[Tom_Doak]

This term, which Matt has used several times this week, is a new one to me.  He seems to be applying it to any sort of approach shot where the change in elevation is enough to throw off one's distance control ... And, from the context, Matt doesn't like shot distortion very much.  [Pure altitude and wind are other things which "distort" shots, but I don't think Matt was including those in the same category.]
 
So how do we all feel about shot distortion?

For my own part, I've never been a big fan of courses which feature a lot of "drop shot" holes, I think for the same reason as Matt, that getting close to the hole is largely a matter of guessing right about the yardage.  I've never minded uphill holes for the converse reason, but we all avoid designing them knowing that no one likes too many uphill walks, and the visuals are bad because you can't see the target very clearly.

However, the site I am working with in Palm Desert is very hilly and there will be many strongly uphill or downhill holes.  I've been thinking that was a good thing, because it will make the long uphill par-4's play much longer than the card says ... like #11 at Pasatiempo ... and some of the downhill par-4's will be in that awkward drive-and-half-wedge category.  

The visuals on our uphill holes will be much better than normal because all of them are playing directly up into a mountain background, which is so steep that it's VERY hard to perceive just how much uphill you are looking.  It will take a lot of local knowledge, but I'm sure it will cause problems for the one-time visitor or rater.

It wasn't so much that I was looking to do this in the routing, it's just where the most interesting holes were, and about the only way I could make the golf course fit onto the site physically.  But I'm sure there will be "shot distortion."  Is that a bad thing, a good thing, or just a fact of life on a hilly site?

P.S.  The poster child for "shot distortion" is the Plantation course at Kapalua.

[Gary_Nelson]

I rather enjoy the drop shot par 3, when hit with a mid-iron or longer.  The hang-time is dramatically increased and I like to stand and watch with anticipation to see if I guessed the distance right or not.

The uphill par 3 is a good one too, giving me a sense of uncertainty until I walk to the green to see where I ended up.  The uphill walk shouldn't be a problem since most of us take carts anyway.

I wouldn't recommend too much of a good thing but this "shot distortion" is a good thing in my book.

[Jeff Goldman]

I'll bite.  It seems like the "shot distortion" you describe is unavoidable at some sites, and I don't think it is a bad thing.  A dropshot hole where the result depends solely on luck isn't too good, but why shouldn't a golfer have to adjust to take into account the shot distortion caused by elevation?  How is that different from wind?  If the distortion throws off the golfer's judgment somewhat, what's wrong with that?  The way the concept has been explained, it seems like those who don't like this "shot distortion" may be card and pencil golfers who don't like the fact that seemingly well-struck shots don't get rewarded as much as they should be.  As a generally lousy golfer, I prefer unique and fun wholes to holes that "test" players, and the distortion you describe might just add to the fun.

Jeff Goldman

[Llye Smith]

Shot Distortion - an interesting term I've never really heard before, either. I wonder, Tom, are you referring simply to shots with significant elevation change? It seems to me shots can be distorted even more by additional factors - - - downhill off a downhill lie (#17 Somerset Hills). Uphill off a severe uphill lie (#7 Leatherstocking, #1 Co. Sligo). And the ever-popular uphill off a downhill lie (so many shots at Westchester).

For instance, the yardage says 165, but it's downhill and off a downhill lie making it two or more clubs shorter than it measures. God forbid you have to hook it into a back-left location.

Seems like the most interesting and enjoyable days I've had in the game are all about distorted shots.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

I'm hoping this entire thread is one of the better tongue in cheek ones on your part. It'd be depressing if you actually take seriously this so-called "shot distortion" thing that Matt Ward appears to think is an architectural problem!  

Just go with your own instincts--you and your architecture are coming on like a freight train these days, and then there's the fundamental question of whether architects should be leaders or followers of opinion on architecture.

I don't want to see you become a follower and if you do at all please don't make it a matter of following the opinion of Matt Ward!  

[George Pazin]

I took Matt's "shot distortion" to mean something more along the lines of repetitive elevated shots that distort consistently, making long sounding holes simply driver short iron over and over. Could be wrong, though.

[Evan Fleisher]

I'm with JeffG on this one...bringing on the uncertainty and interest by distortion is fine by me.

As has been pointed out, distortion can come in many forms, but for the holes that use it regarding pure elevation changes I say what not?  A steady diet of it around a course might not be so fun, but when appropriate and even "built in" to the flow of the land forms I don't see why not.

[Rick Shefchik]

In this age of yardages on sprinkler heads, stakes, plates and cartpaths, of yardage books and GPS, I say the more shot distortion, the better.

I am coming to the opinion that we need to go back to the days when the only yardage indicator on a hole was the 150-yard stake. Sure, I check for sprinkler heads like everybody else -- I even do some pacing off -- but the better the course, the less this should help. On a driving range with a bucket of balls similar to my usual ball, I ought to be able to hit one shot after another 140 yards, or 160 yards, or whatever distance I'm trying for. On a golf course, I ought to have to do more thinking than that. Wind, elevation, atmospheric conditions, temperature, lie -- all these things cause "shot distortion." And so they should. The best of us do the best job of taking all that into consideration and pulling the right club anyway.

Having said all that, I too would not want to play a course that is all uphill and downhill. But I'd sure get tired of playing the game if it was just about yardage and nothing else.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

Actually this "shot distortion" thing can be ultra serious!

Are you familiar with the little super ultra drop shot par 3 of Merion West (#6)? Well, I'll guarantee it's the mother of all drop shots. I got to it the other day and believe me it is way down there. I have no idea what came over me but for some reason I just couldn't remember whether you were supposed to add or subtract clubs for a drop shot. I thought you were supposed to add clubs for some reason, so with the honor I took out my driver on this app. 100 yard ultra drop hole, teed it up high and let it rip and took out the upstairs window on some lady's house across the street!!

I think I've become dyslexic in my course management!

[Thomas_Brown]

Good luck Tom Doak routing a terrain which sounds all too familiar in So. Cal.  However, you did successfully avoid shot distortion into greens at Apache.

[Jim_Kennedy]

A non-issue in my opinion.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D, et al:

Shot distortion is where the architect consciously or sometimes unconsciously includes a series of holes -- sometimes they are varied while at others times they are
not -- which likely includes plenty of the drop-shot or severe downhill elevation type.

Extremely hilly or mountainous sites are usually front and center with such holes / courses. That is why there are so few that are unique to play time after time.

For whatever reason it seems plenty of architects are hell bent on including the yawning drop-shot over H20 to a green with flanking bunkers -- if not the desire of the architect then the emphasis from the client. Normally, when you are at the tee of such holes the element of the total carry usually means a pot luck element in determining one's success or failure.

Rarely, do you see quality uphill holes because architects are again hell bent on pleasing clients and their customers because such holes do not lend themselves to such a wide panorama when you stand on an elevated tee and gaze below at the entire surroundings. In addition, uphill holes require a high degree of skill in creating a hole that can handle a wide swath of players. The plus side for downhill holes is that a greater amount of players PERCEIVES they can handle such holes because of the elevation change in their favor.

One of the courses that this term can apply to is Sanctuary --the Jim Engh design in Sedalia, CO. Without picking on the architect or the course the disproportionate number of holes where "shot distortion" occurs throughout the round really turns the time spent there into a game of chance / luck rather than skill.

Frankly, I only wish architects would include holes of serious qualities that are uphill. I know Pete Dye has followed a recent formula in designing long par-4's that play uphill and short par-4's that play downhill. The reasoning is quite
simple --make the player play the full requirements of a long par-4 by hitting either a long iron or even metal club into the target.

Tom -- you mention the 11th at Pasatiempo and I believe it's one of the best holes of that type I have played. Yes, uphill holes can make egos feel smaller because the distance you actually carry and achieve won't be near the amount you hit going downhill. If players worry about that aspect then it's fairly typical for them to bitch and moan about that type of hole.

The great uphill par-3 is also becoming as extinct as the 2-irons in most player's bags. The hole is difficult to club because you have to really hit the shot accurately and solidly because it must carry the prescribed distance.

There is a course near where I live called Montclair GC in West Orange, NJ. The 36-hole complex features 18 holes by Donald Ross and the other by Charles Banks. The course has 250 feet of elevation change but the holes have been routed in such a manner that "shot distortion" is minimized in a number of ways.

Clearly, I am not advocating golf on completely flat sites -- that would be horrible as we already have Florida -- but golf on extremely hilly and mountainous sites requires a good deal of thought because the desire to keep golf as a skill becomes more and more demanding. What "looks" nice may not mean it plays particularly well or worse yet -- consistent.

[TEPaul]

"Clearly, I am not advocating golf on completely flat sites -- that would be horrible as we already have Florida -- but golf on extremely hilly and mountainous sites requires a good deal of thought because the desire to keep golf as a skill becomes more and more demanding."

Matt:

That's not very clear what you're trying to say there? Golf on extremely hilly and mountanous sites requires a good deal of thought? Who do you think it requires a good deal of thought from, the architect or the golfer or perhaps both?

I hope you don't mean just the golfer because most, on here anyway, don't see much problem with requiring a good deal of thought from the golfer!

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I find this to be a great part of a course. Anywhere from .5 to 2.0 club changes downhill are great fun and a challenge. I do not like more than 1 or 2 uphill second shots. I do like to see them more than 2 clubs worth more than once in a blue moon.  The uphill shot to me is better on par 4's and 5's to me. A downhill 3 is becoming almost a must on any new course. therefore I am not sure it bring anything special like a downhill par 4 second shot or uphill 3rd shot to a 5.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Matt,
Define "Flat."

I do agree with you about most modern golf architects and this incessant need to produce elevated shots over water. It gets sickening and we get it a lot out here. Even if its over a canyon, ravine or something.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I completely disagree with you.

I think the 10th hole at Pacific Dunes, from the top, is a spectacular hole.

What don't you like about it ?  

[Paul_Daley]

Call it shot distortion, being fooled by "dead" ground, or being disoriented by sudden changes in elevation or landforms, it all adds up to being one of the cornerstones of good and invigorating design.

Who wants to play a course with a sameness of elevation and no surprises forthcoming from the architect's use of terrain.

[Matt_Ward]

Tommy:

You ask me to define "flat" ...

Answer is ... See 99% of Florida!

Tiger:

Just the fact that uphill shots will likely make you feel uncomfortable is one reason why there should be more of them. The obligatory drop-shot par-3 is really overdone -- it's sort of like the situation one-hour cop show on TV -- we have seen that countless times before.

Paul:

I'm not talking about slight differences in elevation -- I'm talking the mega variety -- don't know how much experience you have had with mountain golf out west or the canyon-type stuff that one experiences in plenty of locations in California. The degree of "shot distortion" becomes a big time guessing game and frankly it gives the allusion that certain holes are of said length but the reality is that they are far shorter.

Since architects -- more so likely the client -- hate the uphill holes because they then insists that the IRT subway track be included to speed the golfers to the next "downhill situation" because heaven forbid there was a hole or holes that required a minimum 2-3 club increase because they went uphill.

Let me add one other thing -- smart architects can add the uphill holes without making them painfully obvious -- Jim Engh's 18th at Sanctuary is a good hole but it simply gos up hill A-L-L T-H-E W-A-A-A-A-A-A-Y!

Taking golfers "up" can be done in a slightly side-hill fashion with good results. The old Essex County West Course (now named Francis Bryne in West Orange, NJ) and designed by Charles Banks used to have a number of key holes that went uphill in a sidehill fashion that were demanding but fair. It's not kept in its former condition but I'm amazes at how a number of the old time architects factored the uphill holesinto the equation to minimize the "shot distortion" that routinely happens on such demanding sites.

[cary lichtenstein]

Shot distortion it is good for the game and the brain. It requires an additional calculation to determine the correct club, and then a further adjustment for the type of shot you intend to make.

After playing golf in Colorado for the past 13 or 14 days, I am totally aware of the difference in ball flight height and distance. I can make my typical 145 yard 8 iron at sea level go 155 or 165 at 6500 feet depending on whether I finish high or not.

I have adjusted my tee height on the driver and 3 wood, and able to gain extra distance.

I have played a 523 yard par 4 here and a 693 yard par 5. It fun and does not take the skill away for the game, on the contrary, it add both a mental and physical element not ordinarily used in the game.

[Tom_Doak]

Pat,

You are right on the tenth hole at Pacific Dunes.  The combination of the elevated tee and the strong wind quartering into you from the right is really deceiving ... you can choose the right club for a fade into the green, but if you pull it with that club it will turn over and go right over the cliff beyond the eleventh tee!

Those who mentioned "uphill shots off uphill lies" also have a good point.  One of the hardest things about the 8th hole at Crystal Downs is that combination on the third shot.

I guess I'm a fan of shot distortion as long as it's not repetitive.

[A_Clay_Man]

I'm with Paul Daley. Even if it's just a subtle elevation change, it makes the mind question, the yardage and any preconceived swing. That can only inspire people to ignore  yardgaes when playing these types of finesse shots.
Even something as subtle as a mound somewhere in front of the target, or concaved ground that throws off the logic and requires feel. These situations are what I would classify as shot distorters. I guess for most, Severe elevation changes require more than one or two visits to learn the actual differential needed. For me, that awareness is most satisfying and best overcome upon virgin turf.

[Adam_F_Collins]

Shot distortion...?

<sigh>

Unless you're playing golf on a pool table in a vacuum, it's just a question of degree.

But to me, it comes back to contrast. There needs to be variation from hole to hole in order to allow each to have distinct character. This character has a better chance of leaving an impression and creating a memorable experience.

Too much of anything creates monotony. If you've got a ton of up and downhill - the challenge then becomes how to create a level shot somewhere.

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward:

Is #14 at Pine Valley an example of "shot distortion"?

[George Pazin]

I think I win the prize for coming the closest to interpreting Matt correctly on this one!

Again, if I understand correctly, he is primarily to the repetitive nature in his examples. Ride up to the elevated tee, launch it, ride down to the ball, hit approach to green. Repeat ad infinitum. In my extremely limited exposure to mountain and canyon golf, it can indeed become repetitive and a bit trite.

I don't think he's saying at all that varying elevations are bad - quite the opposite.

[JohnV]

Yesterday I played a course named Seven Oaks that had 10 holes where the green was seriously elevated above the player.  Nine of these were par 4s and 5s and in most cases you were hitting off an uphill lie.  Frequently the tee shot was elevated down into a valley and up to the blind green.

There were only 4 downhill holes on the course and 4 basically flat holes.

I got very tired of it as there really wasn't much to make the different holes interesting.  There were no skyline greens, just hills with a flag on top and trees behind it.  Yuk.

That was also one of my main complaints about Oregon Golf Club.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()