636 replies to this topic

[kellygreen]

profsmitty, on 06 January 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

So here you have the average golfer. He steps up to first tee, excited to be out on the course, away from the office, away from any of those cares that may be consuming him otherwise. Eighteen holes later, as he puts his clubs in the car, he wonders why he even bothered. Every hole was surrounded by bunkers. What was that creek doing running across the middle of the fairway? Who the heck would put hazard right behind No. 8 green, or right in front No. 12 green? What’s up with that dogleg? There was only one place to put the ball and no where to miss?

“Golf isn’t supposed to be fair."
Build a course and they will come? I don’t know. Maybe. But at the very least make it fair for the average golfer. Do you really need all those hazards? Really? Does that green really require a long, towering iron shot or hybrid? Why not a thinned one? Do you really think the PGA Tour is going to come to your course for four days?

For those you who like a challenge there are plenty of golf courses out there to test you (there is another course in my area that is 8325 yards from the back tees). But, golf should be more fun for the average golfer too. He should walk off No. 18 with a grin on his face, a few golf balls left in his bag, a bit of swagger in his step and maybe a circle or two on his scorecard.

To paraphrase Pink Floyd, Hey Designer, leave those golfers alone!

Nice post.

1. Unless you are designing a course to be played by tour pros or other elite players, holes that allow for only ONE kind of shot and offer no bailout or other options is the mark of a poorly designed hole.

2. Golf isn't fair....but golf courses should be reasonable.   Which is why so many players HATE Pete Dye courses.  Unfortunately, Dye seems to think that his course designs are the star-of-the-show...and not the golfer's playing them.

[kellygreen]

dlygrisse, on 06 January 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

ProfSmity I am sure you have played Sims Park in Wichita, the course I learned to play on.  Short, no forced carries, a great course beginners, shorter hitters and people who don't think golf should be the Bataan death march.  When I started shooting in the 80's (and thought I was getting good) I played a more difficult course and shot over 100...I was discouraged but realized I wasn't as good as I thought.  Back to practice, back to the easier course.  Once I improved my game I learned to play the more difficult courses, after playing them I went back to the easier course and shot my first sub par round.  My point is, and I think the point of this thread....WE NEED VARIETY....If I would have started playing on the difficult courses I may have moved on to another sport, if I would not have found better challenges I may have moved on to another sport,

I currently live in Overland Park Kansas, there are two relatively easy muni's close to my house, these courses are generally easy to play, inexpensive, offer leagues, junior programs and I HATE PLAYING THEM....WHY?  because they are packed full of people!  Point is these are the busiest courses in the area because the appeal to the largest number of golfers, the more expensive more difficult courses tend to struggle more financially because they lack golfers.  There are numerous other more modern courses in the area that are somewhere in between really difficult and easier, the main thing is to play the appropriate tee on these courses.  From my experience these are the type of courses that I see popping up around the country, some of them are "unfair" some not as much.

The main thing I appreciate in a course is that if it has major trouble that it gives you the option to play it safe.  IMO a good hole should be a difficult par or birdie but an easy bogey if you play it smart.

A good example of a course I hate, that I have played it Porto Cima in the Lake of the Ozarks, MO.  A Nicklaus course that demands long straight drives, and long forced carries to the greens.  The front nine is just brutally hard IMO, the back nine not quite as bad, the risk-reward on this course is not going for birdie but going for the fairway and going for the green. The course is beautiful and well groomed, and a great course to play on occasion, but I honestly have more fun playing most other courses.

Exactly.

1. All that the people who have been arguing for inclusiveness have been saying is to give golfers a VARIETY of places to play.  Not that every course should be "watered down" to suit the needs of the average player.

2. Agreed on Nicklaus---even though my own home course is a scaled-down Nicklaus design.  Jack was a great player...and that seems to be the problem with many of his designs.   They are designed to be played by someone with Jack's game.   A high-ball hitter who can stop the ball quickly...and has an advantage if he plays it left-to-right.    Some Nicklaus courses put so much trouble on-and-around the greens that you can hit a drive to the middle of the fairway....then hit your approach to the middle of the green....

...and still be looking at only about a 50% chance of making par.

[kellygreen]

Fourmyle of Ceres, on 06 January 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

So are difficult courses going out of business faster than easier courses? Does the decline in number of rounds played follow any sort of pattern in which the decline is greater as difficulty of the course increases?

Otherwise, this thread is just a laundry list of what GolfWRX posters do or don't like about certain courses. Along with a healthy dose of GolfWRX posters airing their grievances about what other (lesser) golfers ought to be doing if they knew what was good for them.

In other words, it's yet another version of a Blades Thread...

In some places in the country....yes, they are.   People vote with their feet and with their dollars.

Disagree, this thread is about differing VALUES.  Some people value in inclusiveness, and making sure that a wide array of players have access to playing opportunities suited to their skill level.

Others, do not.   Some value inclusiveness.  Others do not.

[profsmitty]

I understand the frustration many people feel at their inability to find success in golf when success is only measured objectively. Mastering the physical "sport" of golf is almost impossible to even approach and impossible to achieve. The vast history of the sport is full of those who approached mastery for a very short period of time only to lose it. It is absolutely understandable that this inability to even sniff objectivist measures of success drives a huge number of people away.

In the last few days, I have become very grateful that I have found another way to love this sport. I am officially coming to the end of any hope of finding a measure of objective success on the golf course. I am losing my physical ability, to the extent that I ever had any. My connective tissues and my nervous system are in the process of leaving the building. Any hope of a 300 yard drive, a single-digit handicap, or even walking Bandon Dunes with a Mackenzie bag on my shoulder are over. But golf is not over for me because golf is more than a physical "sport".

I have found a way to continue loving golf. This "way" is available to anyone regardless of their physical abilities (or in my case, lack there of). Sim Park, Colbert Hills, or any other course are equally "fair" for subjectivists like me. Golf courses are simply places where we practice this other paradigm of golf. Obviously, some courses are more conducive to finding the prize those of us who are "subjectivists" look for. (Actually Sim Park isn't a bad place for my kind of golf, Dlygrisse, but Terradyne is better!) But give me a patch of green and brown, daylight, and an open soul. If I fail to find what I am looking for, it will be my inability to relax my mind, control my fear, and tame my innate impatience with myself and others that will be to blame. It won't be the course.

[kellygreen]

profsmitty, on 06 January 2013 - 11:23 AM, said:

I understand the frustration many people feel at their inability to find success in golf when success is only measured objectively. Mastering the physical "sport" of golf is almost impossible to even approach and impossible to achieve. The vast history of the sport is full of those who approached mastery for a very short period of time only to lose it. It is absolutely understandable that this inability to even sniff objectivist measures of success drives a huge number of people away.

In the last few days, I have become very grateful that I have found another way to love this sport. I am officially coming to the end of any hope of finding a measure of objective success on the golf course. I am losing my physical ability, to the extent that I ever had any. My connective tissues and my nervous system are in the process of leaving the building. Any hope of a 300 yard drive, a single-digit handicap, or even walking Bandon Dunes with a Mackenzie bag on my shoulder are over. But golf is not over for me because golf is more than a physical "sport".

I have found a way to continue loving golf. This "way" is available to anyone regardless of their physical abilities (or in my case, lack there of). Sim Park, Colbert Hills, or any other course are equally "fair" for subjectivists like me. Golf courses are simply places where we practice this other paradigm of golf. Obviously, some courses are more conducive to finding the prize those of us who are "subjectivists" look for. (Actually Sim Park isn't a bad place for my kind of golf, Dlygrisse, but Terradyne is better!) But give me a patch of green and brown, daylight, and an open soul. If I fail to find what I am looking for, it will be my inability to relax my mind, control my fear, and tame my innate impatience with myself and others that will be to blame. It won't be the course.

Well said.

[Imp]

profsmitty, on 06 January 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

For the past two decades, there has been little movement of in the scoring averages, driving distances and handicaps of the average golfer. The average score still hovers around 100, the average drive is still in the 200-yard range and for those who keep handicaps 16 remains the average.

However, in those 20 years golf equipment has evolved exponentially. Advancements include the cavity back iron, vast improvements in the casting process, higher moment of inertia, aerodynamics, lighter/better graphite shafts, center of gravity, better materials such as titanium and tungsten, 460cc heads, hybrids, the evolution of the golf ball and even the lowly golf tee.

So what gives? If lessons aren’t helping the average golfer, technology isn’t helping the average golfer and all those gazillion tips he reads in the golf magazines, not to mention all those Golf Channel and You Tube lessons, where is our average golfer faltering?

• Is golf really that hard?
  
• Is the average golfer really that inept?
  
• Are golf instructors really that bad?
  
• Are the OEM’s really just selling the average golfer a bill of goods?

Is it any one thing, or a combination of a lot of things? Here's another theory to add fuel to the fire: maybe today’s courses are simply too hard -- too long with too many hazards.

People love to keep repeating and re-iterating new tech + average golfer = no improvement mantra. I feel that's not the case at all when there's lots of numbers being thrown around about decreasing numbers of people playing golf with the average not moving, but there's no data showing how many low caps left, how many average and how many high caps left.

One constant is that with new people coming into the game, even with the new equipment, they will *not have lower scores due to the new equipment*. I really, really wish people would get off that bandwagon.

I'm not going to look up the numbers, but they're not needed for this example. Say there were...

20 million people 20 years ago playing golf. Average handicap 18.
16 million people last year playing golf. Average handicap 18.
4 million people stopped playing over 20 years, but handicap remained the same.

Still with me?

So, of those 4 million, if 2mil low handicaps left, and 1mil mid left, I would argue that the handicaps ARE lower, because with the fewer low/mid cappers, wouldn't the average hdcp would be HIGHER if new tech didn't help? At that, of those that played 20 years ago, how many improved their games?

I would love to see someone pull those numbers together. Everyone looks at decreasing numbers, but not the quality of those numbers, or the makeup of WHO left. The only constant is that new people don't start out as low/mid cappers.

I feel talking new tech and average golfer has very little to do with course difficulty. Causation != correlation or something like that.


The rest I have no comment on, but really, until someone can put the numbers on the quality of people that left over those years, I'm going to have a stance that new tech has, and does, help, because I believe there's more than meets the eye than just "x number peolle left and average remains the same". Let's see the quality of people that left and their caps. At that, I doubt there's that many low cappers still playing 20-30 year old equipment.

--kC

Edited by Imp, 06 January 2013 - 12:28 PM.

[Cia2a]

mikes919, on 28 November 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

If I played from the white tees more often it might not be so bad. It's hard to say no sometimes when the other three guys in your foursome think they're good enough to play from 7000yds. These courses might not seem so crazy from the forward tees.

When I play by myself I usually aim for 6200 or so, and it's a lot less stressful (even on very tough courses). It's nice to use something shorter than a 5 iron for your second shot every once in a while. It's also easier to avoid hazards when you're not punishing yourself with distance.

  I have played with the so called "blue tee" guys and I still play from the white. I simply say, I know my game and my clubs and proceed to tee off. I think you will find most guys don't mind that. Sometimes the egos come back to earth and 1 or 2 realize the back tees spoil their game and it is not fun.