference is the classic golf courses were designed for, get this... [i]playing golf[/i]. Meanwhile, so many modern courses are designed with features that make for pretty pictures, crafted to present an aesthetically visual wow that sells home sites or hotel rooms. The actual quality of golf is secondary despite the marketeers and magazines selling us on how great they are.

Again, the distinction is: better golf, not easier/harder golf.

[Sean2]

[quote name='2.0 Boys' timestamp='1354408527' post='6005749']
Hey Sean great article, but I don't think its the difficulty of the course that are driving people away I think it is all mighty dollar. No one wants to invest in a $15.00 per bucket of balls (4 days a week) or $100.00 for a lesson to learn how to hit the ball straight. Most balls lost on course are from being hit left or right, very really do you loose a ball hitting it straight. (or $185.00 a month to practice at a fine place like Harmons).

Your Friend Fred
[/quote]
Thanks Fred, I appreciate it. :-)

No doubt economics is a contributing factor. But, at Harmon I get unlimited balls, a grass range, a pitching range, bunker complex, short course, two large putting greens, unlimited greens fees, and a gym membership, so for all that I think it's a pretty good deal. :-)

[Sean2]

[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]

If your name calling makes you feel more like a man, carry on.

[hoganfan924]

[quote name='teejaywhy' timestamp='1354414349' post='6006057']
[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1354408257' post='6005743']
By the way......if any "Modern" golfers think "Modern" courses are too difficult I have a challenge for you. Gather up a full set of clubs dated 1950 or older. Now go find the oldest course within an hour's drive of your home. Play that course from whatever tees you choose.....the further up the better. Come back and report on your results and be sure to whine about how difficult "Modern" golfers have it on today's courses.
[/quote]

Sounds like it would be a fine bit of fun golf. As long as the course has retained most of its classic features and not been changed much by misguided efforts to update it to "modern" standards.

The big difference is the classic golf courses were designed for, get this... [i]playing golf[/i]. Meanwhile, so many modern courses are designed with features that make for pretty pictures,[b] crafted to present an aesthetically visual wow that sells home sites or hotel rooms. The actual quality of golf is secondary despite the marketeers and magazines selling us on how great they are.[/b]

Again, the distinction is: better golf, not easier/harder golf.
[/quote]

^ This again (you should have written this article!) hehe

Per my long conversation this afternoon on this very subject with a friend who is one of the best pros in my state (multiple state open champion). He said golf today is run by real estate developers, food & beverage people and equipment manufacturers, not by people who love the game. The M.O. of the development of modern golf according to my friend (with a little embellishment on my part):

Build a "championship course" with a 140+ slope rating that is un-walkable (regardless of whether it will ever host anything more than a local am event) so that you can sell expensive real estate bordering the course. Try to cram as many people onto it as you can by mandating golf carts (which also increases cart sales). Stuff and much food and drink you can down their gullets. Hopelessly try to get them around in 4- 4.5 hours so that you can maximize the # of rounds and food/drink sales. Make sure the course is tough enough so that they lose a 1/2 dozen balls so they'll buy more in the pro shop. Tell them this latest driver will finally get them to make it across that forced carry on 1/3rd of the holes and so they'll have a shot to break 100.

Funny thing is, good players (as someone posted earlier) don't necessarily shoot any lower scores on older layouts (like Donal Ross courses). [u][b]But anybody can play and enjoy a Donald Ross course.[/b][/u] Because it can be played along the ground, which is how a lot of beginners, women and juniors play the game.

It's ironic how a guy like Nicklaus who is a major contributor to these problems of "modern course design" now talks about stuff like 6 and 12 hole rounds and using cayman balls and making 1/2 sized courses, maybe making the hole bigger and stuff like that because he's now recognized the very problem that this thread is about, which he greatly contributed to. But first on the list of blame as far as architects must be Pete Dye.

[Sean2]

^^^^It is Pete Dye, who as I originally mentioned, is quoted as saying: golf is not meant to be fair (and his golf courses reflect this).

Thanks for posting your friend's take on the MO of modern course design. If he's right, that explains a lot.

[Snufles]

[quote name='hoganfan924' timestamp='1354426554' post='6006747']
[quote name='teejaywhy' timestamp='1354414349' post='6006057']
[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1354408257' post='6005743']
By the way......if any "Modern" golfers think "Modern" courses are too difficult I have a challenge for you. Gather up a full set of clubs dated 1950 or older. Now go find the oldest course within an hour's drive of your home. Play that course from whatever tees you choose.....the further up the better. Come back and report on your results and be sure to whine about how difficult "Modern" golfers have it on today's courses.
[/quote]

Sounds like it would be a fine bit of fun golf. As long as the course has retained most of its classic features and not been changed much by misguided efforts to update it to "modern" standards.

The big difference is the classic golf courses were designed for, get this... [i]playing golf[/i]. Meanwhile, so many modern courses are designed with features that make for pretty pictures,[b] crafted to present an aesthetically visual wow that sells home sites or hotel rooms. The actual quality of golf is secondary despite the marketeers and magazines selling us on how great they are.[/b]

Again, the distinction is: better golf, not easier/harder golf.
[/quote]

^ This again (you should have written this article!) hehe

Per my long conversation this afternoon on this very subject with a friend who is one of the best pros in my state (multiple state open champion). He said golf today is run by real estate developers, food & beverage people and equipment manufacturers, not by people who love the game. The M.O. of the development of modern golf according to my friend (with a little embellishment on my part):

Build a "championship course" with a 140+ slope rating that is un-walkable (regardless of whether it will ever host anything more than a local am event) so that you can sell expensive real estate bordering the course. Try to cram as many people onto it as you can by mandating golf carts (which also increases cart sales). Stuff and much food and drink you can down their gullets. Hopelessly try to get them around in 4- 4.5 hours so that you can maximize the # of rounds and food/drink sales. Make sure the course is tough enough so that they lose a 1/2 dozen balls so they'll buy more in the pro shop. Tell them this latest driver will finally get them to make it across that forced carry on 1/3rd of the holes and so they'll have a shot to break 100.

Funny thing is, good players (as someone posted earlier) don't necessarily shoot any lower scores on older layouts (like Donal Ross courses). [u][b]But anybody can play and enjoy a Donald Ross course.[/b][/u] Because it can be played along the ground, which is how a lot of beginners, women and juniors play the game.

[size=5]It's ironic how a guy like Nicklaus who is a major contributor to these problems of "modern course design" now talks about stuff like 6 and 12 hole rounds and using cayman balls and making 1/2 sized courses, maybe making the hole bigger and stuff like that because he's now recognized the very problem that this thread is about, which he greatly contributed to. [/size] But first on the list of blame as far as architects must be Pete Dye.
[/quote]

Strange, I was just thinking that about an hour ago while sitting out back drinking my coffee. The creator of the Bear trap trying to make the holes bigger and shortening the holes for beginners.

Before people start bringing up the economy as a reason for the decline of golf, the game was already stumbling 3-4 years before the collapse.

[duffer987]

hoganfan: maybe Ike should have been warning us about the Golfing Industrial Complex instead
Joking aside you are spot on, how many modern courses are just a golf course these days? Housing estates, retreats, conference facilities, wedding venues... they need to be framed by waterfalls and manicured/manufactured contrasting colours. Bring in the bulldozers!

[Snufles]

[quote name='duffer987' timestamp='1354428588' post='6006857']
hoganfan: maybe Ike should have been warning us about the Golfing Industrial Complex instead
Joking aside you are spot on, how many modern courses are just a golf course these days? Housing estates, retreats, conference facilities, wedding venues... they need to be framed by waterfalls and manicured/manufactured contrasting colours. [u][i]Bring in the Trump[/i][/u]!!
[/quote]

Fixed it for you.

[hoganfan924]

[quote name='duffer987' timestamp='1354428588' post='6006857']
hoganfan: maybe Ike should have been warning us about the Golfing Industrial Complex instead
Joking aside you are spot on, how many modern courses are just a golf course these days? Housing estates, retreats, conference facilities, wedding venues... they need to be framed by waterfalls and manicured/manufactured contrasting colours. Bring in the bulldozers!
[/quote]

Boy was Ike ever right, and quite the avid golfer too. He probably wouldn't be able to play a Dye course either. Lol

[duffer987]

No, not with that knee protecting swing.
That said, even if Eisenhower questioned some of these courses, I am sure he'd be called a whinger by those unable to believe their opinions may indeed not be facts.

[Pepperturbo]

[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.