Played with sub scratch golfer yesterday

[harpo_72]

I quite like what appears to be more USA style, the better(sometimes including longer) hitters play from tees further back to bring hazards into play.

For a guy like you played with, other than scoring well, the course is not asking him enough questions. Ie. can he hit 'the' shot rather than the bunkers arent in play even on a bad shot for that guy, whereas it is asking you the question.

I tend to enjoy the courses that ask me loads of questions, as I dont really care about the scores.

Or personally I would like to see changes with regards to the ball and ensure it flys say 15% less than currently and play the courses nearer to how they were designed for the length/shapes etc of the hole.

The ball is the solution, having played some vintage stuff the driver distance isn’t overly different. The ball is the key, if we change the compression and simply change the spin characteristics ( actually just grab a 20 yr old ball design and reproduce it as a starting point- and see where that ends up and adjust from there) Changing the ball is the easiest and cheapest solution as it’s disposable.
I don’t think you will get more from the clubs - you could go shorter shaft, smaller head and put weight bandings on shafts but my guess is that will yield little for too much expense and cause a differentiation discussion that will never end.
Changing the course could impact the appearance, I think letting the rubbish grow at those distances and defining the landing zone as smaller and narrower is good .. a bunker from 150 in is a toothless dog, quilting is a good tactic as it kicks the ball off into the rubbish… force accuracy into the game and then no one is going to bemoan a good shot as opposed to the smash it approach

 

[Canary_Yellow]

I can understand your frustration but ultimately that's the challenge of golf better players will find the course easier than higher h/c golfers. That's why we get shots the clever part is to use the shots and not let frustration wreck the card.

Of course better players find golf easier, and that's exactly why the hazards should be positioned to make it harder for them rather than for mid handicappers. Golf courses shouldn't be disproportionately harder for lesser players.

As an example, if there's a 400 yard par 4 with a fairway bunker at 215 - 230 yards, a lot of Cat 1 (in old parlance) golfers, not all of course, will not be troubled by that and will hit straight over it and be left with a wedge or short iron in. A mid handicapper will likely have to lay up, leaving a 190 / 200 yard approach.

If the bunker were at 250 - 260 yards, the Cat 1 golfer lays up with a three wood / hybrid / long-iron and has to hit a more challenging approach shot. The mid handicapper isn't troubled by the bunker and has a 150 - 170 yard approach.

Golf shouldn't be easy, but it shouldn't be disproportionately harder for lesser players. The point of fairway bunkers is risk and reward, there's enough risk and reward on any given hole for a mid handicapper because golf is just hard, the risk and reward created by fairway bunkers should be aimed more at the better players.

Just my view on golf course design, others might think differently.

 

[Backache]

If you dont like the bunkers at 230 yards play off the reds .

 

[pendodave]

Of course better players find golf easier, and that's exactly why the hazards should be positioned to make it harder for them rather than for mid handicappers. Golf courses shouldn't be disproportionately harder for lesser players.

As an example, if there's a 400 yard par 4 with a fairway bunker at 215 - 230 yards, a lot of Cat 1 (in old parlance) golfers, not all of course, will not be troubled by that and will hit straight over it and be left with a wedge or short iron in. A mid handicapper will likely have to lay up, leaving a 190 / 200 yard approach.

If the bunker were at 250 - 260 yards, the Cat 1 golfer lays up with a three wood / hybrid / long-iron and has to hit a more challenging approach shot. The mid handicapper isn't troubled by the bunker and has a 150 - 170 yard approach.

Golf shouldn't be easy, but it shouldn't be disproportionately harder for lesser players. The point of fairway bunkers is risk and reward, there's enough risk and reward on any given hole for a mid handicapper because golf is just hard, the risk and reward created by fairway bunkers should be aimed more at the better players.

Just my view on golf course design, others might think differently.

I agree with this sentiment. Hazards which punish rubbish shots by poor golfers seem unnecessary and a bit lazy to me.
Having said that, most courses were designed and built well before the advent of the modern golf ball, so probably fair to cut them some slack.
My own course is definitely much harder for poor golfers. The slope is consequently quite high - my understanding is that this should allow the course handicap to reflect this "feature" of the layout.

 

[Canary_Yellow]

I agree with this sentiment. Hazards which punish rubbish shots by poor golfers seem unnecessary and a bit lazy to me.
Having said that, most courses were designed and built well before the advent of the modern golf ball, so probably fair to cut them some slack.
My own course is definitely much harder for poor golfers. The slope is consequently quite high - my understanding is that this should allow the course handicap to reflect this "feature" of the layout.

I agree with you about the age of the courses and the changes in ball flights / distances. My reply was to Chico who seemed to be viewing it solely as a course management point for higher handicaps, which I don't think it should be, even though of course that's the practical solution given course overhauls are unlikely!

 

[harpo_72]

If you dont like the bunkers at 230 yards play off the reds .

I did and had a 2footer for birdie as I had a gap wedge in to 110 yards … was a piece of cake. No challenge whatsoever.

 

[harpo_72]

Of course better players find golf easier, and that's exactly why the hazards should be positioned to make it harder for them rather than for mid handicappers. Golf courses shouldn't be disproportionately harder for lesser players.

As an example, if there's a 400 yard par 4 with a fairway bunker at 215 - 230 yards, a lot of Cat 1 (in old parlance) golfers, not all of course, will not be troubled by that and will hit straight over it and be left with a wedge or short iron in. A mid handicapper will likely have to lay up, leaving a 190 / 200 yard approach.

If the bunker were at 250 - 260 yards, the Cat 1 golfer lays up with a three wood / hybrid / long-iron and has to hit a more challenging approach shot. The mid handicapper isn't troubled by the bunker and has a 150 - 170 yard approach.

Golf shouldn't be easy, but it shouldn't be disproportionately harder for lesser players. The point of fairway bunkers is risk and reward, there's enough risk and reward on any given hole for a mid handicapper because golf is just hard, the risk and reward created by fairway bunkers should be aimed more at the better players.

Just my view on golf course design, others might think differently.

Completely agree, I don’t think the mid handicapper relishes 150-170 yards in and it still presents a challenge.
When I was low and a bunker was in my range I would drop to a 3 wood/5 wood ( I used driver wherever it was open and 3 wood for placement or shot shaping) . I did not begrudge the bunker being there as it was doing it’s job of making me have a similar distance in as everyone else - thus making it a similar challenge but being a low handicapper I was more likely to hit the green, but I was not getting just wedges for my 2nd shot on all the par 4s far from it.

 

[Backache]

I did and had a 2footer for birdie as I had a gap wedge in to 110 yards … was a piece of cake. No challenge whatsoever.

This suggests rather a high standard of golf particularly if the green was like an inverted saucer.
PGA average proximity from that distance is around 19 feet.
https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.074.html

 

[Voyager EMH]

At my course there are only 5 holes with bunkers that are are not greenside. None of these are fairway bunkers since they are all to the side of the fairways.
Any shot hit down the fairway will be on the fairway unless it rolls or bounces off the fairway.

Charnwood Forest golf course has no bunkers at all - very tricky course however.

 

[harpo_72]

This suggests rather a high standard of golf particularly if the green was like an inverted saucer.
PGA average proximity from that distance is around 19 feet.
https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.074.html

That’s what I hit a gap wedge to, if the flag was 113 or 107 then yes 19 feet would have been a good result.. but also consider the flag wasn’t tucked to one side it was pretty central meaning had I been 19ft wide I would have been chipping back on

 

[Backache]

That’s what I hit a gap wedge to, if the flag was 113 or 107 then yes 19 feet would have been a good result.. but also consider the flag wasn’t tucked to one side it was pretty central meaning had I been 19ft wide I would have been chipping back on

So you managed to put your Tee shot to the precise distance that you can be precise to two feet with your second shot?
Sounds like a very high level of skill to me and it also sounds very challenging, I'm sorry you don't seem to take enjoyment out of what sounds like a lot of skill.
Do they never change the pin positions to vary the challenge on this course, if they have to have a central pin position it sounds like the problem in design is with the green rather than the bunker.

 

[harpo_72]

So you managed to put your Tee shot to the precise distance that you can be precise to two feet with your second shot?
Sounds like a very high level of skill to me and it also sounds very challenging, I'm sorry you don't seem to take enjoyment out of what sounds like a lot of skill.
Do they never change the pin positions to vary the challenge on this course, if they have to have a central pin position it sounds like the problem in design is with the green rather than the bunker.

Nah that was luck of the draw, I knew I would have at maximum 150yards to the centre of the green. But standing on the red tee looking at the slight dog leg and bunkers thinking they are not in play allowed me to hit an optimum line and know that all the rubbish down the left would only catch me if I snap hooked it by 60yards .. the overall length in was just what it was that day. The point being, it’s easy when you just blast over the trouble, you have no doubts it’s just stand up and swing .. so these guys are not challenged.
I know I could go and have a sex change and it would resolve it all .. ?

 

[chico]

Of course better players find golf easier, and that's exactly why the hazards should be positioned to make it harder for them rather than for mid handicappers. Golf courses shouldn't be disproportionately harder for lesser players.

As an example, if there's a 400 yard par 4 with a fairway bunker at 215 - 230 yards, a lot of Cat 1 (in old parlance) golfers, not all of course, will not be troubled by that and will hit straight over it and be left with a wedge or short iron in. A mid handicapper will likely have to lay up, leaving a 190 / 200 yard approach.

If the bunker were at 250 - 260 yards, the Cat 1 golfer lays up with a three wood / hybrid / long-iron and has to hit a more challenging approach shot. The mid handicapper isn't troubled by the bunker and has a 150 - 170 yard approach.

Golf shouldn't be easy, but it shouldn't be disproportionately harder for lesser players. The point of fairway bunkers is risk and reward, there's enough risk and reward on any given hole for a mid handicapper because golf is just hard, the risk and reward created by fairway bunkers should be aimed more at the better players.

Just my view on golf course design, others might think differently.

I agree golf shouldn't be disproportionately harder for players with less ability but different hazards affects different abilities. If the better players are clearing the fairway hazards they're usually going at the greens from further out. So greenside bunkers and water round the green for example comes more into play for them. Someone like myself who would go for a long par 4 in 3 has a better chance of getting it onto the putting surface from close in. I agree there's no easy solution to make hazards completely fair but we've still got to plot our way round whether off scratch or 28.

 

[Deleted member 3432]

I agree golf shouldn't be disproportionately harder for players with less ability but different hazards affects different abilities. If the better players are clearing the fairway hazards they're usually going at the greens from further out. So greenside bunkers and water round the green for example comes more into play for them. Someone like myself who would go for a long par 4 in 3 has a better chance of getting it onto the putting surface from close in. I agree there's no easy solution to make hazards completely fair but we've still got to plot our way round whether off scratch or 28.

In my experience the higher handicap golfer very rarely plots their way around the golf course.

Incredible the number if times you see them with something straight faced trying to move the ball up the fairway out of either the heather or a generally poor lie. Result is ball goes a couple of yards at best and still got the same problem.

Regarding hazards lower and higher handicaps face isn't CR and Slope dealing with this in theory?

 

[harpo_72]

Regarding hazards lower and higher handicaps face isn't CR and Slope dealing with this in theory?

Yes in our case the slope drops so we are viewed as easy but our indexes become high making us bandits elsewhere…

 

[Deleted member 3432]

Yes in our case the slope drops so we are viewed as easy but our indexes become high making us bandits elsewhere…

Not sure I understand what you mean here although quite jealous of banditry status, WHS has crippled me although I guess the ego kind of likes vanity handicap.

Just not competive anymore.

 

[DanFST]

My group are good players, I'm the worst!


The problem isn't that fairway bunkers are in the wrong spot. It's that there isn't enough room for tee's to go back as players have got longer. (the ball makes a difference, but also launch monitors and modern fitness) Sunningdale old is my favourite course, but compared to the belfry of the back, it's not stressfull at all. For that exact reason. Problem is you'd need to put the bunkers out at 285-300 to make most decent players think about laying up, but then you bring in problems with higher HC's second shots.


Now that you can play of rated reds, that's the plan I think, or the best suited tees. One thing i'll say is it's not easy to be able to hit the ball far. And i'd like to play off a course that makes me think, but it's just not possible on old courses.

(preface this - I'm playing dog at the moment, every round is stress)

 

[harpo_72]

Not sure I understand what you mean here although quite jealous of banditry status, WHS has crippled me although I guess the ego kind of likes vanity handicap.

Just not competive anymore.

So your 5-15 handicaps are inflated because they don’t score well and your slope rating is low because you lows are scoring easily

 

[chico]

In my experience the higher handicap golfer very rarely plots their way around the golf course.

Incredible the number if times you see them with something straight faced trying to move the ball up the fairway out of either the heather or a generally poor lie. Result is ball goes a couple of yards at best and still got the same problem.

Regarding hazards lower and higher handicaps face isn't CR and Slope dealing with this in theory?

This is the point I'm making, they should plot their way round. If a high h/c golfer continues to play the wrong shots every round their own game is the biggest hazard they'll ever face on a golf course.

 

[Foxholer]

So your 5-15 handicaps are inflated because they don’t score well and your slope rating is low because you lows are scoring easily

Re the bold bit...Surely you mean CR (not Slope). Slope could apply to the italicised bit though - but perhaps starting a bit higher than 5...say 10?
Or maybe the course is just a full of temptation that folk can't resist - and don't learn!