Can "Challenge Off the Tee"and "Strategy" Coexist?

[DMoriarty]

In a recent thread David Wigler criticized Rustic Canyon because of "lack of interest from the tee."  Specifically, he commented that while Rustic Canyon was top notch from 60 yds in "but from the tee to 60 yards, it is not a top 500."  Having played the course more than a few times, I have to confess that I am absolutely dumbfounded by this opinion.  That being said, I won't disregard it, because others (Matt Ward and maybe Tom Huckaby?) agree that the course would be greatly improved if the tee game presented more of a challenge.  

I presume that Mr. Wigler's opinion, like Matt's, is based on the extraordinary fairway width.  Plus, these wide fairways have either no internal hazards or only a few internal hazards that are easy to stear clear of, if the golfer so chooses.  I also presume that, to Mr. Wigler, the tee shots "lack interest" because one can fire away to the open area without aiming at anything in particular.  To Matt, the tee shots lack challenge because he can swing as hard as is humanly possible (believe me, I've seen it) without any fear of hazard, bunker, lost ball or out of bounds.  In short, they might call them Nike tees, because the golfer feels "No Fear."

My question is, if the tee game were more "interesting" or "challenging," would the strategic choices be compromised, or even lost?

More generally, can challenge off the tee and strategy coexist at any golf course?

[Jeff Fortson]

Having never played Rustic Canyon myself, which I plan on doing the week after the King's Putter, it's hard for me to comment on it specifically.  However, I can say that strategy off the tee is not solely dependent on trees, hazards, or out-of-bounds.

I have played courses with virtually no immediate trouble off the tee and thought, "wow, I can just blast away."  Yet, at closer inspection I found that strategy off the tee isn't about skirting bunkers, water, OB, or the like, it's about angles of play.  If there is a 100 yard wide fairway infront of me, my initial feeling is "whew, I don't have to stress out on this tee shot".  Then I rip into a poorly thought out tee shot and am left with an absolutely awful angle of attack to the green.

If anything, bunkers, trees, water, OB, and the like have numbed our strategic senses over the years and left us dependent on visually "hazardous areas" to tell us where we need to play our tee shots.  I think golfers have become jaded and look for these hole framing features as if they were a "Tee Shots for Dummies" guide to tell them where to drive the ball.

I love the forced carry over a bunker 250 yards out to cut off a dogleg as much as the next guy, but to say that you need trouble off the tee to make a tee shot more challenging or interesting is a complete lack of imagination, in my opinion.  If anything, the less trouble and framing there is for a tee shot, the more difficult and deceiving that tee shot becomes.  Nothing plays into a golf course's pocket more than sedating and deceiving the player.  If you feel 100% comfortable over a tee shot you are either in "the zone" or under the anesthesia of the course architect.

Jeff F.

[ForkaB]

There is good width and medicore width.  Take the 18th at TOC, Please! (sorry, Henny).

Wide as Rosie O'Donnell's bottom, but the greensite requires a drive middle left to approach the normal pin location just above the Valley of Sin.  So, far less real "width" than one sees off the tee.  However, the fact that there is absolutely nothing to frighten the golfer trying to take that line (only IBF could go OB left on 18, this is a mediocre use of width, at best.  On the other hand (as I've argued in this wilderness before), if the greensite were set up to favor an approach from the right (imagine a reversed green site with the hole up near the fence near the Old Wollen Mill) and there was a high risk/reward to trying to place your drive near to the road, well, now that would stimulate some stategic thinking!

Haven't played Rustic, so I'm not sure if the tie in between the greensite and the width is "good" or "mediocre."

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,
I tend to agree that strategy is about angles of play.  But I have heard the argument that huge distance can neutralize the need for proper angle.  The idea is that if you can whack it far enough, then you have a shorter iron and more control, and you can neutralize the need for more angle.   Maybe I just don't whack it far enough, but it has never worked that way for me.  Come to think if it, I've never seen it work that well for others either-- not even the big whackers.

Rich,
You said

Wide as Rosie O'Donnell's bottom, but the greensite requires a drive middle left to approach the normal pin location just above the Valley of Sin.  So, far less real "width" than one sees off the tee.  However, the fact that there is absolutely nothing to frighten the golfer trying to take that line (only IBF could go OB left on 18, this is a mediocre use of width, at best.

Unfortunately, I havent played TOC, so that may be responsible for my lack of understanding, so please bear with me.  If the greensite "requires" a drive middle left, then I assume a drive other than middle left makes a good score on the hole very difficult.  Is this precise requirement not enough to frighten the golfer?  Looking at it another way, isn't there something challenging about a golf hole where the golfer must choose the precise line and have the mental discipline to focus and execute on that line when all the golfer sees is a sea of green grass?  

if the greensite were set up to favor an approach from the right (imagine a reversed green site with the hole up near the fence near the Old Wollen Mill) and there was a high risk/reward to trying to place your drive near to the road, well, now that would stimulate some strategic thinking!

What if the green had two main pin placements and one favored a middle left drive, and the other favored the far right?  Would this change your view of the whether the width is good or mediocre?  

[THuckaby2]

Hmmm... since my name was mentioned I oughtta respond.

Dave, please believe that for my puny game, Rustic holds all the challenge I personally need off the tee.  BUT... I once was fairly decent at this game, and I've played a lot of competitive golf with a lot of great players, so I feel I understand the mindset of the big hitters / great players.

And thus yes, I understand exactly what Dave W. is saying, and I do agree with him.  Matt has said basically the same thing.

I think you nailed it in your last post.  The issue isn't so much that the big hitter can whack away without fear of penalty - oh yes, Rustic is pretty darn good at revealing that although he might not think he's received a penalty, he might end up with the "wrong" angle into many greens, which is not readily apparent.  BUT - you nail it when you say that others have mentioned that with this lack of fear, they can hit it so far that the clubs they have in are then so short, yeah they might have a worse angle, but it doesn't matter much... give these guys 8 iron or less, with today's high-spinning, soft-landing golf ball, and it doesn't matter what the angle is - UNLESS THE COURSE IS VERY FIRM.

That last part is in all caps on purpose.  IF the course is kept very firm and very fast (like Wild Horse!), then the angles matter -a lot.  Unfortunately Rustic isn't kept that way, for many very understandable reasons.  Oh, it's not the soft lush green mush we get up here, ever, from what I gather... but there's no "screaming fast" fear-inducing cement such as they have at Wild Horse.  Make it like that and then you have something!

But since it's not like that, well... Dave W. and Matt W. are right, by my take.

So my answer to your question posed in the title is therefore:

YES, if conditions are right.  Using Rustic as the example, bring it up to really firm and fast, and then the big hitters should be thinking more off the tee, since they're gonna need to find the right angles in.  Thus challenge and strategy do co-exist, very well.

BTW, #18 at TOC, well... it's a better angle in from the left, but it's not like it's HUGELY so... the shot is tough over the Valley of Sin regardless of the angle.  So yes, aiming at the clock on the R&A clubhouse is the play, but it's not like you're cursing fate if you end up farther right... Maybe Darren can weigh in on this.

TH

[Tim Weiman]

Dave Moriarty:

I must admit that the first time I played Pinehurst #2 I didn't understand the tee shot on the second hole.

This is a very wide fairway that appears to lack "interest" or "challenge". But, after playing the hole several times you tend to wise up and realize that big wide fairway really isn't so generous. Rather, it is deceiving. you can easily hit the fairway and face a difficult angle for your approach shot. Even Jack Nicklaus once praised the hole for this reason.

I gather that Dave Wigler would prefer to see less width at Rustic Canyon. While I haven't seen the course, my understanding is that generous fairway width is central to the whole concept of the course. As for strategy and challenge I suspect that people who play the course regularly would gradually learn the preferred angles and enjoy the challenge of trying to set up the best aproach shot. If so, that would seem to indicate strategy and challenge can coexist.

I maintain that such a small percentage of golfers can hit tee shots with both length and accuracy that what I've heard of the RC formula seems to make sense.

Maybe Rustic Canyon can't be all things to all people. Pine Valley can't either.

[ForkaB]

Dave M

Approaching from the right is just sub-optimal.  My granny could get a 4 from there and she is dead. The hole is a "par" 3 1/2, certainly for the pros, so they want to get it in a positon where they can hit it close (i.e. from the left).  For whatever reason (probably safety, plus of course without the VofS the hole it very simplistic)) the R&A doesn't use the right 80% of the green for its tournaments.

[THuckaby2]

Dave M

Approaching from the right is just sub-optimal.  My granny could get a 4 from there and she is dead. The hole is a "par" 3 1/2, certainly for the pros, so they want to get it in a positon where they can hit it close (i.e. from the left).  For whatever reason (probably safety, plus of course without the VofS the hole it very simplistic)) the R&A doesn't use the right 80% of the green for its tournaments.

Concur with Rich, as I say above.  Interesting... in one of my two rounds on TOC, pin on 18 was front right, pretty darn near the street... that made for one interesting shot - kinda scary cuz it sure wouldn't have taken much to go ob!  We didn't even have the Valley of Sin in play though so we were bummed...

We need Darren.  Yeah, I've never seen a right pin in the Open or Dunhill or anything else I've seen on TV... but how often is it placed there for every-day play?

TH

[THuckaby2]

Angles simply don't matter that much in an aerial game with receptive greens

Damn shivas, you are great at boiling things down.  THis says in one sentence what my Paulian verbiage above drones on about.  Well done and obviously I concur.  This is the issue to some extent at Rustic...

And then:

quote author=Shivas link=board=GD1&num=1046933367&start=0#8 date=03/06/03 at 11:11:25]
Take a course with 100 yard wide fairways.  Two players:  A, who hits it 300 and is pretty wild (he hits maybe 4-5 fairways a round on a tight course but can hit 12-13 on THIS course); and B, who hits it dead straight off the tee 260 and never misses a fairway on any course (Iron Byron).  Assume they both hit their approaches with equal accuracy for the clubs they are hitting in.  They have equal short games and putting skills.  The both play the aerial game and the greens are receptive.  B wins every time.  
[/quote]

You've just described you or Wigler v. me, although you guys aren't that wild and I'm not that straight.  In any case, it's a fair assessment and that's why if we ever do play Rustic together, I want 6 a side.  

TH

[Lou Duran]

Shivas,

Maybe my reading comprehension is not what it should be, or senility is setting in, but I think that perhaps player A would win in your scenario every time.  He hits the ball further off the tee, so it would follow that this is true of his irons as well.  100 yard wide fairways, and receptive greens mean that not only is A hitting lots of fairways, but his approaches are also with comparitively shorter clubs.  Even when he misses the fairway, he is that much closer to the green, so by your definitions, he should be able to get the ball closer to the hole as well.  If they both putt the same, shouldn't A win?  What am I missing?

It seems to me that a course like Rustic Canyon, which I haven't played, would favor a Tiger Woods and penalize a Corey Pavin.  A tight course off the tee, be it through rough, trees, hazards, sharp angles, etc. would clearly help the short but straight driver, and penalize the long, crooked knocker.  A short and crooked player may find a wide open course more playable, though such a course would have difficulty holding the interest of the longer, low handicap player.

I think that Dr. MacKenzie's goal of a course that is enjoyable for players of all types may be much easier said than done, specially today when equipment and training have increased the gap among players.  That is one reason why it may be better for the Tour to build its own competition courses, and not keep changing the ones the rest of us play 90%+ of the time.  

[THuckaby2]

Lou -I believe shivas meant A wins every time.  Just shows my reading comprehension that I believed what he meant more than what he wrote.  If he means B wins he has some "splainin' " to do.

TH

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

David Moriarty can attest to the relative firmness the day we played.

Granted the pins were set in some pretty tough spots, but to not see the strategy off the tee is a bit mind-boggling, to me.

Some examples:
Second hole: Drive should favour the left side, or else play over the right bunker. At 457 yards, I cannot believe this it a driver wedge for too many people.

Third hole: Three legitimate options, with value for all three, depending on pin position.

Seven: Great options, especially with the pin back left, meaning driving over the scrub is of no advantage.

I will not continue, but the back nine boasts even more strategic options off the tee.

Perhaps if the greens were soggy, or you were capable of spinning the ball like Greg Norman, the strategy would be devoid. However, the two rounds I played three weeks ago meant conditions dictate great strategy off the tee.

Also, for a course that lacks interest from the tee, it might be assumed that this is a long drivers paradise. With wedges in hand, than scoring should be low, however the course record indicates otherwise.

For my taste, the width rivals the green complexs as the best concept. You could not have one without the other.

Did Augusta (circa 1932) lack interest from the tee due to the lack of central fairway hazards?

[BethpageGuy]

Bethpage Black 5th hole, the ultimate combination of the two, IMHO.

[Jeff Fortson]

Mr. Huckaby and Mr. Goodale,

Like I said in my previous post, I have never played Rustic Canyon.  However, if I am reading correctly, are you saying that basically your problem with the course is a lack of length?  If so, have you taken it back to the championship tees yet?  If you have played from all the way back and it was still too short for you, then have you considered that this may be an equipment issue and not a design flaw?  

I'm just interested in your comments on why the course lacks in tee shot value?  I'll judge for myself when I get to play it, I just like to hear everyone's opinion before I play a course, so that I can see if I disagree or agree when I am there.  I look forward to your answer.

Mr. Huckaby and Shivas,

As for the aerial game issue, I think angles of play absolutely do matter in the aerial game.  First of all, the lie you are going to have in the fairway is key.  I don't want to have the ball below my feet if I don't have to have it that way, so hitting away from awkward lies is an issue.  Second, the visual approach I am left with to a pin does matter, even if I am bringing it in high.  Depth perception, comfortability and the ability to see the slope of the green are important factors in approach shots.  It is definitely something I take into consideration off the tee.  Finally, wind can play a huge factor in the aerial game.  If I am going to play a high shot to a pin in windy conditions then I better hope that I put myself into a position off the tee that I am comfortable with in consideration to such wind.


Jeff F.

[A_Clay_Man]

Face it boys if B is a better putter he wins almost every time. And isn't that the differenc between a jason zubek and a corey pavin or loren roberts?

[ForkaB]

Mr. Forstonator

I didn't make any comments on Rustic Canyon, did I?  Hope not, since I have never played there.  Look forward to hearing your thoughts on the place once you've had a chance to play it in a few weeks.  My one and only comment (on this thread at least) regarding "tee shot value" was #18 on The Old Course.  Lack of length has nothing to do with my criticism there, it's the simplicity of the shot and the uninspiring tie-in between the fairway and the greensite that leaves me a bit blah (excepting, of course, the rush that any golfer gets looking at the amazing backdrop to that hole!).

[Jeff Fortson]

Rich,

Sorry I tied you into Rustic, I should have phrased the question better.  Instead of just Rustic, I meant more down the lines of what you ultimately responded to, length.  You stated that it didn't matter in your example of #18 at TOC.  I respect your opinion on #18's tie in from fairway to green being "blah" but I happen to think it's one of the great tie ins in all of golf.  The Valley of Sin, plus the pitch of the green make it quite a thrilling second shot in my opinion.  Not to mention the historical stuff all around you to help throw you off even further.  Anyway, that's exactly what it is for me though, opinion, and I respect yours.


Shivas,

I like your analysis of my previous post.  However, I have to disagree slightly from what you say.

Wind

For me short irons are more difficult to judge in the wind.  It is very easy to fly greens going downwind and even easier to spin balls off greens going into it.  I find trajectory control with short irons to be much more difficult in the wind than with my mid-irons through woods and ball spin is more easily manipulated by the wind too.  Trajectory and ball spin are key, in my opinion, to wind control.

Lies

I'll take a 7-iron with a flat lie 99% of the time over a PW off a sidehill lie.  Being able to control my shots is one of the keys to my game and I find it to be much easier to play off even lies.  The only time a golfer gets beaten by the golf course is when the golfer allows himself to play the game the course wants him/her to play.  If I see a tee shot where the course is screaming at me to bomb a drive into an uneven lie, I'll immediately look for the flatest area away from it.  The reason is I am not going to play into the courses hand.  Playing your own game is how you defeat a course.

Comfort/Visuals

This, like my other points above, are really preference when it comes down to it.  I prefer to see my target if I can.  If it is impossible to see the target then there is nothing I can do about it, but if I can hit my tee shot to spot where I can get a good view of where the pin is, I'll try to hit it there.  So I guees I'd have to say this is a draw.  I can't imagine that some people would like to NOT see their target but maybe some people feel more comfortable in a blind situation.  Some would rather rely on blind luck I guess.


I guess it really boils down to an individual's preference.  I have played the game for 25 years and I make a living at teaching others how to play it.  I would say that course strategy is one of my better qualities as a teacher.  I have watched others play from the best in the world to possibly the worst and all of my opinions are based on these experiences accompanied with my own personal playing experiences.  


Jeff F.

[Matt_Ward]

David M:

Let me add to some of the items you attributed to me. I really do like Rustic Canyon, however, the course does need a CLEAR TWEAKING in some of the fairways because you cannot permit people (like me) to fire away with impunity. Now before anyone chimes in and says Ward is in favor of heavy rough or a plethora of bunkers -- you are wrong!

I do believe the width aspect of RC is quite compelling because it does provide a clear difference from those courses that are too narrow and force long marches around them because the great bulk of players simply cannot handle the demands of high rough and other hazards.

I have yet to hear someone put forward a compelling argument on the specific holes I have previously mentioned where a clear tweaking of the driving aspect needs to be carried out at RC. When a course allows the long hitter the opportunity to fire away and bail out if necessary without really "sticking it to him" in some meaningful way I believe you have lessened the demands of the long hitter versus that of the shorter hitter. The only way this can be altered would be if RC was so rock hard and soooooo firm and fast that being in the wrong location would effect your approaches to the flag. When I played RC it was indeed providing elements of the ground game but it was not as fast as my time at Wild Horse last year. I'm sure that depends upon one's visit and time of year.

David, I mentioned to you on another thread that just adding a solitary bunker on the right hand side of #11 would really be a plus because it accentuate what th eleft hand side is all about. With so much room right who really needs to pull it left near all the junk on that side. Ditto the need for some form of alteration to holes #3 and #12 -- two that you also believe need to be enhanced from the tee shot experience. Also, what is the theory behind the tee game challenge / strategy of the 9th and 10th holes?

Just keep in mind -- not every hole at RC is without challenge / strategy from the tee. I've mentioned several of them before.

RC is a wonderful design because the detailing around the greens is so well done -- why cannot the detailing from the tee on all of the holes also follow that route?

P.S. David, next time I'm at RC I want you hit your approaches from where I land my drives from the extreme back tees and for you to compare what you score with your drives from the middle tees. I bet you'll shoot lower from the former. Just think about it.

[THuckaby2]

Jeff:  re Rustic, it's not just length - the course isn't exactly short from the back tees - even for a long hitter.

The issues are explained very well by Matt in his post above, coupled with my initial post and what Dave W. initially said.  There is just very little to stop the good player/big hitter from just bashing away, and this is a weakness.

Firm it up though and then it becomes an issue.. the angles matter... good to hear from Ben's post that it's firmer rather than softer.  When I was there last fall it was pretty soft.

TH

[THuckaby2]

Ben - remember I like Rustic Canyon, I really do.  I keep saying this so people don't get the wrong idea... But I just have to counter some of this, keeping in mind this is regarding the STRONG player.  And remember the issue is NOT that the strategic options don't exist, but rather that with the extremely wide fairways and lack of the firm and fast conditions needed, there's not enough penalty for missing the preferred angles... Case in point:

"Second hole: Drive should favour the left side, or else play over the right bunker. At 457 yards, I cannot believe this it a driver wedge for too many people."

Yes, the preferred angle is from the left - it opens up the green very well.  BUT, from the right, the green is still very "holdable" - not knowing the hole at all and just blasting away off the tee, I sent one wildly right, almost into the adjacent fairway... from where I was faced with a 210 yard shot over that bunker... it looked like I had no chance, but I had no other choice really, so I fired a 2iron over that bunker... which stuck and held on the green 3 feet max from the pitchmark.  The course wasn't obviously wet or soft or anything either... it looked firm, looked fast, just didn't play that way, as my 2iron attests!  A stronger player would be way up ahead of me, having 170 (or less) in, meaning an 8iron (or less)... if my 2iron held coming in from the right, his 8iron would positively back up.  Firm things up and you've got something.  As it is, well... it's just a little better coming in from the left, see?  And given no hazards or danger off the tee other than a horrifically hooked drive going ob over the fence, what is there to make the strong player even tempt this very unlikely occurrence?  Nope, he just firest down the middle, takes what he can get.  Again, firm this up and it becomes a different thing... he'd want to be left if the shot from the right wouldn't hold... that doesn't seem to be the case, though.

I was gonna go by hole, but this gives enough of what goes on, as I see it, and it occurs in general every hole.  For a strong player, the strategy is there - it just doesn't matter much.

FIRM IT UP!

TH

[Jeff Fortson]

Chics dig the long ball.

[THuckaby2]

They sure do, Jeff.  And Rustic gives a lot of room to show off!  

TH

[DMoriarty]

It doesnt matter how long it is, if it never gets into the hole.

Thanks for the responses. I will seriously respond to your interesting posts as soon as I get a minute or two.  

[Don_Mahaffey]

We get so hung up on ratings and rankings sometimes. RC is very high on the fun factor and that's what matters to me. I don't have to look far to find courses that tell me what shot I must hit every swing.

It was very easy to see that "the better players" would be critical of some of the holes at RC. My opinion is, I wouldn't change a thing, except mow the fairways even wider!!!

[John Nixon]

No - if a tee shot is perceived as too challenging, then one is less likely to see one's options and more likely to pick the shot that is likely to result in success, at least at the level I play. Once you've had your options taken away on the tee shot, you've got no free will to apply to your second shot, either, because your fate has been predetermined by the almighty designer.