[Ed_Baker]

Matt and all:
Good, interesting thread.

I think Mike Cirbas'description is certainly the perfect illusration of how bad a lay up hole can be.However, that particular hole has the added absurdity of a long, no option, forced carry as well, making for a silly golf hole.

I think Dick Groffs'point is well taken that the lay up element "is what it is" and weather it occurs on the tee shot or subsequent shots is irrelevent,how it melds with the rest of the hole defines weather the hole is good and strategic or silly.

I like Jeremy Glenns'reasoning on the debate between forced carry and lay ups as ligitimate design elements, is that all golfers can execute a lay up,not all can negotiate forced carries.

I can understand a player with Matts' length not enjoying lay up holes,and why it is a pet peeve of his. The ability to hit the ball great distances is an advantage in golf and should provide that player with many more options than a shorter hitter.But that ability must be applied appropriately to each individual hole,hence the strategy and in my opinion,the essence of the game.

To Matts' point of view that taking Driver out of his hands is essentially a design flaw,I still disagree.Having said that,as with all things in the human condition,"everything in moderation" is probably equally applicable to golf course architecture.I think that most on here would agree that the best golf courses offer variety, particularly on the "sets" of holes,par 3's,4's and 5's.It has been my experience that the very best courses actually do have 1 or 2 shots or holes where there really is only one option,EXECUTE,ala;Pine Valley,Pebble#8 ect.

To plagerize Pat Mucci,"But that's just my opinion,I could be wrong!

[Matt_Ward]

Enjoy the comments!

First, let me highlight the word "forced." When something in design "forces" the player to do something you will have a limited strategic hole / course.

Second, golf is about options. The best holes don't say "hit it this way or take the highway." No -- the best holes give players decisions to make and the selection / execution determines what type of outcome you will face.

When an architect designs a forced lay-up he is adding an architectural contrivance in order for you to play a hole in a manner he alone determines. I as a player want options when I play a hole.

The 16th at Cypress Point is a classic option hole. If Mackenzie designed the hole with only a one-way approach with a direct carry all the way to the green the hole would be defined by many as too penal. Mackenzie had the good sense to provide an optional way to play the hole (usually resulting in a bogey) for the weaker player to get to the green.

The same works in reverse with the forced lay-up. Why should I as a better player have my club selection DICTATED by the architect? The long par-4 on Stone Canyon's back nine stops the fairway at the 250-260 point. You cannot go further without losing the ball. Then you are forced to play from at least 200 plus yards to the green.

Courses without clear design options in my mind are not properly designed. High handicappers always complain (quite rightly) about forced carries with no options. The same applies when situations FORCE you to lay-up. Crafty architects know how to "tempt" the player into taking bold plays which can result in disaterous consequences for those unable to pull the shot off.

Golf is about choices on every shot. When you take away choices through "forced" decisions you have a golf course that is as limited as a McDonald's menu.

[BY]

Matt,
I wouldn't say an architect "designs" forced carries or lay ups. They are usually the result of site or environmental restrictions.

It's all about options! With forced anything there is no option = bad design.

[Mark_Fine]

I just made a comment on this very topic in my post "Who is Ed Carman?"  The 9th hole at Running Deer is a perfect example.  Your hand is forced, no matter what kind of player you are.  This is a 500 yard par five from the tips where even I could hang with Tiger or any other player 9 out of 10 times.  He has little advantage over me because he has no real options.  Tiger would play the hole 4I, 7I, then some kind of wedge and I would play the hole long iron or fairway wood, 5I, then some kind of wedge.  In some ways its like #7 at Pine Valley.  The biggest difference is this one is only 500 yards.  With some changes it could be a great risk/reward hole and a great finish to the front nine!    

I have no problem particularly on par threes where the architect sometimes will dictate a particular golf shot.  On par fours and fives I prefer holes that present different options and problems that I have to solve every time I play them.  Point to point play gets boring over time!    

[Matt_Ward]

Amen Mark!

Just one additional point -- even on a number of par-3 holes you will be presnted with options. Architects who can stay away from "forced" mandates will usually be providing a design of merit.

As a stronger player I can handle "forced" carries in most instances. However, I still view them as a shortsighted design feature because basic design principles call for providing sound options for the greatest number of players.

BY: When you say the architects hand is "forced" because of enviromental considerations I can think of plenty of courses that maximized their routing of holes by avoiding the situation. Sometimes facilities opt for "forced" issues because of other needs (housing, the location of the clubhouse, driving range, parking, etc.).

I don't lay the blame on architects because they are often following the dictates of ownership who sometimes is more interested in other aspects of the site. Yes, there are environmental issues / limitations. Good design / routing of holes can minimize these while still adhering to sound design practices that eliminate unnecessary "forced" issues.

[John_Sheehan]

Ed Baker-
Regarding your observation:

"It has been my experience that the very best courses actually do have 1 or 2 shots or holes where there really is only one option,EXECUTE,ala;Pine Valley,Pebble#8 etc."

IMO, Pebble Beach #8 offers multiple options on both the first and second shots. You can tempt fate and play as close to the cliff as you dare, lay back, or pull the driver out, aim left and go as far as you want. If you choose the driver-left, you are looking at a shorter shot, but not the best angle to the green. The current maintenance of the course also means you will be in the rough if you choose to drive left.

Likewsie, the second shot also has options. Your second shot does not require going at the green. For either the golfer who has laid too far back on their drive, or the golfer who either cannot or choses to not go directly at the green, there is a large area of closely mown grass to the left of the green. Getting up and down from this area is a challenge, as the player must carry the bunker left to a green that slopes away.

I think that this hole is perceived to be a forced layup, because that is the way it is mostly played. This is why I posed the question of whether this truly is a forced layup. I don't believe it is. It has all of the elements of a great hole: risk/reward, strategy and options. Pretty nice setting too.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt Ward,

Most architects study the site very hard to minimize forced crossings., we have all played courses where the routing minimizes forced carries.  But, take it from me and BY that it just isn't always possible! Granted, some architects probably work harder than others at it, but you can bet that each, to his own ability, philospophically minimizes forced crossings.

Personally, if I have to have a forced crossing, I use it on par 3 holes, where possible, then tee shots on par 4 and 5 holes, reasoning that at least the ball is on a tee....

Jeff

[jglenn]

Just thought I'd bring this back up, seeing as to how it has become a hot topic once more.

[SPDB]

I guess 16 at Merion would have to fall into the category of a forced lay-up, or forced shot, since the "quarry" begins less than 300 yards off the tee?

Although, I believe the much excoriated Fazio renovations have reopened the route that can be taken around the right side. Allowing the player to bomb a fade down the right side and attack from there, with a much shorter iron/wedge.

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward:

My compliments on a great thread.

[TEPaul]

If #16 Merion is now being cited (and I supposed the implication is now its design is being criticized) as an example of a "forced layup" because the quarry may start at 300yds off the tee, well I can't really accept that! In that case, either you're Goddamned right something should be done about the ball or else the claim of this hole as an example of a "forced layup" is a very poor one.

Someone who is that long has the opportunity now to go to the right of the quarry and up the "ladies aid" because all the trees on the right of the quarry are down now! But even if they weren't, someone who can hit it that far would have a wedge or no more that a 9i in so what the hell is the beef? So Tiger might have to hit a 3wood--poor baby!

[Rick Shefchik]

I'm in general agreement with Matt that playing a par-5 with a short lay-up shot in the middle is about my least favorite kind of golf hole. I recently played a course for the first time that had two such par-fives -- nothing distinctive about either hole except that the flag was guarded by water that made going for the green with a second shot foolish, so after banging out a couple of 250-yard drives, I followed them up with, respectively, a wedge on the first hole and an 8-iron on the other hole (the 8-iron proved to be too much club, leaving me with the dreaded 40-yard approach over a pond.)

But having said that, I'm not necessarily opposed to a hole that forces me to position my ball accurately for the approach shot -- espcially if it were on a hole I didn't play all the time. Each hole is a problem to solve, and even if a given hole has only one solution, there's some value in recognizing it, and even more value in executing it. I would NOT want to have such a hole on my home course, however; it would be like hearing "The Christmas Song" all year long.  

[Rick Shefchik]

I'm in general agreement with Matt that playing a par-5 with a short lay-up shot in the middle is about my least favorite kind of golf hole. I recently played a course for the first time that had two such par-fives -- nothing distinctive about either hole except that the flag was guarded by water that made going for the green with a second shot foolish, so after banging out a couple of 250-yard drives, I followed them up with, respectively, a wedge on the first hole and an 8-iron on the other hole (the 8-iron proved to be too much club, leaving me with the dreaded 40-yard approach over a pond.)

But having said that, I'm not necessarily opposed to a hole that forces me to position my ball accurately for the approach shot -- espcially if it were on a hole I didn't play all the time. Each hole is a problem to solve, and even if a given hole has only one solution, there's some value in recognizing it, and even more value in executing it. I would NOT want to have such a hole on my home course, however; it would be like hearing "The Christmas Song" all year long.  

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

Just for the record, I am not opposed to the 16th at Merion / East as a "forced lay-up hole."

Since the player has 300 yards that's more than enough yardage to make a proper choice. My argument is against holes that force you to lay-up at 240 yards or so and still mandate that you must hit an equal amount of yardage in your approach shot. Stone Canyon, the new Jay Moorish design in Tucson, is a good example in which a few holes of this type are designed. Unfortunately, my opinion of the course soured because of a few holes of this type.

When an architect creates a series of forced lay-ups or forced carries you have significant design issues. I am fully aware that sometimes environmental issues are at stake, but I also find it just as difficult that architects can't plan around this type of thing in a much better manner than some are doing today.

When something is "forced" it's not natural and not in keeping with giving the player a range of options when attacking any hole. Just a humble opinion ...

Regards,

[SPDB]

Tom -
I think my example of the 16th as a hole that fits neatly within Matt's definition is a good one. I don't really have as many problems with it, and I was just pointing out an example of an EXCEPTIONAL hole that would, ostensibly because of its characteristics, would be a a pet peeve to Matt.

But I also made the point about the newly rediscovered "alternate entrance" which you repeated, which may now render my argument defenseless.

Tiger's 3 wood would sail into the quarry. My driver nearly did once and i am not long off the tee. Mind you, it is downhill off the tee.

[compromised]

my argument is compromised by the realization that Matt was talking about forced 240 yard layups that demand you take another 200 in.

[Tim_Weiman]

Generally speaking I'm not thrilled with the concept of a "forced layup", especially if we mean something 250 yards or less.

However, it does seem to me that we should put this question in some context.

I'm getting real bored watching professional golfers bang 300 plus yard drives and short iron approaches to what were originally designed to be "long" par fours.

The forced layup strikes me as a bad solution, but a never ending arms race between equipment manufacturers and developers building ever longer courses doesn't seem very good either.

I would like to see architects creating conditions in the 300-350 yard range (off the tee) that made simply pulling out the driver not such an obvious choice.

On how many holes?

About four, with emphasis on the closing stretch of holes.

[TEPaul]

This whole forced lay-up thread is really getting tiresome to me, particularly when an example is used like #16 Merion.

Noone has to tell me that Merion's #16 is downhill and noone has to tell me that they aren't very long but that they hit the ball into the quarry. If that somebody was playing the tips at Merion and they hit a drive into the quarry they are long-since they just hit the ball 300+ yards! And what difference does it make anyway. If you can get your ball slightly short of the quarry you have no more than a 9i in. What is it you want, 20-30 more yards so you can hit an L-wedge?

This whole apparent requirement in golf and golfers' perception that you can't take the driver out of someone's hand if he hits the ball 340yds is crap anyway. If someone is hitting the ball 340 he's probably getting fifty yards of roll and in that case he can just use another of his 14 clubs!

I don't know who these people are anyway and I've seen some long hitting golfers in my time. Sigel is super long and if he has to hit a 3-wood on #16 so as not to go in the quarry, so be it.

I played Lehigh the other day with a guy who shot 30 on the back nine and is one of the longest golfers I've ever seen (a former long driving competitor) and he doesn't hit it 340! Matt Ward has to be one of the longest people in the world from what I've heard on here! BillV if you and Roc Irey played a round and you both hit it consistently all day he would drive it 20-40yds past you every time.

So if you're seriously complaining about holes that are forced layups at those yardages, I don't buy it, particularly since you have a short shot in even if you have to use something other than a driver.

If you can only hit the ball 240 before running into trouble and then you have 200yds left to the green, that's a different matter altogether and then we should start talking about architectural flaws.

[Will E]

Matt-

I agree with you regarding forced lay-ups.
The only thing worse is in course O.B.
A forced lay up to me is a statement from the architect that there was nothing else to do (this can be tolerated if not overdone), or that they place no value on driving the ball (more often the case).

I think of the Moe Norman story of him hitting 9 iron off the tee at #14 at Augusta followed by a driver off the deck to the green. "Hole's a driver 9 iron," repeat X3  

There are very few things I like to be "forced" to do. HOWEVER... there is much joy in clearing a forced carry, how happy have you ever been getting close to the hazard on a 220 yard lay-up?
I hope Art Hills reads this fantastic post.

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

Love the 16th at Merion. You are 100 percent right -- a player can lay up before the quarry and will have no more than a short iron.

That's not the kin dof forced-lay-up I was talking about. It's the kind where you must hit no more than 230 yards or thereabouts and then you have equal or more to the green.
Or, the architect creates runways that becomes so narrow that you must lay-back.

The architect is saying "I quit ... I can't challenge you without some sort of gimmick or trick." Check out the 2nd hole at Tattersall and you will clearly see the poster child of what I am talking about. I've mentioned it directly to Rees and he is aware of it.

Forced lay-ups don't get the ink that forced carries get. It's the same issue and a fundamental weakness of design and routing, in my opinion.

Regards,

[BillV]

For one thing, I agree whole heartedly with Doug Wright regarding Legacy Ridge.  Those 2 holes keep the course from serious consideration for top 100 modern. Great green complexes make that course.  Unfortunately, it is likely all built up with houses as I haven't played it in the almost 2 years since I left.

As for the topic, forced layups are hardest on the weaker player trying to keep up. It leaves the same length shot for all.  That's
its unfairness to the weaker player.  The 90* dogleg does the same thing. Power players can't use their power to their advantage in either case.

These are the  two reasons to not like these kinds of holes.  I see a preponderance of one of these comments above.

We lose out when we analyze a course solely based upon our own games.  Long,Short, no chipping skills, crooked....

And to Tommy Paul,

I really get tired of people telling me what a great hole such-and-such is (872 par 4) because they had to hit driver 4-iron (You're not doing that to me, I am just making an example)-THERE IS TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON LENGTH.  That is coming from a longer than average hitter.  I think you and I have played enough to know my feelings.  It is a little fun to try to knock it over a stream or tree or bunker, but the meat of the gowrfff is elsewhere.  It is getting the ball in hte hole in fewer strokes.

I use my short game to score just like the shorter hitter does and that is where the fun is at the course for me.  I enjoy my home course Lehigh because it doesn't force me to hit driver on every goddamn hole.  I can enjoy LCC with players of all calibre.  Ross and MAcKenzie and MacDonadl all would agree with Bill Flynn that it was a course Flynn could be proud of.

But getting back to the point of the thread,
if there is an occasional forced carry, lay-up or 90* degree dog-leg and the hole is sound, so be it.  Just not all the time. (And I am not saying that lCC doesn't do
this.  I don't feel that #11 works so well because it happens up to 3 read that 3! times to a weaker player on #11. That does not totally condemn the hole, but it does get to be not so fun for some).

Long golf courses really suck and are really, really boring.  I don't care if they "Use every club in the bag" or "Are a great test".

And #11 at LCC is still a good hole in my books.  But I sure  have to hold a lot of hands on that hole.  I also for the record, played it in 7 or 8 the first time I played it and have rarely made more than 6 on it since.  Does it make it a good or bad hole because of that, no.  It requires local knowledge and once you align the hole with those skills of yours, it ceases to be a slog, even for the shoerter player who just accepts that 6 or 7 is the absolute best they can ever do.

But long courses for the sake of being long to "Test" the player are a real bore to me.

Long-hittingly yours,
Bill Vostinak aka the redanman (small r)

[TEPaul]

Matt:

I agree with the type of situation you've identified as not the right kind of forced lay-up. Something in the 240yd range that leaves you with nothing else to do but hit a 200yd approach shot. I would qualify that though for a number of reasons that relate to what you are being forced to lay up to and what exactly comes after it. We can get into that later and talk about various holes like #2 or #7 "C" nine Huntingdon Valley, holes like Tillinghast's three shot par 5s with their 100+yd long crossing features and even Pine Valley's #18 with its approximately 130yds from the end of the fairway to the green front with no reasonable or appealing option within that length.

Generally speaking, I think we're in total agreement that there is nothing remotely wrong with Merion's #16 that runs into the quarry at 300+ since at that point the green is only a short iron away. But some of the other holes mentioned do create such problems or lack of options that with say a poor drive the only choice is to bump something a little closer to the feature to have a reasonable chance of negotiating it on the next shot. Holes like #2 "C" nine Huntingdon is a different situation altogether and #7 "C" nine is different again from any of the others.

All have to be looked at for their own particular playabilities (options) or lack of them. It's ironic that #16 Merion has just been mentioned as a hole that has a forced lay-up at 300yds and some seem to say that's not good because it's slightly restricting to the extreme long hitter but I say that's OK because there is only about 130yds left anyway. If you think about it this is only looking at #16 from the perspective of the extremely long hitter.

What about the other end of the spectrum--the very short hitter? It's certainly not uncommon that the short hitter has to and will continue to have to bump something closer to the quarry failing a good drive to cross the quarry on his next shot. Or will he? Not really! Since now he has the reopened option of playing the ball well up the "ladies aid" and quite close to the green on the right. In a way this is really not much different an option than the same lay-up option on NGLA's "Alps" hole! Both of these options are far more interesting than having to just bump something a little closer to the problem (The Alps or the quarry!). Merion has renewed this option by  simply removing the trees on the right of the quarry.

Before Merion removed the trees right of the quarry the hole was little different in it's playability for the short hitter from what Pine Valley's #18 is now and presumably will always be. The fairway on both holes runs out around 300yds and from there the forced carry is about 130yd to the green. Merion now has a renewed option (much like NGLA's #3) while PVGC's #18 doesn't, never will because it never can.

Those are the things we should be talking about with this kind of subject. Merion's #16 has a renewed option for the short hitting end of the spectrum while PVGC's #18 will have to remain as an extremely high demand hole for the shorter end of the spectrum with a bad option failing a good drive. I have no real problem with a very high demand hole like PVGC's #18 but I would have to give the nod to holes like Merion's #16 (now) and NGLA's #3 since they require basically the same two good shots to play ideally but they compensate better for those that don't or can't play those two shots ideally.

But at either end of the spectrum all these holes fall into some kind of forced lay-up category, I suppose, although some deal with the ramifications of that spectrum better than others--at least they do if you're talking about options or reasonable options.

[TEPaul]

BillV:

I like what you say philosophically about architects just depending on length and I like what you say about Lehigh's #11 too. Except if you're saying that some golfers will continue to have to just accept that a 6-7 is the best they can do. I'm not sure that's what you meant to say but if you are, I don't agree at all. The hole isn't that long for even the ladies and even for a short hitter from the back there is plenty that can be done with that hole to compensate for them (more options) without making the hole defenseless to the long hitter. The hole is only 500yds and with that unique hillside much could be done and cleverly to compensate for either end of the spectrum!

[TEPaul]

BillV and Mark Fine:

The more I think about #11 Lehigh the more interesting it is to try to figure out how to accomodate the short hitting end of the spectrum without making the hole much different for the long hitting end of the spectrum.

I agree with both of you that for the longer end of the spectrum the hole is a ball to play--most interesting, unique and dramatic. But you have both admitted that it's a problem for the other end of the spectrum. I think something can be done about that without really affecting the long end of the spectrum. The interesting thing is the solution could be very simple, very cheap and very good!

And in the context of this particular thread it may also remove the entire subject of forced layups from the hole and for everyone!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()